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  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
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 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


75 posted 08-03-2009 09:36 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Bob, I don't trust that a government bureaucracy will not ration, and will not take it to all new levels, higher than any private insurer ever did. When you have the president discussing various cost/benefit situations and Congressmen expressing concerns over the issue, I wouldn't assume that the government will make decisions favorable to the patient. I think they will always put the bottom line first, even before the welfare of the patient.

The Dr. might just have forgotten at the time that you don't have insurance to cover the higher cost drug, Maureen. The same thing happened to my daughter. Just call him on the phone and ask for a script for one that has a generic available for it. My daughter did that and since then she also just asks while in his office if he has samples for this that or the other, that he is prescribing and she always reminds him that she needs something that comes in a generic form.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


76 posted 08-04-2009 12:34 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I mean, that's what they're doing isn't it? Putting aside your money for a rainy day? No, Ron, that's not what they are doing, as  you well know. They are taking your money, investing it to make money of their own and counting on your bills not to exceed the profits they make in the meantime. Banks do the same thing but you can only get your money back, plus a little interest.

A much better solution would be for you to take your $378 a month and put it in the bank for a rainy day. If you had done that for the past 30 or 40 years, with accumulated interest, you'd likely be able to pay for about any medical procedure you might need.

Then I'm moving to Michigan if that's the way it is there, Ron. True, if we could be sure we would never need medical treatment for 30 years, that would be  a wonderful thing and, if could be sure never to be in a car accident for that long, we could save a lot there, too, on car insurance (if it weren't against the law not to have it). Does that sound feasable to you? If we could be sure our house never caught on fire or a hurricane like Katrina came to call on us, we could save even more.
But people do get sick, accidents do happen and Katrina does come to call.

Let's say you go 10 years without needing any medical attention. That would be a bit over 40,000. How long would that last in a hospital setting? A gardener friend of mine needs an operation for the same reversal I will be going through shortly, His bill is 28, 000.00 for it....and that's a pittance regarding what the original operation cost to warrant such a reversal. Your 40,000 wouldn't go too far. Then your savings would be gone, you would need to start saving again and you would be older, where medical attention in the nearer future would be more of a certainty.

I'm not sure why you have such a problem with insurance companies. Sure, they make a lot of money. They do it through volume, the same way bank presidents are rich or car dealerships are rich....a piece of profit from a large amount of customers. Make a buck from a million people and you're a millionaire...and the people who gave the buck are not worse off. You make it sound like you give them your money and they give it back to you if and when you get sick. It goes way beyond that. If you are seriously ill or involved in a dehabilitating accident you will receive benefits that far exceed what you paid the insurance company. What's more than that is that you get a piece of mind from being covered. That means a lot to some people, not having to worry that an illness will wipe out their savings, cause them to lose their house and put them hopelessly in debt. Do you want to walk around every day with the fear in the back of your head that, is some drunk idiot runs into you, everything you worked for is gone? There is a value to not having that on your head.  You want to lower insurance costs? Go after the lawyers who make it so expensive. Interestingly enough, nobody wants to do that, though.

Private insurance, however, doesn't work. It never has and never will.

Really? Perhaps the almost 70% of the people who, when polled recently claming they were satisfied with their health plans, may disagree with you. Perhaps the thousands of foreigners who come every year to use our helath system might disagree with you. The United States is a testament that it has worked for many years. Can it be better? Of course. Can it be made less expensive? Sure...but it doesn't need a government takeover to make it happen. You want to claim that it's a car with smoke pouring out of it's engine? Go ahead....I'll file that in my Global Warming folder under proclaimed disasters.  
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


77 posted 08-04-2009 01:22 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Naked Thoughts,

                       I believe that there is a federal law that mandates you have a right to request a generic of the same drug (if there is one available) from the pharmacy.  You won't  or shouldn't have to return to the doctor about that.  If there is no generic of the particular drug you're requesting, you can ask the pharmacist to call your doctor, and ask for the generic of a drug of equivalent effectiveness and mode of activity.  The doctor will frequently oblige without the need for another office visit.
If you call the doctor's office and explain the situation to the nurse/receptionist, the doctor will frequently call in another Rx for something more cost/effective as well.

     Many doctors are used to this sort of thing from having to do it in response to insurance plans that will pay for one and not another similar drug, so it's really seldom that you'll run into a problem about this.  It's often simply a matter of personal modesty on the part of the patient and not wanting to be a bother.

     It may be possible to get one of the very cheap Walmart prescriptions, the $4.00 ones, though I don't know which of the blood pressure medications they offer.  Some of the older Blood Pressure medications have unpleasant side-effects, and should probably be avoided if possible.  You should speak to your pharmacist and/or your physician about details of that sort.    If this is information you already have, pardon me for running off at the mouth.  Good luck, and take the BP meds regularly; they're very important.

All my best, Bob Kaven
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


78 posted 08-04-2009 08:16 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
They are taking your money, investing it to make money of their own and counting on your bills not to exceed the profits they make in the meantime. Banks do the same thing but you can only get your money back, plus a little interest.

Were that true, Mike, then the insurance companies would operate like the banks to which you compare them. They'd pay us interest on the money they're investing and give it back to us any time we asked. The reality, however, is that insurance companies are required by law to set aside (i.e., not directly invest) reserves from which they anticipate paying claims. The percentage differs from state to state, but is always substantial. They're doing nothing more than playing the odds, the same you do when you walk up to a craps table. The only difference is they're playing at several million tables.

quote:
True, if we could be sure we would never need medical treatment for 30 years, that would be a wonderful thing and, if could be sure never to be in a car accident for that long, we could save a lot there, too, on car insurance (if it weren't against the law not to have it). Does that sound feasable to you? If we could be sure our house never caught on fire or a hurricane like Katrina came to call on us, we could save even more.

You want guarantees, Mike? You know better than that.

You can't be sure. Neither can the insurance company. The difference is they're willing to gamble on the math and reap the rewards from assuming some risk. You could, too. And since most of the things that can go wrong in your life are heavily influenced by your own choices and behaviors, you'd even be betting on yourself. Instead of betting against yourself, which is exactly what insurance is.

Your argument is essentially that we need insurance because everything is so expensive. My argument is that everything is so expensive because we rely so heavily on insurance.

quote:
I'm not sure why you have such a problem with insurance companies. Sure, they make a lot of money.

Probably because my company wrote their software for the better part of a decade? I saw their numbers first hand and directly dealt with their attitudes toward customers. I know WHY they make a lot of money, Mike, and for most of twenty years, I haven't voluntarily paid a dime more for insurance that I had to.

quote:
Perhaps the almost 70% of the people who, when polled recently claming they were satisfied with their health plans, may disagree with you. Perhaps the thousands of foreigners who come every year to use our helath system might disagree with you.

Please, Mike, don't confuse "health plans" and "health system" with financial medical coverage. They are two very different animals. I absolutely agree that our doctors and hospitals are the best in the world. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it is grossly overpriced and will remain grossly overpriced so long as a free market system is circumvented.


rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


79 posted 08-04-2009 09:12 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

I have to agree with Ron:

quote:
Your insurance company doesn't provide medical care. They just make it so you don't have to manage your own money wisely enough to avoid becoming a burden. They provide a false sense of security that your medical bills will be covered. . . . Insurance, in its current guise, is the greatest economic evil this society has ever faced. It drives a wedge between supply and demand, emasculating the very principals that make capitalism work. Medical coverage is NOT medical care, and this country is never going to get its head screwed on right until it recognizes the difference.


I’ve paid out grands to insurance companies, without a single large expense due to good health. One day, I just didn’t have any insurance anymore. I lost my job along with about everything else and that premium payment slipped away, unnoticed for a time, because I was more concerned with maintaining food and shelter. After a bit, I did ok. Didn’t worry too much & I started shopping around for insurance coverage. And my ex was ordered by the courts to provide insurance for my daughter, so I didn’t really worry there either.

But then I had to take my daughter to the doc for an ingrown toenail. Seems she stubbed her big toe pretty good and the nail grew back wrong. It got infected and she couldn’t wear a shoe. So I called “The best foot doc in town,” gave all the info for a new patient, made an appointment for the next day. They called me back and said, “Sorry we can’t see your daughter because she’s uninsured.” Huh?

My ex had skipped outta town and had gotten fired from his job and, unbeknownst to me, my daughter was no longer covered.

So I offered cash.

They said, “No, we’re very sorry. We only see insured patients because, depending on the procedures necessary, the expense could be rather large.”

So I said, “So what’s the worst we’re looking at here with an ingrown toenail? An amputation? Tell the Doc to call me back and let me know how much I need to bring him in cash just to see about a toe,  and if cash isn’t good enough then maybe this town needs to know the Doc ain’t cut out for a pedicure let alone cutting off a toe. Either way? She’s going to the prom soon and she’d like to be able to wear a pair of shoes, whether she’s got a pair of toes or not. ”

He called me back, apologizing for the inconvenience, and saw my daughter the next day.

The price for correcting one ingrown toenail: $200.

One beautiful girl walking proudly down the stairs for her first prom: Priceless.

The price that would have been billed to the insurance co? $400.

Something ain’t right. There is a “handshaking” going on between Docs, insurance co’s, pharmaceutical co’s, & the Gov, and it’s all shady to me. I don’t feel secure about it AT ALL.

I know there’s several issues that I don’t have time for right now, but I hear “illegal aliens, hmo’s, expected losses, malpractice suits,  forced coverages implemented by the Gov,”  yada yada are all a culprit we’re having to pay for in our premiums.

So, if not a Gov takeover, how bout a private citizen takeover? Because there’s something terminally wrong with medical coverages’ inflated premiums, and medical cares’ inflated egos.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


80 posted 08-04-2009 09:38 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Denise,

          I trust and I believe are statements that are borrowed — in many ways — from the language of love and religion.  While somebody else may ask you about them, ultimately they are about faith and not fact.  That doesn't mean that they aren't potentially true, as in "I will trust in the law of gravity," it simply means that you take the notion as already proven, whatever the facts may be, and you start from there.

     This is the language you've used about government involvement in health care in the posting above, and as such it really doesn't permit a response.  What you believe is what you believe.  It is foundational, a priori, presuppositional and reflexive, and it is your absolute right to have it that way.

[Edit - Discuss the post, please, not the behavior of the posters. - Ron]

     I, for example, am of the belief that some sort of governmental health care reform will be a good thing.  That is a belief of mine.  It is hard to change, though I suppose it could be changed.  I am not so clear about the facts of its affordability, or how we might fund it.  Discussion about this is helpful to me, it makes me think about various possible ways of funding a health care system and what the actual difficulties in the current system are, and what the potential difficulties of possible future systems might be.  I need and want to consider facts and opinions about those areas.

     Any thoughts?

     And not simply Denise, of course.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

[This message has been edited by Ron (08-04-2009 10:00 AM).]

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


81 posted 08-04-2009 10:07 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=7752706&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


82 posted 08-04-2009 12:10 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

And since most of the things that can go wrong in your life are heavily influenced by your own choices and behaviors

Here we have to disagree, Ron. Many diseases are not influenced  by your own choices. How many babies are born with defects every year? They had no choice in that. How many people are hurt and killed in auto accidents every year? There is always somebody at fault and a victim not at fault. How many people are injured or killed in natural catastrophies each year? Were all of these a victim of their own choices? Hardly.

I'm not painting the insurance companies out to be white knights. Truth be known, I despise them as a necessary evil....but they are necessary. I've known people who who have been completely devastated without insurance coverage and I have no doubt you do, too.  Our question here is not whether changes need to be made but is government takeover of the system the right way to go about it? The government can't even run their own cafeteria or post office. Are they the ones to run health care? Should we welcome a plan that the congressmen acknowledge they haven't even read...just to do something? You want to talk gambling, Ron? THAT is gambling.

If the government wants to do something worthwhile, let them go after the insurance companies and lawyers, since  that's where the problem lies. They won't do that, however, because of special interests groups, lobbyists and the amount of lawyers in Congress. Instead they ignore that and just say "Let us run it. Let us add another trillion or two to the total of our debt that we are passing on to our future generations ."

People have learned from the stimulus bill. They have learned from the quadrupling of the national debt under Obama. They are actually demanding that their congressmen read the bills before passing them, which is a novelty with this administration. They have caught on to the Obama blitzkreig method for getting bills through.

Does something need to be done? Assuredly. Is it the incredible emergency Obama (and, apparently, you) claim it is? We have 250 million who are legal residents and have the funds to afford health insurance taken care of and 10 million who don't. Does that constitute an emergency immediate government takeover? Are the millions of people protesting such a takeover all "right wing wackos", even the democratic members of congress who claim it won't work?

The Democrats have always been the crisis party. They invent crises to prove they are needed to take care of them, be it an educational crisis, a loan crisis, a real estate crisis, an unemployment crisis, an environmental crisis....the list goes on and on. Obama has shown he is the king of crises. Everything has to be done immediately or the country will be destroyed. The health industry needs revamping. It is not a crisis and this time Obama's beating of chest and proclaiming disaster will not work.....thankfully for the country.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


83 posted 08-04-2009 01:55 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     So Mike, back to everything's fine and there are no problems, again, I see.

     And there are no money problems or real estate or unemployment problems.

     And if we think there are, it's all the fault of the Democrats, anyway.

     And our health care is so good that our folks don't buy their prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies because it's the fault of the lawyers and the insurance companies.

     And we have the best health care in the world, but people can't use it because it costs too much.

     As you say, Mike, "Oh, those little details!" Or as I might say, Wow!



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


84 posted 08-04-2009 02:29 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Mike didn't say that there weren't any problems, Bob, he said that the answer isn't a governmenet takeover of the health insurance/health care system.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


85 posted 08-04-2009 03:52 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

     I don't see how regulation is a takeover.  A National Health service would be a takeover.

     Some regulation of what is or isn't appropriate treatment for various conditions is regulation.  Why one area should have many more times the number of one particular operation than another area with the same sort folks in it and the same range of illnesses, for example, says that somebody ought to be justifying their use of that operation a lot more carefully.

     Hysterectomy is one example of this.  Tonsillectomy is another.

     A lot of these operations have no particular advantage over non-surgical treatments.  Sometimes they are necessary.  Certain kinds of prostate exams for cancer in men, regularly performed in the United States, are not scientifically justified, even if the result is positive for cancer.  Don't believe me, talk to your doctor about the issue and why doctors feel they must continue to do these exams.  Some regulation and a standard of care would by itself provide considerable relief from problem torts, I suspect.

     As for back surgery, I urge you to examine the evidence for the usefulness of most forms of back surgery done in this country, and what the outcomes tend to be.  Sometimes, it can be very useful indeed, by the way.

     Regulation sets price ranges and the sort of services that need to be included at each price level, and there are plusses and minuses to regulation.  When the utilities managed to get gas and electric prices deregulated here in California, I'm told they promised a 20% drop in prices.
We got Enron and the foundation of an absolutely enormous state deficit.  The state got taken to the cleaners.  It seems it has yet to get back.

     If the market were allowed to function, etc., etc.

     But the market is generally not allowed to function due to the presence of speculators who distort market forces out of all relationship to reality.

     Because Obama is Republican Lite, his approach to Health care reform steers clear of fundamental changes in the system.  There is no National Health care, nor is there a single payer.  I would like to see a single payer.

     Despite your complaints, I'm afraid that what we have here is much more a Republican plan than a Democratic one.  It leaves the insurance companies in charge and still making a decent profit.  That's why you don't hear them screaming very loudly.

     Here are some references showing some cheaper, less invasive, and sometimes non surgical treatments working as well as the high priced spread.  If you're interested, certain acupuncture treatments are as effective or more effective than methadone for treatment of cravings for the drug of choice.  That, you'll need to look up yourself.

http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/1/173

http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(06)00463-7/abstract.

http://www.primarycare.ox.ac.uk/pc-bibliography/BurtonGlasziou2009

[This message has been edited by Bob K (08-04-2009 04:25 PM).]

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


86 posted 08-04-2009 04:19 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
The Dr. might just have forgotten at the time that you don't have insurance to cover the higher cost drug, Maureen.


I had to read this twice and I'm still shaking my head in disbelief.

That's one fairly large pachyderm you've just introduced into the room Denise. If you look at it closely enough you'll see the evidence to back up almost everything Ron has been saying in one short little statement.

It also supplies all the evidence required to prove that what you desperately need is someone, somewhere, doing a little comparative analysis.

.
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


87 posted 08-04-2009 06:34 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

quote:
The Democrats have always been the crisis party. They invent crises to prove they are needed to take care of them, be it an educational crisis, a loan crisis, a real estate crisis, an unemployment crisis, an environmental crisis....the list goes on and on.



Wait...

Who was it that said WMD's were found?

and... who wrote a big fat honkin' blank crises check before he checked out that the Fed Resies can't even account for?? I mean even if one could prove that the dems planned a crisis 20+ years ago, why throw the fight and shoot your last wad of ink on something that is totally NOT worth the paper it's written on?

From whence did that man come from? Nay, not the Dem's side of the fence.  

On the Environment??? I believe Gore holds the title for the most convenient lies the earth has ever witnessed, and his uneducated flatulence has been great fuel for the new green bully bills that will inevitably cost us trillions out the arse.

Sorry. Woe be I to defend the Dems because of all that's nuts and nutless, but I won't overlook the Reps that have thrown their weight, wrongly.

but of course that just adds to the amount of distrust one has now, especially with the "little details."
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


88 posted 08-04-2009 08:19 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Should we welcome a plan that the congressmen acknowledge they haven't even read


Pot kettle black.

quote:
On page 425 it says in black and white that EVERYONE on Social Security, (will include all Senior Citizens and SSI people) will go to MANDATORY counseling every 5 years to learn and to choose from ways to end your suffering (*and your life*).


There seems to be a bit of hypocrisy here Mike, the above statement, the one that started this thread, is obviously the construct of someone who hasn't read the bill. Either that or they have a serious BS disorder or an ulterior motive.

Should you welcome a plan that somebody else hasn't even read? Heck no, that's almost as bad as making blatantly spurious and unfounded claims about what it contains without having read it.

You can't welcome a bill you haven't read, equally you can't criticise it either.

The devil is indeed in the detail, and the detail in this case isn't that hard to find, it's written down in black and white in the text of the bill. Don't take the word of somebody who hasn't read it, don't even take the word of someone who has read it - like me. Go read it yourself, make your own mind up. There are lots of reasons not to like this bill; you don't need to dig up irrelevant reasons that someone else has invented.

Post a few of the bad parts of the bill, the really bad parts, not the made up diatribe of internet bloggers and fools who haven't even read the bill.

I'll even start you off if you like:

This bill makes it compulsory for every able citizen to ensure that they have adequate health insurance. In so doing it takes away the free choice of some citizens who would rather fund their own medical expenses or forego medical treatment.

Under this bill our old friend Bill Gates will be forced to line the pockets of some insurance executive who's skimming off up to 30% when it's obvious that he can cut out the middle man and get a much better deal paying direct. At the same time there's a provision to exempt individuals and groups on religious grounds.

It discriminates against a large proportion of the population based on religion and affords rights to one group denied to another by act of law.

All men are not, it seems, created equal.

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


89 posted 08-04-2009 09:10 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

So Mike, back to everything's fine and there are no problems, again, I see.

If you care to check, Bob, you will see multiple instances where I declared there are indeed problems. It appears that, once again, your attempt at sarcastic rebuttal has shot wide of the mark.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


90 posted 08-05-2009 12:24 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




quote:
  Mike:

Bob, whenever I hope you won't look or check, I won't included the link.





quote:
Mike:

If you care to check, Bob, you will see multiple instances where I declared there are indeed problems. It appears that, once again, your attempt at sarcastic rebuttal has shot wide of the mark.





     You included multiple highly debatable assertions in your posting.  You have been explicit about when and why you will not source statements that you are reasonably clear I will check, because you have seen me check these statements out very often and present you with the results.  You have not sourced these statements, including such statements as follow:

quote:


1)  If the government wants to do something worthwhile, let them go after the insurance companies and lawyers, since  that's where the problem lies.  They won't do that, however, because of special interests groups, lobbyists and the amount of lawyers in Congress. Instead they ignore that and just say "Let us run it. Let us add another trillion or two to the total of our debt that we are passing on to our future generations ."

[


     Opinion does not make an assertion true.  There is nothing to check here.  There are only opinions.

quote:


2) They won't do that, however, because of special interests groups, lobbyists and the amount of lawyers in Congress.




     There is nothing to check here.  There is only opinion, and there is no logical connection between the assertions.

quote:


3)  We have 250 million who are legal residents and have the funds to afford health insurance taken care of and 10 million who don't.




     Your figures are at odds with most figures quoted. Obama frequently cites 45 million, which may be high.  With increasing job loss, and the expense of Cobra programs, which allow people to continue their health care insurance programs by picking up the cost themselves for limited amounts of time, growing increasingly more difficult to manage, there seems little reason to think that these figures are dropping.    


quote:


4)  Does that constitute an emergency immediate government takeover? Are the millions of people protesting such a takeover all "right wing wackos", even the democratic members of congress who claim it won't work?




     Your assertion of "a government takeover" does not a government takeover make.  You offer no proof, only sweeping assertions, and you haven't shown any of "those Little Details" that you wanted this thread to address.  Or the absence of them.  

quote:


  The Democrats have always been the crisis party. They invent crises to prove they are needed to take care of them, be it an educational crisis, a loan crisis, a real estate crisis, an unemployment crisis, an environmental crisis....the list goes on and on. Obama has shown he is the king of crises. Everything has to be done immediately or the country will be destroyed. The health industry needs revamping. It is not a crisis and this time Obama's beating of chest and proclaiming disaster will not work.....thankfully for the country.

[


     You sound much relieved.  Here the Democrats have been telling us that there is an economic crisis, a housing crisis, an unemployment crisis, a loan crisis, an environmental crisis and a health care crisis and you are here to tell us that this is not the case.  In fact I was telling you about some of these things before Obama got to office.  Not true, is what you said then; it's your imagination.  Everything is fine, you're an alarmist.  Now, there's no crisis, what's your hurry, if you do the things you want to do, it'll cost too much money.

     Would've cost a whole lot less if you'd believed me the first time around, wouldn't it?

     At least that's my opinion.

     Now you're telling me that Democrats are inventing crises I was telling you about all that time ago, when they were obvious enough for a fool like me to see them.  Obama isn't the king of crises.  He's simply been given a lot of them to deal with by the conservative slant in this country for a long time.  Not the king of crises; perhaps the king of crises management, which is why people elected him.  They hoped maybe he could clean up the mess on the floor.  You look like you're trying to stop him.

     As for me, What's there to be sarcastic about?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


91 posted 08-05-2009 12:40 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes, Bob, they had hoped he would clean up the mess on the floor and are beginning to realize that he is not, thus the dropping of his popularity and belief of him and his programs in the polls. He offered change...and Americans are not liking the change he is making. His vows to clean up Washington and no more politics as usual have also been forgotten. The only change we are seeing is Obama changing his mind over what he promised before being elected and what road he is traveling down now. Stop him? You mean stop his incredible appetite for spending money we don't have? You betcha..

He's simply been given a lot of them to deal with by the conservative slant in this country for a long time.

Ah, yes...the blame it on the conservatives rallying cry. That's not playing as well in Poikeepsie as it used to...not even in Detroit.

Obama did not invent the crisis screaming. Gore had actually been the king until he was dethroned. I saw a montage long, long ago of Gore and all of the crises he was warning the public about, while he was running for President. It was very entertaining.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


92 posted 08-05-2009 06:36 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          Your lips are moving, I think.  I look in vain for actual verifiable information.  Instead I see you backpedaling from offering any.  You see my request for you to supply facts and not to obscure them as a "tactic."

     How am I supposed to see your refusal to stand behind your assertions then?  

     For example,

quote:


Yes, Bob, they had hoped he would clean up the mess on the floor and are beginning to realize that he is not, thus the dropping of his popularity and belief of him and his programs in the polls. He offered change...and Americans are not liking the change he is making.




     And that would be which[/] Americans and [i]when, Mike?  And about which changes would we be speaking?  

     If you aren't specific about these things, you could be talking about any American President at any time in their administration.  And that would make your statement about Obama just about meaningless, wouldn't it?  Which, as you've expressed it, it pretty much  is.

     In order to make the statement meaningful, you'd have to be specific enough for folks to actually talk with out about it, check out the facts behind your assertions, and talk with you about them.  

quote:


His vows to clean up Washington and no more politics as usual have also been forgotten.




     You sound like that line from Bill Clinton Republicans keep liking to quote about what the meaning of "is" is.

    Apparently addressing the recession that got its start under the last administration is "politics as usual."  That's good to know.  I thought that creating it was pretty much Republican banking and financial policy, their changes in rules about separation of banking and insurance, and their deregulation of the banking industry in general.  I thought that attempting to correct that wasn't politics as usual, but there you have it.  My mistake.

     I thought that trying to get health insurance reform and trying to expand health insurance, especially to children, was not business as usual.  Health insurance reform and the health insurance crisis — which I do believe is a crisis, silly me — hasn't been given much Republican push in Congress since it was buried by the Republicans and the more conservative Democrats in the early 90's.  Apparently, the time between has been very busy for the Republicans and their Conservative Democratic allies, since they haven't come up with much by the way of an attempt at a national solution since.  Apparently, doing so now counts as your notion of business as usual.

     I am afraid that you may be right about the Obama failure to push on civil liberties, drawing clear and meaningful lines forbidding any use of torture as an instrument of policy (or anything else, for that matter), and regaining some of the incursions the PATRIOT Act has made possible.  I don't like agreeing with you about this, but about this I think the facts are on your side.

     If only you'd mentioned some of these things, I'd feel even better about giving you credit here.  

     As it is, mostly I simply dislike that President Obama hasn't acted on these issues, and shows no signs that he's about to.  

     Do you, however, care about any of those issues, or are they only mine?

     Your anger about the ecological issues and what you believe the Democrats are doing or are about to do or may do, suggests that you certainly believe that Obama is serious about action in this area, and, furthermore, you don't like it.  I may have misread you on this, though, and perhaps you feel that what the President is doing and plans to do in this area falls into "Business as Usual" as well.  Please feel free to let me know.


quote:


Stop him? You mean stop his incredible appetite for spending money we don't have? You betcha..




     I'm sorry, I thought for a moment that you were talking about President Bush.

     President Obama was clear that we'd have to spend money to get out of the hole we were in.  He supported the Bail-out bill that was unpopular with other Democrats, if you remember, and even went back in the middle of the campaign to vote for it, even though it was going to increase the deficit.  I knew that, perhaps you didn't or perhaps it slipped your mind.  I knew that he was going to increase taxes, though not on the middle classes, those who earn less than $250,000 per year.  

     I can't remember when I wrote that I hoped that he wouldn't raise taxes on those under $250,000 if he was elected, but I thought it was possible he might.  If you remember it, let me know.  If not, I suspect the only person it's important to is me.

     My Point is that there are two different economic philosophies at work here, and that they seem to be in flux at the moment.  The traditional Republican economic view has been presented by Freedman (recently, at least); and over the past eighty years or so, the Democratic viewpoint has tended toward the Keynesian.

     The Republican spending over the past eight years has been a break with their usual market philosophy, and a bit of a freak with the Freedman style economics, as I understand it, which is not very well.  The way that the Republican spending over the past eight years was structured was to provide a large deficit at home, and it did so.  

     The Keynesian economics that the Democrats have usually followed does permit deficit spending in times of fiscal emergency.  I understand Keynes only slightly better than I misunderstand Freedman, you understand, but I believe this is the case.

    I leave the field for better understanding of economics than I have to take the matter further.  The amount of research I'd have to do to get up to speed would take a lot of time away from my writing just now.

     Since you criticize me for writing answers that are too long or perhaps too detailed or perhaps merely incoherent, I think it best that I stop here.  

Yours, Bob


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


93 posted 08-06-2009 01:39 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

And that would be which[/] Americans and [i]when, Mike?  And about which changes would we be speaking?

Just take a look at the latest polls, Bob. They're on tv, in the newspapers and on radio. There are polls on both his popularity and confidence in his handling of the economy....not to mention health care....and they are all nose-diving. Those Americans, Bob.

I'll get back to the other innuendos about my evasive character later....it's late.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


94 posted 08-06-2009 01:59 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

     I am not talking about your character.  I am talking about how you conduct your conversations and your style of debate and discussion.

     Character is Who.  Style is How.   I offer these as potential definitions:  Perhaps you'd care to venture a more pithy and exacting set.

     Nose diving to what, compared to other governing Presidents and according to which polls?  You seem to think that I read the same stuff you do, watch it and listen to it and read it.  I do occasionally.  What I see are mostly right wing sponsored polls which don't seem to reflect very much reality, in the same way that the inflated figures at the time of Obama's election weren't terribly accurate either.  Only for that particular cut in time were they accurate — as in predictive of an election.  

     The statistics for overall trends are different and involve finding a line shows the slope of an average between data points over time.  There aren't enough data points as yet to justify your hyperbole.  You may end up being right at some point, but I don't thing the data works for you at this point.

    Not really in either statistical analysis, though it'd be a serious pain to run it, and to figure which data would be the most reflective of reality.  Would you be talking about Americans overall, about recent voters, about long term voters, voters by age, voters by issue, male voters, female voters, or some mixture.  If so, which mixture would be the best one to go with?

     Were you to offer specific polls, then it would be possible to consider them with these factors in mind to get some notion of their validity.  You would also want to look at the test instruments to see if the questions showed some sort of bias.

     The polls you speak about could be showing the first really authentic data that supports a real trend, and as such it would be very significant data indeed.  It could also be not so good.  Unless we know who and what, yours statements about "polls" are not meaningful.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


95 posted 08-06-2009 11:28 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The Community Organizer who doesn't like it when those who disagree with him organize as a community now is sending out a call to his troops of counterprotesters. What a hypocrite.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/06/obama-rallies-health-care-counterprotesters/?feat=home_headlines
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


96 posted 08-06-2009 11:40 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise



Beware those 'treats' from Barack Obama!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XivhwO_zWWg
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


97 posted 08-06-2009 12:21 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

My sentiments exactly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA2mGMw1_ow
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


98 posted 08-06-2009 03:14 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“The White House request that members of the public report anyone who is spreading "disinformation" about the proposed national health care makeover could lead to a White House database of political opponents that will be both secret and permanent, . . .

"I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House," Cornyn continued”


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com /opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamas-dissident-database-could-be-secret----and-permanent-52571822.html


Watch yourself . . .

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


99 posted 08-06-2009 03:22 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Thank goodness for the PATRIOT Act, then, I guess.

     Of course, if true, the story describes something done out in the open, doesn't it?

     Stuff done by the last administration is still coming out only in dribs and drabs.  We have no idea what they did because they passed legislation to make sure that they didn't have to say, so that forever after, silence itself became suspect.

    
 
 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