How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 How to Lie Without Lying   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

How to Lie Without Lying

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


25 posted 07-17-2009 06:22 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Ron,

As a Conservative voter I’d have preferred discussing the reasons I think the bill shouldn’t be passed instead of spending time trying to explain what the bill actually means.

Maybe next time.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


26 posted 07-17-2009 07:55 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

"Going forward all policies have to follow the strictures laid out in the bill"...what do you suppose that will do to free market principles? I believe it will handcuff them and eventually destroy the private companies. And they don't want new policies to be written that they consider inadequate. Who determines what is adequate or inadequate? The government? Who made them the experts in what is acceptable in medical insurance policies and health care issues?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


27 posted 07-17-2009 09:10 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


45.7 million of the inhabitants of the U.S. are uninsured. From that figure..

6.4 million are a Medicare undercount
9.3 million are not U.S. citizens
10.1 million earn over threetimes the poverty level
5.0 million are childless adults between the ages of 18-34
That leaves 10.6 million uninsured, who will still receive treatment in cases of emergencies.


Dear Mike,

          I had been meaning stay out of this.  You have managed to construe my silence in one of the ways that is  more unpleasant to me.  I am allied with what I see as the truth, not with somebody who hasn't asked by opinion would imagine it to be.  

     I have no idea what the actual number of uninsured people may be today.  What is clear is that there is a correlation between unemployment and insurance coverage, just as there is between unemployment and crime.  If you have no job, one of the first things to go is your ability to pay your Cobra coverage.  When the choice is between Cobra coverage and food or Cobra coverage and rent, a person has some hard decisions to make.  They don't give you a special discount on your rates, and the amount of time you're covered on the company policy is limited.  That's the way it is.

     So, whatever the number of uninsured may have been a year ago, it's higher now, and it's growing.

     I don't know what a Medicare Undercount is.  Does this mean that the Bush government doesn't know the number of checks it was sending out, or that it was excluding people from medicare rolls that should have been there, but had been kept off for one reason or another that simply wasn't kosher.  Having been the therapist of several folks who were shut ins or disabled schizophrenics during the Reagan era, I know first hand that this would not be the first time such tactics to reduce "entitlements" have been used.  Is this possible?  The very phrase is linguistically slippery.

     The 9.3 that aren't US citizens is also an interesting inclusion.  Mr. Hennessey is suggesting here that we don't really have an obligation to  take care of the people in our country who can't prove they are citizens when they are wheeled into the admissions room of a hospital without an insurance card or a large amount of cash.  I would suggest that this is class warfare at its best.  No money, no care.  If you have the money or insurance, we won't ask about citizenship, because it isn't to the point.  If you don't have the money or the insurance, then not only are you sick, but you have to prove that you're a citizen as well at the time when  you're most vulnerable.  Money and insurance, no problemo;  No money, no insurance, our only concern is that we ship you out to the right country.  The reason Mr. Hennessey has added them to the list is that he thinks we can exclude them from people we should allow to have health care in this country, isn't it?  Otherwise, they wouldn't have made the list.  Class warfare.  

     10.3 million of them earn over three times poverty level.  Let's look at that a minute.  If you look over Mr. Hennessey's entire list, you will notice an interesting thing.  While he includes "childless adults" as a catagory, at no point in this list does be mention children, the physically disabled, and the psychiatrically and developmentally disabled.  They have magically been cleansed from his world.  They do not exist for him.  He makes a point of talking about single persons, but does not mention married persons.  Unless there are no married persons in Mr. Hennessey's world, we must believed that they are scattered throughout his list.  I suspect, in looking at this list in particular, that of the people earning more than three times poverty level wages, which by the way, doesn't seem like such a huge amount to me these days, a certain fairly high percentage of them would be married families averaging four members.  15 years ago, when insurance was a common and not terribly high cost benefit for working class families, this wouldn't have been such a problem.  This is not true today.  

     At any rate, the figures that Mr. Hennessey quotes here would then tend to be a little bit suspect.  You wouldn't count 9.3 million people having incomes of three times poverty level.  You would be counting perhaps a quarter that number of families with that income level, with the figures jimmied to suggest that each of those family members was earning what the total income of the family was.  Without having any families included in this list, or any children, or any of the other groups that I've mentioned, including the homeless, whose census fluctuates with the difficulty of the times, we've got to be clear as to how these figures are being manipulated.  As the titles of the thread says:  How to lie without lying.

     Over five million are childless adults between the ages of 18 and 34.  Ah, yes, those folks. In the late seventies and early eighties, in a great but failed attempt at both increasing civil liberties and cutting state budgets to the bone, factors appealing to both left and right, State Psychiatric Hospitals across the nation were emptied of as many patients as could possibly be managed.  The idea was that they would be quartered in a series of halfway houses set in communities across the nation.  The whole process was called deinstitutionalization.  As one, a chorus of voices rose from the backyards of our country and sang the words of that hallowed old favorite, Not In My Back Yard!

     And in their wisdom, our elected officials sang in return, "So Shall It Be, For It Is Good!"

     18-34, is, by the way, the most common age of onset for both schizophrenia and Bipolar disorders, though you will find cases starting at both older and younger ages in both cases.  When they are lucky, these folks are insured through the government, and they frequently go through the hospital system for illnesses of one sort or another.  When young, they are often in denial of their illnesses and have frequent brushes with the law and may not be picked up by the government health system because they may give aliases and for other, odder reasons.

     Frequently they are simply too concerned with other things to get signed up and their lives may be too unstable to hold a steady enough job to pay for it.

     Apparently the other 10.6 million are okay with Mr. Hennessey, and apparently with you.

     Grinch has already pointed out your misreading of the quoted text.

     Had you actually read the report of "The non-partisan Lewin Group" which you excerpt, you might have found out why the "fizzle out" seemed likely.  That is that the insurance offered by the government appeared to be about 30% cheaper for the same coverage.  They also mention what appear to be some flaws in the government plan that I think should be addressed.  Not being very good with figures, I can't tell you much about them.  I'd be interested in what Grinch has to say.

     I do notice that while you are incredibly acid about the government proposed health plan, as are the Republican members of congress, none of you are willing to make a principled stand and give up your government health insurance.  You and I had a discussion, in fact, where you stood up stoutly for the quality of that insurance and of the care it provided, and I believe that the care you are getting currently is a good the the care you've had before.
I would suggest to you that there may be a bit of a contradiction in your positions in the two discussions.  I don't demand consistency from you or anybody, really; it's not really fair.  But when it's not there, it's sometimes useful to think about on one's own.

quote:


OBAMA:  No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s.  (Obama's  campaign promise)




     When George H.W. Bush said, "Read my lips, No New Taxes!" did you think he was taking responsibility for hikes in city, county, and state taxes?"

      I didn't.

     New York has always had very high taxes, and New York City has always been exceptionally high for New York State.  Most people can't afford to live there now.  The real estate alone is unbelievable, the theater is wonderful but sky high.  In this, it is like London, where the prices are about double; maybe less now. There are cheap places to live, but it's unclear that you'd want to live there.  Same with Paris.  I'm told Rome is much the same.

     You actually want to blame the Condition of New York on President Obama?  And where is that bridge you want us to buy again?

     If the cost of health care goes into a five percent tax surcharge, for many of us, that comes out of a much greater payment we make already.

     You have some idea of the quality of the program because you're in the pilot program now.  Perhaps you like to tell us all about how bad it is and how it doesn't work, Mike?  

     You'll remember I think it's been underfunded and not well managed for yours now.

     You've been throwing that words Lie and Liar a lot here, Mike.  I think it would be useful if you read your own sources a bit more critically and thought about what they were saying, and about what the implications of their statements were.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven


th1nktw1ce
Junior Member
since 07-13-2009
Posts 27


28 posted 07-18-2009 12:41 AM       View Profile for th1nktw1ce   Email th1nktw1ce   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for th1nktw1ce

We're actually giving educated thought to this?

Repub and Dems have made a circus wheel out of the economy since the 70s. No matter your positions on medicare, social security, welfare, etc., each side works an agenda...period. Everything Obama is doing now is part of what dems have been trying to do since the 70s. And everything the Repubs have done is to counteract everything the Dems have done. Every four to eight years each party gets a chance to spooge on the other. This all started with John Adams walked into a bar and said to Thomas Jefferson, "Your wife is mega hot".

Really people, with lobbyists "raising awreness for everything on god's green earth it's no surprise $400,000 dollars to research if guys like having sex better with condoms or without condoms.

Vote independent. Go Ron Paul.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


29 posted 07-18-2009 12:58 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ron, the breakdown of uninsured is important because it is the hammer Obama is using to drive his nail home, about why his plan for health care reform is so vital. He ignores the very large percentage of AMericans who claim they are satisfied with their current plan and uses inflated figures to try to win the support of the public. No one is saying health care reform is not necessary  but the question is...is Obama's plan the answer. I was watching tv earlier and three Democratic senators were asked about Obama's plan and whether or not taxing the rich and businesses was the answer to it's funding. The basic answer of all three was, "Well, we've got to do something!". They seemed very careful not to say it was really a good plan. They just continued the mantra of something must be done. Fine, we can agree on that. There are many things that can be done. Eliminating the waste in the system would be a good start. Controlling costs would be another. There are plenty of things within the system we have that can be streamlined and made more efficient and therefore reduce costs. Why not look at those?

I mentioned New York because it could have been any state. It could be California, which cannot pay it's bills, it could be Ohio or it could be Florida, which announced today reaching the milestone of the highest unemployment rate since 1974. All of these are being affected by Obama's policies and will continue to deteriorate.

Do you really think Obama's plan is not to eliminate private health care? Let's suppose your company employs 100 workers and your contribution to their health care is $100.00  apiece. The government then comes along and say, "You can get a policy from us where your cost will only be 50." This  means a 5,000 monthly savings to you. Will you take it? Of course, as would most business, especially the ones with hundreds or even thousands of employees. That means all of those employees, which collectively number in the millions, would basically be forced to carry the government, which would effectively destroy the private carriers they had used. Is there some fallacy to my logic here? I'm not saying there's not but I'd like to hear what it is.

Bob, I thank you for your reply and there are a lot of things I would like to say to answer it. It won't be now, which is one a.m., nor tomorrow which is a very busy work day for me, but I will respond....just didn't want you to think I was ignoring it.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


30 posted 07-18-2009 05:44 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Do you really think Obama's plan is not to eliminate private health care?


If he was trying to eliminate private health care Mike then he’s going about it the wrong way.

The evidence for that is, in part, the very same section of the bill that you insisted proved that private health policies would be illegal. In that one section he’s allowing existing health plans, whether they meet the minimum standards or not, to continue to generate revenue for the insurers. A much better way to strangle all those unscrupulous insurers who are supplying over priced and under covered policies would be to insist that all health insurance, regardless of the date of issue, must meet a minimum standard.

quote:
Let's suppose your company employs 100 workers and your contribution to their health care is $100.00  apiece. The government then comes along and say, "You can get a policy from us where your cost will only be 50." This  means a 5,000 monthly savings to you. Will you take it? Of course, as would most business, especially the ones with hundreds or even thousands of employees.


Not necessarily.

If I ran a company health scheme and found that I could get the same plan for my employees somewhere else the first thing I’d do if I was satisfied with my current insurer would be to ask them to explain why they’ve been charging me twice as much as they needed to. I’d be asking them for a cost reduction as well as wondering if the health insurance industry were just a bunch of bankers in disguise that have been ripping me off for years.

If I were an insurer I’d be looking at the cover of my plans and comparing costs with the rest of the market sector. In fact I’d be forced to, because my plans and everyone else’s would be listed on the health insurance exchange that the bill is going to create. I’d have obviously read the bill and realised the fact that the government had purposely fixed the cost they can supply the minimum cover to customers at a level I could easily match or beat and still make a tidy profit. That they’d hamstrung themselves to ensure they didn’t price honest insurers like me out of business.

Which brings us on to the issue of whether the government scheme would, in fact, be the cheapest.

Ignore for a second the fact that it’s the government that’s offering a reduced cost to companies in your example Mike. If it was another insurance supplier would that be ok? It could be another company couldn’t it? I mean if a government that isn’t really in the business of supplying insurance, that’s obviously inflating the cost of their own scheme can supply a more cost effective plan surely an established health insurance company could do the same. They could offset the cost with the revenue from all those over-priced under covered policies that Obama has ring fenced for them.

The government doesn’t want to eliminate private health care Mike, they want to eliminate over-priced and under covered health plans. They’re going to do it by using that old Conservative touchstone we both know and love – Market forces.

So why aren’t health insurance suppliers marching in the streets to protest?

Well some of them are, they’d be the rip off merchants that have been charging twice as much for a product that could obviously be much cheaper – they obviously want to continue to fleece customers, they’re the ones that you’re worrying might be forced out of business Mike. I’m less inclined to shed a tear at their potential demise.

The rest of them, those that have read the bill, have realised that this is the health insurance equivalent of a gold rush. They’re about to have their target market extended to include every man woman and child in the US by act of law – think of all those potential new customers.

As an added bonus they’ll also have all the customers of the rip off merchants that refuse to change.

"Economies of scale" is probably being chanted in boardrooms as a mantra before every meeting finished off by a rousing chorus of “stack em high sell em cheap” when the Human Resources and Marketing team announce they can increase their portfolio by 20% with only an additional 2% increase in staff. That’s even before the bean counters in Accounts present the projected profit and loss figures that show that despite the reduction in costs per plan revenue through increased turnover is likely to increase by over 15% in Q1 alone.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


31 posted 07-18-2009 08:44 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
I'd be interested in what Grinch has to say.


Bob,

I’d say that the Lewin Group is right up there among the shysters that have been ripping the American people off for years and anything they say needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Non-partisan my aspidistra

The Lewin Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ingenix, which is in turn owned by UnitedHealth Group who just happen to be the nation’s largest health insurance corporation.

Don’t get me wrong, they want the bill to succeed, they’d love the extra customers, they just want to kill the parts of it that forces them to lower their prices. If they scupper the idea of a cheaper government plan there’s more of the pie for them and less incentive to cut the costs.

The bill is a good solution to the wrong problem. That's the flaw we should be talking about.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


32 posted 07-18-2009 09:06 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If I ran a company health scheme and found that I could get the same plan for my employees somewhere else the first thing I d do if I was satisfied with my current insurer would be to ask them to explain why they ve been charging me twice as much as they needed to.

Really? So then when you see that a store has a 50% off sale going on, you would go over there and want to know why, if they can make a profit at that rate, why have they been gouging the public when they don't run sales?

Which brings us on to the issue of whether the government scheme would, in fact, be the cheapest.

You really think the government can't run it cheaper with public funds and not concerned with making a profit?

Assurances that the government plan would play by the rules that private insurers play by are implausible. Government is incapable of behaving like market-disciplined private insurers. Competition from the public option must be unfair because government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers. Besides, unless the point of a government plan is to be cheaper, it is pointless. If the public option conforms to the imperatives that regulations and competition impose on private insurers, there's no reason for it. The president characteristically denies that he is doing what he is doing - putting the nation on a path to an outcome that he considers desirable - just as he denies any intention of running General Motors. Nevertheless, the unifying constant of his domestic policies - their connecting thread -  is that they advance the Democrat's dependency agenda. They aim to make Americans more equal by making them equally dependent on government for more and more things.
The president says competition from a government plan is necessary to keep private insurers "honest". Presumably, being "honest" means not colluding to set prices and evidently he thinks that, absent competition from government, there will not be a competitive market for insurance. This ignores  facts:

There are 1300 competing providers of health insurance. Roll Call's Morton Kondracke notes that the 2003 Medicare prescription drug entitlement, relying on competition among private insurers, ejoys an 87% approval rating because competition has made premiums less expensive than had been expected. The program's estimated cost from 2007 to 2016 has been reduced 43%.

George Will, Miami Herald column June 22, 2009

If he was trying to eliminate private health care Mike then he s going about it the wrong way.

No, he's going about it exactly the right way - for him. He doesn't want to be known as the president that eliminated private health care. He just wants to be the president that set the wheels in motion to insure they could not succeed. He could still say, "Not my fault they couldn't compete" like the referee who gives the team a flat soccer ball and then says "Not me, I gave them a ball", when they complain they can't play.

The proof will be in the pudding, grinch. Hopefully, we won't find out but, should this plan pass, I'll be back to remind you of your comment when the private carriers go under, although that will be a small consolation.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


33 posted 07-18-2009 09:18 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Saturday defended his broad health care overhaul, calling it fiscally sound and urging Congress not to squander its moment to pass reform.

"This is what the debate in Congress is all about: whether we'll keep talking and tinkering and letting this problem fester as more families and businesses go under and more Americans lose their coverage," Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address. "Or whether we'll seize this opportunity — one we might not have again for generations — and finally pass health insurance reform this year, in 2009."

"The president and some Democrats insist we must rush this plan through," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "Why? Because the more Americans know about it, the more they oppose it. Something this important needs to be done right, rather than done quickly." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090718/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care_6

Same razzle-dazzle Obama has used in the past with the stimulus package and currently with the cap and trade. "We must do it NOW! for the sake of the country". Senator Kyl has it exactly right. Obama doesn't want time for the opportunity of discussion because the public might have time to realize what he is trying to do and how he's trying to do it. He must rush it through as quickly as possible to get his way, before anyone has the chance to think it through and see it for what it is.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


34 posted 07-18-2009 09:41 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Really? So then when you see that a store has a 50% off sale going on, you would go over there and want to know why, if they can make a profit at that rate, why have they been gouging the public when they don't run sales?


No.

That would be silly Mike, for the simple reason that I know that they aren’t making a profit, they’re minimising their losses on goods that would otherwise go unsold.

Or they’re generating consumer spending by introducing a loss leader product to entice customers.

Or they’re increasing overall profit by selling more goods while maintaining fixed costs at a time when sales are slack – January is a favourite.

Though if the sale lasted all year long Mike you can bet your bottom dollar I’d be asking some questions.

quote:
You really think the government can't run it cheaper with public funds and not concerned with making a profit?


Of course they could run it cheaper but they aren’t going to, that’s why they’ve capped the minimum level they’ll supply cover for. The government doesn’t want to get into health insurance Mike, they want to drag down the overblown cost of cover by initiating competition. If they set their rates just above what’s reasonable the private insurers will match or beat it without even breaking sweat and any loss from the reduced premium will be paid for by increased portfolio.

It’s not rocket science Mike – read the proposals in the bill instead of posting inane quotes from idiots who should know better.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


35 posted 07-18-2009 09:55 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Guess you're right, grinch. George Will is generally regarded as a complete idiot. Thank God we have you to set us straight

My regards to the Queen Mother......
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


36 posted 07-18-2009 10:24 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


It doesn’t matter much to me if it’s George Will, George Bush or George Clooney Mike, if I think someone’s wrong I’ll explain exactly why I think they’re wrong along with sufficient evidence to hopefully prove my case.

You should try it sometime.

BTW

The Queen Mother died in 2002 – you may want to let Rush know.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


37 posted 07-18-2009 10:27 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Criticism of the George W. Bush administration

George Will opposed the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court, and was among the first and prominent Beltway media to do so.[citation needed]

Will expressed reservations about Bush administration Iraq policies, eventually openly criticizing what he perceived to be an unrealistically optimistic set of political scenarios.

In March 2006, in a column penned in the aftermath of the apparently sectarian bombing of the Askariya Shrine in Samarra, Baghdad, Will challenged the Bush administration—and U.S. government representatives in Iraq—to be more honest about the difficulties the United States faced in rebuilding and maintaining order within Iraq, comparing the White House's rhetoric unfavorably to that of Winston Churchill during the early years of World War II. The optimistic assessments delivered by the Bush administration were described by Will as the "rhetoric of unreality."[22]

Will criticized the Bush Iraq policy, and broader White House and congressional foreign and domestic policy making, in his keynote address for the Cato Institute's 2006 Milton Friedman Prize dinner.[23]

[edit] Criticism of the 2008 McCain-Palin campaign

Will was also a harsh and early critic of both Sarah Palin and John McCain's end game for the election of 2008. He criticized Palin's understanding of the role of the Vice President, her qualifications for that role and even titled his pre-election Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post "Call Him John the Careless".[24]

An idiot for sure, grinch, and completely biased, as you can see. After all, he was a Harvard professor...that cinches it!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


38 posted 07-18-2009 10:33 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yep, sufficient evidence as you see it. The government doesn't want to get into the insurance business. They don't want to get into the car business, or the real estate business, or the banking business....they just are. One can almost feel sorry for Obama being forced into all of these things he doesn't want to be involved in but is.

Sorry to hear about the Queen...
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


39 posted 07-18-2009 10:37 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


As I said Mike, when it comes to obvious inane comments I don’t care where they come from.

Take this one from Obama


quote:
" This is what the debate in Congress is all about: whether we'll keep talking and tinkering and letting this problem fester as more families and businesses go under and more Americans lose their coverage. Or whether we'll seize this opportunity, one we might not have again for generations and finally pass health insurance reform this year, in 2009."


Inane

He’s still tinkering with a bigger problem.

It was the Queen Mother Mike, the Queen was fine last time I talked to her.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


40 posted 07-18-2009 11:15 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

The government doesn’t want to eliminate private health care Mike, they want to eliminate over-priced and under covered health plans. They’re going to do it by using that old Conservative touchstone we both know and love – Market forces.

So why aren’t health insurance suppliers marching in the streets to protest?



First -- the health insurance suppliers are spending 1.4 million dollars per day lobbying against a government option plan.

Why has to do with the first quoted sentence in regard to Market Forces -- which have never applied to health insurance providers because they were excluded from the Sherman Anti-Trust law.  Which means they've always been able to collude on rates.  And they do.

If the private companies are so 'competitive' then they don't have anything to worry about because government can't do anything -- right?

But the fact is that Medicare and Medicaid have always run far more efficiently than the current crop of private health coverage providers.

Here's the fact-checked figures on the uninusured population:
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/the_real_uninsured.html

From another also must-read:

quote:

We've written before about conservatives claiming that Congress, or Obama, or Washington, or Democrats in general want the U.S. to have a Canadian-style, government-run health care system. The truth of the matter is that the president has repeatedly said he doesn't. In fact, since being sworn in as president, Obama has riled advocates of such single-payer systems by largely excluding them from the health care debate. He has answered several questions from members of the public who asked at town hall events: "why not" have such a system. Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the leaders in drafting legislation, has said bluntly: "single-payer is not going to get even to first base in Congress." Yet, the Canada claims continue.

In an ad airing (for the third time this year) on national cable channels, a group called Patients United Now says that "Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health care to the U.S." The group's back-up for the claim? An opinion piece that we previously found to be riddled with errors; an article from CQ.com that says the National Institutes of Health will fund comparative effectiveness research studies that examine cost – which, the article notes, the NIH already does; and another news article in the San Francisco Chronicle that reported conservatives have criticized such research, saying it leads to "rationing," while proponents have said it will improve health care and reduce costs.

As we've said before, the stimulus legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, called for the creation of a council that would coordinate and support comparative effectiveness research, which examines which medical drugs and treatments are most effective, and in some cases, most cost-effective. The government has funded such studies since the late '70s. In this chart of research funding, the NIH estimates it will have spent $50 million on "cost effectiveness research" each year from 2007 to 2010.

To be sure, the cost factor prompts critics to say the research will lead to the government, or perhaps insurance companies, denying certain medical procedures based on cost alone. Proponents say such research provides valuable information to the public and physicians on which procedures work best and whether more costly treatments are actually more effective. Patients United Now, a 501(c)3 project of Americans for Prosperity Foundation, says in its back-up that funding comparative studies is "a critical step toward rationing," but ARRA specifically forbids the council coordinating such research from issuing any restrictions or even guidelines on care:

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Council to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer. ... None of the reports submitted under this section or recommendations made by the Council shall be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment.

Patients United Now also points to Rep. John Conyers' "Medicare for all" legislation, a single-payer health care bill that the Michigan congressman has introduced for several years running. This year, Conyer's bill, H.R. 676, was introduced in January and hasn't moved from committee since. It quietly died in committee in the last Congress and in previous attempts.
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/canadian_straw_man.html



And if you want more myth-busting:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_that_persons_older_than.html

And Mike -- if you really want to keep score on Obama -- I'd suggest the Obameter!

quote:

The Obameter Scorecard

    * Promise Kept 32

    * Compromise 10

    * Promise Broken 7

    * Stalled 12

    * In the Works 78

    * No Action 376

PolitiFact has compiled more than 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on our Obameter.

We rate their status as No Action, In the Works or Stalled. Once we find action is completed, we rate them Promise Kept, Compromise or Promise Broken.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/



Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


41 posted 07-18-2009 12:04 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
First -- the health insurance suppliers are spending 1.4 million dollars per day lobbying against a government option plan.


Of course they are LR, they’d be stupid not to, if they eliminate the government plan from the bill they get more customers and reduce the competition – win/win for them.

Single-Payer schemes?

They’re certainly worth discussing. While I agree that Obama has discounted such a system as a reform model he’s on record as saying that if he was starting from scratch that’s the way he’d have gone.

Is it the way you’d go if given the choice?
.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


42 posted 07-18-2009 01:42 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


I find interesting one of the  funding mechanisms, taxing families
making over $350,000. Is that just those who make that
kind of money on interest and dividends
from their dead's estates or as I suspect
includes two spouses with well paying jobs they worked
and risked years if not decades to accomplish?

.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


43 posted 07-18-2009 02:41 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


It’s a tax based on your income and as most types of interest and dividend payments are classed as income it’ll apply to both.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


44 posted 07-18-2009 02:58 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


But when the "rich" are spoken of
it doesn't mean the same thing
does it . . .   In the currently
popular sense there's a tone of
"unearned", if not suspiciously gained,
income, which then makes everything okay.

And, in most cases at least, it not like
they are burying their wicked lucre
in the ground or using it to buy virgins
from the Arabs . . .


.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


45 posted 07-18-2009 05:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thanks for the truth-o-meter, LR. That was very informative.

I'll be back. There's a rerun of "The World, According to Grinch" I want to watch but I have to go to my neighbor's house because I don't get the Cartoon channel.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


46 posted 07-18-2009 05:21 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

I think you get it free Mike if you subscribe to the education and news channels.



grinch
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


47 posted 07-18-2009 06:40 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

A few things are puzzling me:

If someone doesn't have insurance they will be fined about 2% of their pay. Didn't Obama scoff at Hillary during the primary when her proposal called for mandatory purchase of insurance by citizens or they would face a government fine? Does that fine then give them the government insurance plan? Or do they actually have to sign on and purchase the government plan? Would it be cheaper or more expensive than the fine? If it is cheaper why would they opt for being fined?

Exactly how much would the government premium be to purchase? Would it be based on a sliding scale by income, or would it be a uniform price for everyone but with government rebates given to qualifying low income people?

If an employer doesn't offer or offers a plan or plans deemed inadequate by the government they will have to pay fines of up to 8% (I don't know if that is based on their employee's combined wages or on the company's profits or gross receipts). Wouldn't it just be cheaper to dump them all onto the government plan rather than paying premiums to the private insurer PLUS the percentage of fines by the government? What would be their incentive to refuse the government plan and allow their employees to keep the medical benefits that were part of their compensation, along with salary, when they accepted those jobs?

And what gives the government the right to come along and, by its punitive actions against the employer, to diminish a person's benefits that are a part of their compensation package? Will people who are allowed to keep their private insurance have to pay taxes on the value of the employer paid portion of those plans,(heretofore considered untaxed compensation)? Will people have to pay taxes on the employer paid portion of the government plan?

Will people who are placed on the government plan by their employer have to continue to pay the portion they are currently paying toward their private plan or will that cost be reduced since the cost the employer pays for the government plan will be cheaper than what the employer pays to private insurers?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


48 posted 07-18-2009 08:14 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Not much time Denise so here's a quick run through from memory - you can check each point in the bill which is available online.


It’s 2.5% of income
Don’t know
Yes
No
Exactly the same price
It isn’t
All four government plans will have their rate set by the exchange commissioner
No
Yes
Profit
No
The existing plan may be better than the government basic plan or cheaper
The government doesn’t and won’t have that right
No
No
No – you can only have one plan if you choose to keep your existing private scheme you won’t need to join the government plan

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


49 posted 07-19-2009 12:46 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

quote:


Do you really think Obama's plan is not to eliminate private health care? Let's suppose your company employs 100 workers and your contribution to their health care is $100.00  apiece. The government then comes along and say, "You can get a policy from us where your cost will only be 50." This  means a 5,000 monthly savings to you. Will you take it? Of course, as would most business, especially the ones with hundreds or even thousands of employees. That means all of those employees, which collectively number in the millions, would basically be forced to carry the government, which would effectively destroy the private carriers they had used. Is there some fallacy to my logic here? I'm not saying there's not but I'd like to hear what it is.




Dear Mike,

          Private health care is health care that is purchased in some independent fashion, isn't it?  I go to my doctor and say, I'll pay you independently.  Our health care agreements are only between the two of us, and are limited only by the bounds of the legal system.  Most physicians do not work directly for the patient in this country; that is an illusion.  Most physicians work for insurance companies who limit the number and kind of decisions that physician is likely to make.  There is something of an illusion of physician/patient confidentiality, but the insurance company will generally have access to those records.  The presence of the Insurance company hanging over the physician's shoulder makes it very difficult for many physicians to maintain the kind of independence that they would ideally like to maintain as individuals.

     Health care that is paid for with insurance, therefore, is not Private Health Care, and should not be thought of as such.  You do not in your comments acknowledge this distinction.  It is a very big one.

     Folks with large amounts of money who can pay for treatments out of pocket and do, they have private health care.  They can get it in England and they can get it in Switzerland and they can get it here.  The care in any of these places is first rate, and depending on what sort of treatment you are looking for, you may want to go to different places.  If, for example, you are looking for the best end of life care, you would definitely not want to come anywhere near the United States.  The United States is terrible in pain management; you'd be much better off in the U.K.  This business about the United States being the best in everything simply isn't true.  There are private hospitals in the U.K. who treat people who are not on The National Health system.  This is pretty much Private Health care.  It also costs an arm and a leg.

     What you appear to believe is Private Health Care is health care paid by health insurance.

     This can be done well or this can be done badly.

     The system I would favor is a single payer system which would essentially cut all the private folks out of the deal and switch us over to a sort of VA system nationwide.  While I think this would be a wonderful option, and so do a fair number of other folks, including some lawmakers, The President seems to be dead-set against it.  At the more left end of the spectrum, I think he's nuts, but I wasn't consulted, though if I do say so myself, my wisdom is great.  Nope, he insists on keeping the private insurance companies in the mix.

     One of the problems those private folks will have is that their premiums are about 30% higher than the plans that the President thinks the government can come up with.  If the President tried to cover everybody, I suspect the costs would be lower still, because the risk pool would be larger, but he has the weakness for the private sector in this case.  I think, at the very least, they will try to smear him even worse than they have already.

     If the government is running the system, they have no reason to do what the for profit companies have apparently been doing all to frequently thus far.  Refusing to cover cancer or serious illnesses, and drawing out the argument long enough for the patient to die from the illness, hoping that this will just be written off as the cost of doing business and that, in the long run, it will be cheaper than paying for the treatment.  Thus protecting the profit and helping the bottom line.

     Good business practice, perhaps; but not the sort of business practice I want anywhere near my healthcare, nor, for that matter is this the sort of practice that I would want to see near your healthcare, no sir, it is not.

     A few extra thoughts to chew on,

Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> How to Lie Without Lying   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors