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
 Oh, those Little Details!!   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ]
 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274
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

Oh, those Little Details!!

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


250 posted 08-16-2009 07:07 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Denise,

          I see no reason that I should criticize your generosity.  If you've given what you feel comfortable giving, that's your business.

     As for the late congressman, he was famous for tall tales during his lifetime.  I see no result quoted in your story that suggests that he actually chipped in the week's salary, only that he used the his suggestion as a way of keeping other people from voting on the proposal.  Having succeeded in blocking the proposal, I'd feel more appreciative about the congressman if he'd actually chipped in his own dough.  Perhaps you think he was merely being sharp.  Apparently the rest of the congress thought some sort of memorial was appropriate.  Crocket saved the dough alright, and shorted the man the honor the honor that others thought he deserved.  Oh good.

     The Christian standard for charity — not for everything, but for church support only — is traditionally a tithe put at 10%.  Certainly you are in favor of keeping big religion out of our lives as well, and I see that you've managed to refigure the amount of a Republican's more than generous support for charity to be 1/52 or, perhaps, about 2% of the Republican's annual income, apparently to cover the 10% for church support and all other private charity contributions as well.

     Indeed, you Republicans have a knack for inflating your sense of generosity and shorting your fellow man.  I'm thrilled to hear you say that Republicans are more charitable, but I'd sure like to see some facts and figures to support what sounds like unsupported opinion to me.

     It would also be nice if the support was from a non-partisan source and was quoting some facts and not further partisan opinion from more partisan sources.  I do appreciate the efforts you've been making in that direction the last several months.

     Simply because I'm a Democrat doesn't make me right, but it does give me a right to ask for where you get your facts, and what those facts are.  I suspect the facts won't bear you out.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven    
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


251 posted 08-16-2009 07:41 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Huan Yi,

           Interesting article by Krauthammer.  

     However, not all preventive care is useful, and not all should be used in all cases.  Krauthammer takes the position of arguing against all preventive care options being taken in all cases.  

     I doubt anybody is actually taking that position, which is expensive and potentially dangerous and probably counterproductive.

     Some preventive case, however, is not expensive, is reasonably cheap, and is even supported by some folks on the right.  Reducing the cost of premiums, for example, for those people who follow generally considered healthy life styles has gotten support by some right wing groups as a way of bringing some health care costs in line.

     Stopping smoking, introducing regular exercise and a low fat diet are all fairly good ways of preventing many of the causes of long-term disease and premature death.  They aren't terribly expensive and show a high cost to benefit return.  I think that Mr. Krauthammer would be silly to suggest that we eliminate these; nor do I think that you, Huan Yi, would wish to make such a recommendation either.

     Regular screening for prostate cancer and regular mammograms, however, may need to be rethought as preventive care.  Mammograms have a very high rate of false positives, and may not be the high quality test that many of us think they are.  I'd need to see more research on this, myself, to feel comfortable on an intellectual level, though I'd never want my wife to stop getting hers regularly.  She finds them reassuring, and I don't actually know they're unhelpful.  Prostate screening tests may actually prove harmful in the long run, and in some places, like England, they seem to be phasing them out.

     Mr. Krauthammer, however, by painting with too broad a brush, is distorting the actual picture on preventive care to make a political and financial point that is at odds with my understanding of the medicine involved.  If the preventive medicine is applied appropriately, in line with the medicine and not in line with Mr. Krauthammer's misdrawn debating point, I think that he is fairly clearly trying to present misinformation to win a political point.  I don't approve of the ethics of such a discussion.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


252 posted 08-16-2009 07:53 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




Dear Denis,

          Grinch addressed your American Thinker link in his posting 236.

      By acting as if Grinch had said nothing addressing the matter, you discount his work and goodwill in the discussion.

     You also failed to note that the "death panel" hocum had been fact-checked by the AP and had been once again dismissed as baseless.

     To remind you of what grinch's point was, he said essentially that the method you condemn for determining distribution of health care services is the method that is now used by the insurance industry we function under in the United States.  This would be the system that you want to keep.

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


253 posted 08-16-2009 08:07 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ron!!! Bob called me smarty pants!! Oh, that's ok, we'll give him  that one.

Bob, in your trip through the past you seemed to have skipped over JFK, who created the VietNam war, and Bill Clinton, even though you have acknowledged he has a measurable responsibility for the housing crisis....and you accuse me of picking and choosing?

You are right that I said no big deal two years ago when, actually, it WAS no big deal then. You didn't see the economy in the news then because it was so good the liberal press didn't want to draw attention to it under a republican president. I had asked you one time back then to walk around and tell me what people were complaining about with reference to the economy and you never did....and with good reason. No one was complaining. After the housing bubble burst (which, I repeat, you blamed Clinton for in a big way) THEN the dominoes began falling and THEN the press jumped on it and "It's the economy, stupid", the rallying cry of democrats which had mysteriously been absent for a long while, resurfaced like the phoenix. SO now you want to lay it at the feet of Bush and republican presidents for the past half-century, at least...be my guest. Obama has taken a bad situation and made it ten times worse and you want to claim that the other nine times should all be laid at Bush's feet, also. That dog don't hunt, Bob. Our incredible debt that has been laid at the feet of our future generations is all Obama's. Our nationalization of private industries is his, also, and a nationalization of our health care industry will definitely be his. I have little doubt you will never put any blame on him but that won't change it.

Ron, when something is overly successful it means one makes money, not has to draw more money from the public till to pay for the success.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


254 posted 08-16-2009 08:13 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Indeed, you Republicans have a knack for inflating your sense of generosity and shorting your fellow man.  I'm thrilled to hear you say that Republicans are more charitable, but I'd sure like to see some facts and figures to support what sounds like unsupported opinion to me.

Since I am one of "you republicans", let me suggest that, as a litmus test, simply check the contributions of your leaders, since they certainly lead by example, right? Check out the charitable contributions of Obama, Clinton, Kerry and Gore, for example, and compare them to the ones from Bush or whatever other republican leaders you choose to select. You may be surprised at the results....
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


255 posted 08-16-2009 09:15 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Bob, this is the section of the article that I found eye-opening. I was in no way ignoring Grinch's explanation of QALY. But not ignoring it doesn't mean that I don't find the entire concept morally reprehensible when calculating dollar expenditures against human life. My point for bringing this in was to show that the government has already set up a bureaucracy to make those determinations. It doesn't have to be in the house or senate bills, and their saying that they've taken out the offending language means nothing because the system is already in place anyway.

quote:
H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. Before the Porkulus Bill passed, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant governor of New York, wrote in detail about the Council's purpose.

Daschle's stated purpose (and therefore President Obama's purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept "hopeless diagnoses."

McCaughey goes on to explain:

Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.  

Who is on the Council? One of its most prominent members is none other than Dr. Death himself Ezekiel Emanuel. Dr. Emanuel's views on care of the elderly should frighten anyone who is or ever plans on being old. He explains the logic behind his discriminatory views on elderly care as follows:

Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.

On average 25-year-olds require very few medical services. If they are to get the lion's share of the treatment, then those 65 and over can expect very little care. Dr. Emanuel's views on saving money on medical care are simple: don't provide any medical care. The loosely worded provisions in H.R 1 give him and his Council increasing power to push such recommendations.

Similarly hazy language will no doubt be used in the health care bill. What may pass as a 1,000 page health care law will explode into perhaps many thousands of pages of regulatory codes. The deliberate vagueness will give regulators tremendous leverage to interpret its provisions. Thus Obama's Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein will play a major role in defining the government's role in controlling medical care.

How does Sunstein approach end of life care? In 2003 he wrote a paper for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies arguing that human life varies in value. Specifically he champions statistical methods that give preference to what the government rates as "quality-adjusted life years." Meaning, the government decides whether a person's life is worth living. If the government decides the life is not worth living, it is the individual's duty to die to free up welfare payments for the young and productive.

Ultimately it was Obama himself, in answer to a question on his ABC News infomercial, who said that payment determination cannot be influenced by a person's spirit and "that at least we (the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research) can let doctors know and your mom know that...this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

Maybe we should ask the Associated Press and New York Times if they still think we shouldn't be concerned about a federal "death panel."


Michael is right, Bob, you can do a search to find out the charitable giving of liberals versus conservatives. I remember the statistics being released during the campaign.

The tithe to the church would not be considered charity, Bob, but rather a sacrificial obligation to your church of choice for its expenses, programs, etc. Charitable giving would be above and beyond that.

[This message has been edited by Denise (08-17-2009 01:40 PM).]

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


256 posted 08-17-2009 02:36 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Denise,

           You made the assertion.  You back it up.  I see no reason to assume a difference.  If you do, and are confident enough to say so, prove it.  Otherwise, what separates you from the person who confidently asserts the world is flat?

     In both cases, the person who makes the assertion is — hopefully — well meaning and sincere.  Should you wish others to take your assertion seriously, non-partisan factual support is both appropriate and necessary.  Asking me to do your work for you is disingenuous; I regard doing your research as a waste of my time.  I have my own work and research to do, don't I?  I can't afford to pay you to do my research for me, and don't expect to.  

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


257 posted 08-17-2009 06:03 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


258 posted 08-17-2009 09:21 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Maybe it's my imagination, Bob, but your 'tone' seems to have gotten a bit snippy lately.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


259 posted 08-17-2009 10:43 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Ron!!! Bob called me smarty pants!! Oh, that's ok, we'll give him that one.

Should we? That entire post seems to be about you, Mike, rather than anything you've posted here? Bob, though warned many times, is apparently incapable of learning the difference.

Unfortunately, I haven't been around as much as usual, so a few more things are slipping by. I also have to admit, frankly, that I've grown tired of picking up after Bob. I've edited or deleted more of his posts in the past six months than anyone else over the past six years. It grows tiresome after a while, especially when it seems to teach nothing.

Perhaps Bob would like to make a suggestion on what I should try next?

quote:
Ron, when something is overly successful it means one makes money, not has to draw more money from the public till to pay for the success.

Ah, so Bush's war in Iraq was even more of a dismal failure than I thought, Mike?  

Do we really want to judge success simply by how much money it puts in government coffers? From where I sit, Mike, (and I think Michigan is getting more benefit from the program than any other state) "Cash for Clunkers" is stimulating the heck out of new car sales while simultaneously helping to lower carbon emissions by measurable (if not particularly significant) amounts. I'm not sure the real ROI is calculable, but at this point, I think calling the program anything but a resounding (and completely unexpected) success would require a redefinition of "stimulus." This part of the bill is doing exactly what it was intended to do. And, yea, doing it much better than anticipated.

That's the kind of problem we need.


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


260 posted 08-17-2009 01:18 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

    


     Well, Ron, I confess this business has gotten under my skin.  I think I should take some time off, at least from the Alley. And I certainly wouldn't want to tax your good-will further; you've been very good.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven  

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


261 posted 08-17-2009 03:01 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Those links you provided were very interesting Denise.

They don't actually prove your claim that Republicans give more to charity but they were interesting nonetheless. Why don't you open another thread and I'll explain why it's impossible, as well as pointless, trying to prove your assertion and why Arthur C. Brooks is talking twaddle.

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


262 posted 08-17-2009 03:43 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Well, I never said that Republicans give more, I said that Conservatives tend to give more than Liberals do. Conservatives encompass more than Republicans.

But it doesn't really matter to me anyway who gives what. I had just read that a few different times in the past and thought it was interesting, along with the possible explanation that liberals probably give less because they think charity should come from the state, I thought it was interesting as well to see the charitable giving of the various candidates during the last election, which seemed to validate what I had read before.

I read one refutation of it and got a headache! It was talking about .01 of this, that or another as opposed to analyzing it fully weighted. I had no clue what the guy was talking about. But feel free to give your refutation. Maybe I'll understand that. But like I said, it's not important to me one way or the other.

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


263 posted 08-17-2009 03:54 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ron, I certainly agree that cash for clunkers has been a success, in terms of numbers of participants and car dealerships who have gotten a much needed shot in the arm. It appears, though, the more successful it is, the more it costs us but then what's another couple of billion when the economy is mired in quicksand, anyway? I may as well help Mr. and Mrs. Schwartz get a new car...why not?

No, my only point about bringing up CFC was this:

COuld you have anticipated that the CFC program would be so successful? A program giving consumers thousands and thousands of dollars to trade in their junkers for new cars? Of course you could have. So could I. So could any American with half a mind. It's a no-brainer. Who seems to be the only ones who COULDN'T realize it would be so popular? Yep, the government. DO I want them running health care with the same lack of foresight?  Nope....
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


264 posted 08-17-2009 04:32 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Denise,

Sorry about the Republican/Conservative mix up - my bad.

quote:
I said that Conservatives tend to give more than Liberals do


They may do Denise; it's just impossible to prove one way of the other. There are lots of reasons why, some more likely to give you a headache than others. One simple reason however is that some people prefer to keep their charitable donations to themselves so any data collected is immediately suspect.

Arthur C. Brooks conclusions are useless for a whole slew of additional reason though.

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


265 posted 08-17-2009 04:55 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I was under he impression that charitable donations were recorded on income tax records. Politician, especially, like to have them known for political reasons. When confronted with his miserly ways in terms of charity, Gore claimed he gave his "time". I wonder how many people ate his "time" at the soup kitchens. Did they put ketchup on it or eat it plain? The man who makes millions a year doesn't seem to follow his own teachings very well and serves as a poor representative of his party,,,,he is not alone.

As Denise said, it really doesn't matter in this scope of things....it's a matter of personal choice and not giving is Gore's. That's nothing to surprise anyone..
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


266 posted 08-17-2009 05:31 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
I was under he impression that charitable donations were recorded on income tax records


Only if you declare them to claim deductions Mike, which was my original point - people sometimes prefer not to reveal something they see as a private matter.

Take Gore for instance.

Would it surprise you if I said that he donates 15.5% of his income to charitable causes? That he simply believes that what he donates is a private matter?

I don't know if that's true in Gore's case btw - more importantly neither do you.


nakdthoughts
Member Laureate
since 10-29-2000
Posts 19275
Between the Lines


267 posted 08-17-2009 06:18 PM       View Profile for nakdthoughts   Email nakdthoughts   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for nakdthoughts

Just a comment Mike about the cash for clunkers...if so many people especially around here were having their cars repossessed for not paying their car payments, I am wondering how many of these  trade ins of older cars they had sitting around will start another mess of repossessions in the near future when the same people who couldn't afford newer cars back then  are trying it again (especially with so many still losing their jobs...)  just a curious wait and see.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


268 posted 08-17-2009 06:39 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Would it surprise you if I said that he donates 15.5% of his income to charitable causes?

Surprise is not the word. Flabberghast comes to mind...and, no, I can't say definitely that he doesn't any more than I can definitely say the earth revolves around the sun but, considering Gore's lust for the spotlight it is not logically reasonable.

Maureen, there are a lot of by-products to CRC. The Salvation Army in Miami is crying the blues, and rightfully so, because car donations have dropped from 437 to just over one hundred, due to people trading them in instead of donating them.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


269 posted 08-18-2009 08:19 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Science could solve this problem
by discovering Heaven; a happy place
where everyone who comes is young, strong,
handsome or beautiful again.  Then no old one
would waste the country’s  time and money
staying alive.


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


270 posted 08-21-2009 10:13 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“Serious studies indicate that Obamacare would kill millions of jobs. With 9.4 percent unemployment, this is hardly the time to foul the labor market even further.

The culprit is Obamacare’s proposed tax burden on employers with payrolls exceeding $250,000.

Section 313 of H.R. 3200, House Democrats’ key bill, concocts a tax of up to 8 percent on the total payrolls of employers who do not give their workers health insurance. This tax would apply to employers who do provide insurance, if their plans are not “qualified” by the new Health Choices Commissioner. Employers would be taxed on personnel who refuse company coverage in favor of their spouses’ policies.”

There’s more. . .

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTIwY2VkZmI2MjU3YThlNzE5ZTlmOTQ5NGJmMjA5NGE=


That would have an impact on employer employment decisions


.

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


271 posted 08-21-2009 12:40 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Florida set a state record today with it's highest unemployment rate in 34 years....DEFINITELY not the time to put more jobs in jeopardy.

If Obama would put more effort into job creation and stability (and not the 30 day jobs he is trying to pass off as proof of his job  creation), we would be a  lot better off.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


272 posted 08-21-2009 01:03 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Florida set a state record today with it's highest unemployment rate in 34 years....DEFINITELY not the time to put more jobs in jeopardy.

Yea, because all those people without jobs have really good medical coverage while they're busy not working?

Florida's 10.8 percent unemployment rate sounds pretty good to Michiganders, Mike. The good news for us, though, is that -- for the first time in about 14 months -- we're going down instead of up. Our rate just dropped from 15.2 percent to 15.0 percent.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


273 posted 08-21-2009 02:13 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"Employers would be taxed on personnel who refuse company coverage in favor of their spouses’ policies.”

This is what really surprised me.


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


274 posted 08-21-2009 04:02 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Nothing surprise me anymore, John.
 
 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 >> Oh, those Little Details!!   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ] 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