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  ]
 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199
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 
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


175 posted 08-10-2009 04:14 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Which many if not most employers will see as good sense.


Or maybe not - it didn't happen last time, or the time before.

It never happened in Hawaii in 1975 when they introduced similar fines. Or in 2005 in Massachusetts when fines were imposed on companies that didn't offer health care.

In both those cases health care coverage actually increased and the potential fines were a fraction of those now being proposed.

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


176 posted 08-10-2009 04:35 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

No this time you're probably wrong.

If an employer can get away with
shifting the health care burden to
the government in exchange for a 8%
payroll tax, he'd have to have a very
good business reason not to.
Health insurance premiums that the employer pays
are not a function of the covered
employee's salary, and where I've been
it's far more than the $4,000 exampled.

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


177 posted 08-10-2009 04:53 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
he'd have to have a very
good business reason not to


They had a good business reason in Hawaii Huan, and in Massachusetts too.

It's not that hard to work out what that very good business reason was either. All you need to do is ask yourself why the best companies offer the best health care schemes in the first place.

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


178 posted 08-10-2009 05:46 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"why the best companies offer the best health care schemes in the first place."


I've been in business over thirty years.
Even the "best" companies went to 401k's because it was cheaper than the previous pension plans.  They've also gone to
schemes other than fully funded health benefits as well for the same reason.  It won't take much to push most to the 8% option.

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


179 posted 08-10-2009 06:21 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


And yet when they introduced play or pay in Massachusetts the number of employees covered by employer-supplied health care actually went up by 150,000.

That's probably why the CBO on July 13th this year released a report predicting that companies would rather play than pay.

It all comes down to that "very good business reason" I mentioned earlier.

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


180 posted 08-10-2009 07:02 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"It all comes down to that "very good business reason" I mentioned earlier."


Please post it.

We're not talking about a fine but
a less expensive alternative for companies
which currently do provide health benefits.
Sure, if your employees are all pulling down
six figures their health benefits are less
than 8% of payroll and you stay with your
plan otherwise . . .

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


181 posted 08-10-2009 08:42 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     As I said, folks, Obama is Republican Lite, and much of this plan is tailored to the benefit of businessmen and small businesses, this part of the discussion illustrating part of that proposition.  President Obama is a centrist, and the fierce objections from the Right show exactly how far to the Right the country has shifted since the 50's.

     I still believe that a single payer health plan would be our best bet in terms of cost control, and savings, and coverage.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


182 posted 08-10-2009 09:54 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Another good Republican proposal. Yeah, they have been offering alternatives, but those in charge won't even let them come to the table. http://blunt.house.gov/Read.aspx?ID=1140

Whose side of this debate is dressed in Brooks Brothers suits? I guess Barbara Boxer was confusing Obama's staged town halls to the real grass roots town hall gatherings. Not surprising with the IQ average on Capitol Hill.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfdZMrHOldI&feature=player_embedded
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


183 posted 08-11-2009 02:57 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Denise,

          I read the reference to the Republican health care plan and I thought many of the suggestions were very good.  I would support many of them, in fact, and I think they ought to be incorporated into the bills before the house and senate.  Some of the business about financing parts of the plan through tax rebates I felt were not serious proposals, since they are targeted only at people who have enough income to pay income taxes, and a larger and larger portion of the population is unable to do that these days.  The suggestion that only 10,000,000 Americans were in need of serious assistance was, it seems to me, troubling.  I heard Mike quote that figure as well, and I simply find it unbelievable and would need some seriously substantiation before I would even consider such an a figure, it being at odd with most everything else I've seen.  I'd like to see some non-partisan details on that one.

     I never said it was the purpose of the judiciary to make laws, whatever the end results.  In fact I said the opposite.
Nor did I say socialism and communism were myths.  You said that, and attributed it — falsely — to me.  I said that I was more of a socialist than President Obama, as near as I could tell, and that he was favoring more private enterprise in this insurance and health care debate than I was.  I said I favored a single payer system, as did a fair number of Democrats, and that the President did not.

     I suggest to you that you are ignoring this simple fact in your hast to find something you can say to make the President sound bad.  To me, by the way, calling the man socialist would not sound bad; the evil is in your ears.  Socialists came up with such horrible ideas as the 40 hour work week, and the outlawing of child labor, and the notion that a full time job ought to pay a living wage.  The socialists and the lefties that fought for these ideas and were occasionally killed for them are given little credit for them today.  The vote for women and the equality of the races were both also rights that the left fought hard for and on occasion died for.

     You seem quick to bad mouth the left, and very slow to give up any of the advantages and privileges that the left has fought to get you.  When you talk about why people want to come to this country, these are among the many reasons that people give.  And the fact that the government will protect you, and allow to to take advantage of opportunities.  That part about the protection of the government is important as well.

     The President is no more a communist or a socialist than you are.  He's not even as far left as I am.  He's not even as far left as many of the liberal Democrats in his own party.  You don't have to like him, and I'm not trying to convince you to do so.   Simply use words the way that the dictionary defines them.

     so⋅cial⋅ist  [soh-shuh-list]  Show IPA
–noun
1. an advocate or supporter of socialism.
2. (initial capital letter) a member of the U.S. Socialist party.
–adjective
3. socialistic.
Origin:
1825–35; social + -ist
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

     And then:


com⋅mu⋅nist  [kom-yuh-nist]  Show IPA
–noun
1. (initial capital letter) a member of the Communist party or movement.
2. an advocate of communism.
3. a person who is regarded as supporting politically leftist or subversive causes.
4. (usually initial capital letter) a Communard.
–adjective
5. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Communist party or to Communism.
6. pertaining to communists or communism.
Origin:
1835–45; < F communiste. See common, -ist

Related forms:
com⋅mu⋅nis⋅tic, com⋅mu⋅nis⋅ti⋅cal, adjective
com⋅mu⋅nis⋅ti⋅cal⋅ly, adverb
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.


     If you believe that The President fills either of these definitions, then I suspect you have never actually heard a communist or a socialist talk for any length of time.  It's usually almost impossible to stay awake through more than ten minutes of the speech.

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


184 posted 08-11-2009 05:40 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I know what you said about the judiciary Bob. I said I had made a mistake, I was thinking Congress while I was reading judiciary. Sometimes it happens.

But maybe someone needs to explain the difference to Judge Sotomayor.

Inasmuch as Obama advocates impliments policies for redistribution of wealth, he is a socialist.

Inasmuch as Obama advocates and impliments government takeover of private banks and industries, he is a communist.

And he can say he doesn't want a single payer plan till the cows come home. He HAS said it several tmes in the past.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


185 posted 08-11-2009 09:08 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Hawaii and Massachussetts were mentioned?

The Hawaiian debacle should also be a caution to Barack Obama, who wants to mandate that all children have health insurance. This would plainly not only require penalties for those who didn't comply but also new programs to help parents get their children covered. The risk of crowd-out will be great.

MIT economist Jonathan Gruber says his studies "clearly show that crowd-out is significant" - on the order of 60 percent. In other words, SCHIP coverage replaces private health insurance 60 percent of the time, and the rate will be greater if we extend eligibility to higher-income families.

Universal coverage in any form is an increasingly elusive goal. Several states (including California, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Wisconsin) have attempted major efforts to advance toward health coverage for all citizens. All have had to turn back because the costs were prohibitive.

Massachusetts enacted a universal-coverage law in 2006 - but state officials no longer claim that achieving that goal is even possible. The law's backers had insisted that universal coverage was imperative to get costs under control - yet the state faces serious budget shortfalls even after imposing new fees and taxes and getting an extra $21 billion from the federal government to try to balance the program's books.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10272008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/hawaiis_hard_health_care_lesson_135426.htm
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


186 posted 08-11-2009 02:22 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

NewsMax
April 29, 2003

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton opened up both barrels on supporters of President Bush Monday night, saying she's "sick and tired" of the way the patriotism of Bush's critics has been questioned.

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic,", a shrill-sounding Clinton shouted during her address to Connecticut's Jefferson Jackson Bailey dinner.

";We should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration,"; she shrieked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0


Well, Bob, it appears that Hillary and the thousands of people who cheered her comment disagree with you - and Pelosi - and Democratic congressmen - and the right wing press. It's a strangeworld, indeed
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


187 posted 08-11-2009 03:36 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




quote:

I know what you said about the judiciary Bob. I said I had made a mistake, I was thinking Congress while I was reading judiciary. Sometimes it happens.



     Yes, it does, Denise, and I've done this sort of thing myself.  If I've given you the impression that I haven't, I'm sorry, but all that I had at the time was your actual text to go on, and when you said you had made a mistake, it wasn't clear to me which mistake you were speaking about.  Sorry to say, but from my point of view there are actually several.  


quote:

But maybe someone needs to explain the difference to Judge Sotomayor.



     Actually, several Republican Senators attempted to do exactly that during the hearings.  I watched them get their presumption handed back to them, politely, on a silver platter in each instance.  Judge Sotomajor clearly knew the difference and had abided by it.  If you watched the entire version of the quote the Republicans were splashing about on the net, you would have seen that they had taken it out of context, and you might have wondered why they would have done something like that.


quote:

Inasmuch as Obama advocates impliments policies for redistribution of wealth, he is a socialist.



     Would that have applied to President Bush, when he pushed through the original stimulus package, too?  Does that make President Bush and all the Republicans who voted for that plan socialists as well?  Wealth was certainly redistributed there.  How about when the Republicans pushed through their tax cuts, and redistributed money from the public treasury into the pockets of the wealthy?  Surely that was redistribution of the wealth as well?  You should be curious about the terms of some of those loans.
You should want to know when the Republican congress arranged for us to pay off the principle of those loans.  Yes you should.  Because that would certainly affect the distribution and redistribution of wealth in this country, now wouldn't it?

     Or is it simply that you didn't mind that sort of redistribution enough to call it Socialism or communism for the entire length of the last administration?  Perhaps your heart simply goes out to millionaires and Billionaires before it goes out to people who don't have shelter or food.  And about healthcare, it hasn't apparently struck you that if there is a reservoir of TB in the undertreated or untreated population of this country, that you're vulnerable to that disease, too.  As you are to any number of other diseases.

     The first attempt to pass health care legislation was by Teddy Roosevelt.  

     Apparently close to 100 years is not enough time for the Republicans to consider the legislation.  It is hardly enough time for them to keep it buried to the benefit of the insurance and medical industries.  

quote:

Inasmuch as Obama advocates and impliments government takeover of private banks and industries, he is a communist.



     He has done neither.  If the government is going to bail somebody out with a loan, the taxpayers wanted to make sure that the loan was secured and not another "giveaway to the rich who got us into this mess in the first place."  I put this in quotes because it captures the spirit of what people were thinking and saying at the time the bailout bills were under consideration.  "No free rides," was another statement often heard.

     What were you saying at that time, Denise?  I really don't remember.  Was it anything like that?  The mood of the country was that we wanted those companies to be accountable for the public money they were taking.  I recall this fairly clearly, do you?

     To make these bailouts feel serious to the companies, many in the congress insisted that they essentially be a purchase of stock.  If the company went south, the stock and that investment was gone.  If there was a recovery, the taxpayers got paid back, perhaps with a little left over.
It was supposed to be an investment in America.

     It was all supposed to be a very Capitalist venture, an investment.

     Now, of course, the Republicans have turned the plan on its head to make it sound bad.  And of course, you are willing to go right along with them.  

     If Obama hadn't made the investment and the Companies had failed, you would criticize him for being a Communist for not supporting Capitalist institutions in their time of crisis.  There is no course the President could have taken that the Republicans could not have found a way to turn into the same accusation.  Not only does the President not meet the actual definition, but the Republicans have continued their war on the meaning of the English language.  "Communist" is a word that has long since been rendered meaningless by Joe MacCarthy.  "Torture" is a word that has been rendered meaningless in our time by the Republican denial of it's use by Americans, then its report that what was being used wasn't really torture, and so on.


quote:

And he can say he doesn't want a single payer plan till the cows come home. He HAS said it several tmes in the past.



     Golly, the fact that it isn't in any of the plans on paper is kinda suspicious isn't it?  That must mean that he's planning to use it.  After all, he's used the word out loud, and we all know that Out loud is the same as being Written into Law.  Or if it doesn't get written into law, maybe he'll put it into one of those signing statement and get it into law that way.

     Oh, sorry, I forgot, It was the Republican President that kept trying to get around the constitution that way.  And you were so furious about his doing that —  no, sorry, I forgot, it was me who was upset about that.  I don't recall you saying anything critical about that stuff at the time.

     I guess I'm sort of confused.  It doesn't particularly matter what a Republican does, but a Democrat is only to be credited with the most terrible and offensive of intention, even without proof.  What gives here.

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


188 posted 08-11-2009 03:55 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:

           The Republicans would not have permitted the disruptions to have taken place at all.  You would not have been permitted to have speakers shouted down in their own meetings.  Nor would you have had the meetings broken up by demonstrators with opposing views.

     The Democrats have permitted these things.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

     Why you might take pleasure in them — do you take pleasure in them? — is beyond me.  Having exercised your own right to free speech, doesn't mean that it's great to suppress that of other people.  You and other Republicans may disagree with that of course.  The fact that anybody finds this a difficult position surprises me, including Democrats.

posting 161, this thread




Dear Mike,

           Perhaps you see this in conflict with the position expressed by Secretary Clinton.  I see the need for both sides to express their views, as the process of writing tends to permit here, so each can see what the other has to say.  And one has a difficult time being louder or more aggressive than the other.  It's difficult for one to drive the other from the "room."

     In face to face meetings, this is possible.  It shouldn't happen.  That brings conversation to a halt.  This has been what's happening around the health care conversation.  Suppression of talk benefits those without good information or those who want to keep good information from getting out.  The Right is actually taking credit for these tactics.  This says a lot about the confidence the Right has in its actual case, which I find disturbing, because some of their financial data has so far made sense to me.

     If their data was, overall, as solid as they suggest, this tactic would not be necessary, would it?      
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


189 posted 08-11-2009 04:08 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

This has been what's happening around the health care conversation.  

Not even a good try, Bob. There are too many videos of these town hall meetings  which show valid questions being asked and disruption or jeering happening only when the responses of the politicians have been evasive or double talk. Your sentence has no  validity with the exception of being an attempt to justify your view. Since,by your admission, the politicians can't answer because they have no answers to give how can one expect differently from people told to participate and have  their questions answered? This would be a good Doonesbury strip, wouldn't it? Come to the town hall meeting over health care and ask your questions as long as they are not about health care because, since the bill has not been written yet, we don't have any answers.

Hillary's outburst and your reply appears to me that it must all depend which tootsie the shoe is on....can't have it both ways.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


190 posted 08-11-2009 09:14 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Bob, the plan is set up to eventually lead to a single payer system. And even the private systems left standing must adhere to the government structure. The government will be calling the shots from who gets treatment and for what and how much will be paid for any given procedure.

People will not, for the most part, be able to keep the plans that they currently have because most have employer provided benefits, and the government plan will be more affordable, at least in the beginning than the private plans, so where's the incentive for employers not to go with the government plan?

This plan is desgined to cut costs, period, not improve or increase health coverage. A panel of bureaucrats will be deciding treatment criteria based on cost containment through cost/benefit analysis. And how do you contain cost in a significant way? Deny it to those who use most of it, the senior citizens and elderly, those who use 50% of it. Care will be given mostly to those who are now currently only using 6% of it. Obama has said as much in his various town halls, his health advisor has said it and his other assorted Czars have said it.

The medical costs that are saying are unstainable are Medicare, primarily, as the baby boomers come of age. To deal with that they will restrict care. How else could they do it? They are already doing it in Oregon where chemo and cardiac care are being denied, and only paliative and euthenesia are being offered instead. Obama has said that they have a system that he would like to see adopted nationally. Anyone who cares to look into it can.

And the fewer people who live past the age of 65, will be the fewer people who are a burden on the unsustainable Social Security System, and the generation coming up behind them.

This bill is a foot in the door for social engineering, pure and simple.

Bush is no longer president, Bob. And I never said I agreed with everything he did. But Obama has taken things so far beyond the pale that it is hard for people not to speak out against what they see as a radical takeover of their country by the exteme left Soros funded crowd who don't value our founding principles, and who don't value human life.

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


191 posted 08-11-2009 10:05 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Here's another good article:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/11/when-a-president-lies-why-lind/
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


192 posted 08-11-2009 10:57 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



    Denise, I did mention non-partisan, didn't I?  If you're going to quote partisan sources, track them back to some source who offers verifiable information and not inference and inuendo.

     If you never said you agreed with everything Bush did, why didn't you object to stuff that you thought fit your definition for "socialist and communist?"  I didn't like it, but not for those reasons, and I did object.  I object to Obama when he does things I don't like, such as his failure to repeal the PATRIOT Act.  There are other things as well.

     You assert the plan is designed eventually to be a single payer plan.  I would certainly applaud this, but see no evidence of it.  Where is your evidence?  Repetition of the same statement without convincing evidence convinces only those whose minds were already decided and those whose minds are decided by repetition and volume.  It amounts to an argument by authority:  It's true because I say it's true.

     It wasn't true because your mother said it, though I'm sure she had a decent track record; it wasn't true because The Beatles said it — though I'm sure they had a pretty good track record, too — and it isn't true because the party leaders say it.  On either side.  

     Nor do I believe that it can be proven, which is often a dead give-away for folks who fall back onto an argument by authority.  If you disbelieve me, prove it.  The proof will leave you dangling with a mass of unprovable assumptions that grows larger with each attempt to build of the prior point.  But I urge you not to believe me — you shouldn't anyway — but to try the exercise yourself.

     You are once again asserting that such a plan includes killing the elderly.  You apparently didn't read Grinch's refutation of that assertion, or mine.  You ought, before making the assertion again.  You need to acknowledge that there are people who disagree with you, and you really should address their comments.  They have addressed yours.

     You don't appear to understand the necessity of the cost/benefit analysis, and what the rewards are for the patients and for the entire scientific process of medicine.
It is very important to know which treatments work better for which people.  Otherwise we would still be bleeding people as a treatment of choice, and we would have discarded the use of leeches entirely instead of using them for specialized situations when, despite the disgusting way it sounds, they actually are beneficial and more useful than other treatments we've found so far.

     I've given you other examples in previous postings, all of which you've felt apparently weren't worth considering because you apparently had a fixed idea of what these evaluations were about, and weren't, apparently, willing to consider that either you might be wrong, or that the question might be much broader than you thought.  Of course I might know the answer to these questions if you'd actually addressed them.  As it is, I'm reduced to "apparently", and you continue to make unreasonable assertions.

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


193 posted 08-11-2009 11:21 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:


Not even a good try, Bob. There are too many videos of these town hall meetings  which show valid questions being asked and disruption or jeering happening only when the responses of the politicians have been evasive or double talk. Your sentence has no  validity with the exception of being an attempt to justify your view. Since,by your admission, the politicians can't answer because they have no answers to give how can one expect differently from people told to participate and have  their questions answered? This would be a good Doonesbury strip, wouldn't it? Come to the town hall meeting over health care and ask your questions as long as they are not about health care because, since the bill has not been written yet, we don't have any answers.




     Give me some references to these videos.  These "too many" videos.  Let me judge for myself.

     The actual answers to many of the questions about these variations of the bill are not known.  The Republicans don't know them any more than the Democrats do.  This isn't double-talk, this is because the bill is still in negotiation, and the Republicans are part of those negotiations.  Isn't it, Mike?

     Any straight answer has to lead with that, doesn't it?

     Then why do the Republicans, like you, Mike, suggest that this is double-talk and prevarication.  It is honest reportage about the state of the bill and the negotiations.  Republicans should know that, because they have managed to slow things down, right?  Are Republicans accused of double-talk when they slow down the process of getting the text, and then demand that people know what the final text is going to be?  Not that I've heard.  Should that be?

     We might have a disagreement on that.

     Why would the Democrats have town meetings to discuss the Bill without a final bill to discuss?

    I do believe you don't understand that.  I won't speak for the Democratic leadership, but were it my call, I'd want to talk with my constituents, keep them informed as to what was happening with this difficult bill, get feedback and advice from them, and bring it back to congress, especially after the August recess.  It's also a good time to clear up any disinformation that's being given out, and to answer any question, as best they can be answered about the bill and the state it's currently in.

     I understand that this is not something that the Republicans would think about doing, so you would find it foreign, but it's more of a Democratic tradition, going back to the people and getting their ideas, and more important than ever these days since the party has been trying to get funding from the broad range of the public.  They are the people that the Democratic Party feels responsible to, and keeping them informed is important.

     Sorry that I'm so difficult to understand, Mike.  I try to be fairly straightforward.

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


194 posted 08-12-2009 12:11 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Give me some references to these videos.  These "too many" videos.  Let me judge for myself.

Bob, just go to google and type in town hall videos if you have problem finding them. They've only dominated the tv news airwaves for days, hard to believe you haven't seen them.

It is honest reportage about the state of the bill and the negotiations.

Yes, and according to you and them, the honest reportage is "We don't know because there is still not a bill". Well, that's certainly something to have a large number of town hall meetings to report, isn't it?

Republicans should know that, because they have managed to slow things down, right?

Actually, no. The republicans can't slow down anything. Democrats can pass anything without them. It was the democrats that couldn't accept ObamaCare the way it was offered that slowed it all down....but you know that. It's just more fun to blame republicans, isn't it?

I'd want to talk with my constituents, keep them informed as to what was happening with this difficult bill,

Keep them informed by telling them you can't really tell them anything because you don't have answers since there is no bill to date? Gee, that makes sense.....

I understand that this is not something that the Republicans would think about doing,
In which case your understanding is an unpolished at your attempt at sarcasm, Bob.

but it's more of a Democratic tradition, going back to the people and getting their ideas
In my view the democrats could care less about what the people think. As Pelosi put it "We're running the show now so live with it." Did the democrats go to the people to discuss the stimulus bill? Nope, they just rushed it through before any details could get to the public. Did they go to the people and discuss the cap and trade bill? Nope, they just rushed it through the House before the public could be aware of what it represented. A democratic  tradition to go to the people? No, more like a democratic tradition to slip things by the public before they have time to complain.

Sorry that I'm so difficult to understand, Mike.  I try to be fairly straightforward.

Actually, Bob, I understand you better than you may think.

When I mentioned that Obama was going down in the polls, you made references to right wing polls. When I listed the polls and you acknowledged that they were good polls, you wanted to know the questions, as if polls you respected just might put out biased questions. Had I listed the questions, quite possibly you would have wanted to know id the polls were conducted at night when the people were possibly tired from work and not too sharp or maybe on weekends where there was a chance they had had a drink or two before responding to the pollsters. In no way, were you willing to accept that the polls were indicating that Obama's popularity was dwindling.

When I mentioned that the complaints were coming from people not getting straight answers, your reply what that the democrats deserved sympathy because they could not have answers to a bill that hadn't even been written yet.

When I showed you the Hillary tape claiming that dissent with policies was American, you replied that it was not the same because these old people, grandmas, people in wheelchairs, were simply there in some kind of organized effort to disrupt. WHen I pointed out that they were asking valid questions, you want to know what the questions were, even though anyone who has had a television on in the past several days on any news channel would have seen the questions asked.

Yes, Bob, I understand you.


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


195 posted 08-12-2009 12:31 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Common sense tells us, Bob, that cost/benefit analysis, despite the ambiguous spin of the politicians, will be to the benefit of the government's bottom line, period, not the patient. You have only to look to Oregon. You can also look to Great Britain. It is abominable how their ailing senior citizens are treated in their declining years.

If the government's target is to eliminate 30% in health care spending, about $700 billion dollars per year, to partially pay for universal coverage, from where do you suppose they will realize those savings, from the group that utilizes 50% of the health care dollars (those 65 and older) or from the 6% (all other age groups) that utilize them?  Rationing has to happen. It would be refreshing to hear someone admit it. People are tired of their lies.

*Oops...the 6% represents those aged 14 - 40, not all age groups.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


196 posted 08-12-2009 01:31 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Actually, Denise, if you're talking about universal coverage and a single payer system, the problems would be much less, since the profit on health care insurance, if I recall correctly, runs to 20% by itself, and if the government can roll back the Republican basis for the current medicare system, it should be able to get it's drugs at less than full retail price.  It's managed to do so, after all, for the VA.

     The government has no need to make a profit from health care expenditures.  Nor does the government have a need to bow to drug company pressure and spend extra money for the newest and most expensive drugs without proof that they are substantially more effective than the older drugs.  Private physicians are under pressure to do that from both the public, who sees the ads on tv and doesn't know how to evaluate them, and from the drug companies themselves.

     A drug such as Celebrex, which was almost taken off the market a few years back because it caused an unacceptably large number of cardiac deaths, for example, is now being advertised widely on television in such a way as to give the impression that it's just like the rest of the drugs in its group.  None of the other drugs in that group showed anything like the mortality rate of Celebrex, yet here the company is trying to get the public to pressure physicians to prescribe that drug for them.

     Not only should such behavior be regulated, but it seems clear that such companies should not be surprised to be asked to fund a large part of such a health care plan.  If they are willing to make money from causing the predictable and unneeded deaths of so many Americans, they should be willing to fund the medical care of quite a few more.  Certainly not enough to put them out of business, but certainly enough to remind them that they are not in the business of killing people for money.

     Both sources would be an excellent source of funding, to my mind.

     As a boomer myself, I have no particular urge to be thrown on a garbage heap.  If I thought this was such a garbage heap, I wouldn't feel it in my interest.  My favorite proposal, the single payer, isn't even on the table and may not be unless the issues are revisited at some future date.  

     How much longer, do you think, will you be able to afford private insurance?  Those prices are not going to come down on their own.  The drug prices aren't going to come down on their own, and private physicians hate the private insurance companies because they often tie up large portions of their medical time — when they could be seeing and treating patients — filling out forms and worrying about how much they're going to be paid.  The forms are different for each insurance company.  This means that the physicians must hire people specifically to do billing, and these people don't come cheaply.  This makes medical treatment more expensive because, among other things, there are fewer medical hours actually available.  Medical salaries are going down rather than up.  Physicians are frequently getting out of private practice and going into group practices, where the care is not as personal.

     When you retire, Denise, are you going to be able to take your insurance with you?  Maybe you'll have medicare, but you'll probably have to buy insurance on top of that, part D, I think they call it.  Are you going to be able to afford that?  Or or you going to turn down that Federal program because it's too intrusive?

     My understanding is that the money comes from those under 25, by the way, should that version of the plan be put into effect, who get charged about an extra $2000 apiece per year to subsidize the elderly.  This makes it a terrific deal for the elderly, and not such a great deal for the young, who will, it should be acknowledged, be elderly themselves someday.  If they're very lucky and play their cards right.  

     The cost benefit analysis has to do with measuring the effectiveness of the treatments.

     I spoke about this in terms of tonsillectomies and hysterectomies several postings back.  I thought I went over it fairly well.  What was there about my discussion you didn't understand?  I'd be pleased to fill in where I was vague or unclear,
but having gone through it once already, I want to discuss the parts of it you didn't understand rather than going through the whole business again, which took some time and effort on my part.

     So what part of the cost-benefit business wasn't clear.  I think Grinch spoke about this as well.

     It discounts the efforts of others when you ask the same question without acknowledging that it's been addressed before, in goodwill and with sincerity; and it discounts the answers that have have been provided before.  It's as though they didn't exist.

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


197 posted 08-12-2009 01:53 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, at least we know that Senator Spector won't vote for it, having vowed publicly that he would never vote for a plan that raises the deficit. Since the CBO, a non-partisan entity headed by a Democrat, claim that the bill will have no choice but to raise the deficit by an incredible amount, that means a no vote from the senator. That's a good thing!

Face it, Bob. These town meetings are Obama's worst nightmare. He didn't want this, tried everything he could to avoid. it. Democratic tradition, going back to the people and getting their ideas. That's not what Obama wanted. He wanted the bill passed quickly. He demanded that  the bill be passed BEFORE the congressional recess. There was no going to the public for their views mentioned then. He did not want the public to have time to ask questions. If Obama had had his way, Americans would have woken up one morning to hear, "Hello, Americans. Here is your new government-controlled health care, passed by congress yesterday." The only reason it didn't work that way was because of the dissidents in his own party that wouldn't buy it. These town hall meetings are not to get input from the people. They are an attempt at damage control, since the American people actually did have time to learn about the bill and didn't like what they found.

Think about it, Bob. You can't deny he tried to get it passed quickly. You can't deny he did not present it to the American public before it's passage. Your comment about it being the Democratic way to present it to the public for their input has logically got to be invalid. It makes no sense for you to try to cover for him in this instance.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


198 posted 08-12-2009 02:21 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Bob, the cost/benefit analysis does not only have to do with measuring the effectiveness of a treatment or medication. It also has to do with the cost of the medicine/treatment compared to number of life expectancy years left. You can check out Oregon, as I suggested earlier, or check out Great Britain. It is happening in those places. Socialized health care has failed everywhere it has been tried. And Obama has been quoted praising both systems and saying they should be used here on a national level.

Reforms need to be made, but this bill is not the answer.

Speaking of saying the same things over and over, thereby 'discounting' what someone has said in response, I think I could level the same charge.

Michael, Spector said again last night that he is voting for it (I guess he will come up with some way to say it is budget neutral even though it won't be) and he also said, despite all of those at the town halls disagreeing with him, that we were not representative of the American people. How's that for a slap in the face?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


199 posted 08-12-2009 04:17 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

We'll see what those non-American representatives have to say when he comes up for re-election.

So far the protesters have been classified as Nazis, TImothy McVeigh look-alikes, KKK mambers without the sheets, organized mobs, and non-representatives of the AMerican people. SOmebody's rattled...

[This message has been edited by Balladeer (08-12-2009 04:48 PM).]

 
 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