Albert Lea Discussion Forum » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Current Events
Topic: OBAMACARE
started by: jimhanson

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 23 2009,2:19 pm

With the health care bill coming up, and multiple choices being floated and withdrawn--here's a chance to weigh in.

From Investors Business Daily

Public Option To Cut Health Costs? Medicare's Record Says Dream On
By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
Posted 06/19/2009 05:39 PM ET

'First, the rising cost of health care must be brought down." That's what President Obama recently declared when outlining the basic principles of his health care plan.

His supporters have echoed his emphasis. The New York Times writes that, when it comes to health policy, "The president's main focus is on starting to reduce the soaring cost of health care."

Speaker Pelosi concurs: Health care reform "is about cost — taking down the cost of health care."

But can the president's plan succeed, even on his own terms? If history is any guide, it cannot — and will instead make matters much worse.

The centerpiece of President Obama's plan is a "public option," described by Tom Daschle as "a government-run insurance program, modeled after Medicare." The president asserts that this new Medicare-like program would cut costs.

But there are nearly 40 years of experience to consult, and they offer a resounding rebuttal. Across the years, Medicare's costs have risen far more than the costs of privately purchased care.

A new study I've completed, published by the Pacific Research Institute, takes all health-care spending in the United States and subtracts the costs of the two flagship government-run programs, Medicare and Medicaid. It then takes that remaining spending and compares its cost increases over time with Medicare's cost increases over time.

The results are clear: Since 1970 — even without the prescription drug benefit — Medicare's costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector.

Since 1970, the per-patient costs of all health care apart from Medicare and Medicaid have risen from $364 to $7,119, while Medicare's per-patient costs have risen from $368 to $9,634. Medicare's costs have risen $2,511 more per patient.

These conclusions are true despite very generous treatment of Medicare. My study counts Medicare's prescription drug expenditures as part of privately purchased care, rather than as part of Medicare. It counts health care purchased privately by Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries (including Medicare copayments and Medigap insurance) among the costs of private care, without counting its recipients among those receiving private care — thereby magnifying private care's per-person costs. And it doesn't adjust for cost-shifting from Medicare to private entities.

The New York Times and others have quoted studies claiming that private insurance has failed to contain costs as well as Medicare. Such studies are deeply misleading, for they omit any consideration of out-of-pocket spending, thereby neglecting a major shift in the private health care market.

Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 23 2009,7:13 pm

I received this email a couple of days ago. Thanks Jim for reminding my by starting this thread.

QUOTE

From the Desk of:
David Martin, Executive Vice President

MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER
6/22/2009

MADDOG,

President Obama is trying to put our nation on the fast track to socialized health care, and on June 24, the ABC network will help him sell this bill of goods to the American people.

Next Wednesday, ABC News will transform the White House into their newsroom for what has been described as an unabashed infomercial promoting the Democrat agenda?more specifically, government-run health care.

ABC News Emphatically Rejects Opposing Views

ABC News has abandoned all pretense of journalistic integrity in its bid to be the administration's official salesman for ObamaCare. ABC flatly rejected Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay's request to add opposition views to ensure all sides of the health care debate were represented in the town hall forum.

Not only that, ABC News Vice President Kerry Smith responded by saying, ABC News alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the President.

As if that wasn't enough, ABC then rejected an ad from a conservative group trying to counter the liberal health care agenda. They clearly are not interested in a balanced presentation on this subject.

Void of opposing views, this news special becomes nothing more than an extended infomercial designed to scare and manipulate the American people into supporting a trillion-dollar government takeover of the highest quality health care system in the world!

Hold ABC News Accountable

MADDOG, health care is an issue of life and death. If you don't want politicians and faceless bureaucrats making your personal health care decisions, which medical procedures you need, which treatments are affordable, which medications you can have, then stand with us and demand the media present a balanced view on how to reform health care.

That's why we are asking MRC Action team members to do two things TODAY. First, take a moment right now to call ABC News executives and demand balance in the health care debate. Ask them why they won't allow the conservative point of view on this show.

Second, < click here > to submit questions to be asked at this town hall on Wednesday, questions the liberal media aren't asking. Questions like:

· How much will your plan cost?

· How will it be paid for?

· Can you name one example of the government taking over an industry and the costs falling as a result?

< Click here > to hear MRC founder Brent Bozell's exclusive message to the MRC Action team explaining why we all need to act NOW to stop what he calls one of the worst examples I've seen in all my years of observing media bias.

Here is your contact information:

David Westin
President, ABC News
(212) 456-6200

Anne Sweeney
President, ABC-Disney Television Group
(818) 569-7700
anne.sweeney@disney.com

Posted by Liberal on Jun. 23 2009,8:46 pm

I'll bet ABC sees the error of their ways after the kooky conservatives start calling the ABC switchboard.

You guys are a riot. :rofl:

Posted by Common Citizen on Jun. 24 2009,8:58 am

You contradict yourself by blasting Fox News for their slant yet you condone ABC. :crazy:

As the great orator Ralph Malph once said, "Good one, Potsey." :sarcasm:

Posted by Paul Harvey on Jun. 24 2009,9:31 am

^What a baby!

STFU!

Yer worse than a woman for crying out loud! :rofl:

Posted by irisheyes on Jun. 24 2009,9:48 am

Anyone have a better solution on the conservative side? Or just the same old "leaving the fox in charge of the hen-house" stuff that we've seen bankrupting countless Americans?

If you leave things on their current path, only the very rich, and the very poor will have decent health care. The HMO's and hospitals aren't doing us any favors with the current costs, so I think someone needs to step in.

I have a relative who has health coverage that most would consider pretty good. He normally tries to wait until he takes a trip out of the country to see a doctor on vacation. Even with his health coverage the co-pays are too expensive here. He'll go to a doctor in a poor country, and pay full price instead. The funny part is, the doctor there often has the same training. Meaning, he/she was educated at an American university, and medical school.

Posted by ICU812 on Jun. 24 2009,10:07 am

I'll ask this question, What should healthcare cost.

Right now I pay $570.00 per month for my daughter and I. My wife has hers thru her employer with a dediction of $40 or so per pay period, every two weeks.

If I dropped our insurance and went on hers she would have 1200 or so per month deducted.

It sucks to send a check to BCBS every month but what is the alternative?

What should it cost?

Posted by Botto 82 on Jun. 24 2009,11:07 am

As long as Big Healthcare is showing good dividends, it's all good.

Stop your whining about healthcare costs.

The system is doing fine. :sarcasm:

Posted by Common Citizen on Jun. 24 2009,12:11 pm

(ICU812 @ Jun. 24 2009,10:07 am)

QUOTE

What should it cost?

How much is your health worth to you?

A lot of people don't think twice about having $570 month in vehicle payments...a depreciating asset, yet when it comes to insuring their health everyone is up in arms. :dunno:

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 24 2009,12:20 pm

QUOTE

Yer worse than a woman for crying out loud!

Careful, Liberal will be "really outraged" by that statement. :sarcasm:

Irisheyes

QUOTE

Anyone have a better solution on the conservative side? Or just the same old "leaving the fox in charge of the hen-house" stuff that we've seen bankrupting countless Americans?

That's why the option of private AND government options are included. There are two ways to accomplish this:

Government insurance for anybody that can't get private insurance--pre-existing conditions, for example.

Government CATASTROPHIC insurance to cover major medical. This may be paired with private insurance. If there was a limit on what private insurance would have to pay, the costs will come down.

Obamacare bit the big one when GAO revealed its true cost--over $1.6 TRILLION dollars. The country can't afford that. Conservatives have been touting that figure since it was proposed, and GAO agrees with it. Obambi, in his naivete, keeps talking about "driving down the cost of health care" without specific proposals. That worked during the election, when all he had to do was mouth "hope" and "change" without specific proposals--but you can't actually GOVERN that way.

The problem with socialized medicine is the same as that expressed by Will Rogers in the 1920s--there are no savings by making the OTHER guy pay--"We screw the OTHER guy, and pass the savings on to you!"

The answer was stated by Britain's PM--Margaret Thatcher--"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of OTHER people's money."

The big problem in Obamacare is that there is NO savings in having the government run the system--"government efficiency" is the biggest laugh line out there. In order to cut health care costs, you have to do something with the outrageous awards handed out by juries. Government could cut the cost of healthcare dramatically, WITHOUT all the beaurocracy, by simply limiting the awards doctors (AND health care facilties, AND pharmaceuticals, AND insurance companies) have to pay out. Without reining in the attornies, there will BE no health care savings--no matter WHO runs it.

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 24 2009,12:59 pm

ICU asks "How much SHOULD it cost?"

Japan has a much-vaunted private/government system. Everybody must purchase health care. The problem--the government pays hospitals and physicians so little that they have to resort to vending machines in the lobby and charging for parking at their clinics. Leave it to the government to muck up a good thing. From the reliably leftie NPR < My Webpage >

Here's another link--this time from an Obama supporter. For being naive enough to support Obama, he has a pretty good outlook on the health care issue.

< My Webpage >

QUOTE

One might even say Japan has a robust private insurance industry, with over 2,000 private insurers who offer a variety of plans. But no one would ever mistake this for the American system. As already mentioned, community rating is the law of the land. Your premium is about 8% of your salary regardless of your health history, your family genetics, your pre-existing conditions, or how much money you have. It is illegal to refuse to sell an insurance policy based on pre-existing conditions, and also illegal to deny a claim so long as the normal procedure is followed. The rates for service are set by the government with no variance. A minimum set of benefits is also required, including ambulatory care, long-term care, dental and prescription drugs.

[

EIGHT PERCENT OF YOUR SALARY. If you make $40,000 a year, that's $3200 per year--FROM EACH WAGE EARNER!

Feeling good about government health care yet?

Like all regulated health care systems, it inevitably leads to rationing.

QUOTE

They have an equivalent number of doctors, meaning there is a shortage compared to their population. But its effects largely haven’t been felt yet because the very low rates of compensation compel doctors to take as many cases as possible. According to an article in Health Affairs from 1987, the average workload per day for outpatient clinicians at that time was 49 patients, with 17% of doctors seeing more than a hundred.

Suffice to say, there’s no way you can see one hundred patients in a day and not have your quality drop precipitously. As I mentioned, quality is the main factor left to judge providers, which means teaching hospitals – perceived to be the best in terms of quality – are flooded, leading to lines and delays for care.

Government intervention to set uniform rates have been great for the federal budget, great for patients, great for businesses, and great for the elderly. But it continues to cause problems for providers. When you consider that hospitals are required to be not-for-profit to begin with, it’s no surprise that Japan shares another trait with the U.S. – hospital going bankrupt during tough economic times.

Doctors seeing 100 patients a day. Vending machines in the lobby. Charging for parking. Bankrupt hospitals. Insurance that takes 8% of your paycheck FROM EACH WAGE EARNER.

Think about that. In the U.S.--health care is 17% of the GDP. In Japan, a two wage-earner family would pay 16%. Where is the savings in THAT? :dunno:

Yet ANOTHER way to look at it. The government already takes 7.65% of your paycheck for SS/Medicare. It also takes the same amount from your employer--no, your employer does NOT pay that--YOU do--in the cost of every good or service you buy. Now add ANOTHER 8% for health insurance--a total of15.65% of your paycheck (23.3% if you include the extra cost of your employer's "contribution"). Nearly a quarter of your money gone before you even see it. Add an additional 7% sales tax, and you are at 22.65 to 30.3% of your money gone--you are working for the government more than 1/4 of your time.

No take out State and Federal income taxes, gasoline taxes, excise taxes, telephone and utility taxes, local taxes, school district taxes, tire taxes, government fees, and the hidden tax of corporate taxes that are added to everything you purchase--and you are working more than half the time for the government.

No thanks, I'll keep what I have. :thumbsup:

Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 24 2009,3:02 pm

QUOTE

Anyone have a better solution on the conservative side?

No, I don't. But I do look at it this. way.

If I have, say a car that doesn't run, I need a different one. Right? So why would I go out and buy one that I know doesn't work either? Socialized health care has been proven to not work.

QUOTE

I have a relative who has health coverage that most would consider pretty good. He normally tries to wait until he takes a trip out of the country to see a doctor on vacation. Even with his health coverage the co-pays are too expensive here. He'll go to a doctor in a poor country, and pay full price instead.

And tell him 'Hi' from me. I ran into him a few weeks ago in Kwik Trip.

Posted by Liberal on Jun. 24 2009,3:15 pm

QUOTE

If I have, say a car that doesn't run, I need a different one. Right? So why would I go out and buy one that I know doesn't work either? Socialized health care has been proven to not work.

Because the jimmy says it has not worked? I've got a sister and brother in law from the UK and they never complain about their health care, so it must still be working. :dunno:

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 24 2009,6:44 pm

Libbie would like to have the same health care system as his sister.

If you would open your eyes, you would find it isn't just me that thinks that socialized medicine doesn't work--but then, if you opened your eyes, you wouldn't be a liberal, would you?

null< My Webpage >

Regarding your sister's passivity and acceptance of her fate--this may explain it.

QUOTE

Bartholomew reports that Peggy was "surprised at how ‘accepting' her boyfriend's family was." What she saw was an unexpected passivity, a lethal submissiveness to systemic incompetence and tragedy, a reaction that seemed poles apart from how things happen in the United States. Explains Bartolomew: "She didn't say too much because she did not want to come across as a pushy, arrogant American but she was thinking that ‘in America we'd go nuts if we were told we would have to wait six weeks to see a specialist. Expectations are so much higher.'"

I guess if you have LOW EXPECTATIONS, you wouldn't complain, would you? :rofl:

QUOTE

Among women with breast cancer, for example, there's a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. "Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world," writes Bartholomew, "and America has the best."

If you're a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Again, reports Bartholomew, "Britain is at the bottom of the class and America is at the top."

Explains Bartolomew: "That is why those who are rich enough often go to America, leaving behind even private British healthcare." The reason isn't that we sue more in America, and scare doctors into efficiency, or that our medical schools are better. It's more simple than that. "In America, you are more likely to be treated," writes Bartholomew, "and going back a stage further, you are more likely to get the diagnostic tests which lead to better treatment."

More specifically, three-quarters of Americans who've had a heart attack are given beta-blocker drugs, compared to fewer than a third in Britain. Similarly, American patients are more likely than British patients to have a heart condition diagnosed with an angiogram, more likely to have an artery widened with angioplasty, and more likely to get back on their feet by way of a by-pass.

On the availability of equipment, explains Bartholomew, Britain has only half as many CT scanners per million people as the United States, and half as many MRI scanners. With lithotripsy units for treating kidney stones, the United States has more than seven times the availability per million of population than Britain.

Not only is the British equipment in short supply, but much of what's there should be loaded up and carted off to the nearest scrap dump. An audit by the World Health Organization, for instance, found that over half of Britain's x-ray machines were past their recommended safe time limit, and more than half the machines in anesthesiology required replacing. "Even the majority of operating tables were over 20 years old --- double their life span," reports Bartholomew.

Taken as a whole, Britain's universal healthcare system has evolved into a ramshackle structure where tests are underperformed, equipment is undersupplied, operations are underdone, and medical personnel are overworked, underpaid and overly tied down in red tape. In other words, your chances of coming out of the American medical system alive are dramatically better than in Britain.

"Having a diagnosis test beyond an x-ray in Britain tends to be regarded as a rare, extravagant event, only done in cases of obvious, if not desperate, need," writes Bartholomew. "In Britain, 36 percent of patients have to wait more than four months for non-emergency surgery. In the U.S., five percent do. In Britain, 40 percent of cancer patients do not see a cancer specialist."

On how things worked in an individual case, Bartholomew writes of Peggy, an American radiologist, who went to Britain to meet her English boyfriend's family. While she was there, her boyfriend's father found blood in his urine and went to a local National Health Service hospital in which no CT scans or cystoscopy tests were done. The patient had asthma and laid in his hospital bed with breathing difficulties but still didn't see a specialist. He was told it would take six weeks. Short of the six weeks, he was discharged from the hospital. Back home, before his appointment with a consultant came up, he died of an asthma attack.

I've commented several times on the experiences of our friends in Canada on "free" health care--they come down here and pay for it. From the same article

QUOTE

As a footnote on Canada, the average wait for a simple MRI is three months. In Manitoba, the median wait for neurosurgery is 15.2 months. For chemotherapy in Saskatchewan, patients can expect to be in line for 10 weeks. At last report, 10,000 breast cancer patients who waited an average of two months for post-operation radiation treatments have filed a class action lawsuit against Quebec's hospitals.

Your sister might be quite accepting--but it seems that many OTHERS with life-threatening illnesses would rather pay than put up with "free" health care in the Socialist Paradise." :rofl:

Then there is that "free" dental care--the object of jokes all over the world--including Canadian Mike Myers--with his character Austin Powers and his bad teeth. :rofl:

From the BBC < My Webpage >

Hey, this is fun! Let's have some MORE discussion on how good Britain's socialized medicine is! :rofl:

Posted by hymiebravo on Jun. 24 2009,7:15 pm

I remember watching this on TV a few years ago. According to Weir socialist oriented societies tended to be smaller countries. And they lacked a lot of diversity, in terms of having a lot of different races present. And according to him; basic human nature, made people more willing to opt for a society like Denmark because they all looked the same.

He claimed the U.S. is too big and diverse and would have to be more like Singapore. Which was apparently sited as a great place to live.

< http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1 >

What about healthcare in Germany? I haven't seen them mentioned yet.

Posted by Botto 82 on Jun. 24 2009,7:23 pm

Here's a thought: Maybe if we didn't have 11,000,000 illegal sacred cows using the emergency room as their primary care provider, health care would be cheaper.

Here's another: Maybe if governmental bodies like the FDA weren't so easily influenced by big corporations, we wouldn't have all these dangerous substances and drugs (e.g. aspartame, oxycontin) and people would be healthier.

I pay around $200 a month to insure me and my two kids. My employer kicks $250 into my HSA every month. It should be at least that easy for everyone.

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 24 2009,7:45 pm

I pay just under $300 a month for Blue Cross--with a $5000 deductible--age 62. This with having never visiting a doctor with an illness in over 50 years.

QUOTE

FDA weren't so easily influenced by big corporations, we wouldn't have all these dangerous substances and drugs (e.g. aspartame, oxycontin) and people would be healthier.

You mean you DON'T TRUST GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT YOU? :sarcasm:

Posted by Botto 82 on Jun. 24 2009,11:08 pm

Well, I dunno... :dunno:

Let's see... a bunch of rich guys who are set for life, and are more worried about Glaxo-Smithkline's happiness than that of the middle class, making decisions about a system they'll never have to deal with.

Seems trustworthy enough... :sarcasm:

Posted by Ned Kelly on Jun. 25 2009,6:52 am

(jimhanson @ Jun. 24 2009,7:45 pm)

QUOTE

I pay just under $300 a month for Blue Cross--with a $5000 deductible--age 62. This with having never visiting a doctor with an illness in over 50 years.

So when you go on Medicare you will be able to fix up a body that has been neglected for 50 years! Maybe you like your $5000 deductible but if you had to use it then what? So far you have been lucky!

If for instance you had cancer or heart disease you would see your yearly premiums rocket skyward until you could no longer afford pay them AND your deductilble. This is how the Ins. Companies get rid of you. How about paying premiums of $18,000 a year with a $5,000 deductible, would you still be happy with private ins?

Jim, please talk to someone who has had to use their high deductible like I have, you tune will change......I have gone through that situation........... :frusty:

....ned

Posted by Common Citizen on Jun. 25 2009,9:05 am

Tell us the details Ned. How much were your deductibles and what did you have to use it for?

:dunno:

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 25 2009,9:45 am

Yeah, everyone knows that those pesky Europeans are COMMUNIST!! accessible affordable medical care for everyone..it's so.... un-American...don't they know heathcare for profit is the American way... :sarcasm:

Posted by Common Citizen on Jun. 25 2009,9:54 am

(Expatriate @ Jun. 25 2009,9:45 am)

QUOTE

What's wrong with profits? :dunno:

I would argue that nothing is wrong with it. It is because of the possibility of profits that creates ingenuity and advances in modern medical science and technology. Profits are a huge part of what motivates people to be creative.

Is healthcare a right or a priviledge? :dunno:

Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 25 2009,10:26 am

It should solve a lot of problem. The possibility of the US lowering our life expectancy should solve even more problems.

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 25 2009,11:25 am

Ned

QUOTE

So when you go on Medicare you will be able to fix up a body that has been neglected for 50 years! Maybe you like your $5000 deductible but if you had to use it then what? So far you have been lucky!

Not true.

While I have never had to see a doctor for an illness, I DO see one every year for a flight physical. I have mine done at Mayo in Rochester--it takes an entire day.

As part of the physical, they also suggest diagnostic procedures--a different one every year.

Other than being a little overweight, I take pretty good care of myself, and I'm willing to assume my own risk.

What would be the savings if I paid your health costs, and you paid mine? :dunno:

Is that "fair"? :dunno:

MY risk is relatively low. I don't want to pay for somebody that engages in risky behavior. Similarly, someone in their 20s shouldn't have to pay for someone in their 60s.

Let's get back to what insurance was MEANT to be. Lloyds of London, for example, was started as a group of shipowners at a coffeehouse. They wanted to pool resources to prevent a total loss if one of their ships went down. The hired statisticians--actuaries--to come up with the chance of any one ship going down, and assessed each owner enough to cover the loss. Since they all had a vested interest in the prevention of loss, the group did everything they could to prevent loss--and excluded or charged higher premiums for risky business.

In its simplest form--that is what insurance DOES--spreads the risk, and charges MORE for risk. Insurance is like a Las Vegas bet--the company is betting that you will pay more in premiums than they will in losses--that you will pay more YEARS of premiums before you have a loss--whether medical, property, auto, or life. MOST people view insurance this way--they know that the "house" (insurance company) has the edge, but they buy insurance anyway to prevent a catastrophic loss.

Insurance USED to be for an affinity group to spread the risk--say a group of 20-year olds. As usual, when government gets involved, it skews the market. When government says that those same healthy people have to cover obstetrics, mental health, unhealthy lifestyles, and catastrophic illness for all, the price goes out of sight. Let's get back to what insurance was DESIGNED to do--cover you for catastrophe, not for every little sniffle.

If you want insurance, BUY insurance--and do what you can to make your risk low.

Posted by Ned Kelly on Jun. 25 2009,11:40 am

(Common Citizen @ Jun. 25 2009,9:05 am)

QUOTE

Tell us the details Ned. How much were your deductibles and what did you have to use it for?

:dunno:

Deductible was $4000 Then the ins. co. paid 80% of what they thought was fair and equitable which ended up being about 60% of the bill which they then paid.
I had cancer with surgery and radiation. By the time all was said and done, I had to pay over $20000 out of pocket.

Guess what? the next premuim doubled and I tried to shop around and no one would take me or if they did they would not cover any form of cancer in the future.

I had to sell my business and get a job where insurance was furnished. Then as the years went by the premiums went up employees share of the cost went up, deductibles went up. The cost tripled and the coverage went down. So If you guys like private ins. enjoy it while you can get it, because if you ever get sick you may as well consider bankruptcy as on of your choices. Private insurance will no longer be offered to you!

I finally got old enough to be eligible for medicare, now I can afford to go to the Doctor and I can take care of my health.............

....ned

Posted by Liberal on Jun. 25 2009,11:53 am

Honestly, I haven't read a complete diatribe from "the jimmy" in months. The reason is because he has no problem lying or misleading with crazy links to back up his Limbaugh material. For example the link he used to show how horrible socialized health care was a link to Capitalism Magazine.

What a jimmy.

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 25 2009,11:56 am

(Common Citizen @ Jun. 25 2009,9:54 am)

QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Jun. 25 2009,9:45 am)

QUOTE

What's wrong with profits? :dunno:

Greed is good right Common.. the robber barons of the insurance industry are killing this country..
this is a mere tip of the iceberg,,,,,,

AMSF AMERISAFE, Inc. C. Allen Bradley Jr. 2007 961,412
AET Aetna Inc. Ronald A. Williams 2007 19,924,027
AFL Aflac Incorporated Daniel P. Amos 2008 10,783,232
ACAP American Physicians Capital, Inc. R. Kevin Clinton 2008 1,911,179
CI CIGNA Corporation H. Edward Hanway 2008 12,236,740
CNC Centene Corporation Michael F. Neidorff 2008 4,359,365
CVH Coventry Health Care, Inc. Allen F. Wise 2007 11,206,226
EIG Employers Holdings, Inc. Douglas D. Dirks 2007 1,797,323
HNT Health Net, Inc. Jay M. Gellert 2007 1,311,581
HS HealthSpring, Inc. Herbert A. Fritch 2007 745,375
HUM Humana Inc. Michael B. McCallister 2008 5,185,414
MOH Molina Healthcare, Inc. Dr. J. Mario Molina M.D. 2008 2,217,645
PFG Principal Financial Group, Inc. J. Barry Griswell 2007 10,826,687
TMK Torchmark Corporation Mark S. McAndrew 2008 4,710,916
GTS Triple-S Management Corporation Ramon M. Ruiz-Comas 2008 1,204,227
UNH UnitedHealth Group Incorporated Stephen J. Hemsley 2007 5,029,838
UNM Unum Group Thomas R. Watjen 2007 13,769,784
WCG WellCare Health Plans, Inc. Todd S. Farha 2007 5,671,050
WLP WellPoint, Inc. Angela F. Braly 2007 14,859,166
EHTH eHealth, Inc. Gary L. Lauer 2007 815,310
AMSG AmSurg Corp. Ken P. McDonald 2007 1,413,755
CYH Community Health Systems, Inc. Wayne T. Smith 2007 23,850,101
HMA Health Management Associates, Inc. Joseph V. Vumbacco 2007 1,790,218
HLS HealthSouth Corporation Jay Grinney 2007 6,830,694
LPNT LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. William F. Carpenter III 2007 4,301,748
MGLN Magellan Health Services, Inc. Steven J. Shulman 2007 7,673,945
RHB RehabCare Group, Inc. John H. Short Ph.D. 2008 2,790,162
THC Tenet Healthcare Corporation Trevor Fetter 2007 9,885,821
UHS Universal Health Services, Inc. Alan B. Miller 2007 6,912,226

Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 25 2009,1:25 pm

Here's a simple solution. Put all poiticians on a social medicine plan. No insurance through either private insurers or their government health plan. Require them to accept only the services and medical assistance offered through such a plan. Follow the steps to get medical help or treatments parallel with countries who have socialized medical.

Then we'll see more than one politician try to sneak out if a family member of theirs becomes direly ill.

Posted by Liberal on Jun. 25 2009,1:33 pm

Someone's back on the hillbilly heroin.

Posted by Glad I Left on Jun. 25 2009,1:33 pm

Why not have socialized health care, we already have socialized schooling.
Christ I am ashamed of what our country is becoming..... :hairpull:

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 25 2009,1:35 pm

QUOTE

Honestly, I haven't read a complete diatribe from "the jimmy" in months.

No WONDER you haven't learned anything! :rofl:

QUOTE

The reason is because he has no problem lying or misleading with crazy links to back up his Limbaugh material. For example the link he used to show how horrible socialized health care was a link to Capitalism Magazine.

Limbaugh material? What does HE have to do with it?

Link? I provided the link--you can read it for what you want. How is that "lying'? :dunno:

Note that once again, libbie didn't engage on the issue--he attacks the presenter. :crazy:

Tell us libbie, how are those facts WRONG? Do you have anything to refute them? :dunno:

World Health people are afraid that diseases can be transmitted from non-human forms to humans. This appears to have happened to libbies--Bush Derangement Syndrome has morphed into Rush Hate Syndrome, and further to Hate Capitalism Syndrome. Now it is morphing into "Attack anybody that questions "The One." :rofl:

The disease seems to be spread by Rabid Moonbats! :rofl:

Posted by ICU812 on Jun. 25 2009,1:37 pm

(Liberal @ Jun. 25 2009,1:33 pm)

QUOTE

Someone's back on the hillbilly heroin.

Wow, I have not heard his voice in a long time, he sounds about dead.

Posted by Liberal on Jun. 25 2009,1:47 pm

This one is the best today.

Obama killed spirit?

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 25 2009,1:50 pm

(Glad I Left @ Jun. 25 2009,1:33 pm)

QUOTE

Why not have socialized health care, we already have socialized schooling.
Christ I am ashamed of what our country is becoming..... :hairpull:

Good observation.

And Socialized Medicine will work about as well as anywhere ELSE it has been tried--a failure.

It will be a "great triumph for the Fatherland"--like socialized schooling.

It will be the "wave of the future" like Medicare.

It will be the "intergenerational compact" like that resounding success, Socialist Security.

The government wants to treat YOU like it treats its own soldiers--VA Hospitals.

The government wants to give YOU the same waiting time for medical care that Canadians have.

The government wants to give YOU the same dental plan the Brits have.

The government wants to bring YOU the same high energy costs that the Scandinavian countries have to pay for THEIR Socialist Paradise--even though those governments OWN the energy companies, they tax the consumers.

The government offers "free" health care--but will take increasing amounts of dollars from your paycheck--just like they did for Socialist Security. When the inevitable shortfall comes, they will take more money from the General Fund--increasing your taxes. They will increase CORPORATE taxes--causing more corporations to leave the country, and driving up the cost to consumers from those that stay.

LIBBIES--where do YOU think they will get the money to pay for this? :dunce:

Posted by Liberal on Jun. 25 2009,1:57 pm

Mostly from the 20% of Americans that call themselves republican.

According to the chatter on the AM dial we're apparently going to kill the rich and use their wealth to fund socialized medicine.

Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 25 2009,2:20 pm

(Liberal @ Jun. 25 2009,1:57 pm)

QUOTE

According to the chatter on the AM dial we're apparently going to kill the rich and use their wealth to fund socialized medicine.

You listen to KATE that much?

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 25 2009,2:36 pm

Have someone that speaks Socialist differentiate between the phrases "Kill the Rich" and "Kill the Economy."

I don't think you were old enough to remember who said "Kill the Rich!"--but I do.

It was none other than Weather Underground members Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn! :rofl:

They are Donks, and Socialists. They advocate "Killing the Rich"--not Limbaugh. Since YOU are also a Donk and a far-left guy, do YOU also advocate "Killing the Rich"? :crazy:

Or are you merely a "Steal this Book" Abbie Hoffman Anarchist? :rofl:

Posted by Common Citizen on Jun. 25 2009,4:34 pm

(Expatriate @ Jun. 25 2009,11:56 am)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Jun. 25 2009,9:54 am)

QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Jun. 25 2009,9:45 am)

QUOTE

What's wrong with profits? :dunno:

Ah...ah...ah.. . You mentioned profits in the first post. Not greed. Two totally different things.

But I can understand in a "lib" world that the two terms are often interchangable.

I don't like greed anymore than the next guy. But I will stand by my statement that there is nothing wrong with profit.

By the way, insurance companies built this country. Who do you think bought most of the bonds that created the capital to build the infrastructure of this country. :dunno:

But because a CEO of an insurance company makes millions while you're making thousands...they're greedy, huh? How much are they worth? How much are YOU worth? :dunno:

Posted by irisheyes on Jun. 26 2009,2:01 am

(MADDOG @ Jun. 24 2009,3:02 pm)

QUOTE

And tell him 'Hi' from me. I ran into him a few weeks ago in Kwik Trip.

You bet. I'll probably talk to him this weekend.

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 26 2009,8:58 am

(Common Citizen @ Jun. 25 2009,4:34 pm)

QUOTE

But because a CEO of an insurance company makes millions while you're making thousands...they're greedy, huh? How much are they worth? How much are YOU worth? :dunno:

Profits for drug makers are almost 20% compared with 6.3% for all Fortune 500 companies. Health Insurance companies profits have increased 1,084 % in five years..
Pharmaceutical company CEOs average 4.36 million a year in compensation, for health insurance companies it's 8.75 million a year..
The average premium for family health insurance is $12,000 and is expected to double by 2016 unless we do something....
One insurance company executive alone, Aetna's Ronald Williams, brings in more than $32 million a year, justify that Common !!!

Posted by Common Citizen on Jun. 26 2009,9:57 am

I'm not disputing your claim but what is your source?

There is a lot of blame to go around. You could even blame doctors. I went to a young Chiropractor a few weeks ago that wasn't set up with BCBS so he only charged me $35. Once the agreement with BCBS is in place his price will probably be in the $60 - $70 range for a visit. The insurance will probably cover $30 -$40 and he'll still get his $35 directly from me. Is that ok? It doesn't sound fair but I'm still willing to use a chiropractor because I want to. The other alternative is to not go and live with my pain, but I CHOOSE not to.

As far as justifying his compensation...how do YOU justify anyones compensation then? Who are You to decide who should make what? What is your litmus test? This IS America. We are free to sell, manufacture, service just about what ever we want and charge what ever we want. You are free to decide what you want to buy and what you don't want to buy. If you don't like those companies paying outrageous salaries then don't buy from them. Apparently, they provide a product or service that is in high demand and people are willing to pay to get that.

nuff said...

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 26 2009,10:24 am

(Expatriate @ Jun. 26 2009,8:58 am)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Jun. 25 2009,4:34 pm)

QUOTE

But because a CEO of an insurance company makes millions while you're making thousands...they're greedy, huh? How much are they worth? How much are YOU worth? :dunno:

As the old saying goes--"If you're so smart, why airn't YOU rich?"

With a record of profitability like that, how much pharmaceutical stock do you own? :dunno:

You seem to have discovered something that the investors on Wall Street haven't figured out! :sarcasm:

IF I were sure of those figures, I would borrow every cent I could lay my hands on , and leverage myself to the hilt--and make a fortune.

After all, if you can borrow money at 6% and get a 20% profit, why not?

QUOTE

One insurance company executive alone, Aetna's Ronald Williams, brings in more than $32 million a year, justify that Common !!!

I guess the stockholders are HAPPY to pay him that much, if he can bring in the profits! :rofl:

This guy employs thousands of people. The money is NOT salary--it is a performance bonus. No performance--no bonus. What could be more fair than that? :dunno:

Why is it your business how much he makes? Are you a stockholder in the company? There are only two parties to salaries--the employer--and the employee. I'm always amazed that libbies are "outraged" at executive compensation--yet have no problem at all with Hollywood actors that get $20 Million a picture for pretending to be somebody else--with no budget or employee issues to be responsible for. They have no problems with huge sports salaries--many of which ALSO have performance bonuses.

More evidence that libbies live in an alternate universe.

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 26 2009,11:22 am

From Politico null< My Webpage >

QUOTE

The senators said they found $400 billion in savings earlier this week, largely by reducing the amount of subsidies for low-income individuals to buy insurance.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said they found much of the additional $200 billion in savings by further adjusting the level of subsidies. It is unclear, however, whether they would reduce the amount of each subsidy or lower the income level at which people become eligible.

Let's see:

The Obamunists want to have National Socialized Health Care to cover "The Poor".

They claim that it will "Only" cost $1 TRILLION dollars.

GAO comes out and says it will cost a MINIMUM of $1,6 TRILLION dollars. Other estimates claim $4 TRILLION in 10 years.

Even Donk legislators are shocked. The viability of Obamacare is in question.

Donk legislators offer a multitude of amendments to make it more politically palatable to the public.

Instead of admitting their error and over-reach, Donks "find" "savings" of $400 BILLION dollars--plus an additional "savings" of $200 BILLION dollars--thereby getting the price back unter $1 TRILLION dollars.

And where did these "savings" come from? By cutting back the subsidies to the very people the original bill was supposed to help--the poor!
:frusty:

If you ever needed proof that this is NOT about "helping the poor"--but is instead a naked power grab, here it is! :dunce:

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 26 2009,12:12 pm

(Common Citizen @ Jun. 26 2009,9:57 am)

QUOTE

I'm not disputing your claim but what is your source?

Those statistics came from the aflcio.org union site...

jimhanson

QUOTE

The government wants to treat YOU like it treats its own soldiers--VA Hospitals.

Just a month ago you were whining because you couldn't use the VA, thanks to George Bush & Company...

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 26 2009,12:16 pm

Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.

Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990

Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.

Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Jun. 26 2009,12:52 pm

(jimhanson @ Jun. 26 2009,11:22 am)

QUOTE

If you ever needed proof that this is NOT about "helping the poor"--but is instead a naked power grab, here it is! :dunce:

If the poor already recieve these benifits , what is the end game? What power would be achieved?

Posted by Common Citizen on Jun. 26 2009,1:07 pm

(Expatriate @ Jun. 26 2009,12:12 pm)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Jun. 26 2009,9:57 am)

QUOTE

I'm not disputing your claim but what is your source?

Those statistics came from the aflcio.org union site...

Not to disparage your source...but I've read AFL/CIO magazines including the AFSCME union magazines enough over the years where I can now murmer bull$hit and cough at the same time. I assume those publications come from the same source as there website counterparts. :;):

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 26 2009,1:59 pm

(Pretzel Logic @ Jun. 26 2009,12:52 pm)

QUOTE

(jimhanson @ Jun. 26 2009,11:22 am)

QUOTE

If you ever needed proof that this is NOT about "helping the poor"--but is instead a naked power grab, here it is! :dunce:

If the poor already recieve these benifits , what is the end game? What power would be achieved?

The poor are NOT already receiving those benefits. The orginal premise of Obamacare was to "help the poor". When the cost came in much HIGHER than the Obamunists had been stating, they started looking for "savings." They "saved" money by....can you believe this......CUTTING BENEFITS FOR THE POOR if the bill DID pass.

This begs the question--if it isn't to help the poor, who IS it supposed to help? :dunno:

No--it's a naked power grab for 1/7 of the economy of the country.

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 26 2009,2:12 pm

(Expatriate @ Jun. 26 2009,12:16 pm)

QUOTE

It's a case of not that we have gotten WORSE--but that others have IMPROVED. Got a problem with that? :dunno:

In all of your "facts"--what is it that these countries have that the U.S. doesn't have? :dunno:

Superior equipment? :dunno:

Better Doctors? :dunno:

Better drugs? :dunno:

No, the problem is not with lack of any of the above, but our standard of living. Be like the "Blue Zones" character--and seek out "places where people don't over-eat" and "places where people walk a lot." Our own doctors tell us to lose weight and get more exercise--if we don't do that, is that the DOCTOR'S FAULT?

QUOTE

Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

STAND BY FOR THE MICHAEL MOORE MOMENT! :rofl:

You count how many immunizations a person gets as a measure of health? :crazy:

Maybe it's because in the U.S. we have largely ELIMINATED most communicable diseases.

I would encourage you, and Michael Moore, to live in the medical paradise of Botswana. You'll NEED all of those injections! :rofl:

Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 26 2009,3:39 pm

(Expatriate @ Jun. 26 2009,12:16 pm)

QUOTE

Ok, no one asked so I will. Expat, you're stating facts again, but not backing them up wit a link.

Please show us doubters.

Posted by hymiebravo on Jun. 26 2009,6:32 pm

(MADDOG @ Jun. 26 2009,3:39 pm)

QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Jun. 26 2009,12:16 pm)

QUOTE

Ok, no one asked so I will. Expat, you're stating facts again, but not backing them up wit a link.

Please show us doubters.

Maybe you just misread it. You know like the Clark Street debate.

Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 26 2009,7:17 pm

Perhaps I did? I reread both posts made by expat today on the thread and do not see a link.

Posted by hymiebravo on Jun. 26 2009,9:34 pm

(Liberal @ Jun. 25 2009,11:53 am)

QUOTE

I think you're pointing out those sorts of things adds to a better overall product here.

Because his fellow members of the local Conservative Coaltion aren't ever going to do it.

And when it is missing altogether it diminishes the site. IMO

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 26 2009,10:53 pm

(jimhanson @ Jun. 26 2009,2:12 pm)

QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Jun. 26 2009,12:16 pm)

QUOTE

It's a case of not that we have gotten WORSE--but that others have IMPROVED. Got a problem with that? :dunno:

In all of your "facts"--what is it that these countries have that the U.S. doesn't have? :dunno:

Superior equipment? :dunno:

Better Doctors? :dunno:

Better drugs? :dunno:

The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, or multipayer universal health care systems..

Posted by ICU812 on Jun. 26 2009,11:03 pm

Make a law, everyone must buy health insurance. That should fix it. :dunno:

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 26 2009,11:07 pm

(MADDOG @ Jun. 26 2009,7:17 pm)

QUOTE

Perhaps I did? I reread both posts made by expat today on the thread and do not see a link.

I didn't add a link but I gave an web address for the first post. it's not difficult to back track sources, if you can dispute the facts lets hear it..

Common Citizen

QUOTE

another brilliant come back, unable to prove the statistics false you merely label them "bull$hit"....

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 26 2009,11:17 pm

(ICU812 @ Jun. 26 2009,11:03 pm)

QUOTE

Make a law, everyone must buy health insurance. That should fix it. :dunno:

First we have to make insurance affordable.. some years ago I posted the local medical center's total revenue divided by patient visits as a guide to what insurance should cost, it was surprising cheap..

Posted by ICU812 on Jun. 26 2009,11:23 pm

QUOTE

First we have to make insurance affordable..

Hey I hear that. As I stated earlier in the thread, what should it cost, or whats affordable really.

One law I wold like to see is no raising premiums if you use ins. a lot, due to illness. Really, that's not right. It's a gamble both ways, they gamble on our health, we gamble on their premiums, only problem, they know the down card. That should be leveled.

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 27 2009,9:47 am

Expatriate--it appears the original source of those figures was from the World Health Organization.

Wikipedia has a good article on a comparison of Canadian and U.S. systems--some outcomes are better in one country than the other. null< My Webpage >

Here's an example of what the article had to say about the WHO study.

QUOTE

For example, a ranking by the World Health Organization of health care system performance among 191 member nations, published in 2000, ranked Canada 30th and the U.S. 37th, and the overall health of Canada 35th to the American 72nd.[8] The WHO did not merely consider health care outcomes, but also placed heavy emphasis on the health disparities between rich and poor, funding for the health care needs of the poor, and the extent to which a country was reaching the potential health care outcomes they believed were possible for that nation. In an international comparison of 21 more specific quality indicators conducted by the Commonwealth Fund International Working Group on Quality Indicators, the results were more divided. One of the indicators was a tie, and in 3 others, data was unavailable from one country or the other. Canada performed better on 11 indicators; such as survival rates for colorectal cancer, childhood leukemia, and kidney and liver transplants. The U.S. performed better on 6 indicators, including survival rates for breast and cervical cancer, and avoidance of childhood diseases such as pertussis and measles. It should be noted that the 21 indicators were distilled from a starting list of 1000. The authors state that, "It is an opportunistic list, rather than a comprehensive list."[90]

It also addresses my point of differences in lifestyles.

QUOTE

Some of the difference in outcomes may also be related to lifestyle choices. The OECD found that Americans have slightly higher rates of smoking and alcohol consumption than do Canadians[91] as well as significantly higher rates of obesity.[93] A joint US-Canadian study found slightly higher smoking rates among Canadians. :dunno:

[94] Another study found that Americans have higher rates not only of obesity, but also of other health risk factors and chronic conditions, including physical inactivity, diabetes, hypertension, arthritis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.[16]

A Canadian systematic review concluded that differences in the health care systems of Canada and the United States could not alone explain differences in health care outcomes

While overall death rates were similar, if you DO have a medical emergency, your wait time for treatment and your chance of survival (the two would seem to be lingked) are much better in the U.S. than in Canada.

QUOTE

A study in the journal Circulation found that Canadian patients whose histories were followed from 1990 to 1993 had a 17% higher risk of dying from heart attacks than did U.S. patients.

You are 3 times more likely to have angioplasty or bypass surgery in the U.S.

Perhaps the most troubling issue with socialized medicine to me is found in this statement about the Canadian system

QUOTE

Governments attempt to control health care costs by being the sole purchasers and thus they do not allow private patients to bid up prices.[citation needed] Those with non-emergency illnesses such as cancer cannot pay out of pocket for time-sensitive surgeries and must wait their turn on waiting lists. According to the Canadian Supreme Court in its 2005 ruling in Chaoulli v. Quebec, waiting list delays "increase the patient’s risk of mortality or the risk that his or her injuries will become irreparable."[

I don't want to have my health run by a bureaucrat--or be told that I have to wait for life-saving procedures--and I don't believe even the most avid adherents to government medicine believe that is a good idea, either. This is the most important issue.

Read the Wikipedia article--I think they did an excellent job. My takeaway on it remains unchanged--Canada instituted a VERY expensive system that has bankrupted the couontry--for minimal results. Like any Socialist program, it DID "level the playing field"--giving better health care to the poor--but lowing the overall standard in the country. The tradeoff is not worth it.

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 27 2009,11:07 am

(jimhanson @ Jun. 27 2009,9:47 am)

QUOTE

Authorization from bureaucrats, most insurance requires pre-authorization before admission or treatment at hospital level.
I'll agree lifestyle plays role in health as does income disparity, but wouldn't we find these same conditions in Canada, Europe or Japan or are you saying their overall living conditions exceed that of the working-class American..
I'm assuming you're using your wife's health insurance through her T.R.A. pension plan and not experiencing the difficulties of continuing premium increases or reductions in benefits on your taxpayer funded cadillac the rest of US are experiencing...

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 27 2009,11:58 am

QUOTE

I'm assuming you're using your wife's health insurance through her T.R.A. pension plan and not experiencing the difficulties of continuing premium increases or reductions in benefits on your taxpayer funded cadillac the rest of US are experiencing...

Sorry--wrong again. I pay my own. You must have missed my earlier post (#17) where I said that

QUOTE

I pay about $300 a month for $5000 deductible at age 62--despite never seeing a doctor for an illness in 50 years.

Jim

QUOTE

Expatriate

QUOTE

Authorization from bureaucrats, most insurance requires pre-authorization before admission or treatment at hospital level.

Check the reference, it was to the quote I highlighted right above it. Here it is again

QUOTE

Those with non-emergency illnesses such as cancer cannot pay out of pocket for time-sensitive surgeries and must wait their turn on waiting lists.

One of the biggest complaints from Canadians about their system is that it TAKES TOO LONG. As shown above, people can die before they can be seen. One of the biggest growth procedures for American hospitals is Canadians coming down to get a diagnosis--then taking the diagnosis back to Canada to enable them to get the urgent care they need by jumping the line. That's no way live--and it's a good way to die.

QUOTE

I'll agree lifestyle plays role in health as does income disparity, but wouldn't we find these same conditions in Canada, Europe or Japan or are you saying their overall living conditions exceed that of the working-class American..

I'm saying they are DIFFERENT--not neccessarily BETTER. As I pointed out--and as I pointed to in the article, there ARE major differences in lifestyle. Europeans and Japanese eat less meat. Some studies show more consumption of alcohol and tobacco by Canadians or U.S.--but the Europeans beat us both. Americans are far more likely to be overweight than Canadians, Japanese, or Europeans. Drug abuse is higher in the U.S. than in Canada. Suicides are higher in America--and you are more likely to be a victim of violent crime in the U.S. Unlike Canada, Japan, or Europe, the article points out that the U.S. has a larger black population, with their own health care issues. On the other hand, the U.S. has more latinos--who use health care LESS than others.

To make an "apples to apples" comparison of the efficiency of the health delivery systms, you would have to look at a "normed-out" population--excluding the outlyers. Perhaps a comparison of MN/SD/ND with Manitoba and Saskatchewan, for example.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jun. 27 2009,1:48 pm

(Expatriate @ Jun. 26 2009,11:07 pm)

QUOTE

(MADDOG @ Jun. 26 2009,7:17 pm)

QUOTE

Perhaps I did? I reread both posts made by expat today on the thread and do not see a link.

I didn't add a link but I gave an web address for the first post. it's not difficult to back track sources, if you can dispute the facts lets hear it..

Common Citizen

QUOTE

another brilliant come back, unable to prove the statistics false you merely label them "bull$hit"....

It wasn't a comeback. I was stating my opinion of your source, not attacking you personally.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jun. 27 2009,1:56 pm

My daughter was born in a German hospital. She was misdiagnosed with a condition during the pregnancy. The facility was barbaric compared to the facilities around here and I also questioned their sanitation practices. Other than that everything went fine.

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 28 2009,9:52 am

[quote=jimhanson,Jun. 27 2009,11:58 am]

QUOTE

Sorry--wrong again. I pay my own. You must have missed my earlier post (#17) where I said that

QUOTE

I pay about $300 a month for $5000 deductible at age 62--despite never seeing a doctor for an illness in 50 years

Acquiring good health insurance on your own can be extremely difficult, while you seem to have a relatively cheap policy your coverage after the $5,000.00 deductible can be questionable. Lets say you have cardiac or cancer event which could easily run $50.000 at a minimum, now your share is up to $15,000. (on the standard 80/20 policy)... You discover part of your treatment involves rehab for your heart the policy doesn't cover this, you can add another lets say 3 or 4 thousand, you also discover your treatment involves out-patient drug therapy you can be talking 10's of thousands of dollars, here again your responsibility...

Not to say your policy is that bad, and I hope you never have to find out the hard way, a large number of bankruptcies in this country involve a medical crises.. I wonder how many of these folks had some type of mediocre medical insurance...

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jun. 28 2009,1:19 pm

So all of this just boils down to.... How dare an insurance company turn a profit, how dare an insurance company dictate in how and where its services are used, how dare an insurance company choose whether or not to insure someone. How dare people who can afford insurance while others cannot, how dare people actually think people should have to work for something.

NO ONE has to the right to affordable insurance, NO ONE has the right to someone else's income. Where O where in the Constitution is this written?

It is everyones responsibility to take care of themselves, to rely on someone else for your comfort is risky.
Darwinism applies for a reason people.

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 29 2009,10:52 am

^And what's your solution exalted wise one??
It's the continued double digit increases in health insurance costs, 3 times the rate of inflation...that's going cost US all..
I'm not thrilled about the little I've read about Obama's plan, that'll probably cost me too.. but to continue with the current policy is unsustainable...we'd be better off to pick the one of best universal healthcare plans used by the 28 industrialized nations that have health care for all and not for profit...

Posted by Common Citizen on Jun. 29 2009,12:12 pm

I think the solution is that the gov't needs to go back and learn what the concept of insurance is, how it was created, and why. We have been a nation of independence, not dependence.

Insurance was created because the people did not want to have to depend on the government. It's not the governments place.

Insurance is nothing more than risk pooling of losses. People exposed to a loss from a particular source combine their risks and agree to share losses on some equitable basis. The risks may be combined under an arrangement where the participants mutually insure each other or they transfer their risk to an organization to assume the risk and pay out losses in return for a particular amount of premium. In the cases that you have illustrated, you're main complaint was the costs incurred by the people that carry such coverage. Corporations were formed to fulfill the demand for such coverage. The people are given a choice to participate or not. The insurance companies do not set prices for the hospitals or the fees that the doctors charge. The only thing they do is set the limits on what amount they will cover for a particular loss. If a doctor wants to be a part of, say the BCBS network, then they have to accept what BCBS will pay. Any costs incurred above the covered amount is charged and recovered by the health institution directly from the patient.

Bottom line is that people had choices and now the government wants to choose for you. Back in the day, if you didn't want to participate in such a program, that was your God given right not to and it still is unless Obama gets his way.

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Jun. 29 2009,1:48 pm

(jimhanson @ Jun. 26 2009,1:59 pm)

QUOTE

No--it's a naked power grab for 1/7 of the economy of the country.

So, they want to take the power/control from the people who control 1/7 th of the economy? What do they gain? What do those 1/7 lose? :dunno:

Could it be like it was in the Chicago mob days trying to take over a rivals speakeasy before all the thugs went to Washington. What is gained?

Posted by irisheyes on Jun. 29 2009,4:50 pm

(jimhanson @ Jun. 24 2009,12:20 pm)

QUOTE

In order to cut health care costs, you have to do something with the outrageous awards handed out by juries. Government could cut the cost of healthcare dramatically, WITHOUT all the beaurocracy, by simply limiting the awards doctors (AND health care facilties, AND pharmaceuticals, AND insurance companies) have to pay out. Without reining in the attornies, there will BE no health care savings--no matter WHO runs it.

If you ask me, I'd focus more on cutting down the alarming number of medical mistakes in the first place. If a Doctor accidentally amputates the wrong arm, or removes the wrong lung cause the X-Ray was upside down, I blame the Doctor, not the lawyer who sues him.

I'd hate to get in the way of the huge payoff myth that conservatives like to point out, but here are some facts on the subject.

QUOTE

Among persons receiving compensation, insurance payouts were highest for claimants who suffered lifelong major or grave permanent injuries. In Florida and Missouri claimants with these types of injuries received median payouts ranging from $278,000 to $350,000.
< Bureau of Justice Statistics - Medical Malpractice >

Sorry for the delay in responding to these posts. I wasn't at the computer much the last few days.

Posted by irisheyes on Jun. 29 2009,5:00 pm

(jimhanson @ Jun. 24 2009,12:59 pm)

QUOTE

Japan has a much-vaunted private/government system. Everybody must purchase health care. The problem--the government pays hospitals and physicians so little that they have to resort to vending machines in the lobby and charging for parking at their clinics. Leave it to the government to muck up a good thing. From the reliably leftie NPR < My Webpage >

Tell me, if you've ever went to Mayo in Rochester, how much did you pay to park your car? It isn't just a problem of Japan, or government health care that makes people pay for parking and tries to make money with vending machines. Our clinic here already sells donuts and flowers to make money. So what's wrong with that?

QUOTE

Like all regulated health care systems, it inevitably leads to rationing.

The problem I have with this argument is that we're already rationing health care. The HMO's are doing it all the time. And if you're private health care isn't already rationing your service, you're going to be limited by how much money you have to pay them out of your pocket. So for some reason, it's okay to ration, as long as it's a private company doing it? :dunno:

Posted by irisheyes on Jun. 29 2009,5:14 pm

(Grinning_Dragon @ Jun. 28 2009,1:19 pm)

QUOTE

NO ONE has to the right to affordable insurance, NO ONE has the right to someone else's income. Where O where in the Constitution is this written?

Can you tell me where in the Constitution it's written that we'll have an interstate highway system? How about a standing army even in times of peace? Is there anything in there about the Federal Reserve System? :dunno:

My point is, just because the Constitution doesn't say anything about a public health care system, doesn't mean they can't start it. You can argue that the founders didn't envision it, but that's true of a lot of things both conservatives and liberals love to do these days.

Posted by sid hartman on Jun. 29 2009,5:19 pm

obama better think long and hard about what to do about health care, he has alot to lose

Posted by Amarilloslim on Jun. 29 2009,5:49 pm

>>>> Dear American liberals, leftists, social
>>>> progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama
>>>> supporters, et al:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have stuck together since the late
>>>> 1950's, but
>>>> the whole of this latest election process has
>>>> made me realize that
>>>> I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each
>>>> other for many years for
>>>> the sake of future generations, but sadly, this
>>>> relationship has
>>>> run its course. Our two ideological sides of
>>>> America cannot and
>>>> will not ever agree on what is right so
>>>> let's just end it on
>>>> friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to
>>>> irreconcilable
>>>> differences and go our own way.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is a model separation agreement:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our two groups can equitably divide up
>>>> the country
>>>> by landmass each taking a portion. That will be
>>>> the difficult part,
>>>> but I am sure our two sides can come to a
>>>> friendly agreement. After
>>>> that, it should be relatively easy! Our
>>>> respective representatives
>>>> can effortlessly divide other assets since both
>>>> sides have such
>>>> distinct and disparate tastes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We don't like redistributive taxes
>>>> so you can keep
>>>> them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and
>>>> the ACLU. Since you
>>>> hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms,
>>>> the cops, the NRA and
>>>> the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore
>>>> and Rosie O'Donnell
>>>> (You are, however, responsible for finding a
>>>> bio-diesel vehicle big
>>>> enough to move all three of them).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We'll keep the capitalism, greedy
>>>> corporations,
>>>> pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall
>>>> Street. You can have
>>>> your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and
>>>> illegal aliens. We'll
>>>> keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy
>>>> CEO's and rednecks. We'll
>>>> keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can make nice with Iran and
>>>> Palestine and we'll
>>>> retain the right to invade and hammer places
>>>> that threaten us. You
>>>> can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When
>>>> our allies or our
>>>> way of life are under assault, we'll help
>>>> provide them security.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We'll keep our Judeo-Christian
>>>> values.. You are
>>>> welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and
>>>> Shirley McClain. You
>>>> can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer
>>>> be paying the bill.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks
>>>> and oversized
>>>> luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station
>>>> wagon you can find.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can give everyone healthcare if you
>>>> can find any
>>>> practicing doctors. We'll continue to
>>>> believe healthcare is a
>>>> luxury and not a right. We'll keep The
>>>> Battle Hymn of the Republic
>>>> and the National Anthem. I'm sure
>>>> you'll be happy to substitute
>>>> Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to
>>>> Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are
>>>> the World.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We'll practice trickle down
>>>> economics and you can
>>>> give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since
>>>> it often so offends
>>>> you, we'll keep our history, our name and
>>>> our flag.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will
>>>> need whose help in 15
>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>>

Posted by hymiebravo on Jun. 29 2009,6:55 pm

QUOTE

We'll
>>>> keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms

It's the high intellect comments like that that really build a solid case for your whole argument.

And people talk about Leno's Jaywalking participants, as being bad. :frusty:

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jun. 29 2009,7:32 pm

Irisheyes - There are provisions in the Constitution that provide for a standing army even during times of peace, but as for the rest, you are right there is no defined set of articles pertaining to the Highway system, and as for the Federal Reserve IMO is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and goes against the very tenet of the vision set forth by the Founding Fathers.

The whole crux of this BS socialized health care is also against the vision of the Founding Fathers, forcing a taxation and or punish a portion of citizens who earn a wage with benefits and shift that earning toward a portion of citizens who do not, flies in the face of what our Founding Fathers fought so hard to get away from, unfair taxation. Seems this country since the days of the likes of Lincoln, Roosevelt, et al. this country has spiraled more and more towards Marxism and socialism and all in the BS spirit of human rights and the classic "It's not fair" mantra.

When WE as a Country stray to far from the instilled Constitutional Republic set forth by our Founding Fathers and delve farther and farther from personal responsibility, this country is going to end up in just as bad shape as a majority of the European countries are in. A society CANNOT sustain a population that is dependent on the govt dole, if the dependent population continues to grow.

The role of govt was never intended as the role that it is currently engaged in now.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jun. 29 2009,11:25 pm

(hymiebravo @ Jun. 29 2009,6:55 pm)

QUOTE

We'll
>>>> keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms

It's the high intellect comments like that that really build a solid case for your whole argument.

And people talk about Leno's Jaywalking participants, as being bad. :frusty:

Posted by hymiebravo on Jun. 29 2009,11:32 pm

(Common Citizen @ Jun. 27 2009,1:48 pm)

QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Jun. 26 2009,11:07 pm)

QUOTE

(MADDOG @ Jun. 26 2009,7:17 pm)

QUOTE

Perhaps I did? I reread both posts made by expat today on the thread and do not see a link.

I didn't add a link but I gave an web address for the first post. it's not difficult to back track sources, if you can dispute the facts lets hear it..

Common Citizen

QUOTE

another brilliant come back, unable to prove the statistics false you merely label them "bull$hit"....

It wasn't a comeback. I was stating my opinion of your source, not attacking you personally.

Riiiggghhhhttttt. :rofl:

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Jun. 30 2009,3:09 pm

Last night on the history channel they had a show on called"The Secrets of the Founding Fathers" one guy on there said the reason it took so long to come up with the Constitution was that they were all drunk and high on Jeffersons dope. :dunno:

I did not catch all of it, but what I did see was pretty interesting.

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 30 2009,4:54 pm

Irisheyes

QUOTE

The problem I have with this argument is that we're already rationing health care. The HMO's are doing it all the time. And if you're private health care isn't already rationing your service, you're going to be limited by how much money you have to pay them out of your pocket. So for some reason, it's okay to ration, as long as it's a private company doing it?

The difference is that you can buy the insurance that fits your needs and desires. If you have a family, you probably will want high coverage, low deductibles, and more emphasis on short vs. long term care. As you get older, you will want high deductibles, catastrophic coverage, and long-term care.

That is not an option in Obamacare. Like all government programs, "One size fits all."

In a FREE MARKET, individuals can take the risk they feel they can afford. Individuals can buy the level of care they want. NOT so in Obamacare--the government will mike the decisions for you and for your family--INCLUDING THE LIFE OR DEATH ONES.

NOBODY should have to put up with that!

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jun. 30 2009,6:59 pm

(Pretzel Logic @ Jun. 30 2009,3:09 pm)

QUOTE

I did not catch all of it, but what I did see was pretty interesting.

I am quite sure they were being facetious.

If you read the any of the writings and letters, including the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers one will gain insight in the final drafts of the Constitution.

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Jul. 01 2009,10:31 am

(Grinning_Dragon @ Jun. 30 2009,6:59 pm)

QUOTE

(Pretzel Logic @ Jun. 30 2009,3:09 pm)

QUOTE

I did not catch all of it, but what I did see was pretty interesting.

This was not the whole basis of the show. It was only one mans opinion, based on the fact that hemp and hemp products were so prevalent in that time period being an easily produced resource. The Declaration was written on hemp paper. All the clothing was made out of what they called homespun as well as the ropes and sail cloth for the ships. He said it took thirty acres of hemp to make all the ropes and sails for one large sailing ship. Jefferson also smuggled seeds out of France which was a no no. Probably a better strain and at the time a better rope was a military advantage. But no doubt by the guy,it was being smoked. Not meant to be a pot rant.

A lot of it was the typical Freemason involvement theorys of how most of the principals in the signing were Masons and the whole thing is to bring about the new world order with all the symbolism of the all seeing eye and unfinished pyramids and what not. I'm on the fence on that kind of stuff.

It would be a pretty good trick if something so secretive, so science fiction in nature, so far back in history ,linked to the Templars could be perpetuated then or now by a shadow group. But then in light of what we see today, maybe not. :dunno:

True or not, all plausible entertainment. We will never know the truth. :cool:

Posted by ICU812 on Jul. 01 2009,1:49 pm

(ICU812 @ Jun. 24 2009,10:07 am)

QUOTE

Right now I pay $570.00 per month for my daughter and I.

Jokes on me, just got the renewal, only going up 16.35 percent. :angry:

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 01 2009,5:27 pm

(ICU812 @ Jul. 01 2009,1:49 pm)

QUOTE

(ICU812 @ Jun. 24 2009,10:07 am)

QUOTE

Right now I pay $570.00 per month for my daughter and I.

Jokes on me, just got the renewal, only going up 16.35 percent. :angry:

WTH - Does that have to do with; "The History" channel?

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 08 2009,1:38 pm

QUOTE

Democratic Leader Laughs at Idea That House Members Would Actually Read Health-Care Bill Before Voting On It Wednesday, July 08, 2009 By Monica Gabriel and Marie Magleby

Washington (CNSNews.com) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that the health-care reform bill now pending in Congress would garner very few votes if lawmakers actually had to read the entire bill before voting on it.

“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference.
< Free republic >

Just how can members of Congress attempt to pass a bill that could adversely effect this many people and this many private industries without even reading the bill. Pelosi couldn't even produce a copy on the bill when asked.

Don't read the Tax and Spend bill, don't read Obamacare. Why doesn't Waxman and Pelosi just install puppets in the House and Senate?

This is more suitable to the Kremlin. They passed bills that way too.

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Jul. 08 2009,2:10 pm

I saw the same thing on Fox this morning. Only six republicans signed a pledge to read the bills in the future before voting, none were named.

Again, to say one side is any better than the others is lopsided.

Some days I think the only reason that they call themselves one or the other is so they know where to park.

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 08 2009,2:48 pm

(ICU812 @ Jul. 01 2009,1:49 pm)

QUOTE

(ICU812 @ Jun. 24 2009,10:07 am)

QUOTE

Right now I pay $570.00 per month for my daughter and I.

Jokes on me, just got the renewal, only going up 16.35 percent. :angry:

You must have been under the misconception that insurance was actually to be used...
Strange how the Consumer Price Index (CPI) barely shows any increase in inflation but some how the ROBBER BARONS at the insurance company can justify a 16 percent increase...

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 08 2009,3:06 pm

(Pretzel Logic @ Jul. 08 2009,2:10 pm)

QUOTE

They have another two weeks to sign the pledge so we should probably wait and see.

Posted by nphilbro on Jul. 08 2009,7:15 pm

If that includes the house, Michelle Bachman will never get a chance to vote before Disney can consult with Fox News and turn it into an animated feature so she can comprehend it.

Posted by jimhanson on Jul. 08 2009,7:44 pm

(nphilbro @ Jul. 08 2009,7:15 pm)

QUOTE

If that includes the house, Michelle Bachman will never get a chance to vote before Disney can consult with Fox News and turn it into an animated feature so she can comprehend it.

Sorry, Nphilbro--but you walked right into that one--Disney owns ABC, and ABC is ALREADY in the tank for the Donks!

Here's a listing of what Disney owns--interesting! null< My Webpage >

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Jul. 09 2009,3:50 pm

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 08 2009,3:06 pm)

QUOTE

(Pretzel Logic @ Jul. 08 2009,2:10 pm)

QUOTE

They have another two weeks to sign the pledge so we should probably wait and see.

It is terrible that they have to sign a pledge to do the job they are elected to do.

They are like an insidious cancer that can't be removed
without killing the victim.

This morning on fox they had a story about security guards caught sleeping on the job at some federal buildings (no excuse for that).. Lieberman was all upset that They were not doing their job. I'll bet it has been awhile since he read a 1300 page bill.

When I see those guys like him that have been around forever D or R , I think, why can't we impose term limits on them just cuz they voted for them.

Where is that magic wand? :soapbox:

Posted by Glad I Left on Jul. 09 2009,4:02 pm

(Pretzel Logic @ Jul. 09 2009,3:50 pm)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 08 2009,3:06 pm)

QUOTE

(Pretzel Logic @ Jul. 08 2009,2:10 pm)

QUOTE

They have another two weeks to sign the pledge so we should probably wait and see.

Amen to that Pretzel Logic!

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 10 2009,9:56 am

(Pretzel Logic @ Jul. 09 2009,3:50 pm)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 08 2009,3:06 pm)

QUOTE

(Pretzel Logic @ Jul. 08 2009,2:10 pm)

QUOTE

They have another two weeks to sign the pledge so we should probably wait and see.

I agree.

It's an insult to the rest of us.

There should be term limits...but how do you get the politicians to vote on something that isn't in THEIR best interest...because obviously they do not care about what's in the best interest of the country.

Nothing will change because we, the people, have not had enough liberties taken from us. We have a high tolerance for people that take from us. We allow them to usurp our liberties because we notice very little what they do or we become numb to it because they do it so subtly.

While we're at Susie's soccer game or Johnny's tee ball game...the thieves in D.C. are tirelessly working day and night, devising ways to destroy you to satisfy their addiction for power, greed, and dominance. They want to enslave us all. In our minds we have not suffered enough, because we're numb, to risk our own personal life for the future of our own children to make it change. We are comfortable in our pain.

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 13 2009,12:13 pm

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 10 2009,9:56 am)

QUOTE

While we're at Susie's soccer game or Johnny's tee ball game...the thieves in D.C. are tirelessly working day and night, devising ways to destroy you to satisfy their addiction for power, greed, and dominance. They want to enslave us all. In our minds we have not suffered enough, because we're numb, to risk our own personal life for the future of our own children to make it change. We are comfortable in our pain.

You're so right CC, and shortly after your post this is what they decided.

QUOTE

Saturday, July 11, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

Despite a still-lagging U.S. economy and rising unemployment rate, House Democrats announced late yesterday that they will seek a massive increase in federal income taxes to help pay for the national health-care reform proposal that President Obama is urging Congress to enact this summer.

House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y.)revealed late Friday afternoon that House Democrats will seek to increase income taxes by $540 billion.

The move, which had been discussed earlier in the week by House Democrats, broke in an Associated Press story that was published at 4:14 PM Eastern Daylight time on Friday afternoon.

“Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel of New York said the tax would raise $540 billion over 10 years” the initial AP story reported.

Releasing news late on a Friday afternoon is a traditional public relations tactic used by politicians seeking to limit the news coverage of an item they nonetheless need to release.

< AP Release >

The surtax is destined for uper income people earning over $280,000 per year, but we've already seen that the dems keep changing and lower those level. It will also affect small business owners.

Posted by jimhanson on Jul. 13 2009,12:21 pm

You have to wonder HOW MUCH TAX IS "ENOUGH" FOR THESE CLOWNS?

Is it 40%?

50%?

60%?

They won't be satisfied until you send ALL of your money in for them to "invest" or "redistribute". It's the old Bill Clinton

QUOTE

"You won't spend your money the right way"

Liberal translation--"We know better than you how to spend your money--just send it to us, and we will promise to take care of you." :crazy:

Posted by jimhanson on Jul. 15 2009,7:09 pm

As usual, no answer from the resident libbies.

Posted by jimhanson on Jul. 15 2009,8:23 pm

TRY following all of the people and agencies involved in Obamacare.

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 15 2009,9:47 pm

(jimhanson @ Jul. 15 2009,7:09 pm)

QUOTE

As usual, no answer from the resident libbies.

You know have good insurance when you go in with a cold and they give you an MRI.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 16 2009,10:13 am

(jimhanson @ Jul. 13 2009,12:21 pm)

QUOTE

"You won't spend your money the right way"

Liberal translation--"We know better than you how to spend your money--just send it to us, and we will promise to take care of you." :crazy:

It's never enough for the Statist.

What an incentive to start a new business in this country.

I'll do all the work, take on all the risk, and I'll give you 40% - 50% of my profits.

I would like to know how many liberals on this forum own their own legal business or are interested in starting one and whether or not you believe it is fair that the gov't has a progressive tax system in place?

Spock?
PH?
Madd Maxx?
Liberal?
Bianca?
Dump Pewlenty?
Hymie?
Grassman?
Ned?
Any one else?

Posted by jimhanson on Jul. 16 2009,1:55 pm

(hymiebravo @ Jul. 15 2009,9:47 pm)

QUOTE

(jimhanson @ Jul. 15 2009,7:09 pm)

QUOTE

As usual, no answer from the resident libbies.

You know have good insurance when you go in with a cold and they give you an MRI.

You know you have Government health care when you have to wait 6 weeks for an MRI--but your DOG can get one from the private practice Vetinarian within 24 hours! :rofl:

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 16 2009,6:45 pm

QUOTE

an MRI--but your DOG can get one from the private practice Vetinarian within 24 hours!

What a country.

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 16 2009,7:18 pm

he bypassed you CC. I think I'd take that as one no for hymie.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 17 2009,10:53 am

As expected Maddog...

QUOTE

Generally, H.R.3200 as approved by the Ways & Means Committee:

- Includes an employer mandate, with employers who do not offer and pay most of the premium for health insurance on their employees subject to an eight percent of payroll tax WTF :angry:

- Includes an individual mandate, with fines for individuals who do not purchase health insurance WTF :angry:

- Creates a national exchange (although it permits states to set up their own exchanges) through which both a public health insurance plan and an unlimited number of private insurance plans could be purchased—initially, only individuals without access to employer-provided health insurance and small businesses could purchase their insurance through an exchange.
- Creates a public plan that is not subject to all the same rules (e.g., state premium tax liability) as private plans
Imposes insurance reforms, including:
- Prohibition against pre-existing conditions
- Prohibition against use of health status or history in setting premiums
- Prohibition against annual or lifetime benefit caps
- Community rating (only age, family size and geography would be permissible premium variables)
- Required guaranteed issue/renewability
Offsets the $1+ trillion cost of the reform bill by Medicare program savings (including substantial cuts in Medicare Advantage), and a new surtax on high-income Americans (1 percent on family income of $350,000 to $500,000; 1.5 percent on family income of $500,000 to $1 million; and 5.4 percent on family income in excess of $1 million).
Restricts use of FSA/HSA/HRA funds used to buy medicine to prescription drugs

What a bunch of friggen moron's. Ya, I'm talkin to you, Donk's.

Elections have consequences...friggen idiot's.

Congress is going to spend us back to a third world country.

Posted by Wareagle11B on Jul. 17 2009,1:56 pm

QUOTE

Washington would become the home of at least 31 new federal programs, agencies, and commissions to oversee the government-run health insurance regime.
Because 32 “czars” isn’t enough, the Democrat plan would add another overlord to the Obama administration. The new “Health Choices Commissioner” would helm the new “Health Choices Administration” (Section 141 of the bill) – separate from the already existing Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration), the Veterans Health Administration, and the Indian Health Service.

Welcome to BIGGER IS BETTER government. 32 "Czars" and now if this monstrosity of a bill passes we have 31 new programs and agencies. Anyone who votes for this bill needs to be hauled off to the desert and left there to find their way home.

Posted by jimhanson on Jul. 17 2009,2:00 pm

And don't forget--those 32 "Czars" with unprecedented power don't answer to the people, or to Congress--their elected representatives.

These people are appointed by and answer to--THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION! :crazy:

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 17 2009,2:07 pm

Statist pukes.

Posted by alcitizens on Jul. 18 2009,10:11 am

Watch!!! Heathcare costs will someday have to be government capped or government run. At this point there is no limit or competition to control 100, 200, 500 percent annual increases from HEALTHCARE providers. A MONOPOLY that will not be allowed to bankrupt our country!!!!! :amen:

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 18 2009,11:17 am

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 18 2009,4:31 pm

(MADDOG @ Jul. 16 2009,7:18 pm)

QUOTE

he bypassed you CC. I think I'd take that as one no for hymie.

Why should anybody respond you guys have your minds made up.

Ned responded; he basically layed out a very detailed explanation of his experience with the current healthcare system in this country.

It bankrupted him.

What about people that employers won't touch after a certain ago because of the healthcare costs associated with them?

What about doctors that tell a mom that their 2 or 3 year old kid "might" need Ritilin?

How come there are so many 20 somethings on blood pressure meds?

How come there are so many people on meds because of the side effects of the other meds they are on?

Has big pharma just decided that every man woman and child in the U.S. has to give them X amount of dollars a month, from cradle to grave, regardless of whether they really need them or not?

There are a hell of a lot more issues than you idiots just popping up another Obama Caricature.

Who's answering the poll?

If some 38 year old:

1. Has no health issues.

2. Doesn't have to concern themsleves with employment issues surrounding age discrimination, that basically translate back to healthcare costs, mostly

3. Says screw reform I can take care of myself.

Does that negate the myriad other issues surrounding the cost of healthcare?

Or anybody else who isn't effected by it for that matter.

But there isn't any discussion about that. It's all; joke picture Obama, or it's the libbies fault blah blah blah.

Zero solutions NONE.

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 18 2009,4:38 pm

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 18 2009,11:17 am)

QUOTE

Yes like the choice you have for auto insurance you mean?

Or electric companies?

The hospital charges you $1,000 for some gauze. Lets say your insurance pays for half of that. You go gee glad I had insurance and didn't have to pay $1,000 for that gauze.

In the meantime why is gauze $1,000, anyway?

If they only charged $500 and it was out of pocket people would probably bitch, wouldn't they.

It seems like it's set up for Insurance and doctors to milk it all to the maximum.

Yet it is set up where you basically HAVE to have it. It's not like cable tv or something.

It's closer to a mandatory monopoly than anything else.

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 18 2009,4:49 pm

Why spend all that money on med school if you're just going to be a pill pusher for the pill companies.

Helk anybody here could write out ritilin and blood pressure prescriptions all day long couldn't they? lol

Posted by alcitizens on Jul. 18 2009,5:05 pm

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 18 2009,11:17 am)

QUOTE

Let me try this again, open your doctor-nurse-hospital mind.

MONOPOLY- < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly >

Watch!!! Heathcare costs will someday have to be government capped or government run. At this point there is no limit or competition to control 100, 200, 500 percent annual increases from HEALTHCARE providers. A MONOPOLY that will not be allowed to bankrupt our country!!!!!

Posted by Paul Harvey on Jul. 18 2009,6:48 pm

Healthcare is a rip-off as is college tuition. These arseholes continue to rape the population blind.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 20 2009,8:57 am

(alcitizens @ Jul. 18 2009,5:05 pm)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 18 2009,11:17 am)

QUOTE

If you force the health care industry to cap their costs then the same should be done for the lawyers that sue them through tort reform.

Run down to Mercy in Mason City and see how much cheaper health care is. Run up to the cities and have a check up and see how much cheaper it is then in the Mayo system. You have choices.

nuff said...

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 20 2009,9:21 am

(hymiebravo @ Jul. 18 2009,4:38 pm)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 18 2009,11:17 am)

QUOTE

Yes like the choice you have for auto insurance you mean?

No one decides what the the auto insurance companies have to charge. There are over 700 auto insurance carriers and they all have different premiums. The only thing that maybe required is how much consumers need to have for liability. Minnesota mandates the minimum of $30,000/$60,000/$10.000.

Electirc companies would be a fair example of a monopoly. We have very few choices as consumers. Either electric, run by which ever company services your area, or candles.

QUOTE

It seems like it's set up for Insurance and doctors to milk it all to the maximum.

Yet it is set up where you basically HAVE to have it. It's not like cable tv or something.

It's closer to a mandatory monopoly than anything else.

It may seem like it is, because you have very little knowledge of how the industry works.

How is it set up where you basically HAVE to have it? Hundreds of thousands of people every day run to their local health care facitility for the most minor of injuries and sicknesses. Some walk out with a bandage and others are forced to see a doc just to get a prescription.

I have children. My first born was taken to the doctor everytime there was a sniffel. By the time my third child was born, I pretty much knew what the diagnosis would be and what the prognosis was going to be. I knew exactly the type of medication that was going to be prescribed. Yet, the doctor, for fear of being sued by all the ambulance chasers in this country, forces me me to pay for a doctor's visit for the 10th ear infection just to buy some ammoxicillin. The doctor risks a multi-million dollar lawsuit if he prescribes the wrong medication...so do you think the doc will just take my word for it? Not for that kind of risk.

Can you blame the health care facility for requiring its patients to see a doctor for something so minor as an ear infection? No. Not with a lawyer breathing down your neck. So in my opinion, it goes way beyond the scope of just health care reform.

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 20 2009,10:03 am

Don't worry CC, the new health care czar will make sure insurance companies are in line.

White House backers of the House bill would install a Health Care Commissioner to oversee the health insurance industry. Not only that, but he will undermine any state plans or policies for insurance industry reforms.

For those who may not understand or realize, states regulate and oversee the industry now.

Another czar installed by Obama that answers only to Obama. Federalism will soon be dead.

QUOTE

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the ~~States~~ Czars respectively, or to the ~~people~~ Chosen One.

Posted by alcitizens on Jul. 20 2009,10:05 am

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 20 2009,9:21 am)

QUOTE

So in my opinion, it goes way beyond the scope of just health care reform.

Insurance, Healthcare, Attorneys...I like it!!
Attorneys make up 204 of the 535 seats in congress.
Here we are again, back to LAW.
Laws that will benefit Lawyers.
More laws, More money..
Who donates money to lawyers to run for office?
Big Insurance? Big Healthcare? Big Pharma?

I'll never vote for an attorney again!!!

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 21 2009,12:03 am

QUOTE

If you force the health care industry to cap their costs then the same should be done for the lawyers that sue them through tort reform.

I heard about a case one time where a guy was supposed to have a leg amputated and they cut off the wrong leg.

By the time the hospital got through with him he couldn't sue.

Because he didn't have a leg to stand on.

How much is enough in a case like that?

Gee sorry we chopped the wrong leg off but there is a $250,000 limit on what you can sue for.

Or how about negligent sanitary practices by staff at a hospital that cause the spread of something like staph. And somebody goes in for a routine operation and winds up dying as result of a staph infection. And nobody gets to sue anybody.

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 21 2009,12:20 am

QUOTE

Thank you for pointing out what would appear to be the guidelines, or parameters, decided apon by the state of Minnesota for the minimum amount of coverage a driver has to carry.

My point was was that from the time you start driving at age 16, till the very last day you drive you HAVE to have that. Or walk. It's pretty close to a sure thing for the insurance companies. Pretty close to a monopoly of sorts.

Sort of like a funeral parlor you are guarenteed a certain amount of business.

Also interesting is how Minnesota has ranked as one of the states with the highest auto insurance rates for a long time.

I think Iowa used to be about the lowest in the country. And Wisconsin and SD were lower than good old Minnie Soda too.

I think it was at least partially due, in the case of Iowa, to not having mandatory insurance requirements at one time, anyway.

Somebody told me one time that carseats for kids used to be a lot cheaper before they became mandatory too.

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 21 2009,12:35 am

QUOTE

It may seem like it is, because you have very little knowledge of how the industry works.

I think everybody here has at least a rudimentary understanding of how insurance works.

QUOTE

How is it set up where you basically HAVE to have it?

1. If you require a monthly allotment of expensive drugs?

2. Need a life saving operation

3. Have some other serious ailment, diabetic, seizures, cancer.

QUOTE

Can you blame the health care facility for requiring its patients to see a doctor for something so minor as an ear infection?

It seems like things are set up with the use of a computer and a cost accountant who helped them figure out the maximum amount of times to get people to come in to be bilked. IMO

Not so much that they think they will be sued over your kids ear infection.

I wonder why that couldn't be expanded to one of those clinics that they have at places like Target. Their main emphasis seems to be on antibiotic related ailments.

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Jul. 21 2009,10:48 am

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 17 2009,10:53 am)

QUOTE

As expected Maddog...

QUOTE

- Includes an individual mandate, with fines for individuals who do not purchase health insurance WTF :angry:

CC help us out here.

I know it is hard to get a 1300 page bill into a brief synopsis.

While I see thing that I don't like also. What would be wrong with the reforms.

The eliminations of Pre Exisitng conditions
The health status or history in setting premiums
Annual or lifetime benefit caps.
Guaranteed issue/renewability.

These issues alone give the insurance companies the privalege of picking and choosing.

I understand these things affect profits. It should be considered a cost of doing business.

I find that the major players such as BCBS ,Aetna , United Health seem to be conspicuosly absent from any of this except to say this isn't good.

We all know that the insurance industry heavily lobbies to get the politicians to let them have their way, to the help of only them.

How do you see it, whats our way out? :dunno:

I agree that people need to quit going to the hospitals for every little thing. How did we get from doctor house call to this out of control monster in a few short decades.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 21 2009,10:50 am

(hymiebravo @ Jul. 21 2009,12:20 am)

QUOTE

Thank you for pointing out what would appear to be the guidelines, or parameters, decided apon by the state of Minnesota for the minimum amount of coverage a driver has to carry.

My point was was that from the time you start driving at age 16, till the very last day you drive you HAVE to have that. Or walk. It's pretty close to a sure thing for the insurance companies. Pretty close to a monopoly of sorts.

Sort of like a funeral parlor you are guarenteed a certain amount of business.

I think it was at least partially due, in the case of Iowa, to not having mandatory insurance requirements at one time, anyway.

Somebody told me one time that carseats for kids used to be a lot cheaper before they became mandatory too.

Do you have a source or are these just theories based on hearsay?

You mention that from the time you're 16 to the last day you drive that you have to have insurance and that it's as close to a sure thing for the insurance companies. Here's where I think your pointing the finger in the wrong direction. Based on that statement you're placing the blame on insurance companies for enacting the the minimum liability coverage law to pad their pockets. This is far from the case. The Minnesota legislature passed the law not for the insurance companies benefit, not for the driver's benefit, but for the benefit of the victim. Hence the term, liability. Not only will that required minimum protect the victim but it also helps protect the insured if they are ever injured in an auto accident if the driver of the other vehicle is illegally driving without insurance. They can go back on their policy because of the uninsured and/or under insured motorist coverage on the policy.

The liability coverage on autos I previously described are not a guidelines, it's a mandatory minimum to protect the victims in an auto accident so that they can place a claim against the at-fault driver. Imagine a person that is killed or maimed an has no other recourse for damages because the at-fault driver is to poor to pay compensation or they leave the country. Believe it or not, there are numerous illegals in this area with out insurance and if you're ever hit by one and it's serious enough you will never be able to collect or be awarded damages if not for the state requiring liablity coverage on you, the law abiding citizen.

QUOTE

Also interesting is how Minnesota has ranked as one of the states with the highest auto insurance rates for a long time.

I think Iowa used to be about the lowest in the country. And Wisconsin and SD were lower than good old Minnie Soda too.

Again, do you have a source? Do you understand how insurance companies set rates? Talk to an accuary from a laarge insurance company and they'll explain it... No...don't do that. They are bean counters and would use terms you wouldn't understand.

Auto rates are based on claims experience. If Iowa has a lower claims experience than Minnesota than it would stand to reason that Minnesota would have a higher cost for insurance. Insurance companies break it down even further within a state. We may be paying for cheaper insurance here than in Minneapolis because they have more claims per auto insured. The Fargo area has dirt cheap rates. Why? Because they have fewer claims than they do in Minneapolis. Let's go even further and break it down by individual based on type of vehicle, miles driven, age, sex, financial status, and claims/ticket history. You may be paying more or less than your neighbor based on those differences. Would you, being a very safe driver (never having a ticket/accident, claim, etc...), want to be paying the same premium as the neighbor that commutes 50 miles to work, has a couple of traffic tickets, a DUI on the record, and several auto accident's? I would hope not. It's not fair for you to have to fully subsidize someone like that, that you have no control over. Is it? :dunno:

Now with that said...with Obamacare it doesn't matter if your healthy or someone that is overweight with high blood pressure staring at a heartattack in three weeks. Won't matter if you're living in the Blue Zone of Albert Lea or in Alabama eating pork rinds for every meal. We'd all be forced to pay the same premium for the same coverage.

nuff said...

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 21 2009,5:48 pm

Wow all that BS/Prattling and nothing that disproved anything that I pointed out.

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 21 2009,6:07 pm

QUOTE

The liability coverage on autos I previously described are not a guidelines, it's a mandatory minimum

What the hell do you think mandatory minimums are based on? Guidelines

QUOTE

Based on that statement you're placing the blame on insurance

Blame? I'm just stating. . . what is the word I'm looking for here? Oh yea; a fact. Read the following is it a fact or isn't it?

Do you have to carry insurance, on your car, from the time you're sixteen, and get your drivers license, until the day you stop driving in Minnesota? Yes

Has Minnesota tradtionally been flanked on all sides by cheaper auto insurance? Yes
< http://www.iii.org/media/facts/statsbyissue/auto/ >

But go ahead type 16 more paragraphs I'm sure somebody here will be bored enough to read them.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 22 2009,8:56 am

^ Uff da... :crazy:

If you can't comprehend then I can't help you understand why you're wrong.

Sorry I can't help stupid because I don't speak stupid.

Have a Hymie... :dunce:

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 22 2009,6:31 pm

1. I'd like to know how many times you've changed your post up top there since the first time I read it. Since I didn't capture it in the form it was in when I read it I guess we'll never know. I've noticed that you repeatedly change your post and their wording and content quite frequently, sometimes quite a long time after they are posted.

2. The original point made was whether or not insurance is basically a forced necessity.

a) I stated that for many individuals health is insurance is basically a necessity

b) I cited several instances/scenarios/examples of that claim

3. I stated that auto insurance is a necessity.

a) Not how did it get to be that way

b) What dictates the fees

4. I made the statement; that Minnesota has traditionally been flanked on all sides by cheaper auto insurance.

I made two statements:

1. You have to have be insured to operate a motor vehicle in Minnesota.

2. Minnesota has traditionally been flanked on all sided by cheaper auto insurance.

I didn't see you prove either of them wrong.

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 22 2009,6:34 pm

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 21 2009,10:50 am)

QUOTE

(hymiebravo @ Jul. 21 2009,12:20 am)

QUOTE

Thank you for pointing out what would appear to be the guidelines, or parameters, decided apon by the state of Minnesota for the minimum amount of coverage a driver has to carry.

My point was was that from the time you start driving at age 16, till the very last day you drive you HAVE to have that. Or walk. It's pretty close to a sure thing for the insurance companies. Pretty close to a monopoly of sorts.

Sort of like a funeral parlor you are guarenteed a certain amount of business.

I think it was at least partially due, in the case of Iowa, to not having mandatory insurance requirements at one time, anyway.

Somebody told me one time that carseats for kids used to be a lot cheaper before they became mandatory too.

QUOTE

I would think that by now you've probably done your usually word changing and might even be done.

But I'll make a copy just to see if at some point you change even more.

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 22 2009,7:00 pm

Obama is going to be on national TV in minutes.

Hymie, do you think he can sustain or even gain on the momentum or lack of enough to gain support to get this passed before Congress recesses in August?

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 22 2009,8:21 pm

(MADDOG @ Jul. 22 2009,7:00 pm)

QUOTE

Yes just remember if you miss it you can watch it online right afterwards. lol

I've got a 50/50 chance of getting it right.

ABC's George S & Charley G seemed to be alluding to the door being left open for the "not" option.

What was the comment; about if not by then by the end of the year was it? So the long defered promise of reform apears to be being hinting at continuing to be defered.

Meaning that; throwing that comment out there leads you to believe it won't. Maybe they just did that to surprise everyone.

I think politically they, President Obama and the Democratic Party, need to git er' done.

And they can't afford to not make it happen at all.

Posted by Santorini on Jul. 23 2009,8:05 am

(MADDOG @ Jun. 25 2009,1:25 pm)

QUOTE

Right On

Posted by Santorini on Jul. 23 2009,8:28 am

So, Obama is at it still with his press conference trying to reel you all in with his propaganda.
I believe his term is healthcare reform? or should we call it "take-over"? Do any of you "hear" his message?
His analogy last night about a person with diabetes spelled it all out loud and clear! Paraphrasing now he said something like rather than amputate a diabetic's limb should we offer a pill first. People, his message is about "ladder treatment". You have to do "this" first and then try "this" next and then "this" before you qualify for the actual necessary treatment. And he offers no specifics, no details about his plan...Not all of us are worried simply about the $$$$ with his take-over...many of us in the healthcare field are worried about quality of care and WHO will be making the diagnostic decisions? Our doctors? absolutely not, their hands will be tied due to all the federal government mandates.
Not only did you liberals fall prey to this guys charasmatic speech deliveries during the campaigning but you still follow this guy's rhetoric and believe his propaganda? You liberals have proven time and time again that your "hate" for Bush is so much stronger than your common sense that you make decisions based on emotion rather than logic and facts.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 23 2009,9:00 am

(hymiebravo @ Jul. 22 2009,6:31 pm)

QUOTE

You didn't see it because you're a mental midget and have difficulty wrapping the brain you have around it. You don't argue facts. You spend your time trying explain what you mean in previous posts rather than arguing the subject.

GONG!!!

The only thing I changed on the July 21, 10:50 AM post may have been spelling and sentence structure because I think faster than I can type. I left my office at 2 pm. You responded at 5:58 pm. This would have given you almost 4 hours to read it and respond to it's orginal. I didn't come back into the office until 8 the next day.

If I want to add something to a post because it is relevant rather than starting a new post, tough crap.

Quit the bullcrap hymie...your game is up. Try using the quote button and maybe some people would believe you.

aahh...I'm not even going to argue with you because you are the king of trying to make a point and when someone re-educates you, you come with some bs that you were making a completely different point.

:crazy:

Here. Have a Hymie... :dunce:

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 23 2009,10:43 am

Naw, this is a Hymie.

Posted by hairhertz on Jul. 23 2009,11:22 am

We buy healthcare insurance [with a $4200 deduct.] and still pay over $11,000 per year.

As for a homeowner policy and car insurance with 3 teen drivers, we pay over $5000 for basic coverage.

No wonder we are always broke with a middle class income. The insurance companies must be very well-to-do. Do you suppose they oppose Obamacare? :rofl:

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 23 2009,11:48 am

HH, I understand that insurance can seem expensive but consider how expensive it can be without it.

-you don't insure your house and you have a fire...now it cost you $150,000 if your house is worth that. Or someone slips and falls on your steps and injures their spinal cord...how much would that lawsuit cost?

-you don't insure your cars and one of your teenager's kills or maims another driver and the sue you for $500,000

-you don't have health insurance and you break your leg and now you owe the hospital $40,000. You'll get the surgery but the hospital will be coming after you for repayment.

Not everyone will experience these losses but it does happen. I agree with reform but the reform shouldn't pit one class against the other.

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 23 2009,12:57 pm

Common Citizen

QUOTE

They can charge whatever they want. This was a free country at one time. Who are you to decide what a company can charge for a product. Don't like it? Don't pay for the service then. It's market driven and apparenty people are still buying it.
Electirc companies would be a fair example of a monopoly. We have very few choices as consumers. Either electric, run by which ever company services your area, or candles.

The Electric company can't raise your rates at will, they must take their case to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) and request and justify the rate increase.. the MPUC is essentially the government protecting the citizens from rate abuse.
There is some wiggle room with fuel adjustments in billing I don't really understand but all in all Minnesota kWh rates have been fairly cheap..

On a local level cities like Rochester, Austin, Owatonna, Fairbuilt etc. have control of their own rates because they run and own small utilities a luxury Albert Lea doesn't enjoy...

As for Monopoly a few years ago we had well over 100 major utilities now that number is 80 something and shrinking, an example of this would be Interstate Power, now Alliant when it combined with two other utilities..

The Insurance Industry is out of control on rate increases and needs a Public Board to oversee rates

Posted by Botto 82 on Jul. 23 2009,1:03 pm

The Republitards are all up in arms because some of their biggest lobbyists are big healthcare giants.

Doing nothing is not an option. I'm tired of skyrocketing insurance costs because nothing is done about all the uninsured types who use the ER as their primary care physician.

The last administration had 8 years to work on this issue, and they ignored it. At least this one is trying something different. Doing the same thing, expecting improved results is insanity.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 23 2009,2:05 pm

(Expatriate @ Jul. 23 2009,12:57 pm)

QUOTE

Insurance companies have to also go through the state to be able to sell new products and to justify rate increases before the can do anything.

With insurance, if you don't like how much you're paying you can simply go to a competitor. I can't change my electric company because I don't like the service or the pricing. There is only one set of electric lines coming out to my house and it's run by only one company. LP is a little different in that I have a few more choices with whom I can do business with.

Posted by Santorini on Jul. 23 2009,9:56 pm

(Botto 82 @ Jul. 23 2009,1:03 pm)

QUOTE

So you're saying the only information and defense you have on this topic is from the TV :dunno:

Because you have just repeated every excuse "brought to you by" the liberal commentators!
You cannot become educated in economics by watching TV :crazy:

Posted by Paul Harvey on Jul. 23 2009,10:41 pm

I like it the way it is. Get cancer and need big treatment...go get it. When you get the bill, declare bankruptcy and clean her up...if you survive.

The other way, they want everyone to pay in and then you'll bitch and moan about others eating junk food and smoking and all that junk. Plus the health care system gets to rip us off to such an extent that they actually spend some money or research and development.

Who gets screwed? Small private employers and their employees...but all in all it's best to keep health care like it is. Just make it illegal for drug companies and insurance companies to give political $$$ to help keep it more honest.

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 23 2009,11:53 pm

The thing is is you need to get input from a much broader group of people; that are more adversely effected, by medical matters, too.

That is dealing with the here and now.

The future is going to be an emphasis on better livng and eating.

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 24 2009,12:34 am

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 23 2009,9:00 am)

QUOTE

(hymiebravo @ Jul. 22 2009,6:31 pm)

QUOTE

Here. Have a Hymie... :dunce:

QUOTE

You didn't see it because you're a mental midget

So let's see here; you start right off calling me names, okay.

QUOTE

You don't argue facts.

Is this like that last comment? We're all supposed go along with you because you say that is the case? Because I layed things our for you pretty succinctly, and I even gave you a link. But you completely ignored it. Just like you never stayed with the healthcare portion of the conversation. You decided that the most pertinent matter was your auto insurance symposium. Or what in your mind you perceived to be as one. And because you did that; according to you, that was all you had to do, and now you can do no wrong; is that it? We should all bow down to you; and if we don't like it, like in this case you'll act like a 2 year old and call people names?

AND completely ignore what is being presented by the other person. I layed out my position in very streamlined to the point, lean and mean fashion. But you basically just chose to do a bunch of name calling. That was YOUR responce.

Maybe the reason people have to explain what they mean to you, repeatledly, is because you completely ignore what they are presenting.

QUOTE

The only thing I changed on the July 21, 10:50 AM post may have been spelling and sentence structure

May have been? :rofl:

QUOTE

This would have given you almost 4 hours to read it and respond to it's orginal

That's not the point the point is you are changing things.

QUOTE

If I want to add something to a post because it is relevant rather than starting a new post, tough crap

.

So you back fill and add paragraphs and change words around. So if somebody comes back later and reads things they get the impression that everybody read it that way. And as such that was what they may have based their response on?

QUOTE

Quit the bullcrap hymie...your game is up. Try using the quote button and maybe some people would believe you.

My game? You don't care what people think about whether you change your posts after they respond to you. And have basically admitted it. But maybe people would believe me? :rofl:

QUOTE

aahh...I'm not even going to argue with you because you are the king of trying to make a point and when someone re-educates you, you come with some bs that you were making a completely different point

.

That's rich you getting indignant with me. Particularly after this post and all of your slanderous remarks and name calling.

Because from where I'm standing it seems more like I should be ignoring you. Like I should be giving you dunce caps and calling you names.

But I didn't; I made an ernest effort to succinctly lay matters out for you. In spite of the continued name calling by you.

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 24 2009,12:37 am

(MADDOG @ Jul. 23 2009,10:43 am)

QUOTE

Naw, this is a Hymie.

I find that post very offensive. Where are the mods around here?

Wait that's right; you are a mod.

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 24 2009,6:25 am

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 24 2009,8:36 am

(hymiebravo @ Jul. 24 2009,12:34 am)

QUOTE

My game? You don't care what people think about whether you change your posts after they respond to you. And have basically admitted it. But maybe people would believe me?

sniffle

You brought a tear to my eye, Hymie.

When have I ever changed my quote AFTER someone has posted in response to it? There was at least a 4 hour time period from when I had access to a computer and when you posted. Are you stuck on the spin cycle? The real truth is that you go off on these tangents to divert people's attention away from your lack of knowledge on a variety of topics.

Here. Have a Hymie... :dunce:

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 24 2009,5:40 pm

(MADDOG @ Jul. 24 2009,6:25 am)

QUOTE

Could you clarify what the meaning or purpose is behind these images and YouTube offerings?

In regard to your quote from me in your signature:

That was in reference to local news.

1. They basically don't get into any great depth with anything.

2. The local fluff stories aren't usually particularly intriguing; unless you are somehow directly involved with them.

I think it's interesting also; that you were mentioning here that you had FOX in another room. Basically not that far removed from what I mentioned.

Yet apparently for some reason you seem to feel that in my case it should warrant some sort of reprimand.

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 24 2009,5:52 pm

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 24 2009,8:36 am)

QUOTE

(hymiebravo @ Jul. 24 2009,12:34 am)

QUOTE

My game? You don't care what people think about whether you change your posts after they respond to you. And have basically admitted it. But maybe people would believe me?

sniffle

You implicated yourself with your own words. Which basically spelled out for us all what I have known all along.

Anybody who admits that they change things. Then goes on to say that they will continue to do so as they see fit. Has basically proven their longstanding fraudulence.

That is what was so funny about your name calling and favorite emoticon use. You couldn't even figure out that you basically implicated yourself as a fraud.

1. I see you add stuff and change stuff and take stuff away all the time.

2. You have incriminated yourself here.

I don't need to provide anything more in this matter, as far as I'm concerned.

You're fraudulent.

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 24 2009,6:01 pm

And in the meantime all remarks and posts made by you will be automatically assumed to be of a fraudulent nature.

As far as I'm concerned.

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 24 2009,7:25 pm

(hymiebravo @ Jul. 24 2009,5:40 pm)

QUOTE

Simply offering a different icon to :dunce:

I get bored with that. Then the youtube was to show who the hymie was.

You take offense to a sitcom character named hymie? :dunno:

Who's going to argue that the local news doesn't get deep into stories? The signature came from a thread you started titled < Economic Development, Here we go again. > You know, the one you suggested a tire burner plant here.

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 24 2009,8:06 pm

QUOTE

Who's going to argue that the local news doesn't get deep into stories? The signature came from a thread you started titled Economic Development, Here we go again. You know, the one you suggested a tire burner plant here.

Well in light of the seeming smear campaign going on between you and one of your cohorts from the Albert Lea Discussion Forum Conservative Coalition.

I thought maybe a little context was in order here.

In regard to the other items:

Look; I can take/handle the ribbing/teasing/taunting. That first remark about being offended was actually a joke, or it wasn't sent in a serious manner. I just gave it the OIC delivery. OIC being one of your fellow MODS here.

But; the continuation and widespread use of the remarks has sort of caused it to take on a different sort message or meaning.

So at this point; I would say that I have crossed the threshold of looking at it as innocent ribbing to seeing it as something else.

QUOTE

Simply offering a different icon to I get bored with that. Then the youtube was to show who the hymie was.

Offering it up for what? Are you and I involved in some sort of battle in the thread?

QUOTE

You take offense to a sitcom character named hymie?

Again; is there some specific reason you feel compelled to keep presenting these things in a manner to try and belittle me?

Were we arguing about something specific in that thread?

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 24 2009,8:10 pm

Or are you so thickheaded that I need to lay it down for you Grinning Dragon style?

You know; with the little green guy.

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 25 2009,6:58 am

Naw, it's just a little ribbin.

Personally, I think the :dunce:

is used more as a put down than a jest or ribbing. If you could look back, I could probably count on one hand how many times I've used it. The green guy, maybe two or three times.

QUOTE

But; the continuation and widespread use of the remarks has sort of caused it to take on a different sort message or meaning.

My "name calling" is 90% at the politicians or party in general. I have no reason to bad mouth most posters here.

It's more fun to argue the policy than the personality of you, me or anyone else involved in these political stabs. I have no problem in dueling here in the morning and drinking coffee together in the afternoon.

The hymie (Get Smart) thing, you got to watch it to laugh. < Part 3 >

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jul. 25 2009,2:03 pm

HMMMM, interesting stuff in that there Govt run healthcare.

QUOTE

A list of the few things in the bill. When barry O says we can keep our insurance...he lies.

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes u get

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!

PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer

PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.

PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!

PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example - Translation 4 illegal aliens

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed

-PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will b automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice

pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monop

pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll

pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesnt prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC accrdng 2 Govt will be taxed 2.5% of inc

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes. (Americans will pay)

Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access 2 ALL Americans finan/pers recs

PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician svcs 4 Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty u have, you'll all be paid the same

PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr's time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.

PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries

PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs

PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals 4 what Govt deems preventable readmissions.

Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial admiss that results in a readmiss-Govt will penalize u.

Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand

pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can u say ACORN?!!

Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Govt mandates estab. of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority 2 disqual Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps in2 Govt plan

Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs ppl! WTF. My sis has down syndrome!!

Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Cmtte. Can u say HC by phone?

PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding u in death

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program 4 orders 4 end of life. The Govt has a say in how ur life ends

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "adv. care planning consult" will b used frequently as patients health deteriorates

PG 429 Lines 10-12 "adv. care consultation" may incl an ORDER 4 end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment u will have at end of life

Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?

Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based org. Like ACORN?

PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt in2 ur marriage

Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs

This country is so messed up, I fear the only way to set it back to normal is through a Revolution.

Posted by Botto 82 on Jul. 25 2009,2:30 pm

(Grinning_Dragon @ Jul. 25 2009,2:03 pm)

QUOTE

This country is so messed up, I fear the only way to set it back to normal is through a Revolution.

Once they get rid of that pesky Second Amendment, you can kiss that option goodbye, not that the instant-gratification American Idle crowd would ever get off their fat asses long enough to do anything.

:soapbox:

Posted by Paul Harvey on Jul. 25 2009,7:31 pm

Getting back on topic. I guess i like the health care system the way it is, because we don't have total socialized medicine, yet my health care is subsidised through mn care. Even though I make minimum wage, I still qualify for some state assistance for my medical care only dentists won't see new patients using mn care.

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 29 2009,7:41 pm

I certainly hope this Czar doesn't get anywhere near this new health plan Pelosi and crew are concocting.

QUOTE

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- John Holdren, the Science Czar chosen by pro-abortion President Barack Obama, has already come under criticism for backing population control and forced abortions. Now, new information is appearing showing Holdren didn't believe that newborn infants are fully human.

In another manuscript, Holdren also says a newborn child “will ultimately develop into a human being” if properly fed and socialized.

“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” Holdren wrote.

< Life News >

Here's a book he co-authored: < Ecoscience Population, Resources, Environment >

Hey, this guy has his head where it should be. Here's a few quotes of his.

QUOTE

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

QUOTE

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

QUOTE

Involuntary fertility control
...
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

Nice guy, I wonder which country he got his educatjion in?

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 05 2009,11:05 am

Liar, liar, pants on fire...
:peaceout:

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 05 2009,11:07 am

nuff said...

Posted by bianca on Aug. 05 2009,12:08 pm

Obama has repeatedly attempted to assuage widespread concern by stating that he does not intend to eliminate private insurance companies, but only wants to provide a "public option" to give insurance to an estimated 47 million persons currently lacking coverage. Obama has also rejected the charge that a public option would act as a "Trojan horse" for a single-payer system, which some Americans fear would lead to rationing of health benefits and excessive wait times. :popcorn:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 05 2009,4:03 pm

(bianca @ Aug. 05 2009,12:08 pm)

QUOTE

How do you square that with his stated desire for a "single payer" system? :dunno:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 05 2009,4:19 pm

The Keith Ellison video is really telling:

He refuses to answer the question on whether he would put his family on the system--even when "Answer the question! is shouted out. :dunce:

He attempts to rush through this by asking people to "bridle your enthusiasm so we can move fast."

Yet he gives a ton of time to someone who rambles about "the right to health care given to us by the United Nations." :dunce:

Shaun Hannity predicted that Congresscritters would catch the outrage at their "Town ~~Hall~~ Hell meetings. He is right! :thumbsup:

It will be interesting to see if Congresscritters actually listen to people when they vote.

With the growing unpopularity of this turkey of a bill, the Donks have a new Tar Baby--it is sticking to them, and they can't throw it away, no matter hard they try. This is the Briar Patch that the Obamunists have cultivated--just for them! :rofl:

2010 is looking brighter all the time--just let Donks be-------DONKS!

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 05 2009,4:58 pm

Right, the democratic plan could have potential flaws, so lets go ahead and go with the republican plan...

Wait a minute, they DON'T have a plan! :rofl:

As for the continued cries of rationing. We ALREADY have rationing. Somehow rationing is okay to conservatives as long as it's to help the profits of the HMO's.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 05 2009,5:11 pm

QUOTE

Right, the democratic plan could have potential flaws, so lets go ahead and go with the republican plan...

Wait a minute, they DON'T have a plan!

I'll go you one better--the Donk plan has DEMONSTRATED flaws--but they are trying to stuff it down our throats ANYWAY. Is it any WONDER that the majority of the people don't want this "free" health plan?

HOW BAD DOES A PRODUCT HAVE TO BE BEFORE PEOPLE REJECT A "FREE" PLAN?

"Here, I'll give everyone FREE health care."

"No thanks, I'd rather pay." :rofl:

Maybe you missed the part where the Repubs offered a bill giving $5000 off your taxes--not deduction, $5000 OFF--for each family. No administrative cost, no government control, no rationing, no bureaucrats making decisions for you.

QUOTE

As for the continued cries of rationing. We ALREADY have rationing.

Examples?

QUOTE

Somehow rationing is okay to conservatives as long as it's to help the profits of the HMO's.

Straight out of the Democrat "TAlking Points" that Hannity exposes last night--"demonize the insurance companies." What are HMO's other than people banding together to share risk? If you REALLY believe they are getting rich--sell everything you can and invest in them--YOU can be rich, too! :sarcasm:

And why would "helping the profits of the HMO's be limited to CONSERVATIVES? Do Libbies not belong to them, too? :oops:

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 05 2009,10:30 pm

As most here know - this is a subject that I feel is most important in advancing America as a viable nation to the future.

I would like to bring up two topics on this (I have many more).

1. This is not actually a discussion on healthcare. Blue Cross didn't take my daughter's tonsils out. United Healthcare didn't deliver my babies. It was done by doctors and nurses.

It is up to the FOR PROFIT insurance companies to deny or pay the claims per pre-agreement and contract. United "Healthcare" generally rejects every claim until we make a phone call to them (30-50 minutes on hold) and then requires the doctor to write a letter explaining why the procedure or visit needed to be done.

2. Pre-existing conditions: If you have cancer or diabetes and change jobs, better save for a casket.

The dialogue gets bogged down in the exceptions- like if an illegal accidentally gets treated vs. 40million legal Americans who have no access because they are waitresses, work at Walmart, or own their own company and someone in the family or small business might cost the insurer more than they'll make.

I pay $900 per month for a family of four (employer also pays a contribution). I would gladly pay that to a company that was a highly regulated non-profit and only made money from the processing fees - like Taiwan and Germany. They still compete. I've never said I want it free.

Imagine paying your electric bill and having the company shut your power off every few days because there might be a chance that you moved - call them up on a cell phone because the home phone won't work without power so they still don't believe you. You're power may or may not be turned on in 90-120 days but you still pay the power company because you have to. They don't supply power, they still get paid.

United Healthcare is looking at posting a $1billion profit by the end of this year.

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 05 2009,10:57 pm

The INSURANCE companies and their PACs are in the pocket of too many politicians.

They say health care reform will limit your access to a doctor - but they are already doing it.

Insurance companies are no longer in the business of paying healthcare providers, rather, healthcare premiums are the vehicle they use to pay shareholders.

Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 05 2009,11:34 pm

(nphilbro @ Aug. 05 2009,10:30 pm)

QUOTE

Excellent post. This is where the dialogue needs to start.

Too bad the MSM is too distracted by Big Pharma ad revenue to think about crapping where it eats.

One night, World News with Charles Gibson carried a 6:30 spot load over 4 breaks. Of that 6:30, 4:30 of that was pharmaceutical ads.

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 06 2009,12:02 am

MSM - again, not in business of delivering news, rather a billboard for advertisors and making a return for investors. Content and accuracy is secondary to those who view the commercials.

Point taken, though.

Big Pharma is another issue altogether. I would prefer to not mix the issues because the specific issues are mostly unrelated, however, there is crossover (IMO).

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 06 2009,12:33 am

The biggest thing that needs to be taken care of is the increasing cost. Besides how much it's hurting many Americans who still end up fighting with their provider to pay the bill, the government can't continue on the current path with Medicare or Medicaid. I know many on here would love to see both disbanded anyway, but it's not going to happen, so deal with a workable solution to keep us from being in the red any worse than we our as a nation.

As for the conservative idea of tort reform, that's not gonna cut it. It's a drop in the bucket, I don't care what the Dr.'s tell you. We'll still have skyrocketing cost regardless of whether or not you lower their malpractice premiums.

There's going to have to be A LOT of stuff ironed out of ANY reform that happens, but I don't think we should let perfection be the enemy of good either.

Posted by ICU812 on Aug. 06 2009,8:51 am

(Botto 82 @ Aug. 05 2009,11:34 pm)

QUOTE

(nphilbro @ Aug. 05 2009,10:30 pm)

QUOTE

I hear you guys, I am right there with ya. We DO NOT have a healthcare crisis in this nation. We have a thug middleman problem and that is it.

I am not one to say who should make what and what not but I am sick of paying to a thug middleman that says what I can and cant have done. All the while they skim, steal and squander the $679 (new premium for daughter and I) I send to them monthly.

Do an image search for Blue Cross Blue Shield or United Healthcare. Look at the buildings that my and your "healthcare" dollars built.

I am thankful for them also don't get me wrong, in '93 I spent about $2500 at St. Mary's just east of here, my insurance company (MADA Insurance) spent about $179,000.00.

I get what its about and don't know how it can be fixed.

Give them a Vegas approach. 95% of all premiums collected must be paid out in direct healthcare. :dunno:

Cap profits? I am 100% against that but if UH shows a daily profit of 2.8 million dollars for taking a customers money and maybe paying for their healthcare when needed is kinda rediculous and in the end my hospital and doctors are getting the blame, thats really rediculous.

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 06 2009,10:16 am

I'll start this by saying I don't like being over charged for something and this is also what I'm hearing all of you say. Am I right?

You all feel you're paying more for a service than what you're receiving. Understandable.

My opinion is that there are many to blame for the high cost of healthcare. There is no one entity responsible for all the high costs.

How can we change it? How can we change the healthcare system so that our insurance covers what we expect them to cover? What is a fair and equitable premium to pay? How many people have ever read their policies to know what is covered and what is not? The insurance companies could have an easier way of communicating what is and what is not covered in plain english. Instead, because of lawsuit after lawsuit you have to have law degree to interpret what they policies are saying. Imagine what it costs the insurance company to have a legal department just to write up these policies and another legal department on standby in the event they are ever sued.

The change I would like to see...

1. Have every insurance company have one standard application process, using the same forms.
2. Have the exact same claims processing procedures.
3. Have the exact same disclosure and policy statments that tell you exactly what is covered and for how much in easy to read English so that the dumbest of the dumb, like Hymie, can understand it. :rofl:

4. Allow for free markets.
5. Stream line the way each state approves a new carrier or carriers product to do business within that state.
6. Tort reform as it pertains to the health care industry.
7. Get rid of the "in network" "out of network" clause
...to name a few.

Personally, I have the license but I do not sell insurance for the health care industry. Why? There is no profit in it for me by the time I sell a policy, the hours it takes setting it up and doing the paperwork. It just isn't worth my time or effort. The only thing I need it for is to provide long term care and disability insurance.

I do not think the government has the answer. Obama has flip flopped and stated that you can keep your current policy if you like rather than taking the gov't plan. This isn't fair to private insurance companies. The governement doesn't have to make a profit because they can rely on the taxpayer to keep them out of the red or just keep printing money.

ICU mentioned that he spent $2500 out of pocket and that the insurance carrier paid $179k. This is exactly how insurance works. It is there primarily for the larger claims. That's what you're insuring. The catastrophic events not for the sniffle's we get a few times a year.

Since the theme around here seems to be the cost of the monthly premium and other out of pocket expenses, and the profits the insurance companies experience...what is fair? How much are YOU worth at your job? Who decides how much you make? Is it fair? What have you done about it?

I agree that there needs to be healthcare reform but it is my opinion that the Obama administration is trying to fix the "wrong wheel"...so to speak.

Posted by ICU812 on Aug. 06 2009,10:39 am

QUOTE

Since the theme around here seems to be the cost of the monthly premium and other out of pocket expenses, and the profits the insurance companies experience...what is fair?

400-550 per month for a family of 3. I would pay that and never bitch again(about health ins.)

Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 06 2009,11:14 am

Wow.

I pay $235 per month for me and two kids.

My employer deposits $250 into my HSA per month.

I have a $2,500 deductible.

I think some of you guys are getting screwed.

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 06 2009,11:31 am

(Common Citizen @ Aug. 06 2009,10:16 am)

QUOTE

How can we change it? How can we change the healthcare system so that our insurance covers what we expect them to cover? What is a fair and equitable premium to pay? How many people have ever read their policies to know what is covered and what is not? The insurance companies could have an easier way of communicating what is and what is not covered in plain english. Instead, because of lawsuit after lawsuit you have to have law degree to interpret what they policies are saying. Imagine what it costs the insurance company to have a legal department just to write up these policies and another legal department on standby in the event they are ever sued.

The change I would like to see...

1. Have every insurance company have one standard application process, using the same forms.
2. Have the exact same claims processing procedures.
3. Have the exact same disclosure and policy statments that tell you exactly what is covered and for how much in easy to read English so that the dumbest of the dumb, like Hymie, can understand it. :rofl:

To add one thing. Keep it regulated by the states. No feds needed.

Posted by ICU812 on Aug. 06 2009,12:06 pm

(Botto 82 @ Aug. 06 2009,11:14 am)

QUOTE

Wow.

I pay $235 per month for me and two kids.

My employer deposits $250 into my HSA per month.

I have a $2,500 deductible.

I think some of you guys are getting screwed.

Does your employer pay 50% of premium also?

I am looking at HSA right now which would be $464 per month (3000/6000 ded.) plus whatever I put into HSA, either way all the money come from my pocket as the owner.

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 06 2009,12:20 pm

The nice thing about the HSA is that your contributions to a savings account are yours...if you don't end up using the proceeds for medical care you can use it for other things down the road.

If you go with the HSA...do some homework on the different places where you can set up the HSA account. Don't let BC/BS talk you into thinking theirs is the only option....

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 06 2009,12:42 pm

(MADDOG @ Aug. 06 2009,11:31 am)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Aug. 06 2009,10:16 am)

QUOTE

To add one thing. Keep it regulated by the states. No feds needed.

Maddog, I agree to an extent...

Many of the insurance companies operate in other states. You have to have an administration department that is up on every state they conduct business in. BCBS of Illinios, BC/BS of Minnesota, etc... This is expensive to administer. There should be a way to stream line it more with out trampling on states rights...imo.

Posted by Alfy Packer on Aug. 06 2009,1:29 pm

One can bitch all they want about Government Care until they experiance being out of work without coverage, having a kid with a medical problem that makes them unacceptable if you try to get coverage on your own. The last time I was out looking for work, the thing I needed most urgently was the health coverage. The people I interviewed with wanted to talk about all the other benefits, and what I needed was details on the health insurance. It got to be quite a dance, not wanting to tip anyone off that my family had health issues, while needing to have specific questions answered about the medical coverage. In a more perfect world this shouldn't be how things are done. Why should my family only get to see the doctor they need when I am working for an employer with the proper coverage?

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 06 2009,1:29 pm

(irisheyes @ Aug. 06 2009,12:33 am)

QUOTE

You state that the biggest thing out there is increasing cost. HOW does Obamacare decrease costs? Like most of his rhetoric--it is couched in vagaries like "Hope" and "Change". If Obamacare doesn't decrease costs--dont vote for it--it isn't going to work!

You are right--many would like to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid--both have run up HUGE debts--and are FAR more expensive than initially proposed. GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS THAT COST FAR MORE THAN THEY TOLD US THEY WOULD? I'M SHOCKED--SHOCKED, I SAY! :sarcasm:

And the libbie cure for failed government programs like Medicare and Medicaid? MORE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS! :dunce:

You are also right--once these big programs start, they never go away, no matter HOW bad they are. THIS is the scary thing about Obambi's experiment with socialized medicine--we will likely be paying for it FOREVER. Don't rush into something this serious.

You don't believe that the costs of medical insurance and defensive medicine are increasing costs--despite doctors insurance policies that go into 6 figures every year? You don't believe that lawyers are the problem, despite John Edwards huge awards? How do YOU think he paid for that huge house? From Wikipedia

QUOTE

In 1984 Edwards was assigned to a medical malpractice lawsuit that had been perceived to be unwinnable; the firm had only accepted it as a favor to an attorney and state senator who did not want to keep it. Nevertheless, Edwards won a $3.7 million verdict on behalf of his client, who had suffered permanent brain and nerve damage after a doctor prescribed an overdose of the anti-alcoholism drug Antabuse during alcohol aversion therapy.[13] In other cases, Edwards sued the American Red Cross three times, alleging transmission of AIDS through tainted blood products, resulting in a confidential settlement each time, and defended a North Carolina newspaper against a libel charge.[12]

In 1985, Edwards represented a five-year-old child born with cerebral palsy whose doctor did not choose to perform an immediate Caesarean delivery when a fetal monitor showed she was in distress. Edwards won a $6.5 million verdict for his client, but five weeks later, the presiding judge sustained the verdict but overturned the award on grounds that it was "excessive" and that it appeared "to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice," adding that in his opinion "the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict." He offered the plaintiffs $3.25 million, half of the jury's award, but the child's family appealed the case and received $4.25 million in a settlement.[12] Winning this case established the North Carolina precedent of physician and hospital liability for failing to determine if the patient understood the risks of a particular procedure.[13]

After this trial, Edwards gained national attention as a plaintiff's lawyer. He filed at least twenty similar lawsuits in the years following and achieved verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million for his clients. These successful lawsuits were followed by similar ones across the country. When asked about an increase in Caesarean deliveries nationwide, perhaps to avoid similar medical malpractice lawsuits, Edwards said, "The question is, would you rather have cases where that happens instead of having cases where you don't intervene and a child either becomes disabled for life or dies in utero?"[12]

In 1993, Edwards began his own firm in Raleigh (now named Kirby & Holt) with a friend, David Kirby. He became known as the top plaintiffs' attorney in North Carolina.[12] The biggest case of his legal career was a 1996 product liability lawsuit against Sta-Rite, the manufacturer of a defective pool drain cover. The case involved Valerie Lakey, a five-year-old girl[14] who was disemboweled by the suction power of the pool drain pump when she sat on an open pool drain whose protective cover other children at the pool had removed, after the swim club had failed to install the cover properly. Despite 12 prior suits with similar claims, Sta-Rite continued to make and sell drain covers lacking warnings. Sta-Rite protested that an additional warning would have made no difference because the pool owners already knew the importance of keeping the cover secured.

In his closing arguments, Edwards spoke to the jury for an hour and a half and referenced his son, Wade, who had been killed shortly before testimony began. Mark Dayton, editor of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, would later call it "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen."[15] The jury awarded the family $25 million, the largest personal injury award in North Carolina history. The company settled for the $25 million while the jury was deliberating additional punitive damages, rather than risk losing an appeal. For their part in this case, Edwards and law partner David Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service.[13] The family said that they hired Edwards over other attorneys because he alone had offered to accept a smaller percentage as fee unless the award was unexpectedly high, while all of the other lawyers they spoke with said they required the full one-third fee. The size of the jury award was unprecedented, and Edwards did receive the standard one-third plus expenses fee typical of contingency cases. The family was so impressed with his intelligence and commitment[12] that they volunteered for his Senate campaign the next year.

After Edwards won a large verdict against a trucking company whose worker had been involved in a fatal accident, the North Carolina legislature passed a law prohibiting such awards unless the employee's actions had been specifically sanctioned by the company.

Big awards--6-figure insurance premiums for doctors (to say nothing about pharmaceuticals and hospitals--defensive medicine--doctors opting NOT to do certain procedures for fear of liability--attornies trolling for clients on television--AND YOU DON'T THINK THAT IS RUNNING UP THE COST OF MEDICINE? :dunno:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 06 2009,1:41 pm

Alfy--I can sympathize with your needs, but have to ask the question--Why is the EMPLOYER'S RESPONSIBILITY to provide health care? :dunno:

We USED to have it--but our employees decided they would rather have the money than the health care--being young (at the time) they either didn't see the value of it, or figured (correctly, at the time) that being young, they could buy their own policy cheaper. Now that they are older, they wish they had health care back.

That's one of the problems with universal health care--you share the risk with EVERYBODY. If you are young, single, and in good health, you CAN and SHOULD buy insurance that covers YOUR health and YOUR needs. With a "one size fits all" "universal" health care, you pay for maternity benefits--even if you aren't married. You pay for pre-existing conditions. You pay for old people like me.

You pay for people that DON'T take care of themselves. You pay for people that act recklessly--how would you like to pay the premium for a skydiving, scuba-diving, motorcyle-riding bartender--all high-risk activities?

Health care insurance is so emotionally charged--but it is just INSURANCE. Insurance companies have actuaries to predict the potential losses--and set their premiums accordingly. Use the "universal" label on other forms of insurance. How would YOU like to pay the auto insurance for someone with a string of traffic violations or DWI's? How would YOU like to pay the collision damage on someone that drives a $50,000 car--even though your own car is worth only $5,000? How would YOU like to pay for insurance for a family with teenage drivers--even though you have no kids of your own? Invariably, the cost for the conscientious goes up--and it puts the lie to the benefits of "Universal" coverage.

Posted by ICU812 on Aug. 06 2009,2:01 pm

Pre-existing conditions for kids should be exempt from the insurance equation. Kids don't ask to be sick nor is there anything they can do to improve their condition.

"Hey kid quit smoking, lower your cholesterol and blood pressure".....

Coverage for them should be one flat premium as I pay for my daughter. Most are healthy some have complications, but my guess is the well ones premiums would cover the not well, easily. I am pretty sure the middleman thug industry could come up with a number that would work.

Posted by ICU812 on Aug. 06 2009,2:12 pm

QUOTE

From Kathleen Sebelius:
"President Obama and I are working closely with Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate and health care experts to make sure we get the details of health reform right. But we can't let the details distract us from the huge benefits that reform will bring."

The above scares the hell outta me, period.

Posted by Alfy Packer on Aug. 06 2009,2:28 pm

For the system to work most cost efficiently, everyone needs to be in the pool! That includes the young ones who don't think they need it. No one exempt, and that should include Christian Scientist, who may never see a doctor. As far as this being an employer benefit issue, that is not and has not been what my bitch is about. If I could have gotten the coverage I needed for my family, I would have been self employeed years ago!

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 06 2009,2:39 pm

From ICU's post

QUOTE

From Kathleen Sebelius:
"President Obama and I are working closely with Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate and health care experts to make sure we get the details of health reform right. But we can't let the details distract us from the huge benefits that reform will bring."

I've asked for examples of where Obamacare will save money. So far, none of the proponents have done so. :violin:

You would THINK that with over 1000 pages of proposals, the President, the leaders of the HOUSE and the SENATE behind it, they could come up with some EXAMPLES of where we will save money--but they can't.

NO retort on the Republican proposal, either--the one that would give YOU the money, and let YOU make the decisions without government in the way--only the "We're not going to consider that" answer.

And they wonder why people have turned away from their "Free" health care proposal? :dunce:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 06 2009,2:41 pm

ICU--

QUOTE

Pre-existing conditions for kids should be exempt from the insurance equation. Kids don't ask to be sick nor is there anything they can do to improve their condition.

It's IN the Repub bill--coverage for pre-existing conditions--coverage for those who cannot pay.

Posted by ICU812 on Aug. 06 2009,2:51 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 06 2009,2:41 pm)

QUOTE

ICU--

QUOTE

Pre-existing conditions for kids should be exempt from the insurance equation. Kids don't ask to be sick nor is there anything they can do to improve their condition.

It's IN the Repub bill--coverage for pre-existing conditions--coverage for those who cannot pay.

Guess I'm on the right side then

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 06 2009,2:56 pm

Alfy

QUOTE

For the system to work most cost efficiently, everyone needs to be in the pool!

Says WHO? The GOVERNMENT? OBAMA? :dunno:

Look at the previous post, where the most insurance for the lowest cost is found where people of SIMILAR lifestyle and interests band together to share risk. That's what insurance IS.

QUOTE

That includes the young ones who don't think they need it. No one exempt, and that should include Christian Scientist, who may never see a doctor.

So you are in favor of the GOVERNMENT FORCING PEOPLE TO BUY INSURANCE--EVEN IF THEY WILL NEVER USE IT?

Why would you WANT the government to have such power?

QUOTE

As far as this being an employer benefit issue, that is not and has not been what my bitch is about. If I could have gotten the coverage I needed for my family, I would have been self employeed years ago!

So, it IS about forcing employers to provide insurance? You were looking for an employer with health insurance according to your post--but for some reason, were not offered or did not take the job. That's not the employer's fault--and employers should not be FORCED to provide health insurance.

It's strange--you seem to think it is the employers responsibility to provide health insurance, then you advocate that EVERYBODY should be required to join a system where all premiums are the same--what happened to YOU providing the coverage? You state that

QUOTE

If I could have gotten the coverage I needed for my family, I would have been self employeed years ago!

What stopped you? As a business owner or self-employed, you can buy coverage. Or is it that the coverage you want the employer to provide is TOO MUCH for the business to actually provide? :dunno:

What happened? :dunno:

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 06 2009,4:05 pm

< My Webpage >

QUOTE

10:27 AM CDT on Thursday, August 6, 2009
FROM STAFF REPORTS

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, accusing the White House of compiling an "enemies list," has asked President Barack Obama to stop an effort to collect "fishy" information Americans see about a health care overhaul.

Cornyn, who leads the Republicans' Senate campaign effort, said Wednesday in a letter to Obama that he's concerned that citizen engagement on the issue could be "chilled." He also expressed alarm that the White House could end up collecting electronic information on its critics.

"I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward e-mails critical of his policies to the White House," Cornyn wrote.

Cornyn was responding to a post on the White House's blog Wednesday in which users are asked to help stop the spread of disinformation about legislation to overhaul health insurance. The post offers an e-mail address, flag@whitehouse.gov, for users to forward anything "on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy."

pussy's...

nuff said...

Posted by hymiebravo on Aug. 06 2009,5:32 pm

QUOTE

Have the exact same disclosure and policy statments that tell you exactly what is covered and for how much in easy to read English so that the dumbest of the dumb, like Hymie, can understand it.

Fraud.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 06 2009,5:57 pm

QUOTE

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

"Ve vant you TELL US about statements by your neighbors disloyal to ze Fatherland! Zese peoples are ENEMIES OF THE STATE, and must be vatched! Der Fuhrer iss looking out for your best interests. Do not let zees non-believers speak at OUR town meetings! Do zey not KNOW zat "Free Speech" iss only for ze PARTY members?

Ze AUDACITY of zees people! Zey must be ATTACKED! How vill you know zem? According to Party Minister of Propaganda Pelosi, zey vill be vearing SWASTIKAS! Ve haf furzer information from Minister of Propaganda Boxer zat zey vear BROOKS BROTHERS SUITS!

Where is the liberal outrage, when the White House asks for people to "report" on their neighbors?

Posted by Paul Harvey on Aug. 06 2009,7:03 pm

A negro Nazi...only from the mind of Hanson.

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 07 2009,9:14 am

(hymiebravo @ Aug. 06 2009,5:32 pm)

QUOTE

Have the exact same disclosure and policy statments that tell you exactly what is covered and for how much in easy to read English so that the dumbest of the dumb, like Hymie, can understand it.

Fraud.

Posted by ControlledHyperness on Aug. 07 2009,10:20 am

^ hehe

*starts singing "It's The End of the World As We Know It"......

In other words, I am SOOOO not getting into this debacle any more then I am currently.

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 07 2009,11:18 am

Posted: August 07, 2009
12:30 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

President Obama

The White House calls it an effort to root out "disinformation." Critics call it "Chicago thug politics" and "totalitarian tactics."

"It" is the Obama administration's call for Americans to snitch on their neighbors by e-mailing to the White House any communications they receive "about health insurance reform that seem fishy."

The desperation move by Obama, who has staked the "success" of his presidency on nationalizing another 17 percent of the nation's economy – America's gigantic health care industry – comes in the wake of poll after poll saying Americans are scared and outraged over what they're hearing about "Obamacare." (The August edition of WND's monthly Whistleblower magazine, titled "MEDICAL MURDER," is devoted entirely to exploring Obama's proposed health care takeover.)

Unfortunately, the administration's response to increasing public furor over Obamacare – whether expressed at townhall meetings with congressmen, or just by communicating with each other over the Internet – is to attempt to thwart free speech and squelch dissent. But WND is providing a way to fight fire with fire. Sign the WND petition against socialized medicine and against these Big Brother tactics of intimidation. Stand up boldly and proclaim your dissent. Make the enemies list so big, retribution and intimidation will be meaningless.

John Cornyn, R-Texas, has demanded that Obama either halt the program, widely known in the blogosphere as the "snitch" program, or define how he will protect the privacy of those who send or are the subject of e-mails to the flag@whitehouse.gov e-mail address.

"I am not aware of any precedent for a president asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White house for pure political speech that is deemed 'fishy' or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests," the Texas senator wrote in a letter to Obama.

"By requesting that citizens send 'fishy' e-mails to the White House, it is inevitable that the names, e-mail addresses, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported … You should not be surprised that these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection system."

The White House announcement cited "opponents" of health care reform who may "find the truth a little inconvenient."

"Scary chain e-mails and videos are starting to percolate on the Internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to 'uncover' the truth about the president's health insurance reform positions," the website says.

Stop socialism in its tracks – sign the petition now!

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain e-mails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov," the White House instructed.

Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said, "I am shocked and dismayed that Barack Obama's White House is now monitoring e-mail traffic nationwide if it opposes his government takeover of healthcare."

Staver's organization already has analyzed the health care plan, and confirmed it contains health care rationing, a national health ID card complete with government access to personal bank accounts, government decisions on what health care benefits are available and mandatory taxpayer support for abortion.

Radio talk show icon Rush Limbaugh also chastised the president.

"Well, I would hate to see what they're going to get now at flag@whitehouse.gov. I wonder what kind of e-mails they're going to get now. They're looking for tattletales; they're looking for snitches; they're looking for informants; they want their groupies to tattle on you if you happen to be telling the truth about what's in the health care plan. The White House has, as yet, offered no explanation of what it is they plan to do with the tips on policy opposition they hope to receive from citizen informers."

Cornyn also told the president he wanted to know "what action you intend to take against citizens who have been reported."

Further, "Do your own past statements qualify as 'disinformation'? For example, is it 'disinformation' to note that in 2003 you said, 'I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan'?" Cornyn wrote.

WND reported earlier when Staver condemned the health plan as worse than China's mandatory one-child policy.

The Liberty Counsel analysis said under Section 1308, the government will dictate marriage and family therapy as well as mental health services, including the definitions of those treatments, and under Section 1401, a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research would be set up, creating a bureaucracy through which federal employees could determine whether any treatment is "comparatively effective" for any individual based on the cost, likely success and probably the years left in life.

It also, according to Staver, "covers abortions, transsexual surgeries, encourages counseling as to how many children you should have, whether you should increase the interval between children."

The Liberty Counsel analysis also pointed out the government would be allowed to ration health care procedures, prevent "judicial review" of its decision, tell doctors what income they can have, impose new taxes for anyone not having an "acceptable" coverage, regulate whether seniors can have wheelchairs, penalize hospitals or doctors whose patients require "readmission," prevent the expansion of hospitals and set up procedures for home visits by health care analysts.

Under Section 440, Liberty Counsel said, the government "will design and implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids and families that expect children." And Section 194 provides for a program that has the government "coming into your house and teaching/telling you how to parent," LC said.

Petition Obama and Congress

"The government is spending taxpayers' hard-earned money employing a snitch czar," said WND Editor Joseph Farah. "Let's save some of that tax money by saving them the trouble and letting our supposed public servants know, in no uncertain terms, that Americans by the millions do not want socialized medicine. Every other nation that has adopted this system has paid a terrible price. We don't want to follow in their footsteps and end up rationing and denying care to the very people who need it most – the elderly and the very ill. Yet that is always what happens with socialized medicine."

Thus, WND hereby introduces a new petition: Let the White House and Congress know exactly what you think of socialized medicine in the U.S.A.!

Here's the petition wording:

PETITION DEMANDING THAT THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS STOP TRYING TO FORCE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE ON AMERICA

To: The President of the United States, The Congress of the United States

Whereas, wherever government-run health care, or socialized medicine, has been adopted it has led to severe rationing – which means outright denial – of life-saving medical treatment, particularly to the elderly and very ill (for example, British seniors, under their government-run system, are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses);

Whereas, Obama's "special adviser for health policy," Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel, is a longtime advocate of "age-weighted medical rationing" – meaning, the older you are, the less care you get, just like the British system;

Whereas, Barack Obama, Barney Frank and other top federal officials have explicitly and publicly stated their ultimate goal is a "single-payer" health care system – that is, completely socialized, with no private insurance – despite their claims now to the contrary;

Whereas, despite repeated assurances by Obama that "if you're happy with your current insurance or doctor, you can keep it under my plan," his plan would inevitably and intentionally drive private insurance out of business, leaving only the government to oversee Americans' health care and approve their treatment;

Whereas, as columnist Charlotte Allen explained in the Los Angeles Times, "In looking for a way to fund healthcare, Obama has set his eye on the oldest and sickest. … About 30 percent of Medicare spending – nearly $100 billion annually – goes to care for patients during their last year of life. What if there were no 'last year of life,' the president seems to be asking. ... [W]hy not save billions of dollars by killing off our own unproductive oldsters and terminal patients, or – since we aren't likely to do that outright in this, the 21st century – why not simply ensure that they die faster by denying them costly medical care? The savings could then subsidize care for the younger and healthier";

Whereas, Obama himself admitted during a June town hall event televised by ABC News that one way to cut medical costs would be to stop expensive procedures on people about to die, saying: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller";

Whereas, the government's own nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says Obamacare will increase the government's already obscene level of deficit spending by hundreds of billions of dollars;

Whereas, a federal government takeover of the entire health care delivery system is in flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution:

< SIGN THE PETITION >

We, the undersigned, assert our rights as citizens of the United States in demanding that the Obama administration and Congress stop referring to normal, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens who oppose government's attempted takeover of medical care as a "mob"; that it cease and desist using Chicago thug political tactics in an attempt to intimidate citizens from exercising their First Amendment free speech right; and most of all, that it abandon its plan to utterly destroy America's health care system, which is the envy of the world, and to replace it with a system that has failed miserably in every country in which it has been adopted.

If you agree with the above and are outraged at Obama's Big Brother-style intimidation approach to achieving his long-time goal of socialized medicine, don't wait for some snitch to turn you in. Be bold. Be courageous. Be an American. Sign this petition and let Obama know you oppose his diabolical plan to become doctor-in-chief.

As soon as the petition gains its first 25,000 names, WND will forward the petition to the White House and Congress, and each time another 25,000 sign, they'll be forwarded too.

This is not a time to cower in fear, but to let your government know in overwhelming numbers that you oppose what will, unquestionably, be the destruction of the best health care system in the entire world.

Posted by Paul Harvey on Aug. 07 2009,12:28 pm

No sale is posting PORN. Have fun posting your PORN. PORN FACE!

Pedo's around here...sheesh...

Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 07 2009,12:38 pm

(Paul Harvey @ Aug. 07 2009,12:28 pm)

QUOTE

No sale is posting PORN. Have fun posting your PORN. PORN FACE!

Pedo's around here...sheesh...

Okay, Bongwater Bill, and the relevance of that to this thread is what, exactly? :crazy:

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 07 2009,12:45 pm

Bongwater... :rofl:

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 07 2009,1:10 pm

Stable and Secure Health Care for Minnesota
How Health Insurance Reform will Benefit Minnesota
LOWER COSTS FOR RESIDENTS OF MINNESOTA

Ending the Hidden Tax – Saving You Money: Right now, providers in Minnesota lose over $1.2 billion in bad debt which often gets passed along to families in the form of a hidden premium “tax”.1 Health insurance reform will tackle this financial burden by improving our health care system and covering the uninsured, allowing the 131 hospitals2 and the 17,702 physicians3 in Minnesota to better care for their patients.
Health Insurance Premium Relief: Premiums for residents of Minnesota have risen 90% since 2000.4 Through health insurance reform, 378,400 to 436,400 middle class Minnesota residents will be eligible for premium credits to ease the burden of these high costs.5
Strengthening Small Businesses: 92,454 employers in Minnesota are small businesses.6 With tax credits and a health insurance exchange where they can shop for health plans, insurance coverage will become more affordable for them.
Reforms that Reduce Your Costs: Under health insurance reform, insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive. Insurance companies will also have to abide by yearly limits on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses, helping 32,300 households in Minnesota struggling under the burden of high health care expenses.7
INCREASE YOUR CHOICES: PROTECTING WHAT WORKS AND FIXING WHAT'S BROKEN

Insurance Stability and Security: Health insurance reform will strengthen our system of employer-based health insurance, with an additional 60,000 people in Minnesota potentially getting insurance through their work.8 Health insurance reform will also ensure that you will always have guaranteed choices of quality, affordable health insurance if you lose your job, switch jobs, move or get sick.
Eliminating Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions, Health Status or Gender: 6% of people in Minnesota have diabetes9, and 21% have high blood pressure10 – two conditions that insurance companies could use as a reason to deny you health insurance. Health insurance reform will prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on your health, and it will end discrimination that charges you more if you’re sick or a woman.
One-Stop Shopping – Putting Families in Charge: With the new health insurance exchange, you can easily and simply compare insurance prices and health plans and decide which quality affordable option is right for you and your family. These proposals will help the 453,500 residents of Minnesota who currently do not have health insurance to obtain needed coverage, and it will also help the 325,100 Minnesota residents who currently purchase insurance in the individual insurance market.11
Guaranteeing Choices: The largest health insurer in Minnesota holds 61% of the market, which limits the choices that you have for finding coverage.12 With a competitive public insurance option, you will have more choices and increased competition that holds insurance companies accountable.
ASSURE QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR AMERICANS

Preventive Care for Better Health: 29% of Minnesota residents have not had a colorectal cancer screening, and 20% of women have not had a mammogram in the past 2 years.13 By requiring health plans to cover preventive services for everyone, investing in prevention and wellness, and promoting primary care, health insurance reform will work to create a system that prevents illness and disease instead of just treating it when it’s too late and costs more.
Improving Care for Children and Seniors: 21% of children in Minnesota have not visited a dentist in the past year,14and 21% of seniors did not receive a flu vaccine15. Health reform will ensure coverage for kids’ dental, vision, and hearing needs, and will promote quality coverage for America’s seniors, including recommended immunizations.

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 07 2009,1:40 pm

Source?

I want to know how they came up with all the figures...or are they just wishing and hoping that's what will happen? :dunno:

I want to see proof that it will lower health care costs for me.

nuff said...

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 07 2009,1:48 pm

(Paul Harvey @ Aug. 06 2009,7:03 pm)

QUOTE

A negro Nazi...only from the mind of Hanson.

Shall we put you down as being IN FAVOR OF "NARCING" ON YOUR NEIGHBOR, THEN? :rofl:

Oh, the IRONY! :rofl:

Oh, the HYPOCRISY! :rofl:

"Oh, the HUMANITY!" :sarcasm:

PH--("Pot Head") :rofl:

is in favor of neighbors informing on their neighbors.

"Negro Nazi"? Have you forgotten that Obambi is HALF WHITE? :oops:

Your comment appears to be racist--you wouldn't be looking for a final solution would you? :dunce:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 07 2009,2:15 pm

Life imitates art. Talk about timing....see what showed up on YouTube today. Warning--Censored F-bomb subtitles, but FUNNY!null[URL=

]My Webpage[/URL]

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 07 2009,2:27 pm

QUOTE

ABC: Town Hall Wrath at ObamaCare 'Appears to Be Orchestrated'

ABC framed its Tuesday night story, on citizens using town hall forums held by Members of Congress to express opposition to ObamaCare, around undermining their credibility by asserting the reaction “appears to be orchestrated” and “organized” and thus is forcing the victimized “White House to push back” by “fighting Internet fire with fire.”

After anchor Charles Gibson insisted “some of that criticism appears to be orchestrated, causing the White House to push back,” reporter Jake Tapper showed some instances of “people protesting health care reform with visceral anger” and relayed how “Texas Democrat Lloyd Doggett, who was shouted down before he could even speak, says there's nothing authentic about these protests.” Doggett charged: “This notion of a grassroots campaign is totally and completely phony. The Republican Party has coordinated this apparent outrage and stirred it up.” Tapper corroborated: “Clearly, some of it is organized.” He cited how “Bob MacGuffie, a grass roots conservative activist wrote a widely circulated memo advising others at town hall meetings to put the Congressman quote, 'on the defensive with your questions and follow up.'”

< News Buster >

Right...All these people got together at the school auditorium and practiced their chants and had a contest to see you would be the one who could shout the loudest to represent them at these town hall meetings. :dunce:

Half of the ABC news staff is in the White House Press corps' back pocket or ex work buddies. Gibson, Tapper and Douglass line up for their weekly at the White House.

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 07 2009,3:10 pm

I've never seen such a bunch of whiners. The citizens are taking them to task and they run for cover crying foul. boo fricken hoo

Posted by ControlledHyperness on Aug. 07 2009,3:13 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 07 2009,2:15 pm)

QUOTE

Life imitates art. Talk about timing....see what showed up on YouTube today. Warning--Censored F-bomb subtitles, but FUNNY!null[URL=

]My Webpage[/URL]

Oh my word.....that is absolutely hillarious!!!

:rofl:

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 07 2009,3:36 pm

AARP Organizers Cancel ‘Listening Session’ After Participants Refuse to ‘Keep Their Comments Quiet’

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 07 2009,3:43 pm

Congressman Shouted Down on TORT Reform: ‘Congress Can Only Handle So Much’

Holy cow...it's a powder keg out there...

Posted by Paul Harvey on Aug. 07 2009,3:45 pm

I wish these cons and rednecks would've worked just as hard against W Bush when he was running rampant in the White house running roughshod over the constitution. It's disingenuous when they do it now.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 07 2009,4:05 pm

(Paul Harvey @ Aug. 07 2009,3:45 pm)

QUOTE

What Bush policies were unconstitutional? :dunno:

The IRONY--the party that said that "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"--the party of Yippies, Hippies, and every other permanently dissaffected and outraged constituency--the party that loves to protest--the party that engages in outraged oratory, that thought it was cool to shout down speakers--NOW IS CONDEMNING PROTEST?

Oh, the HYPOCRISY! :rofl:

To borrow your own words

QUOTE

It's disingenuous when they do it now.

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 07 2009,5:07 pm

(Common Citizen @ Aug. 07 2009,3:10 pm)

QUOTE

I've never seen such a bunch of whiners. The citizens are taking them to task and they run for cover crying foul. boo fricken hoo

Yeah, and if you have too low of an IQ or had a lobotomy, there's all these "grassroots" organizations that can tell you what to think, where to go, and what to say. :rofl:

It's the information age, they don't need to meet in an auditorium and practice these days.

I'm all for protest, but when people have to be spoon fed their opinions by a special interest group, it's hard to have much respect for what they say.

Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 07 2009,5:58 pm

(irisheyes @ Aug. 07 2009,5:07 pm)

QUOTE

[/quote]
[quote=Common Citizen,Aug. 07 2009,3:10 pm]I've never seen such a bunch of whiners. The citizens are taking them to task and they run for cover crying foul. boo fricken hoo

Yeah, and if you have too low of an IQ or had a lobotomy, there's all these "grassroots" organizations that can tell you what to think, where to go, and what to say. :rofl:

Sorry if everyone is not as wise and gifted as you."Grassroots comes from both sides of the aisle.

It's the information age, they don't need to meet in an auditorium and practice these days.

I do't know if you do but I don't sit at a computer all day.I like to look people in the eyes when I talk to them.

I'm all for protest, but when people have to be spoon fed their opinions by a special interest group, it's hard to have much respect for what they say.

Like ACORN???

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 07 2009,8:02 pm

(Self-Banished @ Aug. 07 2009,5:58 pm)

QUOTE

Sorry if everyone is not as wise and gifted as you."Grassroots comes from both sides of the aisle.

I never said it wasn't. I don't care whether it's the AARP, NRA, ACLU, or the Minnesota "Majority". I'm almost always on the side of groups like the NRA or the ACLU, but I think people should be an independent thinker, and not a "ditto head" regardless of what side you fall on.

Your post comes off kinda confusing if you don't quote stuff. People won't know which statements are yours and which are mine.

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 07 2009,8:10 pm

(irisheyes @ Aug. 07 2009,5:07 pm)

QUOTE

Yeah, and if you have too low of an IQ or had a lobotomy, there's all these "grassroots" organizations that can tell you what to think, where to go, and what to say. :rofl:

I agree that these grassroot movements can and do affect many who may have formed an opinion and when massed in groups tend to be bold and vociferous.

On the other hand, these grassroot groups can and are often selective on who they allow into these meetings. I've heard of some of the town hall meetings being held where they screen the people and refuse entry because they may voice opinions non-conducive to what they want to portray.

Grassroot organizations like Moveon and Organizing for America will be spreading their propoganda this month while congress vacations. These groups are not being organized by individuals forming groups. They are being formed by Obama. They will be nothing more than a "propaganda machine."

Hmm, where have I heard that phrase before? No one in these organizations are doing anything "orchestrated."

Like when CBS reported last month,

QUOTE

During a July 1 health care town hall meeting, the President singled out Smith, giving her a hug as she tearfully told her story of lacking health insurance for cancer treatments. That night, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric reported: "Debby Smith is a volunteer for Mr. Obama's political operation Organizing for America. The White House invited her to attend. The President called her exhibit A in a system that's too expensive and too complicated."

Nothing phony or coordinated there. :rofl:

The information age brings something to us that many here did not have when we were growing up. Information

There was no FOX,CNN, Business News or USA TODAY and not much for commentators. PH, being one. Most grew through youth or middle age with the 3/6/10 stations, the local paper and maybe one from the cities.

Now at least we have the opportunity to see both sides.

So, whose to respect?

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 07 2009,8:13 pm

(Common Citizen @ Aug. 07 2009,1:40 pm)

QUOTE

Source?

I want to know how they came up with all the figures...or are they just wishing and hoping that's what will happen? :dunno:

I want to see proof that it will lower health care costs for me.

nuff said...

< http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/statehealthreform/minnesota.html >

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 07 2009,8:49 pm

QUOTE

In an effort to harness the grassroots support he has continued to cultivate while in office, President Obama today called on his backers to "step up once again" and help encourage support of his comprehensive health care reform.

The president sent an email to members of Organizing for America asking them to speak out in favor of reform while members of Congress are at home, away from the influence of lobbyists.

During the August recess, Organizing for America will be sponsoring multiple events focused on clearing up what the group considers the myths of the health reform debate. In the email, Mr. Obama asks each supporter to pledge to attend at least one of these events to "reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you're counting on them to act."

"There are those who profit from the status quo, or see this debate as a political game, and they will stop at nothing to block reform," the president writes. "We've got to get out there, fight lies with truth, and set the record straight."

Although he admits that passing such reform will not be easy, Mr. Obama says that the "cost of inaction is simply too much for the people of this nation to bear."

"Our opponents will attack us every day for daring to try. It will require time, and hard work, and there will be days when we don't know if we have anything more to give. But there comes a moment when we all have to choose between doing what's easy, and doing what's right. This is one of those times," he writes.
< CBS news >

Sounds like one nice little pep rally.

You call that a little coaching?

Sounds closer to a fire and brimstone preacher.

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 07 2009,10:01 pm

I left for a couple of days, and it's back to name calling and obstructionist tactics. For a fleeting moment there were some great ideas floating around and there was a discussion - I was really looking forward to the sharing of ideas on how we can fix something.

I had to tune in to Rush this morning for a bit to find out where it all comes from. I heard a lot of emotion and name calling but it was completely devoid of content outside of how to obstruct the process.

Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer - that's it! He doesn't care whether he changes law or not, he collects a paycheck from a radio group regardless of what happens to the rest of the country. He doesn't give a damn about you or me. Alex Rodriguez doesn't care about us either - he just plays baseball and collects a check.

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 07 2009,10:21 pm

QUOTE

Eliminating Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions, Health Status or Gender: 6% of people in Minnesota have diabetes9, and 21% have high blood pressure10 – two conditions that insurance companies could use as a reason to deny you health insurance. Health insurance reform will prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on your health, and it will end discrimination that charges you more if you’re sick or a woman.

Whenever something is worse or cost more for women or minorities they call it discrimination, but if it was more costly for men (like auto insurance) or Caucasians, they'd call it "tough luck."

Years ago, and even now some hairstylists are banned or sued from charging women a higher rate for a haircut, even though the service they're providing them is most often much more complex and time-consuming.

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 07 2009,10:36 pm

I have a buddy that is extremely right wing now. He hates the idea of reform and any sort of government help with insurance. I would guess he makes about $30-$40k a year and considers himself upper-middle class. We can't even talk much anymore, he knows my views and he yells at me about how stupid I am.

Two years ago his daughter underwent 3 surgeries on her heart. She is covered by the state. She doesn't qualify for any insurance in the private sector. I don't understand why he supports cutting her off from anything other than life stabilizing medical treatments. She's 17 now, she'll be 18 in 7 months.

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 07 2009,10:38 pm

Oversized Profits, Executive Pay

Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly traded
health insurance companies in 2007
rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, from
$2.4 billion to $12.9 billion, according to U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
In 2007 alone the chief executive officers at
these companies collected combined total
compensation of $118.6 million—an average of
$11.9 million each. That is 468 times more than
the $25,434 an average American worker made
that year...

< http://hcfan.3cdn.net/1b741c44183247e6ac_20m6i6nzc.pdf >

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 07 2009,10:41 pm

Posted by Paul Harvey on Aug. 07 2009,10:41 pm

The health care issue is a huge issue, a complicated one and beyond the scope of this forum and it's class of con clowns to be sure. :;):

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 07 2009,10:49 pm

QUOTE

Two years ago his daughter underwent 3 surgeries on her heart. She is covered by the state. She doesn't qualify for any insurance in the private sector. I don't understand why he supports cutting her off from anything other than life stabilizing medical treatments. She's 17 now, she'll be 18 in 7 months.

So why should I or any other taxpayer be responsible for this operation? :dunno:

I just don't get you people who advocate this socialist govt run health care BS, how does the needs of someone else over rule the needs of me, and my families health? :dunno:

I am still waiting for someone to show me exactly where, someone has the Enumerated Constitutional RIGHT to health care. :dunno:

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 07 2009,10:50 pm

(Paul Harvey @ Aug. 07 2009,10:41 pm)

QUOTE

The health care issue is a huge issue, a complicated one and beyond the scope of this forum and it's class of con clowns to be sure. :;):

It is very friggin heavy...
Our country pays high salaries to people to figure this crap out.
Will we get our moneys worth??

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 07 2009,11:31 pm

(nphilbro @ Aug. 07 2009,10:41 pm)

QUOTE

If he was such a right-winger, he would've said no thanks to any government help, and spent the rest of his life broke trying to repay for his daughter's surgeries. I'm guessing he doesn't even see the hypocrisy of any of this.

Grinning Dragon-

QUOTE

I just don't get you people who advocate this socialist govt run health care BS, how does the needs of someone else over rule the needs of me, and my families health?

The guy he mentioned is TOTALLY against government paid health care just like you, but doesn't mind benefiting from it when someone in HIS family needs it.

Truth is, I doubt you or anybody else would be any different if something bad should happen to you or someone in the family and you can't cut it financially.

Posted by Paul Harvey on Aug. 08 2009,12:08 am

Need some health insurance? Go buy some.

Can't afford it, don't get it and we'll pick up the tab if you get really sick anyway. Sure, if you have excess assets like boats and gold, ya you may have to pay us back but it's the least you can do. Don't you think?

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 08 2009,12:21 am

Comprehending the idea of "Statistical Risk" is out of the mental reach of many people. Common Citizen get's it - after all, that's the field he's in.

I really like many of his ideas and would support a bill if all of them were presented. I disagree with the TORT reform idea because it is such a small part of it, but would still go along with his proposal.

He's a conservative but recognizes the healthcare payment/access situation is like a car that isn't good enough to take on a trip anymore.

Posted by Paul Harvey on Aug. 08 2009,12:32 am

^OMG, the liar speaks! :clap:

Wonderful, wonderful :finger:

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 08 2009,1:05 am

Please be a little more self absorbed, you pity pansy. "And it puts the lotion on..." You don't even have a name, you don't share what you do - I sent you that email, you're even more incontinent in private messages.

Maybe the forum should just call you DIAPER, you make messes everywhere and don't care. It's all about you, Diapers. Learn to love it. You earned it.

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 08 2009,1:17 am

Diaper - who pays your insurance? What's your opinion on it? Do you feel you covered? Does your employer :rofl:

kick in some?

Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 08 2009,4:23 am

(irisheyes @ Aug. 07 2009,8:02 pm)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Aug. 07 2009,5:58 pm)

QUOTE

Sorry if everyone is not as wise and gifted as you."Grassroots comes from both sides of the aisle.

Sorry Irish, I was tring to pick your points one at a time, didn't work. Your post came off to me as a little arrogant and it pissed me off. You're right though, both sides need to think a little more rather than being sheep.

Posted by hymiebravo on Aug. 08 2009,12:55 pm

(Common Citizen @ Aug. 07 2009,11:18 am)

QUOTE

Posted: August 07, 2009
12:30 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

President Obama

The White House calls it an effort to root out "disinformation." Critics call it "Chicago thug politics" and "totalitarian tactics."

"It" is the Obama administration's call for Americans to snitch on their neighbors by e-mailing to the White House any communications they receive "about health insurance reform that seem fishy."

The desperation move by Obama, who has staked the "success" of his presidency on nationalizing another 17 percent of the nation's economy – America's gigantic health care industry – comes in the wake of poll after poll saying Americans are scared and outraged over what they're hearing about "Obamacare." (The August edition of WND's monthly Whistleblower magazine, titled "MEDICAL MURDER," is devoted entirely to exploring Obama's proposed health care takeover.)

Unfortunately, the administration's response to increasing public furor over Obamacare – whether expressed at townhall meetings with congressmen, or just by communicating with each other over the Internet – is to attempt to thwart free speech and squelch dissent. But WND is providing a way to fight fire with fire. Sign the WND petition against socialized medicine and against these Big Brother tactics of intimidation. Stand up boldly and proclaim your dissent. Make the enemies list so big, retribution and intimidation will be meaningless.

John Cornyn, R-Texas, has demanded that Obama either halt the program, widely known in the blogosphere as the "snitch" program, or define how he will protect the privacy of those who send or are the subject of e-mails to the e-mail address.

"I am not aware of any precedent for a president asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White house for pure political speech that is deemed 'fishy' or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests," the Texas senator wrote in a letter to Obama.

"By requesting that citizens send 'fishy' e-mails to the White House, it is inevitable that the names, e-mail addresses, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported … You should not be surprised that these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection system."

The White House announcement cited "opponents" of health care reform who may "find the truth a little inconvenient."

"Scary chain e-mails and videos are starting to percolate on the Internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to 'uncover' the truth about the president's health insurance reform positions," the website says.

Stop socialism in its tracks – sign the petition now!

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain e-mails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov," the White House instructed.

Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said, "I am shocked and dismayed that Barack Obama's White House is now monitoring e-mail traffic nationwide if it opposes his government takeover of healthcare."

Staver's organization already has analyzed the health care plan, and confirmed it contains health care rationing, a national health ID card complete with government access to personal bank accounts, government decisions on what health care benefits are available and mandatory taxpayer support for abortion.

Radio talk show icon Rush Limbaugh also chastised the president.

"Well, I would hate to see what they're going to get now at flag@whitehouse.gov. I wonder what kind of e-mails they're going to get now. They're looking for tattletales; they're looking for snitches; they're looking for informants; they want their groupies to tattle on you if you happen to be telling the truth about what's in the health care plan. The White House has, as yet, offered no explanation of what it is they plan to do with the tips on policy opposition they hope to receive from citizen informers."

Cornyn also told the president he wanted to know "what action you intend to take against citizens who have been reported."

Further, "Do your own past statements qualify as 'disinformation'? For example, is it 'disinformation' to note that in 2003 you said, 'I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan'?" Cornyn wrote.

WND reported earlier when Staver condemned the health plan as worse than China's mandatory one-child policy.

The Liberty Counsel analysis said under Section 1308, the government will dictate marriage and family therapy as well as mental health services, including the definitions of those treatments, and under Section 1401, a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research would be set up, creating a bureaucracy through which federal employees could determine whether any treatment is "comparatively effective" for any individual based on the cost, likely success and probably the years left in life.

It also, according to Staver, "covers abortions, transsexual surgeries, encourages counseling as to how many children you should have, whether you should increase the interval between children."

The Liberty Counsel analysis also pointed out the government would be allowed to ration health care procedures, prevent "judicial review" of its decision, tell doctors what income they can have, impose new taxes for anyone not having an "acceptable" coverage, regulate whether seniors can have wheelchairs, penalize hospitals or doctors whose patients require "readmission," prevent the expansion of hospitals and set up procedures for home visits by health care analysts.

Under Section 440, Liberty Counsel said, the government "will design and implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids and families that expect children." And Section 194 provides for a program that has the government "coming into your house and teaching/telling you how to parent," LC said.

Petition Obama and Congress

"The government is spending taxpayers' hard-earned money employing a snitch czar," said WND Editor Joseph Farah. "Let's save some of that tax money by saving them the trouble and letting our supposed public servants know, in no uncertain terms, that Americans by the millions do not want socialized medicine. Every other nation that has adopted this system has paid a terrible price. We don't want to follow in their footsteps and end up rationing and denying care to the very people who need it most – the elderly and the very ill. Yet that is always what happens with socialized medicine."

Thus, WND hereby introduces a new petition: Let the White House and Congress know exactly what you think of socialized medicine in the U.S.A.!

Here's the petition wording:

PETITION DEMANDING THAT THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS STOP TRYING TO FORCE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE ON AMERICA

To: The President of the United States, The Congress of the United States

Whereas, wherever government-run health care, or socialized medicine, has been adopted it has led to severe rationing – which means outright denial – of life-saving medical treatment, particularly to the elderly and very ill (for example, British seniors, under their government-run system, are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses);

Whereas, Obama's "special adviser for health policy," Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel, is a longtime advocate of "age-weighted medical rationing" – meaning, the older you are, the less care you get, just like the British system;

Whereas, Barack Obama, Barney Frank and other top federal officials have explicitly and publicly stated their ultimate goal is a "single-payer" health care system – that is, completely socialized, with no private insurance – despite their claims now to the contrary;

Whereas, despite repeated assurances by Obama that "if you're happy with your current insurance or doctor, you can keep it under my plan," his plan would inevitably and intentionally drive private insurance out of business, leaving only the government to oversee Americans' health care and approve their treatment;

Whereas, as columnist Charlotte Allen explained in the Los Angeles Times, "In looking for a way to fund healthcare, Obama has set his eye on the oldest and sickest. … About 30 percent of Medicare spending – nearly $100 billion annually – goes to care for patients during their last year of life. What if there were no 'last year of life,' the president seems to be asking. ... [W]hy not save billions of dollars by killing off our own unproductive oldsters and terminal patients, or – since we aren't likely to do that outright in this, the 21st century – why not simply ensure that they die faster by denying them costly medical care? The savings could then subsidize care for the younger and healthier";

Whereas, Obama himself admitted during a June town hall event televised by ABC News that one way to cut medical costs would be to stop expensive procedures on people about to die, saying: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller";

Whereas, the government's own nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says Obamacare will increase the government's already obscene level of deficit spending by hundreds of billions of dollars;

Whereas, a federal government takeover of the entire health care delivery system is in flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution:

< SIGN THE PETITION >

We, the undersigned, assert our rights as citizens of the United States in demanding that the Obama administration and Congress stop referring to normal, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens who oppose government's attempted takeover of medical care as a "mob"; that it cease and desist using Chicago thug political tactics in an attempt to intimidate citizens from exercising their First Amendment free speech right; and most of all, that it abandon its plan to utterly destroy America's health care system, which is the envy of the world, and to replace it with a system that has failed miserably in every country in which it has been adopted.

If you agree with the above and are outraged at Obama's Big Brother-style intimidation approach to achieving his long-time goal of socialized medicine, don't wait for some snitch to turn you in. Be bold. Be courageous. Be an American. Sign this petition and let Obama know you oppose his diabolical plan to become doctor-in-chief.

As soon as the petition gains its first 25,000 names, WND will forward the petition to the White House and Congress, and each time another 25,000 sign, they'll be forwarded too.

This is not a time to cower in fear, but to let your government know in overwhelming numbers that you oppose what will, unquestionably, be the destruction of the best health care system in the entire world.

Nice copy paste there Commie.

Your offerings at the Albert Lea Discussion Forum are definately proof positive/prima-facie evidence that a monkey can be trained to do just about anything a human can do.

Keep up the good work. :thumbsup:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 08 2009,1:21 pm

QUOTE

I'm all for protest, but when people have to be spoon fed their opinions by a special interest group, it's hard to have much respect for what they say.

Let's go right to the top--that wouldn't be the Democrat TAlking Points coming right from the White House that Hannity reads, would it? :sarcasm:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 08 2009,1:25 pm

Hymen

QUOTE

CC posts the article, then comments on it. It's hard for people to follow your comments IF THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE COMMENTING ON.

Constrast that to your "feelings"--usually unsuported by fact.

You are entitled to your own FEELINGS--but NOT to your own FACTS.

Here's your Hymen! :dunce:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 08 2009,1:31 pm

Maddog

QUOTE

On the other hand, these grassroot groups can and are often selective on who they allow into these meetings. I've heard of some of the town hall meetings being held where they screen the people and refuse entry because they may voice opinions non-conducive to what they want to portray.

Grassroot organizations like Moveon and Organizing for America will be spreading their propoganda this month while congress vacations. These groups are not being organized by individuals forming groups. They are being formed by Obama. They will be nothing more than a "propaganda machine."

The latest Donk tactic is to conduct "Phone-in" conference call "Town Meetings"--the politico can control who speaks, keeps down outraged comments, and take the microphone away.

Really a way for constituents to voice their opinions, NO? :sarcasm:

Talk about "phoning it in!"

"Town Hall Meetings" and "listening sessions" that are just the opposite of what they say they are--more Donk Owellianism.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 08 2009,1:34 pm

QUOTE

I am still waiting for someone to show me exactly where, someone has the Enumerated Constitutional RIGHT to health care.

And I'm waiting for an answer from the libbies here on HOW Obamacare saves money? HOW does my paying for YOUR health care, and YOU paying for MINE make things any cheaper? :dunno:

THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING! :dunce:

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 08 2009,4:00 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 08 2009,1:34 pm)

QUOTE

And I'm waiting for an answer from the libbies here on HOW Obamacare saves money? :

COMPETITION!!
LESS MONOPOLY!!
INSURANCE!! PROVIDERS!!

Your shallow republican mumbling brain might be able to put it together. :dunce:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 08 2009,4:40 pm

HYMEN! SPOOK! GOOD NEWS--THERE IS FINALLY SOMEONE DUMBER ON THE FORUM! :rofl:

QUOTE

COMPETITION

--having the government dictate prices and eligibility, besides providing TAXPAYER PROVIDED health care REDUCES competition. :dunce:

QUOTE

LESS MONOPOLY.

Does the meaning of "Single Payer" somehow manage to elude you? :sarcasm:

QUOTE

INSURANCE! PROVIDERS!

I beat up on some dummy that posted the same redundant quote over on the old Tribune forum 5 years ago. You aren't the same dummy, are you? :rofl:

What does

QUOTE

INSURANCE!

mean?

What does

QUOTE

PROVIDERS!

mean all by itself?

Here's your HYmen :dunce:

but if you make a few MORE stupid posts, we may RENAME it in your honor! :rofl:

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 08 2009,4:42 pm

After reading this blog, things seem so much clearer now. I don't understand it yet, but now I know there is a purpose to all this if only I have faith in Obama. If only I actually listened.

QUOTE

We have a lot of problems in this country. Much of that is because the previous president was a violent moron who could barely even function in polite society; he probably tried to bomb the economy when he felt it threaten him. He also liked it when children went without necessary medical attention because that made him laugh.

Luckily, before President Bush could kill us all, President Obama came to save us. All the smart people instantly recognized him as a genius and a savior, but Obama also had the wisdom to use simple phrases like “Yes we can!” that stupid people like you could also understand. Assuaged by those words, you dimwits loosened your grips on your guns and religion, and Obama became president. It seemed soon all our problems would be solved with no interference, but it was not to be so.

Polls show majorities of people now doubting Obama’s policies on health care and the economy, but if you polled only really smart people, one hundred percent of them would say that everyone who doubts Obama is an ugly, stupid moron who should choke on his own vomit and die. Obama came to save you, and you ungrateful simpletons now wish to stop him? Obama is a man so obviously smart that all smart people know he’s smart, yet dummies like you now think you know better? It’s like everyone has suddenly become racist again and decided to hate Obama.

Let me tell you something: You people elected Obama on few specifics. His nifty catch phrases and elegant teleprompter reading were all you needed. And you didn’t care that he had no real previous experience because you knew he wasn’t some fool who would fritter away his accomplishments before becoming president and was instead smart enough to save his accomplishing things until after becoming president. So what happened? Where did your blind faith go?

I guess once again it’s time to explain things simply to you easily panicked idiots: Obama will still solve all of your problems just as he promised. He will get you jobs and free health care and stop other countries from being mean and hating us. All he asks of you is that you not question him. That’s all. Nothing more. Except maybe some of your money, but it’s just money you hillbillies would have spent on stupid things you don’t need like NASCAR races and chewing tobacco.

As PH would say; and now < the rest of the story. >

If they would only have told us we aren't smart enough to understand this. :frusty:

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 08 2009,4:50 pm

My wife's sister and her husband are here from the UK and I had a talk with him this morning about health care and he said there's problems with the UK system but it still beats our system.

A couple things he mentioned is that his employer contributes 9% and he contributes 10% of his income for healthcare so it isn't cheap.

He also said that if you go to the doctor 250lbs overweight and you need a new hip, they will tell you to go home and lose 250lbs and get back to them.

If you don't need emergency service plan on waiting for a long time.

If you can pay for private health care you can get right in, but you're going to get treated by the same doctor.

He also said that there are several European countries that have a better system and that he thought the Germans had the best system.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 08 2009,5:05 pm

(Liberal @ Aug. 08 2009,4:50 pm)

QUOTE

Sure makes ME want to sign right up for socialized medicine. :sarcasm:

9% and 10% of payroll--that's 19%!

Of course, the cost of all goods and services provided by corporations in the country would ALSO go up by an additional 9%--which every consumer pays, ON TOP OF THE ASSESSMENT.

With a 9% assessment on the employer, wouldn't you THINK that the employer would do EVERYTHING in his power to avoid adding increased wages or additional employees to his payroll?

Would you think that the employer might consider moving jobs to Ireland--which has a much more competitive economy after renouncing Socialism?

Waiting for a long time if you need non-emergency service? SIGN ME UP FOR THAT! :sarcasm:

WHO makes the decision as to how fast you get treated? A government agency like the license bureau?

Hardly a ringing endorsement. Don't sign up as an advertising agent.

p.s. Have they had to resort to pulling their own teeth yet, like some British health-care customers?

Posted by hymiebravo on Aug. 08 2009,5:20 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 08 2009,1:25 pm)

QUOTE

Hymen

QUOTE

The vast majority of it looks to be other peoples takes. Which is basically what we get from both of you anyway.

People could just as well go to the rightwing websites that you guys get your words from, and get the original version. IMO

It's pretty transparent most of the time.

Not to mention the fraud's admitted, and some he would never admit too because it implicates him as a fraud even more, penchant for changing and manipulating posts days and weeks later.

:finger:

To both of you for even trying to claim any sort of high ground or indignation or intellectual superiority.

Posted by hymiebravo on Aug. 08 2009,5:23 pm

The fraud calling me names; if that doesn't take the cake, nothing does.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 08 2009,5:41 pm

Alcitizens attempted to defend the efficiency of Obamateur's healthplan.

Here's a Freudian slip from the boy himself! :rofl:

null[URL=

]My Webpage[/URL]

The moron didn't even realize it! :rofl:

He will likely blame it on the telePrompter! :rofl:

"The Great Communicator!" :rofl:

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 08 2009,5:41 pm

I know jimhanson is eligible for mental healthcare. Good Luck
Watch healthcare reform pass Mr. Mumbler....

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 08 2009,5:47 pm

Hymen

QUOTE

The vast majority of it looks to be other peoples takes. Which is basically what we get from both of you anyway.

UNLIKE you, we back up the facts when we mock you. I don't see YOU doing that often. :rofl:

QUOTE

People could just as well go to the rightwing websites that you guys get your words from, and get the original version. IMO

If you DID that, you might be INFORMED--and if you were INFORMED, you wouldn't be a LIBBIE! :rofl:

QUOTE

To both of you for even trying to claim any sort of high ground or indignation or intellectual superiority.

Sorry, you libbies ALREADY STAKED OUT THE SWAMPLAND! :rofl:

It sounds like we're starting to get under the skin of the HYMEN.

Question for all--What is it called when you break the skin of the Hymen? :rofl:

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 08 2009,5:51 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 08 2009,5:47 pm)

QUOTE

People could just as well go to the rightwing websites that you guys get your words from, and get the original version. IMO
If you DID that, you might be INFORMED--and if you were INFORMED, you wouldn't be a LIBBIE! :rofl:

Your words say it all... :crazy:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 08 2009,5:53 pm

(alcitizens @ Aug. 08 2009,5:41 pm)

QUOTE

I know jimhanson is eligible for mental healthcare. Good Luck
Watch healthcare reform pass Mr. Mumbler....

Real snappy comeback, Alcitizen. Right up there with "You're an old POOPY HEAD" and other playground taunts favored by 6-year olds. :rofl:

No specifics, nothing that involves the individual.

Obviously, an arrested development. You have yet to master the art of a good insult. Keep trying, though. I'll let you know if you show progress. :rofl:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 08 2009,5:56 pm

(alcitizens @ Aug. 08 2009,5:51 pm)

QUOTE

(jimhanson @ Aug. 08 2009,5:47 pm)

QUOTE

Your words say it all... :crazy:

Read and learn, libbie.

See post above. This last effort was no better than your first.

When you have something substantial and relative to the topic to say, try again.

You MIGHT want to PM me first, to save yourself the embarrassment! :rofl:

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 08 2009,6:10 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 08 2009,5:56 pm)

QUOTE

When you have something substantial and relative to the topic to say, try again.

I have yet to hear anything substantial or relative from your pie hole. Keep trying!! :peaceout:

Healthcare reform will pass. Watch and See!!

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 08 2009,6:53 pm

All that's needed now is a meeting place where Bam-Bam addicts can go.

I can see this on the wall.

QUOTE

Twelve Steps of OA

1. We admitted we were powerless over his appealing aura and that our lives and our nation had become unmanageable.

2. We came to believe that powers such as democracy, liberty, loyalty to nation, and independence were greater than personal charm and empty promises and could restore us to sanity.

3. We made a decision to turn away our will and lives from the false messiah as we understood him.

4. We made a searching and fearless moral inventory of the shallow reasons for voting for him.

5. We admitted to ourselves and to friends and family members (who had serious concerns about an inexperienced person with shameful associates being qualified for the most important position in the nation) the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. We were entirely ready to read the Constitution and learn more about the Founding Fathers and the principles of this nation in order to remove these defects from our character.

7. We cleared our thinking so that we neither discounted associations with rabid anti-Semites nor found convoluted rationalizations for such associations convincing.

8. We made a list of all persons we had harmed (people who use banks, people who drive cars, people who might get sick and die in a nation with a single medical provider, Israelis who are left to fend for themselves against the murderous intentions of the Iranian regime, the Iranian protestors whose cries we ignored, Muslim women, whose abusers we protected in the name of cultural diversity, bloggers who were reported to the authorities for contradicting the official White House position. Radio talk-show hosts whose criticisms were silenced by the "Fairness Law." The list is too long to complete. ) and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. We made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. We spoke up at town hall meetings to protect our rights as Americans. We lobbied our senators and representatives for legislation that would re-strengthen the almost severed ties between Israel and the U.S. We were relentless in our demands that this nation not blame Israel for the lack of peace in the Middle East, but put the full force of our power on Tehran which threatened the existence of the Jewish State of Israel. We insisted that our elected officials and media not appease our enemies by refusing to even name them and undermine the security of our country and the world by expressing more concern for terrorists than for their victims.

10. We continued to take personal inventory, read the Weekly Standard and the American Thinker and watch Fox News to keep ourselves from succumbing to the pandering, paid for propagandists that make up much of the major media. We volunteered to help and financially supported candidates who had a strong record of upholding the best interests of the U.S. and its allies. We applied facts and reasoning to the comedic outbursts of Bill Maher, Al Frankin and Nancy Pelosi and when they were wrong, we promptly admitted it.

11. We sought through prayer and meditation to improve our spiritual contact with God, as we understood Him/Her, praying only for wisdom to stop dismissing those with strong religious affiliations as "kooks" and start showing respect for the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of our nation's success.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to Obamamaniacs, and to practice these principles in all our affairs so that the United States of America could survive until the next election.

< http://www.americanthinker.com/ >

:rofl:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 08 2009,6:57 pm

(alcitizens @ Aug. 08 2009,6:10 pm)

QUOTE

(jimhanson @ Aug. 08 2009,5:56 pm)

QUOTE

When you have something substantial and relative to the topic to say, try again.

I have yet to hear anything substantial or relative from your pie hole. Keep trying!! :peaceout:

Healthcare reform will pass. Watch and See!!

See what I mean? NOthing in your post of substance or relative to the topic.

Try studying the issue before posting.

If you are trying to MAKE your point, give details.

Be ready to back up your assertions.

If you are trying to REFUTE a point, give evidence. Your opinion is just that--an opinion.

YOur assertion that "Healthcare will pass" has no substance behind it.

It DIDN'T pass before recess, even though Obamatrauma INSISTED it must, did it? Did you ever wonder WHY? It is because EVEN A FILIBUSTER-PROOF CONGRESS IS NOT ENOUGH TO STOP THE DEFECTIONS WITHIN OBAMBI'S OWN PARTY.

Have you ever wondered why 83% of the people now are happy with their health care? It's because the have LEARNED THE ALTERNATIVE OF OBAMACARE.

Why would you 17% try to foist this turkey on the REST of us? Is it because you "feel" you have a "right" to make everybody ELSE pay for your health care?

"Here's your HYMIE" :dunce:

was easy to say.

"Here's your ALCitizen" :dunce:

doesn't roll off the tongue.

I think your name should be shortened from ALCitizen to ALC--and the dunce cap known as an ALCy--(pronounced "ALKI").

So--HERE'S YOUR VERY FIRST "ALKI"! :dunce:

p.s.--has Hymen sent you his THANK YOU NOTE for TAKING HIM OFF THE HOOK YET? :rofl:

Posted by hymiebravo on Aug. 08 2009,7:09 pm

QUOTE

Real snappy comeback, Alcitizen. Right up there with "You're an old POOPY HEAD" and other

Yea right up there with; here have a jimhanson. :dunce:

Right?

But I've come to expect the double standard hypocrisy from you and your game playing cohorts.

AKA : The Albert Lea Discussion Forum Conservative Coalition.

Posted by hymiebravo on Aug. 08 2009,7:11 pm

The Albert Lea Discussion Forum Conservative Coalition:

The Jimmy :dunce:

Lapdog

Red Ink

Commie

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 08 2009,9:13 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 08 2009,5:05 pm)

QUOTE

(Liberal @ Aug. 08 2009,4:50 pm)

QUOTE

Sure makes ME want to sign right up for socialized medicine. :sarcasm:

With a 9% assessment on the employer, wouldn't you THINK that the employer would do EVERYTHING in his power to avoid adding increased wages or additional employees to his payroll?

Would you think that the employer might consider moving jobs to Ireland--which has a much more competitive economy after renouncing Socialism?

Waiting for a long time if you need non-emergency service? SIGN ME UP FOR THAT! :sarcasm:

WHO makes the decision as to how fast you get treated? A government agency like the license bureau?

Hardly a ringing endorsement. Don't sign up as an advertising agent.

p.s. Have they had to resort to pulling their own teeth yet, like some British health-care customers?

If they want to live like subjects fine, but I do not.
Why would anyone want the United States to resemble Europe? Why would anyone want their respective country to be the same as the next? So much for individualism, eh?
Being a Constitutional Republic set the United States far above and better than the rest of the world and differentiated it's citizens from the rest of the world, but some how people have got it in their mind to be the same, almost like the borg in a collective.

Yeah, that sounds like fun, NOT. :finger:

Europe and their failed attempts of governance, :finger:

the Queen right in her cinnamon hole. My ancestors left that crap hole back in the 1600's to get away from those morons.
Why anyone from the US would want to live in England, and buy into the brainwashing of those lymes, must have obvious mental issues.
Se Defendendo.

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 09 2009,1:09 am

(jimhanson @ Aug. 08 2009,1:21 pm)

QUOTE

I'm all for protest, but when people have to be spoon fed their opinions by a special interest group, it's hard to have much respect for what they say.

Let's go right to the top--that wouldn't be the Democrat TAlking Points coming right from the White House that Hannity reads, would it? :sarcasm:

That's rich, I don't get my opinion from the White House, or Sean Hannity. I have a lot more respect for show's that have some type of a round table discussion with people from both sides. All you get on Fox is Hannity and a bunch of people that agree with him (Great American Panel), or O'Reilly having people of different views on the show, but simply over shouting or cutting them off when they disagree with him.

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 09 2009,9:15 am

That's just rich. According to a letter to the editor, our own Tim Walz won't be holding any Town Hall meetings. He's chose to have "targeted" meetings. What the crap is that?

Sounds a bit like he's going to pick who he'll talk to.

Worm.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 09 2009,3:20 pm

(hymiebravo @ Aug. 08 2009,7:09 pm)

QUOTE

Real snappy comeback, Alcitizen. Right up there with "You're an old POOPY HEAD" and other

Yea right up there with; here have a jimhanson. :dunce:

Right?

But I've come to expect the double standard hypocrisy from you and your game playing cohorts.

AKA : The Albert Lea Discussion Forum Conservative Coalition.

I've said it many times--libbies rarely engage on ISSUES, because the would be defending the indefensible. :rofl:

So, they revert to Ad Hominem attacks--"Attack the man". When you can't win on ISSUES, attack the man--AND YOUR POST IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE. :rofl:

And when libbies are LOSING, suddenly it is a conspiracy against THEM! :rofl:

Did you ever see "Old Yeller"? The first sign of Hydrophobia ("Mad Dog Disease") is FOAMING AT THE MOUTH (see below). When you libbies start getting that, see your health care professional RIGHT AWAY! :rofl:

IMPORTANT NOTE FOR LIBBIES: IF YOU ARE SEEING A GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL, IT'S ALREADY TOO LATE--THEY WON'T GET TO YOU IN TIME!! :rofl:

Libbies get farther and farther afield and foaming at the mouth, whenever there is opposition. They consider it an ACT OF FAITH to support--"The One."

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 09 2009,3:41 pm

Grinning Dragon

QUOTE

f they want to live like subjects fine, but I do not.
Why would anyone want the United States to resemble Europe? Why would anyone want their respective country to be the same as the next? So much for individualism, eh?

Being a Constitutional Republic set the United States far above and better than the rest of the world and differentiated it's citizens from the rest of the world, but some how people have got it in their mind to be the same, almost like the borg in a collective.

Yeah, that sounds like fun, NOT. Europe and their failed attempts of governance, the Queen right in her cinnamon hole. My ancestors left that crap hole back in the 1600's to get away from those morons.
Why anyone from the US would want to live in England, and buy into the brainwashing of those lymes, must have obvious mental issues.Se Defendendo.

GD--from my stack of libbie-baiters--here's a coda to your post! :thumbsup:

"What part of Europe are you from--the part whose ass we SAVED, or the part whose ass we KICKED?" :rofl:

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 09 2009,7:05 pm

Back to Walz once.

He insinuates that Southern Minnesota is behind him.

QUOTE

Southern Minnesotans that I've talked to know that something had to be done and soon, but they want to make sure that we're getting it right.

That was from the online interview with the Free Press. In their whole interview, they did not ask one single hard question or ask what his constituants were saying.

< Free Press >

He says he wants your imput

< Tim wants imput >

Yet, I can't see any Town Hall meetings scheduled on his website. Emails can be screened. Seems like that's the only way he's going to let your voice your opinons and concerns.

I'd be willing to bet he won't been seen in these parts or on the streets anywhere during his vacation.

alcitizen stated in another thread that the revolution has begun.

She is probably right, but its starting with the American worker, the vet and the retired. You know, those organized "nazis." The Congressman and Senators are running for cover and having their thugs manhandle these people.

Bam-Bam and Congress has bought out the most trusted organization of many of these people. The AARP. Bam-Bam has essentially cut off the biggest possible hope these people would have had to organize.

No different than a NRA member, the seniors actually read their junk mail. They know what it says. If the AARP was looking for their members best interest, they would be encouraging members to stand up and voice their opinions at town hall meetings. They are not doing that, but the opposite. These people are doing it on their own and individually and once they do start to organize, things could come apart.

That's why these cowards aren't having the meetings they are know to during their recesses. That's why Obama has his thugs from SEIU ganging up one one man passing out buttons and waving a flag.

Round table discussions, internet meetings with select individuals and closed circuit telemeetings are a cowards way out.

This man doesn't want to hear from you.

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 09 2009,7:48 pm

Imput?

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 09 2009,7:51 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 08 2009,5:47 pm)

QUOTE

Question for all--What is it called when you break the skin of the Hymen? :rofl:

I don't know. They would no longer be a virgin. They must be used.

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 09 2009,8:06 pm

QUOTE

I'd be willing to bet he won't been seen in these parts or on the streets anywhere during his vacation.

alcitizen stated in another thread that the revolution has begun.

The thought of maddog and the Ben Gay crowd getting in Tim Walz' face is hilarious. :rofl:

Hey jim, we gonna beat up some democrats?

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 09 2009,8:30 pm

(MADDOG @ Aug. 09 2009,7:51 pm)

QUOTE

(jimhanson @ Aug. 08 2009,5:47 pm)

QUOTE

Question for all--What is it called when you break the skin of the Hymen? :rofl:

I don't know. They would no longer be a virgin. They must be used.

The slang for it is "broke her cherry."

Posted by Glad I Left on Aug. 09 2009,8:40 pm

QUOTE

That was from the online interview with the Free Press. In their whole interview, they did not ask one single hard question or ask what his constituants were saying.

That's because the Free Press editor screened the questions. I don't know him personally but those that I know that know him say he's a douche bag and more than likely only let the softball lobs in. People complain about the AL Fishwrap, the Free Press is in a complete different league. You can't even post on their forms without going through an application process so they can verify who you are. That's why you only see like 10 people ever post there. LAME-O!
Plus Walz the wussy, has the ONLINE interview where people could send in their questions, during the day, during a the work week. So basically if you have a job, work during the day, and don't work on a computer with online access, you were screwed. But hey he's looking out for So MN!
MY ASS!

He will not get my vote again.
I made that mistake once, never again :finger:

WALZ!

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 09 2009,8:52 pm

Without Reform

The CEA forecasts that health spending, which will account for perhaps 18% of America’s GDP this year, will soar to over one third of output by 2040. More politically salient is its warning that health inflation will squeeze wages hard as an ever larger share of compensation comes in the form of health insurance (see chart). A new report from the Urban Institute, a think-tank, adds that doing nothing means the number of uninsured will grow from perhaps 49m today to 62m in a decade. Taken together, all these factors explain why there is such momentum behind health reform.
< http://www.economist.com/world....3788314 >

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 10 2009,11:45 am

Liberal

QUOTE

thought of maddog and the Ben Gay crowd getting in Tim Walz' face is hilarious.

You need to quit watching MSNBC and start watching the NEWS.

You must have MISSED the P/O'd people at other "Town Hell Meetings." Barbara Boxer didn't--she complained of people in "Brooks Brothers Suits" taking Donks to task for this idiocy. :crazy:

Tim Walz also didn't miss the real news--he is hiding from his constituents--refusing to have public meetings. By his refusal, it mocks your statement. I couldn't improve on his actions to demostrate Donk fear.

QUOTE

Hey jim, we gonna beat up some democrats?

Have you seen any conservatives threaten physical harm--UNLIKE libbie rabble-rousers? I haven't seen any CONSERVATIVES throwing pies or punches, rioting in the streets, or chaining themselves to a fence. :sarcasm:

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 10 2009,12:02 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 10 2009,11:45 am)

QUOTE

Its all about POWER...We just sit back and watch the minority kooks rant and rave. :rofl:

We know reform will happen. You can kick your legs like a spoiled brat but in the end you'll be put in TIME OUT.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 10 2009,12:14 pm

Alki posts PROJECTED charts.

These are PROJECTIONS--something that MIGHT happen. Compare that with the CERTAINTY of what will happen if this turkey of a bill--rejected by MOST voters--is inflicted upon us. :frusty:

Why would anyone take the PROJECTIONS on Health Care, when the Obamunists can't predict UNEMPLOYMENT? Note the projection if NOTHING was done--what they said would happen with the STIMULUS, and what the ACTUAL figures were. Also note that in each case, the unemployment rate peaked at about the same time--it would level off NO MATTER WHAT WAS DONE.

Nearly a trillion dollars, wasted.

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 10 2009,12:20 pm

Reminds me of Jimhanson's "You know where to find me" letter to the editor.

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 10 2009,12:24 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 10 2009,12:14 pm)

QUOTE

These are PROJECTIONS--something that MIGHT happen.

The spin master at it again.. :rofl:

I project that we'll stay on the subject of healthcare reform and not employment.

If you want to start a new thread about employment give it hell. :clap:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 10 2009,12:32 pm

You must have MISSED the part about the differences between PROJECTION and CERTAINTY.

The Obamunists have demonstrated that they can't run a government giveaway program for old cars--they can't run a STIMULUS plan, and they can't even PROJECT unemployment--WHY WOULD ANYBODY BELIEVE THEIR PROJECTIONS ON HEALTH CARE?

HEEEERRRR'S YOUR ALCI! :dunce:

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 10 2009,12:34 pm

Who made the chart?

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 10 2009,12:34 pm

(Liberal @ Aug. 10 2009,12:20 pm)

QUOTE

Reminds me of Jimhanson's "You know where to find me" letter to the editor.

BOOOOOOOOO The Boogey Man!!! :rofl:

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 10 2009,12:46 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 10 2009,12:32 pm)

QUOTE

The Obamunists have demonstrated that they can't run a government.

If you and the rest of the kooks are such Magicians, then why don't you fix the past 8 years of destruction.

I'd like to see you pull that out of your BUTT in 8 months.

Bait and switch you sneaky devil. :rofl:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 10 2009,12:56 pm

Liberal--

QUOTE

Reminds me of Jimhanson's "You know where to find me" letter to the editor.

Nah--This guy was REALLY angry--I get angry, too--but it doesn't do any good to get angry at liberals--it would be like getting angry at your dog for licking its butt.

Posted by bianca on Aug. 10 2009,1:06 pm

**This is long but it may clear up some misconceptions on the healthcare reform bill***

RESPONSES TO LINE-BY-LINE H.R. 3200 ATTACKS

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

Page 22 of H.R. 3200 requests a study, not an audit, of the effects to which rating rules are likely to cause adverse selection in the large group market and employer self insurance market insurance market. This does not require an audit of ALL employers that self insure

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes u get

Nothing in the bill infringes upon you and your doctor’s ability to make medical decisions. The National Health Benefits Advisory Council is not a “government committee” but is made up of providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, independent experts and representatives of government agencies. They will make recommendations about minimum standards of care and covered benefits that insurance companies have to offer- ensuring that everyone has a health plan that provides them with adequate coverage.

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

This is a misreading of the text. This section limits the amount of out-of-pocket costs you will face to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 (indexed to CPI) for a family for a basic package of care. This ensures you have access to affordable care and won’t go bankrupt paying for it.

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!

The Health Choices Commissioner is charged with ensuring insurance plans are meeting regulations and minimum standards as well as administering affordability credits and monitoring the exchange. Nothing in this section or in the larger bill permits the Health Choices Commissioner to choose your benefits for you

PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

This is blatantly false. This section prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against persons when issuing coverage, and has nothing to do with government subsidized coverage to illegal immigrants. The bill explicitly states that no Federal payments will be used for affordability credits for illegal immigrants. (P. 143, sec. 246).
Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individuals' finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

This section says nothing about a National ID health card, or accessing your personal financial information. This section promotes administrative simplification- for example being able to look up your insurance coverage and determine how much you will pay and which provider your insurance will accept, at the point of service. This saves money and gives you, the consumer, information about what you will owe at the front end, rather than being denied or getting a surprise bill from your insurance company weeks after your treatment.

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer

This section encourages the development of standards to encourage electronic payments between providers and insurance companies. Administrative simplification measures like these save billions of dollars. Nothing will give the government access to your bank account.PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).

This section provides a limited reimbursement for participating employment-based private plans for part of the cost of providing health benefits to retirees (age 55-64) and their families. People who have been forced into early retirement in this age group do not qualify for Medicare and this will help them stay on their employer provided, private insurance plan if their employer wants to participate. Participation is voluntary. This is for all early retirees, and no language targets the provision towards unions or acorn.
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.

The bill imposes new regulations on private health care plans that will force them to end unethical practices such as rescissions or denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The Exchange will improve the quality of coverage and increase the affordability of private insurers in the Exchange.

PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange

Insurance companies in the Exchange will have to offer a basic benefit packages in every service area. This package will include basic care such as hospitalization, physician visits, medical equipment, mental health, preventative care, maternity and well baby care, and drugs – services that anyone would expect a real insurance policy to cover. Private insurers may offer a higher tier of coverage with more benefits that are not mandated by the government if they choose.

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed

This section has nothing to do with seniors or Medicare. It describes the minimum benefits insurance plans must offer under the Exchange.

PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example - Translation 4 illegal aliens

The bill requires plans in the Exchange to offer culturally and linguistic appropriate services. The U.S. is a diverse country culturally and linguistically. Many legal residents and citizens of the U.S. speak other languages, and implying that everyone of a different culture in the U.S. is here illegally is intolerant and incorrect. The bill explicitly states that it will not subsidize coverage for illegal immigrants. (P. 143, sec. 246).
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan

The Health Choices Commissioner will conduct outreach and enrollment activities to educate Exchange-eligible individuals and businesses about enrollment in the new Exchange, which includes many private plans along with the public option. This includes a toll-free hotline, maintenance of a website, creation of outreach materials, and community locations for enrollment.

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed

This section has nothing to do with seniors or Medicare. It describes the minimum benefits insurance plans must offer under the Exchange.

PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will be automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice

Current law allows individuals to be auto-enrolled in Medicaid if they show up for health services and are eligible, so this is not a radical change. Only individuals that fall under 133% of the poverty level who have not had health insurance for six months will be auto-enrolled.
pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monop

There is no judicial or administrative review for the payment rates set for the public option.
pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.

This section outlines payment policies for physicians participating in the public option only. No physician has to take the public option.
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE

No. You get to choose your health insurance from the choices your employer offers you. If you fail to do so, your employer will auto-enroll you in the lowest premium health plan (for employees) unless or until you opt into a different plan. You could not be auto-enrolled into the public option in the vast majority of cases because the public option is not even available outside the Exchange (only to individuals and small businesses). The bill specifically mandates that employers provide employees with info on how to opt out of the auto-enrollment coverage.
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.(this will insure bankruptcies of many small businesses)

Employers will only pay a proportion of what they must pay for full-time employees. There is also a tax credit equal to 50% of the amount paid by a small employer for employee health coverage available to help with these costs and other protections to ensure that new requirements don’t cause undue hardship for small businesses.
Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll (this will insure more bankruptcies of many small businesses)

All businesses, except some small businesses that are exempted, must contribute to their employees’ health insurance. Most employers that are required to provide coverage under this bill already provide coverage—so little will change for them under this bill. They will continue to offer the coverage that they do today, and will not pay a tax. Some employers may choose to do so through the Exchange, but no employer nor employees will be forced to choose any option. Employers that don’t contribute to employees’ health care will make a contribution to the Exchange, so their employees can access coverage there.

pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesn't prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll (this will insure even more bankruptcies of many small businesses)

All businesses, except certain small businesses that are exempted, must contribute to their employees’ health insurance. Small businesses typically pay more for the same insurance that a large employer might offer. Small businesses will benefit from this legislation, because it will help lower their administrative costs and insurance rating, and increase options available to them. The House legislation helps level the playing field between large and small businesses that want to offer health insurance.
Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according 2 Govt will be taxed 2.5% of inc (this insures the government can collect extra taxes from you anytime they want)

No, they can only collect the tax if you don’t have insurance and can afford to purchase it. Acceptable coverage includes grandfathered individual and employer coverage (ie what you have now providing your insurance company complies with new laws), certain government coverage (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, certain coverage provided to veterans, military employees, retirees, and their families), and coverage obtained pursuant to the Exchange or an employer offer of coverage.

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes. (Americans will pay) (this will attract more millions to America..... legally and illegally.... it will kill our economic engine....DEAD!)

Nonresident aliens and illegal aliens are not the same thing. A nonresident alien is a non-citizen in the country legally (for example on a visa) who has not resided in the country long enough to be considered a resident. This provision is consistent with current law governing tax treatment of non resident aliens. Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access 2 ALL Americans finan/pers recs

The Health Choices Commissioner can receive taxpayer return information from the Internal Revenue Service in order to assist the Exchange in determining subsidy eligibility. This is the only allowable use for this information.PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that

This is a technical wording to ensure appropriate function of the tax under the tax code.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician svcs 4 Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected

Completely wrong. This section adjusts the way the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula is calculated, helping to prevent massive cuts for physicians. All physicians and AMA are in strong support of this section. Also it is for Medicare, not Medicaid.
Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesn't matter what specialty u have, you'll all be paid the same

Again, this still is part of the SGR adjustment- which applies to all specialties. Providers and AMA very strong supporters of this.
PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr's time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.

This section directs the Secretary to regularly review fee schedule rates for physician services paid for by Medicare. It allows the secretary to incorporate all the work that a doctor does outside of the procedure when evaluating fee schedules: such as time, mental effort and professional judgment, technical skill and physical effort, and stress due to risk, and may include validation of the pre, post, and intra-service components of work. This doesn’t have anything to do with the value of human lives.
PG 265 Sec 1131 Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries
(this will kill free enterprise and drive many out of business.... less resources yet available for the boomers)

This is a complete misreading of what this section is. This section updates the market basket payment for hospital outpatient services. Just because the word productivity is in there doesn’t mean it is mandating productivity of industry – it just holds providers accountable to the same level of productivity as the whole economy, putting them on a level playing field.PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs

No, this changes the way Medicare pays for power drive wheelchairs (13 month payments vs. one lump sum). It is essentially rent-to-own for power wheelchairs, and is one of the ways that Medicare already pays for wheelchairs.
PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

This is the opposite of rationing. This section allows Medicare to pay cancer hospitals more if they are incurring higher costs.
Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals 4 what Govt deems preventable readmissions.

Preventable readmissions are never desirable. Hospitals are dangerous places, and the more time spent in one, the greater risk of infection or harm to the patient. Right now, hospitals are paid for quantity of care, so the more you are readmitted, the more they get paid. This provision will help incentivize preventative measures and post-treatment coordination of care to keep you healthier.

Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial admiss that results in a readmiss-Govt will penalize u.

Preventable readmissions are never desirable. Hospitals are dangerous places, and the more time spent in one, the greater risk of infection or harm to the patient. Right now, hospitals and doctors are paid for quantity of care, so the more you are readmitted, the more they get paid. This will help incentivize preventative measures and post treatment coordination of care to keep you healthier.

Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.

This prohibits expansion of physician-owned hospitals because they often drive up costs, duplicate health services, drain resources from community hospitals, and provide perverse incentives for doctors to self-refer patients to hospitals they have a stake in to perform procedures. For example, if a doctor self-refers you for a heart operation, he makes money on the procedure and the hospital he owns makes money too.
Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand

Same as above.
pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can u say ACORN?!!

Physician-owned hospitals can apply for an exception to expand- and input of the community they serve is required to determine how valuable the hospital is to the patients they serve. Why does community automatically mean acorn? :crazy:

Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Govt mandates estab. of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing

This section creates an incentive system to increase payments to high quality Medicare Advantage plans and plans that demonstrate improvement and better outcomes such as reduced readmissions, and better outcomes of its enrollees. This is about better quality care, not rationed care. A plan that cuts back on care and produces worse outcomes would not receive any extra payment.
Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority 2 disqual Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps in2 Govt plan

This only says it can disqualify participating plans from Medicare Advantage. This would not result in seniors being forced into the public option. They would remain on Medicare (which is, by the way, a government plan).

Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs ppl! WTF. My sis has down syndrome!!

This ensures that chronic condition special needs plans (SNPs) enroll beneficiaries only during their eligibility periods and extends the SNP program through 2012, and extends certain fully integrated dual eligible SNPs through 2015.
Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Cmtte. Can u say HC by phone? 84 new govt agencies!

Telehealth is a critical service for rural populations and the disabled who may have difficulty traveling to health centers and hospitals. A committee at HHS does not constitute a new agency. This section expands Medicare’s telehealth benefit to beneficiaries who are receiving care at freestanding dialysis centers (ie very sick patients who have difficulty traveling). It Also establishes a Telehealth Advisory Committee to provide HHS with additional expertise on the telehealth program.
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life

There is no mandate for this sort of counseling. The only mandate is that Medicare must pay for the consultation between patients and practitioners to discuss plans for end-of-life care. These are important individual decisions that take time and consideration, and AARP supports inclusion of this planning provision.

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!

Not mandatory! These are consultations between you and your provider, not the government.
PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding u in death

CMS will provide planning resources to discuss with your doctor about how you would like to be treated in your final days.
PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program 4 orders 4 end of life. The Govt has a say in how ur life ends

You decide how your life ends- that is the whole point of an advance directive.
Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "adv. care planning consult" will b used frequently as patients health deteriorates

Those lines don’t say that.

PG 429 Lines 10-12 "adv. care consultation" may incl an ORDER 4 end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

No, an order from you for your doctor

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

The bill specifies which categories of licensed health care professionals can write them but not which specific doctor – you can still choose your doctor.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment u will have at end of life

No, you decide with your doctor

Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services= Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?

This section is the Medical home pilot program. This in no way refers to ACORN.

Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based org. Like ACORN?

The community based medical home, is targeted at a broader population of Medicare beneficiaries with chronic diseases and allows for State-based or non-profit entities to provide care-management supervised by a beneficiary designated primary care provider. A provision inclusive of all non-profit entities in no way targets ACORN

PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt in 2 ur marriage

Medicare will now cover state licensed marriage and family therapists. You are not forced to receive these services. Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs

Medicare will now cover mental health counselors. It will not ration these services.

***Hope this gives some citizens a different view on conservatives :oops:

"spin"****

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 10 2009,1:10 pm

(alcitizens @ Aug. 10 2009,12:46 pm)

QUOTE

(jimhanson @ Aug. 10 2009,12:32 pm)

QUOTE

The Obamunists have demonstrated that they can't run a government.

I realize thay you are a Noob, but if you are going to quote--quote it ALL. The statement was

QUOTE

The Obamunists have demonstrated that they can't run a government giveaway program for old cars

That said, your quote is more accuate than you realize--ALCI

QUOTE

The Obamunists have demonstrated that they can't run a government

QUOTE

If you and the rest of the kooks are such Magicians, then why don't you fix the past 8 years of destruction.

First, go back to the chart--note that no matter what the Obamunists did--unemployment would level off at the same time.

Second--How quickly you forget (or weren't you told by the DNC?) that Bush started out with a recession caused by the collapse of the dot.coms--and the stock market hit an all time high. In 1996, the Donks took control of Congress--and look what happened. Unemployment was low under Bush, as were interest rates.

Look at the chaos after Jan 20 of this year. More people are becoming aware of the lack of substance and the naivete of this administration--reflected in plummeting poll numbers.

How's that "Hopey/Changy" thing working out for you? :dunce:

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 10 2009,1:25 pm

(Liberal @ Aug. 09 2009,8:06 pm)

QUOTE

The thought of maddog and the Ben Gay crowd getting in Tim Walz' face is hilarious. :rofl:

Hey, nice picture. Who's the little dog?

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 10 2009,1:34 pm

What's the source of the chart? :rofl:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 10 2009,1:50 pm

Bianca--would you care to divulge the source of the material? Googling it shows all kinds of references to it in the liberal blogosphere--but it seems that NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE CREDIT FOR IT! :rofl:

Did it originate in the White House?

When they complain of "Swiftboating" this issue, would they be talking about EXPOSING WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? :rofl:

Take the time to actually READ the Donk defense of the items raised by the physician that wrote the original critique of the bill. It's filled with WEASEL WORDS.

Right from the start

QUOTE

Page 22 of H.R. 3200 requests a study, not an audit, of the effects to which rating rules are likely to cause adverse selection in the large group market and employer self insurance market insurance market.

REQUESTS? Does that mean that we have the option NOT to comply?

STUDY=weasel words for AUDIT.

QUOTE

Nothing in the bill infringes upon you and your doctor’s ability to make medical decisions.

REALLY? WHO decides WHO WILL GET TREATMENTS, AND WHO GETS "END-OF-LIFE COUNSELING? :dunce:

QUOTE

This section says nothing about a National ID health card, or accessing your personal financial information. This section promotes administrative simplification- for example being able to look up your insurance coverage and determine how much you will pay and which provider your insurance will accept, at the point of service. This saves money and gives you, the consumer, information about what you will owe at the front end, rather than being denied or getting a surprise bill from your insurance company weeks after your treatment.

REAL govbernment double-speak--"We won't issue a national ID card, but the card will speed processing....." :dunce:

QUOTE

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer

This section encourages the development of standards to encourage electronic payments between providers and insurance companies. Administrative simplification measures like these save billions of dollars.

Same thing for this gem--"we wont have direct access, but we "encourage" you to give us to save administrative costs. :dunce:

QUOTE

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed

This section has nothing to do with seniors or Medicare. It describes the minimum benefits insurance plans must offer under the Exchange.

A good response--as far as it went. The actual decision on whether or not you get your treatment or die will be left to an administrative bureaucrat. :dunce:

SO FAR, IF I HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN BELIEVING THE DOCTOR THAT WROTE THIS OR THE GOVERNMENT--I'M BETTING MY LIFE ON THE DOCTOR, NOT THE GOVERNMENT!

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 10 2009,2:02 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 10 2009,1:10 pm)

QUOTE

Unemployment was low under Bush, as were interest rates.

Yes and it was all done with fake income, fake markets, fake home values, fake war in Iraq and a fake financial system.

NOW it all has to be PAID BACK on a low goverment income.

Think of it this way. Instead of working at IBM, you now work at McDonalds. Instead of having $100,000 in your 401k, you only have $55,000. Instead of having a home worth $100,000, its worth $65,000 and you owe $100,000 on it.
This is an example of what Bush created for the people and for the country.

Now its time to PAY IT ALL BACK, because it was FAKE.

God Save Us and God Bless America!!

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 10 2009,2:14 pm

Liberal

QUOTE

What's the source of the chart? :rofl:

Glad to help you out, little buddy!

It's the ADMINISTRATION CHART used to sell the stimulus plan--demonstrating the "Need" for IMMEDIATE action. The actual unemployment numbers have been plotted on the same chart, to show how close (NOT!) the Obamunists came to their projections.

null< My Webpage >

Sorry, buddy--but the truth sometimes hurts. :oops:

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 10 2009,2:32 pm

The source of the chart is this blogger

< http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2009....nly-0-1 >

His words on the chart. :rofl:

QUOTE

[It is assumed that by now this chart is self-explanatory. If not, delving into the posts over the past 3 months will tell you more than you need to know about the chart's pedigree.]

QUOTE

Sorry, buddy--but the truth sometimes hurts.

What would a crazy old right wing republican kook like you know about the truth?

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 10 2009,3:11 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 10 2009,12:32 pm)

QUOTE

The Obamunists have demonstrated that they can't run a government giveaway program for old cars

Really, the cash for clunkers program isn't working? Whether you like it or not, it's been more successful than anyone expected.

QUOTE

< FoxNews - Health Care Town Halls Turn Violent >

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 10 2009,3:17 pm

Alcy

QUOTE

Yes and it was all done with fake income, fake markets, fake home values, fake war in Iraq and a fake financial system.

Taking them one by one:

Fake income? What was fake about INCOME?

Fake markets?

Fake home values? If you had been paying attention, you would know that the Bush Administration SEVERAL TIMES held hearings on the oversight of FAnnie and Freddie since 2006. The chairmen at the time of the hearings, that DEFENDED the government programs came from the Democrat party--DODD and FRANK! :rofl:

Fake war in Iraq? You mean the one that MOST OF THE DONKS VOTED FOR?

Or, do you mean the one that Harry Reid said was "lost"? :angry:

QUOTE

God Save Us and God Bless America!!

Careful--the TRUE LIBBIES will drum you out of the party for invoking God! :rofl:

Maybe you meant to echo Obama's preacher, Rev. Wright, with

QUOTE

God DAMN America!

Or maybe, in your delusion, you meant God sent Obambi to SAVE America? See below.

Here's your Alcy! :dunce:

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 10 2009,3:18 pm

The kook from the Dingell rally is a perfect example. "Come to my house and say that to my face... But if you do, I'll shoot you! They came to my home, but they didn't have the guts to do it during the day!" :rofl:

Anyone wonder whether these people came for the Q&A, or to hear themselves talk/yell. Never mind, I already know the answer.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 10 2009,3:22 pm

(irisheyes @ Aug. 09 2009,8:30 pm)

QUOTE

(MADDOG @ Aug. 09 2009,7:51 pm)

QUOTE

(jimhanson @ Aug. 08 2009,5:47 pm)

QUOTE

Question for all--What is it called when you break the skin of the Hymen? :rofl:

I don't know. They would no longer be a virgin. They must be used.

The slang for it is "broke her cherry."

Hymen--the naive "poster boy" for THIS GUY! :rofl:

Posted by ICU812 on Aug. 10 2009,3:22 pm

Hell I don't know. The pdf provided has a chart in it without the actual unemployment numbers, but is has the projections w/ and w/out stimulus. That chart comes from a pdf with the Vice-President elect and some othe council on is cover. So I trust it was published by them

The red dots chart comes from some blogger page.

Is it correct or incorrect that the projection numbers come from the ones running the show now?

We know what the uneployment numbers are so its is a safe bet the red dots are correct.

:hairpull:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 10 2009,3:35 pm

Libbie

QUOTE

What would a crazy old right wing republican kook like you know about the truth?

I gave you the source for the chart--then said that the actual unemployment numbers have been posted on it.

Would you like some whine with that meal of crow? :sarcasm:

I can't be any more explicit than that. Maybe you could see the computer screen better without your Donk blinders on? :sarcasm:

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 10 2009,3:45 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 10 2009,1:50 pm)

QUOTE

Bianca--would you care to divulge the source of the material? Googling it shows all kinds of references to it in the liberal blogosphere--but it seems that NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE CREDIT FOR IT! :rofl:

I'm at work and busy trying to explain this CARS program to the public and have little time to try to follow this when a topic is moving.

Sorry I was beat to it, but everything I found was demo blogshere too. It can be twisted the other way though too.

QUOTE

What’s in the Healthcare Proposal — line-by-line analysis (it’s worse than you imagined)

It’s worse than you can possibly imagine.

Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman) is reading it and has been posting on Twitter his findings. This is from his postings (Note: All comments are Fleckman’s)

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes u get

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!

PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill – HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Pg 58HC Bill – Govt will have real-time access 2 individuals’ finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer

PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).

< blogging the other way >

Sorry, didn't want to make everyone read it.

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 10 2009,4:14 pm

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 10 2009,4:47 pm

Were these photos taken BEFORE or AFTER Pewlosi's "Swastika" speech?

I noticed the photo credits--Daily Kos, Burnt Orange, Humping-on-a-post. :rofl:

Perhaps THAT explains how you got that way! :rofl:

I went back to see if I could find the source of the photos--but somebody beat me to it.
null< My Webpage >

QUOTE

Stop the Presses: I've Found Nancy Pelosi's Swastika Pictures!
Earlier this week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made news when she accused protesters against President Obama’s government-run health (s)care of brandishing swastikas.

But evidence of these swastika-wielding protesters have been hard to find. In fact, Kevin Aylward at the Wizbang blog declares that “Pelosi’s Swastika Claim Is a Crock,” supported by the following research of the Left’s main blogs:

[Note: Links are to search results that will change over time. Anything dated after 8/5/09 is an after the fact post or comment that would, in effect, be Astroturfing for Pelosi's statement.]

Daily Kos (Stories and Diaries) - 2 results, 1 related. The related report (about defending liberal turf on health care) contains no report of health care protest attendees wearing swastikas. Verdict: No corroboration

Think Progress - 1 result dated back to 2008, unrelated. Verdict: No corroboration

Firedoglake - 3 results, none related. Verdict: No corroboration

Google Blog Search - None related, one post calling B.S., and there was this from a recent Austin, Minnesota immigration reform debate, where an actual member of the Socialist Party is said to have worn a t-shirt with a swastika. Verdict: No corroboration

But finally, the comment sewer at Daily Kos did reap a reward...

Daily Kos Comment Search - Mostly non-related, but there is one comment which appears to be the source of Pelosi's contention. Here we find the one and only reference to someone (a kid) supposedly wearing a swastika to an event in Austin two weeks ago. Verdict: Possible source […]

Today, over a day later, Sam Stein at The Huffington Post gets sent a thumbnail showing a female with a sign containing
a swastika.

His interpretation of the sign is a little odd, it seems pretty clear that the crude message of the sign means, "no nazism" or "no socialism," and the "? Obama" subheading wonders whether Obama supports socialism or nazism. Honestly it's a pretty weak poster.

Indeed, this is the only picture with a swastika that has allegedly appeared at a government-run health (s)care protest. This is the smoking gun? And even this picture might not be legitimate. Read on:

I did a little more digging and found over 130 high resolution photos of the event in this gallery. I looked through all 133 pictures with a fine tooth comb for the lady with the sign that someone sent to Sam Stein. I found the right where she should be...

Guess who is missing, from these and every one of the other 133 pictures?

The lady with the swastika sign...

Are we noticing a pattern?

Hmmmm--it appears that your boys have been busy over at the Daily Kos sewer!

Pewlosi called the protesters "Swastika Carriers"--as though the PROTESTERS advocated Nazi's--instead of PROTESTING what the administration was doing to us. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Libbies outraged by Nazi symbols? SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I SAY! :rofl:

See below

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 10 2009,4:56 pm

QUOTE

Daily Kos Comment Search - Mostly non-related, but there is one comment which appears to be the source of Pelosi's contention. Here we find the one and only reference to someone (a kid) supposedly wearing a swastika to an event in Austin two weeks ago. Verdict: Possible source […]

I didn't post a picture of a "kid wearing a swastika"? :dunno:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 10 2009,4:59 pm

I didn't say that you DID. I posted a QUOTE on an article that mentioned it.

Having a problem with that comprehension thing again? :oops:

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 10 2009,5:10 pm

(Liberal @ Aug. 10 2009,4:56 pm)

QUOTE

I didn't post a picture of a "kid wearing a swastika"? :dunno:

Did that have a line through it like the posters?

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 10 2009,7:43 pm

GODdamn I find crap like this funny, 8yrs ago you had bush dressed up as hitler and swastika's everywhere, now that is it is used against b.o. everyone gets all bent outta shape. :rofl:

Tell you what, bush had his nazi BS and now obumnuts is acting like hitler and his reichstag policies. Someday hopefully if this country survives, a Regan-esque political figure will get elected and yank the country back toward the right.

:finger:

the president of the US.

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 10 2009,8:10 pm

< null >

William W McGuire
Total Compensation: $124.8 mil (#3)
5-Year Compensation Total: $342,284 thou

William W McGuire has been CEO of UnitedHealth Group (UNH) for 14 years. Dr. McGuire has been with the company for 17 years . The 57 year old executive ranks 1 within Health care equipment & services

Education
College: University of Texas Austin BA ' 70
Graduate School: University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston MD ' 74

------------
Yes - the majority of his compensation came from UHC stock options.

There was no innovation here - just monopolization through purchase and dismantling of smaller, regional providers.

They increase profits by charging more, paying doctors less, denying more claims, denying coverage to people with existing conditions that would negatively impact the bottom line.

Posted by bianca on Aug. 11 2009,2:50 am

July 16, 2009
The Honorable Charles B. Rangel
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Rangel:
On behalf of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association, I am writing to express our appreciation and support for H.R. 3200, the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.” This legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform. We urge members of the House Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means Committees to favorably report H.R. 3200 for consideration by the full House.
In particular, we are pleased that the bill:
•
Promises to extend coverage to all Americans through health insurance market reforms;
•
Provides consumers with a choice of plans through a health insurance exchange;
•
Includes essential health insurance reforms such as eliminating coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions;
•
Recognizes that fundamental Medicare reforms, including repeal of the sustainable growth rate formula, are essential to the success of broader health system reforms;
•
Encourages chronic disease management and care coordination through additional funding for primary care services, without imposing offsetting payment reductions on specialty care;
•
Addresses growing physician workforce concerns;
•
Strengthens the Medicaid program;
•
Requires individuals to have health insurance, and provides premium assistance to those who cannot afford it;
•
Includes prevention and wellness initiatives designed to keep Americans healthy;
•
Makes needed improvements to the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative that will enable greater participation by physicians; and
The Honorable Charles B. Rangel
July 16, 2009
Page 2
•
Initiates significant payment and delivery reforms by encouraging participation in new models such as accountable care organizations and the patient-centered medical home.
The AMA looks forward to further constructive dialogue during the committee mark-up process. We pledge to work with the House committees and leadership to build support for passage of health reform legislation to expand access to high quality, affordable health care for all Americans.This year, the AMA wants the debate in Washington to conclude with real, long overdue results that will improve the health of America’s patients.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Maves, MD, MBA

Posted by bianca on Aug. 11 2009,4:12 am

The Kaiser Family Foundation found that employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have more than doubled in the last nine years, a rate four times faster than wage increases. The McKinsey Global Institute found that 78% of low wage workers do not receive health benefits from their employers. Moreover, families in the lowest income category spend 20% of household income on contributions to employer-sponsored health plan premiums. According to a study in the August issue of the American Journal of Medicine, medical problems contributed to nearly two-thirds (62.1%) of all bankruptcies and more than three-quarters (77.9%) of those had insurance.

These financial challenges for government and individuals are occurring while the health insurance industry feeds its gluttonous greed. Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428% from 2000 to 2007, from $2.4 billion to $12.9 billion, according to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings. In 2007 alone, the chief executive officers at these 10 companies collected combined total compensation of $118.6 million – an average of $11.9 million each. That is 468 times more than the $25,434 an average American worker made that year.

according to the National Academy of Sciences approximately 20,000 die annually in the U.S. due to lack of health care.

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 11 2009,10:08 am

(Liberal @ Aug. 10 2009,2:32 pm)

QUOTE

The source of the chart is this blogger

< http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2009....nly-0-1 >

His words on the chart. :rofl:

QUOTE

[It is assumed that by now this chart is self-explanatory. If not, delving into the posts over the past 3 months will tell you more than you need to know about the chart's pedigree.]

QUOTE

Sorry, buddy--but the truth sometimes hurts.

What would a crazy old right wing republican kook like you know about the truth?

Why is it the kooks have to lie and submit false information?
jimhanson"The Mumbler" lies and cheats just like BUSH.

Great Job Liberal!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 11 2009,10:39 am

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 11 2009,1:09 pm

That was a good one! Olberman RANTING about "civility"! :rofl:

You have a rare find there, Liberal--according to the viewership ratings, you are one of the FEW people that have actually SEEN this! :rofl:

I hope you made a backup copy! :rofl:

Alci

QUOTE

Why is it the kooks have to lie and submit false information?

What is "made up"? As I (and others) have stated--this is OBAMA'S CHART projections, with ACTUAL UNEMPLOYMENT INSERTED to show his "projections" and what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. There is nothing there that is "made up"--are YOU having problems with comprehension and reality, too? :rofl:

The REST of the people get it--try to keep up with the class! :dunce:

Of course, if you dealt in REALITY, you wouldn't be a DONK! :rofl:

Posted by Paul Harvey on Aug. 11 2009,2:56 pm

I can't read your posts Jim. Too many useless emotions, capital letters, cursive and bold all mixed together.

Posted by ControlledHyperness on Aug. 11 2009,2:59 pm

(Paul Harvey @ Aug. 11 2009,2:56 pm)

QUOTE

I can't read your posts Jim. Too many useless emotions, capital letters, cursive and bold all mixed together.

Take the wingdings off as a font, and you might cut through all the cursive....which does NOT exist.... :oops:

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 12 2009,12:05 am

Many people know that the United States ranked 37th out of 198 countries and that Canada ranked 30th. But do you know what the top 10 best health care system in the world are?

The top 10 in the order determined by the World Health Organization

France
Italy
San Marino
Andorra
Malta
Singapore
Spain
Oman
Austria
Japan
< http://www.examiner.com/x-11804....e-world >

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 12 2009,1:01 pm

Who is Bam-Bam's White House Health Care policy adviser again?

Posted by Alfy Packer on Aug. 12 2009,1:07 pm

I want my health care system to stay the same. When I die, I want every Doctor in the hospital to stop by so that they can bill my health insurance for their good bye visit. I want to continue paying my Doctor for his mistakes, and the extra care I need to correct his mistake. I see no need for any change. It is all good.

Posted by Paul Harvey on Aug. 12 2009,1:28 pm

I want more of my income to be devoted to the health care system. I want to help pay for the hospitals new foyer. I must do my part. My doctor has large house payments and likes the finer things in life. I feel it's my duty to provide.

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 12 2009,2:28 pm

SCAM WOW

Posted by Glad I Left on Aug. 12 2009,3:24 pm

I stole and put it on my facebook wall. I needed that thanks CC!!

Posted by Paul Harvey on Aug. 12 2009,3:45 pm

NOW I know who you are! Confirmed...thanks.

You might wanna purchase some plastc sheeting and duck tape at this point.

Posted by ControlledHyperness on Aug. 12 2009,3:52 pm

I have FB too PH, but that doesn't mean you know who I am. You can SAY that you do, but do you really??? Do you REALLY know who each of us are on this forum?? As you pointed out to me ohhh hsoooo long ago, you might THINK you do, but you probably DON"T know who we are. :oops:

Posted by Glad I Left on Aug. 12 2009,4:00 pm

(Paul Harvey @ Aug. 12 2009,3:45 pm)

QUOTE

NOW I know who you are! Confirmed...thanks.

You might wanna purchase some plastc sheeting and duck tape at this point.

No need. Unless it's to tape/bag and bury you later after I dig you a shallow grave. Come to my house uninvited and you will be met on the business end of any number of different weapons. :thumbsup:

If it's all in fun, then no worries :beer:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 12 2009,4:59 pm

(Paul Harvey @ Aug. 11 2009,2:56 pm)

QUOTE

I can't read your posts Jim. Too many useless emotions, capital letters, cursive and bold all mixed together.

You could just as well have left it at

QUOTE

I can't read

I have to use emoticons for the benefit of the libbies. Not only are they not smart enough to know when they are being mocked, but many do not read well, and I have to draw them PICTURES! :sarcasm:

See what I mean? :rofl:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 12 2009,5:33 pm

Watching the "Town Hall meetings"--and the meetings that the politicians are ducking--I got to thinking about it later. "Why are people so worked up about healthcare? They were worked up about it with Hillarycare, but not to THIS extent."

Continuing to watch the confontations, I came to the conclusion--THIS ISN'T ABOUT HEALTHCARE AT ALL. It's about UNRESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT!

Listen carefully to what the people are saying.

"You aren't LISTENING to us!"

"You can't keep SPENDING like this!"

"Why are you pushing something we don't WANT?"

"Why won't you read the BILL?"

"Would you put YOUR family on this bill?"

"Where is the Constitutional right for you to do this?"

"You are changing the very ESSENCE of the United States."

"For the last 6 months, you guys have been spendiing like drunken sailors, and we can't afford it!"

"Don't rush into something and make it WORSE."

"Why are you insisting that this get done RIGHT NOW? What would the difference be if it were done next year?"

This is a health care bill, but health care is not the disease, it is just a SYMPTOM. The DISEASE is UNRESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT. We are treating the SYMPTOM (Health Care) and not the underlying DISEASE (unresponsive government).

THAT is why people are so worked up over this issue--they have HAD ENOUGH! This is more "Tea Party" protest than "Health Care" protest.

And it's about time! :thumbsup:

Next time you see a "health care" protest on TV--look at the underlying cause. LISTEN to what they are actually saying. It's not just about health care.

Posted by Alfy Packer on Aug. 12 2009,5:58 pm

We don't need any reform! I like the way my kid's doctor was more concerned about my suing him when I needed his help in getting the kid qualified for the disability resulting from his surgery. It was good that we couldn't get past the fact that I had a lawyer. The slap nuts was so stuck on himself that he couldn't see that the lawyer was to get the kid on disability. It's a great system! No change needed here! Reform will not change a smuck, but it would be nice to see care for the paitent put back into the equation some place.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 12 2009,6:28 pm

You just hit the problem with Obamacare--it does nothing to prevent the high cost of physicians liability insurance and the practice of defensive medicine.

Heath care costs and Insurance costs will NEVER be lower until we get these costs under control. Lawyers like Edwards get tens of millions of dollars in awards--and who pays? WE DO. They don't call them "Ambulance Chasers" for nothing!

Certainly, health care costs are not going to be lowered because of GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY. :sarcasm:

WHERE do government program advocates think they will save any money over the private sector?

If there is a role for government to play in this, it would be to have a panel of medical experts adjudicate malpractice claims. Having private citizens with no knowledge of medicine is hardly a "Jury of peers."

Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 12 2009,7:16 pm

If the Obama Administration were truly concerned about health care, they'd:

1) Focus on the things that REALLY are making us unhealthy (over-prescription of meds, food additives, cigarettes, alcohol, water quality, high-fructose corn syrup, aspartame) and hold the FDA to their original mission - keeping people healthy, as opposed to keeping big food and big pharma corporations free of lawsuits.

2) Show people how to set up Health Savings Accounts, and what the benefits are. Encourage states to add an HSA provision to state-run low-income health plans, like MnCare.

3) Verify identification and citizenship of all people BEFORE they receive treatment. We can no longer afford to keep treating 11,000,000 illegal aliens who use the emergency room as their primary-care physician.

Posted by Glad I Left on Aug. 12 2009,7:24 pm

QUOTE

big pharma corporations free of lawsuits

I don't about that one botto. Everytime you turn around there is another ambulance chaser on TV asking if you have taken this medicine or that, well you can sue this person or this company....
Between them and the mesothelioma people it's enough to want to make me cancel cable and start watching PBS. (OK maybe not that bad!)

Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 12 2009,7:48 pm

Continuing...

4) No more Pharmaceutical ads. This costs Big Pills billions annually, a cost they pass on to us. Why advertise to me? I didn't attend 8 years of medical school, so I'm not qualified to decide what meds I need.

5) Educate people on healthier eating habits.

Here's an example of how we used to handle food. From Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon Days:

You have fed me wretched food, vegetables, boiled to extinction, fistfuls of white sugar, slabs of fat mucousy casseroles made with globs of cream of mushroom, until it's amazing my heart still beats. Food was not fuel but ballast; we ate and then we sank like rocks. Every Sunday, everyone got stoned on dinner except the women who cooked it and thereby lost their appetites--the rest of us did our duty and ate ourselves into a gaseous stupor and sat around in a trance and mumbled like a bunch of beefheads.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 12 2009,8:13 pm

Botto--I'd say you've got 80% of Healthcare reform in half a page of text--certainly better than the 1000+ pages put out in this bill! :thumbsup:

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 12 2009,8:33 pm

Look at this wingnut

No wonder everyone is scared! Drama Queen Psychopath is responding to emails that are false about the proposed bill, based on inferences to implications on inferences, helped by that MENSA member, Sarah Palin.

How do you get the fundamentalist christian base back - FEAR! Thanks Glenn - you will help many more thousands of AMERICANS die every day from otherwise treatable illnesses.

I hope you get canned from FOXnoise. I hope you lose your insurance. I hope you get to try to find an insurance company on the public market- as it exists today that will cover your daughter. Please come back as a guest on some other show and let us all know how that worked out for you.

Actually- I don't want ALL of that to happen. I hope healthcare reform passes and he is able to find a reasonable insurance plan so that neither he nor his family will be denied medical treatment when he is giving traffic reports on an AM radio station in Wyoming.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 12 2009,8:48 pm

And the kook olbermannutjob is any better? LOL you guys kill me when it comes to dissenting POV's. Look I hate trilobites like olberman, and maher, but heres the kicker, I don't listen to them, I turn the channel or turn it off, they have every RIGHT to spout their misguided BS, even though it makes me want to drive a rusty screwdriver deep into their eye sockets until gray matter oozes out their ears.

It is just great sitting back and watching all of the hate that was once directed toward bush is now directed to obummernaught and now all of a sudden its has been deemed hearsay to speak out against the one who will bring about the anti-christ.

Keep up the good work ladies and gents, a good laugh helps me get through the day to see people get all torqued off. :rofl:

Posted by Glad I Left on Aug. 12 2009,8:58 pm

Here's the thing, it's not that most of us oppose reform, most of us think reform is needed. We just oppose the current plan. The thought of a single payer system frightens most of us. The same gov't that can't run anything fiscally responsible or with any jurisprudence is gonna run health care?
Again, the gov't has NO BUSINESS competing in the private sector. :soapbox:

Posted by Paul Harvey on Aug. 12 2009,9:08 pm

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 12 2009,9:13 pm

GD -

I've never gone off on you and I'm not going off on anyone on this board. Maybe I'm just scraping some of the brown stuff from the wall and throwing it back around.

None of this really gets us where we need to be as a country.

Do you believe the direction of Healthcare Insurance, as it stands now, is sustainable? I haven't heard anything from the other side as far as solutions other than the left is a bunch of Nazi/Socialists.

United Heathcare, Inc has demonstrated unregulated corporate responsibility. It's not like the cornered the market on rubber dog sh!t from China, but a pure capitalist would believe access to healthcare and woopie cushions are the same.

Living a clean lifestyle - never a drink, never a smoke didn't stop my dad from having a heart attack. It also didn't stop my father-in-law from getting brain cancer or my mother-in-law from ovarian cancer. Maybe it's their fault? Apparently so, they should have been born with better genes. WTF is Glenn Beck bitching about?

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 12 2009,10:33 pm

nphilbro - my take on all of this is, every time the govt gets involved in a capitalist / free market, govt just gets in the way of innovation, competition and regulates the hell out of every thing and eventually chokes it to death and WE the People get screwed without the common courtesy of a reach around.

Do I think costs are out of control with health care? YES, but you cannot deny it has been profit and demand that has driven this as well as the cost of R & D, and a myriad of other costs that are involved. Also we as a society have been running to the ER and clinics over the dumbest health issues, and the over bearing helicopter parents of lil Johnny or lil Suzy might have a concussion after bumping their head on the dinner table, I myself think it all started with the so called perceived threat of those gosh darn germs, why o why does the public allow themselves to get caught up in BS that comes from the CDC and the WHO? :dunno:

Remember the saying "That which does not kill you, makes you stronger"?

It is coming down to; why is the minority dictating life for the majority through UNCONSTITUTIONAL legislation. There is some misconception that somehow the human rights BS thrown about in other parts of the world, somehow trumps the Constitution. Affordable insurance or coverage is not a RIGHT but a privilege.

I have never taken anything directed at me as someone going off on me, I guess with out the actual face to face encounter I really have no idea your intent or demeanor in which is being said I can only garner a guess.

With that said, I also find it a bit humorous those that were bashing the previous admin, gets all bent out of shape now that it is being directed toward their perceived leader. I am neither Demo or Repub, so I get to make fun of both sides.

Also I wasn't going of on you, just spouting in a raving lunatic way LOL, I re-read what I had wrote and I guess one could perceive it as going off. I actually respect every ones opinion (yes even yours) here even if I think its the most idiotic thing I've ever read. The only one I think is completely off their rocker and offers nothing of substance to anything is Sybil.

No hard feelings man.

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 12 2009,11:02 pm

(Grinning_Dragon @ Aug. 12 2009,8:33 pm)

QUOTE

The CEO of United Healthcare made over $100,000 per HOUR in 2006.

The conversation seems to be that as "Government Takeover" of providing healthcare. Single payer is not part of the proposed bills.

If the government is so inept, then why not let them compete, let us pay them the same premiums, and see what care we can get.

Innovation is a very important aspect of good healthcare and improvements of our lives. The American insurance companies have nothing to do with innovation. They profit from premiums to pay shareholders.

It's quite the opposite, deregulation helped get bad drugs fast-tracked to the market to help big pharma.

The government provides big insurance companies with $177 billion each year on a program called "Medicare Advantage." It was not publicly bid.

My question - why not let a not for profit competitor enter the market.

As far as medicare goes - I dare any retired person to buy insurance on your own because it is apparently so awful and I'm sure that each retired American could do more and pay less.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 12 2009,11:18 pm

Well you see the govt does NOT like competition, if the govt gets involved, the govt creates laws and rules in their favor, the US govt is the biggest ponzi scheme around, and if anyone thinks any of those senators and congressmen have WE the PEOPLE in mind, I got a bridge to sell.

The other issue is when the govt is taking taxpayers money and using in a manner in which the govt has no Constitutional authority to do so. We the PEOPLE are NOT responsible for someone else s short comings. Allowing the free market to run as intended works and everything balances out, the old saying "if it ain't broke don't mess with it" still applies.

I myself hate our govt and have hated it for a long time, and what it has done to this GREAT REPUBLIC. Those elected morons, view their oath as an inconvenient matter of formality, pretty much not one has one iota of an idea of what is Constitutional or not, every single one of them have the Constitutional aptitude of an drool dripping slug, its all about themselves and the perceived notion that they are rulers, when all they are is a court jester.

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 12 2009,11:23 pm

Funny how many of the people outraged at these town hall meetings are on Medicare, but are outraged about the idea of starting government run health care coverage. :dunce:

Glad I left-

QUOTE

I think you make some great points. I'm really turned off by some of the things I've seen in the proposed plan also. I'd like to see more and some changes to be made, but I don't wanna throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. I'm just glad that we're actually getting somewhere in it, instead of the politicians just talking about reform in the campaign, and then nothing happens.

Don't let anyone forget, it's not the politicians that told us we're going to reform health care. WE TOLD THEM to reform health care, and THEY FINALLY started to respond.

No wonder politicians don't won't to solve the problem. Anytime they try, people are ready to tar and feather them.

Jim-

QUOTE

"You aren't LISTENING to us!"

They're listening to us. WE told them we wanted health care reform. We told them we wanted to do something about pre-existing conditions, the millions that are uninsured, etc.

QUOTE

"You can't keep SPENDING like this!"

Funny how I don't remember seeing these people screaming their heads off and storming every town hall possible when Bush was in office. Is spending the problem, or is it just spending when a DONK is in office?

QUOTE

"Why are you pushing something we don't WANT?"

WE do want it. We've been telling them we've wanted this FOR DECADES.

QUOTE

"Where is the Constitutional right for you to do this?"

Where is the Constitutional right for interstate travel, USPS, ATF, CIA, NSA, USDA, FAA, CBO, DIA, Homeland Security, or the local dog catcher?

QUOTE

"For the last 6 months, you guys have been spendiing like drunken sailors, and we can't afford it!"

Yeah, cause it's only been for the last 6 months that politicians have been spending like that. Funny how your time line starts AFTER Bush left office. To me, they've been spending like that since Clinton left office.

QUOTE

THAT is why people are so worked up over this issue--they have HAD ENOUGH! This is more "Tea Party" protest than "Health Care" protest.

"I think you're confusing tyranny, with LOSING!" :rofl:

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 12 2009,11:29 pm

I didn't mention - unregulated trade policies pushed the auto industry overseas. The eastern seaboard is now the rustbelt. I drive up I-5 near Tacoma, WA at the port a few times a week. That scrap metal is being sent to China and Japan to build our cars and the beams for our buildings. Our timber is shipped out to reprocessed and sold back to us as 2x4s. If the global economy is so good for us, then find a way to live on 30 cents an hour to compete.

Do you think that we should let this type of deregulation go to China? They benefit from our Pharma and innovation, yet we have to shoulder the brunt of the cost while pissing away our standard of living. China negotiates with the Pharma companies, so does Japan, Sweden, France...everyone! I love seeing 20% taken out of my check for healthcare "insurance." Maybe we could level the playing field and squeeze the international market. Bush made it illegal to negotiatie pharmaceutical prices.

Innovation will happen, regardless. Why is it only us that have to pay for it?

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 12 2009,11:40 pm

QUOTE

Where is the Constitutional right for interstate travel, USPS, ATF, CIA, NSA, USDA, FAA, CBO, DIA, Homeland Security, or the local dog catcher?

There isn't, never said there was either. In fact you can get rid of those agencies too for all I care not one of those give two flying Fks about anything Constitutional anyways. The top ones I would get rid of is: ATF, CIA, NSA, Homeland INSecurity, all jackbooted thugs and should be met with a 50cal bullet to the head.

nphilbro - and why do you think that is? Is it because govt got involved? I guess I see it as its the govt that screwed the pooch and now we get to clean up the dogshiit.

Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 13 2009,12:13 am

(nphilbro @ Aug. 12 2009,11:02 pm)

QUOTE

The government provides big insurance companies with $177 billion each year on a program called "Medicare Advantage." It was not publicly bid.

Subsidies... again. And always to the industries that need subsidies the least. Oil... Big HMO's... Corporate megafarms...

Maybe if we put an end to big, unpublished subsidies, we could actually begin to gravitate to something a little more like a free-market.

Government. Serving corporate America since 1913.

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 13 2009,9:34 am

Irisheyes,

QUOTE

They're listening to us. WE told them we wanted health care reform. We told them we wanted to do something about pre-existing conditions, the millions that are uninsured, etc.

So we're going to dismantle the whole health care system for the rest of the 288 million people so the that the approximately 12 million people you mention are taken care of?

Why not just fix it for the 12 million instead treading on my freedoms? :dunno:

You see? It's not really about health care reform...it's about the government controlling its citizens.

nuff said...

Posted by Ned Kelly on Aug. 13 2009,11:35 am

According to Wikipedia we are the only industrialized country not to have public healthcare. Is it because no one here is smart enough to figure out how to do it? Or is it because we have corporate managed healthcare who has powerfull lobbyists? Is it because healthcare is not considered a part of our needs as Americans? Why is it that the republican part of congress has no options of their own? Are they paid for too?
Or is the fact that most of the old protesters at these town hall meetings are white and through ignorance they hate the fact we have a non-white president? Certain talk show hosts who are only making anti-healthcare noises are only in it for the dollars. It reminds me of the the NRA people over the years who have become a political action group funded by fear and misinformation spoonfed to their members by the leadership who has a personal agenda.
Healthcare is a powerfull group, but so were the tobacco companies. We won some battles with them and they diversified and didn't go out of business. I was told by a Doctor who used to work at the local medical center that there were 1200 different types of health policies that they had to contend with. To save money can't they be standardized and reduced to 3 or 4 which all companies must use?
I do know that standing around and hollering talking points that or incorrect at the politicians doesn't work! It just makes you look ignorant when you can't discuss a point without losing control!

We certainly have way too many people making way too much money on healthcare. This has to change, the status quo doesn't work anymore............ ned

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 13 2009,11:42 am

Nphilbro

QUOTE

I haven't heard anything from the other side as far as solutions other than the left is a bunch of Nazi/Socialists.

You must have missed my posting of the Republican plan, introduced and forwarded to committee May 20--then pronounced "We're not going to consider this" by the Donk leadership. Here it is again. null< My Webpage >

It gives a $5000 tax credit-NOT deduction--up to $18,000 per household.

If you aren't working and can't use the tax credit, you get up to $5000 ANYWAY--administered through medicare.

You can keep your existing health care plan--and it will be deductible. You can keep your existing employer-provided plan. You can continue to select your own doctor.

If you are 55-64--you get a special rate to help transition from employer plans.

It allows for portability. It allows small businesses to band together to encourage providing coverage and to get better rates.

It provides for Tort reform to cut insurance premiums for doctors and hospitals, and to eliminate the extra tests and procedures incurred with "defensive medicine."

It provides financial incentives for in-home care.

It provides for individual health savings accounts.

If you don't USE all of your annual benefit, you can roll it over for later use.

It provides for pre-existing conditions.

Children may remain on their parent's plan up to the age of 25.

Best of all, it does this within existing framework, without creating another government nightmare.

Posted by Paul Harvey on Aug. 13 2009,11:42 am

What pisses me off is that most independent doctors and dentists will bitch and moan to high heaven about submitting insurance paperwork and ll the expense involved and then only give you a 5% maximum cash discount. Tells me they're are lying or fudging and exaggerating these costs.

Posted by Paul Harvey on Aug. 13 2009,11:43 am

double post

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 13 2009,11:51 am

Ned

QUOTE

We certainly have way too many people making way too much money on healthcare. This has to change, the status quo doesn't work anymore............ ned

Once again--just like railing against "Big Oil Companies" or "Big (insert name here)". IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT, YOU SHOULD CONVERT WHATEVER YOU CAN TO CASH AND BUY PART OF THESE COMPANIES. You apparently have information that Wall Street hasn't figured out--you can get RICH on it! :sarcasm:

Or, maybe you DO own part of the health care industry. If you have a retirement plan or mutual funds, you likely DO.

Why is it up to DONKS to say how much profit a company can make? Why do they want to put a limit on what individuals can make (unless, of course, they are involved in the entertainment or sports industries). Are you advocating ANOTHER level of government that will dictate what everybody will make?

Donks ignore the fact that if some company is making a lot of money, ANOTHER company will step in and start doing the same thing--providing better service for LESS. They also ignore the fact that government control usually leads to shortages, rationing, and people turning to the "black market" to obtain what they can't from the government controlled industry.

Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 13 2009,12:04 pm

Then explain subsidies, Jim. The oil industry gets subsidies. Why? Big Pharma gets subsidies. Why?

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 13 2009,12:06 pm

Jim-

QUOTE

"You aren't LISTENING to us!"
Irish-They're listening to us. WE told them we wanted health care reform. We told them we wanted to do something about pre-existing conditions, the millions that are uninsured, etc.

As Big Al told Tim the Tool Man--"I don't think so, Tim!"

Obambi brought up health care as a campaign issue. I didn't see any grass-roots demand for it--especially after it had been trounced as Hillarycare.

QUOTE

JIM--"You can't keep SPENDING like this!"
Irish--Funny how I don't remember seeing these people screaming their heads off and storming every town hall possible when Bush was in office. Is spending the problem, or is it just spending when a DONK is in office?

I've already gone on record as opposing Repubs that spent like Donks--"Donk Lite". It got far WORSE after the Donks had control of Congress in 1996. They had two years to rein in spending prior to the inauguration of "The One". They only made it WORSE--then came the spending storm of Obama--they have a higher deficit in the first 4 months than ALL of the previous Presidents combined!

QUOTE

Jim--
"Where is the Constitutional right for you to do this?"
Irish--Where is the Constitutional right for interstate travel, USPS, ATF, CIA, NSA, USDA, FAA, CBO, DIA, Homeland Security, or the local dog catcher?

See GD's response--I can't improve on that.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 13 2009,12:19 pm

Irish

QUOTE

Funny how many of the people outraged at these town hall meetings are on Medicare, but are outraged about the idea of starting government run health care coverage.

Maybe that's because:

These people have SEEN the inefficiencies of Medicare.

They have ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with the government bureaucracy.

They have ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with a program that is so weak that they need to buy supplemental PRIVATE insurance. If government care is so good, why do most Medicare recipients buy ADDITIONAL PRIVATE INSURANCE? :dunno:

They have ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with Medicare refusing to pay for some treatments.

They have ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with health care providers declining to take Medicare business because of the poor payment record of government.

They have ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with the government changing the rules whenever they see fit.

They have ACTUAL EXPERIENCE in visiting countries with long wait times for rationed health care.

Maybe they are afraid of a government that will tell them that they aren't "worth" spending money on--and offers "end of life counseling" instead.

OR, maybe they are just P/O'd THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS PROPOSING TO FUND THIS BOONDOGGLE BY TAKING $400 BILLION OUT OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM THEY PAID INTO!

Somehow, I don't think that these seniors are part of an "organized mob" as Pelosi/Gibbs/Obama state. I don't see them carrying swastikas, either--as the left wing nutjobs state. Unlike the lefties listed above, these people have seen REAL Nazis.

Posted by Ned Kelly on Aug. 13 2009,12:33 pm

Don't you have to work, Jim, 3 posts in 30 minutes? Or are you working a side job for the NRC? You should be getting paid for all the time you spend defending the Repulican party. If not you are being suckered by them...............

....ned

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 13 2009,1:02 pm

Ned

QUOTE

Don't you have to work, Jim, 3 posts in 30 minutes?

Don't YOU have to work, Ned? You've had time to watch this on your computer for over 30 minutes? Does your EMPLOYER know that you've been cheating him?

I don't work HARD, I just have to BE here.

Like most business owners, I'm never "off duty." If you look at the posts, I'm here about 12 hours a day, from about 9 to 9. If you look at the posts, I'm also here on weekends. I'm here nearly 80 hours a week--nearly TWICE what most people put in the office. Not complaining--if I'm here, I often don't have to pay somebody ELSE to be here--it's like paying myself!

Besides, if I went home, I'd have lots of chores to do. My wife's being retired now is hard on me! Better I hide out here!

It's a FULL TIME JOB educating libbies--but like most missionaries, I do it as a service to humanity--trying to break them of their evil ways. :sarcasm:

Often, people like Hymen or Alci will put up a particularly egregious post--and I have to find an example to prove their error. I don't mind it--it keeps me involved and informed--but it takes time. It's better than volunteering at the library, though!

It's not about defending Repubs--I haven't given them money in 8 years. I particularly enjoy drilling libbies for their erroneous thinking--and with the exception of some RINOs in Congress, all the libbies are Donks. Every time I mock a libbie, I can expect 4 or 5 outraged posts back--which just gives me MORE material to work with.

I get fan mail and calls. One caller said "I go to coffee in the morning--sometimes SEVERAL places. The Forum is the topic of discussion. You have no idea how discussed the Forum is--one guy prints out the "best of the Forum" and brings it along. It's our morning entertainment when you take it to the libbies!"

Even as I'm finishing this, I received a call--"Who is Ned Kelley--asking if you have a job? He reminds me of Kramer on Seinfeld--he and the rest of the libbies can sure come up with some weird ****!

It seems we are BOTH famous in a small town--a dubious honor. Let's enjoy our 15 minutes of fame! :rofl:

All in good fun!

Posted by Ned Kelly on Aug. 13 2009,1:21 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 13 2009,1:02 pm)

QUOTE

Besides, if I went home, I'd have lots of chores to do. My wife's being retired now is hard on me! Better I hide out here!

So the truth really is out there........ :rofl:

.....ned

Posted by Wareagle11B on Aug. 13 2009,2:41 pm

QUOTE

August 7, 2009
St. Louis, Missouri

I am Kenneth's attorney. Kenneth was attacked on the evening of August 6, 2009 at Rep. Russ Carnahan's town hall meeting in South St. Louis County. I was at the town hall meeting as well and witnessed the events leading up to the attack of Kenneth. Kenneth was approached by an SEIU representative as Kenneth was handing out "Don't Tread on Me" flags to other conservatives. The SEIU representative demanded to know why a black man was handing out these flags. The SEIU member used a racial slur against Kenneth, then punched him in the face. Kenneth fell to the ground. Another SEIU member yelled racial epithets at Kenneth as he kicked him in the head and back. Kenneth was also brutally attacked by one other male SEIU member and an unidentified woman. The three men were clearly SEIU members, as they were wearing T-shirts with the SEIU logo.

Kenneth was beaten badly. One assailant fled on foot; three others were arrested. Kenneth was admitted to St. John's Mercy Medical Center emergency room, where he was treated for his numerous injuries. Kenneth was merely expressing his freedom of speech by handing out the flags. In fact, he merely asked people as they exited the town hall meeting whether they would like a flag. He in no way provoked any argument or altercation, as evidenced by the fact that three assailants were arrested.

We hope that Kenneth fully recovers from his injuries; however, he is in great pain at this time. We will be pursuing legal action at our discretion. This was a truly senseless hate crime carried out by racist union thugs. Regretfully, Representative Carnahan's statement this morning that implies Kenneth is to blame for being a disruptive force is wholly untrue and slanderous. We would like to think that an elected official in Representative Carnahan's position would gather accurate information before carelessly rushing to judgment.

Kenneth supports conservative ideals, although he subscribes to no particular political party. We are calling on the SEIU, Representative Carnahan, and President Obama to condemn the racist actions of these union thugs. In the days to come, we will be investigating whether these thugs are working at the behest of Representative Carnahan and how strong their alliances to various organizations--such as ACORN--may be.

We hope the St. Louis Tea Party and tea party organizations around the country will protest Representative Carnahan's offices and also protest SEIU offices in every major city across the U.S. These Democratic strong-arm tactics must end now.

Regards,
Attorney David

I personally could give a rats a$$ which party you affiliate with but when one party permits this kind of behavior in order to silence opposition what does it say about us as a country?

The Union's and Union leadership are hugely in agreement with the DNC and it's values and yet the SEIU allows it's people to do such heinous acts to a person who was doing nothing more than peacefully protesting which is his right.

These types of actions are expected in countries such as the former USSR and North Korea but why are they now permitted in this country? When did we stoop to this level? I do not recall anything of this sort happening during the 8 years of President Bush.

Something else I find quite odd is that the Democratic party likes to affiliate itself with the likes of President Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. President Lincoln was a Republican and it is speculated that MLK Jr was also. Both of these men were assassinated by hard core Democrats. The Democratic party was responsible for more outrage to the black people during and after the Civil War and yet it's the Democrats that perpetuate the misguided belief that they stand for the rights of minorities more so than the Republican party. Go Figure. :crazy:

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 13 2009,2:56 pm

^ Do you believe everything someones Lawyer tells you? They're paid to zealously defend their clients, not exactly "fair and balanced." And I don't see any evidence other than his imagination that the fight wasn't provoked. Guys who get beat up usually turn into "he said/she said." I've seen plenty of people start a fight, and then magically turn into a helpless victim.

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 13 2009,3:05 pm

(Common Citizen @ Aug. 13 2009,9:34 am)

QUOTE

So we're going to dismantle the whole health care system for the rest of the 288 million people so the that the approximately 12 million people you mention are taken care of?

Dismantle? In this state we have MinnesotaCare for many people, I haven't seen that DISMANTLE anything. Be careful what the conservative media tells you, even if Jim thinks there is no conservative media!

Do you have a source for your number of insured/uninsured? Other than conservative bloggers, a quick google search tells me every other source out there says it's over 40 million.

Posted by Wareagle11B on Aug. 13 2009,3:08 pm

(irisheyes @ Aug. 13 2009,2:56 pm)

QUOTE

No I.E. I don't believe everything a Lawyer has to say. I believe it was Shakespeare who had the line in the play King Henry VI about killing the lawyers.(I can sometimes agree with that statement when those stupid ads come on the TV

) However on Youtube is this video (Some foul language is used in it) and please note that the one they focus on and who is being arrested is wearing a purple SEIU Union shirt.

It would certainly seem that what the lawyer is stating has some ring of truth to it. (Unusual for a lawyer I know) The point I am trying to make here however is when did we permit this kind of behavior? When people are peacefully protesting which, in this country, is their constitutional right when did we stoop to this level?

Posted by Wareagle11B on Aug. 13 2009,3:27 pm

Another thing for y'all to think about.....Where's that wonderful :sarcasm:

Race Baiter Al Sharpton and all the people who, had this happened to a Black Democratic protester, would be Johnny-on-the-Spot faster than you can say Amen?

This gentleman is a black conservative who was protesting and yet nary a peep from the usual race baiting a$$holes. Could it be because the SEIU is a huge supporter of the Democratic party and the race baiters like to think they are major players in the Democratic food chain? :dunno:

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 13 2009,3:33 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 13 2009,12:19 pm)

QUOTE

Irish

QUOTE

Funny how many of the people outraged at these town hall meetings are on Medicare, but are outraged about the idea of starting government run health care coverage.

Maybe that's because:

These people have SEEN the inefficiencies of Medicare.

They have ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with the government bureaucracy.

The audiences at many of these meetings were polled, those on Medicare were overwhelmingly pleased with it. Hardly any wanted to get rid of Medicare. The funny thing is, they just didn't realize that Medicare was government health coverage!
:oops:

QUOTE

They have ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with Medicare refusing to pay for some treatments.

Yeah, cause that NEVER happens with private insurance. :rofl:

QUOTE

They have ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with the government changing the rules whenever they see fit.

I've known plenty of people who get a letter from private insurance every month or so telling them the new things that WON'T be covered anymore. But their rates will be increasing anyway. It's funny how you don't mind if this stuff happens as long as someone is getting rich as a result.

QUOTE

I've already gone on record as opposing Repubs that spent like Donks--"Donk Lite".

Where do you oppose Republicans that overspend? You always defend them and blame it on Democrats in Congress. The only time I see you saying you oppose the Republicans spending, is when you're defending yourself for not opposing the Republicans spending!

QUOTE

See GD's response--I can't improve on that.

So you're in favor of dismantling the CIA, & NSA? Both organizations that you've routinely defended the operations of in the past? During Bush's domestic wiretapping program, I don't remember you complaining that the program & organization weren't mentioned in the Constitution. :dunno:

QUOTE

As Big Al told Tim the Tool Man--"I don't think so, Tim!"

Obambi brought up health care as a campaign issue. I didn't see any grass-roots demand for it--especially after it had been trounced as Hillarycare.

So health care reform wasn't an issue before the Obama campaign?

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 13 2009,3:48 pm

(Wareagle11B @ Aug. 13 2009,3:08 pm)

QUOTE

However on Youtube is this video (Some foul language is used in it) and please note that the one they focus on and who is being arrested is wearing a purple SEIU Union shirt.

Thanks for the video. That particular video doesn't really change my mind though. The reason it doesn't is because the video was started AFTER the fight began. As for who winds up in cuffs, I've seen plenty of people start a fight walk away free in clear when the one who FINISHED the fight winded up in a cell.

Not saying it didn't happen the way you say, I'm just skeptical of these situations. It all comes down to one persons word against another.

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 13 2009,4:29 pm

(irisheyes @ Aug. 13 2009,3:05 pm)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Aug. 13 2009,9:34 am)

QUOTE

So we're going to dismantle the whole health care system for the rest of the 288 million people so the that the approximately 12 million people you mention are taken care of?

Do you have a source for your number of insured/uninsured? Other than conservative bloggers, a quick google search tells me every other source out there says it's over 40 million.

Let's see... according wiki there are 45.7 million uninsured.

Now let's break it down...

-9 million of those that make over $75k a year (you can argue some of these may have pre-existing, but what percentage :dunno:

)
-12 million that are eligible to sign up for medicaid and schip haven't for what ever reason :dunno:

-8 million young adults ages 18-24 who would prefer to spend their money on other things...raise your hand if you know anyone, ages 18-24, like that.
-10, or so, million illegals...I mean non-citizens to be politically correct

...what does that leave? 6.7 million that are lost in shuffle.

MNCare hasn't dismantled anything because that program doesn't tread on freedom of choice or the free markets. Obamacare if far sweeping and far reaching.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 13 2009,5:24 pm

Irish

QUOTE

The audiences at many of these meetings were polled, those on Medicare were overwhelmingly pleased with it. Hardly any wanted to get rid of Medicare.

REALLY? Show us a town hall meeting where people said "I like Medicare".

QUOTE

I've known plenty of people who get a letter from private insurance every month or so telling them the new things that WON'T be covered anymore.

Every month or so? You wouldn't be engaging in hyperbole, would you? As the old saying goes, "I've told you a MILLION TIMES to quit exaggerating!" :laugh:

Government can and does change without notice--note that the "Cash for clunkers" bill was changed 3 days into the program.

The difference between private and government programs is that if you are dissatisfied with a PRIVATE program, you simply pick another company. Try doing that with Government programs. You're stuck! Government is never responsive to the needs of individuals--think Drivers License Bureau. If government WAS responsive to the needs of the people, you wouldn't see the anger at it that you are seeing now.

QUOTE

Where do you oppose Republicans that overspend?

You haven't been paying attention--again. Why do you suppose I don't give any money to the Republican party? Why do you think I say they are "Donk Lite"? Why do you think I call McCain a liberal? :dunno:

QUOTE

So you're in favor of dismantling the CIA, & NSA? Both organizations that you've routinely defended the operations of in the past?

I don't recall ever addressing the NSA. The CIA--yes, I have defended them in the past--when they were independent and not a political tool. The Donks gutted the organization by restricting their ground personnel--and outing operatives. When it came time to gather intel in Iraq--we had no people there--and predictably, the Donks fretted about the lack of intel. The CIA in its present form is useless--either let them do their work, or give it to the military. The CIA performed well in Vietnam, providing "plausible deniability" through Air America (the airline, not the failed libbie radio station), and afterwards Southern Air Transport--and today, Evergreen.

QUOTE

So health care reform wasn't an issue before the Obama campaign?

It was minor. You didn't see big demonstrations by Donks in the street, demanding health care--they demonstrated about Iraq, "Bushitler", and every other cause--but I've never seen one on health care. I'm sure that the Repubs would have LIKED the Donks to do so--after all, the thumping that HillaryCare received helped sink the Donks in the 1994 elections! :laugh:

You keep defending this turkey of a program, and advocating the government program. Should we put you down as a Michael Moore believer in the Workers Paradise of Cuban Health Programs? :sarcasm:

As Neal Boortz quipped today in his column

QUOTE

Cuba can't even provide its citizens with enough toilet paper, and yet the lamestream media in America just marvels at their "free" healthcare system.

My guess is that the Cuban government will fix the problem--not by making more toilet paper, but by restricting food "input". :rofl:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 13 2009,5:52 pm

I told you I receive "fan mail" and telephone calls. Here's an excerpt from an E-mail I received from a "lurker"--someone whose opinion I respect, and who regularly reads the Forum, but doesn't want to get bogged down in the muck and slime of the trench warfare.

Why is he trying to fix the unbroken parts of the current health care system? There certainly are things that need correcting, but they are buried in the hogwash that is being dumped on us from above. The costs are skyrocketing in health care, but the reasons are many times caused by the very basic liberal concept.

1. Overpopulation.
2. Overpopulation with a lack of incentive for that population to contribute to coffers. “Somebody should take care of us.”
3. In this litigious (“its somebody else’s fault) society, doctors and hospitals cannot possibly have enough insurance to protect themselves. Yes, you lost your hand, here is 25 million $$.
4. Emergency rooms. Wonder how many of those that arrive are insured?
5. We have become a net importer of 3rd world countries problems….China, India….yet we are being dumbed down to Shaman like beliefs, losing our language, and our sense of right or wrong (laws…its nobodies fault)

What does this remind you of? We are doomed to be the Aztecs of the 21st century. Thriving civilization, dominated the region, and people flocked to the locality to bask in that success. Too bad.

1. They could not grow enough (production) to support the economy. Could not carry the crops in fast enough from the outskirts, and there are only so many wild pigs. Not enough people did their part, the “Gods” would take care of them…
2. The economy was based on a false value system (religion/spiritualism and gold) couldn’t trade either for anything of value, and couldn’t eat either one. Borrowing imaginary money from ourselves, to pay to car companies we own…on borrowed imaginary money? (Cash for Clunkers) What makes a diamond worth its high cost? Answer: Nothing. It’s a rock, found on the ground, it really is not scarce, it’s marketing by the DeBeers corporation. They have tons of them stored away. “the traditional rule is to spend 3 months salary on your engagement ring” says who? Made up, made up, made up.
3. The Aztecs became complacent, eventually evolving into depending on outside economies to do their work for them…basically slaves (and eventual sacrificial victims) Think China, Taiwan, Mexico, and India.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMERICA BECOMING THE NEW AZTEC EMPIRE OF THE WORLD--A VICTIM OF ITS OWN PRACTICES AND SUCCESS--HMMMMM--INTERESTING OBSERVATION!

Some have speculated that the Mayan's suffereed the same fate--except for the depredation of the population by human sacrifice--that the cities died because of overpopulation by immigration, lack of people to actually DO the work , importing of people to do the work for them ("guest workers", and finally, inability to take care of the needs of all these people.

Every Indian tribe from our own Southwest to the Inca's had a similar legend in the coming of the "feathered serpent", Quetzelcoatl. When this god appeared at regular intervals, the tribes prospered and learned. Cortez was able to conquer the Aztecs partly because they considered him a god, and they willingly did what he said. By the time they found out that he was NOT a god, it was too late--he hand made off with all of their gold--not unlike the current administration! :rofl:

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 13 2009,6:35 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 13 2009,5:24 pm)

QUOTE

The difference between private and government programs is that if you are dissatisfied with a PRIVATE program, you simply pick another company.

So fine, stick with your private insurance. The sky isn't falling just because you say it is.

QUOTE

Where do you oppose Republicans that overspend?

You haven't been paying attention--again. Why do you suppose I don't give any money to the Republican party? Why do you think I say they are "Donk Lite"? Why do you think I call McCain a liberal?

Not giving money to the party or calling McCain a libbie doesn't prove to me that you're hard on Republicans for overspending. I pay attention more than you realize, and every time someone has blamed Bush or Reagan for spending you've shifted the blame to the Donks in Congress.

QUOTE

I don't recall ever addressing the NSA. The CIA--yes, I have defended them in the past--when they were independent and not a political tool.

You can't have it both ways. You say government can't get involved with health care because it's not in the Constitution, yet you're okay with organizations like the CIA (which also isn't mentioned in the Constitution) as long as they torture enough to keep the conservatives happy.

QUOTE

So health care reform wasn't an issue before the Obama campaign?

I didn't realize people had to protest in order for it to be a big issue. I heard more talk about wind energy than anything else in the debates, because it sparked big approval, and yet I saw no demonstrations or picketing of people demanding more of that.

Posted by hymiebravo on Aug. 13 2009,7:18 pm

QUOTE

I told you I receive "fan mail" and telephone calls.

Why do they call you? You don't have a vote in congress do you?

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 13 2009,7:31 pm

That's an excerpt of an email?

I wonder if that person has ever heard of Hernán Cortés, smallpox, or typhus?

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec#Spanish_conquest >

Do you republitards just make this stuff up in your heads? Or is someone spoon-feeding you guys this garbage?

Posted by hymiebravo on Aug. 13 2009,7:37 pm

QUOTE

3. In this litigious (“its somebody else’s fault) society, doctors and hospitals cannot possibly have enough insurance to protect themselves. Yes, you lost your hand, here is 25 million $$.

How much should you get for losing your hand through negligence then?

I mean that whole tort/litigation business just seems like subterfuge to take away from other issues IMO but none-the-less.

What is fair then? Should we just do away with it all together? If you lose lose a hand due to inept negligence, tough luck?

I like that $250,000 limit idea. :sarcasm:

If I give you $250,000 will you let me chop off your hand?

Posted by hymiebravo on Aug. 13 2009,7:50 pm

QUOTE

Do you republitards just make this stuff up in your heads? Or is someone spoon-feeding you guys this garbage?

I would say a combination of BOTH. The tort reform issue seemed to be brought up by Bush a lot.

Wouldn't want to attack pharmaceutical companies
< http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106899074 >

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 13 2009,9:11 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 13 2009,5:52 pm)

QUOTE

In this litigious (“its somebody else’s fault) society, doctors and hospitals cannot possibly have enough insurance to protect themselves. Yes, you lost your hand, here is 25 million $$.

Hannity wears a nice suit and makeup, but lets listen to the experts instead of the overblown numbers.

Department of Justice-

QUOTE

Few medical malpractice insurance claims produced payouts that exceeded $1 million. Less than 10 percent of the claims in Florida, Maine, Missouri and Nevada had payouts of $1 million or more. In Florida, Maine and Missouri, about two-thirds of the claims were closed with insurance payouts of less than $250,000.

Among persons receiving compensation, insurance payouts were highest for claimants who suffered lifelong major or grave permanent injuries. In Florida and Missouri, claimants with these types of injuries received median payouts ranging from $278,000 to $350,000. Insurance payouts were lowest for claimants who suffered temporary or emotional injuries. In Florida and Missouri, claimants who suffered these types of injuries received median payouts ranging from $5,000 to $79,000. <
Bureau of Justice Statistics - Medical Malpractice >

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 14 2009,12:27 pm

(hymiebravo @ Aug. 13 2009,7:18 pm)

QUOTE

I told you I receive "fan mail" and telephone calls.

Why do they call you? You don't have a vote in congress do you?

As usual, Hymen, you missed the point. People just enjoy seeing libbie's lampooned and their talkinig points mocked.

Your "soulmate"--Alci (pronounced "Alki") remarked about "3 posts in 30 minutes." He/she/it ALSO missed the obvious--it's so EASY to lampoon libbies--they give you so much material to WORK with! :laugh:

Posted by Paul Harvey on Aug. 14 2009,12:30 pm

It's gotten to the point that instead of someone reporting the news and then us choosing sides of an issue, we have our own news slanted for our own view of reality.

When are we gonna come back to one reality Jim?

Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 14 2009,12:40 pm

(hymiebravo @ Aug. 13 2009,7:37 pm)

QUOTE

If I give you $250,000 will you let me chop off your hand?

Nice one.

You're okay in my book. Sorry about climbing aboard the whole Hymie Award thingy. Never again.

:rockon:

Post-script: It's two billion for a hand, over here.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 14 2009,1:10 pm

Irish

QUOTE

So fine, stick with your private insurance. The sky isn't falling just because you say it is.

But the sky IS falling, just because "The One" SAYS it is? :rofl:

Apparently, 84% say it is NOT.

Like the majority of Americans, I'll stick with my private insurance--as long as taxpayer subsidized government insurance doesn't decide to put them out of business.

QUOTE

every time someone has blamed Bush or Reagan for spending you've shifted the blame to the Donks in Congress.

Would that be because it is CONGRESS THAT HAS CONTROL OF THE PURSE STRINGS? C'mon--you're not dumb enough to believe that the President controls spending, so why would you say that?

QUOTE

you're okay with organizations like the CIA (which also isn't mentioned in the Constitution)

Using a libbie construction of the Constitution (you know, the "living, breathing document" argument), I believe that woould come under "Provide for the common defense" clause. UNLIKE this health care turkey, the CIA isn't taking nearly 1/5 of the GNP of the entire country--and unlike the CIA, it isn't wrecking the economy with a $1.6 TRILLION dollar cost that we can't afford. Hardly the same, is it?

QUOTE

as long as they torture enough to keep the conservatives happy.

You've slipped over the Kool-aide falls with this hyperbole. Conservatives are "happy" with torture?

You continue to maintain that there was a big demand for health care during the campaign. That's the trouble with debating libbies--they never back up their assertions. This took 4 minutes out of my life to disprove your claim. :laugh:

From null< My Webpage >

Note that "health care was 9th out of 10 issues for people searching for information on Obama--but it was FIRST for McCain.

QUOTE

Top Political Issue Search Terms sending visits to the Presidential Candidate Websites

Barack Obama John McCain
Q108 Top Issues Q208 Top Issues Q108 Top Issues Q208 Top Issues
Gay marriage Abortion Health Care Health Care
Abortion Education Immigration Environmental/Global Warming
Gun Control Environmental/Global Warming Abortion Oil Prices
Education Health Care Environmental/Global Warming Education
Immigration Immigration Economy Immigration

Rassmussen polls "What's important to you" regularly. In July, 2007--"Health Care" didn't even make the list. < My Webpage >

By October, it had 13%. < My Webpage >

By Jan, 2008 it had moved ALL THE WAY UP TO 14%!

< My Webpage >

With Obama pounding on it during his campaign, by July of 2008, there was "goodnews/bad news." The GOOD news for Obama, according to Rasmussen

QUOTE

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of voters say health care is a very important issue, marking an 18-point jump from May and the highest level found since September 2007. It is now the third most important issue to voters after coming in seventh in the last poll.

The BAD news for Obama

QUOTE

But more Americans (49%) now oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats than favor it (46%).

In other words--the more he pounds the issue, the more people think it is important--but the more they are OPPOSED to it! :rofl:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 14 2009,1:22 pm

Hymen

QUOTE

I mean that whole tort/litigation business just seems like subterfuge to take away from other issues IMO but none-the-less.

What is fair then? Should we just do away with it all together? If you lose lose a hand due to inept negligence, tough luck?

Subterfuge? It is the ESSENCE of the high cost of health care. Try to follow along--I'll try to keep it simple for you.

Ambulance chasing lawyers=more lawsuits.

High jury awards=high insurance premiums.

High insurance premiums=higher health care costs.

Fear of lawsuits=more "defensive medicine"--unneccessary tests, procedures, exploratory surgery, helicopter transport, referral to "specialists".

Any reform program that doesn't include tort reform will NOT reduce costs.

Like "The ONe"--YOu've been short on specifics, Hymen. How about if YOU tell us how you are going to include all of these people, and NOT cost more money? You'd better be GOOD at it--because Obama hasn't made his case, and the OMB says that contrary to his assertion, it will add $1.6 TRILLION--twice as much as the "stimulus" package, to an already overburdened economy.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 14 2009,1:38 pm

(Paul Harvey @ Aug. 14 2009,12:30 pm)

QUOTE

I'll take that as a serious (rather than rhetorical) question. The answer is--when we are faced with a catastrophe.
We won't come together as a nation unless something threatens us. War, invasion, natural disaster, disease, famine, or a man-made disaster like the collapse of the banking system, hyper-inflation, or other financial disaster.

We came together for a few weeks after 9/11--but once the immediate danger was past, quickly reverted to finger-pointing.

I believe it has reached the tipping point--and the point was NOT the election last November, but the actions of the past 6 months. The election was for PREFERENCE--the protests today will get more and more strident and divisive.

Including the Dem's WISH LIST will be economic disaster--more and more business going offshore, more loss of balance of trade, more unemployment, fewer and fewer people to repay the big program payouts, a subsequent huge rise in inflation as the government prints more money, a decline in the dollar--which starts the whole cyle over again.

The problem with the Obama programs is the SIZE of them--unlike OTHER government programs, they are PERMANENT--once we have them, we're stuck. Unlike OTHER government programs, these are so huge that they can't be undone if they don't work. We only have ONE CHANCE to get it right--yet the Administration insists on fast action.

Would MOST people make a hasty decision on 1/5 of all the money they will EVER make? I don't think so, and I don't see the need for fast action. Let's consider this carefully, and by bringing it up next year, we will in effect be having a referendum on the issue.

OR, we could be like our former County Administrator, Gabe. When asked why he went with lease/revenue bonds instead of a bond issue, he replied "Because it would never have passed--people don't KNOW what is good for them!"

That wasn't good locally, and it isn't good for the nation.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 14 2009,6:33 pm

have you all seen this.
Man this guy has some balls. LOLZ

+1

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 14 2009,11:40 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 14 2009,1:10 pm)

QUOTE

Would that be because it is CONGRESS THAT HAS CONTROL OF THE PURSE STRINGS? C'mon--you're not dumb enough to believe that the President controls spending, so why would you say that?

No, I'm not dumb enough to believe that. But I'm not dumb enough to think that the President has nothing to do with it either. As you probably know, the President submits his budget proposal, Congress creates their budget, submits it to him and he either signs it, doesn't sign it, or vetoes it. If Congress can't bypass his veto, they'll have to come up with a budget that the President WILL sign.

QUOTE

you're okay with organizations like the CIA (which also isn't mentioned in the Constitution)

Using a libbie construction of the Constitution (you know, the "living, breathing document" argument), I believe that woould come under "Provide for the common defense" clause.

Neither of us believe that the Constitution is a "living document," so not sure why'd you'd go that route. I understand your argument about an agency like the CIA falling under the "common defense" clause, but if you have your Constitution handy you'll see right next to where it says "provide for the common defense", it also says "general welfare."

QUOTE

as long as they torture enough to keep the conservatives happy.

You've slipped over the Kool-aide falls with this hyperbole. Conservatives are "happy" with torture?

Oh yes, conservatives love seeing random brown people who may or may not be terrorists tortured. Oh, I forgot, it's not torture, it's enhanced interrogation.

By the way, has Hannity signed up to try it yet?

QUOTE

From null< My Webpage >

Thanks, but I don't see how that disproves my claim. I think you're proving my point for me.

I don't see what the distinction is between the first and second list they give, but they're clearly different lists since many things show up on both. That would mean from the second list that health care was the 4th biggest search term that sent people to Obama's site. Contrast that to Abortion being 3rd to send people to McCain's site. Under your logic, you could also try to say that abortion isn't a big issue to conservatives, since it didn't show up first, but we know that isn't true.

Just because something isn't the BIGGEST issue to people, doesn't mean it doesn't matter to them.

As for your continued assertion that health care reform wasn't an issue before Obama's campaign, how about this?
< Gallup Poll - 2007 >
This poll was published the day before Obama declared his candidacy for President. Without promting, people were asked what 1 or 2 issues should the President and Congress deal with. The 2nd biggest issue (after the situation in Iraq) was "Poor healthcare/hospitals; high cost of healthcare." Health care reform ranked HIGHER than the economy, illegal immigration, the environment, social security, terrorism, national security, etc.

Again, I'll say, America told Obama to reform health care, not the other way around.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 15 2009,12:53 am

I have to interject here in regards to the misconception of the General Welfare clause; In the writings of Jefferson and Madison "General Welfare" WAS NOT intended to be used as a "For the common Good" in which has been abused in turning out laws regarding Welfare and other taxpayer funded Socialist programs, such abuses are common in a Democracy, in which the Founding Fathers detested, which is why the United States was Founded as a Constitutional Republic. There are NO checks or balances in a Democracy, the Founding Father would be appalled in how this is being used and promoted on a falsehood in which to fleece the citizens of their hard earned money.

General Welfare was to be used as a limitation on the power of the United States Congress to use its powers of taxing and spending. And this clause is taken from the Preamble of the Constitution and is NOT an article or an Amendment in which is not binding nor Enumerated.

Posted by Ned Kelly on Aug. 15 2009,8:56 am

We are against abortion and taxes but we can't change healthcare or even talk about it to save lives and money. We all have our simple little agendas and we can't think about anyone elses. The people who can afford lobbyists and the dumba$$s that believe the crap that they spout deserve the government they get.
Politics that divide and conquer will always be able to defeat a populace that believes only they and their thoughts are correct.

We must be able to hear both sides of anything that is said. I have lived over 60 years and have seen us be fooled time and time again. The politicos use fear to guide their own agendas. Both parties use it. But for now will we listen to those who stand to gain by the status quo or those who want to make our country a better place to live. we need to spend our money in better ways for healthcare, let's listen and hear what is out there. The politicians are saying what they think we want to hear, but are they saying what we think?

Healthcare if left alone, will sink upon the weight of the cost, and only the wealthy will be able to go to the doctor and grandma will die for lack of care, plain and simple......

...ned

Posted by hairhertz on Aug. 15 2009,9:03 am

Will the members of Congress be covered under this new plan? Or will the exempt themselves like they do for everything else?

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 15 2009,9:13 am

(hairhertz @ Aug. 15 2009,9:03 am)

QUOTE

Will the members of Congress be covered under this new plan? Or will the exempt themselves like they do for everything else?

As written, those slimeballs AKA congress is exempt from the same very plan that they are trying to ram down our throats.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 15 2009,11:45 am

(Liberal @ Aug. 13 2009,7:31 pm)

QUOTE

The person that wrote the letter was with me in Mexico City at Teotihuacon. The university professor talked about the Spanish Conquest--and it IS one of the most remarkable stories ever--but he also said that the Aztec empire was already in decline due to overpopulation in the Valley of Mexico, the voracious appetite of the Aztecs for human sacrifices to appease their leaders--requiring war on neighboring tribes for captives, and the fact that everyone wanted to live the good life in Tenochtitlan, rather than actually doing the work in the outlying area--they sent armies out to capture slaves to do that--creating enemies. He was trying to make the point that we are seeing the same weakness here.

null< My Webpage >

QUOTE

Decline in Aztec Power before Cortez’s Arrival
The greatest misconception about the
conquest of the Aztecs is that the Spanish conquered
the Aztec nation on their own, with only five hundred
and fifty soldiers against tens of thousands of Aztec
warriors. This is simply not the case. It is true that
the Spanish had better weapons technology, but there
is no possible way that the Spanish could have beaten
the Aztecs given the sheer number of Aztec warriors.
Besides, Spanish cannons and muskets were difficult
to transport and, furthermore Spanish gunpowder was
becoming notorious for failing on account of
becoming wet from travel. The truth of the matter is
that the Spanish had allies and it was these allies who
were the real reason behind the Spanish victories.From the first day Cortez landed on the
shore of Veracruz he was made aware of the fact that
the Aztecs had many enemies. One of the most
crucial yet neglected facts of the Spanish conquest is
that the Aztec empire already had started to show
signs of weakness well before Cortez landed
(Carrasco, p.313). For decades Aztec imperialism
had started to catch up with them. Previously
conquered people were starting to get fed up with
being under Aztec rule. Dissention was slowly
spreading throughout the empire. Then two
devastating defeats during campaigns to subjugate
the Kingdoms of Tarascan and Tlaxcalam further
weakened the appearance of Aztec invincibility.
Along with these campaign defeats came a devastating drought that caused a disastrous famine
and further spread of dissention throughout the
empire (Carrasco, p.313).

Yes, Cortez wreaked havoc on the Aztec capital, but that wasn't enough to bring down the empire. Smallpox didn't help either, but then, the empire was already in decline.

Note that I posted that the Mayan empire, though less warlike, was also brought down by some of the same reasons. You can't blame THAT on Conquistadors or European diseases.

Libbies--the people always advocatinig "Change" for change sake, have this strange notion that things should NEVER change. Like Algore, they believe that the way things are NOW should be the way things should ALWAYS be. Algore ignores the fact that the earth has been changing since before his birthday. Empires come and go--nothing is forever. Perhaps you would liek to believe that the Aztec empire would still be extant if it weren't for those nasty Spaniards? :sarcasm:

That the Aztecs, like the Muslims, had a "religion of peace"? :sarcasm:

I've never understood the need for libbies to "apologize" for things they weren't involved in. Libbies consistently apologize for "the despicable actions of the white man"--though EVERY region of the world has seen conquest for millenia. Perhaps, since the other tribes in the area were aligned with the Spaniards AGAINST the Aztecs, they would like to THANK the Spaniards for saving them from the blood-thirsty Aztecs. :sarcasm:

Or MAYBE, Obama could include Mexico in his Worldwide Apology Tour! :sarcasm:

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 15 2009,12:01 pm

QUOTE

Maybe you should have you imaginary "professor" correct wikipedia. :rofl:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 15 2009,12:59 pm

Irish--after I mentioned that you can't blame the President for the spending of Congress.

QUOTE

That's true--the President lays out an AGENDA--a broad outline. Congress does with it what they please--almost always INCREASING it. Donks STILL like to diss Reagan as a "big spender"--but here is an example of his proposed budgets vs. actual Congressional spending.

QUOTE

Federal Budget Outlays
Proposed (Reagan) and Actual (Congress) and
Cumulative Percent Difference
(billions of dollars)1

Outlays
Fiscal Year Proposed Actual % Difference (Cumulative)
1982 695.3 745.8 7.3
1983 773.3 808.4 4.5 (12.1)
1984 862.5 851.8 -1.2 (10.8)
1985 940.3 946.4 0.7 (11.6)
1986 973.7 990.3 1.7 (13.5)
1987 994.0 1003.9 1.0 (14.6)
1988 1024.3 1064.1 3.9 (19.1)
1989 1094.2 1144.2 4.6 (24.5)
___
Totals $7,357.6 $7,554.9 Avg 2.8 (3.1) (averages for 82-9)

It's interesting to look at the budget figures--in 1988, for example, the budget for the ENTIRE US GOVERNMENT first broke $1 trillion dollars--today, the proposed HEALTH CARE DEFICIT ALONE IS HALF AGAIN LARGER THAN THAT. :crazy:

QUOTE

Oh yes, conservatives love seeing random brown people who may or may not be terrorists tortured. Oh, I forgot, it's not torture, it's enhanced interrogation.

You are slipping over the edge again into incoherency--"Stay with me, Irisheyes! Come back! Focus! Don't go to sleep!"

Your post brings up visions of Coliseum fights. "Hey, are your going to the Coliseum tonight? They're going to torture some "random brown people", according to this Irish guy." :sarcasm:

Have you seen any of that lately? Can you give an example of conservatives loving to see this? Or is it just more hyperbole? How many people underwent "torture" at GITMO? Despite libbie bed-wetting, it appears that only the top Al-Quaeda chief was waterboarded.

Libbies are constantly incensed that "our HumVees don't have armor (which they weren't designed for) and our troops are being killed"--yet they don't like the idea of the guy with the knowledge of attacks being subjected to a procedure that has no lasting effects. It is a perfect example of Moonbattery and hypocrisy. :crazy:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 15 2009,1:13 pm

QUOTE

Maybe you should have you imaginary "professor" correct wikipedia.

I went to school in Mexico for 4 months in high school. Our Mexican History professor was on leave from the University of Mexico--like many Socialist countries, they "job share"--spreading the misery--every 4 years, they have to take a year off and let someone else take the job. Consequently, our Mexican History class was about 10% modern history and 90% the antiquities--his specialty. That was his take. I also visited Teotehuacan in 1962--they were just finishing the excavation of the Pyramid of the Sun.

When the letter-writer and I visited Teotehuacan in the 1980s, that was also the take of the professor conducting the tour--the Aztec empire was already in decline. It was that conversation the letter-writer was referring to.

I also mentioned that the Mayan had the same problem--but you don't seem to comment on that.

I gave you a link to yet ANOTHER treatise on the same subject--but you refuse to believe THAT person. What IS it about libbies--"It's right because THAT'S THE WAY I THINK--and NOBODY IS GOING TO CONVINCE ME DIFFERENTLY."

Maybe you should correct Wikipedia--YOU are the one that says that "anybody can post there." Just try telling them that it must be true because YOU believe it. :sarcasm:

Or, you might try getting out more often. It's amazing what you can see outside your basement

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 15 2009,1:24 pm

Maybe you could get your "researcher" that says the hole in the ozone is completely natural, and your "professors" with the alternate view on the Aztecs, together to start a Conservative university. :rofl:

Of course you'd probably have to quit suckin on the local taxpayer's tit out at the airport to accomplish something like that.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 15 2009,1:52 pm

I back my stuff up, unlike your "I'm not listening, I'm not listening" rant. :lalala:

WHY do you suppose the letter-writer said that in the FIRST place? :dunno:

WHY do you not address the fact that the Mayans, who DIDN'T have Conquistadores and smallpox, ALSO declined? :dunno:

You refuse to even ACKNOWLEDGE the quote I gave you--let alone my own experience. I've been there, have YOU? :dunno:

Yet you not only don't provide anything to back up your assertions, but in typical libbie knee-jerk style, you resort to personal and unrelated attack.

Posted by Paul Harvey on Aug. 15 2009,1:59 pm

Well, if you and the Republicans are so smart, why did you fail so miserably the last 6 years? :blush:

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 15 2009,2:17 pm

QUOTE

I back my stuff up, unlike your "I'm not listening, I'm not listening" rant.

You back yourself up by making up stuff and then claiming someone you met said it. Of course you don't have any proof other than your word. :crazy:

QUOTE

WHY do you suppose the letter-writer said that in the FIRST place?

For all we know you made up the letter writer along with the other imaginary people. :crazy:

QUOTE

WHY do you not address the fact that the Mayans, who DIDN'T have Conquistadores and smallpox, ALSO declined?

Yo Dan Quayle it's "Conquistadors" funny you didn't learn that when you spent High school there. :rofl:

QUOTE

You refuse to even ACKNOWLEDGE the quote I gave you--let alone my own experience. I've been there, have YOU?

Of course, I can get a hell of a good look at a T-Bone steak by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it.

QUOTE

Yet you not only don't provide anything to back up your assertions, but in typical libbie knee-jerk style, you resort to personal and unrelated attack.

You want some cheese with that whine?

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 15 2009,2:20 pm

Despite "Democrat talking points"--I wouldn't call "the last 6 years" a failure. (Just curious, MOST Donks recite the talking points as "the failure of the last 8 years--why the difference?)

The stock market was at an all-time high, the war in Iraq was won, despite the predictions and the best efforts of Donks to see that it WASN'T, we weren't attacked again--all pretty GOOD things.

Yes, Congress was led by the Repubs for 6 of those years, and they DID spend money like a drunken Donk, but not NEARLY as fast as the Pelosi bunch did.

Compared to THIS bunch, the REpubs were SKINFLINTS. Would you advocate that they SHOULD have spent like THIS bunch? :sarcasm:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 15 2009,2:46 pm

QUOTE

You back yourself up by making up stuff and then claiming someone you met said it. Of course you don't have any proof other than your word.

I SAID it first, then backed it up with not only my OWN experience, but with others. I then gave ANOTHER example--the Mayans, that declined WITHOUT your blaming of the Conquistador. Knowing that you have to hit a libbie squarely between the eyes just to get it's ATTENTION, I then backed it up with text.

But all of that isn't GOOD enough for a Moonbat--after all, they have the Daily Kos! :rofl:

QUOTE

Yo Dan Quayle it's "Conquistadors" funny you didn't learn that when you spent High school there.

From Dictionary.com

QUOTE

con⋅quis⋅ta⋅dor /kɒnˈkwɪstəˌdɔr, kɒŋ-; Sp. kɔŋˌkistɑˈðɔr/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kon-kwis-tuh-dawr, kong-; Sp. kawng-kees-tah-thawr] Show IPA
Use conquistadores in a Sentence–noun, plural -dors, Spanish. -do⋅res /-ˈðɔrɛs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [-thaw-res] Show IPA . one of the Spanish conquerors of Mexico and Peru in the 16th century.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1540–50; < Sp. equiv. to conquist(ar) to conquer (see conquest ) + -ador -ator

QUOTE

con·quis·ta·dor (kŏn-kwĭs'tə-dôr', kŏng-kē'stə-)
n. pl. con·quis·ta·dors or con·quis·ta·dor·es (-dôr'ās, -ēz)
A conqueror, especially one of the 16th-century Spanish soldiers who defeated the Indian civilizations of Mexico, Central America, or Peru.

[Spanish, from conquistar, to conquer, from Vulgar Latin *conquīsītāre, frequentative of Latin conquīrere, to procure; see conquer.]

QUOTE

Cultural Dictionary

[(kong-kees-tuh-dawr-ays, kong-kees-tuh-dawr-eez)]

The Spanish military leaders who established Spanish rule in the New World by overthrowing Native American governments. (See Hernando Cortés and Francisco Pizarro.)

THE PLURAL OF CONQUISTADOR IS CONQUISTADORES. I LEARNED THAT NOT ONLY IN MEXICO, BUT IN ALBERT LEA HIGH SCHOOL. "DAN QUAYLE"--YOU WOULD TOO, IF YOU HAD BEEN PAYING ATTENTION! :rofl:

Finally--From Bable Fish translator--Spanish to English null< My Webpage > The Spanish term is CONQUISTADORES. I learned that when I was there. :sarcasm:

As usual, I won't EXPECT you to admit you were wrong--OR an apology. Though liibies are BIG on apologies, they save them for people that weren't even INVOLVED. :sarcasm:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 15 2009,3:01 pm

Obama says the insurance companies are funding opponents to health care.

From the NY Slimes--via Drudge null< My Webpage >

He said that some, like Aetna, are "helping"--but that others were obstructing.

So in Obamaland, if you are HELPING, that's OK, but if you DISAGREE, it's NOT? :crazy:

He then accused the insurance companies of "obstructing"--but didn't give names.

In the Moonbat world, companies are not allowed to defend themselves against their own destruction? :crazy:

AND THEY WONDER why the people are deserting them? :rofl:

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 15 2009,3:01 pm

QUOTE

I SAID it first, then backed it up with not only my OWN experience, but with others.

Ok then since I say you're a republitard, and my friend says it, and other people that act like you are called republitards. Well that's it then, you're a republitard.

QUOTE

I then gave ANOTHER example--the Mayans, that declined WITHOUT your blaming of the Conquistador.

What do the Mayans have to do with your claim that policies like Obama's are what caused the collapse of the Aztec Empire?

QUOTE

Knowing that you have to hit a libbie squarely between the eyes just to get it's ATTENTION, I then
backed it up with text.

I notice you say "back it up with text" not "back it up with facts." :rofl:

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 15 2009,3:06 pm

Former Cigna exec describes industry's "close ties" to conservative media, to which "they feed the talking points"

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 15 2009,3:34 pm

It seems I was ahead of the curve--the date on this video is Aug. 13--I sent my letter to the editor Aug. 8--turning myself in. :rofl:

"GO FLAG YOURSELF, OBAMA!" :rofl:

null[URL=

]My Webpage[/URL]

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 15 2009,3:46 pm

Libbie

QUOTE

What do the Mayans have to do with your claim that policies like Obama's are what caused the collapse of the Aztec Empire?

I didn't say that first, the letter writer did, and I agreed with him. Knowing that you would be argumentative, I gave an ANOTHER example--one that couldn't be argued with the old "It was the Europeans fault again they're such BAD People and the Indians would be living in peace and harmony if they had only been left alone" libby line.

And predictably, that IS what you came back with! :rofl:

QUOTE

I notice you say "back it up with text" not "back it up with facts."

You are getting dangerously close to Billy-Bob's parsing of words ("It depends on what the definition of IS-is.") :rofl:

If it makes you feel all better, I'll say it "I back it up with facts." Does that make you feel better? I'm not going to "kiss it and make it all better", though--you'll have to have your Mommy (or her surrogate, the Nanny State!) do that for you! :rofl:

Still searching for a way out of your Conquistadors gaffe so you don't have to apologize? Why don't you talk to Joe Biden, he has a lot of experience with gaffes. :rofl:

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 15 2009,4:04 pm

QUOTE

I didn't say that first, the letter writer did, and I agreed with him.

We have no proof there is even a letter writer, for all anyone knows you're making stuff up again. Just like the imaginary professors that told you the Aztecs collapsed because of Obama's policy, or the imaginary "researcher" that told you the hole in the ozone was a completely natural occurence.

Even if these were real people we know you don't check facts on what people, or commentators, have to say as long as you think it sounds good.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 15 2009,4:04 pm

QUOTE

Former Cigna exec describes industry's "close ties" to conservative media, to which "they feed the talking points"

So--you're saying it's OK for the PRESIDENT and the GOVERNMENT to advocate FOR something, but the TARGET that would be HARMED is not supposed to have representation to tell ITS side of the story?

THAT DOES IT! WHO ARE YOU, AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO THE REAL LIBERAL? :angry:

A REAL LIBERAL (AT LEAST THE ONE I KNEW) WOULD STAND UP FOR FREE SPEECH AGAINST A GOVERNMENT THAT ONLY WANTS ITS OWN SIDE OF THE STORY TOLD! :frusty:

You are an IMPOSTER! Go ahead with your ransom demands, but I want evidence that the REAL LIBERAL is still alive first. Send me a picture of him reading today's Red Star. Recite the words to "Kum-bah-Yah". Show a picture of him hugging a tree!

Hang in there, Liberal--we're working on raising the ransom! :sarcasm:

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 15 2009,4:21 pm

QUOTE

THAT DOES IT! WHO ARE YOU, AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO THE REAL LIBERAL?

A REAL LIBERAL (AT LEAST THE ONE I KNEW) WOULD STAND UP FOR FREE SPEECH AGAINST A GOVERNMENT THAT ONLY WANTS ITS OWN SIDE OF THE STORY TOLD!

Where did I say that people couldn't speak? You seem to be slipping mentally these days, is it old age? Or is it just all that anger over a black man in the white house clouding your thoughts?

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 15 2009,5:31 pm

Well, libbie, if you don't want to take MY word for it, why don't you PROVE it?

I put out not only MY experience, but the experiences of OTHERS, examples of SIMILAR situations, and the FACTS from yet another--yet all we have from the libbie side is "That can't be true because I haven't heard it from my own sources."

These are the same goofballs that think Michael Moore is telling the truth on healthcare, and that AlGore is right on "Global Warming"--we are supposed to take these as fact, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. More evidence of the cult of TRUE BELIEVERS--"Believe what I SAY, ignore all the evidence to the contrary! Libbies brand anyone that doesn't believe as they do to be a heritic or infidel--much like the Muslim world. Like Muslims, Libbie doctrine seems to be "Any infidel should be put to death--or at least visciously attacked." :sarcasm:

QUOTE

Even if these were real people we know you don't check facts on what people, or commentators, have to say as long as you think it sounds good.

Oh, I think I check facts well--in fact, SO well that you don't like the results! :rofl:

Some have chided me over bringing in TOO MANY references--but again, there is no such thing as moderation in dealing with libbies--like t heir mascot, you have to hit them HARD between the eyes to club some sense into a stubborn Donk! :laugh:

QUOTE

Where did I say that people couldn't speak?

I didn't say that at all. You posted a video of a disgruntled ex-insurance company employee complaining that these insurance companies were...........(GASP!) HIRING A PR FIRM TO TELL THEIR STORY! Why WOULD you post that if you didn't think it was wrong for them to do so? :dunno:

How is this different than Gabe & Company, prohibiting someone from speaking their views at the County meeting? :dunno:

QUOTE

Or is it just all that anger over a black man in the white house clouding your thoughts?

YOU are the one that keeps bringing it up, and other libbie TV types (Chris Mathews, and others) keep trying to interject race. Can you name ANY racial post I've made?

I know it's hard to shame a libbie, but this is a NEW LOW--even for a libbie.

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 15 2009,5:53 pm

QUOTE

Well, libbie, if you don't want to take MY word for it, why don't you PROVE it?

As soon as you prove you're not a card carrying member of the republican party that repeats anything he's told by GOP commentators.

I love how you attack liberals on this forum and then when I inevitably slap you down you whine like a little girl everytime. :rofl:

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 17 2009,1:03 am

Now after four days of people getting unsolicited emails from the White House, they finally respond with the expected and unappropriated stance.

It's not our fault.

I've seen the email. In portion it states:

QUOTE

Dear Friend,

This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.

Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.

As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.”

What the crap do they call this then.

They sound like just the typical junk snail mail or emails one frequently gets.

Would someone please tell Obama that the people appreciate this about as much as having to delete all the rest of the spam we get.

This has to be the lowest form of propoganda coming from Axelrod and company.

Unlike these guys, we don't want any spam.

Posted by Paul Harvey on Aug. 17 2009,1:12 am

Awe...did you get a e-mail you didn't want? That's too bad. Did it hurt your feelings? Then the purp should be arrested and charged with a crime.

Posted by scary on Aug. 17 2009,1:47 am

Did anyone watch "Meet the Press"?
it is being replayed right now on NBC.

Interesting!

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 17 2009,1:48 am

Didn't say I got it, I said I have seen it.

Man who stand on toilet...

Lift the lid.

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 17 2009,1:57 am

< White House responds to emails >

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 17 2009,9:10 am

If anyone feels scared or afraid about the White House sending spam to your email, please send your complaints to: spam@kooks.gov :rofl:

Posted by Glad I Left on Aug. 17 2009,9:19 am

I was afraid of things so I sent an email to ALCitizens link.

I got a from letter back signed by Nancy Pelosi. The queen of the kooks.

How this hack stays in office is beyond me. She makes Michele Bachmann look sane, and that is nearly impossilbe.

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 17 2009,9:56 am

(Glad I Left @ Aug. 17 2009,9:19 am)

QUOTE

Quit picking on the old lady. She's given birth to many children, raised em and then became a very powerful politician and she still looks pretty hot. If that describes a kook, then the leader of the republicans (RUSH) must be normal.

Posted by Wareagle11B on Aug. 17 2009,11:23 am

(alcitizens @ Aug. 17 2009,9:56 am)

QUOTE

Quit picking on the old lady. She's given birth to many children, raised em and then became a very powerful politician and she still looks pretty hot.

Oh gawd gag

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 17 2009,12:41 pm

(alcitizens @ Aug. 17 2009,9:56 am)

QUOTE

Quit picking on the old lady. She's given birth to many children, raised em and then became a very powerful politician and she still looks pretty hot.

Looks can be deceiving. I liked the Bachman comparison though, GIL.

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 17 2009,4:30 pm

What's happened to all the left leaning trees around here? The sap must be running backwards like Bam-Bam. It's been awful quiet since Obama and several Senators have basically conceited that a public option health plan doesn't have the votes to pass.

Hate to tell you this, but a cooperative isnt' much different or better. Coop health groups have consistantly been losing money the last few years. Washington state has used a cooperative health plan for some time now.

I don't know what nphilbro has to say about it, but i think he has stated he belongs to a health care alliance and isn't happy with it? I know most have had to go to the well often.

I know that Freeborn County has worked with Minnesota South Country Health Alliance for as long as I've been going to board meetings. They see to be at the dinner table looking for food nearly every single year.

Could this have possibly been what Bam-Bam had in mind all along?

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 17 2009,8:04 pm

Obama's ratings are going down - not because people are moving to the right on the issue. Rather, because he's moving to the right and pandoring to the minority.

Obama seems to forget that he's not a senator anymore - he's the President. I'm sorely disappointed at his lack of leadership. That's why, if I were called, I would say I disapprove of his performance.

He really believed he could bring the country together on the senate floor. I think he still does but the republicans have shown they have no interest in that.

I expect a strong leader to be STRONG and LEAD. He needs to punch the republicans and some democrats in the face, expose them for what they represent (on healthcare INSURANCE reform) as pocketed ATMs for the insurance companies.

Liberals will always be seen as pussies as long as they act this way - the republicans are playing monster trucks, the White House is playing with dolls. I'm pissed - and so are his base supporters.

I've asked Dave Reichart R-WA via email:

QUOTE

Mr. Reichart,

As a young, healthy taxpayer we need to get Socialized Healthcare out of our lives. Please propose a bill in the house to disban Medicare. It's a socialist program that costs America more money by keeping non-working people alive, and drains social security since they live longer because of it. There are also reports of abuse and misuse of the program. Abuse makes me mad and it should make you mad too. The VA has also shown it's completely inept and that should be thrown out too and costs me too much money, especially since I'm not even a veteran and the VA has nothing to do with my family. The veterans of America are the best and brightest among us so there is no need for them to have to rely on the VA because they have been trained so well and are fully employed upon disengagement from the armed forces. The private market should welcome them and all of our premiums will go down as they enter the work pool.

Sincerely yours,

No word back yet.

I'm just pissed. A POOL of crooks doesn't work if they're all crooks. You just get stolen from by different people.

Obama- GROW SOME BALLS!

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 17 2009,8:28 pm

QUOTE

Obama- GROW SOME BALLS!

Kind of hard to do when the boy has got one hurting pussy, if you looked to him to be strong leader, well I have a bridge I'd like to sell, the minute that moron stepped onto the stage I sensed weakness and an obvious two faced back stabbin SOB.

Another thing I have noticed of the few past presidents, it seems these morons put together a plan and congress jumps to it and treats the man like he's some kind of king, kind of like a boss giving a team a task to complete. I have an idea the next time some SOB president comes up with a plan and it seems a bit on the UNCONSTITUTIONAL side, how about saying NO. He's just a president, thats it, the president DOES NOT set the trend, WE the PEOPLE do.

Seeing the bammer in the hurt makes me happy, well seeing just about any politician in the hurt makes me happy.

Down south we have a name for the likes of b.o. but for the sake of some uptight sensitive folk, I will refrain from such vulgarities.

b.o. a strong leader :rofl:

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 17 2009,8:59 pm

GD - I know you like my personal rhetoric, would you like to address the rest of the post? I don't like the emoticons because the words should reference the feeling.

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 17 2009,9:04 pm

I hope Congressman Reichart got as good of belly laugh as I did on that one. You forgot to mention tearing down our borders to allow illegals to flood your state with unskilled labor to help support your tax base.

I do agree on part of your observation of Obama though.

He can't of doesn't know how to be a "leader." He's still in the "cheer" mode.

On Bam-Bam's approval rating. You are more than aptly correct that people aren't moving to the right. They are starting to not trust him and certainly don't trust the government or their elected officials.

He shot himself in the foot when he brought up the Post Office comparison. Hmm, public option and post office. P.O.

If he's going to get down on the Senate or House floor for some nose to nose, he better be prepared to take as well as give.

Because of this health care issue, his supporters will take care and precaution. In only 15 months, many will be up for election.

This issue has been in the forefront for too long. Other issues are hardly mentioned as he either sneaks past the bulk media with his new "radio czar" Lloyd and his outlandish ideas of fees and penalties if the medias don't follow his racist ideals for "free radio." Or how his promises in the Middle East is going. How about troop strength in Afganistan? Does he plan on continuing there?

His economic policy isn't working, unempoment is up again. Domestic sales were only down 0.10% last month, but economist believe it would have been down .5% without the CARS program. Remember, that's only a temporary program that his own people can't seem to handle correctly. Very little of the stimulus money has actually been given out yet and most of that to what, about three different institutions; banking, wall street and the auto industry.

People can't see this actually helping them. They don't see it.

Yet, people want this plan? I don't think so. His plan won't happen. Too many weasel in congress? The democrats are scared to even have open public town halls. When was the last time your congressman wasn't available to his constituents during the summer break? If their term is approaching, they have other things on their minds.

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 17 2009,9:13 pm

I have to get the kids in the tub and ready for bed - I will go all day on this topic and will revisit after dad time is done.

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 17 2009,9:17 pm

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 17 2009,9:20 pm

Why is it when WE the PEOPLE finally wake up to some congress critters subterfuge and demand that their bill come into compliance with the Constitution, the people get labeled as right wing? So demanding that all laws comply with the enumerations of the Constitution is right wing? News to me. We as citizens have a civic duty to make sure those loosers on the hill uphold their oath.

I also find it funny that the moniker right wing is used to describe republicans, when it more reflects the social liberals, as it did when Hitler rose to power and his Reich-stag (NAZI) campaign, hmmmmm.

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 17 2009,10:53 pm

(Grinning_Dragon @ Aug. 17 2009,7:20 pm)

QUOTE

You're thowing a gun here.
Let's look at the Patriot Act, for starters.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 17 2009,10:58 pm

I am AGAINST the patriot act, there is nothing patriotic about it. I would love to see an end to homeland security, TSA, and an end to the patriot act. every tenet of it is as UNCONSTITUTIONAL as one can get.

How many more jackbooted NAZI agencies, before WE THE PEOPLE say enough already?

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 17 2009,11:24 pm

(Grinning_Dragon @ Aug. 17 2009,7:20 pm)

QUOTE

I also find it funny that the moniker right wing is used to describe republicans, when it more reflects the social liberals, as it did when Hitler rose to power and his Reich-stag (NAZI) campaign, hmmmmm.

This has to do with the bell curve of politics.

To be on farthest of "right" side of the curve is closer to that of the libertarians. Generally, the farthest of the "right" believes in no government, society run by the people. Sounds good, right? Well how do they control the masses with differing points of view or try to make their lot in life different than the one they were born in to? The richest among us would hold the most influence and power. The richest among us would dictate what others can do. People that live among them become subjects. Morality is dictated by the powerful and the controllers of the resources. Much of medival Europe was governed this way. Many were successful for many centuries at the detriment of their subjects and also brought us the dark ages.

To the "left," you have pure socialism. There are no distinguishing differentiating qualities among individuals. Society is like a hive. Individualism is discouraged. Wealth is shared and concensus among "equals" is the requirement of such a society. No society outside of Monastic life has ever been successful. Russia tried a distorted version but eventually failed due to dictating innovation.

Neither works in it's pure form.
Each have their merits. Each have huge drawbacks.

Phrases are used to illicit emotion that have no intrinsic meaning.

"That's not Patriotic" -everyone wants to be a partiot, right?
"Nazi Heath Care plan" -we all hate Nazis
"The Patriot Act" -it must be SUPER AMERICAN and upholds the constitution when we need it the most.
"Death Panels" - some garbage Sarah Palin made up and her description of it was even more disconnected than Alaska to the lower 48.

Why does no one here seem to want to have affordable access to healthcare? I'm beginning to think that Albert Lea must have really decent insurance and no one gets declined coverage for anything, ever. If that's the case, good for you! I'm sure there can't be that many on the board that try to screw themselves based on ideology alone.

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 17 2009,11:30 pm

(Grinning_Dragon @ Aug. 17 2009,8:58 pm)

QUOTE

GD - at least the two of us have some common ground. There are so many others that would disagree with that statement.

I'm not one to say -"If you believe in this, then you can't believe that." But that's just the broad thinking progressive I am.;)

Posted by Admin on Aug. 17 2009,11:52 pm

QUOTE

It's actually been used to describe conservatives for 200 years.

QUOTE

The political sense of "right" owes its origin to the "right hand," rather than the "correct," sense of "right." Delegates to the French National Assemble of 1789 sorted themselves out by political affiliation, the conservatives deciding to sit on the right side of the chamber and the radicals on the left. Perhaps because the words "right" and "left" are two very short ways of summing up fundamental political disagreements, the terms have been used in this sense for more than 200 years.

< http://www.word-detective.com/back-d.html#right >

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 18 2009,8:26 am

(nphilbro @ Aug. 17 2009,11:30 pm)

QUOTE

(Grinning_Dragon @ Aug. 17 2009,8:58 pm)

QUOTE

I think just the name, Patriot Act tends to make people believe its patriotic. They haven't a clue how it infringes on their rights. Like wise with TSA and homeland. With a name like that, it must be good. Many of them may seem trivial to some, but they are an infringement of individual rights.

They can grill me of my personal information, yet the PD can't ask for citizenship status of someone they pull over for a traffic violation.

A while back I was in Shopko buying a inkkjet cartridge with a personal check. I've lived here 25+ years. I understand them needed to verify who I am, but when she asked for my SSN and birthdate, I raised cain. I need to record damn near your life's history for you to buy a car nowadays. Why, because of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security.

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 21 2009,3:50 pm

Hipocracy at it's finest.

Back in 2004 when John Kerry was running for President, Ted Kennedy pushed the state legislature of Massachusetts to pass a law taking away the power of the, then republican governor, to appoint an interim senator should Kerry become president.

He pushed that the people should be the ones to elect senators. The law now reads that when a senator leaves office for whatever reason, a special election shall be held to replace the senator.

Now as illness looms on himself, he wants to change the law so that the democratic governor can appoint an interim senator. As the health care bill could come up under a ramrod, every vote may count.

Sorry Ted. You can't have it both ways anymore.

Posted by Glad I Left on Aug. 21 2009,4:48 pm

You know, I don't wish ill on people, but that karma, she can be a real bitch sometimes....

Posted by Alfy Packer on Aug. 21 2009,8:16 pm

The company I work for and get my family's health insurance through has experianced a 50% increase in the cost of health insurance since 2007. The increases are running 25% a year and our company is cutting benefits, shopping for different coverage and passing more of the expense off on us just to keep us with a benefit package. This can't keep going like this, my wages have been frozen for the past two years and most of us are working fewer hours. These increases are cutting deep into family budgets.

Posted by Paul Harvey on Aug. 21 2009,8:34 pm

The costs won't be going South. Going North...

GOP'er made their own bed. Abortion and guns make people stupid about other issues.

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 21 2009,9:16 pm

California passed something called proposition 103 in 1988 to regulate property & casualty insurance rates, profits, and even executive pay. Auto insurance drastically decline compared to before, and in relation to the rest of the nation.

The reason I bring this up is, back in the 80's the lobbying groups paid for by the insurance industry tried the same scare tactics that the health insurance industry is using now.

Of course, it ended up being wildly successful for consumers, and the auto, and homeowners insurers are still in business and making profits.

Funny, I thought they were supposed to wind up being socialist by now.

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 25 2009,1:27 pm

nuff said...

Posted by Santorini on Aug. 25 2009,2:01 pm

(Expatriate @ Jun. 26 2009,8:58 am)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Jun. 25 2009,4:34 pm)

QUOTE

But because a CEO of an insurance company makes millions while you're making thousands...they're greedy, huh? How much are they worth? How much are YOU worth? :dunno:

So...
because your problem is with the profits and compensation of the pharmeceuticals and insurance companies, your answer is nationalized healthcare? And this will solve the problem how?
Apparently you haven't read any of the proposed HR3200.

Like for example, premiums with nationalized healthcare will be based on age, demographics and the frequency of an illness or procedure in a specific region. Right there we have discrimination against the elderly! Nice :clap:

Posted by Santorini on Aug. 25 2009,2:06 pm

Don't you think you need to take your war against these "profits" directly to the pharmeceuticals and insurance companies? Cause that is what your complaint is about. Let's regulate the insurance companies and pharmeceutical like the gov't does the banking system! Don't make the citizens suffer because your jealous of someone else's profits.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 25 2009,2:34 pm

Does anyone REALLY think that any regulation of insurance companies and pharmaceuticals would come out any better than government regulation of banks and quasi-governmental "corporations" like Fannie, Freddie, Amtrak, or the Post Office? :sarcasm:

I always laugh when liberals--the very people that are supposed to be for "individual freedom" call for MORE government regulation. :dunno:

The problem with government "regulators"--they rarely are as knowledgeable about the industry that they are supposed to regulate as the people that they are supposed to oversee.

Posted by Alfy Packer on Aug. 25 2009,3:14 pm

With health care in shorter supply than the demand for quality service, the free market system will take a very long time to self regulate this industry. Jimmy, hope you don't get caught on the short end of the free market stick you are swinging. You know you don't look so young either. That being said you might find your need for health care coming at a price your old age can ill afford. That is what this issue should be about. Not your smug right to opt out because of your great health.

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 25 2009,3:53 pm

That was the lamest video I've ever watched. The guy was too busy pounding on his chest and throwing around accusations to realize what he was saying. He says he's a disabled vet, maybe we should get rid of VA since that's another form of that socialist health care he hates.

I don't know many elderly or vets that want their Medicare, VA, or TriCare (GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE) taken away, but are ready to tar and feather anybody that proposes it for anyone else other than themselves.

The private health care system is going to be unsustainable in future years. Everyone other than the very rich, or those on TriCare, Medicaid, or Medicare will be without coverage and care unless in an emergency. Not long after that, the country will be so far in debt that we'll never get out even if we raise taxes and cut programs.

The republican "plan" is only offering an unfunded tax giveaway, and tort reform that's been proven to not reduce health care premiums. Texas has some of the most strict malpractice reform rules and caps in place, and they're health care premiums have risen even more than Minnosota along with many other states that don't have caps in place.

Tort reform is a lie, and won't do anything to reduce health care premiums. Only more regulation of the insurance industry, and not giving clinics and doctors a blank check for services/procedures.

If I need to, I'll be happy to provide a few links to prove my point on the malpractice reform myth. Don't have time right now to go through what I bookmarked before and quote.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 26 2009,6:13 pm

QUOTE

Only more regulation of the insurance industry, and not giving clinics and doctors a blank check for services/procedures.

Libbies--the people that purport to be for FREEDOM--but the first thing out of their mouths is MORE regulation and confiscation of MORE of what YOU earned. :crazy:

I would argue that private industry certainly has done a BETTER job at almost ANYTHING than the government--because it is the GOVERNMENT that has the "blank check."

How's that Social Security system doing?

Medicare?

Medicaid?

Post Office?

Amtrak?

Are any of THOSE programs staying solvent and on budget?

No--because there is no INCENTIVE for them to do so. Government can just issue more money (inflation) and go back to the taxpayers for more "investment"

Irish

QUOTE

Tort reform is a lie, and won't do anything to reduce health care premiums.

A guest on O'Reilly last night said that high lawsuits and defensive medicine was costing 16% of the medical bill. That is substantial--certainly more than Obamatrauma can save by "computerizing medical records." Where do YOU think the outrageous lawsuits, lawyer fees, television ads for lawyers, and defensive medicine costs come from? You offered to provide links--prove him wrong.

QUOTE

Let me get this straight.

We're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it,

passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,

signed by a president that also hasn't read it and who smokes,

with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,

overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and

financed by a country that's nearly broke.

What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 26 2009,6:32 pm

(Alfy Packer @ Aug. 25 2009,3:14 pm)

QUOTE

Not your smug right to opt out because of your great health.

Yeah--I opted out of Socialist Security, rather than undergo the double taxation of both employee and employer--plus unemployment and workers comp. I can't sue myself, and I can't lay myself off--why should I pay those? I just don't take a salary. The Socialist Security benefit is diminished because I have chosen not to participate--I would think you would be HAPPY not to have to pay my retirement. :sarcasm:

Why does that anger you? :dunno:

Yes, my health IS good. I have a flight physical at Mayo once a year, and we go beyond that with preventive checks--MRI, aneurism check, cardio stress test, colonoscopy--something new every year. I pay for it myself--why does that anger you? :dunno:

It doesn't cost YOU anything.

I can take care of myself. I have Blue Cross--the very same policy provided to public employees and the school system. I have a $5000 deductible for catastropic care--though it would obviously hurt, I can afford anything up to that. You should only insure for what you can't afford to lose. I certainly don't need every doctor visit and pill taken care of. The cost for this--$313 a month.

That's the problem with "single payer" health care--people EXPECT it to pay for EVERYTHING--and when you get to that point, it IS going to be expensive. What do YOU think a "zero deductible" policy would cost?

How do YOU think that the government can do it cheaper? (Note that Obamatrauma has moved away from that lie after initially giving it as a reason.)

Can YOU explain how YOUR paying for MY health care, and MY paying for YOURS is somehow "cheaper"? Better? :crazy:

Even the most ardent supporters of Socialized Medicine don't make the claim that service is BETTER--just that it is "free." That's mental masturbation--self gratification. You're only fooling yourself by thinking that somebody ELSE is going to pay for it! :oops:

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 26 2009,6:53 pm

$313 a month? Who's subsidizing that premium, the city taxpayers, or the school district?

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 26 2009,7:41 pm

Nope, my $5000 deductible policy is entirely paid for by me. How about yours?

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 26 2009,9:47 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 26 2009,7:41 pm)

QUOTE

Nope, my $5000 deductible policy is entirely paid for by me.

I don't believe that. I realize you've said that you hardly ever go to the Doctor besides your physical, but well... You're older than most on here, so I doubt you're paying less than even those on employee contributed policies.

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 26 2009,11:06 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 26 2009,6:13 pm)

QUOTE

How's that Social Security system doing?

You opted out of that same system, and yet didn't you say in a previous thread that you still signed up as soon as you could receive benefits? Odd how many people bash SS & Medicare, only to end up utilizing those "failed" programs later in life when they need it.

QUOTE

Irish

QUOTE

Tort reform is a lie, and won't do anything to reduce health care premiums.

You'll find everyone from Doctors, hospitals to the conservative media (namely WSJ) congratulating Texas on all their tort reform victories. And yet since 2000, they're health care premiums have increased 104%, compared to Minnesota's increase of 90%
< Health Care Reform by state >

Or, since you probably won't believe that website, here's one reported by an HR website from a compensation survey done in 2007. Even AFTER the most recent punitive damages caps in 2004, Texas health premiums still rose by over 10% every year for most companies.

QUOTE

Health insurance premiums have been consistent over the last three years. In 2006, the average premium increase was 11.8 percent and then, 12.2 percent the previous year in Texas. When comparing plans in 2007, 61.2 percent of organizations offering PPO plans saw an average increase of 12.2 percent, while HMO and POS plans had average premium increases of 11.2 and 11.4 percent respectively.
< HR.com - Texas Premiums Increase >

Seems odd, since conservatives keep saying that tort reform is the biggest factor, yet every example shows that health premiums increase with or without caps. Contrary to their belief that tort reform will lower health care costs, the opposite is being experienced in states that have tried it.

Here's a couple articles displayed by the National Institute of Health that come to the same conclusion.

< Medical malpractice reform and employer sponsored premiums >

Here's another from the same website that's a little more to the point.

QUOTE

This article reviews the empirical literature on the effects of damages caps and concludes that the better-designed studies show that damages caps reduce liability insurance premiums. The effects of damages caps on defensive medicine, physicians' location decisions, and the cost of health care to consumers are less clear. The only study of whether consumers benefit from lower health insurance premiums as a result of damages caps found no impact. Some state courts have based decisions declaring damages caps legislation unconstitutional on the lack of evidence of their effectiveness, thereby ignoring the findings of conflicting research studies or discounting their relevance. Although courts should be cautious in rejecting empirical evidence that caps are effective, legislators should consider whether they benefit consumers enough to justify limiting tort recoveries for those most seriously injured by malpractice.
< Damage caps in medical malpractice cases >

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 27 2009,12:59 pm

What I find interesting is that these people who are showing up at the town hall meetings being held on health care who are being long and what to be heard. Those who ask the hard questions, only to be turned back are being called nazis or un-American.

Yet, it is Obama who is rousting his army of purple shirts to come out to these meeting. It is the Democrats who are surrounding themselves with security afraid of, for the most part, senior citizens who are telling them they want no change. It is the purple shirts who are being called upon by Obama to show up at these rallies and giving them instructions for being there.

An American government might ask for people to sign up for duty to their country. It's the liberals who are asking people to come to put down Americans.

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 27 2009,1:24 pm

QUOTE

From the Jimmy's birthday thread.

QUOTE

Social Security just kicked in, huh?

QUOTE

You bet! At 11:15 local time (12:15 Eastern) on January 20, I punched the "send" button to file--just as Obama was taking the oath of office. I'm convinced that he will "means test" or otherwise cut benefits--so I want to be "grandfathered" to TRY to get some of my own money back!

It remind me of Rush Limbaugh saying that drug addicts should be jailed. :rofl:

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 27 2009,1:43 pm

I don't know Lib and IE...

His first quote appears to discuss contributions to the program and his second quote looks as if he's talking about the distribution of the program. :oops:

Here. Have a hymie... :dunce:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 27 2009,1:47 pm

Liberal and Irish--Are you seriously suggesting that I NOT take the money I was FORCED to "contribute" over the years? :dunce:

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that I don't have that money coming to me, after MAXING OUT the required (at the time) 40 quarters?

OF COURSE I will take the money--and if I LIVE long enough, I may break even.

Nice guy that I am, I just don't think it is right to inflict the same pain on FUTURE generations of workers and taxpayers. You can do much better on your own. :laugh:

Since you bring it up though, liberal, how much do YOU contribute to Socialist Security as self-employed? Do you pay both employer AND employee parts? Do you pay workers comp on yourself, and unemployment? Do you pay as much as you can in salary, or do you run expenses through your business?

For many years now, I haven't taken any salary at all--I just leave it in the business. I don't get much in Socialist Security, but they aren't confiscating my money, either. Apparently, 49% of the people feel the same way, uncluding the majority of people under 50. null< My Webpage >

They're just not buying the old government "lockbox" theory of "we'll take care of you" any more. That idea has been around for 75 years--even after 43 "fixes" it's STILL BROKE! :rofl:

And libbie STILL believe in it! :rofl:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 27 2009,1:55 pm

Irish From your quote

QUOTE

This article reviews the empirical literature on the effects of damages caps and concludes that the better-designed studies show that damages caps reduce liability insurance premiums.

Damage caps DO reduce liability insurance premiums, according to YOUR quote. :oops:

QUOTE

Well, if THE OPPOSITE IS BEING EXPERIENCED, then we should have MORE lawsuits, according to your thinking! :rofl:

Seriously--do you NOT think that the outrageous cost of litigation--the television ads by lawyers, the cost of defensive medicine, and the cost of unneccessary tests ADD to the cost of health care? :crazy:

WHO do YOU think pays for all of that excess and cost? :dunno:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 27 2009,1:58 pm

MADDOG

QUOTE

What I find interesting is that these people who are showing up at the town hall meetings being held on health care who are being long and what to be heard.

Gee, UNION THUGS being bussed in for support of a Donk. I've never heard of THAT before! :sarcasm:

null[URL=

]My Webpage[/URL] Watch the last 2 minutes-SEIU bussed in from New York.

Next thing, you're going to tell us that ACORN is BIPARTISAN? :sarcasm:

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 27 2009,2:12 pm

QUOTE

So in one topic you claim to have "opted out" of soc. sec. and now you're claiming that you maxed out.

You republicans all seem to have issues with honesty. :rofl:

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 27 2009,2:18 pm

(Liberal @ Aug. 27 2009,2:12 pm)

QUOTE

So in one topic you claim to have "opted out" of soc. sec. and now you're claiming that you maxed out.

You republicans all seem to have issues with honesty. :rofl:

I think the question is whether or not it is possible to max out on your social security insurance and later, be able to opt out in future working years. :dunno:

If Jim did indeed do this then it must be possible, unless someone from the social security administration can dispute his claim.

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 27 2009,2:22 pm

Well the problem is that most of the liberals on this forum will tell you that they don't believe a word the Jimmy types, so I'd say the burden of proof is on the republitard that's speaking out of both sides of his face.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 27 2009,2:41 pm

(Liberal @ Aug. 27 2009,2:12 pm)

QUOTE

So in one topic you claim to have "opted out" of soc. sec. and now you're claiming that you maxed out.

You republicans all seem to have issues with honesty. :rofl:

If you'll go back and check your FACTS before spewing bile, you would know that it USED to be that SS took your top 40 quarters--that's 10 years, for those that were MPs in the Army--to calculate your benefits. Wanting to collect the max that I could, I PAID the max.

In typical government fashion--they changed the rules. "Sorry about that, but here are the NEW RULES"--your previous contributions won't count in calculating your benefits.

Can you begin to understand WHY we find this system to be so corrupt?

I quit taking a salary, and quit having to pay twice--as an employer and employee. I only get $939 a month because of that--you libbies would SEEM to be GLAD of that--but I saved THOUSANDS in doing so. Apparently, MOST of the people under 50 agree--they would like to be able to opt out, too--but the government is holding them hostage! :rofl:

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 27 2009,2:55 pm

According to you then, you maxed out, then you opted out by not paying yourself a salary.

So you expect people to believe that for all those years you've made no money? Or do you think most people will believe that you figured out a way to get your money without paying yourself a salary?

Funny how the ones that bitch the loudest are usually the first in line with their hand out.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 27 2009,2:57 pm

QUOTE

That's a pretty serious charge, libbie. I know that libbies are ACCUSTOMED to "stretching" the truth:

"It depends what the meaning of IS-is"

"I Never had sex with THAT WOMAN, not once" (but he didn't say it wasn't TWICE!) :rofl:

Slick Willy DID plead guilty to lying to Congress--did he not? :rofl:

Obama tells us that health care won't raise our taxes--but OMB says otherwise. :dunce:

Obama's budget deficit is more than $2 TRILLION more than he said it would be--off by nearly 1/3 in only 6 months. :rofl:

You keep levying these charges, but I can back them all up--and you refuse to even consider it.

I've lived my entire life in the public eye--you live in your house behind a computer.

Tell you what, libbie boy--how about if you send a neutral party out here, and I'll show them my SS contributions? What could be more fair than THAT? :dunno:

And then we will do the ssame for you. :rofl:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 27 2009,3:02 pm

(Liberal @ Aug. 27 2009,2:55 pm)

QUOTE

Gee, ANOTHER liberal with comprehension problems, AGAIN. What IS it with you guys? Of course, if you really did COMPREHEND what you're reading, you wouldn't BE a liberal.

Take some of Hoosier's medicine--it seems to have helped HIM. :laugh:

Here's the part you missed--I'll play it again so you don't have to look it up.

QUOTE

For many years now, I haven't taken any salary at all--I just leave it in the business. I don't get much in Socialist Security, but they aren't confiscating my money, either. Apparently, 49% of the people feel the same way, uncluding the majority of people under 50

See how easy that was? :oops:

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 27 2009,3:07 pm

QUOTE

A gold bricking medic insulting someones intelligence. :rofl:

Tell us again how a guy like you couldn't hit a target in the Army. Are you just that bad of a shot? Or did you know that they don't like to send people that couldn't shoot straight to Viet Nam? :dunno:

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 27 2009,3:11 pm

QUOTE

That's a pretty serious charge, libbie. I know that libbies are ACCUSTOMED to "stretching" the truth:

That's such a serious charge that you address it by saying "So what if I'm a liar, so is Obama and Clinton"?

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 27 2009,3:20 pm

QUOTE

I've lived my entire life in the public eye--you live in your house behind a computer.

Well it is hard to continuously feed at the public trough without people seeing you.

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 27 2009,5:41 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 27 2009,1:47 pm)

QUOTE

Liberal and Irish--Are you seriously suggesting that I NOT take the money I was FORCED to "contribute" over the years? :dunce:

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that I don't have that money coming to me, after MAXING OUT the required (at the time) 40 quarters?

Well, first you volunteer that you opted out, even though you'd said before you signed up for it as soon as you were eligible. So, I guess it seemed odd until you clarified that you opted out, AFTER you maxed out. Kinda sounds like a John Kerry Quote, but fair enough.

I'm not suggesting anything. Now you're saying you apparently paid in plenty before, so more power to you if you're taking advantage of it now.

QUOTE

They're just not buying the old government "lockbox" theory of "we'll take care of you" any more. That idea has been around for 75 years--even after 43 "fixes" it's STILL BROKE!

Can you prove to me that it's broke now? Republicans always lie about that, but every estimate I've seen says it won't be solvent for another 30 or 40 years. Seems to me, it's doing better than any other program out there.

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 27 2009,6:06 pm

QUOTE

Liberal and Irish--Are you seriously suggesting that I NOT take the money I was FORCED to "contribute" over the years?

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that I don't have that money coming to me, after MAXING OUT the required (at the time) 40 quarters?

In other words...

< http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch....at-odds >

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 27 2009,6:26 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 27 2009,1:55 pm)

QUOTE

Irish From your quote

QUOTE

This article reviews the empirical literature on the effects of damages caps and concludes that the better-designed studies show that damages caps reduce liability insurance premiums.

Damage caps DO reduce liability insurance premiums, according to YOUR quote.

I didn't say there wasn't evidence that it could reduce malpractice liability insurance premiums. But if you read the rest of my post, you'll see that it didn't reduce health care costs or premiums for health insurance.

Although this does point out the obvious about your thinking. When it comes to reducing premiums for those low or medium wage earners, you opt instead to focus on reducing premiums for doctor's, even though you can't prove that it will reduce health care costs or premiums for the rest of the nation. In fact, I just showed you that it WON'T, but if doctor's get to keep more money in their wallet (even at the expense of those patient's that experience the worst care, with less options for recourse), you still consider it a success.

QUOTE

Well, if THE OPPOSITE IS BEING EXPERIENCED, then we should have MORE lawsuits, according to your thinking!

QUOTE

Did you miss the entire basis of the post you just quoted was talking about health care premiums, not lawsuits?

Seriously--do you NOT think that the outrageous cost of litigation--the television ads by lawyers, the cost of defensive medicine, and the cost of unneccessary tests ADD to the cost of health care?

Well Jim, I agreed with you before, but I don't see any proof that caps have worked to benefit anyone other than doctors. If all of the things you mention DID add to the cost of health care, it would seem Texas would have the cheapest health care, and yet any source you find will confirm it's increasing at a rate the same (if not more) than most states including us.

You've said many times, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. It seems all you've got is opinions, and what Fox tells you.

QUOTE

WHO do YOU think pays for all of that excess and cost?

Well, I would say it's the doctors that cause death or serious physical harm to patients that they're supposed to care for, and the hospitals that employ them. If you want to reduce liability, I'd suggest getting rid of bad physicians, not changing the law to be in their favor when they're negligent.

It seems like if there was an auto accident, instead of blaming someone for driving recklessly and hurting one or more people, you'd blame the injured party and their lawyer.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 27 2009,6:36 pm

Libbie--I guess it IS true--some kids get their "news" from the DAILY SHOW--and think it's true! :rofl:

Stewart makes fun of governors that threaten to not take government money. Like all OTHER liberals, he forgets that before government can GIVE OUT money, they have to TAKE IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE.

I hate to break ti to you, but there IS no magic money tree, and there IS no tooth fairy, either!

(Although I think I saw several of them at a DNC convention!) :rofl:

Perhaps it escaped your attention (there has been a lot of that in Donkville lately--is it a new Flu mutation--the DONK FLU?) :rofl:

that:

The BANKS wanted to give back the money forced on them by TARP--WITH INTEREST--rather than be subjected to the heavy hand of government.

FORD declined to take government money, and is now the best-positioned of the new car companies. 66% of Americans now say that their preference in American cars is a Ford product for that reason.

STATES don't want to take Government money--due to the heavy hand of government.

25% of the CAR DEALERS declined to participate in the great government giveaway because of poor government administration of the program.

ARE YOU STARTING TO SEE A TREND HERE?

How BAD does it have to get to have someone offer "free money"--and you turn it DOWN? Stewart JOKES about it, but these people are actually turning down BILLIONS.

Do you suppose people saying "No Thanks" to Healthcare, free money, and government schools MIGHT have any connection to antipathy towards Obama's programs--and his declining poll numbers?

Rasmussen says that 70% of Americans favor LESS government services and LOWER taxes. I guess that leaves YOU and OBAMBI in the minority! :rofl:

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 27 2009,7:10 pm

QUOTE

So you paid Soc Sec. taxes for 10 years before you decided to quit making money and instead put the money into your business. Of course your average blue collar worker can't run that scam so they pay in for about 40 years, but they don't have to worry about losing their life's savings if something happens to their business. So how did that decision work out for you?

QUOTE

In typical government fashion--they changed the rules. "Sorry about that, but here are the NEW RULES"--your previous contributions won't count in calculating your benefits.

Well if your previous contributions didn't count you must have started paying in again if you're collecting 1000 a month for the rest of your life.

QUOTE

Can you begin to understand WHY we find this system to be so corrupt?

Now see there's where we won't agree. I look at a guy that pays ten years of Soc. Sec. tax and then figures out a way to no longer pay it, yet still collect 1000 a month as morally corrupt.

QUOTE

I quit taking a salary, and quit having to pay twice--as an employer and employee.

So how'd that decision work out for you? You got a big nest egg to retire with?

QUOTE

I only get $939 a month because of that--you libbies would SEEM to be GLAD of that--but I saved THOUSANDS in doing so.

So where are all those "THOUSANDS" now?

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 27 2009,7:14 pm

Irish--

QUOTE

C'mon--YOU know better than that. Just Google Social Security Insolvency, and take your pick of thousands of articles.

This isn't the BEST one, but I picked the NY Times--just to mollify our libbie friends. null< My Webpage >

QUOTE

As a result, the administration said, the Medicare fund that pays hospital bills for older Americans is expected to run out of money in 2017, two years sooner than projected last year. The Social Security trust fund will be exhausted in 2037, four years earlier than predicted, it said.

Here's what the Wall Street Journal (you know, the paper that is SOLVENT--unlike the NY Times) said in its May 13 article.

QUOTE

The report also factors in a 21% cut in payments this year, required by law, to doctors working for Medicare. But for the past several years, Congress has canceled that reduction.
The picture for Social Security is better, according to the Medicare and Social Security trustees who issued their annual reports on the two funds Tuesday. The Social Security trust fund wouldn't be exhausted until 2037, but that is four years earlier than last year's report predicted.

The actuaries estimated that Social Security beneficiaries would not receive a cost-of-living increase for the next two years, and that a quarter of Medicare beneficiaries would pay higher-than-usual increases in monthly premiums, 8% in 2010 and 15% in 2011. The trustees are the secretaries of labor, Treasury and health and human services, as well as the commissioner of Social Security.

Did you catch that? The report factors in a 21% cut in payments to doctors that accept Medicare--but the cut is always cancelled. What do you think will happen if the cuts ARE made? How many MORE doctors will say "no thanks" to the government program? If the cuts AREN'T made, Medicare doesn't even have the 8 year left that is projected.

If you REALLY want a scare, go to the source--the SS Administration < My Webpage > In this 2004 report, it says that post-insolvency, the poverty rate would double--the lowest quintile of the population would be hit hardest, that younger workers would suffer most because they would spend more time in the post-insolvency period.

DEPRESSED YET? CHECK THIS OUT!
From Wikipedia < My Webpage >

Look at the projection of net income for your lifetime--IF you make it to retirement, and don't forfeit everything you paid in. I've reproduced it below.

When you get over your shock, recall that when Bush wanted to fix SS, the Donks brayed that "it doesn't NEED fixing." Remember that in the next election. :dunce:

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 27 2009,7:35 pm

QUOTE

Republicans always lie about that, but every estimate I've seen says it won't be solvent for another 30 or 40 years.

The Jimmy's response...

QUOTE

The Social Security trust fund will be exhausted in 2037, four years earlier than predicted, it said.

Hah, the Jimmy says it's gonna be around for only 28 years! That will teach you to be throwing around that 30 year number.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 27 2009,7:42 pm

JIM

QUOTE

Libbie

QUOTE

You might recall (but then again, given your forgetfullness lately, maybe not) that I said that most people don't have that ability to do so, the government his holding them hostage.

How's it working out? Very well, thank you for caring. We lived our life mostly on my wife's salary. By putting it into the business and NOT paying the exhorbitant SS fees, we have most of our assets paid for. We DID have substantially more, but that was before a certain former banker in town declared bankruptcy--leaving me as the guarantor. I paid off the loans--I elected to LIVE here. It didn't put us in the soup line, but it hurt far more than anything from any recession.

Jim-

QUOTE

In typical government fashion--they changed the rules. "Sorry about that, but here are the NEW RULES"--your previous contributions won't count in calculating your benefits.

Liberal

QUOTE

Well if your previous contributions didn't count you must have started paying in again if you're collecting 1000 a month for the rest of your life.

No--read the SS rules. You can make $14,160 before your benefits are reduced. Due to the big financial loss from the banker incident (above) I won't make that much money due to losses carried forward. From Social Security:

QUOTE

If you were born January 2, 1943, through January 1, 1955, then your full retirement age for retirement insurance benefits is 66. If you work and are full retirement age or older, you may keep all of your benefits, no matter how much you earn. If you are younger than full retirement age, there is a limit to how much you can earn and still receive full Social Security benefits. If you are younger than full retirement age during all of 2009, we must deduct $1 from your benefits for each $2 you earned above $14,160.[/QUOTE]

Jim [QUOTE]Can you begin to understand WHY we find this system to be so corrupt?

Liberal

QUOTE

Now see there's where we won't agree. I look at a guy that pays ten years of Soc. Sec. tax and then figures out a way to no longer pay it, yet still collect 1000 a month as morally corrupt.

There's that COMPREHENSION thing AGAIN. I paid in the MAX for 10 years--but I paid in starting in 1959, and every year up until I quit some 16 years ago. At less than $1000 a month and 10 years of MAX payments, I will likely never collect what I paid in when you consider interest and inflation.

Jim

QUOTE

I quit taking a salary, and quit having to pay twice--as an employer and employee.

Liberal

QUOTE

So how'd that decision work out for you? You got a big nest egg to retire with?

Yes, I'm doing all right--thank you for your concern--but I'm concerned about YOU. That's the SECOND time you've asked this in the same post.

Does that mean I have to ANSWER TWICE--or can you just look up above? :dunno:

Jim

QUOTE

I only get $939 a month because of that--you libbies would SEEM to be GLAD of that--but I saved THOUSANDS in doing so.

Libby

QUOTE

So where are all those "THOUSANDS" now?

Have you had a STROKE? That's the THIRD time you've asked in the same post. Are you OK? :sarcasm:

It worked for me--and it would work for MOST people--IF they had the discipline to actually INVEST REGULARLY. Most investment counselors say that it is far more important to invest regularly (picking up bargain investments in down time, and riding them up) than trying to "time" the market. However, that money is not available for investment by the average investor--the government has taken it away from them. Not only do THEY lose the chance for regular investment, but the economy isn't stimulated by the additional business. The government is the beneficiary.

I hope this helps you understand the detriment of SS.

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 27 2009,8:48 pm

QUOTE

Now see I was figuring 40 quarter years of working is 10 years, but I was taught that New math.

QUOTE

I point it out because of the market/economy. The people that paid into the system the proper way are getting more than you every month and the money stays the same no matter how bad the market or economy is. I'm just wondering if that worked out, all those "thousands" you've saved over the years. If you figure you'll live at least another 20 or 30 years will that invested money still be paying you a dividend like an SS check would?

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 27 2009,9:21 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 27 2009,7:14 pm)

QUOTE

Irish--

QUOTE

C'mon--YOU know better than that. Just Google Social Security Insolvency, and take your pick of thousands of articles.

So, the answer to my question would be no, you can't prove your assertion that it's broke. Instead, you suggest I do a google search even though I already claimed I knew about the forecast 30 years (sorry, 28 years) down the road.

QUOTE

The Social Security trust fund wouldn't be exhausted until 2037

Gee, doesn't that mean they're NOT BROKE. To say something is broke usually means it is now, not that they're reporting that it might be in 28 years.

Do you EVER admit when you've been proven wrong? :dunno:

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 28 2009,12:18 am

This is a flame that's going on my Facebook tonight. I'll leave the author's name out but post it in it's entirety.

QUOTE

Tort reform deals with the issues of "pre existing conditions" which are actually portabilitiy issues.The people with no other option already have an option- Midicaid (the shining example of what gov't run healthcare would be) Preident Pelosi was there and She was the reason for the bailout.Barry Obammy was the one who said worst economy so ... Read Morequestion him not me and for cripes sake QUIT BLAMING GEORGE BUSH while he was an idiot he is not the cause of every problem like you libs claim.The" Death Panels" are part of the plan so get used to it your liberal commrades want them so you want them too. And hey look here we agree on something Lobbyists are EVIL.Public funding for elections hmm I seem to remember something about that this past election...Oh yeah Barry promised (lied) to use only public money for the campaign and then changed his mind when he realized the only way he was going to win was hype.Corporations are standing in the way of innovation?please explain.

What the hell is being said in the media about tort reform? Since when was "Tort Reform" part of portability and abolishing exclusion of pre-existing conditions?

Is this what the masses are being fed?

No wonder they're pissed!

Ratings are there. They get rich - ALL OF YOU GET TO GO F-YOURSELVES. It doesn't matter to them whether they tell truth or lies as long as you listen.

Gobble it all up. It's easier than thinking. :dunce:

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 28 2009,6:05 am

jim vs. lib
:rofl:

Posted by Paul Harvey on Aug. 28 2009,6:38 am

Jim's not black! :laugh:

How's your workin' out coming CC? Got yer routine down?

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 28 2009,10:43 am

Libbie

QUOTE

Now see I was figuring 40 quarter years of working is 10 years, but I was taught that New math.

Is that not what I SAID?

JIM

QUOTE

There's that COMPREHENSION thing AGAIN. I paid in the MAX for 10 years--but I paid in starting in 1959, and every year up until I quit some 16 years ago.

Check back--I also said I had maxed out 40 quarters--see, I EVEN DID THE CONVERSION FOR YOU SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO HURT YOUR HEAD THINKING! :rofl:

lib

QUOTE

Here is the fallacy (or is it the FELLATIO? ) :rofl:

of your thinking.

Unlike everyone else, I've had the use of the money for 16 years. That money has earned far more money than the 2% that govrnment returns on SS. If I had only taken the money and bought government bonds (safer than SS-they can't change the rules on you, and unlike SS, they DO have to pay you!) :rofl:

I would have been far ahead. Another way of looking at it--by not paying into the Ponzi scheme, I was able to pay off debt--and the compound interest on ANY debt is far, far higher than any return on Socialist Security. Yet ANOTHER way of looking at it is that I was able to use the money to buy and sell airplanes--and I do FAR, FAR better than 2%. You would have to be a FOOL to voluntarily put money into Social Security.

Is that invested money paying a dividend like a Socialist Security check would? No, it pays FAR, FAR better! :rofl:

Put it this way, Libbie, have you EVER HEARD A FINANCIAL ADVISER TELL YOU TO PUT MORE MONEY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY? :crazy:

I HAVE to ask--do YOU max out your Social Security if it's that good? :rofl:

Look at this--it is NOT a joke--but the plan that it is BASED oin is! :rofl:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 28 2009,11:08 am

Irish

QUOTE

It is GOING BROKE. You said it WON'T be solvent--here's your quote

QUOTE

every estimate I've seen says it won't be solvent for another 30 or 40 years

Nobody is saying it can't meet its obligations today--but it is going negative, and every one of the links I gave you INCLUDING THE SS TRUSTEES says it will be insolvent (that's "broke", for readers of the Red Star) and unable to pay ANY benefits. That's only 28 years down the road, Irisheyes--long before YOU retire--yet you've been paying for it, and will CONTINUE to have them steal your money right up until the time it breathes its last--and you get nothing. Why in the world would you support this? :dunno:

Bush tried to fix this creaky scheme by letting people take a tiny portion and opt out--but the Donks said that the system is fine--they want ALL of your money. They don't want to let you have ANY say about your retirement--they won't even give you a choice. Why would ANYONE support that? :dunno:

If this is such a great scheme, why is Obummer saying that HE is going to attempt yet ANOTHER "fix" or patch on the scheme? :dunno:

You say that "The One" won't LET it go broke. The only way to "fix" it is to INCREASE THE TAXES YET AGAIN (something he vowed not to do, but broken promises is yet ANOTHER issue). Taking MORE money from business and taxpayers drives down the economy MORE. The other way to "fix" it is to CUT BENEFITS--lower payments, raise the retirement age, or install "means testing" ("If you don't "need" it, you don't get it!"). Are you feeling good about your future yet? Why would you support such a plan? :dunno:

Algore talked about a SS "Lock box"--news flash--there ISN"TY a "lock box"--the U.S. Treasury "borrowed" the funds and gave an IOU--and that IOU will have to be paid back by GENERAL FUNDS--NOT THE SS SYSTEM. The only way to pay that back is INCREASING TAXES. Are you happy with that solution? :dunno:

SS is yet ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF BROKEN FEDERAL PROMISES. It started out with 1% of the worker's payroll (none on employers) when it started--and is now 12.4%. MEDICARE is now 9 times higher than promised at inception.

Obummer's budget is now $2 TRILLION in deficit--he couldn't hit his numbers within 30% in only 6 months! Is it any WONDER that most people don't trust government with health care?

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 28 2009,11:43 am

QUOTE

They're just not buying the old government "lockbox" theory of "we'll take care of you" any more. That idea has been around for 75 years--even after 43 "fixes" it's STILL BROKE!

QUOTE

The Jimmy wonders why so many people don't believe a word he says.

See if I have this right, you found an loophole to not pay social security and instead "invested" the money in your business. Then you had a business partner that essentially left you holding the bag and all that money just went away.

Probably would have been safer to invest into social security. :rofl:

That's the best "stupid republican" story I've ever heard. :rofl:

Posted by De NoVo on Aug. 28 2009,12:25 pm

QUOTE

Do We Want Health Care or Do We Not ?

MNCD5 (Minneapolis) Rep Keith Ellison

So, my friends, what were we thinking? Did we really think that extending health care coverage to all Americans would be easy? Did we really believe that those who reap g'zillions of bucks from our 'health' (read: 'sick') care system were going to give it all up without a fight? Of course those who benefit from the status quo are attacking the Public Option. Of course they are falsely claiming that Medicare reimbursement for end-of-life discussions are "death panels". Of course they are disrupting town hall forums - some even carrying firearms. It's not an element of reform they oppose; it's reform itself.

The special interests and protectors of the status quo acted worse when America was on the brink of passing Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation. They spread lies and fear when America was contemplating women's suffrage too.

Maybe it's us, and not opponents of reform, who have failed to grasp the magnitude of this moment. We are on the verge of bringing about health care reform 60 years in waiting. Yes, we're going to have to fight for it. I worry that a little rough stuff has discouraged some progressives. As Frederick Douglass famously said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will." It's easy to figure out who the "Power" is. The 10 largest health insurers took in $13 billion in 2007 with CEOs earning an average $12 million a year, according to Health Care for America Now.

I have been a little concerned about some Democratic leaders who appear to be dancing away from the Public Option. But momentary wavering in leadership has provoked expressions of clarity from the people. Sixty Progressives in Congress have roared back in favor of the Public Option declaring their unwavering support in a letter to the White House. Thousands of people are raising their voices for the Public Option around America. Everyone has someone in their family who has been hurt by not having health care, and now is the time to speak up for every denial for a pre-existing condition, every forgone procedure, and everyone facing bankruptcy due to medical debt.

We are relearning a valuable lesson, aren't we? The ones who want to conserve the status quo, sometimes known as Conservatives, will accept no compromises. Nothing. Jettisoning the public option won't bring forth a bipartisan bill.

I appreciate U.S. Senator Richard Shelby's candor. He recently said that defeating healthcare reform would benefit Republicans politically. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) told reporters on a recent conference call that he stands opposed even to health care co-ops. Rush Limbaugh had this to say: "These co-ops, like we're too stupid to know what that's all about," Limbaugh said. "Co-op? Why don't they just call them communes?" Sen. Jim DeMint famously said defeating healthcare would be Obama's "Waterloo."
So Good. No more wasting time. Now, we need a new message: Can you say "reconciliation"? With a reconciliation vote, you don't need 60 votes to pass a health care bill through the U.S. Senate, but rather a majority vote of 51. Given the intransigence of Conservatives, reformers must begin a drum beat for a reconciliation vote for health care.

We have the power to start that drum beat. Call your representatives every day. Post it on your Face book. Twitter for Healthcare. Bring it up in casual conversations. Talk to the clerk that sells you your groceries. Call your Mom. Call your Broker. Pray for the public option in church, synagogue, or Mosque.

Reconciliation Vote For Health Care!

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 28 2009,12:30 pm

(Paul Harvey @ Aug. 28 2009,6:38 am)

QUOTE

Jim's not black! :laugh:

How's your workin' out coming CC? Got yer routine down?

Injured my right shoulder last February. Couldn't throw a softball all summer long so the only thing I could do the last few months were the 12 ounce curls with the pork chop in a can.

Been working out with the "boys" conditioning though.

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 28 2009,12:41 pm

QUOTE

Been working out with the "boys" conditioning though.

Is that how you hurt your shoulder in the first place, Spanky?

Posted by De NoVo on Aug. 28 2009,12:50 pm

Posted by De NoVo on Aug. 28 2009,12:51 pm

i believe we started a drum beat right here at albertlea.com now recently...didn't we? :rockon:

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 28 2009,12:55 pm

(Liberal @ Aug. 28 2009,12:41 pm)

QUOTE

Been working out with the "boys" conditioning though.

Is that how you hurt your shoulder in the first place, Spanky?

Good one Lib... :rofl:

Walked right into that. :oops:

To set the record straight...football practice started two weeks ago...

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 28 2009,1:02 pm

Libbie[QUOTE]See if I have this right, you found an loophole to not pay social security and instead "invested" the money in your business. Then you had a business partner that essentially left you holding the bag and all that money just went away.

Probably would have been safer to invest into social security.
QUOTE]

Yes, that's essentially what happened--he was a banker, and took bankruptcy and left town.

I, on the other hand, ended up paying off the debt and staying here.

DID I MENTION HE WAS A LIBERAL? :rofl:

Yep, a "Flamer"--In favor of every government program, in favor of every "investment" in government, in favor of every new tax you could come up with. Then screwed the people he owed money to (including back SS and income tax witholding) and left town. DID I MENTION HE WAS A LIBERAL? :rofl:

Despite that, I STILL came out way ahead. Thank you for your concern.

Are you putting all of your money into this fantastic Socialist Security plan you keep defending? :sarcasm:

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 28 2009,1:21 pm

De Novo

QUOTE

have been a little concerned about some Democratic leaders who appear to be dancing away from the Public Option. But momentary wavering in leadership has provoked expressions of clarity from the people. Sixty Progressives :rofl:

in Congress have roared back in favor of the Public Option declaring their unwavering support in a letter to the White House.

Sounds like something straight from Stalin! :rofl:

Go over to People's Cube null< My Webpage >

HOURS of fun!
Let me put that statement in a way that TRUE Marxists (not those Pansy "Progressives") would say.

"Ve haf become CONCERNED zat ze LEADERS uff ze PARTY haf not bin thinking PURE THOUGHTS as promulgated by our TRUE LEADER!

Zis "Momentary Wavering" MUST BE STOPPED!

SIXTY members uff ze POLITBURO haf declared their UNWAVERING SUPPORT. Ze PROLETARIAT must rise to rid ourselves uff zose who haf become TRAITORS and are thinking IMPURE THOUGHTS! REPORT THEM! DENOUNCE THEM AS RUNNING-DOG CAPITALISTS! :rofl:

And they wonder why we LAUGH at them! :rofl:

Posted by De NoVo on Aug. 28 2009,1:25 pm

you built that jim?

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 28 2009,1:28 pm

Vell, yesss, I DID!

Posted by De NoVo on Aug. 28 2009,1:32 pm

oleg atbashian AKA Red Square is a propaganda artist...i had a colleague in new york named andre lebedev who spoke highly of the Soviet Union Of Socialist Republics...who stood in line for rations

Posted by De NoVo on Aug. 28 2009,1:35 pm

no way!...you own the domain?...and help publish at the site?

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 28 2009,1:57 pm

No--I just wrote the piece mocking the Minneapolis Socialist post.

I'm just a fan of People's Cube--they mock current ~~Communists Marxists Socialists liberals~~ "Progressives" by emulating the procedures and dialogue of the Stalin/Mao era.

Either you have to be old enough to remember that, or sharp enough to have read it. True "Progressives" likely will not get it--most "Progressives" grow out of the disease by the time they turn thirty--and if they were sharp enough to "get" it, they wouldn't BE liberals. :sarcasm:

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 28 2009,5:14 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 27 2009,6:36 pm)

QUOTE

Stewart makes fun of governors that threaten to not take government money. Like all OTHER liberals, he forgets that before government can GIVE OUT money, they have to TAKE IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE.

I guess those republican Governors must've forgotten too, cause they took the money anyway! If you would've watched the whole video, you'd see at the end that that was the whole point.

Bobby Jindal was one of the most vocal opponents of the funds, and did lots of posturing for the media on it. But he took Billions of it. According to your quote, I guess he believes in a moneytree also, but boy will he raise a fuss before he accepts it.

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 28 2009,5:54 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 28 2009,11:08 am)

QUOTE

Irish

QUOTE

It is GOING BROKE. You said it WON'T be solvent--here's your quote

QUOTE

every estimate I've seen says it won't be solvent for another 30 or 40 years

I think everyone else realized that I meant to say INSOLVENT. Considering the context of my post, it made it pretty obvious.

QUOTE

Nobody is saying it can't meet its obligations today

That's odd, it can meet it's financial obligations today even though you and all the other angry seniors at the town halls keep saying it's broke. It seems that SS & Medicare are the only things in this government right now that AREN'T broke. But that doesn't stop you from wanting to spend more money on an already bloated military budget.

QUOTE

Bush tried to fix this creaky scheme by letting people take a tiny portion and opt out

Fix it?! He wanted to take a percentage out to put in the stock market, right before the stock market sunk to what people either describe as a crisis or a full out stock market crash!

Gee, if only we had put 10% or so of the SS trust fund into that stock market right before it crashed! :sarcasm:

QUOTE

You say that "The One" won't LET it go broke. The only way to "fix" it is to INCREASE THE TAXES YET AGAIN (something he vowed not to do, but broken promises is yet ANOTHER issue).

Where did I say "The One" wouldn't let it go broke?

Secondly, Obama said before and after the campaign many times that he WOULD raise taxes on the rich.

QUOTE

Algore talked about a SS "Lock box"--news flash--there ISN"TY a "lock box"--the U.S. Treasury "borrowed" the funds

News flash--Al Gore DIDN'T get elected! The "lockbox" idea that he talked about so often that SNL started to parody it often was his goal once in office. Every one who would've watched the debates or interviews knows that he wasn't discussing that there was currently a "lockbox," but was talking about how we needed to secure it better in the future from politicians who were afraid to raise taxes.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 28 2009,6:08 pm

First item--they didn't threaten to refuse ALL of the money--just the unemploymnet portion. From Yahoo news

QUOTE

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that he will decline stimulus money specifically targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage, becoming the first state executive to officially refuse any part of the federal government’s payout to states.

In a statement, Jindal, who is slated to give the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s message to Congress on Tuesday, expressed concern that expanding unemployment insurance coverage would lead to increased unemployment insurance taxes later on.

“The federal money in this bill will run out in less than three years for this benefit and our businesses would then be stuck paying the bill,” Jindal said. “We must be careful and thoughtful as we examine all the strings attached to the funding in this package. We cannot grow government in an unsustainable way.”

QUOTE

Fox News is reporting that at least four state governors are considering refusing stimulus money. Of course, thanks to the sneaky unconstitutional clause in the bill that allows state legislatures to bypass the governors and accept the money on their states' behalf, this isn't really the end of the story. If a governor chooses to decline the cash, the legislature can say "not so fast, cowboy" and plunge the state into not only more certain financial ruin but also into a nearly unprecedented relationship with the federal government.

The Obamunists made it "all or nothing"--they couldn't refuse PART of the money.

In the end, the voters wanted them to take the money--and unlike the Donks, they actually LISTEN to the voters.

Does that change

QUOTE

before government can GIVE OUT money, they have to TAKE IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE.

Why would ANYONE insist on giving money to someone that doesn't WANT it--except for the power it gives them over the recipient?

Why would YOU be in favor of the goverenment taxing YOU to give the money to other states? :crazy:

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 28 2009,6:18 pm

QUOTE

First item--they didn't threaten to refuse ALL of the money--just the unemploymnet portion. From Yahoo news

--insert Jon Stewart remark about the guy in the cowboy hat.

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 28 2009,6:57 pm

QUOTE

Libbie

QUOTE

See if I have this right, you found an loophole to not pay social security and instead "invested" the money in your business. Then you had a business partner that essentially left you holding the bag and all that money just went away.

Probably would have been safer to invest into social security.

Yes, that's essentially what happened--he was a banker, and took bankruptcy and left town.

I, on the other hand, ended up paying off the debt and staying here.

DID I MENTION HE WAS A LIBERAL?

You have to admit that this is hilarious, you got a guy that claims social security is a failed liberal idea so instead of paying into the system he puts that money in a shared account with a liberal banker. Then the liberal banker takes your money and promptly loses it. :rofl:

The only thing that would make it funnier would have been if he gave your money away to a group like ACORN, or some other liberal organization. :rofl:

You oughta be required to turn in your Limbaugh fan club membership card for that bonehead move.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 28 2009,7:04 pm

JIM

QUOTE

Nobody is saying it can't meet its obligations today

Irish

QUOTE

Is my statement above NOT true? I said that nobody is saying it can't meet its obligations TODAY--but even the SS TRUSTEES say that they can't meet their obligations in 28 years. Social Security DOES have obligations extending beyond 28 years--including YOURS. If it can't meet its obligations, it is BROKE--BANKRUPT. DID THE TRUSTEES SAY THAT THEY COULD NOT MEET OBLIGATIONS FOR THOSE COLLECTING AFTER 28 YEARS?

Do you feel GOOD about that?

What will YOU do--keep paying in until the end? :dunno:

The system will last long enough for most seniors (I'll be 90 before it is defunct) but most YOUNGER people see the futility of SS. You're not DEPENDING on it BEING THERE, are you? :crazy:

MEDISCARE is even EARLIER.

Regarding SS reform. Irish

QUOTE

Fix it?! He wanted to take a percentage out to put in the stock market,

According to libbies, he was going to "take all of your money and invest it in something "risky"

FACT 1. The stock market has always outperformed SS over the long haul, but then, nearly EVERY investment does.

FACT 2. Workers COULD have just taken the money and invested in government bonds, and gotten TWICE the return as SS--plus it could be passed on to heirs instead of forfeited upon death. Government bonds are even MORE secure than the Ponzi scheme.

FACT 3. Nobody was going to FORCE anybody to abandon SS. If you were happy with your paltry 2% and non-portability, LEAVE it there. The SS plan just gave you the OPTION. The government gives you NO CHOICE.

FACT 4. Libbies would have you believe that people were going to put ALL of their money into "risky" investments. The MAX that the plan would have allowed is 4% of payroll. With current SS tax of 7.65%, that would be slightly more than HALF of what the government is stealing from you now.

FACT 5. Libbies call the "stock market" "risky"--but nothing says you have to put it into stocks. You could put it into INSURANCE or OIL companies--libbies are always complaining that they are making obscene profits. YOU could be a fat cat, too! It is a sad commentary that libbies consider BUSINESS "risky"--the very thing that we depend upon for our way of life--the very thing they would like to kill. I guess that like their Communist brethren, they think we should all work for the government! If you like government, you COULD put your money into tax exempt municipal bonds.

FACT 6. Libbies call it "risky". What could be a BIGGER risk than a lousy 2% return--when inflation traditionally is higher than that? You would also be taking the chance that you don't make it until age 66, and you FORFEIT all of the money you paid in. I'd call THAT risky--and DUMB! :dunce:

What are libbies afraid of--that people will NOT be dependent on government? That government will NOT have this pile of money to spend on dubious programs? That people will be like the Kennedy's, and invest it OUTSIDE THE US in Fiji and BVI? :rofl:

QUOTE

Obama said before and after the campaign many times that he WOULD raise taxes on the rich.

And you BELIEVE him? You are as naive as HE is!

We know that SS taxes will have to go up--again. The taxes will have to go up for EVERYBODY--not just "only on people making over $250,000" :rofl:

Did you even LOOK at the chart that shows the return on SS? If you DID, why aren't you angry? :dunno:

Tell us--how ARE you going to retire? Do you really think SS will be there for you? How do YOU think SS can be "fixed"? If it was so good, why is Obama going to "fix" it YET AGAIN?

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 28 2009,10:12 pm

HMMM, interesting exchange between a flatfoot and a protester. Can anyone tell me if any RIGHTS are being violated?

Posted by Glad I Left on Aug. 28 2009,10:15 pm

"It ain't no more, ok?"

Says it all......

Posted by Common Citizen on Sep. 09 2009,2:05 pm

< My Webpage >

WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as President Barack Obama met Democratic leaders to search for ways to salvage his health care overhaul.

:dunce:

Posted by Paul Harvey on Sep. 09 2009,2:24 pm

^So!?

How is that relevant to anything. It's not enough you tell us who just took a dump, you have to tell us how it's relevant and it's significance. You don't do this because yer kinda dumb.

I think it's some retarded dig at Obama or at least what your litte mind is thinking. Is that Obama's proposal?

Posted by Common Citizen on Sep. 09 2009,9:34 pm

Hey, you're the one that claims to have the low IQ. Not my problem what you think is or isn't relevant, nor does anyone care.

Don't you have to go and add something to your thread so it pops back up to the first page. Getting kind of down there on the list, don't you know.

Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 09 2009,10:44 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 28 2009,7:04 pm)

QUOTE

JIM

QUOTE

Nobody is saying it can't meet its obligations today

Irish

QUOTE

I already told you before that I'm aware of the future projections, but you and the conservative talking heads on TV often say in reference to SS & Medicare that, "it's broke." Now, to me that gives the impression of the present, not an estimated 28 years from now it could be broke!

Tell me Jim, when you were 35 years old, would it make sense for someone to say that you were a senior citizen, even though you WOULDN'T be for another 30 years?!

QUOTE

FACT 5. Libbies call the "stock market" "risky"--but nothing says you have to put it into stocks. You could put it into INSURANCE or OIL companies--libbies are always complaining that they are making obscene profits. YOU could be a fat cat, too! It is a sad commentary that libbies consider BUSINESS "risky"--the very thing that we depend upon for our way of life--the very thing they would like to kill. I guess that like their Communist brethren, they think we should all work for the government! If you like government, you COULD put your money into tax exempt municipal bonds.

FACT 6. Libbies call it "risky". What could be a BIGGER risk than a lousy 2% return--when inflation traditionally is higher than that? You would also be taking the chance that you don't make it until age 66, and you FORFEIT all of the money you paid in. I'd call THAT risky--and DUMB! :dunce:

So, you don't think that business is risky? That seems odd, because it's already been posted how badly much of your investing has turned out. If it wasn't for you & your wife's job security, at your current age SS might be your only safety net.

Regardless of what you claim the libbies say, I clearly posted that Bush was suggesting putting a PERCENTAGE into the stock market, not all of it. That's a great suggestion for most investments, but the problem is SS isn't set up like most investments. Comparing it to the returns of the stock market, bonds, or anything else isn't a fair comparison.

It's not designed to get rich off of, or invest for a great percentage return, it's designed for if you make BAD investments in your other ventures and wind up broke with nothing else to support you in old age or disability. I used to sell insurance, I've seen dozens of people who invested in private disability insurance, only to have that company ignore their claims to instead focus on their profits, and forget about their customers. SS was the only thing that kept them from losing their house, and putting food on their table.

QUOTE

If it was so good, why is Obama going to "fix" it YET AGAIN?

Most people compliment me on my car. It's not a bad car, but that doesn't mean I don't have to "fix" it sometimes. I don't think the postal system is something that we should scrap, but it is another example of something they need to fix. That doesn't mean the whole thing is a bad idea, it's just that the union is too strong, and with people using online correspondence and bill pay so much in recent times, they need to make changes. I view SS the same way.

Just because you have to fix something from time to time, doesn't prove that it's bad. Regardless of what the conservatives think. I guess to them if their business was nearing the red, they'd just close the doors instead of looking for ways to cut costs or make more money.

Posted by MADDOG on Sep. 10 2009,12:40 pm

One person we haven't heard from yet on this whole O'Bam-Bam care is the Surgeon General.

Anybody tell me what the SG has to say about the health care debate and what should be done?

Posted by Botto 82 on Sep. 10 2009,12:50 pm

Isn't the Surgeon General an Obama appointee? What would you expect them to say?

Posted by MADDOG on Sep. 10 2009,1:23 pm

Yes and then they have to be confirmed. Who is it? What do they have to say?

Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 01 2009,6:25 pm

I'm surprised at the lack of comment by the resident libbies about the loss of the "Public Option" in Committee in Congress. TWICE it was proposed, twice it was voted down--and a sizeable number of Democrats voted down this turkey.

My guess that there would be a lot more, but only the more vulnerable Dems were allowed to vote AGAINST the public option in order to secure re-election--those "safe" seats could vote FOR it.

The Baucus bill? Dead--enough Dems won't support it to even get it out of committee. :woohoo:

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 02 2009,1:51 pm

I think most liberals are smart enough to wait for the vote.

Shouldn't you be ranting about Obama's gay education czar encouraging a gay 14 year old student's relationship with an adult man just two decades ago?

Did you know that he also "wrote the forward" for a book that Ayers "wrote a blurb for the back" of and it was called Queering Elementary Education?

Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 02 2009,2:00 pm

Yes--I knew that--but what does that have to do with OBAMACARE? :dunno:

Why do you bring it up? Is it because this is FRIDAY, and like the Clinton White House, you do a "News dump" of BAD NEWS on Friday, so that it doesn't get the big press, and by Monday, you can claim it is OLD NEWS? :oops:

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 02 2009,2:31 pm

QUOTE

Why do you bring it up? Is it because this is FRIDAY,

No, it's because I heard it was the far right's story of the week.

Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 02 2009,2:38 pm

(Liberal @ Oct. 02 2009,2:31 pm)

QUOTE

Why do you bring it up? Is it because this is FRIDAY,

No, it's because I heard it was the far right's story of the week.

Yeah, it's the "Far Right" story of the week all right. SO FAR RIGHT that nobody even brought it up! :oops:

Another liberal "conspiracy theory?"

Blaming the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" before they even bring it up? :crazy:

Why don't you start a thread on that if it interests YOU? :dunno:

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 02 2009,2:47 pm

QUOTE

Yeah, it's the "Far Right" story of the week all right. SO FAR RIGHT that nobody even brought it up!

Where do you think I heard it? Obviously the kooks have been talking about it otherwise I wouldn't have used their words.

Notice the quotes in the first post on it? The quotes were from that big headed inbred moron Hannity, and the lie about him being 14, and the one about this guy encouraging it were from the rest of the kooks. :rofl:

The book thing was also Hannity. :rofl:

Or were you saying that no real news agency has reported it?

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 02 2009,4:21 pm

QUOTE

< Senate is Moving Forward on Heatlh Care Reform >

The Finance Committee also agreed through unanimous consent to support legislation introduced by Grassley and Senator Jim Bunning, R-Ky. The legislation would require members of Congress and congressional staff to access health insurance through the exchange that would be created by the health care reform legislation under consideration by the Finance Committee. Currently, members of Congress and their staffs participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Grassley explained his reasoning behind the legislation saying that having Members of Congress participate in the exchange is consistent with his long-held view that Congress should live under the same laws it passes for the rest of the country.

Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 02 2009,4:53 pm

(Liberal @ Oct. 02 2009,2:47 pm)

QUOTE

Yeah, it's the "Far Right" story of the week all right. SO FAR RIGHT that nobody even brought it up!

Where do you think I heard it? Obviously the kooks have been talking about it otherwise I wouldn't have used their words.

The book thing was also Hannity. :rofl:

Or were you saying that no real news agency has reported it?

Start a new thread if you like. You seem to have a special interest in this subject.

The piece I saw quoted the pervert as saying the boy was a "sophomore". Do you have anything that says he WASN'T?

I didn't see anything that said he ENCOURAGED it--only that your boy said that in retrospect, he should have sought medical and legal help with the issue. Show us where Hannity "encouraged" it, if you have it. :dunno:

Jennings said he "didn't know the student was sexually active"--but another professor produced a tape recording of the meeting to disprove that.

I KNOW that libbies tend to overlook a LOT (especially when it is one of "theirs") :rofl:

Don't you think that it is odd that someone who bragged about his being "drunk and stoned"--his alcohol and drug abuse, is in charge of "Safe Schools"?

Don't you think that it is odd that someone who is an OPEN ADVOCATE of homosexuality (he wrote 6 books) is in charge of "safe schools"?

Don't you think that it is odd that someone who writes about the joys of "fisting" for kids is in charge of "safe schools"?

Don't you think that it is odd that the guy that told God "Screw you, buddy!" and that conservative Christians are "hard-core bigots" who should "drop dead."is in charge of "safe schools"?

Don't you find it at least a LITTLE disturbing that a guy that wrote the forward to "Queering ELEMENTARY Education" is in charge of safe schools?

Wouldn't you THINK that Obambi could have found someone better qualified?

Wouldn't you THINK that Obambi and staff would have CHECKED THE GUY OUT?

With people like this in our schools, no WONDER they continue to turn out educational failures and Donks! :rofl:

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 02 2009,5:30 pm

Well, there's that statement from the guy. :dunno:

QUOTE

Since I was of legal consent at the time, the fifteen-minute conversation I had with Mr. Jennings twenty-one years ago is of nobody's concern but his and mine. However, since the Republican noise machine is so concerned about my "well-being" and that of America's students, they'll be relieved to know that I was not "inducted" into homosexuality, assaulted, raped, or sold into sexual slavery.

In 1988, I had taken a bus home for the weekend, and on the return trip met someone who was also gay. The next day, I had a conversation with Mr. Jennings about it. I had no sexual contact with anybody at the time, though I was entirely legally free to do so. I was a sixteen year-old going through something most of us have experienced: adolescence. I find it regrettable that the people who have the compassion and integrity to protect our nation's students are themselves in need of protection from homophobic smear attacks. Were it not for Mr. Jennings' courage and concern for my well-being at that time in my life, I doubt I'd be the proud gay man that I am today.

- Brewster

Strange, his version of the story is a lot different than your story. :rofl:

QUOTE

Don't you think that it is odd that someone who is an OPEN ADVOCATE of homosexuality (he wrote 6 books) is in charge of "safe schools"?

Do you think the kids can catch "gay" from him? Or do you think kids are going to read his books and decide to become a switch hitter?

QUOTE

Wouldn't you THINK that Obambi and staff would have CHECKED THE GUY OUT?

Maybe they did, and just wanted you guys to look like a bunch of homophobes over his selection. :dunno:

Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 02 2009,6:16 pm

libbie

QUOTE

Strange, his version of the story is a lot different than your story.

No, I don't think so. Jennings himself admits his error.

QUOTE

President Obama's "safe schools czar," under fire from critics who say he's unfit for his job, acknowledged Wednesday that he "should have handled [the] situation differently" years ago when he was a schoolteacher and didn't report that a 15-year-old boy told him that he was having sex with an older man.

Kevin Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, was teaching high school in Concord, Mass., in 1988 when the boy, a sophomore, confessed an involvement with a man he had met in a bus station bathroom in Boston. Jennings has written that he told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a condom."

In a statement issued Wednesday, Jennings said: "Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities."

Jennings, director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, said he believes his office can now help keep other new teachers from making the same mistake.

null< My Webpage >

Maybe you should be watching Fox News instead of the spin of Media Matters! :oops:

Jennings himself admits he handled it badly.

Now, how is "my story" (the story as reported by Fox News and confirmed by Jennings) in error? :dunno:

Once again--the libbie attack machine--the James Carville approach--if you can't win it on the facts, attack the person or the source. :dunce:

Once again, libbie doesn't answer the questions posed to him. Here they are AGAIN, you can ANSWER them or DUCK them again.

QUOTE

Don't you think that it is odd that someone who bragged about his being "drunk and stoned"--his alcohol and drug abuse, is in charge of "Safe Schools"?

Don't you think that it is odd that someone who is an OPEN ADVOCATE of homosexuality (he wrote 6 books) is in charge of "safe schools"?

Don't you think that it is odd that someone who writes about the joys of "fisting" for kids is in charge of "safe schools"?

Don't you think that it is odd that the guy that told God "Screw you, buddy!" and that conservative Christians are "hard-core bigots" who should "drop dead."is in charge of "safe schools"?

Don't you find it at least a LITTLE disturbing that a guy that wrote the forward to "Queering ELEMENTARY Education" is in charge of safe schools?

Wouldn't you THINK that Obambi could have found someone better qualified?

Wouldn't you THINK that Obambi and staff would have CHECKED THE GUY OUT?

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 02 2009,6:29 pm

QUOTE

Jennings himself admits he handled it badly.

Oh well if he admits he handled it badly then everything you and Faux News said must be true. :crazy:

Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 02 2009,7:18 pm

Let's see:

Jennings admits that "He handled it badly."

CNN corroborates what I had posted from Fox News. How was my story "a lot different"? :dunno:

CNN makes a big deal out of whether the boy was of legal age at the time--it may or may not have been statuatory rape. Initial reports say the boy was 15--the boy says 16--if kids start kindergarten at 5, he could be either as a sophmore--and we don't know the date the boy "met the older man in a bus-station bathroom." :rofl:

The question SHOULD be "what was this kid doing haveing gay sex with an older man in a public bathroom?" Weren't YOU GUYS the ones that were "outraged" by the behavior of a Congressman in a public bathroom? :crazy:

What new facts did CNN bring to the table that "debunks" Fox? :dunno:

Instead, they OMITTED information--like his writinig the forward to "Queering Elementary education"--his writing about how good "fisting" is, his statement to God "Screw you, Buddy!" and that conservative Christians are "hard core bigots that should drop dead."
--his open advocacy of homosexuality, and his history of alcohol and drug use.

Just the kind of guy most people would want settinig school policy. :sarcasm:

With reporting like this, is it any WONDER that CNN has fallen from the top and now battles MSNBC for last place in the cable news ratings? :rofl:

Is it any WONDER that Obama's poll numbers are dropping?

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 02 2009,8:15 pm

QUOTE

You should consider supplemental oxygen for when you're at your desk. There was no sex, nothing. It was a conversation the guy released a statement and I posted it but don't let the facts get in your way. :rofl:

QUOTE

Here's your jimmy. :crazy:

Posted by Botto 82 on Oct. 02 2009,9:03 pm

Okay, which one is Hanson, and which one is Hayson?

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 02 2009,9:06 pm

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 02 2009,9:22 pm

Even though Hanson claims nobody is reporting this here's some quotes of kooks reporting on this czar that has plans to turn our kids gay. :crazy:

QUOTE

The latest target in the Glenn Beck-driven conservative media witch hunt for Obama administration "czars" is Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools director Kevin Jennings. In their attacks on Jennings, numerous conservative media figures have resorted to thinly veiled homophobic appeals to paint Jennings, who is gay, as a "radical" "gay activist" with an "agenda" of "promoting homosexuality in schools," and have misrepresented or distorted Jennings' previous comments about religion and tolerance.
In 1995, Jennings noted right wing's use of code words to fearmonger about school safety programs for LGBT students

WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh quoted the following from a 1995 speech delivered by Jennings at a Human Rights Campaign Fund Leadership Conference:

"If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language -- 'promoting homosexuality' is one example -- is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are 'after their kids.' "

"We must learn from the abortion struggle, where the clever claiming of the term 'pro-life' allowed those who opposed abortion on demand to frame the issue to their advantage, to make sure that we do not allow ourselves to be painted into a corner before the debate even begins." [WorldNetDaily, 9/17/09]

Media conservatives attack Jennings with extreme, fearmongering rhetoric

Erik Rush: Jennings is a "radical homosexual druggie." Rush wrote in a WorldNetDaily commentary that Jennings is "a radical homosexual who ... has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, and written unapologetically about his own drug use." Rush added, "One has to ask oneself why it is that Obama repeatedly chooses some of the most wildly inappropriate individuals one could conceive of to serve in high-level positions. A radical homosexual druggie for his 'safe schools czar'? It's practically inconceivable." Rush continued, "Obama, being a creature of the farthest left, has no qualms whatever about allowing activist homosexuals -- or people who are soft on drugs -- to set the moral agenda for this country; the more dysfunctional and enslaved to sensualism we are, the more easily manipulated we will be. And going after the children, as we have learned, is nothing new." [WorldNetDaily, 10/1/09]

Washington Times: "Jennings has made extremely radical statements promoting homosexuality in schools." The Washington Times editorial board wrote, "Mr. Jennings has made extremely radical statements promoting homosexuality in schools and about his utter contempt for religion that render him unsuitable for a prestigious White House appointment." [The Washington Times, 9/28/09]

Limbaugh: Jennings "is a guy promoting homosexuality in the schools." Rush Limbaugh stated: "[I]f you wonder why the libs are really ticked off that [director] Roman Polanski might be extradited to face the music on that long-ago act with the 13-year-old girl, Quaaludes and rape, understand that Obama's safe school czar is a guy promoting homosexuality in the schools and encouraged a 15-year-old kid to have a homosexual relationship with an older man, and even facilitated it. As I say, Snerdley, I wasn't even going to get to this today, but you asked me about Polanski, and that's that." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/28/09]

Hannity: "[T]his is a guy that's advocated promoting homosexuality in schools." Fox News' Sean Hannity stated that "this is a guy that's advocated promoting homosexuality in schools. This is a guy we have talked about his past. He's had contempt for religion, et cetera, et cetera. ... Isn't the issue here that what they're teaching oftentimes, value-wise, contradicts what parents are teaching? And isn't that morally wrong?" He later added, "I don't know what it is about liberals. I think they think they have the right to raise our kids. I mean, you know, the idea that you would promote whatever your agenda, on sexuality, any controversial issue." [Fox News' Hannity, 9/25/09]

Malkin: "[C]ontroversial homosexual rights' advocate" Jennings founded "controversial" organization which "aggressively pushes sexually explicit" books. As an example of the Obama administration's "radicalism," Michelle Malkin wrote that "the White House has embraced controversial homosexual rights' advocate Kevin Jennings as 'Safe Schools czar.' Jennings founded the controversial GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network), which aggressively pushes sexually explicit, age-inappropriate books and lesson plans on alternative lifestyles." [MichelleMalkin.com, 9/25/09]

Dobbs guest Tony Perkins says "bizarre" Jennings seeks "to mainstream homosexuality in schools." On his radio show, Lou Dobbs stated, "There's suddenly a major political storm around him, charges that he has promoted homosexuality in schools, acknowledged past drug abuse, at one time demonstrating contempt for religion itself. Can any of that be true?" Perkins replied: "Well, unfortunately it is. I mean, this guy is bizarre, and it shows just how radical this administration is in pushing forward policies. ... This guy -- he established GLSEN ... to mainstream homosexuality in the schools." Perkins added, "This is an agenda that is being targeted all the way down to kindergarten. So this is -- the idea that this guy is heading up a safe and drug-free school program, and that he is advocating the expansion of homosexuality in the school and the curriculum" and that "people send their kids to school to get an education, and not to be recruited into a network of sexual behavior, whether it's homosexual behavior or heterosexual behavior." [United Stations Radio Networks' The Lou Dobbs Show, 9/24/09]

Fox News' Kilmeade claims Jennings "promoted homosexuality in schools" and "expressed contempt for religion." During a Fox & Friends segment, co-host Brian Kilmeade stated, "[T]he safe school czar position was actually from George Bush's administration in 2002. President Bush said we need something like this. But maybe this wasn't the job -- this wasn't the resume he thought he'd get: Former schoolteacher who has promoted homosexuality in schools. Also, he has a -- he details a report on how he did not report an incident with an underage student who had sex with an older man, and also has expressed contempt for religion. So, as you expand the resume, it might not be the perfect candidate." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 9/24/09]

FoxNews.com: Jennings "has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools." FoxNews.com reported that Jennings "is a former schoolteacher who has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse, expressed his contempt for religion and detailed an incident in which he did not report an underage student who told him he was having sex with older men." The article also stated that GLSEN "has also been accused of promoting homosexuality in schools." [FoxNews.com, 9/23/09]

On Hannity, Noelle Nikpour said "gay activist" Jennings is Obama's most dangerous czar. On his Fox News show, Hannity asked Republican strategist Noelle Nikpour, "Who do you think is the most dangerous?" Nikpour answered: "Well, I think it's Kevin Jennings. Not only that, that he's a gay activist, but he was part of the GLISTEN. He was the former director for GLISTEN. They held a conference in which techniques for, I think it was, homosexuality, how to perform different techniques. That's insane." The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore then added, "Remember, we -- used to be that sex education was putting condoms on bananas. Lord knows what they're going to do now." [Hannity, 9/18/09 (from Nexis)]

WorldNetDaily: Jennings boasted about "us[ing] the concept of 'safety' in schools to promote homosexual advocacy in public schools." In a WorldNetDaily "exclusive," Unruh wrote that GLSEN "promotes homosexuality in schools" and that Jennings "once boasted that he introduced homosexual advocacy into the school system in Massachusetts by manipulating the message presented to lawmakers. ... [H]e gave a speech in which he described how he has used the concept of 'safety' in schools to promote homosexual advocacy in public schools in Massachusetts." [WorldNetDaily, 9/17/09]

New American: Jennings is "devious," "career homosexual activist" with "subversive agenda." Calling on Jennings "to be expelled from the nation's classrooms," William Jasper wrote that Jennings "admits to using deception when pushing a subversive agenda that would be rigorously opposed by the vast majority of Americans if honestly promoted under its true colors." Jasper added, "What is Jennings agenda? Promoting homosexuality (in all its various permutations) under the guise of promoting 'safe schools.' " Jasper wrote that Jennings intends to use his position in the administration "to greatly expand the GLSEN program of subverting and perverting their captive public-school audience." Jasper wrote of Jennings' 1995 speech, "It is this deviousness of Jennings and GLSEN & Co. that is most alarming, especially now that they have captured citadels of power inside the massive federal bureaucracy of the U.S. Department of Education and appear to have the full blessings of the Obama White House to work their way with our children." [New American, 9/11/09]
Conservative media distort Jennings' remark about "promoting homosexuality"

Conservative media echo FRC's "Stop Jennings" campaign. Media conservatives' baseless claim that Jennings "promoted homosexuality in schools" echoes the Family Research Council's "Stop Jennings" campaign, which quoted Jennings saying during October 25, 1997, remarks at GLSEN's mid-Atlantic conference, "I can envision a day when straight people say, 'So what if you're promoting homosexuality?' ... That is our mission from this day forward" [ellipsis in original].

But Jennings actually expressed hope that some day "most straight people ... wouldn't necessarily equate homosexuality with something bad." FRC distorted Jennings' remarks, as the blog Good As You noted. In his remarks, Jennings was actually calling for tolerance; he talked about countering "stereotypes and misinformation" in order to change peoples' views about homosexuality over time and stated that GLSEN's "mission from this day forward" was "[t]o not lose our faith, to not lose our belief that the world can, indeed, be a different place." Jennings also spoke in reference to a day when "most straight people, when they would hear that someone was promoting homosexuality ... wouldn't necessarily equate homosexuality with something bad that you would not want to promote" and "a day when straight people say, 'So what if you're promoting homosexuality?' Or straight kids say, 'Hey, why don't you and your boyfriend come over before you go to the prom and try on your tuxes on at my house?' " Peter LaBarbera, president of a group that seeks to "expos[e] and counter the homosexual activist agenda," published a transcript of Jennings' 1997 remarks that LaBarbera said were reprinted from the Lambda Report.

From LaBarbera's transcript of Jennings' remarks, with the portions FRC quoted in bold:

JENNINGS: Two years ago, one of our board members, one named Ann Simon, was called to testify before Congress when they had hearings on the promotion of homosexuality in schools. And we were busy putting out press releases, and saying, 'We're not promoting homosexuality, that's not what our program's about. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.' And my best friend, who's a straight women [sic] who lives in London, e-mailed me ... and she said, 'So what if you are?' And I thought of how I can get so wrapped up in my own defensiveness, and ... the day-to-day struggle, and stuff, that being finished might some day mean that most straight people, when they would hear that someone was promoting homosexuality, would say 'Yeah, who cares?' because they wouldn't necessarily equate homosexuality with something bad that you would not want to promote. And when we were talking there, and Mike said, 'You know, and I'd like five years from now -- right now let's face it, for large swells of people they think of GLSEN and kids, and they think, 'GLSEN is bad for kids.' They do because of their stereotypes and misinformation -- I'd like five years from now for most Americans when they hear the word GLSEN to think, 'Ooh, that's good for kids.''

[...]

JENNINGS: All of us who are thinking this way are crazy, because you know what? Sane people keep the world the same [sh*tty] old way it is now. It's the people who think, 'No, I can envision a day when straight people say, 'So what if you're promoting homosexuality?' Or straight kids say, 'Hey, why don't you and your boyfriend come over before you go to the prom and try on your tuxes on at my house?' That if we believe that can happen, we can make it happen. The only thing that will stop us is our lack of faith that we can make it happen. That is our mission from this day forward. To not lose our faith, to not lose our belief that the world can, indeed, be a different place.

Conservative media misrepresent Jennings' remarks about religion

Think Progress: Jennings indicated that "he later returned to religion," and he went on to join a Protestant seminary. Many media figures have claimed that Jennings, in Kilmeade's words, "has expressed contempt for religion" -- which is based on a statement Jennings made in his memoir, Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son, and has also been a component of FRC's campaign against Jennings. FRC quoted a passage from Jennings' memoir, in which Jennings writes: "God ... had done nothing but cause me pain and anguish through His inaction and malevolence throughout my childhood. ... What had he done for me, other than make me feel shame and guilt? Squat. Screw you, buddy -- I don't need you around anymore, I decided. " However, as the blog Think Progress noted, FRC ignored "what Jennings writes a few sentences later: that he later returned to religion." Think Progress also noted that Jennings "went on to serve as an active member on the board of the Union Theological Seminary (UTS) in New York, the nation's most prestigious Protestant seminary."

Hard to miss the homophobia from the right.

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 13 2009,12:42 pm

QUOTE

The Baucus bill? Dead--enough Dems won't support it to even get it out of committee. :woohoo:

QUOTE

Oct. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senator Olympia Snowe said she will vote for the U.S. Senate Finance Committee’s health-care overhaul plan to cut medical spending and cover millions of uninsured people.

Snowe, 62, of Maine, had been viewed as the member of her party most likely to support a health-care initiative. Her vote may clear the way for other Republicans to back the effort.

“Is this bill all that I would want? Far from it,” Snowe said today, though she added, “When history calls, history calls.”

Looks like it's coming out of committee with a Republican on board. :woohoo:

I know the hard core right wingers will say that she's a RINO, but if we get the "Republicans In Name Only" to switch we pass healthcare reform even easier.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 14 2009,3:11 pm

Not very bright on the subject are you.

Do we all thank you when our health insurance premiums go up to cover this or should we just mail you a bunch of deposit slips for our bank accounts if and when it passes in it's current state.

:finger:

Posted by irisheyes on Oct. 14 2009,3:25 pm

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 14 2009,3:11 pm)

QUOTE

Not very bright on the subject are you.

I don't see it at an intelligence issue as much as it is a difference of opinion. I think the insurance industry is the problem, not the solution to this.

Unless of course you have a new special interest group newsletter for the insurance industry and want to "inform" us all.

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Oct. 14 2009,3:35 pm

What if all health insurance carriers where eliminated and everything was fee based. That would be true competition in the market place.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 15 2009,1:18 pm

^Please expand on that thought...

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 15 2009,2:23 pm

(irisheyes @ Oct. 14 2009,3:25 pm)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 14 2009,3:11 pm)

QUOTE

Not very bright on the subject are you.

You don't need a special interest group to inform you. All you need to do is READ for yourself or would you prefer to get your "facts" from the donks. People who know nothing about the health care industry.

Do you honestly think our sitting President, his advisors, and Congress can wrap their brains around this while dealing with everything else going on, such as campaigning for the Olympics, accepting foreign awards. etc...?

QUOTE

During the heated debate on the national health care reform proposals, Minnesota's health care reforms have been frequently mentioned as a model for national reforms. This is especially true for our U.S. Senators.

I thought it might be of value if I reviewed the status of the health care reforms enacted in 2008 by the Minnesota Legislature. At that time, the reforms were fairly vague and general. The health department was given the lead in further developing these reforms. The state employees health program, Medicaid and MinnesotaCare are mandated to being using these reforms as early as July, 2010.

Here is a brief summary of the health department's recent initiatives.

Health Care Homes. The department of health has published a rule on health care homes that establishes standards and procedures for their certification. The rule was published on July 6, 2009 and the comment period expired August 6. The department is now accepting applications for health care home certifications. A series of events and training seminars are set up around the state in late October to educate interested parties.

Encounter data. Beginning in July 2009, all health plans and third party administrators must begin submitting encounter data every six months to help the department develop peer groupings and quality measurements. The date is submitted to the “Maine Health Information Center” who was awarded a contract by the department. They are designing and implementing the Minnesota Health Care Claims Reporting System. Rules for the health care claims reporting system were adopted and approved July 6, 2009.

Health Care Quality Measures. Under the 2008 legislation, the commissioner must establish a standardized set of quality measures for health care providers across the state. The goal is to create a uniform approach to quality and provide information and transparency to patients and health care purchasers. After January 1, 2010 health care providers must submit quality measurement data to health plans.

The department published an expedited rule on Health Care Quality Measures on September 8. The comment period on the rule expired October 7. The department may make some changes to the rule based upon these comments. If changes are made, the rule will be republished in the state register.

Quality Incentive Payment System. After quality measures are adopted a statewide system of quality based incentive payments to health care providers must be established. This pay-for-performance model must be developed and implemented for Medicaid, MinnesotaCare and the state employee health plan by July 1, 2010. Private health plan purchasers are encouraged to follow suit. The recommendations for the incentive payment system measures and methodology have been developed by the Minnesota Community Measurement project. They are now available for public review.

Provider Peer Grouping. The commissioner of health was directed to develop a method of comparing health care providers based on a combination of risk-adjusted cost and quality. An advisory group is developing recommendations on a methodology for provider peer grouping. The development of peer grouping must be completed by January 1, 2010. Information relating to cost and quality will be collected and disseminated to health care providers June 1, 2010. Providers could appeal the accuracy of the data. The information will be reported publicly beginning September 2010.

Baskets of Care. The 2008 reforms direct the commissioner to develop baskets of care for particular conditions or episodes of care. The goal is to bundle services in order to reform health care payment systems. A work group has been charged with developing definitions for seven baskets of care. They are asthma, diabetes, low back pain, obstetric care, knee replacement, preventive care for children and preventive care for adults. The department is working with the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement, ICSI, and has convened seven subcommittees to further define these baskets of care.

Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP). The department of health in August awarded 39 grants totaling $47 million dollars to Minnesota communities (community health boards and tribal governments) to help lower the number of obese or overweight people and to reduce the number of people who use tobacco.

Consumer Engagement. The 2008 reforms requires the department on convene a work group to develop strategies for engaging consumers in the understanding the importance of health care quality and cost. The work group must make recommendations to the Commissioner of Health and the Legislature by January 1, 2010. The department has moderated several “listening sessions” with consumer and employer groups beginning in May, 2009.

Did you get all of that? :hairpull:

I do not support a gov't mandate that forces employers to provide health care to their employees or pay a fine if the employer does not comply. This is not a human right. No where in the constitution does it state that IT is a right. How I choose to reward my employees should be left up to me and not the government. Stay out of my affairs. If the employees do not like it, then they can walk.

I do not support the fact that the donks want to penalize individuals who do not own health insurance by assessing penalties/fines by the IRS.

I do not believe it when the congresscritters say that the estimated cost of $900 billion over 10 years will not be added to our deficit.

I believe the current health care reform bill is a tax on the middle class.

I do not believe you can have both "affordable" insurance while "requiring" people to own it, at the same time. If you believe that it can then you do not understand how insurance works.

I believe in health care insurance portability.

I believe in the freedom to choose my own doctor, the type of care to recieve, and the type of policy I want to purchase to protect me and my family with out government interference and threats to punish me through fines and taxation if I do not comply.

I believe in allowing any insurance company from any state to compete in any other state they choose to do business. This is the ulimate way to provide consumers with choice and it would create competition in the market place.

If you understand what the term freedom means and can properly define insurance and understand why it is used then you will understand why I am against the current version of the health care bill.

Posted by irisheyes on Oct. 15 2009,4:21 pm

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 15 2009,2:23 pm)

QUOTE

All you need to do is READ for yourself or would you prefer to get your "facts" from the donks.

I don't get all of my facts from the Donks anymore than I would expect you get all of your facts from conservative republicans. That's like me suggesting you must get all of your info from Rush or Hannity without knowing other sources or influences that have shaped your opinion.

QUOTE

People who know nothing about the health care industry.

Really? Then what about this?

QUOTE

When given a three-way choice among private plans that use tax credits or subsidies to help the poor buy private insurance; a new public health insurance plan such as Medicare; or a mix of the two; 63 percent of doctors supported a mix, 27 percent said they only wanted private options, and just 10 percent said they exclusively wanted public options.

The survey of 2,130 U.S. doctors, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also found that more 55 percent, regardless of their medical specialty, would favor expanding Medicare so it covered people aged 55 and older.
< Reuters >

This isn't a debate about who knows more about health care or insurance, it's a difference of opinion. I know damn well you can find doctors (some of which are members of congress) who oppose the proposed health care reform, and I can find plenty of doctors who are in favor of a public option.

QUOTE

Do you honestly think our sitting President, his advisors, and Congress can wrap their brains around this while dealing with everything else going on, such as campaigning for the Olympics, accepting foreign awards. etc...?

And when do you think would be a good time for them to wrap their brains around it? It's almost like you're suggesting we wait to look into reform until the federal government doesn't have much going on.

QUOTE

Did you get all of that? :hairpull:

So, what does that prove? You think if they make changes to something, that it must prove it's bad?

QUOTE

No where in the constitution does it state that IT is a right.

It'll be interesting when the teabaggers start picketing NASA, the interstate system, and everything else that isn't mentioned in the Constitution. I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't mention anything about farm subsidies either, but we give farmers BILLIONS every year. I don't know of a single conservative that's turned it down though.

Here's another example, the land that we're currently occupying was purchased during the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, and at the time a big argument against it was that the Constitution didn't give them the right to do so (sound familiar?). If it wasn't, we'd currently be on French soil.

Do you know a single conservative who's against all of the things I just mentioned? Because none of them are in the Constitution either.

I agree with everything else you mentioned. You make a lot of good points about personal freedom of choosing whether you have insurance, and whether an employer should be forced to provide it to their employees though. There's plenty going on in the debate right now about reform that I'm not in favor of at all, but I'm just happy we're finally having an actual debate about it other than just campaign promises that don't go anywhere after the election.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 16 2009,3:30 pm

QUOTE

I believe our government should have limited role in our lives. They should stick to providing national security for its citizens and to provide infrastructure for the country. (i.e., roads and bridges) NASA is so bloated it isn't even funny. I also do not agree with how farm subsidies are doled out. It has it's place but not when it comes to a million $ farmer rolling down mainstreet in brand new pickup only to drive to his field and jump in the latest and greatest JD combine complete with a GPS and sporting more sensors than what the space shuttle has. This is what happens when gov't get's involved. They start out with noble ideals only to become too fat and inefficient. Then people latch onto these programs like a calf sucking on the cows tit and won't let go. They can't get off the gov't cheese. It's like a drug.

I am not against reform, the health care industry is ripe with inefficiencies but I strongly disagree that the gov't will solve any of those issues. WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS? WHY WILL I BE PUNISHED? In fact, I think the gov't is partially responsible. We have 50 different insurance commissioner's in 50 different states and they all have different rules and regulations making it next to impossible for an insurance company to business across state lines thus creating monopolies.

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Oct. 16 2009,4:16 pm

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 15 2009,1:18 pm)

QUOTE

^Please expand on that thought...

Sorry CC not trying to avoid answering. I had an expanded, all though some what long winded summary just about complete when the wife clicked me off the forum before I could post it. When my agitation subsides I will try again. I find it hard to be concise when I am frazzled. Don't want to get speared.

Posted by Santorini on Oct. 16 2009,9:52 pm

I just have a question for liberal.

Is "U-tube" pretty much your primary source for up-to-the-minute-accurate news updates :dunno:

Sure looks that way from your postings

Posted by Santorini on Oct. 16 2009,10:12 pm

(Liberal @ Oct. 02 2009,1:51 pm)

QUOTE

I think the appropriate response to liberal's glorifying the liberals as "smart enough"...
would be the new acronym being passed around and slated as the "most accurate" acronym of the century!
O=one
B= big
A=arse (ya all know what should be here!)
M=mistake
A=America

Posted by Santorini on Oct. 17 2009,6:04 pm

Why has it been decided not to allow the public to view the final copy of health reform?
What is being hidden...and why :dunno:

Posted by irisheyes on Oct. 19 2009,7:35 am

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 16 2009,3:30 pm)

QUOTE

So you think NASA is bloated and farm subsidies help too many rich farmers. I totally agree, but it seems odd that no where in your post did you say both programs should be eliminated. There's no Constitutional right to it, so why aren't they storming Washington over that?

I have to smirk when I hear republicans or democrats declare their love for the Constitution. Many liberals are more than happy to strip away the Second Amendment if it helps them sleep better at night, and conservatives would love to take away rights of the accused and programs for the poor. Both groups often use the document when it suites them, and toss it aside when it doesn't. That's not directed at any of you, just a broad rant towards many politicians or dimwits I see interviewed at these rallys.

QUOTE

I am not against reform, the health care industry is ripe with inefficiencies but I strongly disagree that the gov't will solve any of those issues. WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS? WHY WILL I BE PUNISHED? In fact, I think the gov't is partially responsible. We have 50 different insurance commissioner's in 50 different states and they all have different rules and regulations making it next to impossible for an insurance company to business across state lines thus creating monopolies.

Who else is going to solve the issue? Do you think the industry that's making a fortune on the problem is going to reform itself? Absolutely not.

As for the different laws in each state and different commissioner's, what other solution would you suggest? Don't the state's have a right to make their own rules as they see fit just like they do for many other things?

As for why you have to pay for it and be punished, does that mean you're in that over $250k catagory? I guess the reason for that depends on who you ask. Some might see the wealthy as victims in this, but I don't. I would see it as the glory days of tax cuts to the rich is over. The pendulum is about to swing the other way, and everyone knew it was bound to happen. If the wealthy are looking for any sympathy, they won't find it here.

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Oct. 22 2009,12:38 pm

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 15 2009,1:18 pm)

QUOTE

^Please expand on that thought...

Let's say that you took all premiums paid into insurance companies, take out all the profits. Then take the amounts that the insurers actually paid to drs, and hospitals. Would that not be the true cost of health care? Would it not be billions less. Of course we are just talking about those insured, not illegals or anything covered under another program.

How did we get to a point where when I was growing up, our family's insurance was covered by my dads employer with little to no deductible, to high cost, high deductible heavily excluded plans. Insurance went up, wages did not keep pace. You are still going to die.

To me it is a case of the dog chasing its own tail. The insurance payouts enable the hospitals and drs. to charge more for the same services, making for higher premiums for those insured. How is the fancy atrium at the hospital going to help anyone going there for services. Sure it looks nice but how am I going to get any better care. It is enabled by the big business side of things.

What happened to the hypocratic oath. Once healthcare became a For Profit venture the whole system changed. The patients become a cash cow to milk, conditioned to the spector of preventitive medicine 's way to live longer. A recent link on this forum showed what some of the local dr.s made annually. One was over 770k. Use any math equation you want. How many patients do you have to see on a daily basis to make that kind of money working 40 hrs a week 50 weeks a year. His patients still die. How long do you actually get to see the dr during an appointment.

They say that dr.s have to charge so much because of their malpractice insurance. Why should that affect you. It was they're brethren who left the sponge in the chest cavity or cut off the wrong foot. It isn't my problem.
It should be the cost of they're doing business. Not an excuse to gouge more.

Tort reform, I think frivolous lawsuits should be thrown out by merit. However if it is a Dr. more interested in getting to see his girlfirend and does something stupid and unethical motivated more by money than desire to help, skin em.

If we removed the insurance companies and made everything fee based would that lower health costs.
I believe it would by virtue of eliminating everything that they skim of off the top. A hamburger would be a good analogy. You can get the dollar menu or the Kobe beef burger, but you know what it is going to cost. If I need a hip replaced how much, put it on a menu, tonselectomy , put it on the menu. If it is going to be time and material for something more serious let me know. It s the - well we don't know what it is going to cost just leave your check book.

You would not take your car to the shop flip them the keys and tell them to fix it and let you know how much. We got along fine before insurance companies entered the picture.

I think that the insurance companies are the biggest loser in any healthcare reform. They are purely trying to protect they're profits. They have enough money to lobby till the cows come home and keep the politicians in their pocket. It is all about who is going to get YOUR money. Nothing else.

Could they not be considered ponzi schemes themselves. If the music stopped would your insurance you paid for still be in effect, what could stop it from happening.

Insurance companies work on the law of large numbers, spread the pool of risk. It also alows for large sums of money to be skimed of of the top. Even a non profit can pay it's upper level huge amounts of money and still maintain it's non profit status. :soapbox:

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 22 2009,1:02 pm

QUOTE

I just have a question for liberal.

Is "U-tube" pretty much your primary source for up-to-the-minute-accurate news updates :dunno:

Sure looks that way from your postings

Maybe you don't understand but youtube doesn't actually create any content, it's just for viewing other's content. So if I post a youtube clip of CNN that would mean CNN the source, not youtube. :rofl:

Why do you republicans seem so angry these days?

Posted by alcitizens on Oct. 22 2009,9:53 pm

(Santorini @ Oct. 17 2009,6:04 pm)

QUOTE

Why has it been decided not to allow the public to view the final copy of health reform?
What is being hidden...and why :dunno:

There is no final bill until it is finalized.
Read and enjoy.
< http://www.politico.com/livepul...d_.html >

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Oct. 23 2009,8:55 am

Posted by bianca on Oct. 23 2009,9:09 am

Excellent post Pretzel Logic and right on the money. :clap:

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 26 2009,11:11 am

QUOTE

If we removed the insurance companies and made everything fee based would that lower health costs.
I believe it would by virtue of eliminating everything that they skim of off the top. A hamburger would be a good analogy. You can get the dollar menu or the Kobe beef burger, but you know what it is going to cost. If I need a hip replaced how much, put it on a menu, tonselectomy , put it on the menu. If it is going to be time and material for something more serious let me know. It s the - well we don't know what it is going to cost just leave your check book.

Totally agree with you on this, PL? I've asked for lists at Medical Facilities and all I get are cross-eyed looks.

QUOTE

I think that the insurance companies are the biggest loser in any healthcare reform. They are purely trying to protect they're profits. They have enough money to lobby till the cows come home and keep the politicians in their pocket. It is all about who is going to get YOUR money. Nothing else.

Of course they're trying to protect profits. That's no different than a blue collar using the unions to protect their income. I'm sick of the Nancy Pelosi types deamonizing a company for making a profit. It's part of the pursuit of happiness. Not that money always makes one happy, but it does make things easier. No one said that your open heart surgery was mandatory. :laugh:

QUOTE

By CALVIN WOODWARD

WASHINGTON (AP) - Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry. In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would "keep insurance companies honest," says President Barack Obama.

The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.

They may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet.

But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. A look at some claims, and the numbers:

THE CLAIMS

_"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profitsbeing made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers'"obscene profits."

_"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

_"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.

THE NUMBERS:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

nuff said...

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Oct. 27 2009,9:54 am

I have a problem with any companies that say the work off of such a low profit margin. The could just put the money into a declared interest option and make more with out the hassle. Except how could anyone collect their huge wage and bonuses. They made that money with all their business acumen? 2.2 % profit?

These companies have the tax lawyers and accountants to figure out how to extract most money and pay least taxes. It is the Profits that tax is paid on.

The lower the profits, the less they have to pay a shareholder also. Everyone loses except the upper hierarchy of the company.

Again, if you invent something and make millions, more power to you!

If you make your money by manipulating others to your benefit well :angry:

The key word is manipulate, I did not say manage. Some people need help with their money, they just don't need to be helped out of it.

Posted by bianca on Oct. 27 2009,11:00 am

QUOTE

No one said that your open heart surgery was mandatory.

That's a very callous thing to say, even if in fun.

QUOTE

That's no different than a blue collar using the unions to protect their income.

Who has unions anymore? They all eroded after Reagan was in office. There's no protection for the blue-collar worker.

In part, because of this, people have no choices anymore. Companies are decreasing the benefits and people are paying more for insurance and with higher deductibles. I can't count how many people from local companies have had to take pay cuts besides having their health insurance/deductibles raised. Most of the time, it's, "the "company" has to do this in order to defray the companies rising costs otherwise we will have to cut our workforce, sell the company, or take the jobs overseas."

QUOTE

More and more corporations are cutting back on health care benefits as medical costs soar. Recent statistics show companies cutting health care benefits and requiring employees and retirees to pay more for them. As one survey of corporate benefit trends concluded, "[Benefit] reductions have become not just common, but expected, with the only question now being of how much more of a reduction in benefits and or an increase in cost will be directly placed on individuals . . . In the end . . . individuals, either as taxpayers or consumers, will need to pay the bill.[/QUOTE] an excerpt from the book Cash-Rich Retirement by Jim Schlagheck (Jim Schlagheck is an author, banker, longtime advisor to the ultrawealthy, and the coproducer of the public television series Retirement Revolution. He has written numerous articles on investing, retirement, and finance, and is also an acclaimed speaker who describes better ways for retirement readiness to audiences of wealth-management professionals and lay investors nationwide.)

[QUOTE]Not that money always makes one happy, but it does make things easier.

Agreed, but white-collar workers NEED blue-collar workers. Somebody has to do the "grunt work" in making those fancy offices that these fancy buildings are in, somebody has to make the highways they use, somebody has to process the food they consume.

Should the blue-collar workers not be able to make money and be happy? Why should they be punished for not making enough money to set aside to invest and instead worry about whether or not they can buy groceries or pay for their sick child to get medical treatment?

They are skilled in their own right, and manual laborers, that the white-collar workers depend on in order to make their profits.

White-collar workers may use their heads, intuitiveness and/or chance to make their bucks rather than their hands, skills and experience. But they call the laborers when their house needs painting, shingling etc. Their house needs cleaning, their food needs to be catered, etc. There would be no profits to make if there weren't blue-collar workers. They shouldn't be penalized for not having the opportunities that some have had.

What about the retirees that couldn't foresee a company that they worked for their whole life claim bankruptcy? They lose their pension and their healthcare they worked their whole life for? Why shouldn't they be able to afford the by-pass they need because of something they couldn't control, but the people that were running the company into the ground still gets their by-pass because they were given the opportunity to go run some other company?

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 27 2009,1:05 pm

(Pretzel Logic @ Oct. 27 2009,9:54 am)

QUOTE

The key word is manipulate, I did not say manage. Some people need help with their money, they just don't need to be helped out of it.

How about giving the insurance companies credit for employing millions of americans and giving these americans a standard of living that is better than most people in other countries? They are one of the few industry's that have kept jobs in America...

wait for it...wait for it...

nuff said...

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 27 2009,1:16 pm

QUOTE

That's a very callous thing to say, even if in fun.

Bianca, sure it's callous but am I not correct?

Blue collar worker's are not being punished, like you stated. We can argue all day long about that but we all make our own career choices, at least the vast majority of us. You're right that white collar workers need blue collar workers to the grunt work. But the blue collar worker's need the white collar's to provide them the jobs in the first place.

QUOTE

What about the retirees that couldn't foresee a company that they worked for their whole life claim bankruptcy? They lose their pension and their healthcare they worked their whole life for? Why shouldn't they be able to afford the by-pass they need because of something they couldn't control, but the people that were running the company into the ground still gets their by-pass because they were given the opportunity to go run some other company?

Life is full of risks and sometimes things don't always work out as planned. It's how you adjust and adapt that determines what the future will bring. Some will curl up and die, while other's will find a way to survive. Your example above would suck big time, no matter who you are, but crap happens and I have faith that the vast majority are creative enough and resilient enough to survive no matter what curve balls we're thrown.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 27 2009,1:19 pm

crap crap crap crap crap crap crap happens...

C'mon mods, changing crap to crap loses the effect of the post. Why are swear words called swear words? Societal conformist...pfft...

I can give you a :finger:

, but I can't say crap. I meant crap. no really I meant crap...

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Oct. 27 2009,1:41 pm

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 27 2009,1:05 pm)

QUOTE

(Pretzel Logic @ Oct. 27 2009,9:54 am)

QUOTE

The key word is manipulate, I did not say manage. Some people need help with their money, they just don't need to be helped out of it.

Nice swerve. It is like thanking all of the criminals for the cops having something to do. Remember it's all about choices.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 27 2009,1:53 pm

not really...

I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired of people coming down hard on legitmate businesses because someone took the risk to start a company and later reaps the rewards...and when someone looks at what Joe Businessman has done and the money he has, they cry foul.

Posted by irisheyes on Oct. 27 2009,3:05 pm

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 27 2009,1:19 pm)

QUOTE

, but I can't say crap. I meant crap. no really I meant crap...

The dirty word filter automatically changes certain words to the more appropriate word. It's been that way for as long as I remember.

Posted by irisheyes on Oct. 27 2009,3:17 pm

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 27 2009,1:05 pm)

QUOTE

How about giving the insurance companies credit for employing millions of americans and giving these americans a standard of living that is better than most people in other countries?

And in order to do this they've lowered the standard of living for everyone else who DOESN'T profit from their greed.

They could work at McDonald's or Wal-Mart and have a better standard of living than most in the world, so I don't quite see that as being a tough threshold to break.

QUOTE

They are one of the few industry's that have kept jobs in America...

In their industry, yes. But what about the many other industries that are sending jobs to other countries partly due to skyrocketing insurance costs for employees here? It seems the insurance industry is to blame for more jobs being outsourced than they could ever credit with their own employee numbers.

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 27 2009,5:43 pm

(jimhanson @ Oct. 01 2009,6:25 pm)

QUOTE

Couldn't get a public option out of committee. :rofl:

QUOTE

WASHINGTON — Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says House leaders are pleased that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is including government-sponsored insurance in the Senate's health care bill.

Hoyer told reporters Tuesday that Reid's move doesn't really change the calculus in the House, where Democratic leaders already planned to write a public insurance option into their bill.

But he indicated it could improve the chances of a public insurance option ending up in final legislation sent to the president.

Hoyer said the development in the Senate also could affect decisions by some House members who don't want to vote for a provision that could only pass the House but not the Senate.

House leaders hope to release their bill this week, Hoyer said.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

Posted by nphilbro on Oct. 28 2009,2:14 am

QUOTE

How Can a $124.8 Million a Year CEO Make Health Care More Affordable?

An op-ed piece in the Providence Journal about huge pay packages for corporate CEOs mentioned the breath-taking $124.8 million total compensation of United Health Group (parent of United Healthcare) CEO William McGuire.

< Source >

Here's the D-bag that's getting "between me and my doctor." Here's the one that decides what I can and cannot have treated. Here's the "death panel." It's just more surupticious since it's private sector.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 28 2009,9:28 am

(irisheyes @ Oct. 27 2009,3:17 pm)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 27 2009,1:05 pm)

QUOTE

How about giving the insurance companies credit for employing millions of americans and giving these americans a standard of living that is better than most people in other countries?

QUOTE

They are one of the few industry's that have kept jobs in America...

You forgot the "IMO", because nothing you just stated can be backed up and is a mere opinion based on the "poor me" attitude everyone seems to walk around with these days.

...and if you think corporations are moving overseas partly due to insurance costs...you've lost your marbles and arguing with you is a waste of time.

Next...

Posted by irisheyes on Oct. 28 2009,10:17 am

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 28 2009,9:28 am)

QUOTE

...and if you think corporations are moving overseas partly due to insurance costs...you've lost your marbles and arguing with you is a waste of time.

Now who's forgetting the "IMO"? Unless of course you think you can prove to me that no jobs have been outsourced partially for the reason of high employer costs for health coverage here. Good luck with that.

I don't want to get too off topic here, but the reason for outsourcing is about perception more than it is facts. That's why you conservatives blame those greedy guys at the bottom working the factory lines, while I choose to blame the guys at the top making tens of millions off the work of everyone else.

Either way, you don't have all the answers. You just have a ton of opinions, just like the rest of us.

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Oct. 28 2009,11:22 am

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 27 2009,1:53 pm)

QUOTE

I think most people can differentiate between Joe businessman and Joe greedy corporate. You have alluded before as to what you do, so you might feel that is being beat up on rather than something you don't sell. Not the case. I can see you defending your bread and butter, but it is not under attack. I think nbro kind hits at the heart of it also. I have yet to see any financial manager say gee whiz you know I screwed up let's give the bonus's back to the investors, the joe business man and the working stiff because we tanked they're 401k that they earned from the sweat of their brow.

The ancient chinese say a mattress stuffed with somebody' else's money makes for an uncomfortable bed.

Not really I just made that up.

I defer to your knowledge, in your mind would it be possible to still have health care with out the Insurance providers. Pros and cons. :notworthy:

Posted by irisheyes on Oct. 28 2009,5:22 pm

Many conservatives are just worried that when we're done attacking the CEO's, we might come after them next. Personally, I don't really care about the guys making 6 figures. It's the guys who are making 8 or 9 figures without risking anything that I have a problem with. Many of these executives didn't start anything, they simply oversee what someone else started, so not sure what risk they'd be taking by signing up for a job taking millions, and worst case scenario there's the golden parachute to save the day if the company tanks on their watch.

And before anyone asks, no I'm not jealous. I'm happy for many people who succeed, and appreciate the amount they pay in taxes so the rest of us can benefit from infrastructure and a strong military. It's a small group of super greedy that I think is the problem. That's not representative of most wealthy out there, but for some reason all wealthy or upper middle class feel the need to defend them.

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 28 2009,9:09 pm

Posted by irisheyes on Oct. 28 2009,10:05 pm

E-mail from Tim Walz a couple days ago.

QUOTE

Thank you for responding to my health insurance reform survey. I appreciate you taking the time to share your comments and concerns with me.

The debate surrounding health insurance reform is controversial, yet extremely important. I have put out the call to hear from the people of southern Minnesota on health care reform and the response has been impressive. I have heard from those that do not want their own insurance changed and from those who are worried about the cost of reform. I have heard from the uninsured who are struggling to pay their own medical bills and from those who are concerned about being forced to pay for the medical care of others. I have heard from constituents about issues to be included or excluded in legislation.

Overwhelmingly, however, I have received the response that the current system is broken and unsustainable.

I have listened to your suggestions regarding the approach I should take with respect to this issue and I appreciate hearing from all of you. There are many different ideas on how to enact reform.

Most importantly, I share the deep concern many of you have that with health care costs rising rapidly, the status quo simply isn't acceptable. I find it appalling that from 2000-2009, the average amount that workers and their employers pay for insurance premiums rose from $6,957 to $14,498 - a 108% increase! Yet in that same amount of time, the average family take-home pay only increased 22% from 26,433 to $32,402.

I believe that all Americans deserve affordable, stable, high-quality care. Unfortunately, our system is getting more and more expensive, making it harder for middle-class Americans to afford quality health care and making it more difficult for employers to offer health insurance coverage.

While I am still undecided on whether I will support this bill and am working with my colleagues to make improvements as it moves through Congress, I do truly appreciate the guidance and ideas you have provided me by filling out the survey. I know we need real insurance reform that makes insurance more affordable for every American, makes the system more stable and secure and finds ways to encourage doctors across the United States to offer high-quality, low-cost care like the kind we receive right here in Minnesota.

Please continue to call, email, and fax my office with your opinions. I am listening to your concerns and look forward to continuing the conversation with you as this legislation progresses through Congress.

Thank you again for sharing your views with me, and I look forward to hearing from you again in the future. For more information about my activities representing southern Minnesota in Congress, please visit < http://walz.house.gov > and sign up for my e-newsletter.

Sincerely,

Congressman Tim Walz

Posted by nphilbro on Oct. 29 2009,2:43 am

QUOTE

Whats up with what's going down
In every city, in every town
Cramping styles is the plan.
They've got us in the palm of every hand.

When we pretend that we're dead
When we pretend that we're dead
They can't hear a word we've said
When we pretend that we're dead

(c'mon, c'mon, c'mon, c'mon)
(c'mon, c'mon, c'mon, c'mon)

We turn the tables with our unity,
They're neither moral nor majority.
Wake up and smell the coffee
Or just say no to individuality.

When we pretend that we're dead
(pretend we're dead)
When we pretend that we're dead
(pretend we're dead)
They can't hear a word we've said
(pretend we're dead)
When we pretend that we're dead

From the Notorius band L7 from the early '90's. Bitching at Gen X to wake up and matter. We now matter. We run your corporations. We run your local government, we're on your city councils. I had a beer with my council person's husband today. He's no hippy either. Former firechief, married to the former mayor (now councill chair person). Had coffee with him yesterday. 125k people in my suburb. His daughter is my age and works for the Federal Gov't. He knows that he is in good hands with Gen X. We hate everything, and everybody... we hate bitching, we hate injustice.

We have been shouting that availability to healthcare for every American is not an OPINION. The world hears us. Most of America agrees. 41 old deaf guys in the senate ignore us. A couple more in Albert Lea and some other rural areas that still get news via Western Union telegraph do as well. dit dot dit dit dot blah blah blah. The Wells Fargo Wagon is on its way with 30 pieces of silver for you.

Posted by bianca on Oct. 29 2009,10:47 am

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 29 2009,4:46 pm

House leadership, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), today announced completion of a health reform bill that combines the efforts of the House’s Committees on Education & Labor, Energy & Commerce, and Ways & Means.

Below is a summary of its major provisions.

Government/Public Plan Option: The bill contains a government/public plan option, based on rates to be negotiated by a new government agency (the Health Choices Commission, or HCC). The government plan option would be one of many (the bill’s authors hope) choices available to those who buy their insurance through an exchange. The government/public plan option would be subject to the same rules (e.g., insurance reform, essential benefits packages) as the private insurance sold through the exchange.

Exchange: The bill would create a national exchange. It would allow states to instead set up their own exchanges. Exchanges would offer private health insurance to individuals not otherwise covered by “acceptable” insurance, and to small businesses.

The exchange would be set up and administered by a new government agency, the Health Choices Commission (HCA). The HCA would promulgate nondiscrimination and parity (mental health) rules.

The bill specifically authorizes licensed insurance agents to act as enrollment agents and brokers. Exchange insurance, including the public health insurance option, would be bought by eligible individuals and businesses through enrollment agents and brokers.

States would be required to assist groups who want to establish “Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan Programs,” or “co-ops” as options for health insurance that would be offered through the exchange.

Insurance Reforms: Beginning in 2010, a number of insurance reforms are mandated. They include:

· No rescissions except for fraud

· Guaranteed issue and renewability

· Limit on premium costs based on age to no more than a two to one ratio

· Community rating

· No use of health history or preexisting conditions (full prohibition against preexisting conditions becomes effective as of 1/1/13; between now and then, the look-back period is limited to 30 days; and exclusion of coverage due to preexisting conditions would be allowable for three rather than 12 months)

· No annual or lifetime benefit limits

· Parents could continue to cover their children on their health insurance policies up through age 26 Because johnny's still living at home in the basement...pfft

· Insurance companies could have no more than an 85 percent loss ratio. If loss ratios fall below the 85 percent level, the excess would have to be rebated to policyholders. There is some flexibility built into this rule with respect to the individual market if market disruption results from the 85 percent loss ratio requirement.

· As of the date of enactment, employers would not be allowed to reduce retiree health benefits unless they are also reducing the same benefits for active employees

· Health insurers would have to provide at least 90 days notice prior to a premium increase

Long-Term Care Benefits: The melded House bill contains a new federal long term care program which would require employers :finger:

to automatically enroll their workers (subject to an opt-out) in a program that would provide about $50/day in benefits in the event that the worker became unable (at least five years after beginning participation) to perform at least two activities of daily living. The employee-paid premium for the program—known as the CLASS Act—would be required to be actuarially sound, but is expected to be about $65/month, at least initially.
The problem with this is that employee/public will become complacent into believing that their Long Term Care needs will be covered when actually the $18,250 annual benefit is a far cry from the average costs of nursing home stays. Just what does the $50 a day benefit cover anyway?

Individual Mandates: The bill contains an individual mandate that will require all individuals to carry health insurance. Failure to comply with this rule would result in an additional 2.5 percent tax on modified adjusted gross income. There would be a hardship exemption (based on affordability). There is language that specifies that those eligible for Medicaid, CHIP, Veterans Affairs (VA) coverage and other government health insurance programs would be deemed to have acceptable coverage.

Employer Mandate: The melded bill requires employers to offer and pay for health insurance for their workers. The rules are:

· Employers with payrolls of $750,000 or more would be subject to the mandate

· Employers subject to the mandate would have to pay at least 72.5 percent of the cost of individual coverage, and 65 percent of the cost of dependent coverage. “Proportional” employer contributions to the premium would be required for “non fulltime” workers.

· Employers with payrolls of $500,000 or less would be exempt from the employer mandate

· Failure to comply with the mandate would result in a tax of eight percent of payroll in excess of $750,000. A two percent tax would apply to payroll starting at $500,000, and the tax would graduate, in two percent increments, up to a payroll size of $750,000. :finger:

· There would be a two-year tax credit for small employers electing to offer health insurance to their workers. The credit would be equal to 50 percent of the cost of the insurance for employers with 9 or fewer workers. The credit would phase down for employers with 10 to 25 workers. It would not be available to employers with 26 or more workers. Oh gosh, thank you Palousy. :sarcasm:

Essential Benefits Package: For health insurance to count as satisfying the health insurance mandates, it must include at least the “essential benefits package.” The rules include:

· The package would have to be offered on a nondiscriminatory basis

· It would be recommended by a new government entity :finger:

, the Benefits Advisory Committee (BAC), and then approved by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

· Cost sharing would be limited, and could not exceed $5,000 in out of pocket spending for individual coverage, or $10,000 in dependent care coverage.

· The essential benefits package must have an actuarial value of at least 70 percent

· There could be no abortion benefits in an essential benefits package

· For policies that provide abortion benefits, there must be strict separation of private vs federal funds, and no federal funds could be used for abortion benefits :thumbsup:

National Risk Pool: Between date of enactment and the date the exchange is up and operating (2013) there would be a national high risk pool program. Per this program, Congress would authorize $5 million to insure people who have been denied coverage due to preexisting conditions and/or who have been without coverage for “several months.” The program would stop if and when the $5 million authorized is used up. :rofl:

Antitrust Exemption: The bill states that the antitrust exemption available to health insurers and medical malpractice insurers would no longer be available for purposes of fixing prices, monopolizing markets, or dividing market territories. :thumbsup:

Taxes (Offsets): The bill is principally offset by savings in Medicare (including Medicare Advantage) and new taxes. The new taxes include:

· An indexed annual cap of $2,500 on contributions to flexible spending accounts (FSAs)

· An increase from 10 percent to 20 percent in the penalty tax for early (prior to age 65) withdrawals (for nonmedical expenses) from health savings accounts (HSAs)

· Modification of rules for permissible tax-free withdrawals from HSAs, FSAs and/or health reimbursement accounts (HRAs) to disallow use of HRA/FSA/HSA tax-free funds for over-the-counter medicines, unless those medicines are obtained via prescription :finger:

· A 5.4 percent surcharge on modified adjusted gross income in excess of $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for married couples filing joint tax returns :finger:

· Elimination of the tax deduction for employers receiving government subsidies for providing retiree prescription drug coverage

· Tax parity for employer-provided health coverage for domestic partners and other non-dependents

· Information reporting for payments made to corporations

· A 2.5 percent excise tax on the sale of medical devises (excluding resales and retail sales) for use in the United States :finger:

Medical Malpractice: The bill contains a limited incentive to States to set up alternatives to litigation in cases of medical malpractice (e.g., “early offer” or “certificate of merit” programs).

Interstate Sales of Insurance: The bill would allow States to enter into compacts for purposes of sale of health insurance across state lines.

COBRA Extension: The bill would extend COBRA eligibility (from 18 or 36 months as under current law) for the period between the health reform bill’s enactment and the date by which the exchange would be up and operating.

Medicare: The bill cuts Medicare Advantage programs, and makes the Medicare Part D prescription drug program available to those in the “donut hole”—those with incomes above certain levels, but below other levels—starting in 2010.

Wellness/Information Technology: The bill also includes incentives for employers that offer wellness programs, so long as the programs are offered on a nondiscriminatory basis; and authorization for information technology programs.

Next Steps: The legislation is still subject to change via a still-emerging “manager’s amendment”. The bill's full text and manager’s amendment will be publically available for 72 hours before Members are asked to vote. The bill could go to the House floor for a vote by late next week (November 5 or 6), although that target date could slip.

Keep in mind, this bill is 1,990 pages long and Congress has 72 hours to review it.

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 30 2009,9:01 am

Who would have thought Old Joe would be such a thorn in Ried's side on this?

QUOTE

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he’d back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care reform bill.

Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program — even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid has said the Senate bill will.

Lieberman said that he’d vote against a public option plan “even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line."

His comments confirmed that Reid is short of the 60 votes needed to advance the bill out of the Senate. < politico >

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 30 2009,9:07 am

They only need 50 votes and the VP for the tie breaking vote.

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 30 2009,10:32 am

< 50 plus Biden Socialist vote >

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 30 2009,10:34 am

Waaaah.

You didn't have a problem with reconciliation when the GOP did it. :dunce:

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 30 2009,10:56 am

Nor did we hear you Waaaah when the GOP used it for tax cuts.

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 30 2009,11:02 am

(MADDOG @ Oct. 30 2009,10:56 am)

QUOTE

Nor did we hear you Waaaah when the GOP used it for tax cuts.

"That don't make no sense!"

I'm not complaining about them using reconciliation, you kooks are. :crazy:

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Oct. 30 2009,11:22 am

Almost 2000 pages of gobbleygook. The ineptness of congress and the senate to even submit bills of this length appalls me. :angry:

They should All go home. How can the madness be stopped. I think bills should be no more than ten pages long and maybe even that is too much for them. I wonder what the true misdirection of all this is?

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 30 2009,11:36 am

They're coming for you and you'll be in a reeducation/FEMA camp before you know it. :rofl:

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Oct. 30 2009,2:16 pm

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 02 2009,7:33 pm

All you kooks keep saying that socialized healthcare has failed everytime they have tried it, but I can't find one reference to a health care system that's failed?

You guys got any links for that?

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 02 2009,8:10 pm

nuff said.

Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 02 2009,11:11 pm

(Liberal @ Nov. 02 2009,7:33 pm)

QUOTE

All you kooks keep saying that socialized healthcare has failed everytime they have tried it, but I can't find one reference to a health care system that's failed?

You guys got any links for that?

Please take note of the date that this article I have linked was printed. April 1960, and then reprinted in 2000, which is long before the current debate surrounding the US healthcare system. This should say something about what the folks 49 years ago thought of socialized medicine.

< Socialized Medicine >

QUOTE

Whenever government enters a field of private activity, that field becomes a political battleground. Whenever you mix politics with medicine, doctoring becomes a political instead of a medical activity.

Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 02 2009,11:16 pm

< Another Article >

And another....

Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 02 2009,11:20 pm

< One More >

Please take note that the last 2 links posted are not written by Americans but rather Canadian citizens.

Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 02 2009,11:34 pm

< Government Waste >

The first few lines of this article are indeed the truth. The government is the most inefficient entity when it comes to keeping track of things like money. How would a government run health care system be any different?

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 03 2009,7:55 am

First link

QUOTE

IN 1884, Prince Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany, instituted the first modern program of socialized medicine. It was called compulsory national health insurance

Germany still has socialized healthcare so it apparently has been working out.

Second link

QUOTE

1995

This week, 88 stooges of the Canadian Medical Association stood up to sing the praises of state-controlled "health care" and outvote 68 of their members who boldly suggested we "should be allowed" to spend our own money on our own health, and have that right.

Canada still has universal healthcare?

Third link

QUOTE

Thursday, May 22, 2008
The Failure of Socialized Medicine In Canada
That's right, folks. As it turns out, our universal single-payer crypto-socialist health care scheme may, in fact, have its weaknesses.

I'm not going to go through the rest of your bogus links, but can you point out a system that has failed since Canada and Germany's health care system is not a failed system and anyone with an IQ over 60 knows that.

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 03 2009,9:04 am

I don't know, but my first daughter was born in the German system and it was archaic at best. They misdiagnosed a condition that they thought my daughter had, primarily because they did not have the technology like we have here. She was seen by doctors at the Univeristy of Nuremberg. So her mother and I worried throughout the pregnancy and in the end she ended up a healthy baby after all the tests conducted were erroneous in their conclusions. I am basing this off of my own experience and not some pro vs. con groups that are politically motivated and then splashed all over the media.

You mention that they haven't failed and you're right. I would give the system a D - when compared to ours. So in theory, that wouldn't be failing, I guess.

Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 03 2009,9:30 am

QUOTE

In less than two years, there were more than half a million people on the waiting lists for hospitalization, while some forty thousand hospital beds were out of service because of a nurse shortage. The hospital shortage in Britain has become so acute that many mentally deficient and helpless, aged people are unable to secure institutional care. The only effective means of easing the shortage is to deny hospital admission to the old and chronically ill who cannot be discharged once they are admitted.

You are correct Liberal that it hasn't failed in the true form of the word but I'd still call it a failure when the person who wrote the article in 1960 had this to say about the British healthcare system.

QUOTE

Nor have they said: the consequent waiting lists for services, the many thousands tripping to the U.S. for care that isn't available here, the closing of whole hospital wings despite high demand, the selective care now in place (we'll treat young, not old, this illness, but not that), the "delisting" of formerly covered services - all this results in a system which is profoundly immoral because it converts the ethic of direct Hippocratic medicine (by which formerly free physicians would do their utmost to heal all patients) into a veterinary ethic by which the quality and amount of care and resources available is now controlled by a master. A political master. In a crunch, we end up with the medical freedom of animals.

Or when a Canadian has this to say about the medical system in his country.

Yes we can all sit here and go back and forth with people who say that the Canadian system or British system has or hasn't failed but the biggest truth to all of this is that the government cannot efficiently manage anything so what makes anyone think they can manage healthcare efficiently?

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 03 2009,9:38 am

QUOTE

You are correct Liberal that it hasn't failed in the true form of the word

So if we use a dishonest form of the word, it's failed, but if we use the true form it hasn't? :dunno:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 03 2009,9:40 am

QUOTE

Yes we can all sit here and go back and forth with people who say that the Canadian system or British system has or hasn't failed

What? The only way we can go back and forth is if you don't use the "true form" of the word fail? That makes it pretty clear that it hasn't failed. :dunce:

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 03 2009,10:24 am

Parsing of words--from the people that say "It depends on what the meaning of IS is"! :laugh:

How about just going to the dictionary for the definition?

QUOTE

fail (fāl)
v. failed, fail·ing, fails

v. intr.

To prove deficient or lacking; perform ineffectively or inadequately: failed to fulfill their promises; failed in their attempt to reach the summit.
To be unsuccessful: an experiment that failed.

To receive an academic grade below the acceptable minimum.

To prove insufficient in quantity or duration; give out: The water supply failed during the drought.

To decline, as in strength or effectiveness: The light began to fail.

To cease functioning properly: The engine failed.

To give way or be made otherwise useless as a result of excessive strain: The rusted girders failed and caused the bridge to collapse.

To become bankrupt or insolvent: Their business failed during the last recession.

v. tr.

To disappoint or prove undependable to: Our sentries failed us.

To abandon; forsake: His strength failed him.

To omit to perform (an expected duty, for example): "We must . . . hold . . . those horrors up to the light of justice. Otherwise we would fail our inescapable obligation to the victims of Nazism: to remember" (Anthony Lewis).

To leave undone; neglect: failed to wash the dishes.

To receive an academic grade below the acceptable minimum in (a course, for example): failed algebra twice.

To give such a grade of failure to (a student): failed me in algebra.

By almost ANY of these definitions, Socialized Medicine is a failure.

But then, the same could be said for Social Security, Medicare, Post Office, AMTRAK, or any other government program. :laugh:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 03 2009,10:40 am

And once again you're full of crap. You morons use the word failed to mean "To become bankrupt or insolvent: Their business failed during the last recession.
"
To claim another defintion just proves...

You lie

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 03 2009,10:43 am

Maybe you can be more specific in your claim. Exactly which definition of "failed" do the partisan hacks mean when they say that "socialized health care has failed everywhere it's been tried"?

I guess we have to be specific when pinning you guys down on the words you use because you like to parse words.

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 03 2009,10:55 am

I went back and read and you didn't say it failed you said.

If you would open your eyes, you would find it isn't just me that thinks that socialized medicine doesn't work.

Now I wonder what "doesn't work" means because apparently in the kooks world something that is "failed" and "doesn't work" actually does work but just not as well as it could?

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 03 2009,2:11 pm

Calling people "Partisan Hacks" because they DARED to oppose (along with the majority of the people) a piece of BAD LEGISLATION--a bill that potentially has MORE EFFECT THAN ANY OTHER EVER PROPOSED? Attacking people simply for opposing your utopian world you would force on the rest of us--just like the current Administration? You ARE an Obamunist, aren't you?

QUOTE

Exactly which definition of "failed" do the partisan hacks mean when they say that "socialized health care has failed everywhere it's been tried"?

Well, THIS one would be good--"deficient or lacking; perform ineffectively or inadequately: failed to fulfill their promises". :thumbsup:

MOST people would say the Canadian system is "deficient or lacking, and performs ineffectively or inadequately"--if that wasn't true, there would be no Canadians seeking health care HERE.

How about "To prove insufficient in quantity or duration; give out:" That would be the rationing of the British system.

Then there is "To decline, as in strength or effectiveness:"--as in adding all of those people before increasing the number of health care professionals--effectively diluting the system and making sure each person that IS seen has less time with the doctor.

That would ALSO be true of another definition "To give way or be made otherwise useless as a result of excessive strain:"

"To cease functioning properly" would mean the overall decline in care.

Given the fact that people in Socialized Medicine have to deal with government bureaucrats, how about "To disappoint or prove undependable".

"To leave undone; neglect" Is a watchword for government in general--but with health care, it has dire consequences.

"To receive an academic grade below the acceptable minimum" appears to be the opinion of the majority of the voters when addressing the health care bills proposed by Obama/Reid/Pelosi--with only 42% in favor of something "free". :laugh:

"To become bankrupt or insolvent" has been the fate of most OTHER government schemes--the object is to not let it happen HERE. As the WSJ opined--this is perhaps the worst piece of legislation EVER for the country! :crazy:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 03 2009,2:55 pm

Do you know what "parsing words" means? :rofl:

So what did you mean when you said

QUOTE

If you would open your eyes, you would find it isn't just me that thinks that socialized medicine doesn't work.

Ok, now parse these words and tell us how you meant that it doesn't work.

QUOTE

One-fourth of American respondents are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied). This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied. Roughly 4 in 10 Britons are satisfied (43%), but only 7% say they are very satisfied (similar to the percentage very satisfied in the United States).

Looking at the other side of the coin, 44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied. The 44% in the United States who are very dissatisfied with healthcare availability is significantly higher than corresponding figures in either Canada (17%) or Great Britain (25%).

< http://www.gallup.com/poll...da.aspx >

Maybe you can find a Rasmussen poll that shows Canadians would rather have our system that causes hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies a year

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 03 2009,3:19 pm

Glad to oblige you. Since you favor GALLUP over other pollsters, I selected this JUST FOR YOU. :laugh:

null< My Webpage >

QUOTE

September 23, 2009
Cost Is Foremost Healthcare Issue for AmericansBut public largely skeptical that healthcare reform will bring reliefby Lydia SaadPage: 12 PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans are broadly satisfied with the quality of their own medical care and healthcare costs, but of the two, satisfaction with costs lags. Overall, 80% are satisfied with the quality of medical care available to them, including 39% who are very satisfied. Sixty-one percent are satisfied with the cost of their medical care, including 20% who are very satisfied

Or how about THIS ONE:

QUOTE

A survey conducted jointly by the Kaiser Family Foundation, ABC News and USA Today, released in October 2006, found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with their own personal medical care, but only 44 percent were satisfied with the overall quality of the American medical system. The survey is the only recent poll for which data is publicly available that allows for a comparison of the satisfaction of insured and uninsured Americans. (The data from a just-completed New York Times/CBS poll won't be publicly available for several months; the results that have been reported so far don't make the comparisons discussed in this article.)

Those with recent serious health problems, possibly the people with the best knowledge of how health care is working, were generally the most satisfied. Ninety-three percent of insured Americans who had recently suffered a serious illness were satisfied with their health care. So were 95 percent of those who suffered from chronic illness.

Just for your enjoyment, Rasmussen has only 42% in favor of the big government health care bill, compared to 54% opposed. Obamunists would call that a "mandate". :sarcasm:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 03 2009,3:25 pm

Once again you post garbage to back up your previous garbage. I didn't realize that we were talking about whether Americans preferred our system to nothing. I could have sworn I said "Maybe you can find a Rasmussen poll that shows Canadians would rather have our system that causes hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies a year "

Here's a 10 - 1 margin from Harris.

QUOTE

Is the U.S. Health Care System the “Envy of the World”?
Not in Canada
An 82% to 8% majority of Canadians believe their system is superior
to the U.S. system
ROCHESTER, N.Y. – August 12, 2009 – As members of Congress return to their states
and districts to debate the merits of the Democrats‟ proposals for health care reform,
critics of the proposals may repeat the phrase used by some Republicans, newspaper
editorials and bloggers that „the American health care system is the envy of the world.”
If so, they should read the results of a recent Harris/Decima poll in Canada that found a
10-to-1 majority of Canadians believed their system was “superior” to the U.S. system.
They might also note that a 70% majority of Canadians thought their system was
“performing well”; and that a majority favored an expansion of public sector health care
(i.e., “government-run” health care in the current debate) over private sector health care.
These are some of the results of a recent Harris/Decima telephone survey conducted
between June 4 and 8, 2009 by Harris/Decima among 1,000 Canadian adults.
The main findings were:
 A 70% majority of Canadians thought their system was performing either “very
well (12%) or “fairly well” (58%). Only 28% thought it was performing “not well at
all” (9%) or “not that well” (19%).
 Most people (55%) favored an expansion of the public sector. Just over a
quarter (27%) of Canadians thought that the Canadian system had got the
balance between public and private sector health care right. Only 12% favored a
tilt towards the private sector.
 An 82% majority of Canadians believed their country‟s health care system was
superior to the U.S. system. Only 8% thought the U.S. system was superior.

< http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_..._12.pdf >

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 03 2009,4:46 pm

Patience, little liberal, PATIENCE! I had an interruption, and couldn't answer all of your questions at once--so I posted what I had--contrary to what the Great Leader would have us believe (otherwise known as "A Lie!"), most people ARE satisfied with their health care--as shown by the poll. You wouldn't argue with Gallup, ABC, and USAToday, would you? :sarcasm:

Another liberal canard is the superiority of the CAnadian system--and their customer satisfaction.

According to The Abstract Book null< My Webpage >

QUOTE

Presentation submission
Powerpoint and PDF presentations can be submitted via email to congress@healtheconomics.org, some computers will be available onsite for submission and testing, but we recommend email submission.
Access and Satisfaction with Health Care in Canada and the United States

Presenter: Stephan Gohmann, University of Louisville

Abstract

Rationale: Recent studies comparing health access in Canada and the United States have found that US residents are less likely to have access to a regular physician, more likely to have unmet health needs and more likely to forgo medications. However, those in the US are more likely to find the quality of health care to be better.

Objectives: Since the health care systems in the United States and Canada differ in the way residents are covered for health care, their access to care and perceptions of quality are likely to differ. This paper examines the differences between these two groups.

Methodology: Access and quality perceptions are determined by demographic variables as well as the type of treatment provided in the US and Canadian health care systems. Logistic regressions are estimated to predict the probability of access (satisfaction) for Canadian and American residents. We calculate descriptive statistics to examine differences in means between Canadians and Americans and use logit regressions to examine difference in the effects of these characteristics between the two groups. We perform a Blinder/Oaxaca type decomposition to determine the influence of each characteristic on the estimated probabilities. The methodology follows that of Fairlie(1999, 2005).

Results: The Canadians tend to be healthier than the Americans, more likely to smoke, be white, and lead a sedentary lifestyle. They are less likely to suffer from hypertension, arthritis, and less likely to have a college degree. Significant differences between Canadians and Americans occur in several of the access and quality variables. These include having a regular doctor (90% Canada, 83% US), needing medicines but not being able to afford them (7% Canada, 12% US), having a dental visit last year (53% Canada, 63% US), rating quality of service as excellent (36% Canada, 40% US), and being very satisfied with health care services (42% Canada, 53% US). For these variables, the percentage of the differences that can be explained by the observable characteristics is as high as 30 percent. The reminaing differences are attributable to unobserved characteristics or differences in the health care systems.

Conclusions: Although the Canadian health system results in greater access to care, the perceptions of the quality and satisfaction with the services is lower than that in the US. Observalble characterisitcs of individuals in these systems do not provide much information about why the differences occur. The results must be attributed to either non-observable individual characteristics or differences in the health care systems.

Authors: Stephan Gohmann

Canadians seem to be having some "buyers remorse. < My Webpage >

QUOTE

Satisfaction among Canadians with their healthcare system more than halved during the 1990s, a new report shows. The proportion who thought that the system needed only minor changes to work properly fell from 56% to 20% between 1987 and 1997.

These and other findings are contained in Health Care in Canada 2000: A First Annual Report, published by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, a national, independent, non-profit organisation set up in 1994 by Canada's health ministers. The report appears at a time when the future of Canada's health system is being hotly debated, with the provinces demanding immediate restoration by the federal government of funding that had previously been cut.

The report states that Canada spent almost a third of its health budget on private health care, making it second only to the United States among G7 countries in the proportion spent

Isn't it amazing--while the Obamunists try to take us toward the failed policies in Canada, the CANADIANS are moving back toward privatization to eliminate their long waits.

< My Webpage >

QUOTE

The reason why Canadians want change is because most respondents, except for government officials, :rofl:

feel that the health care system is in a “state of crisis”. In fact, the general public’s and health professionals’ greatest concern is access – waiting times for service.

QUOTE

Two-thirds of Canadians (66 per cent) tend to be supportive, more or less, of a host of new models of financing in order to reduce stress on the system – for example, where everyone (except those with low incomes) pays a small amount for health care services out of their own pocket. They also tend to support strategies such as using nurses or other health practitioners rather than physicians to provide certain services.
Half of Canadians (50 per cent) support models based on preventative and holistic health care – for example, from ensuring good drinking water and quality of air to focusing on health promotion and disease prevention.
Just under half (45 per cent) tend to be supportive of market-oriented reforms – greater efficiency, accountability and customer service, including private sector companies delivering health care services.

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 03 2009,4:58 pm

This is your idea of support for the American system?

QUOTE

Rationale: Recent studies comparing health access in Canada and the United States have found that US residents are less likely to have access to a regular physician, more likely to have unmet health needs and more likely to forgo medications. However, those in the US are more likely to find the quality of health care to be better.

Then you post an article about Canadians not being happy with certain aspects of their health system, instead of showing us an example of how the Canadians would rather have our insurance? And then you wonder why people keep suggesting you get supplemental O2?

Do I need to use smaller words to get you to understand the question? In case you forgot the question. "Maybe you can find a Rasmussen poll that shows Canadians would rather have our system that causes hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies a year ?"

Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 03 2009,5:11 pm

Jim apparently he missed this one I posted earlier.

QUOTE

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 03 2009,5:35 pm

Most people would question the accuracy of a 49 year old document.

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 03 2009,5:45 pm

I just checked your other "source" and it's a writer with these degrees.

QUOTE

Gairdner completed an M.A. in Structural Linguistics from Stanford University and an M.A. in English Literature and Creative Writing from the school in 1969. Gairdner went on to receive his Ph.D. in English Literature from Stanford in 1970.

With degrees like that he must know a lot about health care. :sarcasm:

I didn't think you guys could come up with any proof that "universal health care has failed" (unless you want to use a different form of the word failed like Jim, but if you use the different meaning as a standard the US system has also failed.

Can we all agree that you can't show one example of a failed system? Or an example of Canadians wanting a system like ours?

Don't you dittoheads question anything?

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 03 2009,6:51 pm

QUOTE

"Maybe you can find a Rasmussen poll that shows Canadians would rather have our system that causes hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies a year ?"

To my knowledge, Rasmussen doesn't poll in Canada.

You'll just have to look at the polls that DO come from Canada. Look at the areas I highlighted for you--Canadians are LESS satisfied (and deservedly so) than U.S. consumers.

If CAnada was satisfied with its health care, why would they be relaxing the ban on private care TO IMPROVE THE LONG WAIT TIMES? :dunno:

Better yet--look at the Canadian cars in border town hospital parking lots--or over at Mayo. :laugh:

As a Canadian friend puts it--"If you guys muck up health care, where will WE have to go?" :laugh:

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 04 2009,9:43 am

Sorry to interupt you two love birds, but I have a question for anyone willing to answer.

I've read the summaries on the latest 2000 page bill from the donks and I can't find one thing in there that benefits private small businesses and corporations.

What I do see are plenty of reasons that stifle these businesses from expanding and hiring more employees.

Can someone tell me why that's a good thing? Why would the gov't deter our employer's from creating jobs and expanding business here in the U.S. just to provide healthcare for the 12 million people that truly need it?

I believe if the government was truly interested in covering the 12 million they could do it without a 2000 page bill and $1 trillion bank account. But no...instead they want to take over an entire industry. So you have to ask yourself...Are they (gov't) really interested in providing coverage for the uninsured or is there an alterior motive?

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 04 2009,9:58 am

QUOTE

Maybe you can find a Rasmussen poll that shows Canadians would rather have our system that causes hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies a year ?"

To my knowledge, Rasmussen doesn't poll in Canada. You'll just have to look at the polls that DO come from Canada. Look at the areas I highlighted for you--Canadians are LESS satisfied (and deservedly so) than U.S. consumers.

If CAnada was satisfied with its health care, why would they be relaxing the ban on private care TO IMPROVE THE LONG WAIT TIMES?

I don't know why you think that showing Canadians aren't happy is somehow proving our system is better? :dunce:

Ask around and see how many people are unhappy about our system. :crazy:

Are you telling me that the kooks have been claiming Canadian citizens hate their system and would like our system, and it turns out that isn't the case?

And nobody can show me an example of a failed universal healthcare even though you kooks continually say "Socialized Health care has never worked anywhere it's been tried"

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 04 2009,12:21 pm

QUOTE

I don't know why you think that showing Canadians aren't happy is somehow proving our system is better? Ask around and see how many people are unhappy about our system.

Maybe we could learn from the mistakes the Brits and the Canadians made--instead of copying the faults of THEIR programs.

The Brits went whole-hog into Socialized Medicine--then had to pull back. The Canadians initially loved their system because it was "free"--but when doctors left the country and wait times became unbearable, they came down here for treatment. NOw they are modifying the system to allow people to pay private practioners to allow them to get treatment sooner.

How bad does a system have to BE to have people either SHUN it and go somewhere they have to pay AGAIN for treatment--or to go to a local practitioner and pay AGAIN for the same treatment they paid taxes for to provide "free" treatment? :crazy:

If Socialized Medicine was so good, why would they have to FORCE it on to the population by banning private care?

We can't afford for the Donks to make this mistake. Let's learn from the mistakes of Canada and Britain--then try it on some of those "Blue" states that want the program so much. Socialized medicine hasn't worked out too well in California and Massachussetts, has it? :oops:

Posted by Ned Kelly on Nov. 04 2009,12:28 pm

How many former Canadian doctors are working at ALMC? They are here for the money, there are no limits on Dr. pay in the unregulated US Of A

Where will the doctors go for higher wages if we would get single payer health care in the US?...

...Ned

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 04 2009,12:37 pm

QUOTE

If Socialized Medicine was so good, why would they have to FORCE it on to the population by banning private care?

Maybe you don't understand what the word socialized means? :rofl:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 04 2009,12:43 pm

QUOTE

Did you miss the federal elections where the democrats promised health care reform and Americans put them in office on that platform?

Can you still not find if it's failed everywhere it's been tried. Shouldn't be hard if they've failed so many times. How about the claim that Canadians would prefer our system?

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 04 2009,12:59 pm

(Ned Kelly @ Nov. 04 2009,12:28 pm)

QUOTE

...Ned

I think you would see fewer doctor's. Money isn't the only motivator for becoming a doctor but it does help when they are faced with huge student loan debt. Maybe that's why they come here. To help pay off their education debt faster. :dunno:

Plus it takes them longer to enter the workforce due to the length of time getting and education and the training they go through so they have less time to make up in building their retirement nest egg.

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 04 2009,1:00 pm

The term was SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Here's a definition for you :dunce:

QUOTE

socialized medicine
–noun any of various systems to provide the entire population with complete medical care through government subsidization and regularization of medical and health services.

QUOTE

Did you miss the federal elections where the democrats promised health care reform and Americans put them in office on that platform?

Absolute rubbish!

The ECONOMY was the top item, according to CNN. (Fox also had the economy tops, but I know how much you libbies like CNN!) :laugh:

Here's the link null< My Webpage >

Even if your statement were true--the fact that only 42% support it NOW after the complete butchery by the inept Congress and Administration doesn't speak well of their efforts, does it? :rofl:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 04 2009,1:04 pm

QUOTE

Absolute rubbish! The ECONOMY was the top item, according to CNN.

Did I say it was the top item?

QUOTE

Even if your statement were true--the fact that only 42% support it NOW

Rasmussen again?

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 04 2009,4:02 pm

Liberal

QUOTE

Did you miss the federal elections where the democrats promised health care reform and Americans put them in office on that platform?

You then waffled with

QUOTE

Did I say it was the top item?

That IS what you said, isn't it?

Yep--the top pollster. Do you have a MORE ACCURATE one?

You like Gallup?

QUOTE

In a follow-up question, Gallup pressed Americans who say their support for a healthcare reform bill "depends" to predict what their position is likely to be once the details of the bill are worked out. Slightly more believe those decisions will cause them to support the final bill than to oppose it. When these "leaned" views are added into the equation, Americans overall appear closely split in their support of healthcare reform. Just under half -- [B]49% -- are opposed to the final bill or think they will be opposed to it; 44% support it or lean that way[/B].

Big difference between pollsters--all of 2%! :laugh:

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 04 2009,4:23 pm

Ned

QUOTE

They are here for the money, there are no limits on Dr. pay in the unregulated US Of A

Are you seriously advocating that the government should set a doctor's salary?

QUOTE

Where will the doctors go for higher wages if we would get single payer health care in the US?...

Many are simply opting out. See this CNN Moneyline article about doctors quitting. null< My Webpage >

Or, doctors can simply refuse to participate in Medicare or government health care, as Mayo recently did for patients in Nebraska and Montana--or like their SCottsdale facility, where they no longer accept Medicare for primary care. < My Webpage >

"Central Planning" and "wage and price controls" NEVER work--they didn't work for Stalin when the Central Committee decided how many potatoes to plant, how many tractors to build, or how much meat every person should get. It didn't work for the Donks in Congress during the "gas shortage" of the Nixon administration.

Government controls ALWAYS lead to shortages--whether it is cars, gas, tractors, meat--or health care.

Posted by irisheyes on Nov. 04 2009,4:35 pm

(jimhanson @ Nov. 04 2009,4:23 pm)

QUOTE

"Central Planning" and "wage and price controls" NEVER work--they didn't work for Stalin

What's the difference between what Medicare does, and what the HMO's do when they negotiate a lower payment for services? Why is it a great plan for private insurance to do to bring costs down, but if the government health care does it, it's a huge mistake the likes of which remind you of Stalin?

I know plenty of people on TriCare or MinnesotaCare. Every one of them that I talk to says it's great. I don't know many people who are happy with their employer paid health care, except for some that work for the government. I guess I have a hard time seeing how the government getting involved is so bad. If anything, it seems the more private industry gets involved, the worse it gets.

You're stretching with most of your theories on this. I saw that for the first time when you cited Canadian hospitals as being in terrible shape because they had vending machines and charged for parking. Which by the way, we do at many of our hospitals as well.

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 04 2009,4:53 pm

QUOTE

What's the difference between what Medicare does, and what the HMO's do when they negotiate a lower payment for services?

You are a stockholder in HMOs. You can opt out of an HMO. Those are not true of mandatory government care.

QUOTE

Why is it a great plan for private insurance to do to bring costs down, but if the government health care does it, it's a huge mistake the likes of which remind you of Stalin?

HMOs take an affinity group--people with similar interests and risk. In that regard, it is more like a co-op--sharing the risk, sharing the profit. Government mandates that you take in EVERYBODY--that isn't insurance, that is simply cost sharing. And of course, there IS no profit.

I can't believe that people can be so foolish as to believe that you can include MORE people with Unlimited issues, and believe the cost is somehow going to go DOWN. :dunce:

Why do you think the government is pushing this on the young? Because they need the premiums for decades from the young to fund this Ponzi scheme! :dunce:

QUOTE

I know plenty of people on TriCare or MinnesotaCare. Every one of them that I talk to says it's great.

And why SHOULDN'T they? None of them are paying the full cost of health care, someone ELSE is paying it FOR them.

QUOTE

I don't know many people who are happy with their employer paid health care, except for some that work for the government.

You must have missed the fact that the vast majority of people are SATISFIED with their health care. It was on post #573. Here it is again

QUOTE

That sounds like satisfied customers to me! :oops:

QUOTE

You're stretching with most of your theories on this. I saw that for the first time when you cited Canadian hospitals as being in terrible shape because they had vending machines and charged for parking.

Go back and check it again--it was JAPAN--people that have had that loveable government care for decades! :rofl:

Posted by ICU812 on Nov. 04 2009,7:26 pm

< I know the types that can pay for free healthcare... >

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 04 2009,7:51 pm

Can any of you kooks answer these two questions?

Are you telling me that the kooks have been claiming Canadian citizens hate their system and would like our system, and it turns out that isn't the case?

And nobody can show me an example of a failed universal healthcare even though you kooks continually say "Socialized Health care has never worked anywhere it's been tried"

Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 04 2009,8:26 pm

(irisheyes @ Nov. 04 2009,4:35 pm)

QUOTE

I don't know many people who are happy with their employer paid health care, except for some that work for the government.

I don't work for the government, and I'm plenty happy with my healthcare. I'm wonder sometimes how all this self-interested political nonsense will completely mess up my satisfaction with my current coverage.

That said, healthcare is just too damned expensive, across the board. People are raking in insane amounts of money in the industry, an industry that was never intended to be an economic engine first, and a public service second.

Posted by nphilbro on Nov. 04 2009,9:52 pm

I changed companies in May. Got rid of UHC. Now I'm on Blue Cross. Was briefly happy.

I had a 2 week lapse in coverage by oversight on my part in June.

My children are not covered now for twelve months and may never be covered since they had tubes in their ears. Even 7 year well child was denied.

$800/month. My portion. $800/month - my company's portion.
If this is free market, I want free hand grenades for those that do me wrong.

Maybe I should just shut the F up and take it up the A and be happy I'm not in Afghanistan or some other country that has 3rd world access to healthcare. It's only money right? We can make more kids... it's just a sperm and egg. When abortion becomes illegal, we'll have most of the top prospects for the ideocracy we all dream of and population will soar.

Someone should read a nice little story called "A Modest Proposal."

Posted by grassman on Nov. 05 2009,5:18 am

Afghanistan does not have water walls and waterfalls at their hospitals. :sarcasm:

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 05 2009,12:15 pm

One step away from telling people what they can and can't eat too.

QUOTE

7 © UNIQUE DEVICE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM.—The
8 Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through
9 the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, shall issue proposed
10 regulations to implement section 519(f) of the Federal
11 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360i(f)) not
12 later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of
13 this Act.
14 SEC. 2572. NUTRITION LABELING OF STANDARD MENU
15 ITEMS AT CHAIN RESTAURANTS AND OF AR16
TICLES OF FOOD SOLD FROM VENDING MA17
CHINES.

I wonder how many millions of dollars it will cost vending companies to either devise new machines that will conform to these new rules or post nutritional facts nearby?

QUOTE

(viii) VENDING MACHINES.—In the case of an
18 article of food sold from a vending machine that—
19 ‘‘(I) does not permit a prospective pur20
chaser to examine the Nutrition Facts Panel
21 before purchasing the article or does not other22
wise provide visible nutrition information at the
23 point of purchase; and
1516
•HR 3962 IH
1 ‘‘(II) is operated by a person who is en-
2gaged in the business of owning or operating 20
3 or more vending machines,
4 the vending machine operator shall provide a sign in
5 close proximity to each article of food or the selec6
tion button that includes a clear and conspicuous
7 statement disclosing the number of calories con8
tained in the article.

And it's going to be extremely costly for the small business man who operates several dozen machines to supplement his income. That will likely lower the number of vending machines in schools and the workplace. After all, our government doesn't want us to be snacking on chips and candy bars. That might raise the cost of their government health care for individuals.

< House bill >

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 05 2009,12:47 pm

QUOTE

I wonder how many millions of dollars it will cost vending companies to either devise new machines that will conform to these new rules or post nutritional facts nearby?

A small sticker from a laser printer? That's just off the top of my head, without devising a new machine, I'm sure they'll come up with a better idea. :rofl:

What's the point of putting nutritional information on a package if you can't read it before you buy it? :dunno:

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 05 2009,1:27 pm

That's one possibility. Pasting stickers all over the machine for each individual item. Some vending machines have 25-30 different items in them.

Us old far-sighted farts can always bring our reading glasses along to the machines.

Of course common sense would tell you, "You're eating JUNK FOOD!" that's not good for you. Do libbies have that?

Posted by irisheyes on Nov. 06 2009,12:26 pm

(jimhanson @ Nov. 04 2009,4:53 pm)

QUOTE

I know plenty of people on TriCare or MinnesotaCare. Every one of them that I talk to says it's great.

And why SHOULDN'T they? None of them are paying the full cost of health care, someone ELSE is paying it FOR them.

I didn't say they were paying the FULL cost of their health insurance, but neither are those on private sector employer paid insurance. My point is that you always say the government can't do anything right, but I'd say most are more pleased with government run health insurance than private.

QUOTE

You must have missed the fact that the vast majority of people are SATISFIED with their health care. It was on post #573. Here it is again

Sure, they're happy with their doctor, hospital, or surgeon. Can you tell me the same is true of their health INSURANCE? :dunno:

Maybe, like you, they'll be happy with it, as long as they don't use it for anything. :oops:

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 06 2009,1:22 pm

^ or we could just get rid of insurance all together and let people pay 100% out of pocket...

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 06 2009,1:28 pm

< My Webpage >

Pelosi Breaks Pledge to Put Final Health Care Bill Online for 72 Hours Before Vote
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the speaker will not allow the final language of the health care to be posted online for 72 hours before bringing the bill to a vote on the House floor, despite her September 24 statement that she was "absolutely" committed to doing so.

Is anyone surprised? :angry:

WhTF does she think she is? :finger:

Do you libs approve of this kind of $#!+?

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 06 2009,1:41 pm

QUOTE

Do you libs approve of this kind of $#!+?

Do you think it would change anyone's opinion?

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Nov. 06 2009,1:53 pm

(Common Citizen @ Nov. 06 2009,1:22 pm)

QUOTE

^ or we could just get rid of insurance all together and let people pay 100% out of pocket...

I think the True cost of medical cost would be lower. Insurance enables them to charge more rather than what they would be able charge with out it.

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 06 2009,2:24 pm

From a poster on the Tribune opinion page

QUOTE

I believe that this push for government run healthcare is not about helping. It is about power and control. For if it was about helping than we would be responsible for our own health insurance (just like car insurance) and we could chose any plan (like car insurance). We could get rewards for saving money (like car insurance no accidents than your premiums are less). Make the consumer a partner in controlling cost.

Think of it this way if the government made every car insurance company pay for anything and everything that could go wrong with your car no matter how well or how bad you took care of it what do you think would happen? I think if you never had to worry about cost of any repair because any repair to your car is $10 than how many times would you send the car to the shop? 100 or more. I do know we would need more car repair shops. But at what cost and who would pick up the tab. This is what we have done to healthcare.

It gets right to the problem with third-party payers--the individual has no incentive to control costs--the health care providers don't have an incentive to control costs, either, because SOMEONE (insurance companies or government) will be paying.

And where does government or insurance companies get their money?

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 06 2009,2:35 pm

It works in many countries.

Still waiting for that list of all the countries it's failed in, or doesn't work in.

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 06 2009,2:52 pm

That would be ALL of them--unless you use a libbie bizzare definition of "failure."

We've already HAD that discussion. Go back an look up the Dictionary.com definition I gave you on "failure." They qualify on oh so MANY ways! :rofl:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 06 2009,2:56 pm

So it depends on what the definition of "fail" is?

All your definitions also applied to the US. :crazy:

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 06 2009,3:05 pm

Only a Michael Moore or one of his Socialist bretheren would call Cuban-style medicine superior! :rofl:

I'm sure that big-government advocates would ALSO like the government to take over lots of OTHER industries because they can do them so much better than private industry. :sarcasm:

SOCIALISM doesn't work--because nobody has an incentive to control costs or get ahead--and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE doesn't work for the same reason.

LIBERALS might think that getting something for "free" is good, but those of us who actually have to PAY for it don't relish the thought.

LIBERALS might think that waiting for health care is OK, but those of us with things to do don't find it appealing.

Only a liberal would believe that if "I pay for your health care, and you pay for mine, and we'll BOTH save money" actually WORKS! :crazy:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 06 2009,3:09 pm

So you can't come up with a failed system?

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 06 2009,3:11 pm

From the Weekly Standard

QUOTE

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the speaker will not allow the final language of the health care to be posted online for 72 hours before bringing the bill to a vote on the House floor, despite her September 24 statement that she was "absolutely" committed to doing so.

House members are still negotiating important issues in the bill--whether it will provide taxpayer-funding for abortions, for example. Pelosi is pushing for a Saturday House vote, and a number of big changes will be introduced, likely less than 24 hours before the vote takes place (if in fact it does). The Rules Committee hasn't yet released its resolution, or rule, that must be passed before the bill can move from committee to the floor. The rule will set the terms of debate and determine what amendments are in order.

It seems likely that the rule will allow very few, if any, up-or-down votes on amendments on the House floor. Rather, the rule will include a series of amendments that will all be adopted at once if the rule passes.

On September 24, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that she was "absolutely" committed to putting the text of the final House bill online for 72 hours before the House votes:

TWS: Madam Speaker, do you support the measure to put the final House bill online for 72 hours before it's voted on at the very end?

PELOSI: Absolutely. Without question.

But tonight, when asked if Speaker Pelosi will leave the bill online for 72 hours after we see what's in the rule, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly replied in an email: "No; [the] pledge was to have manager’s amendment online for 72 hours, and we will do that."

Apparently Pelosi's agreement to leave the "final" bill online "at the very end" of the process wasn't such a straightforward pledge

A pledge from a Donk--doesn't mean a thing! :dunce:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 06 2009,3:23 pm

QUOTE

Right-wing media are claiming Speaker Nancy Pelosi broke a pledge to post the "final" House health care bill online 72 hours before it comes to a vote, echoing a Weekly Standard blog post that claimed amendments allowed by the House Rules Committee the day prior to the vote will change the bill. However, Pelosi's office posted both the text of the bill and the "manager's amendment" -- which The Sunlight Foundation called an "extra final version of legislation" -- 72 hours in advance; those actions meet guidelines set by a House transparency measure that Pelosi told the Weekly Standard she "absolutely" supported.

< http://mediamatters.org/research/200911060016 >

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 06 2009,3:24 pm

Libbie comes up with a shocker! :sarcasm:

"Woman Dies at hospital!"

I don't know that there is a way to prevent death--it happens in hospital emergency rooms all the time. Maybe in Socialized or Communist countries, they don't report that. :sarcasm:

She was a psychiatric patient. In Communist Cuba, they have "universal" care--they simply put psychiatric patients in prison (remember the Mariel Boatlift?)

People getting poor medical care in New York City--one of the biggest bastions of liberal power in the country? I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I SAY! :sarcasm:

If only this woman had government care, she wouldn't have died. Government is SO much more efficient, and SO much more "caring" than private care. :sarcasm:

OH, WAIT! This WAS in a government hospital--Kings County! :oops:

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 06 2009,4:02 pm

You missed the central part of the article

QUOTE

House members are still negotiating important issues in the bill--whether it will provide taxpayer-funding for abortions, for example. Pelosi is pushing for a Saturday House vote, and a number of big changes will be introduced, likely less than 24 hours before the vote takes place (if in fact it does). The Rules Committee hasn't yet released its resolution, or rule, that must be passed before the bill can move from committee to the floor. The rule will set the terms of debate and determine what amendments are in order.

It seems likely that the rule will allow very few, if any, up-or-down votes on amendments on the House floor. Rather, the rule will include a series of amendments that will all be adopted at once if the rule passes.

In other words, the Donks are still making it up as it goes along--trying to get members of their own party to support it.

Things like "Will this include illegals"? and "Does this include abortion funding" and "Are we going to allow states to opt out?"

I'd call those pretty big items!

As the Weekly Standard said, the Rules Committee hasn't even passed it's resolution yet--this is the same chicanery the Obamunists used to support the Porkulus bill and the rest of the "We've got to do this RIGHT AWAY!" panic. In other words, THERE IS NO BILL, THERE ISN'T EVEN A RESOLUTION. What she has released is a preliminary draft--nothing that can be voted on.

As the Standard also reports, they are going to try to pass a bill, THEN AMEND IT right away.

I can see why they want to rush this through, with declining support every day--but you have to wonder why they are so embarrassed by it? :rofl:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 06 2009,4:08 pm

Try some supplemental O2 and read it again. Maybe just this paragraph...

QUOTE

Rules committee amendments don't apply to 72 hour measure
Sunlight Foundation: H. Res. 554 does not cover amendments to bills, and manager's amendment is "an extra-final version of legislation." According to a post on The Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit organization that advocates for government transparency, "the proposed 72 hour rule written into H. Res. 554 (the Read the Bill bill) does not cover amendments to bills," and the manager's amendment "amount[s] to an extra-final version of legislation." The post stated that Pelosi's decision to put the Manager's Amendment online 72 hours in advance was "commendable."

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 06 2009,4:22 pm

Yeah, I saw that dodge.

Calling abortion funding, illegal coverage, the ability to opt out "amendments" is really STUPID. :dunce:

The reality (something liberals aren't well versed in) is that the DONKS DON'T EVEN HAVE A FINAL BILL TO VOTE--MUCH LESS PUT IT ON LINE! :crazy:

It isn't even out of the Rules committee.

I saw on another thread that the average American reads long or technical passages at 154 words a minute. That would take 13 hours of continuous reading to get through the 2000 pages.

You have to wonder WHY THE RUSH? :dunno:

WHAT ARE THEY SO EMBARRASSED ABOUT? :dunno:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 06 2009,4:41 pm

QUOTE

I saw on another thread that the average American reads long or technical passages at 154 words a minute. That would take 13 hours of continuous reading to get through the 2000 pages.

Well if we put it online long enough for the average republican to read we wouldn't see health care reform being voted on for years.

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 06 2009,4:44 pm

QUOTE

Calling abortion funding, illegal coverage, the ability to opt out "amendments" is really STUPID.

What would you like to call amendments on those things? :crazy:

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 06 2009,4:51 pm

How about being HONEST and including them in the bill, instead of voting a bill and then immediately amending it?

I know that isn't the "Chicago Way"--but it IS the way Congress USED to do things in America!

Again, you have to wonder what they are so embarrassed about, that they have to resort to this subtrefuge? :crazy:

"Get this thing passed before people find out what ELSE is in here--we're losing support every day!" :sarcasm:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 06 2009,4:57 pm

How do you suggest they add an "amendment"? Do you expect them to travel back in time and include the "amendment" in the original bill? :rofl:

The Chicago Way? :rofl:

I want my country back! :rofl:

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 06 2009,5:13 pm

QUOTE

How do you suggest they add an "amendment"? Do you expect them to travel back in time and include the "amendment" in the original bill?

I can see that nuance is wasted on you--so here it is, standing all by itself:

HOW ABOUT IF THEY WERE TO PUT IT ALL IN THE ORIGINAL BILL, INSTEAD OF RESORTING TO THIS DECEPTION?

No need for "time travel"--just do it right in the FIRST place!

Posted by grassman on Nov. 07 2009,6:44 am

I have to agree with Jim on this one. Our lawmakers have turned into a bunch of underhanded, sneaky, self indulgent a-holes. They believe the end justifies the means. Why is Honesty such a rare commodity these days? It goes pretty much across the board on all sides of the aisle. :angry:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 07 2009,12:34 pm

It's funny that the kooks want to slow the process down and claim it's better to "do it right the first time", but when Obama takes his time on a decision like Afghanistan he's accused of "dithering". :crazy:

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Nov. 07 2009,5:36 pm

Me, I'd rather dither than blither.

Posted by hot84svo on Nov. 07 2009,7:51 pm

Rep. Tim Walz announced today that he will vote in favor of health care reform that ensures Minnesota families have access to stable, affordable health insurance. H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 07 2009,10:12 pm

Contrary to what some have been saying about this "turkey of a bill" the house has just passed H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. with 219 democrats voting yea, and 39 voting NAY. The party of "NO" had 176 voting NAY and one vote for Yea

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 08 2009,9:02 am

Hope you never have a dream of building a business there Liberal...and I don't mean some at-home computer business with no employees.

If this bill costs me one penny of my bottom line, I will not comply and Tim Waltz can kiss my ass.

Posted by alcitizens on Nov. 08 2009,11:58 am

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 08 2009,2:17 pm

QUOTE

Hope you never have a dream of building a business there Liberal...and I don't mean some at-home computer business with no employees.

That would be nice but I can't risk losing my health insurance. :dunce:

Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 08 2009,2:29 pm

(Common Citizen @ Nov. 08 2009,9:02 am)

QUOTE

We took another 9% increase cost to provide insurance benfits this year, present policy has failed misserably...

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 08 2009,4:18 pm

A trillion dollar health bill passes the house and you're bitching about a 9% increase in your health insurance costs? That's rich.

Why not just give every citizen in this country a billion dollars and call it quits.

Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 08 2009,8:36 pm

(Common Citizen @ Nov. 08 2009,4:18 pm)

QUOTE

A trillion dollar health bill passes the house and you're bitching about a 9% increase in your health insurance costs? That's rich.

Had the Insurance Industry provided an affordable product and not tried to exclude those unfortunate enough to be ill there'd be no need of reform... Your cronies brought this plague on themselves, greed is good right Common...

Posted by irisheyes on Nov. 09 2009,4:16 am

(Common Citizen @ Nov. 08 2009,9:02 am)

QUOTE

If this bill costs me one penny of my bottom line, I will not comply and Tim Waltz can kiss my ass.

From many of your previous posts I'd take it you probably saved a lot of money with the Bush tax cuts the last decade, but you wouldn't pay a penny towards health care reform?

If private industry worked half as good as some of you conservatives think, we wouldn't need reform anyway. Whether you like it or not, nobody will want to stop "ObamaCare" after it's started, the same way nobody besides Jim or Rush wants to stop Medicare now.

Unfortunately, part of me is changing my mind about this bill myself. I'll defend it because most conservatives attacking it are just trying to kill any kind of reform that doesn't help the rich instead of the poor. I'm still not seeing this bill as doing enough to cut costs. I'll have to do more research to see if there's something I'm missing here.

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 09 2009,9:33 am

(Expatriate @ Nov. 08 2009,8:36 pm)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Nov. 08 2009,4:18 pm)

QUOTE

A trillion dollar health bill passes the house and you're bitching about a 9% increase in your health insurance costs? That's rich.

Why do you think insurance companies go into business in the first place? To make money. Why does anyone start a business? To make money. Why do you work? To make money.

Are you sure your placing blame in the right direction? The insurance companies? I think that is narrow minded to say the least. There are a multitude of reasons health care is expensive and singling out the insurance companies doesn't fly with me.

Let's address your statement about excluding those that are unfortunate enough to be ill for a moment. Insurance companies will always challenge a claim because of the millions of dollars they lose in insurance fraud. Common sense will tell you a business owner would be a fool not to have some sort of stop gap measure in place to reduce false claims. Now, if you're talking about those with pre-existing conditions that do not qualify for care through the private sector, then that's another issue. Then there are a numorous other questions that need to be addressed. Why didn't they have the insurance in the first place? If they had insurance in the first place, what happened.

Imagine having a house fire without insurance and then complaining about insurance companies because they won't insure you after the fact. Do we expect congress to step in an take over the home owner's insurance industry? What would be the point of having insurance? :frusty:

Are we redefining the term "insurance"?

Your auto insurance goes up when you have an accident or get a ticket. You bare some of the responsibility to the rest of the group in your insurance risk pool and pay the disproportionate amount because you are a higher risk and it is an individual policy.

Health insurance is unigue in that you share a proportionate amount of the risk. If you have a claim, your premiums are not selectively increased on your premium bill, rather all costs are shared by everyone in that same group. Even if you have not had a claim, your premium is based on the entire groups' claims experience. In other words, you are not only paying for your risk but also the one or two individuals in the group that had open heart surgery or went through cemotherapy for cancer. When we see our health insurance premium increase, it is usually the result of the amount of claims the group has experienced and administration costs are a part of that.

The problem is that the general public has been programed to hate corporations in this country and they believe there is something more sinister afoot...your last sentence reinforces that belief.

One thing I believe the insurance companies need to do is to find out how to reduce the administration costs. They are huge. One little problem that can help contain some of the costs is allow individuals to purchase policies across state lines. Health insurance companies have to jump through a lot of hoops just to do business in a particular state...now multiply that times the number of states they want to do business in. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that that is a huge cost that is incurred by the company and pass onto the policy holder's.

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 09 2009,10:41 am

I think that it comes down to one simple thing. Health care does need something done. I doen't think anyone disagrees with that.

Here's the problem.

Liberals want to cure the symptoms.

Conservatives would try to cure the disease.

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Nov. 09 2009,10:45 am

^ Please expand that thought.

Posted by Ned Kelly on Nov. 09 2009,11:22 am

(MADDOG @ Nov. 09 2009,10:41 am)

QUOTE

Conservatives would try to cure the disease.

Conservatives --- the party of NO would let the patient die. Because he couldn't afford to care for himself......ned

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 09 2009,12:22 pm

^It depends on your definition of what "couldn't afford" means...

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 09 2009,12:38 pm

(MADDOG @ Nov. 09 2009,10:41 am)

QUOTE

I think that it comes down to one simple thing. Health care does need something done. I doen't think anyone disagrees with that.

Right on MD...

The donks have made it their mission to mis-characterize those that are against this bill. Them, along with their media cohort's, have engaged in a type of psychological warfare on the people. Something they are very good at...just read what the libs say on this forum... :rofl:

I have said this before and I will say it again...I am not against health care reform...I am against this bill.

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 10 2009,4:18 pm

QUOTE

Freshman Sen. Mark Warner, Virginia Democrat, said Tuesday that President Obama has misplayed his attempt to reform U.S. heath care by focusing on insurance coverage instead of explaining that the current system is headed toward a financial meltdown.

"I wish the president would have started the debate by explaining to the American people that our current health care system is not financially sustainable, for even another decade," Mr. Warner said. "Driving down health care costs should have been the focus of the debate."

Mr. Warner, 54, made millions investing in technology ventures before he became Virginia's governor from 2002 to 2006 and helped cut the state's $6 billion deficit through a tax package.

On Tuesday, he told The Washington Times' "America's Morning News" radio show the key points of the debate should be that the largest contributor to the U.S deficit is federal spending on health care, Medicare will go bankrupt in the next seven years and the average American family will spend 40 percent of its disposable income on health care insurance.

He also said the cost of insurance on U.S. businesses is increasing their costs, making them less competitive in the worldwide market.

"As a former business guy, I believe America has to stay competitive in the global economy," Mr. Warner said.

WOW!!! A donk with a brain...and uses it, too.

I'm flabbergasted...

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 10 2009,6:42 pm

QUOTE

Them, along with their media cohort's, have engaged in a type of psychological warfare on the people. Something they are very good at...just read what the libs say on this forum... :rofl:

I have said this before and I will say it again...I am not against health care reform...I am against this bill.

I doubt you read the bill, so I'm guessing that you got your opinion from the kooks on the radio? Even if you read it, how do you know what will be in the final bill when it gets passed by the Senate?

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 11 2009,1:30 pm

QUOTE

I doubt you read the bill, so I'm guessing that you got your opinion from the kooks on the radio?

Did YOU read the bill? Did ANY Congressman read the over 2000 page bill?

From Rasmussen

QUOTE

Over the weekend, Democratic leaders spoke of an historic moment as health care reform legislation passed the House of Representatives. But that legislative victory failed to significantly move public opinion.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Most (52%) remain opposed.

Only 25% Strongly Support the plan while 42% are Strongly Opposed.

It continues to drag Obama down--I see today he is down to 46%.

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 11 2009,2:27 pm

(Liberal @ Nov. 10 2009,6:42 pm)

QUOTE

Them, along with their media cohort's, have engaged in a type of psychological warfare on the people. Something they are very good at...just read what the libs say on this forum... :rofl:

I have said this before and I will say it again...I am not against health care reform...I am against this bill.

I've read more than most congress critters have. I'd bet the farm on it. The more I read, the more you should be ashamed for ever having supported it.

nuff said...

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 11 2009,3:02 pm

QUOTE

I've read more than most congress critters have. I'd bet the farm on it. The more I read, the more you should be ashamed for ever having supported it.

I can tell by your brilliant commentary that you've obviously not read it. :dunce:

So you still gonna refuse to pay? :rofl:

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 11 2009,3:29 pm

(Liberal @ Nov. 11 2009,3:02 pm)

QUOTE

I've read more than most congress critters have. I'd bet the farm on it. The more I read, the more you should be ashamed for ever having supported it.

I can tell by your brilliant commentary that you've obviously not read it. :dunce:

So you still gonna refuse to pay? :rofl:

Admit it. You've been duped or you wouldn't have responded like you just did.

:popcorn:

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 11 2009,4:58 pm

QUOTE

So you still gonna refuse to pay?

What in the world has the country come to when you have to try to make a law REQUIRING people to purchase a product they don't want--then threatening them with fines and jail if they DON'T buy into it. :crazy:

This will go down in flames when the young people wake up to this--as they have with Socialist Security. THEY will be the ones paying for this boondoggle.

Think about it--how does adding MORE people with MORE BENEFITS to the system make it "cheaper and better"?

The reason that the Obamunists want young people to be FORCED to buy into this Ponzi Scheme is that they will be PAYING for a number of years before they will likely be COLLECTING on it. The Obamunists NEED this influx of money from young people (people that historically don't buy health care) to fund the system for everyone else.

If I were under 30-something, I'd be DAMNED MAD!

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 11 2009,5:47 pm

I'll bet they're going to be PO'd when they catch on that they've been duped, and have medical insurance. :rofl:

I've got several friends that aren't 30 yet, and they all voted for Obama, and they all want health care reform.

Have you personally asked any younger persons how they feel about it?

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 11 2009,6:52 pm

QUOTE

I've got several friends that aren't 30 yet, and they all voted for Obama, and they all want health care reform.

I'd call that reason enough to raise the voting age to 30! :sarcasm:

Tell us--why do YOU think that Obummer NEEDS to have all the young people FORCED to buy insurance--on threat of fines or jail time? :crazy:

The reason--these people are the least likely to be sick--they are the best risks--their income to the Ponzi scheme will help to pay for OLDER people.

Obamatrauma misleads when he calls this "insurance"--it is not even related to "insurance." From Reference.com

QUOTE

insurance
insurance or assurance, device for indemnifying or guaranteeing an individual against loss. Reimbursement is made from a fund to which many individuals exposed to the same risk have contributed certain specified amounts, called premiums. Payment for an individual loss, divided among many, does not fall heavily upon the actual loser. The essence of the contract of insurance, called a policy, is mutuality. The major operations of an insurance company are underwriting, the determination of which risks the insurer can take on; and rate making, the decisions regarding necessary prices for such risks. The underwriter is responsible for guarding against adverse selection, wherein there is excessive coverage of high risk candidates in proportion to the coverage of low risk candidates. In preventing adverse selection, the underwriter must consider physical, psychological, and moral hazards in relation to applicants. Physical hazards include those dangers which surround the individual or property, jeopardizing the well-being of the insured. The amount of the premium is determined by the operation of the law of averages as calculated by actuaries. By investing premium payments in a wide range of revenue-producing projects, insurance companies have become major suppliers of capital, and they rank among the nation's largest institutional investors.

"Universal coverage" doesn't meet the definition of insurance. It's only redistributable Socialism--spreading the misery among everybody.

It doesn't provide against adverse selection--it merely collects money from EVERYBODY--and the amount paid is influenced by the HIGHEST COST USERS.

To that end, it is NOT "mutuality"--it doesn't set rates by affinity group.

Because it is "universal", there are no ACTUARIES--people who set the "odds" on whether you or the insurance company will come out ahead.

Instead of "insurance"--the Obummer plan is more akin to Las Vegas--you can spin the wheel as much as you like, but the "house" always has the edge.

Only a naive fool would believe that they can always win at Las Vegas--and only a naive fool would believe that government will "screw the OTHER guy and pass the savings on to you." Only a naive fool and committed Socialist would believe that the GOVERNMENT can do something cheaper than private enterprise! :crazy:

Posted by grassman on Nov. 11 2009,9:31 pm

(jimhanson @ Nov. 11 2009,4:58 pm)

QUOTE

Kind of like helmet laws for motorcyclists, or car insurance for cars. We have been duped! Don't poop in the pharmacy either.

Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 11 2009,11:50 pm

(grassman @ Nov. 11 2009,9:31 pm)

QUOTE

Kind of like helmet laws for motorcyclists, or car insurance for cars. We have been duped! Don't poop in the pharmacy either.

Helmet laws I can understand you disagreeing with. Hey if some young kid on a crotch rocket wants to splatter his brains all over the pavement when he crashes that's his right.

Automotive Insurance on the other hand I do not understand your gripe. This is not a requirement for just your benefit but for the lender (if you take out a loan for the vehicle) as well. It protects you and/or the other driver from some seriously major costs as well as protecting the owner of the vehicle whether that is you or the bank.

Posted by grassman on Nov. 12 2009,5:59 am

Exactly, that is what my point is, people accept some controls here and and are angry about ones over there. You cannot appease everyone. I remember when it was not against the law, not to have car insurance. It was a boon for the insurance company to get legislation. Now they fight a lot of claims in health care. How much clout do they have. I am for having to have car insurance, but get in an accident with long lived injuries and see the way the insurance works. In the long run, they win.

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 12 2009,10:12 am

(jimhanson @ Nov. 11 2009,4:58 pm)

QUOTE

Well, Jim, it's kind of like

QUOTE

“Let me see,” said Reed. “I would have to check the specific sections, so I’ll have to get back to you on the specific section. But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don’t think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]. It gives Congress a right to raise an army, but it doesn’t say you can take people and draft them. But since that was something necessary for the functioning of the government over the past several years, the practice on the books, it’s been recognized, the authority to do that.”

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 12 2009,12:56 pm

(grassman @ Nov. 12 2009,5:59 am)

QUOTE

I remember when it was not against the law, not to have car insurance. It was a boon for the insurance company to get legislation.

You're missing the point for the reason this was made law. It's to protect you (who is responsible and has insurance) from the guy that t-bones your car that woulldn't normally carry it.

As far as health insurance, if I had a heart attack, that doesn't directly affect you like a car accident will from someone smashing their car into your car.

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 12 2009,6:55 pm

(jimhanson @ Nov. 11 2009,4:58 pm)

QUOTE

According to the All Barack Channel, Obama stopped short of saying jail time. But he did say one conflicting thing.

QUOTE

“I think the general broad principle is simply that people who are paying for their health insurance aren't subsidizing folks who simply choose not to until they get sick and then suddenly they expect free health insurance. That's -- that's basic concept of responsibility that I think most Americans abide by,” Mr. Obama said, “penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance.”

QUOTE

I think the general broad principle is simply that people who are paying for their health insurance aren't subsidizing folks who simply choose not to

Right. And please tell me how Obamacare is going to keep that from happening?

And for the possible jail time. He dodged the question.

QUOTE

The President said that he didn’t think the question over the appropriateness of possible jail time is the “biggest question” the House and Senate are facing right now.

Is that kind of like "It's already against federal policy to pay for abortions. Therefore, we don't need any wording in the bill to guarantee in won't happen if the bill is passed. That way if it's challenged later in SCOTUS, we can change our mind?

Posted by Ned Kelly on Nov. 13 2009,6:05 am

(Common Citizen @ Nov. 12 2009,12:56 pm)

QUOTE

[You're missing the point for the reason this was made law. It's to protect you (who is responsible and has insurance) from the guy that t-bones your car that woulldn't normally carry it.

As far as health insurance, if I had a heart attack, that doesn't directly affect you like a car accident will from someone smashing their car into your car.

It would affect the average taxpayer, if you had no health insurance and you were hospitalized. When your assets?...were depleted, who would be left to pay?

The same thing applies to the helmet law, Who pays for the 20 odd years you are in the rest home sitting in a wheelchair drooling from brain injuries because you chose not to wear a helmet? Who has to pay someone to wipe your butt because you can't do it yourself?......

....ned

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 13 2009,8:47 am

The difference that I point out is the difference between DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY. When it directly affects someone the loss is immediate, thus the reason for the law.

Right or wrong, I think that's the difference.

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 13 2009,12:10 pm

If you want to ride your motorcycle on your own property, you don't need a helmet.

Same thing if you drive your car on your own property--you don't need insurance.

The government has no power to MAKE you comply--yet there are those "government is always right" libbies that ASSERT THAT IT DOES HAVE THAT POWER.

Using the "government does have the power to force you to buy a product" argument would mean that there is NOTHING the government can't force you to do. That's absurd!

But then, libbies are no strangers to absurd rationale!

We're getting off track here--the reason that Obamunists want to FORCE young people to participate is that it is the only way to make up enough money to pay for older health care.

If a private company were to come up to most under 30 year-olds and tell them that they had to buy a policy--and that it would be at the same rate as a 70-year-old--they would be hopping mad.

When younger people figure this out for themselves, they WILL get angry.

Obummer/Pelosi/Reid has succeeded in introducing a CONCEPT--not specifics. They float trial balloons, they vote in committee, they offer amendments, none of the proposals will look anything at all like the final bills.

Older people have already discovered the cuts in Medicare--when younger voters discover that THEY are going to be the ones paying for yet another failed Donk distribution scheme, they will also turn against the Administration.

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 13 2009,12:37 pm

I have yet to be shown by the liberators, "Where in the Constitution does it say the government can force anyone to buy health insurance?"

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 13 2009,12:47 pm

QUOTE

Bachmann, however, is wrong about both the contents of the health care plan and the requirements of the Constitution. There is nothing in any of the health care bills under consideration which resembles a “national takeover of health care.” Conservatives like to use this language when referring to the public health option. Like other insurers, the public option would collect premiums from people who choose to buy into it, and then spend those premiums to insure these participants.

Had Bachmann bothered to read Article I of the Constitution before going on Fox, she would have learned that Congress has the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” and to “provide for….the general welfare of the United States.” Rather than itemizing specific subject matters, such as health care, which Congress is allowed to spend money on, the framers chose instead to give Congress a broad mandate to spend money in ways that promote the “general welfare.”

It’s unclear what the basis is for Bachmann’s claim that the public option is an unconstitutional delegation of power to the Executive. There is a 74 year-old decision — decided by the same right-wing Supreme Court which believed most of the New Deal to be unconstitutional — which holds that Congress could not simply grant President Roosevelt nearly limitless authority to do whatever he wanted in order to prevent “unfair competition.” But no one has proposed giving President Obama similarly unchecked authority over health care. Rather, pages 116-128 of the House bill that Bachmann will vote on provide extremely detailed instructions explaining how the Executive Branch must manage a public health plan.

It’s important to note just how radical Bachmann’s theory of the Constitution is. If Congress does not have the power to create a modest public option which competes with private health plans in the marketplace, then it certainly does not have the authority to create Medicare. Similarly, Congress’ power to spend money to benefit the general welfare is the basis for Social Security, federal education funding, Medicaid, and veterans benefits such as the VA health system and the GI Bill. All of these programs would cease to exist in Michele Bachmann’s America.

< http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/bachmann-unconstitutional/ >

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 13 2009,2:20 pm

I love it. All this talk about creating competition when it is in fact the government that has stifled competition by creating a mountain of rules and regulations that govern the insurance industry.

Speaking of competition. I've said this before and I'll say it again. How can a private company compete against a government entity that does not have to operate for profit?

Also, the article mentions "general welfare"? For who? 4% of the population that can't get insurance? pfft...

Hey Liberal...is your moniker on that website BOZO THE NEOCLOWN? :rofl:

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 13 2009,3:47 pm

QUOTE

Congress has the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” and to “provide for….the general welfare of the United States.” Rather than itemizing specific subject matters, such as health care, which Congress is allowed to spend money on, the framers chose instead to give Congress a broad mandate to spend money in ways that promote the “general welfare.”

Trying to plead out that broad generalization of a definition is as bad as Reed saying it's kind of like the draft. :rofl:

Or, as you said, Hoyer's explanation is that forcing people to buy health insurance is like paying taxes and that Congress has the power to force people "to buy things." :dunce:

He even said "I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.” :dunno:

He thinks?

As I stated before, even the CBO says that in the past that a mandate forcing citizens to to purchase health insurance would be an "unprecendented form of federal action." The government has never forced people to buy a service or good as a condition of being a lawful resident.

The CBO did state that using the Commerce Clause raises a "novel" issue. :crazy:

If "We the People" allow government to start mandating services and goods they deems necessary for the "good of the people." Where has our liberty gone? Where would the rights of the citizens be?

Just so everyone knows where Liberal's quote seems to be going to.

QUOTE

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

These aqre the powers of Congress that Reed refers to when he says that they have the power to raise an army i.e. draft and to collect taxes and duties for the general welfare of the United States.

Remember, the people who would impose a duty such as this would also call this their flag.

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 13 2009,3:56 pm

Funny how you kooks like to parse words lately?

Depends on what the meaning of "failure" is?

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 13 2009,4:03 pm

QUOTE

In 1994, when the Clinton administration made an effort to pass health care reform, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) studied the issue of the federal government mandating that individuals purchase health insurance and concluded that it would be an unprecedented act.

“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” stated the CBO. “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

“An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique,” said the CBO. “First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

< http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56770 >

If you want to know if maddog is just regurgitating something he read just do a search for all the three syllable words he spelled correctly and it will usually lead you back to the story. :rofl:

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 13 2009,5:11 pm

Sorry, I forgot. CSN is not the sort of valid news like CBS and ABC according to the liberals.

So tell me Lib-er-al (three syllables), where in the Constitution does it say Congress can force a citizen of the United States to purchase a service like health care. Especially one that will be heavily regulated by the government?

Pick a spot out of Article 8.

QUOTE

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Is this what you're going by? Power to lay collects, taxes and duties? That shall be imposed uniform throughout the United States? How is it uniform if the have an opt out clause for states? Hasn't the Governor-elect of Virginia already stated Virginia will opt out if the bill is passed?

Vir-gin-ia: Formerly a long time dem strong hold retaken by Republicans after Obama campaigned for Democrat Creigh Deeds.

Didn't Democratic hopeful Deeds take a 13% drop at the polls right after Obama went to Virginia to campaign for him?

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 13 2009,5:51 pm

Once a POS always a slow sinkin' POS.

The idiot is suppose to be the CIC and you'd think the tool-sucker would show some damn respect.

But seems once a hater of America always a hater of all things American, and the loathing of our Military.

I guess somethings just don't change.

nex ero suus tantum salus

Posted by grassman on Nov. 13 2009,6:07 pm

(Common Citizen @ Nov. 12 2009,12:56 pm)

QUOTE

(grassman @ Nov. 12 2009,5:59 am)

QUOTE

I remember when it was not against the law, not to have car insurance. It was a boon for the insurance company to get legislation.

Then along comes no-fault insurance. Your policy pays for your expenditure anyway. You also carry underinsured motorist coverage and you have to file a law suit to enact it. What is fair about this crap?

Posted by irisheyes on Nov. 14 2009,5:16 am

(Common Citizen @ Nov. 08 2009,4:18 pm)

QUOTE

A trillion dollar health bill passes the house and you're bitching about a 9% increase in your health insurance costs? That's rich.

I know people love to throw around the trillion dollar number, but to my understanding that's the estimated cost by CBP (Congressional Budget Office) over 10 YEARS. You know how much is spent on health care every year in this country? Studies from years ago say at least 2 TRILLION dollars, and the number grows drastically every year.

The estimated cost of this is a small fraction of overall costs this country has been paying for years in health care anyway.

QUOTE

The problem is that the general public has been programed to hate corporations in this country

Programmed? Seems to me it's corporate America that brought that hatred on itself. Not all, but many of these fat cats are victims of nothing other than their own greed. Why would I pitty them for the hatred they've brought on themselves?

QUOTE

One thing I believe the insurance companies need to do is to find out how to reduce the administration costs. They are huge.

I agree with you there.

QUOTE

It depends on your definition of what "couldn't afford" means...

I agree with you partially here. There are people who refuse to pay anything for health coverage. They're the same ones who if they have a hospital bill for a few thousand, skip the bill and walk away until the next time they have a major illness/injury. But it's for this same reason that I defend the part of the proposed bill requiring people to have coverage of some kind.

QUOTE

The donks have made it their mission to mis-characterize those that are against this bill. Them, along with their media cohort's, have engaged in a type of psychological warfare on the people. Something they are very good at...just read what the libs say on this forum...

That's rich... You supposedly think that Fox can say anything and conservatives will decipher through the spin, but liberals have been brainwashed by "psychological warfare." :rofl:

Nope, as hard as it is for you to believe, people actually have this opinion without anyone forcing it on us. How is what you're saying any different than when liberals claim that people like you are simply brainwashed by Hannity or Rush? :dunno:

QUOTE

I've read more than most congress critters have. I'd bet the farm on it. The more I read, the more you should be ashamed for ever having supported it.

And you've stated on here many times that you work in the insurance industry. While you can toot your horn about your knowledge on this, the insurance lobby has been in attack mode over it's meal-ticket. You won't mind than if I question your credibility on this. I'm thinking that all this reading you're talking about doing probably isn't from even remotely unbiased sources...

More info from the insurance industry or it's lobbying groups? :dunno:

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 14 2009,9:48 am

You have got to be kiddin' me. NO president bows before another. God this man is a loser. Thanks for giving America another black eye, you douche bag.

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 14 2009,11:24 am

Bowing doesn't show subservience, it just shows respect.

Posted by GEOKARJO on Nov. 14 2009,2:49 pm

Posted by grassman on Nov. 15 2009,8:14 am

Geo, were you not for the bill before you was against it? :laugh:

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 15 2009,8:21 am

Lib, look at how low dumass is bowing.

The are of equal status.

Your pres is a biatch! and hes showing it everytime.

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 15 2009,1:38 pm

The Apology Tour continues! :rofl:

How bad do you have to be, to be called weak, ineffective, naive--BY THE FRENCH!

To have two-bit dictatorships like Iran, N. Korea, and Venezuela mock you?

One place he IS revered is in the United Nations! :rofl:

null< My Webpage >

And closer to home--when the Daily Kos calls you "weak and ineffective" you KNOW you've lost your base! < My Webpage >

Posted by irisheyes on Nov. 15 2009,1:50 pm

(jimhanson @ Nov. 15 2009,1:38 pm)

QUOTE

How bad do you have to be, to be called weak, ineffective, naive--BY THE FRENCH!

To have two-bit dictatorships like Iran, N. Korea, and Venezuela mock you?

Once again you prove your main issue with current U.S. foreign policy is that we're not at war with enough countries.

As for the French, they can talk tough all they want. Let me know when they start doing anything more than talk.

What would you suggest we do about Iran or North Korea?

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 15 2009,1:53 pm

Once again, check his links, and check his facts!

What does a dailykos story about Liebermann being perceived as weak have to do with your president?

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 15 2009,2:26 pm

The point is--NOBODY RESPECTS A DOORMAT.

At Yalta, Roosevelt was weak, and Stalin percieved that. The result? Eastern Europe becoming Soviet satellites.

Kennedy's indecision in Cuba (promise support for the invasion, then withdraw it after the invasion started) (inaction on soviet missiles while still in transit) led to the "missile crisis".

Clinton's cut and run in Somalia emboldened Bin Laden.

Clinton did nothing about the attack on the Cole.

Carter was also perceived as weak and ineffective--leading directly to the Hostage Crisis, where he proved his detractors right.

That didn't happen under Reagan. Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.Ronald Reagan. :thumbsup:

It takes a Carter to produce a Reagan! :thumbsup:

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 15 2009,2:32 pm

From DAily Kos

QUOTE

I don't even know that I have the energy to write a diary. I have become increasingly disillusioned with the Democratic party as the year has progressed. The Obama Kumbayah with the Republicans has made him look weak, ineffective and hasn't elicited any real benefits.

Starting healthcare negotiations from the position the Republicans held during the Clinton years just necessarily moved the debate to the right leading to this mess of a bill which will not achieve the kinds of benefits that the country is expecting, and will come with some strings that the country will blame the Democrats for... makes Democrats look weak and ineffective.

Bailing out banks that charge ordinary people like me $350 dollars in fees when my wife's paycheck went in a day late and a dozen small $1-5 transactions post on that gap day - while securing no practical concessions from banks about their dealings with consumers, or on pay rises, or on lobbying, or on wild dangerous transactions, or on mortgages... makes Democrats look weak and ineffective.

Having a top general (and don't tell me it's not McChrystal leaking) actively lobbying against the President's position makes us look weak and ineffective. Of course that's based on a rod we made for our own back by Democratic elected representatives repeatedly buying the meme that the surge worked when it was a bogus strategy that never worked and could never work, it was just a temporary calm caused by bribery. "well a surge worked in Iraq let's do it in Afghanistan" ... plus it means Obama will get blamed for the break down in Iraq as the surge unwinds.

Weak and ineffective.

And when you have Joe Lieberman getting up and jumping on the attack-wagon about the trials in New York. It makes Democrats look weak and ineffective.

This country still feels the wound of 9/11. The emasculation of an attack on the "homeland". People feel scared and insecure as the economic system of the second half of the twentieth century unwinds, as jobs are lost, as the future looks bleak or frightening to so many. What people want least of all... less than politicians who hold different positions to them... less even than politicians that don't "share my values"... is leadership in the country that appears weak.

Even the Moonbats are starting to figure out that Obamatrauma is an "Empty Suit". :rofl:

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 15 2009,2:33 pm

(Liberal @ Nov. 14 2009,11:24 am)

QUOTE

Bowing doesn't show subservience, it just shows respect.

Notice that the OTHER world leaders don't bow to Obama.

This guy gets less respect than Rodney Dangerfield! :rofl:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 15 2009,5:13 pm

It's funny that 20% of the people that answered this poll just repeated the AM radio "Socialized medicine hasn't worked anywhere its tried" claim. Then when I ask for an example of system that's a failure and I get "depends on what the definition of failure is" for a response.

Perfect example of the dittoheads repeating what they're told without question. :dunce:

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 15 2009,5:57 pm

Liberals have an ever-changing definition of "failure".

To most rational people--a system that rations care, gives less contact time with health professionals, has long wait times, has bureaucrats making life-threatening decisions FOR you, and imposes not only high direct costs to sustain itself, but also high INDIRECT taxes would be considered a FAILURE.

There isn't an example of a Socialized Medicine system anywhere in the world that has delivered the lower cost but higher care that Obummer has promised--but the gullible lefties bought into it yet AGAIN! How many examples of broken government programs do they have to see to not trust the government? :frusty:

But then, Libbies are USED to FAILURE! :rofl:

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 15 2009,6:10 pm

GD has a valid point on bowing. But certainly other countries leaders all bow to Akihito too right?

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 15 2009,6:20 pm

What's your point? Obama lived in the East, and I'm pretty sure it's a common greeting in the East, but don't let me get in the way of you folks bashing your president. :rockon:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 15 2009,6:24 pm

QUOTE

So you're saying that it depends on what the definition of "failure" is? Now tell us how the democrats like to parse words. :rofl:

Still waiting for an example of just one failed system. :rofl:

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 15 2009,6:49 pm

(Liberal @ Nov. 15 2009,6:20 pm)

QUOTE

What's your point? Obama lived in the East, and I'm pretty sure it's a common greeting in the East, but don't let me get in the way of you folks bashing your president. :rockon:

When you say East, did you mean as in the Philippines or East 94th Street?

Funny you should mention the East. My minister's husband is from the Philippines. They shake hands there. :rofl:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 15 2009,7:42 pm

QUOTE

Funny you should mention the East. My minister's husband is from the Philippines. They shake hands there. :rofl:

One of us must be a little slow because I've got no idea what your preacher's mail order husband has to do with Obama. :dunno:

Posted by hot84svo on Nov. 15 2009,7:56 pm

Has anyone here on AL.com ever BOWED when greeting someone?

Enlightened by Obama, the next time you greet someone will you bow?

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 15 2009,8:24 pm

It's not like he was the first to bow to the Japanese Emporer.

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 16 2009,7:00 am

(Liberal @ Nov. 15 2009,7:42 pm)

QUOTE

Funny you should mention the East. My minister's husband is from the Philippines. They shake hands there. :rofl:

One of us must be a little slow because I've got no idea what your preacher's mail order husband has to do with Obama. :dunno:

First hand experience bubba. They shake hands in the Philippines.

You referred to Obowma as living in the East. He lived in Jakarta, did he not? Last time I looked at a map, Jakarta was in the Philippines.

Mail order husband. Was that the best you could come up with?

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 16 2009,7:30 am

QUOTE

You referred to Obowma as living in the East. He lived in Jakarta, did he not? Last time I looked at a map, Jakarta was in the Philippines.

Get yourself a new map.

< I'm picking up your sarcasm. sound bite > < Tommy Boy sound bites >

Posted by hairhertz on Nov. 16 2009,8:41 am

Ten million residents of Jakarta would be surprised to learn that the capitol of Indonesia has moved to the Philippines. :blush:

Posted by grassman on Nov. 16 2009,12:01 pm

Here is a good example of how good our healthcare system is. I pay about $500 a month for health insurance. I just recieved a bill summary for my maintainance chiropractic care. I go once a week. Amount billed: $45.00 Not covered: $17.10 Covered:$27.90 Copay $25.00 Total benefits paid:$2.90. I get charged this for every visit. Am I expecting too much out of insurance or are they basically thieves? :frusty:

Posted by ICU812 on Nov. 16 2009,12:23 pm

They are thieves. But an item like that it is best to pay out of your pocket and not have them bill your ins. company.

The thieves will say you used $2340 in benefits(even though you really did not) and use it against you next year when the up your premium for using the insurance. Crooks they are...

Posted by ICU812 on Nov. 16 2009,12:28 pm

Some elected hump needs to come up with a way to buy insurance without buying it from the insurance company. Set up a program to pay the provider monthly and if you ever need healthcare you go in and get it.

Then one would be paying for healthcare only and not funding an entire industry that has NOTHING to do with healthcare.

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 16 2009,2:10 pm

(grassman @ Nov. 16 2009,12:01 pm)

QUOTE

One thing you want to be sure of is that whomever processes your insurance claim at the chiropractor's office is coding the submission correctly. It was probably done correctly but people do make mistakes. There are millions of errors a day and benefit's that go unpaid, all because the help is keying in something incorrectly.

Have you not met your deductible yet?

Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 16 2009,2:30 pm

(grassman @ Nov. 16 2009,12:01 pm)

QUOTE

$500 a month for health insurance.

You're getting ripped off.

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 16 2009,2:45 pm

(Botto 82 @ Nov. 16 2009,2:30 pm)

QUOTE

(grassman @ Nov. 16 2009,12:01 pm)

QUOTE

$500 a month for health insurance.

You're getting ripped off.

Not if it included psychiatric care--there isn't an insurance company in the WORLD that would voluntarily touch that one! :sarcasm:

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 16 2009,2:57 pm

(Liberal @ Nov. 15 2009,6:24 pm)

QUOTE

So you're saying that it depends on what the definition of "failure" is? Now tell us how the democrats like to parse words. :rofl:

Still waiting for an example of just one failed system. :rofl:

I answered that in post 682

QUOTE

To most rational people--a system that rations care, gives less contact time with health professionals, has long wait times, has bureaucrats making life-threatening decisions FOR you, and imposes not only high direct costs to sustain itself, but also high INDIRECT taxes would be considered a FAILURE.

There isn't an example of a Socialized Medicine system anywhere in the world that has delivered the lower cost but higher care that Obummer has promised--but the gullible lefties bought into it yet AGAIN! How many examples of broken government programs do they have to see to not trust the government?

I would call the long lines in Canada a FAILURE.

I would call the outrageous taxes in the Scandinavian countries to support their Socialized Medicine a FAILURE. This is especially egregious when they have $6+ per gallon tax due to socialized medicine, EVEN THOUGH THEY OWN THE NORTH SEA OIL COMPANIES. :dunce:

I would call the socialized medicine program in Britain a failure--they had to retreat from it to allow some private practice again--as Canada is having to do.

I would call the flight of doctors from Canada a FAILURE.

I would call the high taxes on alcohol and tobacco, as well as the high VAT in Canada a FAILURE--it subsidizes their "free" health care by hidden taxes.

I would call any country that increases taxes on employers a FAILURE--it causes employers to move to countries that don't have those taxes.

Socialized medicine will be a financial drain and FAILURE--just like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and every other government intergenerational Ponzi scheme.

Government programs around the world have consistently been FAILURES in providing goods and services. Governments that can't produce good cars, tractors, food crops, or bread are now viewed by libbies as being able to make life and death decisions? :rofl:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 16 2009,3:38 pm

So it depends on what the the meaning of "Failure" is? :rofl:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 16 2009,3:41 pm

QUOTE

Sorry mr. Clinton, but most of those things apply here too. So if we use your defintion of "failure" then the American system is a failure also.

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 16 2009,3:41 pm

I just gave you a number of examples of FAILURE. Pick one and run with it--but don't impose your failures on the REST of us.

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 16 2009,3:46 pm

In other words "It depends on what the meaning of "failure" is"? :rofl:

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 16 2009,4:19 pm

(Liberal @ Nov. 16 2009,3:41 pm)

QUOTE

Sorry mr. Clinton, but most of those things apply here too. So if we use your defintion of "failure" then the American system is a failure also.

We don't have care rationing.

We have more contact time with health care professionals.

We don't have to wait nearly as long as any other nation.

We don't have government bureaucrats making our health care decisions for us.

We don't HAVE to buy insurance if we don't want to.

We don't need high taxes to sustain our health system.

We don't have these things YET--but we WILL have them, just like the countries mentioned, if we let the looters have their way.

Have you been watching Michael Moore movies again--extolling the benefits of centralized health care, like Cuba? :dunce:

I've asked before, but can anyone figure out how Obambi plans to INCREASE the number of people covered, INCREASE the level of care, and DECREASE the cost? :dunno:

A magic trick like that would be worthy of Doug Henning, Siegfried & Roy, and Penn & Teller COMBINED! :rofl:

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 16 2009,4:22 pm

(Liberal @ Nov. 16 2009,3:46 pm)

QUOTE

In other words "It depends on what the meaning of "failure" is"? :rofl:

You don't know the meaning of the word "Failure" after I posted the Dictionary.com definition?

Maybe it would help if I included a PICTURE of "Failure." :rofl:

Posted by grassman on Nov. 16 2009,5:06 pm

(jimhanson @ Nov. 16 2009,2:45 pm)

QUOTE

(Botto 82 @ Nov. 16 2009,2:30 pm)

QUOTE

(grassman @ Nov. 16 2009,12:01 pm)

QUOTE

$500 a month for health insurance.

You're getting ripped off.

Not if it included psychiatric care--there isn't an insurance company in the WORLD that would voluntarily touch that one! :sarcasm:

Typical Jimmy, jump over the problem and go down the spin alley.

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 16 2009,5:08 pm

QUOTE

You don't know the meaning of the word "Failure" after I posted the Dictionary.com definition?

Apparently republicans parse words as often as democrats do.

We all know what the common use of the word failure means, to try to pretend you republicans mean a different definition just makes you look even dumber.

Why would anyone believe a word out of your mouth considering healthcare? You've said yourself that you don't go to the doctor, so who's garbage are you repeating this time? Rush again, or is it Hannity?

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 16 2009,6:33 pm

And these are the morons you people trust?

Dumbazzezz don't even understand what the "law of physics" is. :rofl:

Edit: Maybe obumernaught took on a few acorn 9th ward mutant rejects. :dunno:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 16 2009,6:56 pm

What makes a person a dittohead is when they read something like this and repeat it without taking a minute to see if it's even true.

< http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/physics.asp >

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 16 2009,7:14 pm

How do you know snopes is right?

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 16 2009,7:15 pm

And snopes is always right 100% of the time ain't they? :dunno:

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 16 2009,7:28 pm

Dittohead??, gee ain't you guilty of being a dittohead yourself lib? You bash jim and everyone else relentlessly about links, but yet, you seem to be excluded even though you rely heavily on snopes or wiki. Snopes has been wrong before and wikis never trust them as they can be edited by anyone at anytime.

So here is to you fellow dittohead :beer:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 16 2009,7:51 pm

Considering they asked the person quoted in the article, I'm going to have to go with snopes on this one.

QUOTE

We asked Dr. Cole directly about this anecdote, and his response was that it had been garbled: He said that although he did once encounter, in a meeting with members of Congress, the suggestion that a "law of physics" should be legislatively amended, that meeting took place several years ago and did not involve representatives of the Obama administration (with whom Dr. Colehas never met):

I have not met personally with the Obama Auto Task Force. The comments related to the "laws of physics" came from a discussion I had a number of years ago with several congressmen who said that we should pass a new 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 16 2009,8:01 pm

They could be making it up...you should call snopes and conference in Dr. Cole to verify this conversation actually took place between them.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 16 2009,8:22 pm

(Common Citizen @ Nov. 16 2009,8:01 pm)

QUOTE

They could be making it up...you should call snopes and conference in Dr. Cole to verify this conversation actually took place between them.

Yep I am with Common on this one.
Expect me to believe what you posted from some far off moonbat website. :rofl:

Posted by alcitizens on Nov. 17 2009,10:13 am

AP POLL: Tax the rich to pay for health bill :rockon:

< http://apnews.excite.com/article/20091117/D9C1C4OG0.html >

Posted by GEOKARJO on Aug. 13 2010,11:26 am

2011 W-2 Tax Forms and Obamacare

Should you want to verify this, go to < http://www.thomas.gov/, > enter "HR 3590"
in the search box and look for "CRS Summaries." This is what you'll find.

Title IX Revenue Provisions—Subtitle A: Revenue Offset
"(Sec. 9002) Requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer-sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income (excluding the value of contributions to flexible spending arrangements)."

Starting in 2011—next year—the W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are provided. It doesn't matter if you're retired. Your gross income WILL go up by the amount of insurance your employer paid for. So you'll be required to pay taxes on a larger sum of money that you actually received. Take the tax form you just finished for 2009 and see what $15,000.00 or $20,000.00 additional gross income does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it puts you into a much higher bracket. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for fifteen (15) percent that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases, but it's not really a "tax increase" as such, it a redefinition of your taxable income.

Also, go to Kiplinger's and read about the thirteen (13) tax changes for 2010 that could affect you.

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 13 2010,12:30 pm

This link might be a little easier. IT gets you to the same place?

< HR 3590 >

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 13 2010,12:36 pm

Then I read this.

< snopes >

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 13 2010,12:57 pm

QUOTE

This is another case of a legislative issue which has a kernel of truth to it, but which has been misinterpreted, affects only a small percentage of the population, and has misleadingly been blown out of proportion through someone's mistaken assumption that it applies to everyone.

The portion Title IX, Sec. 9001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) referenced above is entitled "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Coverage." This is the section of the recently passed health care reform legislation that addresses taxing so-called High-level "Cadillac" health care plans that some employees receive through their employers.

In general, beginning in 2018 (not 2011), H.R. 3590 imposes a 40% excise tax on the value of employer-sponsored medical insurance that exceeds a given threshold (initially $27,500 annually). Although "the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage" will be reported on employees' W-2 forms, the excise tax would be paid by the insurance company, not the employee, and is initially expected to affect fewer than 10% of families covered by health insurance:

Many employers pay most of the premium for health coverage. Workers pick up the rest but pay no taxes on the employer's often-substantial contribution. That's why many unions have bargained hard for generous health coverage over the years, even if that meant forgoing a bigger pay raise.

< http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/hr3590.asp >

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 14 2010,2:58 pm

QUOTE

the excise tax would be paid by the insurance company, not the employee,

And the Donks wonder why the cost of health insurance continues to rise? :dunce:

Alki "forgot" to include the final paragraph--and what a gem it IS!

QUOTE

Insurers will drop premiums just below the threshold. They could do that by setting higher deductibles and co-payments, managing access to care more tightly, or reducing benefits.

Once again, the law of UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES--Congress hurting the very people it purports to help. Higher deductibles, reduced benefits, and more government involvement--Yep, that's the "Chicago Way!" :oops:

And you wonder why most people want this repealed? :dunce:

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 14 2010,3:55 pm

(jimhanson @ Aug. 14 2010,2:58 pm)

QUOTE

And the Donks wonder why the cost of health insurance continues to rise?

Which Donks are wondering about this? Only the conservatives think that problems should be solved overnight. But if it was that easy, how come conservatives never managed to get around to reforming health care?

That was a rhetorical question, I already know the answer.

Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 14 2010,10:34 pm

My local bar hasn't laid anyone off yet. They all have insurance now. He's not happy about the paperwork but his L & I will be dropping.

The "kids" who work there can see a doctor now... not just the ER clerk. All but one of them like the discounts and access. The other guy just wants a bullet in his head if he needs ER help.

Posted by gijoeman on Aug. 14 2010,10:40 pm

When we pay for each others health care, many of those among us will become health policeman. Now society is invested in your health. Eat garbage for 40 years and get sick society will spend millions. Eat right and exercise, you get no break at all It doesn't seem fair but neither is the insurance hospital model.

Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 15 2010,2:56 pm

QUOTE

When we pay for each others health care, many of those among us will become health policeman.

That's an excellent point.

The "Health Police" are already controlling how much you can drink.

The "Health Police" are already controlling where you can smoke.

The "Health Police" are already controlling whether you can have kids in the car without booster seats.

The "health Police" are already controlling how much water your toilet can use, and what kind of shower head is "allowed."

The "Health Police" are already mandating whether soda machines should be allowed in some public places.

The "Health Police" are already mandating the kind of oil that can be used by restaurants.

QUOTE

Eat garbage for 40 years and get sick society will spend millions. Eat right and exercise, you get no break at all It doesn't seem fair

It ISN'T fair--but far from being "free"--we are all paying for that lack of self-concern through Obamacare. That's the failure of Socialism--each person has no "skin in the game"--no consequences for their actions.

QUOTE

but neither is the insurance hospital model.

That's because "universal health care" has perverted the insurance model. As originally implemented, insurance was a voluntary association of like-minded individuals sharing the risk proportionatley. High-risk individuals SHOULD pay more--low risk should not. By mandating "universal health care"--government assures that younger and healthier individuals will pay more. That makes no sense at all.

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 06 2010,1:23 pm

After Missouri handily voted to opt out of Obamacare, I see that Arizona will follow Colorado and Oklahoma in putting it to a vote this November.

~~Hope and Change~~ Hopeless Change

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 07 2010,9:44 am

Interesting how corporations are getting waivers on this bill...oh and I forgot...THE NEW YORK TEACHERS UNION, too. :dunce:

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 08 2010,8:12 pm

I think most people with an IQ over room temp saw this coming. :rofl:

QUOTE

A federal judge in Michigan on Thursday dismissed one of more than 15 legal challenges to the new health care law, becoming the first to rule that the law is constitutional.

Two other cases with higher profiles, one in Florida and one in Virginia, are headed toward hearings on the issues that were decided in Michigan. The central question, which may ultimately fall to the Supreme Court, is whether the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to require citizens to obtain a commercial product, namely health insurance.

Starting in 2014, the law will require most Americans to obtain health insurance, while prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.

Judge George C. Steeh of Federal District Court in Detroit ruled that choosing not to obtain insurance qualified as an example of “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” That is the standard set by the Supreme Court for Congress’s compliance with the Commerce Clause.

Judge Steeh, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, agreed with the federal government that not obtaining health coverage is effectively an active decision to pay for medical care out of pocket. “These decisions, viewed in the aggregate,” Judge Steeh wrote, “have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance.”

The judge wrote that the challenge, which was brought by several Michigan residents and the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative group, “arguably presents an issue of first impression,” meaning it would be the first time the courts had considered it. But he ruled that there was “a rational basis to conclude” that decisions to forgo insurance drive up the cost of coverage and thus affect interstate commerce.

“This ruling marks the first time a court has considered the merits of any challenge to this law,” said Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, “and we welcome the court’s decision upholding the health care reform statute as constitutional.”

Robert J. Muise, senior trial counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, said the case was “set up nicely for appeal.”

The judge in the Florida lawsuit, which was filed by elected officials in 20 states, is expected to allow a hearing on the merits that has been scheduled for Dec. 16. The Virginia case, filed by the state attorney general, is scheduled for a hearing on Oct. 18.

< http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/health/policy/08health.html?_r=1 >

Posted by Santorini on Oct. 09 2010,6:27 pm

Yep, with the national health plan, the "market" will consist of whatever the bureaucrats are willing to buy.

Treatment for 'politically stylish' diseases will get some $$$, but otherwise the main concern is cost control :dunce:

And what about the development of new technologies :dunno:

Since much of the funding for those also come from...

pharmeceutical companies :peaceout:

Why those nasties...they're just all about taking your money :rofl:

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 09 2010,7:05 pm

My oldest daughter had a Crohn's flare 3 weeks ago, she also had an ear infection that was so bad it burst her ear, a low platelet count, and she was anemic. The doctors had her in the hospital on IV antibiotics here in Albert Lea the week before last. Then the antibiotics caused her to end up with something called C-Diff. Then she was home for 3 days and they had us giving her this antibiotic that's normally given in an IV but the poor thing had to mix the powder with an ounce of water and drink it like a shot of liquor 4 times a day. Two days later she ended up getting a kidney infection that was so bad that she's been in St. Mary's for most of the week. In fact just now my wife called and said they're walking out of St. Mary's and plan to be here in an hour or so.

We've got pretty good insurance and we were $7200 into our $8000 maximum before she went to the hospital here, so St. Mary's won't cost us anything, so we can't complain.

What I do have a problem with is that she's 17 and without Health Reform she would have soon been uninsured if you right wingers had your way.

Posted by Santorini on Oct. 10 2010,9:52 am

(Liberal @ Oct. 09 2010,7:05 pm)

QUOTE

Sorry to hear about your daughter. Clostridium difficile
(C-diff) is an infection in the gastrointestinal region that causes severe diarrhea, which can be further complicated causing dehydration. Good Luck, Crohn's is nasty. It's also an autoimmune disease, like your thyroid disease, and usually auntoimmune diseases run in the family in some form.

Anyway, back to the subject:
Not true she would have soon been uninsured as you say. In MN if she is single she could be a dependent on your insurance until she is 25 (before Obamacare). Still single after 25 depending on the amount of $$$ she makes, she could qualify for MNCare. There are options in the state and MN didn't need national healthcare for the reason you give.

Posted by Santorini on Oct. 10 2010,10:11 am

The thing is, I work in healthcare and I can see firsthand, already the effects of Obamacare.
#1) remember how the plan promised 'preventative care' or well-care?
NOT TRUE..I personally have seen senior citizens
having to sign a voucher for blood tests NOT
covered by Medicare that are considered part
of preventative care like lipid test or
cholesterol tests (the amount of fat in the blood)
& depending on the #'s can lead to heart
attack or stroke. The voucher is so the patient
knows THEY are responsible to pay for the test
or they can refuse it.

#2) I have seen people refused name brand medications because insurance won't cover and forced to get generic. (Generics are not the same especially for diseases such a thyroid, blood pressure, and others)
Yes, the doctor can write the insurance company requesting generic not be substituted; but it's still up to the discretion of the insurer

#3) I have seen firsthand people not able to get the medications their doctor has ordered because insurers have a 'ladder treatment' set up.
That means, according to the insurers now, that the patient has to FIRST try this, and THEN try that, AND then this...so when all else fails...they can finally get what the doctor actually ordered!

What needs to happen is to put the doctors back in charge of our healthcare and NOT the governement!

They need to listen to those in the front lines of healthcare, those actually on the ground.

Posted by Ned Kelly on Oct. 11 2010,7:35 am

(Santorini @ Oct. 10 2010,10:11 am)

QUOTE

You have just described what our insurance company has been doing to us for the last several years... Way before Obama was elected...

...ned

Posted by Santorini on Oct. 12 2010,9:35 am

ned, and your insurance company is going to get to continue to do it!!
So explain to me exactly how obamacare has fixed the problem :dunno:

(Besides private insurance rates going up :peaceout:

Deductables going up :thumbsup:

and coverage is less...and NOW the gov't bureaucrats get to decide WHO is important enough to get treatments and who is not :clap:

)

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 12 2010,9:47 am

I guess when I see 59 Democrat Senators and their families signed up... :violin:

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Oct. 14 2010,5:02 pm

Judge lets states' healthcare suit go forward - U.S. states can proceed with a lawsuit seeking to overturn President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare reform law, a Florida judge ruled on Thursday.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Oct. 14 2010,6:47 pm

On a billboard in Colorado.

Posted by nphilbro on Oct. 14 2010,10:36 pm

This is "Republicare"

"Obamacare" would have made the private sector compete with a non- profit NON SUBSIDIZED government option. Some of the dems were too self centered and egotistical to move a bill that would help America move forward. The republicans will just deny anything the dems present so they don't count. The insurance companies used all of the profit they make off of us to scare you to make more profit - just look at what they pay CEOs! They did a damn fine job of it too. Now we're really screwed and I'm investing in United Healthcare since they will have a windfall and I will need to pay for kids' college and my retirement.

Why is the phrase "I don't want the government between me and my doctor" stated so often?

Well, I don't want my insurance company between my doctor and my family. Insurance companies dictate treatment as much as doctors do.

I picked up a RX tonight for my daughter and it was different meds in different doses than prescribed since my insurance didn't feel what the doctor prescribed was necessary. After all... they have to make a buck ($20k per year on my family).

AND YOU RIGHT WING KOOKS THINK THAT'S RIGHT???

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Notice - "life" comes before "liberty." "Pursuit of happiness" was originally "right to own land."

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 14 2010,10:56 pm

(nphilbro @ Oct. 14 2010,10:36 pm)

QUOTE

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Notice - "life" comes before "liberty." "Pursuit of happiness" was originally "right to own land."

So you believe that the order it was wrote means in order of importance? :dunno:

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Oct. 14 2010,11:03 pm

Oh boo hoo, lets have a pity party, because life isnt fair. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, I deserve someone elses capital because I got cheated in life, waaaaaaaaaaaa.

This Country was founded on individual RIGHTS/ liberty and States Rights, not a central federal govt that is mother, is father mentality that is has taken hold the last 50 some years, social justice is in direct conflict with the Constitution, and has done nothing but harm to this Great Nation.

I don't need govt in my life, I do need to be left alone, and let me enjoy the fruits of my labor.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 19 2010,5:01 am

(nphilbro @ Oct. 14 2010,10:36 pm)

QUOTE

The insurance companies used all of the profit they make off of us to scare you to make more profit - just look at what they pay CEOs! They did a damn fine job of it too. Now we're really screwed and I'm investing in United Healthcare since they will have a windfall and I will need to pay for kids' college and my retirement.

No one is forcing you to buy healthcare insurance.

You could just pay 100% out of pocket, that way you would by-pass the insurance company and you would have the peace of mind knowing that your earned income would not be contributing to a for-profit business and the people they employ.

You have the right to opt out of your healthcare plan. Anyone who thinks that insurance is right is just as greedy as the CEO's they demonize.

nuff said...

Posted by Santorini on Oct. 19 2010,10:05 am

(nphilbro @ Oct. 14 2010,10:36 pm)

QUOTE

all you have to do since you didn't get the med prescribed is...PAY CASH!

OR...have the DR in writing tell the insurance NOT to substitute! They will do that! :dunno:

OR change insurance companies..check them out til you find one that covers your needs :angel:

It's called 'personal responsibility'!!

Posted by irisheyes on Oct. 19 2010,8:01 pm

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 19 2010,5:01 am)

QUOTE

You could just pay 100% out of pocket, that way you would by-pass the insurance company and you would have the peace of mind knowing that your earned income would not be contributing to a for-profit business and the people they employ.

There's plenty of people out there that filed for bankruptcy because they were paying 100% out of pocket. One day an accident or illness happens and their pockets just aren't deep enough.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 21 2010,5:43 pm

Bankruptcy isn't the end of the world. So you get to wipe your slate clean and start over. crap happens. I'm not saying that it's a good thing but sometimes life happens.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 21 2010,5:44 pm

Crap happens... lame...the statement loses its affect.

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 09 2010,6:43 am

QUOTE

WASHINGTON – AARP's endorsement helped secure passage of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Now the seniors' lobby is telling its employees their insurance costs will rise partly as a result of the law.

< Citing health overhaul, AARP hikes employee costs >

AARP justifies their decision to support Obamacare meanwhile flipping the bird and saying a big FU to their employees... "because it contained incredibly important protections for our younger members, who often have problems getting access to care," said spokesman Jim Dau. "And because it helps our older members in Medicare with important new benefits."

Well Jim...can you gives us an example of what you're claiming or are you just spewing Obama & Co. talking points? Maybe the health care reform bill should have addressed those specific situations YOU are so concerned with and leave the rest of us alone.

The Gov't is overreaching, overbearing, and it's time for them to do an about face and stay arms length away from my individual rights.

:soapbox:

nuff said...

Posted by irisheyes on Nov. 09 2010,6:03 pm

(Common Citizen @ Nov. 09 2010,6:43 am)

QUOTE

Maybe the health care reform bill should have addressed those specific situations YOU are so concerned with and leave the rest of us alone.

This isn't a surprise. The CBO said some rates would go up in order to pay for a bunch more benefits and less restrictions. Do you have a better idea for how American's were going to get this without it costing anything?

QUOTE

The Gov't is overreaching, overbearing, and it's time for them to do an about face and stay arms length away from my individual rights.

How is this affecting your rights? Voters have consistently asked for healthcare reform for decades. They've tried to for nearly a hundred years and every time the AMA and insurance companies try to kill it.

Apparently your hospital or HMO charging more money for less benefits is fine, heaven forbid the price goes up and this time coverage is actually enhanced.

But nevermind all that, what do the CEO's like Ciota or Gil Irey say about all this. Come on people, listen to the rich, they've done so much for America the last three decades! :sarcasm:

Posted by irisheyes on Nov. 09 2010,8:52 pm

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 21 2010,5:43 pm)

QUOTE

Bankruptcy isn't the end of the world. So you get to wipe your slate clean and start over. crap happens. I'm not saying that it's a good thing but sometimes life happens.

When someone declares bankruptcy the costs they incurred get passed on to you, and they don't pay a dime. At least if they get coverage through a plan they'll have to pay into it through premiums and copays. A republican favorite stated this exact problem when he passed healthcare reform in his state.

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 10 2010,8:53 am

Do you really think if no one filed bankruptcy on their medical bills that those costs savings would be passed onto your healthcare needs? :rofl:

Hell no it wouldn't. But see, you've got that all figured out. Right? You'd be sitting in the corner with your buddies claiming these companies make to much and then you would tax the living crap out of them, legally steal from them, and pass it along to the poor and at the end of the day proudly claim how much good you've done for this world.

Posted by Glad I Left on Dec. 13 2010,11:37 am

First battle of many I foresee...

< Judge Rules Obamacare unscostitutional >

Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 03 2012,6:40 pm

Ok. So the modern day Gestapo just released a 159 pages of new rules. What a load of poo poo.

The dicks are dicking it up more because a dick wanted a dick law to pass. And the dick gets re-elected because of all the dicks that voted for the dick so that the dick can continue making even bigger dick moves.

Dick.

QUOTE

IRS aims to clarify investment income tax under healthcare law

WASHINGTON | Mon Dec 3, 2012 6:14pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Internal Revenue Service has released new rules for investment income taxes on capital gains and dividends earned by high-income individuals that passed Congress as part of the 2010 healthcare reform law.

The 3.8 percent surtax on investment income, meant to help pay for healthcare, goes into effect in 2013. It is the first surtax to be applied to capital gains and dividend income.

The tax affects only individuals with more than $200,000 in modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), and married couples filing jointly with more than $250,000 of MAGI.

The tax applies to a broad range of investment securities ranging from stocks and bonds to commodity securities and specialized derivatives.

The 159 pages of rules spell out when the tax applies to trusts and annuities, as well as to individual securities traders.

Released late on Friday, the new regulations include a 0.9 percent healthcare tax on wages for high-income individuals.

Both sets of rules will be published on Wednesday in the Federal Register.

The proposed rules are effective starting January 1. Before making the rules final, the IRS will take public comments and hold hearings in April.

Together, the two taxes are estimated to raise $317.7 billion over 10 years, according to a Joint Committee on Taxation analysis released in June.

To illustrate when the tax applies, the IRS offered an example of a taxpayer filing as a single individual who makes $180,000 in wage income plus $90,000 from investment income. The individual's modified adjusted gross income is $270,000.

The 3.8 percent tax applies to the $70,000, and the individual would pay $2,660 in surtaxes, the IRS said.

The IRS plans to release a new form for taxpayers to fill out for this tax when filing 2013 returns.

The new rules leave some questions unanswered, tax experts said. It was unclear how rental income will be treated under the new rules, said Michael Grace, managing director at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP law firm in Washington.

"The proposed regulations surely will increase tax compliance burdens for individuals," said Grace, a former IRS official. "There's clearly some drafting left to be done."

Posted by irisheyes on Dec. 04 2012,4:51 am

(Common Citizen @ Dec. 03 2012,6:40 pm)

QUOTE

It's a little ironic for someone who defends the Patriot Act to throw out the Nazi card on the IRS and Obamacare.

Republicans had their chance for a solution, all they offered was tax credits and/or shifting the burden onto Medicaid (pst, that's entitlement spending, by the way). So, this is one more area where republicans can't seem to balance. You guys have gotta dig up Eisenhower at some point and see if he can balance the budget again, since he's the last one on your side of the isle to do it. And he did it while advocating more spending for infrastructure and American jobs. Things sure have changed for the GOP, now they advocate cutting infrastructure, losing domestic jobs in the process, and they still can't balance the budget.

In regards to healthcare, you've posted that you experienced government healthcare, mentioned earning VA benefits, said that two of your kids were born while you were serving your country. Who do you think footed the bill?

I'll give you a hint, today you'd call them the Gestapo. But those of us with an IQ above room temp know that all those roads, schools, and aircraft carriers have gotta be paid through something.

But I digress. I'll wait for Self-Banished to wake up and chime in. "Grr, taxes are bad! Who peed in your cheerios?"

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 04 2012,5:31 am

Wow, nothing to say that hasn't already been said. 5:30am, checking oil prices, second cup of coffee, what's up Kap?

Posted by irisheyes on Dec. 04 2012,5:57 am

^Not much, Cletus. Second cup of coffee myself, waiting for the eggs and toast to settle.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 04 2012,6:13 am

Cletus, I love that :rofl:

Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 04 2012,8:40 am

QUOTE

What the hell. Are you keeping a file on me? Creep.

That was apart of my compensation package. I made less than $2 an hour if you factor the hours I worked. So you're damn right that my paycheck should be offset with medical benefits.

Who paid for my health benefits? The people that want their freedom. It isn't free and that is very different than Obamacare. But those of us with an IQ above room temp know that.

The Donk tactic that if we don't tax then it will affect schools. What a load. There are billions of dollars of waste going on in this country and you would rather use Sally Struther's as your spokeperson to complain about how it's going to affect the schools.

Wake up, man.

Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 04 2012,8:54 am

(irisheyes @ Dec. 04 2012,4:51 am)

QUOTE

You guys have gotta dig up Eisenhower at some point and see if he can balance the budget again, since he's the last one on your side of the [aisle] to do it.

And what was the tax rate for top earners, back then?

Posted by grassman on Dec. 04 2012,9:05 am

(Common Citizen @ Dec. 04 2012,8:40 am)

QUOTE

Compensation and benefits that business now feels it does not need to share with the workforce, unless you drive to work in a Lexus or better, of coarse.

Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 04 2012,12:42 pm

How do you correlate veteran's benefits with that of private sector employee's.

I know what you libs are trying to do here and that dog won't hunt with me.

...nuff said.

Posted by irisheyes on Dec. 04 2012,8:19 pm

QUOTE

That was apart of my compensation package. I made less than $2 an hour if you factor the hours I worked. So you're damn right that my paycheck should be offset with medical benefits.

Yeah, you're the first person to ever complain that they're underpaid because of... :sarcasm:

It's moot, the point wasn't about what you deserve. For the record, I think you deserve everything mentioned. But it was the necessity of appropriating funds versus running on deficits for those things. The Grover Norquist lackeys like Boehner and Paul Ryan can complain about spending all they want, all while they pass budget after budget that dramatically increases spending to pay for their pet projects.

(Common Citizen @ Dec. 04 2012,8:40 am)

QUOTE

Who paid for my health benefits? The people that want their freedom. It isn't free and that is very different than Obamacare. But those of us with an IQ above room temp know that.

Ah, you mean TAXES? "It isn't free." You can rationalize it all you want, the whole point is that you know that taxes are necessary, you advocate strongly for the things that are the very reason for them.

Try calling up your cable or DISH company, tell them you'll no longer pay your past due bill. There's a channel or two you don't care for, and the channels you do want to pay for have things you don't like at times, like commercials or a bad sitcom now and then. You'll go into debt if you can find something you don't like about it. That's the unintended side effect of starve the beast, the beast won't starve, it'll just keep going into debt.

QUOTE

What the hell. Are you keeping a file on me? Creep.

Nah, just a sharp memory for conversations.

QUOTE

The Donk tactic that if we don't tax then it will affect schools. What a load.

First, I didn't say that. Second, when you figure out how to have all the things I mentioned that the American people want through their government (I mentioned roads, schools, and aircraft carriers as examples) without paying taxes, then you should email Obama and Boehner. Let them know you've got a way to fund the government without a revenue.

A group had the same problem in the late 1780's and had to figure out a way to pay for common defense, general welfare, post office, etc. They drafted something behind closed doors, without public input, avoiding direct democracy, and instituted... Wait for it, wait for... Taxes to pay for government spending.

QUOTE

There are billions of dollars of waste going on in this country and you would rather use Sally Struther's as your spokeperson to complain about how it's going to affect the schools.

Waste? Well, that changes everything, I guess we can scrap the IRS and just get closer to using pure debt until there's a government with no waste. :sarcasm:

Somehow the past debt does not magically disappear after you bring up waste. Try to fix it in the future, but that part of the national debt has to be paid for regardless.

Posted by grassman on Dec. 05 2012,5:59 am

Waste. That is a very good place to start. That is one part of the equation that is so easy to fix without others feeling the pain. If they would start some kind of program that would encourage the elimination of waste in just every day functions of the govt., that could be huge. :thumbsup:

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 05 2012,8:06 am

We have nothing to fear, after the first of the year we'll have plenty of new part time jobs.

Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 05 2012,8:10 am

(irisheyes @ Dec. 04 2012,8:19 pm)

QUOTE

A group had the same problem in the late 1780's and had to figure out a way to pay for common defense, general welfare, post office, etc. They drafted something behind closed doors, without public input, avoiding direct democracy, and instituted... Wait for it, wait for... Taxes to pay for government spending.

If you honestly think this is what income taxes are for, you need to dig deeper.

Income taxes came along part and parcel with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. That's when this still-young Republic got back in bed with the very European central banks it was trying to get away from in the 1700's. All income taxes pay for is one thing: the interest on our national debt. If we had any balls as a collective, we'd claim zero exemptions on out W-4's, and never send another form 1040 to the King, ever again.

Posted by MADDOG on May 23 2013,3:18 pm

Just a thought. With the IRS administering the enforcement of Obamacare, will citizen groups like the teaparty have to go underground to recieve healthcare?

With Sarah Hall Ingram being appointed chief enforcer by the Obambino Family, will Tea Party members, Constitutionalists and other right wing members be scrutinized as severely as those applying for 501 tax exempt status before being given medical care? :dunno:

Posted by Self-Banished on May 23 2013,8:39 pm

Tea party members will be singled out for more prostate exams

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 23 2013,10:11 pm

(Self-Banished @ May 23 2013,8:39 pm)

QUOTE

Tea party members will be singled out for more prostate exams

Rectal.

Naw, they'll all be set up with the death panels. jk.

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 28 2013,11:35 pm

...an excerpt from Mark Levin's latest book.

QUOTE

Today Congress operates not as the Framers intended, but in
the shadows, where it dreams up its most notorious and oppressive laws, coming into the light only to trumpet the genius and earnestness of its goings-on and to enable members to cast their votes. The people are left lamebrained and dumbfounded about their “representatives’ ” supposed good deeds, which usually take the form of omnibus bills numbering in hundreds if not thousands of pages, and utterly clueless about the effects these laws have on their lives. Of course, that is the point. The public is not to be informed but indoctrinated, manipulated, and misled.

Congress also, and often, delegates unconstitutionally lawmaking
power to a gigantic yet ever-growing administrative state
that, in turn, unleashes on society myriad regulations and rules
at such a rapid rate the people cannot possibly know of them,
either—and if, by chance, they do, they cannot possibly comprehend them. Nonetheless, ignorance, which is widespread and deliberately so, is no excuse for noncompliance, for which the citizen is heavily fined and severely punished.

Not to be outdone, the current occupant of the Oval Office
sees his primary duty as “fundamentally transforming the United
States of America.” By this, of course, President Barack Obama
did not mean a fresh allegiance to the nation’s founding principles
and a new respect for the Constitution’s limits on federal authority, but the converse. He is more blatant and aggressive than his twentieth-century predecessors, but faithfully follows the footsteps of the most transgressive among them. The metamorphosis of the executive branch into an immense institution exercising a conglomeration of powers, including lawmaking and decreeing, is clearly without constitutional origin, a quaint notion mostly derided these days.

Having delegated broad lawmaking power to executive branch
departments and agencies of its own creation, contravening the
separation-of-powers doctrine, Congress now watches as the
president inflates the congressional delegations even further and
proclaims repeatedly the authority to rule by executive fiat in defiance of, or over the top of, the same Congress that sanctioned a domineering executive branch in the first place. Notwithstanding Congress’s delinquency, but because of it, an unquenched President Obama, in a hurry to expedite a societal makeover, has repeatedly admonished Congress that “[i]f [it] won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will!”—that is, if Congress will not genuflect to his demands, and pass laws to his liking, he will act on his own.

nuff said...

:popcorn:

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 30 2013,4:23 pm

Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 15 2013,7:10 am

Oh this is good, Trumka's pissed

So will the unions get a special "suck job" and be able to get out of this?

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic...meeting >

Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 15 2013,7:13 am

Just so Lib, Expat and Alky won't feel left out

< http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013...47.html >

You too Irish :rofl:

Posted by Common Citizen on Sep. 25 2013,8:29 pm

IRS Watchdog: $67 Million Missing from Obamacare Slush Fund

QUOTE

The IRS is unable to account for $67 million spent from a slush fund established for Obamacare implementation, according to a TIGTA report released today.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The IRS is unable to account for $67 million spent from a slush fund established for Obamacare implementation, according to a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report released today.

The “Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund” (HIRIF) was tucked into Obamacare in order to give the IRS money to enforce the tax provisions of the healthcare law. The fund, totaling some $1 billion of taxpayer money, was used to roll out enforcement mechanisms for the approximately 50 tax provisions of Obamacare.

According to the report: “Specifically, the IRS did not account for or attempt to quantify approximately $67 million [from the slush fund] of indirect ACA costs incurred for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012.”

The report also found several other abuses of taxpayer funds, including:

Travel abuse: The report states, “Specifically, we identified 38 IRS employees in two judgmentally selected business units whose travel was charged to the HIRIF in FY 2012, but no portion of their salary and related benefits was charged to the HIRIF.” In short, the IRS was not making sure that employee travel reimbursements had anything to do with the purpose of the fund. This is not the first time that IRS employee travel has created a scandal for the agency.

1,272 IRS Obamacare enforcement agents: The report estimates that total slush fund spending cost taxpayers the equivalent of 1,272 new full time IRS agents.

The IRS requested an additional 859 IRS Obamacare enforcement agents for Fiscal Year 2013: According to the report, “The IRS informed us that it requested $360 million and 859 FTEs for FY 2013 to continue implementation of the ACA. However, the IRS did not receive this requested amount for FY 2013.”

To add insult to injury, the IRS has told the Inspector General that it will comply with the recommendations made in the report; unfortunately, the slush fund has been fully spent, making that promise meaningless.

And this surprises who? Ding dong Harry Reid? :frusty:

Posted by MADDOG on Sep. 26 2013,6:11 am

1272 Enforcement agents (cops) already employed and an additional 859 needed for just this year. The IRS figures they will need about 6700 agents total. WHAT?? Do they think that many people are going to try and slip the system? And the sheeple are expected to trust these guys? No one in the IRS is going to admit or take the blame for this one. They'll all take a Lois Lerner Plea.

Posted by Botto 82 on Sep. 26 2013,6:59 am

This whole thing is a frelling train wreck. Unfortunately, the antics of the opposition call more attention to politics as usual then they do to the real issues. :frusty:

Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 26 2013,7:40 am

The problem with Obamacare it never took profit out of healthcare. but it really hasn’t had time to work, the Republican alternative ? “green eggs and ham”??

there are good points such as eliminating preexisting conditions, premium equity, insurance providers must pay 85 percent of their premium dollars on health care,
Insurance payout limits, a clause such as this eliminating payout limits should help with catastrophic illness and cut down on bankruptcy.

there’s a lot of bad too
Such as, my job/employer provides good insurance coverage so in 2018 I’ll be taxed on that benefit to subsidize an employer who doesn’t provide health benefits, even though that employer may be far more profitable than mine, i.e. big box stores & fast food conglomerates.

Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 26 2013,9:27 am

So there shouldn't be profit in healthcare?

Posted by Common Citizen on Sep. 26 2013,7:06 pm

Strib...along with the state Dems where celebrating the fact that MnSure has the lowest premiums in the country. :rofl:

As if everything is good. :rofl:

They recently spent $9 million dollars of tax payers money for advertising Obamacare in the state and an employee of the exchange emailed confidential information on 2500 agents to a broker in Apple Valley.

A MNsure employee accidentally sent an e-mail file to an Apple Valley insurance broker’s office on Thursday that contained Social Security numbers, names, business addresses and other identifying information on more than 2,400 insurance agents.

An official at MNsure, the state’s new online health insurance exchange, acknowledged it had mishandled private data. A MNsure security manager called the broker, Jim Koester, and walked him and his assistant through a process of deleting the file from their computer hard drives.

Koester said he willingly complied, but was unnerved.

“The more I thought about it, the more troubled I was,” he said. “What if this had fallen into the wrong hands? It’s scary. If this is happening now, how can clients of MNsure be confident their data is safe?”

Expatriate complains about subsidies. The whole program is one big subsidy.

Just the tip of the iceberg people.

Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 03 2013,5:23 am

I like the list of eligible participants on the Mncare site, one of them is "noncitizen" :sarcasm:

Posted by irisheyes on Oct. 04 2013,7:56 am

(Self-Banished @ Sep. 26 2013,9:27 am)

QUOTE

So there shouldn't be profit in healthcare?

Most of our hospitals and clinics are already non-profit. Mayo clinic is the best hospital and medical school in the world, and it is... wait for, wait for... Non-profit. :;):

CC:

QUOTE

Strib...along with the state Dems where celebrating the fact that MnSure has the lowest premiums in the country.

Republicans would complain if the rates are the highest in the country, but unfortunately for Republican strategists MNSure rates are the lowest. Oh well, they'll complain anyway.

And that's not all, there was a data breach. It was one email sent to an agent, it was fixed within about 30 minutes when MNSure contacted him and took him through the process of deleting it.

The fact that we have insurance agents so stupid that they can't delete things on their own without MNSure teaching them how might be another indicator of what's wrong with health insurance. We're overburdened by a bunch of middle-men (insurance executives, shareholders, brokers, etc.) who can't do even the simplest of tasks with current technology, but continue to contribute to a large portion of skyrocketing insurance costs.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 04 2013,5:04 pm

QUOTE

And that's not all, there was a data breach. It was one email sent to an agent, it was fixed within about 30 minutes when MNSure contacted him and took him through the process of deleting it.

There is more to the story. This letter is evidence that MNsure is ill-prepared and doesn't have a clue what they're doing.

QUOTE

September 17, 2013
April Todd-Malmlov
MNSure Golden Rule Building 85 -7th Place East, Suite 120 St. Paul, MN 55101-2198
Dear Ms. Todd-Malmlov:
On behalf of The Agents Coalition for Health Care Reform, I am writing in regard to the recent incident that compromised the private data of our agent members and other agents who have registered with MNsure. We are concerned with the overall lack of data security protocols at MNsure that led to this incident and whether adequate protections will be in place to protect consumer data once the exchange goes live on October 1st.
Leading up to the incident where MNsure disclosed private agent data to an outside party, we had several concerns about MNsure data handling. First, agents were requested to provide private data including social security numbers over unsecured e-mail. Secondly, we do not think that there was a need to ask agents to provide their social security numbers at all. Agents have both a state license number, as well as a national producer number and we would like to know why MNsure asked for that personal and private information in the first place? Finally, many of our agent members report that their e-mails were not received by MNsure and thus the information was requested multiple times. We do not believe that unsecured e-mails are the proper way to handle sensitive private data and would like to know what is being done to determine why emails that were sent to MNsure were not recorded as received by MNsure and where that data ended up.
Additionally, agents have reported receiving their MNsure passwords via unsecured e-mail. We request that more secure methods be adopted to communicate these passwords.
Furthermore, MNsure used the agent’s license number as their password. License numbers are public information, and many agents print them on their business cards. Using this public information as a secure password defeats the purpose of a password and creates immense potential for abuse by any number of individuals seeking to collect private information.
We would like to know the following:
 Did MNSure voluntarily disclose this breach and follow duty to report?
 What data privacy, HIPPA training and data requirements have been put in place within MNSure such as data encryption, password protection, etc.?
 If and when will MNsure implement standard industry data
handling protocols for agent, enrollee and applicant data and what training will be required of MNsure staff and assistors?

We also request that:
 MNsure confirm that an IT security audit will be completed by a qualified vendor before we are asked to direct our clients to enter private data into MNsure.
 MNsure make available its records concerning the solicitation, collection, and dissemination of all personally identifiable agent data.
We were recently made aware that Navigators will not be offered training or certification until after 10/1/13. This concerns us immensely as Navigators will have access to the personal and private information of our clients and any Minnesotan that chooses to use MNsure. We believe that this only highlights the tremendous privacy and security breach risks that exist. We ask that these risks be investigated, evaluated and reported to the public immediately. We would also like to know if MNsure is doing background checks or a proper due diligence with regards to the Navigators before the system goes live on 10/1/13.
Finally, we are formally requesting on behalf of the agent community that MNsure purchase two years of an identity protection program for each agent on the list that was inadvertently released to a private party. This is a standard industry practice in the private sector when private data is released or breached.
We request your written response to the above.
Respectfully,
Alycia Riedl
President
Minnesota Association of Health Underwriters
cc: MNsure

Response:

QUOTE

Today at a hearing of the Legislature’s MNsure Oversight Committee, MNsure officials announced that they would provide a credit monitoring service for all agents and brokers whose personal information may have been included in the recent MNsure data breach. This monitoring service will be paid from the federal funds MNsure was given for the creation of our state insurance exchange. The details regarding the credit monitoring system should be forthcoming to the affected agents and brokers. Furthermore, the MNsure staff person who was responsible for the breach was let go and all the data was retrieved.
Legislators grilled MNsure officials regarding the data breach and the data privacy mechanisms that would be used when MNsure goes online October 1, 2013. It was apparent that there is a lot of work still to be done.
Rep. Joe Atkins, co-chair of the Oversight Committee, indicated he was planning to introduce legislation that would bar MNsure from requesting agent and broker social security numbers. In response to Rep. Atkins, MNsure Executive Director, April Todd-Malmlov told the committee that MNsure no longer will be requesting that information. They originally believed they needed the information to document CE credits to Sircon, which they later learned was not necessary. So in essence, they did not need this information in the first place. :frusty:

If you are one of the agents affected by the data breach, you will be receiving information from MNsure shortly

.

IE

QUOTE

The fact that we have insurance agents so stupid that they can't delete things on their own without MNSure teaching them how might be another indicator of what's wrong with health insurance. We're overburdened by a bunch of middle-men (insurance executives, shareholders, brokers, etc.) who can't do even the simplest of tasks with current technology, but continue to contribute to a large portion of skyrocketing insurance costs.

Based on your last comment, I think you're in over your head and don't have a clue about how the industry operates. Since the insurance industry disgusts you, why don't you just self-insure? It's the quickest way to eliminate the "stupid" middle-men. Problem solved.

nuff said...

Posted by Glad I Left on Oct. 09 2013,5:43 pm

So on a whim I went to check coverage options last night on MNSure.org as I fear within 2 years my company will probably drop coverage all together and force everyone onto an ACA plan.
First thing I found odd was that you can't even compare/shop for plans outside of the 8am-5pm M-F time frame.
Second thing I found was that to get comparable coverage to what I have now it will cost me $450/month more now than what my employer and I pay now for Medical/Dental insurance.

Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 09 2013,6:05 pm

^ wow! mine was double that! did you find out what your fine would be if you went without?

Posted by irisheyes on Oct. 10 2013,11:46 pm

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 04 2013,5:04 pm)

QUOTE

Based on your last comment, I think you're in over your head and don't have a clue about how the industry operates.

The reason we're in trouble is because of how "the industry operates". A system that cost twice the per capita of European nations average while it doesn't cover everyone or get better results. I'm not in over my head on this subject.

QUOTE

Since the insurance industry disgusts you, why don't you just self-insure? It's the quickest way to eliminate the "stupid" middle-men. Problem solved.

Self-insure isn't feasable with healthcare unless a person is incredibly wealthy (multi-million or billionaire). Healthcare is the biggest cause of bankruptcy in this country.

The Catholic church can, so can Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. But your average Joe or family can not possibly self-insure with healthcare.

Posted by Botto 82 on Oct. 11 2013,12:09 am

Despite that logical explanation, there will still be bitching. "Obama took our JOBS!" and so on. Watch...

Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 11 2013,7:10 am

The yearly double digit increased cost of health Insurance/healthcare/pharma is a direct result of our healthcare’s tie to Wall Street!
The system is unsustainable, cost projections without a major change will bankrupt US, I’m not sure Obamacare does enough to eliminate Wall Street’s strangle hold on our healthcare!

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 11 2013,11:01 am

(irisheyes @ Oct. 10 2013,11:46 pm)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 04 2013,5:04 pm)

QUOTE

Based on your last comment, I think you're in over your head and don't have a clue about how the industry operates.

QUOTE

Since the insurance industry disgusts you, why don't you just self-insure? It's the quickest way to eliminate the "stupid" middle-men. Problem solved.

Ah... I would argue that you are. There is a huge administration cost with any insurance company because the gov't has saddled the industry with so many rules and regulations that you practically need a small army to operate. That costs money.

Better yet, spend a week at a company and watch how a policy moves through the system and all the details that are involved. Premium, underwriting, accounting, actuaries, medical, legal, marketing, conservation, claims, fraud, licensing, training, compliance, etc.. It would blow your mind to see how many fingers need to be involved.

And you want to the government to handle all of that now? pfft..take all of that x's 10 and slow it all down to a nice comfortable government run pace.

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 17 2013,12:01 pm

< MNsure enrollment murky >

Posted: 10/17/2013 12:01:00 AM CDT

QUOTE

More than 3,700 people have used the website of MNsure, the state's new health insurance exchange, to take significant steps toward obtaining health insurance coverage for next year, state officials announced Wednesday.

The tally includes 406 Minnesotans who are making plans to pay for private health insurance policies

"In total, if you look at the people in the enrollment process, 3,769 people are in that process," said April Todd-Malmlov, MNsure's executive director, during a board meeting Wednesday in St. Paul. Whether any of the 3,769 people should be considered as enrolled in coverage was the matter of some debate Wednesday.

Insurance companies point out that they haven't yet received information from MNsure about any of the 406 people who are making plans to pay premiums. The reporting lag has resulted in some consumer confusion, though health plans and state officials aren't sounding alarms.

"Two weeks after MNsure's rocky launch, not a single Minnesotan has been able to complete enrollment in health insurance through Democrats' new state agency," Rep. Tara Mack, a Republican from Apple Valley, said in a statement. "Today, I was disappointed to see MNsure officials continue to move the goal posts in an effort to hide their failures from the public."

Posted by grassman on Oct. 17 2013,4:56 pm

The bottom line with the trouble with healthcare IS the BOTTOM LINE!. Healthcare has turned into a gold mine. Wealth can dictate the purchase of the finer things in life, however it should not dictate ones health or availability to get help. Not everyone can afford a Bentley, can't afford one, don't buy one. Everyone should be able to afford healthcare.

Posted by irisheyes on Oct. 18 2013,6:10 pm

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 11 2013,11:01 am)

QUOTE

I'm not ignorant of the issue or the hoops involved that you mention. But that doesn't mean I'm willing to blame the government for all those hoops, most of the things you mentioned are set up by the corporations to further their goal, not the government or the law. And much of that paperwork on medical and legal stuff is spent on ways of the firm trying to avoid paying claims, the reason for this is obvious, it's the economic and legal responsibility of an insurance corporation to increase wealth to shareholders. I'm paraphrasing Milton Friedman here, Nobel laurete on economics. Insurance companies don't serve the needs of the insured, they serve the needs of the owners of that company to generate wealth.

Medical costs is the number one reason for bankruptcy in America, and most of those bankrupt people had health insurance. Yet Wendall Potter said the private jet his corporation sent him on had gold silverware.

Corporations with profit motive are great for software, cars, cell phones, homes, etc. But healthcare shouldn't be up to companies with the same goal as Enron and GoldmanSachs. :thumbsup:

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 19 2013,9:34 am

< Hitler Learns About the Obamacare Exchanges >

Posted by grassman on Oct. 19 2013,9:47 am

pssst. Hitler has been dead for 70 years. On another note, why do you suppose people are taking their health problems abroad instead of keeping it right here in the US? After all we are told we have the top of the line healthcare.

Posted by grassman on Oct. 19 2013,9:37 pm

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 22 2013,11:23 am

At least MnSure is following suit with the feds.

QUOTE

The state of Minnesota has already spent nearly $150 million on implementing MNsure’s system, but not one cent of that figure has gone to patient care. Rather this money has gone to developing MNsure’s website.

Sound familiar?

QUOTE

many found that some plans will cost much more than their current rates. This is particularly true in southeastern Minnesota, where some residents will pay significantly more than Minnesotans in the metro area...

We are now beginning to see what many of us knew all along; MNsure means higher costs and fewer options for many Minnesotans.

< State Senator Jeremy Miller >

QUOTE

< State Representative Greg Davids said the results are startling and embarrassing. >

“Zero people have completed enrollment because the system wasn’t ready for prime time,” Davids said. “Worse, out of five million Minnesotans, only 3,769 people have had enough interest to create a MNsure account and learn more about the program.”

the longer MNsure remains in disarray, the more people will become frustrated with the program and fail to actually acquire health insurance. If fewer people enroll in the program than anticipated, the health insurance tax for those who do participate in MNsure will be higher.
“Southeastern Minnesota already had the highest health insurance rates in the state under Mnsure, and those numbers will continue to rise if this pathetic performance continues.”

Posted by grassman on Oct. 22 2013,12:54 pm

Some is a very unspecific word. I know personally, people who came out way better than before. So, what's the deal?

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 22 2013,4:58 pm

(grassman @ Oct. 22 2013,12:54 pm)

QUOTE

Some is a very unspecific word. I know personally, people who came out way better than before. So, what's the deal?

If the article says that State lawmakers recently learned about the performance of MNsure - Minnesota’s version of Obamacare - and State Representative Greg Davids said the results are startling and embarrassing.

And “Zero people have completed enrollment." just how do you know some people who came out way better than before? :dunno:

Just saying...

Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 22 2013,5:30 pm

MNsure working says Fox

< http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story...sign-up >

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 22 2013,5:47 pm

(MADDOG @ Oct. 22 2013,4:58 pm)

QUOTE

(grassman @ Oct. 22 2013,12:54 pm)

QUOTE

Some is a very unspecific word. I know personally, people who came out way better than before. So, what's the deal?

Just saying...

Read the first thing you posted. How does that republitard know that some peoples policy cost more than their current plan if according to the 2nd republitard nobody has gotten insurance.

Posted by Botto 82 on Oct. 22 2013,10:24 pm

Spin That Turd

Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 23 2013,5:00 am

^Consider it spun.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Oct. 23 2013,6:36 am

Here is some good news.
Judge Refuses to Dismiss Case Challenging Obamacare Subsidies

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, in an oral ruling from the bench, rejected several Justice Department arguments on why the legal challenge should be tossed out of court.

The challengers, four individuals and three employers, argue that the insurance subsidies are barred by the actual language in President Barack Obama’s signature health-care law, the Affordable Care Act.

Under the act, individuals can qualify for subsidies, in the form of tax credits, if they buy health insurance through an exchange “established by the state.” A majority of states, however, chose not to set up their own marketplaces, leaving the federal government to run some or all of the exchanges in 36 states.

The challengers contend that the health law precludes subsidies for consumers who buy insurance through those federally run exchanges instead of state exchanges. They say the Internal Revenue Service contravened the text of the law when it promulgated a regulation last year making clear that the subsidies were available to individuals who bought insurance on either type of exchange.

A tad bit more on this:
The Obama administration, according to their lawsuit, has ignored that language in the law, enforcing all of its provisions even in states where the federal government is operating the insurance marketplaces on the error-plagued Healthcare.gov website.

Thirty-six states chose not to set up their exchanges, a move that effectively froze Washington, D.C. out of the authority to pay subsidies and other pot-sweeteners to convince citizens in those states to buy medical insurance.

But the IRS overstepped its authority by paying subsidies in those states anyway, say the businesses and their lawyers.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Oct. 23 2013,7:26 am

The other thing to consider; when Chief Justice Roberts ruled on oscamocare, it was ruled as a tax. When in 2014 when this thing goes into effect, Roberts stated in his opinion on page 2, that the individual mandate would be ruled unconstitutional as it would be considered a punitive tax. He basically chocked the door wide open to challenges on this thing, since a tax cannot be challenged until it is implemented.

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 23 2013,9:53 am

(Liberal @ Oct. 22 2013,5:47 pm)

QUOTE

(MADDOG @ Oct. 22 2013,4:58 pm)

QUOTE

(grassman @ Oct. 22 2013,12:54 pm)

QUOTE

Some is a very unspecific word. I know personally, people who came out way better than before. So, what's the deal?

Just saying...

Read the first thing you posted. How does that republitard know that some peoples policy cost more than their current plan if according to the 2nd republitard nobody has gotten insurance.

Sounds like grassman must be sitting in the same boat as those two guys then?

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 23 2013,1:09 pm

Here's < Proof That Obamacare Is Hurting the Economy > directly from Bambino's Federal Reserve.

QUOTE

October 22, 2013

Today’s jobs report shows the labor market recovery remains weak—and businesses are telling the Federal Reserve one of the main reasons is Obamacare.

Last week’s Federal Reserve < Beige Book > includes direct references to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) causing employers not to hire workers. The Beige Book “summarizes comments [the Fed] received from business and other contacts” in each of the 12 Federal Reserve Districts. The October 16 Beige Book mentions the Affordable Care Act and its regulations 10 times—and each time, the districts report it has hurt employers, increased costs, and/or depressed hiring. Look at what businesses are reporting about the Affordable Care Act:

Summary. “Several Districts reported that contacts were cautious to expand payrolls, citing uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and fiscal policy more generally.”

Atlanta Fed. “Employers continued to report hiring hesitancy related to changes in healthcare regulation and fiscal policy uncertainty.”

Philadelphia Fed. “In regard to hiring and capital expenditure plans, firms continued to expand cautiously, as they face ongoing uncertainty from the federal government shutdown and implementation of the Affordable Care Act.”

Richmond Fed. “Many contacts also commented on reluctance to expand due to uncertainty surrounding the Affordable Care Act; some employers cut hours or employees.”

Philadelphia Fed. “Overall, most bankers remained optimistic, although they expressed uncertainty on behalf of their business customers and for themselves over the implications of both the Affordable Care Act and a prolonged government shutdown.”

Cleveland Fed. “Most of our contacts are cautiously optimistic and expect little change in demand, although many were uneasy about fiscal issues and implications of the Affordable Care Act on their businesses.”

Cleveland Fed. “There is anxiety about rising health insurance premiums [among manufacturers], which was attributed to the Affordable Care Act.”

Cleveland Fed. “Many of our contacts are concerned about the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and the effect it will have on their total labor cost.”

Chicago Fed. “Wage pressures remained mild, while non-wage labor costs increased. A number of contacts voiced concern about the uncertainty surrounding future employer and employee healthcare costs. In addition, several reported changing their health insurance enrollment periods this year in order to match the deadlines of the Affordable Care Act.”

Dallas Fed. “One contact saw a few signed contracts designed to circumvent the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by utilizing a temporary employee full time, then hiring that person on a permanent but part-time basis when the ACA goes into effect.”

Many analysts have speculated about how Obamacare will affect the economy. The answer is very specific and real: It is costing people jobs.

Of course it is the law of the land. No matter what Bambino does to this country, it's good for Barney and Friends.

Posted by grassman on Oct. 23 2013,1:22 pm

People in MN are getting in. Minnesota was ahead of the game because we already had Minnesota Care implemented. Sorry M.D. but my wife actually works for the state of Minnesota in this program. She is a supervisor, I asked her about you're report of progress. She said it does not apply. Take your spin and do something about it. :laugh:

Remember, if you want the truth, confront the source.

Posted by Santorini on Oct. 23 2013,11:00 pm

(grassman @ Oct. 23 2013,1:22 pm)

QUOTE

People in MN are getting in. Minnesota was ahead of the game because we already had Minnesota Care implemented.

Your right. Many of my clients use MN Care. The most frustrating part is the limited time frame if one has questions. Also the phone prompts are crazy! It has taken a long time to get through to a person. Also they get a barrage of mail from mn care...tons of paperwork... very redundant...big waste. We just shred the stuff for the clients. But there are separate numbers for mn care & the actual underwriter blue cross. It gets frustrating cause most of these people are disabled & need assist when contacting mn care.

Posted by Santorini on Oct. 23 2013,11:05 pm

Also no dentist in AL accepts it. I had one younger client that had to go to Rochester. We could not make appointment...we had to have her there by 7am & she had to wait to see if anyone had time to see her. A second client just Tues. had to go to cities for her dental appointment. Its really gotten crazy.

Posted by grassman on Oct. 23 2013,11:07 pm

(Santorini @ Oct. 23 2013,11:00 pm)

QUOTE

(grassman @ Oct. 23 2013,1:22 pm)

QUOTE

People in MN are getting in. Minnesota was ahead of the game because we already had Minnesota Care implemented.

...and I think right there tells you how many are using this system. My wife did not start as a sup. She knows the traffic. There are a whole lot of needy people out there and is about time we recognize it.

Posted by grassman on Oct. 23 2013,11:13 pm

(Santorini @ Oct. 23 2013,11:05 pm)

QUOTE

I would say that sheds some light on dentist, would it not?

Posted by grassman on Oct. 23 2013,11:22 pm

Oil is at $96.96 a barrel, how much is that gas? Nobody out to make a buck, right!?

Posted by Santorini on Oct. 24 2013,4:52 pm

(grassman @ Oct. 23 2013,11:13 pm)

QUOTE

(Santorini @ Oct. 23 2013,11:05 pm)

QUOTE

I would say that sheds some light on dentist, would it not?

Actually the pay scale. Not worth it for dentists.

Posted by Santorini on Oct. 24 2013,5:00 pm

(grassman @ Oct. 23 2013,11:07 pm)

QUOTE

(Santorini @ Oct. 23 2013,11:00 pm)

QUOTE

(grassman @ Oct. 23 2013,1:22 pm)

QUOTE

People in MN are getting in. Minnesota was ahead of the game because we already had Minnesota Care implemented.

Again you're right...there are a whole lot if needy people & as you said MN was ahead of the game cause of our state programs...
Why then did we need a national program? Why didn't the feds just mandate states offer affordable healthcare to its citizens designed to meet the needs of its own citizens? Instead of an across the board cookie cutter nationalized healthcare?

Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 24 2013,7:03 pm

(grassman @ Oct. 23 2013,11:22 pm)

QUOTE

Oil is at $96.96 a barrel, how much is that gas? Nobody out to make a buck, right!?

Oil is staying high because we're diluting our currency every month at a rate of 80+billion :frusty:

Posted by grassman on Oct. 25 2013,6:00 am

Actually, oil is on the downslide. It has dropped about 20 bucks.

Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 25 2013,7:55 am

^yes indeed, it rises and falls.

We'll see what kind of heating season we'll have this year.

Posted by Botto 82 on Oct. 25 2013,8:26 am

Gas prices won't be coming down much. China's growing demand for oil will see to that, unlike the old days.

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 25 2013,8:32 am

(Self-Banished @ Oct. 25 2013,7:55 am)

QUOTE

^yes indeed, it rises and falls.

We'll see what kind of heating season we'll have this year.

QUOTE

Propane supplies tighten, prompt emergency order
by Jon Collins, < Minnesota Public Radio >
October 24, 2013

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Minnesota's later and wetter corn crop has put more pressure on propane supplies used to fuel dryers. That shortage led Gov. Mark Dayton to issue an emergency order Wednesday that lifts some restrictions on drivers transporting propane.

The USDA reported this week that corn harvested in Minnesota is at 21 percent moisture. Last year it was at 13 percent. The higher-moisture corn requires more drying by farmers, much of which is fueled by propane that's in shorter supply right now.

Minnesota Department of Agriculture Commissioner Dave Frederickson said one factor in the shortage is that a pipeline that formerly carried propane to Minnesota is now switching to carrying light condensates associated with oil shale.

QUOTE

Branstad suspends some propane rules in Iowa
Posted: Oct 24, 2013 6:21 PM CDT Updated: Oct 24, 2013 6:21 PM CDT

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Gov. Terry < Branstad is suspending the specific hours that drivers can transport propane > in Iowa.

Branstad announced the emergency declaration Thursday. It goes into effect Friday and ends Nov. 7.

The declaration says Iowa residents have extremely low supplies of propane because of a late harvest and high demand for petroleum products throughout the Midwest.

QUOTE

< Propane shortage in South Dakota >

This season's crops are ending up with more moisture because below normal temperatures combined with our recent rain and snow have not allowed them to dry out.

Farmers are turning to propane to run machines to help dry their corn, but might have a tough time finding it right now.

Farmers are using propane faster than they can get it. And delivery companies have had their hands tied

Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 25 2013,11:48 am

^ Dayton never fails to amaze me, truck drivers are allowed to work 70hr weeks. So let's lift the limit to let drivers work longer to haul an explosive product. :thumbsup:

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 25 2013,2:02 pm

I wonder how long this fiasco is going to go on before the WH press secretary and his feckless boss start trying to pass the blame on someone else and call it 'Bushocare'? :sarcasm:

Posted by grassman on Oct. 25 2013,3:35 pm

(Self-Banished @ Oct. 25 2013,11:48 am)

QUOTE

^ Dayton never fails to amaze me, truck drivers are allowed to work 70hr weeks. So let's lift the limit to let drivers work longer to haul an explosive product. :thumbsup:

What do you want him to do, go buy a truck and deliver it himself? I would say he is meeting the problem with an answer. I am not real fond of him but...

Posted by Whiskero on Oct. 25 2013,3:57 pm

Can anyone tell me why gas prices change almost daily but diesel stays the same a long time?

Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 25 2013,5:47 pm

(grassman @ Oct. 25 2013,3:35 pm)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Oct. 25 2013,11:48 am)

QUOTE

^ Dayton never fails to amaze me, truck drivers are allowed to work 70hr weeks. So let's lift the limit to let drivers work longer to haul an explosive product. :thumbsup:

What do you want him to do, go buy a truck and deliver it himself? I would say he is meeting the problem with an answer. I am not real fond of him but...

Oh I remember the days of doing anything to stay awake just to move freight. I finally realized that no load of freight is worth mine or anybody else's life.
14 hrs in a day is long enough

Sorry 'Dog, back to the subject.
Figure that Bush is alive so it's gotta be his fault :sarcasm:

Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 25 2013,5:51 pm

(Whiskero @ Oct. 25 2013,3:57 pm)

QUOTE

Can anyone tell me why gas prices change almost daily but diesel stays the same a long time?

Diesel changes quite often to, gasoline is more market sensitive though.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 26 2013,8:59 am

You know when you donate money to certain charities you get a picture of the person you're helping and a thank you? Maybe we could do that with our government welfare charities. From people receiving food stamps, free health care, obama phones, section 8 housing, disability, etc...

The 50% of the population who are paying the welfare tab for the other 50% would get a beautiful picture of the person(s) and a nice thank you from the individual(s) they are helping. Just think how much better some of the tax payers would feel. It would put a whole new perspective on charitable giving through the government. It's a very effective tool that a lot of private charities use.

Posted by Whiskero on Oct. 26 2013,9:37 am

Just in the last couple of weeks gas had dropped over 20 cents and diesel never moved. We own a diesel car now and that is why we have been watching it.

Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 26 2013,10:01 am

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 26 2013,8:59 am)

QUOTE

You’ve conveniently forgot to mention small business/ big business welfare, or your tax exempt entities.
I’m sick & tired of carrying you tax dodgers particularly small business, the whole thing is no more than a tax dodge.

On Obamacare, one of right-wing NRA nuts who’s working here told me of the plight of his long-term lady friend
who by no fault of her own contracted MS, she was no longer able to get private insurance and was only able to get insurance
through to State plan which ran the woman $1,300 a month, on the Obamacare she’s paying $ 200. a month.
By the way this lady was a Republican, or should I say used to be,

Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 26 2013,11:14 am

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 26 2013,8:59 am)

QUOTE

You mean like this?

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 26 2013,11:26 am

(Expatriate @ Oct. 26 2013,10:01 am)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 26 2013,8:59 am)

QUOTE

If a business receives it's own money back in the form of deductions and right-offs, is it still welfare? Only a liberal would think so. :dunce:

And for every sob story you trot out, I can match it x's 2 with how people are harmed by it.

nuff said...

Posted by alcitizens on Oct. 26 2013,11:49 am

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 26 2013,11:26 am)

QUOTE

If a business receives it's own money back in the form of deductions and right-offs, is it still welfare? Only a liberal would think so. :dunce:

And for every sob story you trot out, I can match it x's 2 with how people are harmed by it.

nuff said...

Corporate welfare has always been a fact..

Please share with us the stories of harm people will endure with ObamaCare.. :rofl:

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 26 2013,12:18 pm

Welfare is public aid. If a business is allowed to keep more of their OWN revenue via deductions and right-offs...that's NOT public aid.

It is only considered welfare when the Obama administration decides to send tax payer money to corporations.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 26 2013,12:19 pm

You need stories about how Obamacare is negatively affecting people? Use your search engine. Or do you need me to do that for you too?

Posted by grassman on Oct. 26 2013,11:28 pm

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 26 2013,12:18 pm)

QUOTE

What the heck does any of this have to do with Afordable Healthcare!? Take your little spinnets and spin them at home, where I am sure they are truely enjoyed.

Look out! The sky is dropping! OR SHOULD i SAY THE ONES THAT CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS, WILL! Look in the mirrror!

Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 27 2013,9:18 am

Wow

< http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P7B1Wb1tc2M >

Posted by grassman on Oct. 27 2013,10:16 am

I love dumb blonde jokes! :blush:

Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 27 2013,12:06 pm

(grassman @ Oct. 27 2013,10:16 am)

QUOTE

I love dumb blonde jokes! :blush:

I wonder if she's a natural blonde?

Posted by irisheyes on Oct. 28 2013,11:54 am

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 26 2013,8:59 am)

QUOTE

Most of the neo-cons will also be on county assistance when they're in the nursing home. Do you think they should write us thank you cards when we're paying for their elder care?

Seriously think about it, elder care cost far more than the food stamps and Obamaphones you guys rant about. But it's not as fun to rant about our grandparents, uncles and aunts being on welfare through hospice or nursing homes, it's easier to post youtube videos of black people in poverty.

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 28 2013,12:38 pm

Forgive me IE but I haven't read into Obamacare on elderly care. How the ACA will better serve our elderly.

I just had a couple in my office a few minutes ago who had a mother in the home. In about 2 1/2 years, it had drained her saving and she had to go onto < Title 19 >. Basically the same level of care at half the price because of SSI/MA. After getting past the hub-bub of socialized Social Security, how will Barry's health plan differ for the seniors in homes other than lessen the amount of staf to care for them and lower the choices in doctors?

Posted by irisheyes on Oct. 29 2013,9:03 pm

^For starters as soon as the ink was dry on the new law years were added to the Medicare trust fund, the only debate is whether it was six years, eight years, or twelve years that was added.

Other changes that old/elderly would surely see as beneficial:

1. Ending pre-existing conditions.
2. Ending lifetime limits on healthcare plans.
3. Deficit hawks should be happy; the CBO has shown it reduces projected deficits.
4. Making health insurance spend a minimum percentage on actual healthcare.
5. For those using Medicare as their main health coverage, preventative care and "wellness checkups" were started.

Just a quick reply of the main points that were better than the status quo. If I haven't stated this enough previously, the ACA bothers many liberals as much as conservatives, but the status quo or more decades of just talking about reform was NOT a reasonable alternative.

You'll never reduce healthcare costs in the United States when it's treated the same as how Coca-Cola markets water or how Enron brought its customers energy.

Of course, I can get too wordy, so I'll have Andy Griffith explain with more brevity. :;):

Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 30 2013,4:26 am

Or these guys too

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

Good cracker!

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 30 2013,6:55 am

(irisheyes @ Oct. 29 2013,9:03 pm)

QUOTE

I'll have Andy Griffith explain with more brevity. :;):

Aside from the case that Andy was a ~~demagogue~~ democrat, a paid actor doing a commercial appealling to the little old ladies who never missed an episode of Matlock. Obama used him as an ace in the hole to the Medicare jetset. I remember my folks' neighbor talking over again on how Andy Taylor was on top of the healthcare issue.

Here's an update on < Andy's thoughts > on the ACA now.

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 30 2013,9:42 am

Watch Sebelius live on C-Span now.

< http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/ >

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 30 2013,10:42 am

Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 30 2013,10:46 am

^ I've been listening, she's not doing so hot.

Posted by Santorini on Oct. 30 2013,12:38 pm

(irisheyes @ Oct. 29 2013,9:03 pm)

QUOTE

You failed to mention the IPAB (independent payment advisory board). The panel formed to decide what medications & procedures would be considered necessary. What's worrysome is the 15 member appointed panel is not made up of practicing doctors. Add to that the over 700 billion in cuts to Medicare makes one wonder what kind of trickle down affect this will have on doctor's practices. Will they have to fight for every drug prescribed? Will they be able to offer the best possible care to their patients? Sure the ACA is suppose to protect people with pre-existing conditions from denial...doesn't at all address what treatments would be allowed for those pre-existing conditions does it. Its not working out as as well as it was sold...problems with the website is only the tip of the iceberg.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 31 2013,10:35 am

(irisheyes @ Oct. 28 2013,11:54 am)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 26 2013,8:59 am)

QUOTE

Most of the neo-cons will also be on county assistance when they're in the nursing home. Do you think they should write us thank you cards when we're paying for their elder care?

Your caricature of conservatives is wrong once again and smells a bit John Stewartesque.

Maybe < this guy > can help.

This is actually a refreshing video. Two sides discussing their differences like adults should.

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 05 2013,3:27 pm

It's looking like as many as 15million are going to lose their health insurance this year. Wow, 15million

When Clinton lost the house and senate there were only 6million pissed off NRA members.

15 million is one hell of a voting block.

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 05 2013,9:08 pm

CNN just called the Virginia governors race. The teabagging anti-obamacare republican lost. :dunno:

Posted by Santorini on Nov. 05 2013,10:26 pm

(Liberal @ Nov. 05 2013,9:08 pm)

QUOTE

CNN just called the Virginia governors race. The teabagging anti-obamacare republican lost. :dunno:

"Democratic insider narrowly defeated..."
"...squeaked to a win with a strong showing from wealthy, liberal-leaning Washington suburbs"
"70% of the money raised (by the dem) came from outside the state...that is by far the highest % for any gubernatorial race in history"
Conservative Republican state senator obenshein was leading Democratic state senator herring in the race for attny. general.
Chris Christie wins NJ again!!!

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 06 2013,2:29 am

Wow, less than 3%, what a crushing victory :sarcasm:

This country becomes more and more polarized.

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 06 2013,6:15 am

(Santorini @ Nov. 05 2013,10:26 pm)

QUOTE

[quote]
Chris Christie wins NJ again!!!

God help us

Posted by Santorini on Nov. 06 2013,7:36 am

(Self-Banished @ Nov. 06 2013,6:15 am)

QUOTE

[quote=Santorini,Nov. 05 2013,10:26 pm]

QUOTE

Chris Christie wins NJ again!!!

God help us

Aw...come on...
A Republican governor reelected, by a landslide, in a democratic, liberal state...it's a good thing :thumbsup:

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 06 2013,8:32 am

QUOTE

70% of the money raised (by the dem) came from outside the state...that is by far the highest % for any gubernatorial race in history"

How big of a liar do you have to be to edit a quote to make it appear to support your position? I guess I shouldn't be surprised considering the poster.

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 06 2013,9:26 am

^bigger than Obama?

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 06 2013,1:21 pm

I read 72%.

QUOTE

Seventy-two percent of McAuliffe's campaign funds through Sept. 30 came from outside Virginia, according to an analysis by the Virginia Public Access Project, a non-partisan group that tracks political money.

Groups backing McAuliffe's candidacy are among the biggest outside spenders in the race. They include NextGen Climate Action, a political action committee founded by California billionaire Tom Steyer, that has spent more than $2.4 million to run independent commercials slamming Cuccinelli in the state's largest television markets.

Steyer, a prominent Democratic fundraiser and environmental activist, also has employed guerrilla tactics in the race

Other groups spending heavily include the Independence USA PAC, funded by New York City's billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg

< USA >

Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 07 2013,4:08 am

Your argument is invalid...

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 07 2013,4:37 am

Yes, but there are different piles of money, different shinannigans, we all lose in the end. Pro wrestling has a more honest plot.

Posted by Santorini on Nov. 07 2013,9:17 am

(Liberal @ Nov. 06 2013,8:32 am)

QUOTE

70% of the money raised (by the dem) came from outside the state...that is by far the highest % for any gubernatorial race in history"

How big of a liar do you have to be to edit a quote to make it appear to support your position? I guess I shouldn't be surprised considering the poster.

OK lib...I'll play...
Exactly what was edited

Posted by Santorini on Nov. 07 2013,9:33 am

Liberal,
Google: Update 6 - Democrat McCauliffe narrowly wins Virginia's governor's race

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 07 2013,10:11 am

From the same Reuters article.

QUOTE

A CNN exit poll showed that 53 percent of Virginia voters opposed Obamacare, including four in five of those casting ballots for Cuccinelli.

QUOTE

McAuliffe outspent Cuccinelli 10-to-1 on television advertising in the final weeks of the campaign, the Access Project said. Underscoring the national interest in the race, about 70 percent of the money raised came from outside the state. That is by far the highest percentage ever for any U.S. gubernatorial race,

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 07 2013,10:33 am

Why don't you supply a link to the original quote?

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 07 2013,10:41 am

Here's mine.

< UPDATE 6-Democrat McAuliffe narrowly wins Virginia governor's race >

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 07 2013,10:50 am

Your quote runs two paragraphs together to make it appear that they are talking about the dem when they are talking about the election in general. Considering where you went to school I'll assume you just don't understand the reason for paragraphs.

QUOTE

About 70 percent of the candidates' funds has come from out of state. That is a record for outside money in a governor's race, according to the nonpartisan National Institute on Money In State Politics, in Helena, Montana.unny, maddog seems to have found the quote but he had to run two paragraphs together to try to make it sound like only the democrat got outside money.

< http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9A40FC20131105?irpc=932 >

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 07 2013,10:57 am

Heres the part of the article that talks about the money.

QUOTE

THE MONEY

- McAuliffe has raised $34 million to Cuccinelli's $20 million, and Sarvis has generated $176,000, according to the nonpartisan Virginia Public Access Project, which tracks political money in the state.

- The biggest contribution to McAuliffe is $6.2 million from the Democratic Governors Association. Cuccinelli's top contributor is the Republican Governors Association, which has given $7.9 million.

- About 70 percent of the candidates' funds has come from out of state. That is a record for outside money in a governor's race, according to the nonpartisan National Institute on Money In State Politics, in Helena, Montana.

< http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9A40FC20131105?irpc=932 >

Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 07 2013,11:50 am

You mean Beck and Limbaugh weren’t being exactly truthful

who would have thunk it possible :rofl:

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 07 2013,4:56 pm

(Expatriate @ Nov. 07 2013,11:50 am)

QUOTE

You mean Beck and Limbaugh weren’t being exactly truthful

who would have thunk it possible :rofl:

Are you referring to the Obama bundler that was reported working for libertarian candidate?

There were at least another dozen or so outlets that picked up on that.

Try not to "thunk" you'd probably have a stroke. :dunce:

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 07 2013,5:19 pm

Liar in Chief

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 07 2013,6:07 pm

QUOTE

According to Virginia election filings posted by the Virginia Public Access Project, Liemandt contributed $150,000 of the Texas-based Libertarian Booster PAC’s $229,000 revenue. The Libertarian Booster PAC reported providing $11,454 to pay for signature collection, yard signs and campaign materials for Sarvis and another $4,690 for four Libertarian candidates running for the Virginia state legislature.

So this bundler cost the republicans the race because he gave $10k or so to a 3rd party candidate in an election where over $50 million was spent? :rofl:

Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 07 2013,6:11 pm

Scab Boy & the stooges want to change the subject :rofl:

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 07 2013,6:37 pm

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 07 2013,7:16 pm

(Expatriate @ Nov. 07 2013,6:11 pm)

QUOTE

Scab Boy & the stooges want to change the subject :rofl:

Did somebody say money?$$$

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 08 2013,6:45 am

Obama said something???

< http://m.youtube.com/watch?v...2jgoQqE >

Posted by Santorini on Nov. 08 2013,9:31 am

Common Citizen, self banished those videos are hilarious!
Thanks for the links!!

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 08 2013,11:29 am

No defense of the edited quote? Typical right wing nut job.

Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 08 2013,11:58 am

QUOTE

The Democrat’s Version of Health Insurance Would Have Been Cheaper, Simpler, and More Popular (So Why Did We Enact the Republican Version and Why Are They So Upset?

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says Republicans will seek to delay a requirement of the 2010 Affordable Care Act that all Americans obtain health insurance or face a tax penalty. ”With so many unanswered questions and the problems arising around this rollout, it doesn’t make any sense to impose this one percent mandate tax on the American people.”

While Republicans plot new ways to sabotage the Affordable Care Act, it’s easy to forget that for years they’ve been arguing that any comprehensive health insurance system be designed exactly like the one that officially began October 1st, glitches and all.

For as many years Democrats tried to graft healthcare onto Social Security and Medicare, and pay for it through the payroll tax. But Republicans countered that any system must be based on private insurance and paid for with a combination of subsidies for low-income purchasers and a requirement that the younger and healthier sign up.

Not surprisingly, private health insurers cheered on the Republicans while doing whatever they could to block Democrats from creating a public insurance system.

In February 1974, Republican President Richard Nixon proposed, in essence, today’s Affordable Care Act. Under Nixon’s plan all but the smallest employers would provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty, an expanded Medicaid-type program would insure the poor, and subsidies would be provided to low-income individuals and small employers. Sound familiar?

Private insurers were delighted with the Nixon plan but Democrats preferred a system based on Social Security and Medicare, and the two sides failed to agree.

Thirty years later a Republican governor, Mitt Romney, made Nixon’s plan the law in Massachusetts. Private insurers couldn’t have been happier although many Democrats in the state had hoped for a public system.

When today’s Republicans rage against the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, it’s useful to recall this was their idea as well.

In 1989, Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation came up with a plan that would “mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.”

Insurance companies loved Butler’s plan so much it found its way into several bills introduced by Republican lawmakers in 1993. Among the supporters were senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa (who now oppose the mandate under the Affordable Care Act). Newt Gingrich, who became Speaker of the House in 1995, was also a big proponent.

Romney’s heathcare plan in Massachusetts included the same mandate to purchase private insurance. “We got the idea of an individual mandate from [Newt Gingrich], and [Newt] got it from the Heritage Foundation,” said Romney, who thought the mandate “essential for bringing the health care costs down for everyone and getting everyone the health insurance they need.”

Now that the essential Republican plan for healthcare is being implemented nationally, health insurance companies are jubilant.

Last week, after the giant insurer Wellpoint raised its earnings estimates, CEO Joseph Swedish pointed to “the long-term membership growth opportunity through exchanges.” Other major health plans are equally bullish. “The emergence of public exchanges, private exchanges, Medicaid expansions … have the potential to create new opportunities for us to grow and serve in new ways,” UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen J. Hemsley effused.

So why are today’s Republicans so upset with an Act they designed and their patrons adore? Because it’s the signature achievement of the Obama administration.

There’s a deep irony to all this. Had Democrats stuck to the original Democratic vision and built comprehensive health insurance on Social Security and Medicare, it would have been cheaper, simpler, and more widely accepted by the public. And Republicans would be hollering anyway.

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 08 2013,12:31 pm

Wow, stuff as recent as twenty years ago.

Romney's plan is a state plan, not national.

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 08 2013,3:51 pm

(Liberal @ Nov. 08 2013,11:29 am)

QUOTE

No defense of the edited quote? Typical right wing nut job.

QUOTE

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period,"

I can't remember. Is this an edited quote, a lie or just stretching the truth?

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 08 2013,4:10 pm

You actually bought this crap?? :dunce:

Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 08 2013,5:59 pm

That blind devotion often demonstrated by rabid Vikings and Packers fans permeates our culture to such an extent that we hardly notice when people carry on that way with regard to partisan politics. Am I the only one seeing this?

My God. If this were playing out eight years ago, with exactly the same outcomes, and with some name akin to "BushCare," the very same ideologues that are defending this mess would be singing a very different tune.

I think we should leave the partisan hackery to the people that get paid to engage in partisan hackery, and busy ourselves with useful questions like, "What's good about this?" and, "What's bad about this?" and perhaps, "How can we help fix this?"

Take that, you cheeseheads.

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 08 2013,6:14 pm

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.

Alexander Hamilton

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 08 2013,8:48 pm

"It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government."
-Alexander Hamilton

Posted by Glad I Left on Nov. 08 2013,9:33 pm

"Stupid people are dangerous. There even more dangerous when they vote in groups"
-Me

Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 08 2013,9:46 pm

(Liberal @ Nov. 08 2013,6:14 pm)

QUOTE

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.

Alexander Hamilton

So you're essentially saying, "My partisan stance means I stand for something."

Right..?

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 08 2013,10:24 pm

So in your mind if you stand for something like health care reform then you're a partisan?

Do you recall Bush expanding medicare? If your previous post isn't complete BS then you should be able to find posts by the liberals on the forum bitching about it. Why don't you see if you can find a single post from a liberal bitching about that?

Posted by grassman on Nov. 08 2013,10:26 pm

People bitch, complain,and throw their crap around. Why not participate where it matters and throw your hat in the ring. Doesn't matter which level, just do something. :thumbsup:

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 09 2013,8:34 am

Quote,

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”

Elmer T. Peterson

Posted by grassman on Nov. 09 2013,9:37 am

That is why people need to get involved. Get in and stop the bullchit activities. We dropped the budget for next year in our town by 9%. The spend whether you have it or not needs to stop.

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 09 2013,10:58 am

(grassman @ Nov. 09 2013,9:37 am)

QUOTE

That is why people need to get involved. Get in and stop the bullchit activities. We dropped the budget for next year in our town by 9%. The spend whether you have it or not needs to stop.

Yes it does and I applaud your towns efforts but in the larger population centers I fear we have gone over that 50% mark and it's a downhill slide from here.

In the Mpls area we have the largest population of Somalis in the nation and what a bunch of welfare grabbers they are.. :angry:

Some of my friends question why I've been buying property up in your neck of the wood Grassman.

Posted by irisheyes on Nov. 13 2013,8:37 am

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 31 2013,10:35 am)

QUOTE

Your caricature of conservatives is wrong once again and smells a bit John Stewartesque.

It wasn't a caricature, it's a fact that most will be on elder care eventually, paid for by the government. When the neo-cons start suggesting thank you letters and drug tests for geriatrics on the same government assistance programs as the welfare "queens" and Somalians, I'll start taking you guys seriously. Until then, sounds like more Lee Atwater stuff.

QUOTE

This is actually a refreshing video. Two sides discussing their differences like adults should.

Good video clip. I tried to watch it again this morning, but it's since been removed from youtube.

Posted by irisheyes on Nov. 13 2013,9:10 am

(Self-Banished @ Nov. 09 2013,8:34 am)

QUOTE

Elmer T. Peterson, seriously? :dunce:

That quote has been circulating in email forwards and conservative blogs for years. Bill O'Reilly even mentioned it in one of his books.

The quote isn't by Elmer T. Peterson, he was quoting (< actually MISquoting >) the words of Alexander Tytler. An 18th-Century British professor. I say misquoting because Alexander Tytler never wrote that either. The quote conservatives often pass around hasn't been attributed to any of his works. < It's an urban legend. >

Even if the quote were true, it wouldn't be a surprise that a pro-monarchy British Lord in the 18th Century would be against other forms of government.

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 13 2013,12:50 pm

I've finally figured out why Bambino won't be attending the Sesquicentennial of the Gettysburg Address.

Didn't they call Abraham Lincoln, "Honest Abe?"

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 13 2013,2:44 pm

(irisheyes @ Nov. 13 2013,9:10 am)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Nov. 09 2013,8:34 am)

QUOTE

Elmer T. Peterson, seriously? :dunce:

I saw that it kinda floats around to different folks, sorry if I offended you Encyclopedia Brown :sarcasm:

But the words ring true, you can't deny it unless you're a complete moron. We are heading down a bad patch of road that I think there might not be a recovery. The producers are fast becoming outnumbered by the consumers.

Just today I heard that Pres.Punk-bitch is pushing for a $10 plus minimum wage.

On to another subject, did you like Clinton? Punk-bitch needs to keep his promise? Wow, I don't care for any of the Clinton's but that was shear genius, guess he and the Mrs. are still a little sore about the primary for 08. They're gonna take the "boy" to the woodshed :rofl:

A little spin and they could lay a whole sh!tload of things on him including Bengazi.

The fun has just begun if the Clinton's want. :rofl:

Keep it up Kaptain Kreepy :finger:

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 14 2013,2:04 pm

Yesterday's health care by the numbers.

106,185

That's how many people have selected a marketplace plan.

26,794

The number of peoplewho have chosen a federally run marketplace plan.

The trouble is, unlike insurance companies (who don’t count subscribers until first payment), these numbers are simply those who have successfully navigated the entire shopping process and selected a Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum plan.

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 14 2013,3:04 pm

That's 100k people we dont have to worry about getting sick and sticking the government with the bill.

Posted by Glad I Left on Nov. 14 2013,3:20 pm

(facepalm)

Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 14 2013,4:35 pm

(Liberal @ Nov. 14 2013,3:04 pm)

QUOTE

That's 100k people we dont have to worry about getting sick and sticking the government with the bill.

Unlke every member of Congress.

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 14 2013,4:51 pm

(Liberal @ Nov. 14 2013,3:04 pm)

QUOTE

That's 100k people we dont have to worry about getting sick and sticking the government with the bill.

Jeezus

Posted by irisheyes on Nov. 14 2013,10:50 pm

(Self-Banished @ Nov. 13 2013,2:44 pm)

QUOTE

Keep it up Kaptain Kreepy :finger:

You dug out that Kaptain Kreepy thing again, with a bonus finger emoticon this time. Did I pee in your cheerios?

QUOTE

Just today I heard that Pres.Punk-bitch is pushing for a $10 plus minimum wage.

A $10 min wage would be great for our economy. We've used progressive tax breaks on income and capital gains for years, then extended them over and over again, been shocked why it didn't improve the economy. Everyone admits the wealthy sat on the money and didn't spur economic growth like as intended. The only thing that would truly spur the economy is if the people that are most likely to spend it will wind up with more than lint in their pockets.

QUOTE

On to another subject, did you like Clinton? Punk-bitch needs to keep his promise?

No, the ACA was designed to change insurance plans that don't cover squat when you need them.

When you guys get a better solution than letting the insurance companies do whatever they want and let the government and the unhealthy go bankrupt, I'll start listening. Until then...

QUOTE

A little spin and they could lay a whole sh!tload of things on him including Bengazi.

Obama didn't prevent Benghazi. But it might surprise you to know that Bush didn't stop the twin towers or the Pentagon from being hit. Going from history we can safely assume if Obama was a Republican, his approval ratings would go up and we'd invade Azerbaijan for what happened on 9/11/2012.

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 15 2013,1:56 am

(irisheyes @ Nov. 14 2013,10:50 pm)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Nov. 13 2013,2:44 pm)

QUOTE

Keep it up Kaptain Kreepy :finger:

You dug out that Kaptain Kreepy thing again, with a bonus finger emoticon this time. Did I pee in your cheerios?

QUOTE

Just today I heard that Pres.Punk-bitch is pushing for a $10 plus minimum wage.

QUOTE

On to another subject, did you like Clinton? Punk-bitch needs to keep his promise?

QUOTE

A little spin and they could lay a whole sh!tload of things on him including Bengazi.

You deserve the best Kaptain :notworthy:

I was just saving that for when you got really stupid.

Minimum wage of $10, no, paying what the market will bear is what should prevail, yes.But hell, why not $15, better yet $25? Let's really be bleeding hearts and pay everyone enough money so that they could rise a family of four flippin' burgers. Where's the money supposed to come from?

ACA, wow, a little over 100k have signed up, 'won't have to worry about health care, over 5 million have had their ins. cancelled and because of an arrogant administration that won't admit the(he) f%#ked up would be able to acquire or pay for health ins. But my god it's all the fault of the ins. Co. They have been insuring people for years and years, 85% of the population and it was a persons choice, yes that word! CHOICE how or when or if they were insured. I wasn't perfect but it worked.

Bengazi? Bush didn't get Bin Laden before? If you really want to go that route then Clinton didn't get BinLadin when he had the chance. Bit no, let's not go there, it's more like a child who got caught in a statement or misdeed and saying "remember when Jonny put the hamster in the microwave" deflection,

Republican? Democrat? He's just a piece of sh!t politician.

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 15 2013,6:44 pm

I.E.

QUOTE

No, the ACA was designed to change insurance plans that don't cover squat when you need them.
When you guys get a better solution than letting the insurance companies do whatever they want and let the government and the unhealthy go bankrupt, I'll start listening. Until then...

News Flash: Insurance companies do not set health care costs. The medical facilities do.

Some insurance plans do not cover squat but some do. It's up to the individual to decide what kind of plan best fits there need. It is up to the individual to decide how much risk they are willing to take. If I'm a single male looking for coverage, why would I need maternity coverage? It's all about choice. Oops that's in the past now.

The donks are quick to say the cancelled policy didn't have good enough coverage. How do they know what each individual person needs? Why pay for something you're never going to use?

With your reasoning everyone that has any financial responsibility to another should be mandated to own a large enough life insurance policy to cover those responsibilities. Life is full of risks, you can't expect to bubble wrap everyone for everything.

It's like Obummer comparing the ACA law to the seat belt law. :dunce:

Posted by nedkelly on Nov. 16 2013,5:07 am

medicare for all just might be the answer :rockon:

By all I mean house and senate also state and federal workers too :rockon:

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 16 2013,7:11 am

Medicare for all? No, making the politicians use what the public uses :thumbsup:

Posted by grassman on Nov. 16 2013,8:44 am

Bachmann said she and her husband lost their insurance. Now she isn't going to apply until the deadline. Boy that'll show em!

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 16 2013,8:51 am

I don't think I'd take a chance putting my personnel information on a gov. Site, especially one worked up by Michelle's incompetent friends.

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 21 2013,9:38 am

QUOTE

< Bunny Ranch Sex Workers Praise Obamacare >

The prostitutes of Nevada’s Bunny Ranch love Obamacare. But if a recent interview with them are any indication, they don’t seem to have a clue what it is all about.

The prostitutes appeared on Reno’s KRNV TV full of praise for Obamacare ladled on as thick as their makeup. At least two of the girls were gushing about how great Obamacare is and how they fully support it.

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 21 2013,10:16 am

^gushing prostitudes?

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 23 2013,9:24 am

Finally, an Obamacare sucess story. Not.

posted 11/19/13

Sanford finally gave up and said she’ll just pay the penalty for not joining Obamacare. She posted on Facebook: “Wow, you guys really screwed me over.”

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 23 2013,9:59 am

Once again you have to check the kooks' sources because they have a problem with honesty.

QUOTE

Sanford, an Obama supporter who voted for the president twice, is careful to say she blames the state of Washington’s online marketplace for the mixed signals and not the White House.

She is sorry Obama mentioned her during the October 21 speech.

“I feel awful about it. I support (the Affordable Care Act),” Sanford said.

Posted by Santorini on Nov. 23 2013,12:10 pm

(Liberal @ Nov. 23 2013,9:59 am)

QUOTE

Once again you have to check the kooks' sources because they have a problem with honesty.

QUOTE

What's your source :dunno:

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 23 2013,3:45 pm

(Santorini @ Nov. 23 2013,12:10 pm)

QUOTE

(Liberal @ Nov. 23 2013,9:59 am)

QUOTE

Once again you have to check the kooks' sources because they have a problem with honesty.

QUOTE

What's your source :dunno:

His source? Dare you ask?

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 23 2013,5:27 pm

< http://fox59.com/2013...process >

Posted by Santorini on Nov. 23 2013,7:02 pm

(Liberal @ Nov. 23 2013,9:59 am)

QUOTE

Once again you have to check the kooks' sources because they have a problem with honesty.

QUOTE

Liberal your 'kook' comment is really 'kooky'!!
Makes no sense :dunno:

Where exactly is the problem with honesty you were referring to???

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 30 2013,9:47 am

I see its Samuel Clemens birthday today which reminds me of lies and lying. Samuel was quite the philosopher when it came to lies. He was an expert of such. But nowhere near the expert of Bambino.

Remember, Twain popularized the phrase, "There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 01 2013,11:29 am

(MADDOG @ Nov. 30 2013,9:47 am)

QUOTE

Maggie, we're through with lies and liars in this house. Lock the door.
Tennessee Williams

Posted by Liberal on Dec. 01 2013,2:23 pm

Maddog calls Obama a liar? :rofl:

Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 01 2013,8:17 pm

I don't think I came right out and called him a liar?

Speculation? :dunno:

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 02 2013,4:18 am

' don't think you did either,
I just made a reference to "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof"

Is Lib paranoid?

Posted by Liberal on Dec. 02 2013,10:34 am

I see Bob Marley's birthday is coming up which reminds me of weed and smokers. Marley was quite the philosopher when it came to weed. He was an expert of such, but nowhere near the expert of Maddog.

Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 02 2013,2:24 pm

Really? Bob Marley's birthday is coming up? How soon?

Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 18 2013,12:32 pm

Such negative publicity for Mnsure. And coming from the Red Star paper on top of it.

QUOTE

The board of directors at MNsure has serious work ahead to regain Minnesotans’ confidence as glitches mount and as the health insurance marketplace suddenly finds itself without a top leader.

< April Todd-Malmlov, the executive director of the website at which Minnesotans may shop and sign up for insurance under the Affordable Care Act, resigned under fire > Tuesday evening. She is being replaced on an interim basis by Scott Leitz, an assistant commissioner at the Department of Human Services.

Postponing a vote on whether to dramatically revamp the site’s insurance offerings in the future would be a good start. That was true before Todd-Malmlov’s departure. It’s even more critical now that MNsure will have to conduct a search for a permanent replacement in a hard-to-fill post requiring a rare combination of technical savvy, health care expertise and a willingness to work long hours on a start-up project caught up in toxic political crossfire.

It’s becoming clearer by the day that the rocky reality of MNsure’s launch badly lags the initial expectations of the board and staff — and more importantly, of the public — with the site so close to the Dec. 23 cutoff for coverage that begins Jan. 1.

Advocates such as this page have argued that MNsure has generally performed better than the federal government’s HealthCare.gov website has. But it’s getting increasingly difficult to say that. Problems that have plagued the site from its Oct. 1 beginning — unacceptable call center wait times, short-term site outages and applications hung up in the system — have not been resolved, even as staffing and other resources have been ramped up to address these issues.

More recently came reports that 1,000 customers need to redo their applications because they were told incorrectly that they didn’t qualify for subsidies to help pay for premiums. And data from MNsure needed to properly enroll consumers in their chosen health plans still has troubling gaps, according to insurers.

On Tuesday, an editorial writer on hold for an hour to the MNsure call center found out through the automated hold-time message that another problem has surfaced. Some consumers have received material indicating that coverage will start Feb. 1 instead of Jan. 1, likely the result of computer systems not being adjusted to reflect a recent move by the federal government to extend by about a week the deadline for coverage starting New Year’s Day.

Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 19 2013,10:43 am

< CNBC >

QUOTE

You can add Obamacare exchange boss to this year's list of "most dangerous jobs."

Four out of the 15 chiefs of Obamacare insurance marketplaces run by individual states and the District of Columbia have either quit or gone on leave since the botched Oct. 1 launches of their health exchanges.

And given badly lagging sign-up rates in Affordable Care Act insurance policies in several other states, some other bosses likely will follow those four out the exit door.

Todd-Malmlov had drawn heat for going on a two-week-long vacation to Costa Rica late last month, even after MNsure's website stumbled badly from myriad technical problems. Possibly as a result of those issues, Minnesota's enrollment levels have been mediocre, at best, with less than 5,000 people signed up for private Obamacare policies, according to most recently released data.

"I would expect to see some more turnover, because they aren't hitting their enrollment targets," said Mark Argosh, managing principal at the leading insurance brokerage Sterling Healthworks.

Todd-Malmlov's departure followed the Dec. 6 resignation of the chief of Maryland's Health Benefit Exchange, Rebecca Pearce, after it was revealed that she had taken a long vacation in the Cayman Islands in late November as her Obamacare marketplace badly floundered, leaving it with just 5,179 people enrolled in private insurance plans by the date of her exit.

Hawaii's Obamacare exchange chief Coral Andrews' resignation, which was announced in late November, became effective the same day as Pearce's departure from the Maryland exchange. As of Nov. 30, the Aloha State's troubled health exchange had enrolled just 444 people in private Obamacare plans, according to officials.

And on Dec. 1, Rocky King, the head of Oregon's Obamacare exchange, went on extended medical leave, with no guarantee that he would return, amid scathing criticisms of that marketplace. As of today, Oregon's exchange website has so many technical problems that it still hasn't been launched yet, and it's not known when it will be, leaving the state relying on paper applications and direct enrollment by insurers to fill the gap.

As of Monday, Oregon officials said 7,597 people had selected private Obamacare plans, up from just 44 at the end of November.

Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 20 2013,8:35 am

QUOTE

< A Maryland congressman >, frustrated with the state's troubled health insurance exchange, said Friday that officials should consider abandoning the state website and using the federal government's.

"Maryland should abandon its exchange and simply use the federal website and exchange that are now working to a high standard," said Delaney (D), who added that he's not pleased with the pace of the state's repairs.

In all, 16 states and Washington, D.C., decided to create their own exchanges. Maryland, because it embraced the idea of an exchange early, was seen as a national leader in the effort. It has spent more than $70 million of the $107 million planned for setting up the online exchange.

"I don't know why Maryland would make that change unless their site can't be fixed," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a health care advocacy group. "It's kind of late for it to be happening."

Delaney stressed that he is simply throwing out a possible solution.

Throwing out suggestions as to how they will pass the buck. :cheer:

This makes five out of sixteen states setting up their own system that rolled into the ditch. :rofl:

Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 20 2013,12:02 pm

Tell ya' what. If you sign up, and I'll give you an extra week. PLUS, I'll charge it to you. No questions.

By golly. If that doesn't get you to buy it, we'll have to maybe give you a free alarm clock with enrollment. :frusty:

QUOTE

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) -< Minnesota's health insurance >marketplace is extending by one week its deadline for signing up for coverage that takes effect on the first of the new year.

The new interim CEO of MNsure says Friday that a Monday deadline for signing up will be extended to Dec. 31. That means people will be able to enroll right up to the day before the insurance takes effect. In addition, MNsure leader Scott Leitz says people will have until Jan. 10 to pay for their coverage.

Leitz announced the postponed deadline in a live interview on Minnesota Public Radio News.

In the interview, Leitz says all MNsure enrollees may not have insurance cards by Jan. 1 but that the agency is working on ways they can prove their coverage to doctors and hospitals.

(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 30 2013,3:31 pm

What are they saying now? 1.1 million?

Sorry, no < old embed code >.

Posted by Liberal on Dec. 30 2013,6:14 pm

I'll bet you've got that one bookmarked.

Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 31 2013,9:03 am

I snicker when I hear politicians like Governer Dayton use the phrase "the buck stops here" and then go on to fire an underling. :rofl:

Pathetic.

Just 8 months ago Dayton was patting himself on the back about his board selection. The very board that hired the executive director who went on a 2 week vacation during the mnsure rollout.

Posted by irisheyes on Dec. 31 2013,11:06 pm

The vast majority have been asking for reform for decades, conservatives just failed at it. Two of the guys who ran for the Republican nomination loved what's in the ACA; Governor Romney used it himself, and Gingrich praised him for it and thought it was a great idea nationwide.

Now the best that FauxNews can do is complain about websites.

Plenty people at the TEA party rallies don't want socialized medicine either. They'd rather stick with Medicare and the VA hospitals; that way they can keep the government out of their health care! :sarcasm:

Posted by irisheyes on Dec. 31 2013,11:37 pm

(MADDOG @ Dec. 20 2013,8:35 am)

QUOTE

Throwing out suggestions as to how they will pass the buck. :cheer:

No, his suggestion was that they should use the federal website because "it's working to a high standard." The states that have done poorly are wishing they would've left it up to the feds.

QUOTE

This makes five out of sixteen states setting up their own system that rolled into the ditch.

They're doing better than many private insurance websites that have been out there for years.

I don't know many private insurance websites that are doing that well, and I've used quite a few. Two companies come to mind that I dealt with recently. One insurance website never functioned past login, so I use snail mail for everything with them. The other just a few weeks ago I had to call because that private insurer wouldn't let you get past the home screen.

But the ACA federal and state websites have had a few months. The difference is those private insurance websites I know of still can't get it right much of the time, and they've been around since the internet started. :laugh:

Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 12 2014,2:22 pm

So, another illegal unilateral delay? :dunno:

What seems to be the logical holdup this time? November elections or is it that Bambino wants to be out of the White House completely before it's fully implemented?

Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 12 2014,2:35 pm

^^^leggo of my ego.

Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 22 2014,9:11 am

There are a few dems from Minnesota who have finally decided that Obamacare is something to laugh about.

The only thing missing was Frankenjoke.

Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 22 2014,2:12 pm

Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 22 2014,7:54 pm

(irisheyes @ Dec. 31 2013,11:06 pm)

QUOTE

Some would argue that they've paid into Medicare during their working years and are now cashing in. Others would argue that promising to give their life on behalf of their country and its citizens in exchange for veterans benefits is a fair trade for their sacrifice.

The vast majority have been asking for health care reform because of the high cost of health care. Yet the donks and people such as yourself believe fixing insurance is the answer. You couldn't be farther from the truth.

Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 25 2014,9:36 pm

QUOTE

IRS Warns: Obamacare Tax Must Be Paid with Tax Return
Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:20 PM | John Kartch

Agency employs Orwellian term “Shared Responsibility Payment” to describe Obamacare individual mandate tax.

President Obama’s Internal Revenue Service today quietly released a series of Obamacare “Health Care Tax Tips” warning Americans that they must obtain “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by the federal government – or face a “shared responsibility payment” when filing their tax returns in 2015. The term “shared responsibility payment” refers to the Obamacare individual mandate tax, one of at least seven tax hikes in the healthcare law that directly hit families making less than $250,000 per year.

In “Four Tax Facts about the Health Care Law for Individuals” the agency writes:

Your 2014 tax return will ask if you had insurance coverage or qualified for an exemption. If not, you may owe a shared responsibility payment when you file in 2015.

In “The Individual Shared Responsibility Payment- An Overview” the agency warns Americans they must prove they were covered each and every month of the year:

For any month in 2014 that you or any of your dependents don’t maintain coverage and don’t qualify for an exemption, you will need to make an individual shared responsibility payment with your 2014 tax return filed in 2015.

In “IRS Reminds Individuals of Health Care Choices for 2014”the agency details the calculations Americans can look forward to if they are liable for the tax:

If you (or any of your dependents) do not maintain coverage and do not qualify for an exemption, you will need to make an individual shared responsibility payment with your return. In general, the payment amount is either a percentage of your household income or a flat dollar amount, whichever is greater. You will owe 1/12th of the annual payment for each month you (or your dependents) do not have coverage and are not exempt. The annual payment amount for 2014 is the greater of:

1 percent of your household income that is above the tax return filing threshold for your filing status, such as Married Filing Jointly or single, or
Your family’s flat dollar amount, which is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child, limited to a maximum of $285.
As confirmed by previous IRS testimony to the tax-writing House Committee on Ways and Means, “taxpayers will file their tax returns reporting their health insurance coverage, and/or making a payment”.

Once fully phased in, the Obamacare individual mandate tax will rise steeply, to a maximum of 2.5 percent of Adjusted Gross Income or $2,085 – whichever is higher

Source: Americans for Tax Reform

Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 14 2014,8:36 am

This was not the message he gave the people when he first tried to sell it.

In fact, if an insurance company used these kinds of sales tactics the company would be barred from doing business and its agents would be fined and kicked out of the industry if they didn't go to prison. It's called bait and switch.

He still doesn't get it and neither does his sheeple. :dunce:

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 14 2014,8:52 am

^^^ so it works like this?

< http://youtu.be/WCSZfmbFJyQ >

Posted by grassman on Mar. 14 2014,9:21 am

One thing you will not acknowledge CC, is that the insurance industry got their fingers in there and took over. They are the one that require everybody carry insurance. Now some doctors will not play ball.

This could be the eye opener.
It's like bargaining at the table. You ask for something more than what you expect. Both sides start putting all their cards on the table.
Now everyone knows that the insurance companies are using us for chips. Now everyone knows that the providers are using us for chips. Now it is time to see where the chips fall.

Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 14 2014,10:29 am

(grassman @ Mar. 14 2014,9:21 am)

QUOTE

Now everyone knows that the insurance companies are using us for chips. Now everyone knows that the providers are using us for chips. Now it is time to see where the chips fall.

We are the chips and Dr. Bambino is playing poker with them.

Posted by grassman on Mar. 14 2014,10:33 am

(MADDOG @ Mar. 14 2014,10:29 am)

QUOTE

(grassman @ Mar. 14 2014,9:21 am)

QUOTE

Now everyone knows that the insurance companies are using us for chips. Now everyone knows that the providers are using us for chips. Now it is time to see where the chips fall.

We are the chips and Dr. Bambino is playing poker with them.

Maybe if you would turn around and look, you would understand what is happening.

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 14 2014,10:52 am

That both the gov. and the insurence companys are milking us for money?

Are you paying attension? Are you getting a clue?

Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 14 2014,11:41 am

(grassman @ Mar. 14 2014,9:21 am)

QUOTE

They had two choices. Play ball or risk losing everything. (that's the end game anyway, imo)

In order to play ball they had to require a mandate to force healthy individuals into the plan and pay premiums so as to offset the costs of claims filed by those with preexisting conditions and other unhealthy individuals. Without mandating the healthy individuals the loss ratios would be upside down. The viability of these companies depended on that mandate.

Can you imagine what would happen to an auto insurance company if all they insured where people who had a history of multiple accidents and DUI's? They would go out of business without having good drivers in the same pool bringing in premium to offset the losses from the bad drivers.

This doesn't mean I agree with it but without it they wouldn't be able to survive. Imo, this is what the Obama administration ultimately wants...to bring us one step closer to nationalized health care.

Posted by grassman on Mar. 14 2014,11:49 am

...because now it is on the table for all to see what a cash cow health care has become. Look at who has the biggest buildings, they are right up there with the big banks. Who do you suppose it was that lobbied for car insurance requirement?

Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 14 2014,11:55 am

Attorney's and accident victims of uninsured and underinsured drivers.

Profits are not evil. The alternative is you can self insure and absorb 100% of the risk or you can pool your money with others, call it insurance, and spread your risk.

If you can't stand big insurance try a local mutual company. Premiums are nearly the same but the size of their buildings may make you feel better.

Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 14 2014,12:05 pm

I would also add that auto insurance companies also supported it to deal with subrogation issues.

From wiki: For example, if a car owner has collision insurance [3] on their car and the car is damaged by a negligent third party, if the car owner elects to claim under his insurance policy, then any claims which the car owner had against the negligent party will pass to the insurance company in jurisdictions which recognise the doctrine.

The insurance company of the car owner would go to the insurance company of the negligent third party to recoup the loss they paid to their insured. It would be difficult to recoup the loss if the negligent third party did not have insurance. Most people do not have the assets to cover a catastophic loss but insurance companies do.

I think that was the idea behind minimum insurance requirements for autos.

Posted by grassman on Mar. 14 2014,12:13 pm

(Common Citizen @ Mar. 14 2014,12:05 pm)

QUOTE

Most people do not have the assets to cover a catastophic loss but insurance companies do.

I think that was the idea behind minimum insurance requirements for autos.

So that must also apply for health care.

Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 15 2014,3:28 pm

(grassman @ Mar. 14 2014,12:13 pm)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Mar. 14 2014,12:05 pm)

QUOTE

Most people do not have the assets to cover a catastophic loss but insurance companies do.

I think that was the idea behind minimum insurance requirements for autos.

So that must also apply for health care.

Major difference is that there is a victim in an auto accident which is what liability is for.

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 15 2014,7:48 pm

< http://washingtonexaminer.com/union-o...2545310 >

Posted by grassman on Mar. 16 2014,7:55 am

Yepper, those insurance companies raising their rates.

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 16 2014,11:20 am

(grassman @ Mar. 16 2014,7:55 am)

QUOTE

Yepper, those insurance companies raising their rates.

And just why should a company take it in the arse for the sake of the government???

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 16 2014,11:53 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 16 2014,11:20 am)

QUOTE

And just why should a company take it in the arse for the sake of the government???

Why did the Government, that’s (US) have to pay the bill at the Nursing Home for YOUR parents while you admittedly hid assets???

you’re no conservative you just talk the talk, you're all about GREED like old Ayn Rand, she put down Government her whole life but when time came she jumped on Social Security and Medicare.

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 16 2014,1:11 pm

And just how did I hide assets? The house was my Dad's,,when it sold money was spent on him, his money, not yours. The county got everything else including his life insurance.

Let it be dumbass

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 16 2014,4:56 pm

first you said you did now you say you didn’t, you posted it, those of US who are capable memory remember.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to device.

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 16 2014,6:26 pm

The proceeds were used to prepay burial, upon his wishes, something I have done also by carrying an additional life ins. Policy. Maybe you should consider that as to not burden your family when you kack.

You sure seem to be jealous of when people take their rightful dues. I've watched you rag on Santorini for some time now about benefits she's most likely entitled to.i attribute this to one of many possible psychosis.

You're very unhappy with life, depression can be treated.
An alcohol and/or other chemical dependency. Again, treatable.
Maybe it's just a feeling of inadequacy. Once again, treatable.

With you belief in gov. help you should not have any trouble finding help. Also your union health benefits would probably pay for any treatment you want or need.

I wish you well.

Here try this,

< http://www.hypnosisdownloads.com/interpersonal-skills/im-ok-youre-ok >

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 16 2014,7:14 pm

He’s all upset, sucks to be you! it’s your turn now fat boy.
Here's a little Beck to cheer you up!

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 16 2014,7:27 pm

Upset

About what?

Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 17 2014,8:55 pm

(Expatriate @ Mar. 16 2014,7:14 pm)

QUOTE

He’s all upset, sucks to be you! it’s your turn now fat boy.
Here's a little Beck to cheer you up!

I didn't have time to watch the entire clip. The lesson I saw was that Donald shouldn't have bit the hand that feeds him. It was Donald's job to lose and he did a good job of losing it too.

Why do I get the feeling you'll just argue and blame wall street for his bad luck. :deadhorse:

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 18 2014,9:03 am

NO, I just thought it displayed an excellent summarization of Beck’s psychosis!

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 18 2014,9:25 am

(Expatriate @ Mar. 18 2014,9:03 am)

QUOTE

NO, I just thought it displayed an excellent summarization of Beck’s psychosis!

Oh, there you are, I was worried about you, you know, St Paddy's day and all. Did you go out drinking? Are we a little hung over today? There's still hope. I'm sure your union will pay for any one of many treatment centers.

Remember, there is a higher power. :thumbsup:

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 18 2014,11:55 am

And how long have you been out of Hazelden now? there’s nothing worse than a bitter dry drunk, as much as you mention alcohol I’d say you’re on some kind of self pity party!

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 18 2014,12:15 pm

I don't drink, haven't in many years. Is that where you want to go, Hazelden? Pretty expensive from what I hear. You sure your union would want to spend that much money on you?

You're still feisty, that's good. You don't have any firearms in the mobile home do you?

Grassman says I shouldn't be selfish so I'm here to help you.

Posted by grassman on Mar. 18 2014,12:20 pm

Well, you don't look like a fat, over weight trucker to me. :blush:

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 18 2014,12:49 pm

Beleive me, the fat drivers aren't gonna be around much longer. From what I've been hearing physical requirements after June 1 are going to trim an already short driver pool by 15%.

Rates will go up for sure.

$$$

Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 26 2014,9:31 am

What's one good extension without another?

If you have't bothered, just tell them you've had problems.

If you can't pay now, just promise you will...someday.

Coming next. Just like the big board in the airport says:

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 26 2014,10:02 am

Posted by grassman on Mar. 26 2014,10:27 am

Actually, I think their idea is more on the lines of, if you get sick and cannot afford care...off to a deserted island and die. Out of sight, out of mind. What's for brunch?

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 26 2014,11:34 am

And with Obamacare we'll just die in the waiting room.

Posted by Moparman on Mar. 26 2014,2:27 pm

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 18 2014,12:49 pm)

QUOTE

Instead of going after the fat drivers why don't they go after the ones that cannot speak English? Or the ones that can't back a trailer into a dock door in less than 15 attempts? Or take a shower less than once a week? Drive equipment without duct tape being used as a permanent fix somewhere? But, if they did it would cull the herd by about 80 - 85%....

The fat ones are the least of their problems! :rofl:

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 26 2014,4:58 pm

^^^but then I wouldn't have anybody to pick on.

A awhile ago I bought pizza for my mechanic's shop. Pretty much anybody working or waiting for a truck was welcome to have some. A couple of the "import" drivers you bitch about asked me which ones didn't have pork on them. I almost pointed at one and said "that one" but I was nice, I said they all had pork on them. Then they started in on "you don't hire the black man"

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 26 2014,7:01 pm

Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 26 2014,8:51 pm

[quote=Expatriate,Mar. 26 2014,10:02 am]

[/quote]

Here's my alternative.

Repeal.

QUOTE

Minnesota is the Health Care Leader, not Washington. America’s health care system is broken, but Obamacare is not the answer. Before we can make the kind of changes Americans deserve, we need to repeal the “Unaffordable Care Act” and replace it with a patient-centered, market-based solution that will lower costs and increase accessibility for all Americans. Minnesota has some of the best health care minds in the entire world. Instead of looking to bureaucrats in Washington, we can take charge and develop homegrown solutions for health care. By restoring power to the states, we can free Minnesota to become a laboratory for innovation and a standard-bearer for health care solutions that work.

Covering Those With Pre-Existing Conditions. Despite all the promises made during the health care debate, there are still Americans with pre-existing conditions who are struggling to find or afford coverage. This is unacceptable. When we repeal and replace Obamacare, we need to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions actually have access to affordable insurance plans that cover their illnesses.

Stop the Job Killing Medical Device Tax. Al Franken’s support of the medical device tax is hurting Minnesota’s economy and punishing the most vulnerable among us. This tax is the perfect example of how out-of-touch Washington is with the needs of everyday Americans. We must repeal this job-killing tax along with the rest of Obamacare and replace it with policies that bring down health care costs while encouraging economic growth.

We can mobilize the country and defeat two world powers in 4 years in the 1940's, yet we can't figure out how to administer a health care plan in the same amount of time in the 21st century.

Does that not concern anyone? Incompetency is now embraced by the looney left.

Posted by grassman on Mar. 27 2014,5:44 am

Seems to be the way of govt. Never prepared. I seen on WCCO lastnight that Minneapolis got 5 million in relief for potholes. They reported that to do a temporary fix it cost 300 per pothole. 1000 for a permanent fix. Either somebody has no idea what they are doing or somebody is not telling the truth. What a grab for the cash.

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 27 2014,6:51 am

Oops, wrong thread.

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 27 2014,9:04 am

(Common Citizen @ Mar. 26 2014,8:51 pm)

QUOTE

Here's my alternative.

Repeal.

Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 27 2014,11:40 am

I noticed on the bottom of your image it shows it's from < barackobama.com >

When I go there, the first two things I see on the top are

QUOTE

Organizing for Action

and

QUOTE

Donate

Is this piece a president or a frickin' community organizer?

Is he trying to raise money for his healthcare program or his wife's next vacation?

Still, with his fundraising buddies using this image, it's nice to know the tea party has this kind of effect on them.

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 27 2014,12:57 pm

...

Posted by Santorini on Mar. 31 2014,10:00 am

Anybody pay attention to the JNC (joint national committee) raising the guidelines for high blood pressure in those 60 & older?? Including those with diabetes & kidney disease?
Hmmmmm!!
JNC, death panels??
Considering 5 dissenting doctors gave compelling reasons to leave the guidelines as is...
yet most of the proponents have at some point received govt grant $$$ for projects??? Curious!
Was expense cited as a factor in the decision...oh yes!

Posted by Liberal on Mar. 31 2014,10:38 am

Where are all the right wing horror stories about Obamacare? Why isn't Fox news talking about all those people who had their life destroyed by the ACA?

Posted by Santorini on Mar. 31 2014,11:02 am

(Liberal @ Mar. 31 2014,10:38 am)

QUOTE

Where are all the right wing horror stories about Obamacare? Why isn't Fox news talking about all those people who had their life destroyed by the ACA?

Watch Fox do ya?

Posted by grassman on Mar. 31 2014,11:09 am

(Liberal @ Mar. 31 2014,10:38 am)

QUOTE

Where are all the right wing horror stories about Obamacare? Why isn't Fox news talking about all those people who had their life destroyed by the ACA?

I had a ingrown toe nail. I went to the doctor. The doctor told me, "here is your Obama care". He proceeded to amputate my leg up to the knee. I said, "is that what Obama care does to us? He said, "don't know but it made me feel better, pay up at the front desk." There was a leeetle writer embelishment there. :blush:

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 31 2014,12:39 pm

^^^so we call you "stumpy" now?

Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 31 2014,3:32 pm

(Liberal @ Mar. 31 2014,10:38 am)

QUOTE

Where are all the right wing horror stories about Obamacare? Why isn't Fox news talking about all those people who had their life destroyed by the ACA?

Here is a letter from a doctor regarding how obamacare is affecting his practice and ultimately the patients. I'm not sure if he votes liberal or conservative but the issues in this letter knows no political affiliation.

When you have 4 out of 5 people currently enrolled in obamacare receiving free or reduced health insurance, the plan is simply unsustainable.

Posted by grassman on Mar. 31 2014,3:32 pm

You ,call me Mr. Stumpy, thank you.

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 31 2014,6:00 pm

(grassman @ Mar. 31 2014,3:32 pm)

QUOTE

You ,call me Mr. Stumpy, thank you.

Yes sir!
Lol

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 01 2014,6:15 am

< http://news.investors.com/ibd-edi...are.htm >

Posted by Common Citizen on Apr. 01 2014,7:21 am

QUOTE

On top of all this, we're learning that the industry will likely need a bailout in the near future, since the young aren't signing up as hoped. Humana, for example, announced in its latest 8-K filing it "expects the risk mix of members enrolling through the health insurance exchanges to be more adverse than previously expected."

This just backed up my previous statement.

This is the end game of the Obama administration. Run health insurers out of business so they can usher in a national healthcare system like the good little socialists they are.

Posted by grassman on Apr. 01 2014,10:16 am

Oh stop with the sky is falling. It is change. Some just don't like change, especially when it comes to their own backyard. The thing is, health care will now be acted on. It put it on the table instead of behind the garage. Everybody knows that there is a problem with the cost of health care here in the US compared to other countries. Now it is time to examine it closely and smooth it out. :thumbsup:

Posted by Santorini on Apr. 01 2014,10:54 am

(grassman @ Apr. 01 2014,10:16 am)

QUOTE

Smooth it out at who's expense ??
As with any type of legislation there are always winners & losers.
With the ACA nothing has been solved just shuffled around.

Posted by grassman on Apr. 01 2014,12:20 pm

It got people's attention did it not?

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 01 2014,12:52 pm

(grassman @ Apr. 01 2014,10:16 am)

QUOTE

All we did is trade 1 bully for a bigger bully.
And you're right, I don't like change especially when it comes out of my own back pocket.

Posted by grassman on Apr. 01 2014,1:26 pm

You must really be pissed about the cost of tires, fuel, food, clothes,etc. The world is changing. It is a world economy, life isn't easy buttercup. :;):

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 01 2014,1:52 pm

(grassman @ Apr. 01 2014,1:26 pm)

QUOTE

You must really be pissed about the cost of tires, fuel, food, clothes,etc. The world is changing. It is a world economy, life isn't easy buttercup. :;):

Price increases are easy, pass it down the line, Obamacare is a forced expense, we'll all have to buy it but some, the deadbeats, will get subsidies. I don't mind paying my own freight but once again I'll probably get stuck pAying for somebody else's ins.

You think life's tough now? Wait until single payer kicks in and the costs skyrocket and the level of service plummets.

Have you no questions as to why Barry keeps kicking the can down the road?

This is a train wreck happening in slow motion.

Posted by grassman on Apr. 01 2014,2:09 pm

(Self-Banished @ Apr. 01 2014,1:52 pm)

QUOTE

Price increases are easy, pass it down the line, Obamacare is a forced expense, we'll all have to buy it but some, the deadbeats, will get subsidies.

Right there lies the problem. You have the option to pass it on to someone else. Some are only receivers of that snowball. Where do they turn? Sh!t flows down hill, some are over their heads in it.

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 01 2014,2:18 pm

Well then, I have another favorite saying, this one is truly selfish.

' sucks to be you.

But pretty soon it'll just suck.

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 01 2014,4:15 pm

The announcement came from on high, 7.1 million have signed up for this farce.

The questions,

How many have actually paid their first premium?

How many signed up only because their prior insurance was cancelled?

How many are subsidized?

Does Labron James have obamacare? Does he even know the first thing about

it?

Posted by grassman on Apr. 01 2014,4:18 pm

(Self-Banished @ Apr. 01 2014,2:18 pm)

QUOTE

Well then, I have another favorite saying, this one is truly selfish.

' sucks to be you.

But pretty soon it'll just suck.

That is why you would be a terrible leader.

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 01 2014,4:23 pm

(grassman @ Apr. 01 2014,4:18 pm)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Apr. 01 2014,2:18 pm)

QUOTE

Well then, I have another favorite saying, this one is truly selfish.

' sucks to be you.

But pretty soon it'll just suck.

That is why you would be a terrible leader.

Who said I wanted to lead?

Posted by Common Citizen on Apr. 01 2014,4:53 pm

(grassman @ Apr. 01 2014,10:16 am)

QUOTE

That's the problem. Obamacare does NOT address the cost of health care. How many times do I have to say this?

All it does is address who pays the subsidy and who receives the subsidy pitting one class against another without any choice in the matter.

Sorry to have to use this...but :dunce:

My gosh...are you liberals this blatantly blind and stupid? :frusty:

I give up.

Posted by Moparman on Apr. 01 2014,6:26 pm

(Self-Banished @ Apr. 01 2014,2:18 pm)

QUOTE

Well then, I have another favorite saying, this one is truly selfish.

' sucks to be you.

But pretty soon it'll just suck.

Keep on passing your costs of doing business "down the line" and eventually you will just simply price yourself out of business. One day someone better at managing their business will provide the same or better service for less without nickle and dimeing their customer to death with a bunch of excuses on how it's not their fault.

Posted by grassman on Apr. 01 2014,6:30 pm

CC,Take a deep breath, breath out. You know how politics work, you go after this when the real target is that. It got everyone's attention and now the real game begins. What is wrong with people getting insurance that couldn't before, anyway?

The providers are the ones that are really highbucking everyone. Their excuse has always been blamed on the ones without insurance. Problem solved. Now go eat your supper. :cool:

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 01 2014,11:42 pm

(Moparman @ Apr. 01 2014,6:26 pm)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Apr. 01 2014,2:18 pm)

QUOTE

Well then, I have another favorite saying, this one is truly selfish.

' sucks to be you.

But pretty soon it'll just suck.

I've lived with that fact my whole career and I'd have it no other way.

Posted by grassman on Apr. 02 2014,4:51 am

That reminds me of this resort we used to go to. It was a nice resort, a bit on the high end compared to what we had been going to. This was a family vacation I am talking about, seven or eight cabins. The owner kept raising the price every year at 6%. He said that is how he did it. Finally one year when it came time to leave and book for the next year, we just told him he had just priced his way out from us. By the time we got home we had messages on the answering machine from him stating he would drop as much as $150 from each cabin. Sorry, too late. He had lost about $10,000.

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 02 2014,5:10 am

^^it's a balancing act, no doubt there. Sometimes you play it right, sometimes you don't.
Experience is a good teacher.

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 02 2014,5:44 am

(grassman @ Apr. 02 2014,4:51 am)

QUOTE

Is this why private sector unions have become nearly non exsistant?

Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 02 2014,6:56 am

(Common Citizen @ Apr. 01 2014,4:53 pm)

QUOTE

I give up.

Posted by MADDOG on Apr. 02 2014,8:31 am

(alcitizens @ Apr. 02 2014,6:56 am)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Apr. 01 2014,4:53 pm)

QUOTE

My gosh...are you liberals this blatantly blind and stupid? :frusty:

I give up.

Must have been a Freudian slip. :thumbsup:

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Apr. 03 2014,12:49 pm

According to some very credible research, healthcare is the third leading cause of death in the US. This article was written in the peer reviewed The Journal of the American Medical Association, but you have to pay to read it. < http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192908 >
It was written in 2000, for some reason it never got much (any) mainstream attention.
Luckily John Hopkins has it:
< http://www.jhsph.edu/researc...154.pdf >

Influence from Pharma companies on Dr.s and medical facilities to push their drugs.
< http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js4937e/8.10.html >

Conflicts of interest and skewing of results by researchers and Treatment Guidline Developers with Corporate ties.
< http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js4937e/2.html >

Pharma and Dr. ties. In U.S. medical Device prices are not disclosed and neither are device effectiveness. So Dr.s/hospitals/insurance companies/patients can't comparison shop.
< http://www.nytimes.com/2009...l&_r=1& >

Unnecessary Surgeries.
< http://www.usatoday.com/story...2435009 >

Drug/Medical Device prices compared to other countries. Pretty shocking:
< http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...dicrous >

The US government was talking about the drug price problem compared to other countries in 1971, but nothing was done and it's only gotten worse.
< http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v34n5/v34n5p15.pdf >

A drug treatment for curing Hepatitis C in India will cost $2,000. The same drug sold by the same company in the US will cost $168,000. That's $1,000 per pill.
< http://www.nytimes.com/2014...st.html >

Doctors who get caught hurting or killing people from unnecessary surgeries go to prison. Pharmaceutical companies who falsify tests, bribe doctors, market drugs for unapproved treatments and/or kill thousands of people get fined. Over and over and over. When the FDA (who has a revolving door of employees with Pharma) gets caught being in collusion with pharma and harassing their own scientists and whistleblowers and hiding evidence of Pharma crimes, they get embarrassed.

If the things that Wendell Potter has been saying about insurance companies the last few years are true, then some of the big insurance companies are also a problem. Not the people who sell the insurance CC, but the policies he says are in place, and the lavish corporate style of some of the big companies.

Is the ACA going to even come close to fixing much of the problem? Doubt it. But Obamacare sure is a great way to divide we the people and keep us pissed at each other.

Posted by grassman on Apr. 03 2014,2:35 pm

Ros, I disagree. I think this is the perfect opening to investigate how bad our system is. Like I said before, the insurance companies have been pointing the finger at the providers and saying they are out of line. The providers have insisted they have to make up for the unisured by charging more to the ones that do pay. Now that everyone will be insured, it will expose who is highbucking who. If you are going to diagnose a problem, you eliminate one suspect at a time.

Posted by Common Citizen on Apr. 03 2014,9:13 pm

(grassman @ Apr. 01 2014,6:30 pm)

QUOTE

The providers are the ones that are really highbucking everyone. Their excuse has always been blamed on the ones without insurance. Problem solved. Now go eat your supper. :cool:

^not a clue. :crazy:

Some day you will wake up and ask yourself, "what the hell got into me?"

I believe in you gman.

Posted by grassman on Apr. 04 2014,6:16 am

CC, you already surrendered in post#994. Are you asking for a parden? :laugh:

Posted by Expatriate on Apr. 04 2014,10:13 am

Posted by Glad I Left on Apr. 04 2014,11:40 am

How many of them 7M were uninusred before ACA?
We don't know cuz HHS can't figure out (read: wont tell us) the data behind the numbers.
Hitting a goal is a good thing as long as it means something.

Posted by Expatriate on Apr. 04 2014,1:27 pm

While we jab each other politically we’re still being robbed medically, read some of the stuff Rosalind posted.

Big Pharma, Insurance Companies, and Big Medicine are robbing US blind, we don’t have the best Medical System in the world merely the most expensive!

Posted by Glad I Left on Apr. 04 2014,2:06 pm

I concur completely Expat. Thus the real issue with ACA. It does NOTHING to control/address the cost of healthcare, just who pays, and how they pay.

Posted by Common Citizen on Apr. 05 2014,9:30 am

(Expatriate @ Apr. 04 2014,10:13 am)

QUOTE

You're laughing because 7.1 million law abiding citizens signed up under duress because of a punitive deadline? Not to mention approximately 6 milllion people have lost their insurance since Obamcare came out?

You are a lunatic ... Cheering because 7.1 million people were forced to sign up for a welfare program. :crazy:

Can you tell me how many of the 7.1 million were uninsured prior to the creation of this law? I mean, that was one of the major arguments the supporters use. Right?

Posted by Expatriate on Apr. 05 2014,2:57 pm

^^If Obama was the second coming of Jesus you teabaggers would nail him to the cross again! The Affordable Care Act may not be what you want or I want, it’s far from perfect but it’s a start toward heath insurance for everyone, it’s the law except it, change it when and if another Republican ever gets elected!
EVERYONE should have medical care EVERYONE not just those of US who have high income jobs!

The Obama administration has not yet released detailed information about how many Americans are newly insured under the reform law, compared to the people who already had some type of insurance and just switched to a new plan. But, after reviewing the available data for the three different populations that are benefiting from Obamacare's coverage expansion, researchers at the RAND Corporation arrived at an estimate of about 9.5 million people.

< http://www.rand.org/topics...ct.html >

These are early estimates that include uninsured people that have gained public coverage through Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, previously uninsured young people now covered on their parent's insurance plans.
As time moves on and more study is done more people enroll you’ll find you’re as wrong about the Affordable Care Act as you were about Iraq.

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 05 2014,4:02 pm

^^^ah, equating obama to Jesus! sounds familiar.

That's just the point, we want to "except" it.

Posted by Expatriate on Apr. 05 2014,4:42 pm

Posted by irisheyes on Apr. 05 2014,5:41 pm

(Common Citizen @ Apr. 05 2014,9:30 am)

QUOTE

Cheering because 7.1 million people were forced to sign up for a welfare program. :crazy:

Odd for you to complain so much about that, when the ACA was debated in Congress you yourself suggested we cover the uninsured with Medicaid. When the ACA does the very same thing you call it divisive, and complain about the subsidies and welfare. I'd call that flip-flopping, but it's the same thing the other Republicans in Congress are doing, so you've got company.

The ACA was derived from a nearly identical plan by your 2012 nominee, and praised as being a great plan nationwide by former Speaker Gingrich. Two reasons why the Rush, FOX, and Brietbart crowd hate it now: First is because they've gone so far to the right they can't get anything done except shutdowns and mailing tea bags.

Second, they hate it because they hoped it would be Obama's Waterloo. Not so much.

QUOTE

That's the problem. Obamacare does NOT address the cost of health care. How many times do I have to say this?

One hundred pages in this thread, so I'll go ahead and ask, is there a Republican solution yet or is this just more complaining, saying no, repeal, etc.?

Your answer is probably going to be a vague suggestion on how we should all stop picking on the insurance industry and let them do whatever they want. But I'm asking if there's a resolution put forth, a bill, even a sketched out plan on a napkin that the House GOP has came up with?

It isn't realistic for them to keep saying no to everything without the Republicans having a concrete plan of their own.

Posted by Common Citizen on Apr. 07 2014,11:39 pm

I will say it again. I hope their plan is to repeal. Everyone knows that the Obama administration pushed it through in the dark of night while they controlled the congress and the White House with disregard to any Republican option. Do I really need to repeat the infamous Pelosie quote again? And now liberals from the left coast to the east are saying well it isn't perfect but it's a start.

The start of what? A piece of sh!t welfare law that has expanded to the middle class? Fuch with people who were happier with their insurance before Obamacare and say it's all good? Encourage (force) more dependence on the government? Kiss my bass.

This isn't about the uninsured and it never was. It's about expansion of government power and dominance over its citizens. Obama used that as a selling point and I made a suggestion on how we could cover those without directly affecting those who were already covered and NOT on the government dole. Police government waste and abuse and the money can be found to fund the poor. Instead he chose to upend those who already had insurance to force them into the same program as those who never had it without doing a damn thing about the actual cost of health care. Moron.

You're blind and continue to drink the kool-aid because you think I'm concerned about the insurance companies. You couldn't be further from the truth. Pfft. Think man...think.

Posted by Botto 82 on Apr. 08 2014,7:36 am

(Expatriate @ Apr. 05 2014,2:57 pm)

QUOTE

Slavery was law, once. I wouldn't have accepted that.

Male-only voting rights was the law, once, too. Maybe we should have just accepted that..?

If you think the ACA's primary raison d'etre was affordable healthcare for the citizenry, you've been living in a vacuum. Every major thing that happens in Congress is about more crony capitalism (small c, mine).

Posted by Liberal on Apr. 08 2014,1:13 pm

So Obama and the democrats didnt want affordable health care they really just wanted their friends in big business to make a ton of money? :crazy:

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 08 2014,1:37 pm

^^ yes, they do. :dunce:

Posted by Liberal on Apr. 08 2014,2:27 pm

So do republicans oppose it for the same reason?

Posted by Expatriate on Apr. 08 2014,3:07 pm

(Botto 82 @ Apr. 08 2014,7:36 am)

QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Apr. 05 2014,2:57 pm)

QUOTE

I would’ve have sooner had a single payer system like other industrialized nations but you’d never get that by the Corporate owned Republicans.

Some years ago Albert Lea Mayo mistakenly posted their Patient load to revenue numbers, simple mathematics showed if we could get the insurance industy out of the equation healthcare is much more affordable!

Second, just as other industrialized nations have done we have to reign in the pharmaceutical industry, I realize there’s cost to bring these drugs through clinical trials to FDA approval but the anything goes attitude of these robber barons is deplorable when it comes to healthcare.

Posted by Botto 82 on Apr. 08 2014,3:59 pm

FDA approval is yet another big joke. But what should I expect when the FDA is headed by former big wheels at Merck, Glaxo-Smithkline and Pfizer? They approve something, and within two years it's on one of those low-rent class action lawsuit 1-800-BAD-DRUG commercials.

As for Lib's question on why the Repubs opposed the ACA, well, they'd oppose anything, if the Democraps were making political hay with it. Or was that a rhetorical question?

Posted by Moparman on Apr. 09 2014,2:34 pm

(Self-Banished @ Apr. 02 2014,5:44 am)

QUOTE

(grassman @ Apr. 02 2014,4:51 am)

QUOTE

Is this why private sector unions have become nearly non exsistant?

Hmmmmm.... I didn't see the part of the story where the resort employees were union. :dunno:

I'm guessing all these " independents" that keep "passing it down the line" increasing their prices while providing the exact same service and products is the real problem. :thumbsup:

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 09 2014,2:56 pm

(Moparman @ Apr. 09 2014,2:34 pm)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Apr. 02 2014,5:44 am)

QUOTE

(grassman @ Apr. 02 2014,4:51 am)

QUOTE

Is this why private sector unions have become nearly non exsistant?

Hmmmmm... I didn't see the part of the story where the resort employees were union. :dunno:

I'm guessing all these " independents" that keep "passing it down the line" increasing their prices while providing the exact same service and products is the real problem. :thumbsup:

When costs go up they usually go up for everyone, thus expenses are passed down the line.

If you go to this site you'll see a typical fuel surcharge index, right now surcharges are running near 60%. The same philosophy goes for tax increases and labor costs. Cost of service goes up and the increase is passed down the line.

Crazy isn't it? :sarcasm:

Posted by MADDOG on Apr. 10 2014,1:24 pm

(Expatriate @ Apr. 05 2014,2:57 pm)

QUOTE

The Obama administration has not yet released detailed information about how many Americans are newly insured under the reform law, compared to the people who already had some type of insurance and just switched to a new plan. But, after reviewing the available data for the three different populations that are benefiting from Obamacare's coverage expansion, researchers at the RAND Corporation arrived at an estimate of about 9.5 million people.

< http://www.rand.org/topics...ct.html >

These are early estimates that include uninsured people that have gained public coverage through Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, previously uninsured young people now covered on their parent's insurance plans.
As time moves on and more study is done more people enroll you’ll find you’re as wrong about the Affordable Care Act as you were about Iraq.

Here's a booger for ya.

QUOTE

< Obamacare's Exchanges Enrolled Only 1.4 Million Previously Uninsured Individuals >

RAND published the full report yesterday; it indicates that Obamacare’s exchanges only enrolled 1.4 million previously uninsured individuals.

That 1.4 million is out of a total of 3.9 million exchange enrollees overall. That is to say, a little over a third of enrollees—36 percent—were previously uninsured. RAND’s figures don’t take into account the last few weeks of the Obamacare open enrollment period, and they contain a substantial margin of error, due to the study’s small sample size. (RAND surveyed 2,425 individuals aged 18 to 64; the 1.4 million figure has a margin of error of 700,000, meaning that there is a 95 percent probability that the actual number is between 700,000 and 2.1 million previously uninsured enrollees.)

Posted by MADDOG on Apr. 10 2014,7:34 pm

Do you think it has a political ploy for the obvious to happen?

QUOTE

< Health Secretary Resigns >

WASHINGTON — Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary, is resigning, ending a stormy five-year tenure marred by the disastrous rollout of President Obama’s signature legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Obama accepted Ms. Sebelius’s resignation this week, and on Friday morning he will nominate Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, to replace her, officials said.

The departure comes as the Obama administration tries to move beyond its early stumbles in carrying out the law, persuade a still-skeptical public of its lasting benefits, and help Democratic incumbents, who face blistering attack ads after supporting the legislation, survive the midterm elections this fall.

Posted by Moparman on Apr. 14 2014,1:54 pm

(Self-Banished @ Apr. 09 2014,2:56 pm)

QUOTE

(Moparman @ Apr. 09 2014,2:34 pm)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Apr. 02 2014,5:44 am)

QUOTE

(grassman @ Apr. 02 2014,4:51 am)

QUOTE

Is this why private sector unions have become nearly non exsistant?

Hmmmmm... I didn't see the part of the story where the resort employees were union. :dunno:

I'm guessing all these " independents" that keep "passing it down the line" increasing their prices while providing the exact same service and products is the real problem. :thumbsup:

Fuel surcharges are the biggest scam "passed" along to the consumer there is.

Posted by MADDOG on Apr. 14 2014,2:38 pm

(Moparman @ Apr. 14 2014,1:54 pm)

QUOTE

Fuel surcharges are the biggest scam "passed" along to the consumer there is.

How so? Please explain why you think that?

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 14 2014,5:07 pm

(Moparman @ Apr. 14 2014,1:54 pm)

QUOTE

Fuel surcharges are the biggest scam "passed" along to the consumer there is.

Yeah, I know, I should lower my prices back down and just eat the hundreds of dollars a day extra the fuel cost me. Woe is the consumer scammed by me, I feel tremendous guilt. I'll go straight to church tonight and confess my sins to the rabbi, say a bunch of "Hail Marys" and then realize the bad karma that is coming my way, then get my tom-tom out and burn a wagon, woe is me.

I feel better already :sarcasm:

No wonder you don't farm anymore :dunce:

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 19 2014,10:43 am

I came across two people this week that were affected by bammycare, 1st one was an ownerop truck driver I've known a few years now. His health ins premeium went up $200 dollars a month, a full 40% increase. Plus his deductibles increased. Funny thing is he voted for obama twice.

The second was my son, his monthly payment went up just shy of 50%

Can we afford to keep the Dems helping us?

Posted by Moparman on Apr. 19 2014,11:44 am

(Self-Banished @ Apr. 14 2014,5:07 pm)

QUOTE

(Moparman @ Apr. 14 2014,1:54 pm)

QUOTE

Fuel surcharges are the biggest scam "passed" along to the consumer there is.

No wonder you don't farm anymore :dunce:

Maybe you need to get a second job to cover these extra costs like folks in the real world have to. But, you would rather whine and b!tch about entitlements and welfare for others. Boo hoo, I cannot manage my business without counting on a glorified hand out to cover my cost of doing business. Nothing but hipocrisy, pure and simple!

Farmers on the other hand cannot increase their prices when expenses rise. They have to actually work and plan to cover their expenses. And yes there are safety nets in place for ag producers to insure a safe and affordable food supply for all you "independents". :thumbsup:

So I suppose if you didn't rely on someone else to pay for your own fuel you would not be a trucker anymore! :dunce:

Btw, I rent the farm out, it's a lot less risky! :rockon:

Posted by Moparman on Apr. 19 2014,11:51 am

(Self-Banished @ Apr. 19 2014,10:43 am)

QUOTE

Mine went up $0 per month. They did, however, increase the number of things that are now covered. Oh wait, I didn't have to sign up obamacare! :rofl:

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 19 2014,3:27 pm

(Moparman @ Apr. 19 2014,11:44 am)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Apr. 14 2014,5:07 pm)

QUOTE

(Moparman @ Apr. 14 2014,1:54 pm)

QUOTE

Fuel surcharges are the biggest scam "passed" along to the consumer there is.

No wonder you don't farm anymore :dunce:

So I suppose if you didn't rely on someone else to pay for your own fuel you would not be a trucker anymore! :dunce:

Btw, I rent the farm out, it's a lot less risky! :rockon:

No no no, another job would interfere with my time at my cabin and on my boat. Glorified handout? No, surcharge is nothing more than passing legitimate costs down the line. I have to pay more for the products I use too except the increase doesn't bother me as much. We'll see how much it bothers the welfare class especially in the next year when meat prices go through the roof.

Renting out the farm? I knew I wasn't wasting my time on you, smart move. It's like "Goodfellas" bad year? f%#k you pay me. See you're more like me then you think. As to farmers raising their prices? No, they really can't but when you only farm part time sometimes you pay dearly fot that option. Real farmers diversify.

As far as a glorified hand out, not really, the customer is free to go elsewhere but the fuel surcharges will more than likely be the same somewhere else.

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 19 2014,3:31 pm

(Moparman @ Apr. 19 2014,11:51 am)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Apr. 19 2014,10:43 am)

QUOTE

Mine went up $0 per month. They did, however, increase the number of things that are now covered. Oh wait, I didn't have to sign up obamacare! :rofl:

That's because you belong to a union, the unions sold their souls then dropped to their knees as obama dropped trow and, well, I guess there was a happy ending.

Posted by grassman on Apr. 24 2014,10:26 am

one of life's lessons

A young boy enters a barber shop and the barber whispers to his customer, 'This is the dumbest kid in the world. Watch while I prove it to you.'

The barber puts a dollar bill in one hand and two quarters in the other, then calls the boy over and asks, 'Which do you want, son?'

The boy takes the quarters and leaves the dollar.

‘What did I tell you?’ said the barber. ‘That kid never learns!’

Later, when the customer leaves, he sees the same young boy coming out of the ice cream store & says; 'Hey, son! May I ask you a question? Why did you take the quarters instead of the dollar bill?'

The boy licked his cone and replied, 'Because the day I take the dollar, the game's over!'

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 24 2014,10:54 am

^^^That's just like the Silly Sally joke, you know, the one with the punch line "I fooled him, I didn't wear any underwear"

Posted by Moparman on Apr. 24 2014,7:35 pm

(Self-Banished @ Apr. 19 2014,3:27 pm)

QUOTE

(Moparman @ Apr. 19 2014,11:44 am)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Apr. 14 2014,5:07 pm)

QUOTE

(Moparman @ Apr. 14 2014,1:54 pm)

QUOTE

Fuel surcharges are the biggest scam "passed" along to the consumer there is.

No wonder you don't farm anymore :dunce:

So I suppose if you didn't rely on someone else to pay for your own fuel you would not be a trucker anymore! :dunce:

Btw, I rent the farm out, it's a lot less risky! :rockon:

The welfare class could care less if the price of meat skyrockets because everyone else will be paying for it anyways.

Maybe they could call it a meat "surcharge" tacked on to us tax payers.

Why stop at fuel surcharges? Why not an office supply surcharge, utility surcharge, or maintainence surcharge, etc.... Those are all legitimate costs also, are they not? It's just because it's easier to blame something everyone hates ( big oil/ high fuel costs) as a reason to raise prices.

Posted by Moparman on Apr. 24 2014,7:41 pm

(Self-Banished @ Apr. 19 2014,3:31 pm)

QUOTE

(Moparman @ Apr. 19 2014,11:51 am)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Apr. 19 2014,10:43 am)

QUOTE

Mine went up $0 per month. They did, however, increase the number of things that are now covered. Oh wait, I didn't have to sign up obamacare! :rofl:

That's because you belong to a union, the unions sold their souls then dropped to their knees as obama dropped trow and, well, I guess there was a happy ending.

George Carlin.... Really! You do realize he was a union member don't you? :rofl:

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 25 2014,4:59 am

^^ yes he was and so was I at one time. Biggest waste on the planet.

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 25 2014,5:02 am

I even get a fuel surcharge on my garbage pick up.

Posted by irisheyes on Apr. 26 2014,8:34 am

(Common Citizen @ Apr. 07 2014,11:39 pm)

QUOTE

You're blind and continue to drink the kool-aid because you think I'm concerned about the insurance companies. You couldn't be further from the truth. Pfft. Think man...think.

It's really bizarre when people who get their news from Rush, WND, Newsmax, and Brietbart accuse me of not thinking and "drinking the kool-aid". That really is a pot calling the kettle black situation.

That was more name-calling from you than usual, but still you don't even try to prove me wrong, only that you disagree on opinion. You admitted that you did suggest covering the uninsured the same way the ACA did. So your complaints about subsidies and welfare don't seem to have merit if you suggested the same thing. :dunno:

QUOTE

Everyone knows that the Obama administration pushed it through in the dark of night

I've heard this a lot. Does it actually matter to you whether it's light out, dark out, overcast, or sunny when bills are voted on?

QUOTE

This isn't about the uninsured and it never was. It's about expansion of government power and dominance over its citizens.

It was comprehensive health care reform, so you guys that keep saying the ACA was "for this one thing, or that one thing" need to read the definition of comprehensive.

QUOTE

The start of what? A piece of sh!t welfare law that has expanded to the middle class? Fuch with people who were happier with their insurance before Obamacare and say it's all good? Encourage (force) more dependence on the government? Kiss my bass.

As mentioned before, you suggested the same solution with expanding Medicaid to cover the uninsured, so it's really odd that when a Dem does it you attack it with such strong language.

Second, the overwhelming majority weren't near as "happy" with their insurance as you believe. I'll prove it with just two questions: How many people do you know that said they WANT to have their pre-existing conditions not covered, and how many said they WANT to declare bankruptcy when their HMO refuses to pay the bill or cancels the policy after they get cancer?

Like many things, they were "happy" with it as long as they were healthy and wouldn't need it. Which defies the point of even having insurance. That would be like being happy with life insurance as long as we live forever. The only ones that would like that scenario are the insurance companies.

Posted by MADDOG on Apr. 28 2014,8:53 am

According to Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, there are some upsides of the ACA for those who want to use the system to their advantage.

QUOTE

< ACA Exchanges at Risk >

This article appeared on Los Angeles Register on April 22, 2014.

President Barack Obama says he has enrolled 7.1 million Americans through his new health insurance exchanges. If so, that may prove to be the easy part: the Affordable Care Act creates so many incentives for enrollees to drop their coverage that maintaining those enrollment numbers may start to resemble something like pushing millions of people up a greased poll.

For Obamacare to work, people must enroll and stay enrolled. An estimated 20 percent of those who signed up have yet to pay their first premium, and as many as 5 percent stopped paying after the first month. If too many drop out, premiums could climb until the exchanges collapse.

Unfortunately, those numbers may rise as Americans learn about the financial incentives Obamacare creates for healthy people to drop their coverage, save their money and wait until they get sick to re-enroll.

For most healthy people, going uninsured before Obamacare, at least for a time, was already a safe bet. They saved thousands of dollars per year. The odds that they would have to deal with unmet medical needs or unpaid medical bills were low.

Obamacare makes going uninsured an even safer bet. It increases premiums for healthy people and the penalty for not buying health insurance is largely toothless. So if you earn too much to qualify for subsidies or you take steps to avoid paying the penalty, going uninsured will save you even more money than before.

Obamacare even more dramatically reduces the downside of going uninsured. For example, suppose the day after you cancel your health insurance, you receive a serious diagnosis like diabetes, or cancer. Pre-Obamacare, you would not be able to buy coverage for that illness. Under Obamacare, however, insurers are required to cover you at the same premium they charged when you were healthy. You may have to wait until January for that coverage to take effect, but even so the downside risk of going uninsured is much smaller.

There are even ways to enroll in Obamacare coverage immediately:
•If you live in one of the 25 or so states implementing Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, you can get coverage immediately by reducing your income below 138 percent of the federal poverty level ($16,102 for a single adult). You can then restore your income when you enroll in an exchange plan in January — or even earlier, depending on how often your state verifies eligibility.
•If you don’t live in a Medicaid-expansion state, you can move to one, as this Idaho family did.
•If you’re pregnant, you can use one of these Medicaid options for immediate prenatal care, and/or enroll in exchange coverage effective the day your child is born.

I get viscerally anxious when I hear from intelligent, responsible people that they have dropped their family’s health insurance because Obamacare so significantly increased their premiums. But I cannot dispute that Obamacare has made that choice safer and more rational than ever before.

Keeping people at the top of a greased pole is hard enough when they want to be there. It’s a lot harder when they don’t.

Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 30 2014,9:55 am

< Supreme Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby in contraceptive case >

:thumbsup:

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 01 2014,7:03 am

^^^ I saw that, president tinhorn really been getting slapped around by SCOTUS since he took office. Don't the judges know he's a constitutional scholar? :sarcasm:

I see the union got taken to the woodshed too. Too bad the justices stopped short. :oops:

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 05 2014,10:21 pm

(MADDOG @ Jun. 30 2014,9:55 am)

QUOTE

< Supreme Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby in contraceptive case >

:thumbsup:

I realize facts don't matter to the resident libs but I will post them anyway.
Nuff said...

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 05 2014,10:26 pm

(irisheyes @ Apr. 26 2014,8:34 am)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Apr. 07 2014,11:39 pm)

QUOTE

You're blind and continue to drink the kool-aid because you think I'm concerned about the insurance companies. You couldn't be further from the truth. Pfft. Think man...think.

QUOTE

Everyone knows that the Obama administration pushed it through in the dark of night

I've heard this a lot. Does it actually matter to you whether it's light out, dark out, overcast, or sunny when bills are voted on?

QUOTE

This isn't about the uninsured and it never was. It's about expansion of government power and dominance over its citizens.

It was comprehensive health care reform, so you guys that keep saying the ACA was "for this one thing, or that one thing" need to read the definition of comprehensive.

QUOTE

But why upset the apple cart for those that are getting along just fine? In an attempt to allegedly help the uninsured the gov't screwed it up for those in plans they like and still didn't fix anything?

Do you follow? It's nothing but one big boondoggle. I'm really rooting for you IE but you're making it so damn hard. :frusty:

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 22 2014,10:03 am

More violations live from Obamacare.

QUOTE

< most Obamacare subsidies illegal >

In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a federal appeals court panel declared Tuesday that government subsidies worth billions of dollars that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are illegal.

A judicial panel in a 2-1 ruling said such subsidies can be granted only to those people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov.

"Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states," wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph in his majority opinion, where he was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith. "We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly."

< Court opinion >

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 22 2014,10:33 am

^^^
Legal-smegal, wonder boy will just wave his magic wand and make these pesky laws go away :sarcasm:

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 22 2014,10:40 am

Wow, I'm just phreakin' psychic

< http://m.startribune.com/?id=268120712 >

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 22 2014,10:54 am

Some wannabe gods are just above the law.

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 22 2014,11:02 am

(Self-Banished @ Jul. 22 2014,10:40 am)

QUOTE

Wow, I'm just phreakin' psychic

yup, you’re Psycho

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 22 2014,11:08 am

^^^and you're a retard :rofl:

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 22 2014,7:05 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jul. 22 2014,11:08 am)

QUOTE

^^^and you're a retard :rofl:

Hard to keep from stooping to their level. I know, but I'd say they may be squirming a little in their seats right now. This could end up sending it back to SCOTUS.

QUOTE

The Affordable Care Act landed in a new level of legal peril Tuesday, courtesy of a duo of conflicting court rulings that threaten to send the law back to the Supreme Court—and once again put the law's foundation at the mercy of the justices.

Two federal Appeals Courts issued conflicting rulings Tuesday in lawsuits that challenge the subsidies that Obamacare provides to help people cover the cost of their premiums. One Appeals Court said the subsidies should be available only in states that set up their own insurance exchanges and ruled that the IRS broke the law by providing them nationwide.

Hours later, another Appellate Court said the IRS did nothing wrong and the subsidies are legal everywhere.

But the conflicting rulings don't automatically send the law back the land's highest court. Instead, Obamacare's immediate future will be determined as both sides appeal the decisions that didn't go their way. < National Journal >

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 23 2014,8:13 am

What you have here is a Republican held court voting party line politics, trying to return the US to the don’t get sick Republican policy, arbitrary insurer cancellation and preexisting conditions!
It’s doesn’t stop the ACA it just complicates the exchange system costing the taxpay more money, why is it the party claiming to be conservative always runs up the debt.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 23 2014,8:30 am

^^^ well then, maybe the democrats should have thought this sh!t through a little better before they shoved this down our throats.
Glad you pointed that out to us. :sarcasm:

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 23 2014,8:58 am

I’m not a big fan of the ACA it’s still private insurance companies, it’s not a true one payer system which would have been far more cost-effective.
This is actually a copy of Romney’s Medical plan, maybe if he had pushed it you’d except it and I’d be the one bitching.

You’ll have to admit insurance companies not being able arbitrarily cancel you or raise your policy so high you can’t pay the premium is nice, not being able to deny someone on preexisting conditions is a good thing. we all get sick no matter our political affiliation.

the ACA has made little difference in my insurance but then I'm represented by the IBEW so my employer can't just arbitrarily hose me!

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 23 2014,9:04 am

(Expatriate @ Jul. 23 2014,8:13 am)

QUOTE

You're concerned about the costs now because you say the Republicans are complicating things. Nevermind what the incompetencing has cost the taxpayer (including the websites) in building this boondoggle. That's rich.

psst...this law has never been about covering the uninsured.

:dunce:

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 23 2014,9:10 am

QUOTE

psst...this law has never been about covering the uninsured.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 23 2014,9:22 am

Nope, it's all about control.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 23 2014,9:23 am

I have a high deductible plan. The first $6000 is out of pocket for my family. I have a family plan because I can provide coverage for my adult children until age 26. They don't live with me but I can still keep them on my plan. They are attending college, living on their own, and have their own job.

The way I figure it, they can sign up for Obamacare and pretty much get it subsidized based on their low income. I can remove them from my plan thus lowering my premium and out of pocket costs by reducing the coverage from a family plan to an employee + spousal plan.

What have I done? I have effectively transferred the monetary risk of my adult children from me to Uncle Sam and all of the other tax payer's.

Sweet deal, huh?. :clap:

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 23 2014,9:24 am

(Expatriate @ Jul. 23 2014,9:10 am)

QUOTE

psst...this law has never been about covering the uninsured.

It's about control and redistribution.

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 23 2014,9:50 am

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 23 2014,9:23 am)

QUOTE

Sweet deal, huh?.

Well at least there’s one Republican that’s happy with Obamacare :rofl:

As I recall policies on young folks are pretty reasonable (dirt Cheap) most of the trouble with their health
is self inflicted, accidental stuff. not that there isn’t the unfortunate soul that succumbs to disease at that tender age.

with the income of a college student I believe they'd just be put on medicaid and of no really cost except admin.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 23 2014,4:27 pm

An interesting read...

< http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...48.html >

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 31 2014,2:26 pm

Of course the costs are high.

What can you expect from a failed administration? The roll out was a disaster, enrollment was severely flawed. We had a liar at the helm and another one directing traffic.

< Nearly $1 billion in administration F'ups just in Bambinocare.
>

QUOTE

The Obama administration has spent roughly $840 million on HealthCare.gov, including more than $150 million just in cost overruns for the version that failed so badly when it launched last year.

The Government Accountability Office says cost overruns went hand-in-hand with the management failures that led to the disastrous launch of HealthCare.gov and the 36 state insurance exchanges it serves.

GAO's report, prepared for a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing Thursday, details a long series of management, oversight, and contracting problems that plagued the entire process, from risky contracting practices in 2011 through the botched launch last October.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 31 2014,3:16 pm

...but we "needed" to do something and the Republicans "never" offered an alternative. So suck it. :dunce:

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 11 2014,5:50 am

Give that man a cigar. Or maybe a gold star for telling the truth.

QUOTE

< ACA Architect: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter' Led Us To Hide Obamacare's True Costs From The Public >
You’ve got to hand it to MIT economist Jonathan Gruber. The guy dubbed the “Obamacare architect” is a viral YouTube sensation. A few months back, he was caught on tape admitting that Obamacare doesn’t provide subsidies for federally-run insurance exchanges; it’s now the topic of a new case before the Supreme Court. Today, new video surfaced in which Gruber said that “the stupidity of the American voter” made it important for him and Democrats to hide Obamacare’s true costs from the public. “That was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” said Gruber. “But I’d rather have this law than not.” In other words, the ends—imposing Obamacare upon the public—justified the means.

Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 11 2014,7:47 am

^Is your hate for the poor as strong as the Nazis hate for the Jew, maybe you Republicans should put on your jackboots
and march the poor to concentration camps for the final solution.

Careful used car salesmen aren’t very high on the totem pole, maybe the republicans will send you to the concentration
camp too.

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 11 2014,8:23 am

That has little to do with “the stupidity of the American voter.”

My compassion of the needy is probably beyond your desire to help them other than through forced taxation.

QUOTE

Gruber made an argument that many of Obamacare’s critics have long made It’s that the law’s complex system of insurance regulation is a way of concealing from voters what Obamacare really is: a huge redistribution of wealth from the young and healthy to the old and unhealthy. In the video, Gruber points out that if Democrats had been honest about these facts, and that the law’s individual mandate is in effect a major tax hike, Obamacare would never have passed Congress.

Gee, the way I read it is that Obama and Gruber were counting on stupid voters to vote democrat.

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 11 2014,8:35 am

^^^ they usually do.

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 11 2014,8:46 am

Maddog hates the government involved in his heathcare, unless they're paying for his stay in the hospital.

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 11 2014,9:03 am

If I ever get to the hospital and ask the government to pay for it, I'll be sure to thank Bambino.

Posted by alcitizens on Nov. 12 2014,5:28 am

(MADDOG @ Nov. 11 2014,9:03 am)

QUOTE

If I ever get to the hospital and ask the government to pay for it, I'll be sure to thank Bambino.

NY Reports 50% Drop in Insurance Premiums Under Affordable Care Act

< http://www.diversityinc.com/diversi...are-act >

Both Medicare and Medicaid were created decades prior to Obama by the Government..

ObamaCare will not only help those with incomes that put them just out of range to afford Health Insurance supplied by Medicaid.. ObamaCare will eventually help everyone because of Lower Healthcare Costs..

ObamaCare will put an end to $25 disposable toothbrushes while hospitalized..

Even your Flaming Red Republicans like your Dad that loves their Medicare will benefit with lower out of pocket expenses including lower Medicare Supplemental Insurance..

Lets not forget that ObamaCare will allow future seniors to get Medicare because without ObamaCare, there would be no Medicare for future seniors..

I hope you will be healthy to the end..

Posted by alcitizens on Nov. 12 2014,5:35 am

Obamacare premiums in Arkansas projected to drop 2 percent in 2015

< http://www.arktimes.com/Arkansa...percent >

Study: Many health insurance premiums down in 2015

< http://www.cincinnati.com/story...8738373 >

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 12 2014,4:13 pm

(MADDOG @ Nov. 11 2014,9:03 am)

QUOTE

If I ever get to the hospital and ask the government to pay for it, I'll be sure to thank Bambino.

You forgot the word "again".

We both know the truth, you stopped by my house after you got out of hospital years ago and since you were between jobs you had no insurance. So what did the extended stay in ICU cost us?

You're as big of hypocrite as Limbaugh. What's the difference between Limbaugh ranting about drug users while he's an addict, or you ranting about the government run insurance when you wouldn't be here if it weren't for government provided healthcare?

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 12 2014,5:23 pm

Sorry, you're wrong. To the best of my knowledge, none of the bills were paid by tax payers money.

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 12 2014,7:08 pm

To the best of your knowledge? I know exactly who pays my medical bills, why don't you know who paid for your stay?

And without Obamacare no insurance company would touch you with a pre existing condition.

You're like the Ted Haggard of healthcare.

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 12 2014,9:37 pm

Bad wording. I was busy when I responded.

None of my medical bills were paid by tax dollars. I guess I don't have to explain myself to you, but I started paying them back a couple months later after I started a job. Took a couple years. :violin:

I didn't know how I was going to pay them at that time I was out. My time in the hospital was 5 days. Sorry, bud. Game over.

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 12 2014,9:47 pm

Bullsh!t. You know it, and I know it.

How much was it for a "5 day" stay?

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 13 2014,9:51 am

Basically. None of your business. It was several thousand less than I expected, but still an awful lot. Without some help from family and a couple others who wanted to help and had faith in me, it would have been a whole lot tougher.

I hope I have lived up to their hopes and after nine plus years of sobriety, that's a good start. I also try to give as much as I can back to people in need. the local food shelf in one of my favs. I enjoy giving what I can.

QUOTE

The point is this: the one who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and the one who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Posted by alcitizens on Nov. 13 2014,10:38 am

(MADDOG @ Nov. 13 2014,9:51 am)

QUOTE

and a couple others who wanted to help

You're welcome..

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 16 2014,6:54 pm

Thanks ac. :cool:

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 17 2014,10:53 am

This guy gets it, from the fish wrap,

ACA architect says voters are stupid
Published 10:20am Monday, November 17, 2014
Email Comments

Please check the Internet or Fox News for the videos and stories about Jonathan Gruber. First, Minnesota paid him $340,000 to help build MNsure and totally he got $1.6 million from the federal government and other states to help design Obamacare.

He says in the videos that they had to deceive the American voters who are basically stupid or they never will get the Affordable Care Act passed. You will not see this on the liberal networks, which is why we all should watch all networks to get both sides of stories either liberal or conservative.

Russel Tordoff

Glenville

Email Comments

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 26 2014,9:17 am

This guy is starting to get it.

Schumer:< Obamacare "Wasn't The Change We Were Hired To Make" >

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 26 2014,10:33 am

Maybe Chuckles will change his view on gun control too.

Posted by irisheyes on Nov. 26 2014,4:33 pm

S.B.

QUOTE

This guy gets it, from the fish wrap

What exactly do these people "get"?

QUOTE

He says in the videos that they had to deceive the American voters who are basically stupid or they never will get the Affordable Care Act passed.

We don't know, never listened to nor were we influenced by Jonathon Gruber. People who get their "news" from Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity saying that liberals have been fooled, that's really the pot calling the kettle black.
Wait a minute, is Jonathon Gruber the guy who tried to sell me aluminum siding last summer? I already have steel siding, nice try buddy. :sarcasm:

Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 26 2014,10:40 pm

(irisheyes @ Nov. 26 2014,4:33 pm)

QUOTE

People who get their "news" from Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity saying that liberals have been fooled, that's really the pot calling the kettle black.

You've been using this reference a lot lately, you really shouldn't be listening/watching these twits, learn to think for yourself :thumbsup:

Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 09 2014,5:45 pm

So Gruber said "I'm sorry" to the House Oversight Committee today. What does that get him? A free pass?

How many times as a kid did you tell your parents your were sorry when you got caught doing something bad? What were you sorry about? Was it that you knew you shouldn't have done it or were you sorry only because you got caught?

Posted by Liberal on Dec. 09 2014,7:50 pm

Oh no, he's not in trouble for calling people stupid? :rofl:

Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 10 2014,8:30 am

(Liberal @ Dec. 09 2014,7:50 pm)

QUOTE

Oh no, he's not in trouble for calling people stupid? :rofl:

I'd call it liberal arrogance.

Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 10 2014,8:52 am

(MADDOG @ Dec. 10 2014,8:30 am)

QUOTE

(Liberal @ Dec. 09 2014,7:50 pm)

QUOTE

Oh no, he's not in trouble for calling people stupid? :rofl:

I'd call it liberal arrogance.

Yeah, as opposed to Romney, and that forty-seven percent remark. :oops:

Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 10 2014,10:07 am

Bush lied US into two unfunded wars while he cut taxes for the rich and impoverished the country, led US to the brink of the Greatest Depression. He tortured countless afghans and Iraqis but at least he wasn’t trying to provide health insurance for the working class, the nerve of that Obama, who does he think he is, leading this great Nation down such a shameful path!

Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 10 2014,11:06 am

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 10 2014,8:52 am)

QUOTE

(MADDOG @ Dec. 10 2014,8:30 am)

QUOTE

(Liberal @ Dec. 09 2014,7:50 pm)

QUOTE

Oh no, he's not in trouble for calling people stupid? :rofl:

I'd call it liberal arrogance.

Yeah, as opposed to Romney, and that forty-seven percent remark. :oops:

Ooops, Romney was wrong. According to the tax policy Center, in 2011 it was only 46.4% that paid no income tax.

You're kind of sliding off the cart on Obamacare though, Botto.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 10 2014,11:21 am

(MADDOG @ Dec. 10 2014,11:06 am)

QUOTE

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 10 2014,8:52 am)

QUOTE

(MADDOG @ Dec. 10 2014,8:30 am)

QUOTE

(Liberal @ Dec. 09 2014,7:50 pm)

QUOTE

Oh no, he's not in trouble for calling people stupid? :rofl:

I'd call it liberal arrogance.

Yeah, as opposed to Romney, and that forty-seven percent remark. :oops:

Ooops, Romney was wrong. According to the tax policy Center, in 2011 it was only 46.4% that paid no income tax.

You're kind of sliding off the cart on Obamacare though, Botto.

Careful, you"ll hurt Expat's feeling

Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 10 2014,11:24 am

Sorry, EXPAT. When Gruber spoke of the stupid American voter, he was referring to ones that voted for Bambino.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 10 2014,11:38 am

^^^there you go again! causing trouble . :rofl:

Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 10 2014,12:46 pm

the Bush legacy

Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 10 2014,2:25 pm

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 10 2014,11:38 am)

QUOTE

^^^there you go again! causing trouble . :rofl:

Well hey. Look at it. Gruber said the only way they could get Obamacare to pass was to slip it past the stupid American voter. You know. The ones with an attention span of a peanut.

Democrats are running around trying to distance themselves. Trying to cast blame on Romney by associating Gruber with Massachusetts health care. They are hiding in the shadows to avoid him. They go so far as asking to not be sat next to him.

When is the rooster going to crow three times?

Posted by Liberal on Dec. 10 2014,6:39 pm

Sliding off the cart? WTF does that even mean?

Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 10 2014,8:27 pm

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 11 2014,5:38 am

(irisheyes @ Nov. 26 2014,4:33 pm)

QUOTE

Wait a minute, is Jonathon Gruber the guy who tried to sell me aluminum siding last summer? I already have steel siding, nice try buddy. :sarcasm:

Is this your siding salesman? :dunce:

Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 11 2014,10:49 am

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 10 2014,8:27 pm)

QUOTE

Off the path. Didn't know how Romney's 47% remark fell into the conversation.

Posted by Liberal on Dec. 11 2014,12:33 pm

"Off the path" wtf does that mean. Do you just string random words together? :dunce:

Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 11 2014,5:31 pm

Strayed off the path. Wander, deviate, get sidetracked.

Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 12 2014,3:35 pm

QUOTE

ST. PAUL — A federal judge said a Hastings auto dealership can’t be forced to provide employees with health insurance that covers certain forms of birth control.

Citing a precedent the U.S. Supreme Court set this summer, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson ruled this week that Douglas Erickson, the owner of Hastings Ford and Hastings Chrysler Center, can’t be required to provide coverage that violates his religious beliefs.

Erickson said contraceptives that prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted in the uterus violate his belief that life begins at conception.

It’s the latest in a string of court decisions across the country involving family-owned businesses that have sued to become exempt from the so-called contraceptive mandate in the federal Affordable Care Act because of their religious beliefs.

Planned Parenthood is criticizing the decision.

< Tribune >

Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 13 2014,4:30 am

^^I wouldn’t be to quick to applaud this ruling, the precedent it sets could turn this country into a battling theocracy as crazy as that of the Mideast!
What we have here is a car dealer imposing his religious beliefs on his employees not the government imposing on the car dealer, the government is nonreligious!
Now lets say a Muslim, Jew, Wiccan etc. takes over your car dealership and decides to imposes his religious beliefs on you and the other employees.
There’s a Constitutional issue here.

Article [1] (Amendment 1 - Freedom of expression and religion)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 13 2014,5:09 am

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice the words
Or prohibiting the free excercise thereof

Hmmmm :blush:

Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 13 2014,2:19 pm

Well take your shoes off and point your prayer rug toward Mecca, getting religious values involved in government policy is a slippery slope to Ayatollahville!
So the next employer only believes in faith healing do we drop medical coverage altogether for him? what you have here is a dangerous precedent.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 13 2014,3:58 pm

(Expatriate @ Dec. 13 2014,2:19 pm)

QUOTE

So you advocate forcing an employer/business owner to abandon their faith because of the gov. Says so?

Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 13 2014,4:38 pm

Too many people have a comprehension problem with the reading of the Constitution. They often mistake the part where it says

QUOTE

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

and forget about the part that follows Expat's quote of

QUOTE

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

They often define it as saying "freedom from religion instead of freedom of."

An employer or anotherwords, a private citizen, who chooses to do his business according to his beliefs has every right to conduct his enteprise as he chooses within the law. No where did I see that the car dealer was imposing his religion on his employees and forcing them to not ingest whatever kind of pill they want. The only fact is that he chose not to pay for it. The employees have several freedoms. They can chose to pay for their prescription themselves, go without or choose another place of employment that has decided to pay for the employees private bedroom activities.

It's not like he's forcing them to join a religious group.

Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 13 2014,4:51 pm

In the Constitution freedom of religion is also closely associated with separation of church and state, religion has always been in the hands of some crazy ass people!

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 13 2014,5:48 pm

^^^So the gov. should decide who "runs" religion. Like Sharpton or Jackson? Yes, these guys are nuts but one of these nuts has Busters ear and has been in the White House near 100 times. Is that separation of church and state?

Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 14 2014,6:56 am

(Expatriate @ Dec. 13 2014,4:51 pm)

QUOTE

In the Constitution freedom of religion is also closely associated with separation of church and state, religion has always been in the hands of some crazy ass people!

Expat is mixing words again. First, no where in the Constitution does it say separation of church and state. He's implying his own definition as he sees fit to the word of law.

The Constitution states "it shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In otherwords, it forbid an official or establishment of a religion but gave its citizens the freedom to choose if they desired. No national church, no national religion.

Separation of church and state as expat implies leads to the belief of some sort of wall separating the church from the state. This is not true and is not stated or implied in the Constitution. Each citizen is given the right and freedom to choose who or what he wishes to call their higher power.

Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 14 2014,3:41 pm

@Maddog, we don’t live in a theocracy, the government is secular by design, I'm not the one misrepresenting the Constitution.

Douglas Erickson, the owner of Hastings Ford and Hastings Chrysler Center has the right to worship anything he wants
but he doesn’t have right to deny his employees healthcare because of his beliefs on birth control.

It’s fairly obvious what we have here is a partisan Federal Judge attempting to derail ACA.

If the Republicans would have put as much effort/tax dollars in some better plan, but you have no plan, only NO,

I really don’t care for the ACA because private insurance companies run it, we’d far better off if we were all on Medicare!

My post #1105

QUOTE

^^I wouldn’t be to quick to applaud this ruling, the precedent it sets could turn this country into a battling theocracy as crazy as that of the Mideast!
What we have here is a car dealer imposing his religious beliefs on his employees not the government imposing on the car dealer, the government is nonreligious!
Now lets say a Muslim, Jew, Wiccan etc. takes over your car dealership and decides to imposes his religious beliefs on you and the other employees.
There’s a Constitutional issue here.

Article [1] (Amendment 1 - Freedom of expression and religion)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

My post #1107

QUOTE

My post #1110

QUOTE

In the Constitution freedom of religion is also closely associated with separation of church and state, religion has always been in the hands of some crazy ass people!

Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 19 2015,11:49 am

QUOTE

< Rural Hospitals, One Of The Cornerstones Of Small Town Life, Face Increasing Pressure >

MOUNT VERNON, Texas—Despite residents’ concerns and a continuing need for services, the 25-bed hospital that served this small East Texas town for more than 25 years closed its doors at the end of 2014, joining the ranks of dozens of other small rural hospitals that have been unable to weather the punishment of a changing national health care environment.

For the high percentages of elderly and uninsured patients who live in rural areas, closures mean longer trips for treatment and uncertainty during times of crisis. “I came to the emergency room when I had panic attacks,” said George Taylor, 60, a retired federal government employee. “It was very soothing and the staff was great. I can’t imagine Mount Vernon without a hospital.”

The Kansas-based National Rural Health Association, which represents around 2,000 small hospitals throughout the country and other rural care providers, says that 48 rural hospitals have closed since 2010, the majority in Southern states, and 283 others are in trouble. In Texas along, 10 have changed.

“If there was one particular policy causing the trouble, it would be easy to understand,” said health economist Mark Holmes, from the University of North Carolina, whose rural health research program studies national trends in rural health care. “But there are a lot of things going on.”

Experts and practitioners cite declining federal reimbursements for hospitals under the Affordable Care Act as the principal reason for the recent closures. Besides cutting back on Medicare, the law reduced payments to hospitals for the uninsured, a decision based on the assumption that states would expand their Medicaid programs. However, almost two dozen states have refused to do so. In addition, other Medicare cuts caused by a budget disagreement in Congress have also hurt hospitals’ bottom lines.

Of course we can't blame all of this on Obamacare. We can blame Truman.

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 20 2015,9:22 am

^ Your Governor in Iowa seems to be closing all the mental institutions, soon you’ll be without a bed!

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 28 2015,2:20 pm

Posted by Common Citizen on May 13 2015,7:54 am

QUOTE

This is not the first time that a state exchange has failed, and taken millions of dollars in federal funds down with it. Earlier this year, Oregon’s state exchange was officially abolished at an estimated cost of $41 million. Cover Oregon, as it used to be known received $305 million in funds from HHS but failed to produce a workable website months after the 2013 November deadline. The debacle has promoted numerous federal agencies and organizations to investigate allegations of inappropriate political interference from then Governor Kitzhaber’s 2014 reelection campaign.

Hawaii now joins Oregon, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, New Mexico, and Nevada as cautionary tales in government central planning. With so many failed state exchanges, questions need to be asked about the haphazard allocation of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds and the complete lack of oversight.

Still think this is a great deal? Don't get up. Keep grabbing your ankles because this Obama boondoggle isn't even close to being finished.

Posted by grassman on May 13 2015,9:38 am

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. How can you scrap something when you get so deep? Figure out what went wrong and fix it.

Posted by Common Citizen on May 13 2015,10:23 am

You scrap it. Maybe read the bill before you vote on it or maybe tell the truth about the program. You may be ok with wasting billions of dollars on some grand social experiment but I'm not.

You don't have to be an arm chair quarterback to know it would have been cheaper to expand Medicaid. But it was more important for Obama to create a legacy at the expense of the people. :finger:

Posted by grassman on May 13 2015,10:42 am

I understand that it should have been gone over better before making it to a vote. That was stupidity at it highest level. You need to understand who put some very disturbing rules in it. I think it was the Insurance Industry. :;):

Posted by Common Citizen on May 13 2015,1:34 pm

(grassman @ May 13 2015,10:42 am)

QUOTE

The health insurers were forced to play or die. They saw the writing on the wall with the liberals controlling Washington.

I notice that you just can't bring yourself to admit that this law, trumped up and passed by democrats, sucks. Nope. To you, there has to be another explanation because you're a good little liberal. :;):

Nuff said.

Posted by grassman on May 13 2015,5:12 pm

Whatever. What, insurance companies too big to fail? Who says I am a Liberal. I like guns, I like em alot!

Posted by irisheyes on May 14 2015,12:59 am

(Common Citizen @ May 13 2015,7:54 am)

QUOTE

With so many failed state exchanges, questions need to be asked about the haphazard allocation of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds and the complete lack of oversight.

You're not mentioning your source, the above < article and blog entry > was written by an AstroTurf group run by Grover Norquist. ATR claims that cutting spending is the solution, but a group that was started by < Reagan in '85 > makes it pretty obvious they don't mind seeing red ink in the budget, they just don't want the rich to be the ones to pay for it.

QUOTE

You don't have to be an arm chair quarterback to know it would have been cheaper to expand Medicaid.

Do you have any numbers to back this up? The expansion of Medicaid conservatives mention would be put on a credit card, like what they did with the wars, Medicare Part D, and the new Department of Homeland Security. It would only be "cheaper" for those who aren't watching the national debt.

Between the Dems and the Republicans, only one side was going to reform health care and manage to reduce the deficit at the same time. Democratic budget and economic policies cut the budget in half in dollars, and cut it far more by percent of GDP. CBO estimates a 2.7% for 2015 (and continuing to drop) versus the 9.8% of Bush's last fiscal year.
< CBO's most recent publication, deficit as % of GDP >

Posted by Common Citizen on May 15 2015,10:55 am

< My Webpage >
< My Webpage >
< My Webpage >
< My Webpage >
< My Webpage >

Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 10 2015,11:15 am

And some wonder why there are those who have absolutely no respect for the man in Office.

QUOTE

Healthcare subsidies: < Obama’s cynical advice > to the Supreme Court

The entire ACA should have already been overturned based upon the lies President Obama created in order to get it passed.

SAN DIEGO, June 9, 2015 — Never missing an opportunity to deliver yet another misleading speech, President Obama decided to share his vast legal expertise with the Supreme Court, at least indirectly. While attending the G-7 summit in Germany, he held a press conference and brazenly dropped a hint that the Supreme Court would be offering “a twisted interpretation of the law” should they overturn that portion of the Affordable Health Care Act which offers federal subsidies to people enrolled in health insurance coverage through the federal portal, HealthCare.gov.

“This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up,” Obama explained.

QUOTE

< Obamacare at the Supreme Court in less than three minutes >

"There's something, I have to say, just deeply cynical about the ceaseless, endless, partisan attempts to roll back progress," Obama told a Washington conference on the Affordable Care Act.

He went on to fire an implicit shot across the court's bow, warning that anyone responsible for felling the law through this legal maneuver would not just be depriving millions of people of long-sought health care, but inciting chaos and subverting the central ideals of America itself.

"It seems so cynical to want to take coverage away from millions of people, to take care away from the people who need it the most, to punish millions with higher costs of care and unravel what's been woven into the fabric of America," he said.

"That kind of cynicism flies in the face of our history. Our history is one of each generation striving to do better and to be better than the last."

The day before, at a press conference in Germany, Obama had called out the court directly.

"This should be an easy case," he said. "Frankly, it probably shouldn't even have been taken up."

Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 10 2015,12:29 pm

^^i listened to his ramblings yesterday, he has no clue whatsoever.
I don't know which way the court will rule but if they rule against his response should be "precious"

Posted by Liberal on Jun. 10 2015,2:43 pm

The right wing nut jobs are preparing for another lose. They're claiming Obama is bullying the court which is a seperate but equal branch of the government. So if they're equal to the executive branch how is he bullying them?

Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 10 2015,3:26 pm

^^so if the the court rules against bummercare, Buster can overrule them?

As near as I can see it's even money.

Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 10 2015,4:04 pm

I hardly think the Kenyan kingpin is having any effect on SCOTUS. If nothing else, they may be tiring of his immature antics.

With his comments towards the court in the midst of their deliberation is not much different from attempted jury tampering.

That my friend is a felony. But then a man who believes he's as right as God's lieutenant or at the least, King George is above all that.

Posted by Liberal on Jun. 10 2015,4:51 pm

You're dumber than a bag of hammers. Jury tampering by talking about a seperate but equal branch of government? Did you ever attend a civics class where you weren't stoned?

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 10 2015,5:56 pm

Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 10 2015,6:51 pm

^^^

Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 11 2015,10:12 am

(Liberal @ Jun. 10 2015,4:51 pm)

QUOTE

You're dumber than a bag of hammers. Jury tampering by talking about a seperate but equal branch of government? Did you ever attend a civics class where you weren't stoned?

Apparently there are many other sources who claim this borders Jury tampering. This is not the first time the WH crime boss has tried to throw the power of the presidency around.

< obama jury tampering SCOTUS >

Besides Bamino's dope smoking days in college, I think a few more were caught in the fog.

Posted by Liberal on Jun. 11 2015,10:30 am

(MADDOG @ Jun. 11 2015,10:12 am)

QUOTE

(Liberal @ Jun. 10 2015,4:51 pm)

QUOTE

You're dumber than a bag of hammers. Jury tampering by talking about a seperate but equal branch of government? Did you ever attend a civics class where you weren't stoned?

Try again, this time set your search options to this month. The search results you llinked to are all dated 2012. Like I said, dumber than a bag of hammrrs

Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 11 2015,10:52 am

So you're admitting it that he's done it before.

Posted by Liberal on Jun. 11 2015,11:01 am

Where did I say anything like that? I really think you should consider a neurology workup, or at least see a proctologist about getting your head pulled out of your ass.

Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 11 2015,3:02 pm

Maybe you didn't read my full post.

QUOTE

This is not the first time the WH crime boss has tried to throw the power of the presidency around.

These are of his current gentle persuasions.

< Jawboning the jury >

< Obama’s outburst against SCOTUS >

CNN even danced around without using the words.

< He fired an implicit shot across the court's bow >

From the < huffpost >

QUOTE

"This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably should not even have been taken up," Obama said during a press conference at the G-7 summit in Germany.

I think he and you have the same kind of blind devotion: My way is right. Always. Wonder why he didn't say the SCOTUS is dumber than a bag of hammers for even taking the case. Wouldn't you?

Posted by Liberal on Jun. 11 2015,3:17 pm

So which one of those links says anything about jury tampering?

I made the mistake of reading your BS first link and it pretty much says the opposite of what you claimed. The second link is a blogger's diary on redstate.org. I didnt bother with the third link because you apparently have a hard time finding links to back up your BS with your head stuck up your ass.

Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 12 2015,8:05 am

< View on YouTube >

Posted by Liberal on Jun. 12 2015,8:17 am

I don't get it, what does your girlfriend have to do with Obamacare?

Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 12 2015,9:43 am

^^thought that was Expat's GF

The "dog" knows the story. :rofl:

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 12 2015,5:07 pm

^^I think you're kind of funny but not in a ha ha way

Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 13 2015,7:07 am

^^ did you have "some of dem dar French fried 'taters" last night?

Un- huh! :dunce:

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 15 2015,8:44 am

Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 16 2015,5:06 am

I can play too...

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 16 2015,7:09 am

^^^

Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 16 2015,8:01 am

^^
So you're not a proton or a neutron or even an electron😃

Kinda narrows it down.😳

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 16 2015,11:44 am

QUOTE

So you're not a proton or a neutron or even an electron😃

^^The body is made up of atoms, which to varying degree have protons neutrons electrons which leaves you the moron! :dunce:

v I believe you should look into artificial intelligence Dumbo, it’s obvious you don’t have any of your own!

Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 16 2015,12:04 pm

Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 17 2015,8:56 am

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 17 2015,9:12 am

Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 23 2015,4:07 pm

Any day now

< http://thehill.com/policy...-ruling >

:popcorn:

Posted by irisheyes on Jun. 24 2015,1:16 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jun. 23 2015,4:07 pm)

QUOTE

Any day now
< http://thehill.com/policy...-ruling >

Conservatives said it'll never pass the House, it'll never pass the Senate. Okay, it passed both and signed into law, but the Supreme Court will declare it Unconstitutional. Okay, it's Constitutional, but "any day now."

The ACA is here to stay. It is NOT perfect, but either were the bailouts, stimulus, or the Medicare Part D plan that the Republicans passed. And there aren't many so-called conservative groups flocking to challenge those. :dunno:

Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 24 2015,1:32 pm

(irisheyes @ Jun. 24 2015,1:16 pm)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Jun. 23 2015,4:07 pm)

QUOTE

Any day now
< http://thehill.com/policy...-ruling >

Wow, you got all that out of "any day now"
I'm impressed

Posted by Liberal on Jun. 24 2015,2:52 pm

Actually they started with swearing it would never make it out of commitee. :rofl:

Posted by Liberal on Jun. 25 2015,9:24 am

6 to 3, Keep on losing! :rofl:

Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 25 2015,9:48 am

Oh joy :
To all the deadbeats that benefit
You're welcome.

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 25 2015,11:48 am

...

Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 25 2015,5:04 pm

Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 26 2015,3:07 am

I see someone else was happy about the decision

< http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybe...-ruling >

Posted by grassman on Jun. 26 2015,6:41 am

Could you imagine how successful this program could be if...everyone would try to make it better instead of destroy it? :cool:

Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 26 2015,8:41 am

The ins. companies are happy as hell, they'll make money, the gov gets to control (namely the IRS) and we all get higher premiums and deductibles.
Life is good. :sarcasm:

Posted by grassman on Jun. 26 2015,4:44 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jun. 26 2015,8:41 am)

QUOTE

The ins. companies are happy as hell, they'll make money, the gov gets to control (namely the IRS) and we all get higher premiums and deductibles.
Life is good. :sarcasm:

Ok, you have identified a sympton, now let's try and make it better.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 26 2015,5:49 pm

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 06 2015,1:42 pm

Wow, Blue Cross/ Blue Shield wants a 54% increase in MN

Thankyou Democrats :sarcasm:

< http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015...ferrer= >

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 06 2015,2:19 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jul. 06 2015,1:42 pm)

QUOTE

Wow, Blue Cross/ Blue Shield wants a 54% increase in MN

Thankyou Democrats :sarcasm:

< http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015...ferrer= >

Don't worry. They said if you're willing to switch plans, you might only see a modest increase. Of course, you'll likely lose your choice of doctor and sometimes need to accept a more limited choice of hospitals. Don't even ask about what your deductible is going to do. It's already more than doubled in most cases.

QUOTE

Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the secretary of health and human services, said that federal subsidies would soften the impact of any rate increases. Of the 10.2 million people who obtained coverage through federal and state marketplaces this year, 85 percent receive subsidies in the form of tax credits to help pay premiums.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 06 2015,3:51 pm

^^ So I'd have to lose my doc and go to a discount hospital?

What could go wrong?? :sarcasm:

Posted by irisheyes on Jul. 06 2015,4:54 pm

[quote=Self-Banished,Jun. 26 2015,5:49 pm]^^[/quote]
Slavery wasn't a Dem versus Repub issue, similar with civil rights in the mid-20th Century. The predominant factor was where they lived, not whether there was an "R" or "D" next to their name.

Lincoln was a Republican, but a Repub in the north. The ones on the other side were Democrats from... You guessed it, the south. :;):

QUOTE

Wow, Blue Cross/ Blue Shield wants a 54% increase in MN

Thankyou Democrats

Once again the implication is that you've never seen an insurance company seeking a rate increase until the ACA.

We're totally shocked! They've only done that in, let me see... 1951... '61... '71... '81... '92, '93... '94... '02, '03... '08, '09.

But, now we're seeing a rate increase in '15. Did you ever consider that it would've gone up without the ACA? The difference is that now we actually have guarantees in place for coverage regardless of per-existing conditions, and they can't drop you once you get sick.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 06 2015,7:12 pm

My ins was going up 2-3% a year, inflation, better services etc. now it goes up 6-8% a year ever since bummercare came to be and I'm fully expecting being hit with a Cadillac tax next year.

Now we're seeing ins co. Merging, turning into bigger, more profit driven entities with our gov. Orchestrating.

Posted by grassman on Jul. 06 2015,7:33 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jul. 06 2015,7:12 pm)

QUOTE

Suck it up buttercup. How much was your cable bill thirty years ago? Big business RULES, should have caught on by now. Remember, capitalism. :;):

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 06 2015,9:29 pm

^^gee, I seem to remember somebody telling me the ins. were gouging us and we needed the gov to rein them in, even asked me to watch some PBS special on the subject.

Now the gov is running the show and premiums are going up along with deductibles.

Maybe he'll try again to tell how this sh!t works. :dunce:

Posted by grassman on Jul. 07 2015,2:28 am

The insurance companies still set the premium, last I checked, they are big business. Remember, they were part of the too big to fail.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 07 2015,4:50 am

^^this is a train wreck happening

Posted by irisheyes on Jul. 07 2015,12:09 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jul. 06 2015,9:29 pm)

QUOTE

You still think the gov is "running the show" and you think that costs going up above inflation is a new thing? :blush:

I'm glad that you married someone who has good health insurance, now and before the ACA, but if you didn't you'd be hoping your pre-existing conditions are covered just like others, and checking the exchanges or getting raked over the coals from a broker.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 07 2015,1:12 pm

...and our premiums will drop $2500 a year. :rofl:

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 08 2015,6:25 pm

Posted by pepi-lapew on Jul. 10 2015,6:23 pm

Dont let the plane door hit you in the A$$ when you leave.

Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 10 2015,7:00 pm

Two Words: Spanish architecture
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_architecture >

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 13 2015,1:49 pm

^^ is it dipsh!t or dip sh!t?

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 13 2015,2:23 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jul. 13 2015,1:49 pm)

QUOTE

^^ is it dipsh!t or dip sh!t?

< The first. >

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 13 2015,6:16 pm

^^
Thank you, I didn't want to commit a faux pas.

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 14 2015,6:54 am

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 31 2015,7:41 am

JAMA on ACA

< http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2411283 >

Conclusions and Relevance The ACA’s first 2 open enrollment periods were associated with significantly improved trends in self-reported coverage, access to primary care and medications, affordability, and health. Low-income adults in states that expanded Medicaid reported significant gains in insurance coverage and access compared with adults in states that did not expand Medicaid.