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
 The times...   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ]
 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

The times...

 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


75 posted 09-17-2009 04:47 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
I'm confident the representative is concerned about this


I'm not. I think he has more intelligence than to believe all that smoke and mirror nonsense.

You should give him more credit Huan, the guy isn't an idiot.

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


76 posted 09-17-2009 05:21 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

So the Catholic bishops are or are
relying on idiots.  


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


77 posted 09-17-2009 05:28 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Is that your opinion?

Have you any evidence to support that assumption?

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


78 posted 09-17-2009 05:53 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

           Of course I see things from a slant to the left.  Is this an accusation of some sort?  Why would I try to hide something so basic to my point of view?  I have never made any secret of it and am proud of it.  You make it sound like it's some sort of guilty secret I've been trying to keep for goodness sake.  Perhaps you thought you were going to blow my cover for the shocked and astonished masses of right-thinking folk out there?  Gee.

     I'm left wing in the same way you're right wing, openly and straightforwardly.

     As for your attempt to compare Acorn and potential war crimes in Iraq involving the mistreatment and torture of prisoners, including the deaths of some of them, I would suggest to you that your analogy is stretched.  The war crimes trials in both Germany and Japan as well as the military tradition of our own country has both honored and enshrined in law the principle of command responsibility.  You more than I should be aware that while the troops themselves are fully responsible for the orders they carry out, their superiors are responsible for the issuance of those orders in a way that does not extend to most civilian enterprises.  Furthermore, we know that those orders originated considerably further up the command structure.

     These stories were among the other stories that were pretty much buried during the past two administrations, though you will recall that I called your attention to them when they surfaced.  The difficulty of getting news in print when it doesn't present itself pre-researched and already written is not a problem that confines itself to one side of the political spectrum or the other.  It is a result of the concentration of the news agencies being concentrated in the hands of only a few owners, and with those few owners seeking to maximize profits by cutting back on costs, including reporters who are willing to do the research.

     I suggested, by the way, that some of these stories might be covered by The Wall Street Journal on it's weekend edition, which is both more of a tabloid sort of thing and more right wing.  I'd be interested to see if any of these stories do show up there.  

     I'd put it to you that we may have more agreement about at least some of the press issues than you'd imagine, though for different reasons, and with very different emphases.

     Acorn does not have the same structure or responsibilities as the military.  Conflating the two does neither one any good.

     I say this not only as a good leftist. but as a guy who's got some respect for logic.

     "Fingerpoint Lane" I thought was an interesting turn of phrase, but somewhat off point as it were.

     The essential Evil of Acorn evades me.  I see occasional foolishness and idiocy, but frankly, Mike, when I look around, I can pretty much see that everywhere, and most of the time it simply isn't malicious.  I see the same thing in any political party and most religions and even most people.  They mostly mean well, they may have an amount of malice to them, but mostly it's foolishness and stupidity.  I include myself here.  Sometime people's thinking or behavior is a complete puzzle to me, of course.  I can understand their rationales, but I remain puzzled in some other way, as I must puzzle them sometimes.  So the notion of a community organizing company being the epitome of evil simply doesn't compute for me, and I really need it explained in straightforward words of one syllable.  I just don't see it.

     I still hope you're feeling better.  I know this has been a challenging six months or more for you.

All my best, Bob Kaven    

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


79 posted 09-17-2009 06:40 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Health care.

     I am in despair over it right now.

     If everybody must purchase health care and there is no public option, we supply a windfall to the insurance industry without putting any brakes on them.  As is, this looks to be a recipe for inflation and for decline in services because there is no public option to keep the insurance companies honest.

     Huan Yi and others are talking about abortion.

     I understand that this is one of the great topics of our era, and one of enormous and central ethical significance.  In this case, however, I believe that we are debating the hanging of a painting while the house burns down around our ears.  We should debate the painting fully, but better when we can make sure it's out of the rain and without scorch marks.  Then we can batter each other with verbal brickbats, or throw water balloons, or whatever.

     We need a public option.

     I need some solid information to correct the information I already have.  Should anybody have better information or an objective source (non-Lewin group), I'd appreciate it.  My non-confirmed information says that the insurance folks make about 20% per year per policy for medical insurance.  Is this true?  My non-confirmed information also states that the industry is trying to increase that to a 35% per year per policy margin.  I know that if I had a mutual fund that returned 20% per year on a steady basis, I'd be over it like white on rice; and that if it were 35% I'd be making wart-hog in heat sounds.

     A fair amount of that money — would that be included as part of the costs, and thus not counted as part of the profits, or would that come out of the profits? —is paid out in administrative costs and bonuses.  Each insurance company must cover its own administrative costs, which means that those costs get passed on the the doctors, who must pay both in money and in time they could spend with patients.  Since a doctor will often use several insurance companies, he must deal with several different bureaucracies, each requiring separate skill sets.  She may need to hire extra employees.  She will require time away from patients for her paperwork in writing letters of justification and so on.  A single payer system has a single bureaucracy, a single set of forms, and requires less time for paperwork.

     The 20% to 35% may be available for other expenses.  If the insurance companies want to remain part of the game, they would be forced actually to compete with a system offering real service for a decent fee.  Perhaps they could find a way of doing that without the measures they find acceptable now, many of which I do not.

     Most of these unacceptable measures may be identified simply by looking at the fears that many folks on the right have brought up as possible outcomes for government run healthcare.  Many of these are actual realities for people living with our current private system of health care insurance.  

     My current health care provider has disallowed a medication I have been taking for more than 10 years on another health care plan because it exceeds the recommended dosage levels.  My original physician wrote and obtained an exception for that, and the exception has been reviewed from time to time and approved.  Not so with my new insurance provider, who, it turns out, had access the whole time to the prior records.  It simply didn't chose to use them.  I'm still waiting.

     This is the sort of thing the fear mongers were telling us might happen if single payer health care would be enacted.  It's here today, thanks to my health insurance.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


80 posted 09-17-2009 06:44 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The essential Evil of Acorn evades me.  I see occasional foolishness and idiocy, but frankly, Mike, when I look around, I can pretty much see that everywhere, and most of the time it simply isn't malicious.

I contend, Bob, that you don't see it because you don't want to see it. That's ok...plenty of other people are. ACORN has had their ties with the upcoming census severed. They have had their HUD funding erased. They have been chastised by the White House. Individual states are now in the process of eliminating all funding to ACORN. Today in the House...

The House of Representatives just voted 345 to 75 to prohibit any federal funding for the community organizing group. The vote follows on the heels of a similar prohibition added to a spending bill in the Senate on Monday, which was approved by a vote of 83 to 7

Long loathed by conservatives, the group has come under fire from both parties this week after a video surfaced showing ACORN employees offering tax advice to people posing as sex traffickers. In the House, 172 Democrats sided with all 173 Republicans voting to support the ban. All 75 "no" votes were Democrats. See the roll call here.

The vote also comes after White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said on Wednesday that "obviously the conduct that you see on those tapes is completely unacceptable."
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2009/09/house-votes-to-cut-acorn-funding.html?csp=34

Pretty heavy-hitting for an organization engaging only in occasional bits of foolishness and idiocy, wouldn't you say? By all means, continue seeing, or not seeing, what you prefer. The old "if I close my eyes you can't see me" doesn't really fly that well.

As far as you "left-wing slant", of course you have it, as well as I have mine. I was simply trying to point out the incredible lengths you go to to validate it.

Acorn...rogue employees, not necessarily having anything to do with the administration of the company.

Abu Ghrab..rogue employees but having everything to do with the administration of the military.

Joe Wilson...must be a Republican conspiracy, in spite of the fact the Republicans condemned his actions. You paint it as an impossibility that it could have been an impromptu personal burst and find the need to tie it to some hidden Republican planned agenda. Hey, Bob, don't you think that's carrying the left-wing slant a little far. Come on, now.

You are remindful of Hillary Clinton back in the dark days of Monica, who claimed (before Bill's confession) that the entire thing was a vast right-wing conspiracy. After all of the smoke had cleared and she was asked if she felt she owed the right wingers an apology for her unwarranted accusations, she just said "Are you kidding?" and walked away. To the time of this writing, I believe no apology has ever been issued....what a surprise, no?

There is nothing wrong with slants, Bob, but to carry them to that level in which you did with Wilson doesn't make them a slant - it makes them a rant.

Health is better. Still living on pain pills with one more surgery scheduled at the end of October, but hopefully that will be the end of it. Thanks for asking...
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


81 posted 09-17-2009 06:47 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


No I assume the contrary,
which you well know.  I further
believe they are without evil
or malacious intent and their concerns
are rational.  I do not believe the
represenative is far apart from them
in his concerns as to his understanding
nor its basis.

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


82 posted 09-17-2009 07:43 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

WASHINGTON -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said yesterday she is clueless about an amendment to prohibit government funds for embattled ACORN, although it overwhelmingly passed the Senate Monday and the White House is calling for the group to be held accountable.

"I don't even know what they passed," Pelosi told The Post yesterday. "What did they do? They defunded it?"

The issue now goes to a House-Senate conference committee for a spending bill. Its fate is up to Democratic leaders, particularly Pelosi, since the House passed no such provision. Some fellow lawmakers were surprised that Pelosi wasn't following the issue

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/pelosi_clueless_about_cash_cut_off_ZHSkPZ2Mbhr5phoqht5GHN


Well, at last Pelosi said something I can agree with.....she IS clueless!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


83 posted 09-17-2009 09:37 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Dems unhappy with proposed tax in health care bill
AP


    *
    
Insurers and business groups also oppose the new tax and other fees in the bill, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is wasting no time making its objections known. The chamber announced it will begin airing a new TV ad Friday in more than a dozen states lambasting "Washington politicians" who "want new taxes on health care companies — taxes that will get passed on to you."

The 35 percent tax levied on insurance plans is a different approach, though unions and employers contend it will end up being passed along to workers. Conrad acknowledged the criticism but said it was a necessary step.

"Does that create some pain? Yes, it does," Conrad said. "People want to see real pain, stay on the current course" — with health care costs rising unchecked, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_taxes


People want to see real pain? Will everyone who wants to see real pain please raise their hands? I can understand that sometimes pain is necessary to achieve goals but....we WANT to see real pain? Who is this bozo to make such a statement?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


84 posted 09-17-2009 10:32 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

     Actually, Huan Yi, I'm not at all sure what or whom your are speaking of or to. So I'm unclear how to respond to you here.  I'm sorry about that.  I believe you may be talking to me, but I can't be sure.  And I don't know if your disagreement,m if disagreeing we are, is about the nature of humanity, the nature of political parties, or the malice of political parties.  You might be talking about the responsibilities of command.  As somebody who seems to share a fondness for Harry Truman — unless I misread you, which I am distressingly wont to do — I admire the sort of leader who is willing to acknowledge where the buck stops.  We haven't had many of them, and they are refreshing.  

     I can't tell if you are talking about this either.  You don't offer enough information to be read clearly.  I will try to reply to you, if it is indeed me that you are addressing, if you give me enough indication of what you are trying to say for me to form an honest and clear response.  Otherwise you leave me at a loss.

          Were I to well know this, whatever this may be, I would be able to skip this note and go directly to a response.  Or skip the necessity of responding at all, secure in the understanding you were talking to Grinch or Balladeer or somebody else.

     Knowing the referent of "they" in this case would be useful as well.  I believe most folks are generally without malicious intent, by the way.  I don't know if that means we agree about this or not, though, since I remain basically puzzled.

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


85 posted 09-18-2009 02:12 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Why, I think Conrad must be a clueless, and deaf, POLITICIAN, Michael! That would be my guess!     They apparantly didn't hear us too well this past August or this past Saturday.

I believe John was referring to the Catholic Bishops in a reply to Grinch, Bob.

And just a clarification to your 'birther position' comment: There is more than one position held by those lumped into that so-called group. What is it that you don't find plausible? The contention of some that he was possibly born in Kenya, or Canada? Or the contention that even if he was born in Hawaii he still may not be considered a 'natural born citizen', since he was born with dual citizenship (which he himself admitted on his Fight the Smears site, in which case they contend that he'd be considered a citizen but not a 'natural born' citizen, which is a requirement to hold the office of President)? Or the contention that he may not be a citizen at all due to his childhood Indonesian citizenship, with no evidence that he ever renounced it and reapplied for U.S. citizenship?

About the only thing that the so-called 'birthers' agree on is that Obama is withholding all documentation pertaining to his past life that could shed any light on his citizenship status to the tune of over a million dollars so far. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask 'why?', do you?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


86 posted 09-18-2009 01:17 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
we WANT to see real pain? Who is this bozo to make such a statement?


I think that you've misinterpreted his point Mike, though it's an honest and understandable mistake caused by his lazy diction, if you were listening to him instead of reading a transcript it would be clearer.

If you look carefully at the context of what he said though it's obvious that what he meant was:

If People want to see real pain - stay on the current course with health care costs rising unchecked.

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


87 posted 09-18-2009 03:57 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
The House of Representatives just voted 345 to 75 to prohibit any federal funding for the community organizing group.


Along with a whole bunch of other organisations and companies.

I've just read the proposal. Regardless of whether you believe ACORN should lose it's funding it's a seriously bad piece of legislation that will hurt a lot more people than the intended target.

The current proposal states that any organisation (including companies) that are indicted, or employ an individual who is, or has been, indicted, cannot receive government funding.

Indicted?

That's simply another way of saying accused. So all you have to do to get government funding pulled from an organisation or company is to accuse one of their employees or contractors of a relevant felony.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Why couldn't they use a bit of common sense and at least use the word CONVICTED?

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


88 posted 09-18-2009 09:56 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Denise,

           Yes.  It has all been discussed and answered to my satisfaction.  I have addressed these things with you before.  Huan Yi brought them up in a different context.  Should you wish to discuss them with Huan Yi or with Republicans that believe that your position doesn't hold water, you should do that.  You already know I disagree with you and you know why.  You have heard my comments and have chosen to disregard them, as is your right, and as long as you continue to hold that position with no new information of substance that I can see, I feel that that particular discussion with you is simply not productive.

     Should you have new information of substance, I would be happy to look at it and give it my best consideration, as you certainly deserve.  But your position at this point is one that, as I understand it, is under litigation, and our discussion will not affect that at all.

     I'd appreciate it if you could inform my how you could tell that Huan Yi was speaking to Grinch.  If true, I certainly feel relieved, but I see no way of actually figuring this out from his text.  How did you figure this out?

     Sincerely, Bob Kaven

[This message has been edited by Bob K (09-18-2009 10:33 PM).]

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


89 posted 09-18-2009 10:21 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


    
Dear Grinch,

           Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?

     The House is the body that is closest to public.  It will always be first to do this sort of thing; it's its nature.  In Athens, the meeting once sent out  and recalled a punitive expedition on two successive days during, if I remember correctly, the Peleponnesian War.

     During times of ferment and stress during the American Revolution, the congress behaved the same way with similar results.  It required the addition of a Senate, a judiciary and a President, all with balancing powers, to restrain the House from running away with itself.  

     We need The House for its direct connection with the voters.  This gives it vitality, freshness and directness.  These are also the reasons we need to be cautious about The House.  Something so powerful needs to be respected and feared, and the Constitution provided the House both powers and safeguards for that reason.  The Constitution was not America's first try at a Government, and we had learned a lot about Representative Government during the Revolution and under the Articles of Confederation.

     It's still necessary to allow  an element of direct democracy in.  It can be used to affect the political process disproportionately, and has done so since at least the heyday of the Know Nothings in the first part of the 19th Century.

     I don't believe we have seen such pride in being ill informed, partly informed, misinformed or utterly uninformed since that time, but it does seem to have come back in fashion, and logic and information seem to be the focus of contempt.  You suggestion that this is new, however, simply means we must once again remind ourselves of Lord Acton.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

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


90 posted 09-18-2009 10:22 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I certainly agree that an accusation is insufficient grounds. I have always thought that an indictment was an accusation that led to court proceedings. I looked up the definition and indictment does indeed say a accusation, although I have never heard little Billy say, "Mom indicted me for hitting my little sister." Actually, I've never heard any adult use it in that context, either.

Be that as it may, having congress pass a bill canceling funding does not make it a done deal. From my understanding, it the goes to a committee where it is gone over word by word and either approved or amended. Hopefully, when that happens,  they will give it a little more clarity than they have done so far.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


91 posted 09-19-2009 05:46 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Bob,

Acton was right but in this case it isn't a misuse of power it's a misuse of the system. The political system and the people have become a tool in a dangerous game to elevate one political party above the other to the detriment of rational lawmaking and the nation as a whole. The defund Acorn Act is simply another example of that process; the evisceration of the health care bill is another. It's a knee-jerk reactions to often manufactured hysteria, which as you say is nothing new, the house is seemingly reacting to recent events but it's more than that, it’s a carefully prepared trap to make one political group look bad if they oppose it.  Before anyone asks, no, this isn't a jab at the left or right, this particular brush is wide enough to cover all of them.

Mike,

I agree the term "Indicted" is rarely used outside the legal process but within legal and legislative circles everyone knows that it simply means accused, so why use it in the first place? Will it be amended as it goes through the political process? I certainly hope so, my fear though is any attempts to amend the wording will be portrayed as an attempt to protect ACORN.

Logic and common sense dictates that as it's amended the direct reference to ACORN will have to be removed. A law targeting one particular organisation or Company is downright stupid, not to mention possibly unconstitutional. Laws are supposed to apply to everyone so naming one particular organisation is redundant. The term indicted needs to be replaced with convicted as we've discussed - otherwise some bright spark is going to use that loophole to defund a whole slew of otherwise innocent organisations. Next you have to look at whether the punishment fits the crime, which brings into the equation the question of how culpable an employer can be for the actions of an employee. They certainly should have some responsibility but for them to bear the punishment for the uncontrollable actions of their employees doesn't seem right. If an employee working at a soup kitchen commits voter fraud would sacking him be enough or do you need to close down the kitchen?

Another thing that will have to be changed is the fact that this act is tagged onto another bill and may possibly end up becoming law by being carried through on the shirttails of the bill it's attached to. Or vice versa, the bill it's attached to might be completely insidious but gets voted through because people want to see ACORN suffer. This proposal needs to be looked at individually - not as fifty lines in a two thousand-line bill about student funding.

Hopefully you'll agree in the cool light of day that all the above are reasonable areas for amendment, Call me sceptic if you like but I'm betting that if any of the above are so much as mentioned there'll be accusations flying around left, right and centre that they're simply ways to defend the actions of ACORN.

Party politics - no wonder the world's going down the pan.

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


92 posted 09-19-2009 09:33 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I followed the line of communication, Bob. Grinch asked John a question, and the next reply from John seemed to me to fit as an answer to the previous question.

My position on Obama is simply that he is hiding something due to his sealing all information about his personal history. But you didn't answer my previous question as to the reasonableness of people asking 'why?' under these circumstances.

I don't know his actual citizenship status, whether he is 'natural-born' (requirement to hold the Office of President), 'native-born' (born on U.S. soil), or a 'naturalized' (foreign born) citizen. I suspect that whatever his status actually is he fears it may have disqualified him from seeking and/or holding the Office of Preident, thus his refusal to release any information.

If you can direct me to any concrete evidence that can put the questions to rest, I'd be more than happy to consider it.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


93 posted 09-19-2009 10:30 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

My sister had a good point on the healthcare insurance coverage for illegal aliens issue: Whether they are covered under any eventual plan or not, what is the difference? They will overwhelm the system either way: doctors' offices with coverage, or the emergency rooms without coverage. Either way we citizens will pay for it.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


94 posted 09-19-2009 12:00 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Denise,

Perhaps it never was as big a problem as it seemed.

How many non-American citizens are treated every year in the US and what's the total unrecoverable cost?

I only ask because I had a similar conversation with a friend recently who was bemoaning the fact that the NHS resources are being drained by non-UK residents.

I was surprised when I started researching the figures. In one UK hospital for instance I found figures for non-UK resident treatment equated to around 2%. Of those treated 85% of the cost was recovered from the patient or the patient's country of origin. The total cost that had to be written off, the actual cost to the taxpayer, in that year was a grand total of £4,845.

In the grand scheme of things it seems that despite all the hype it's not that big of a problem in the UK.

I accept that the US could be different though. Any figures you can provide would be useful.

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


95 posted 09-19-2009 02:29 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

quote:

The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) mandates that U.S. hospitals with emergency-room services must treat anyone who requires care, including illegal aliens. Medical service for Americans in affected communities is being severely damaged as hospitals absorb more than $200 million in unreimbursed costs. Some emergency rooms have shut down because they cannot afford to stay open. Local tax-paying Americans are either denied medical care or have to wait in long lines for service as the illegals flood the facilities. In California, the losses are calculated to be about $79 million, with $74 million in Texas, $31 million in Arizona, and $6 million in New Mexico.


http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/health_care.html

Of course, the unreimbursed amount, which primarily effects the hospitals, doesn’t include the costs to the taxpayer via Medicaid payments for certain covered services, such as the costs associated with childbirth.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


96 posted 09-19-2009 04:14 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Denise,

I think there's a problem with your figures that prohibits us from understanding the scope of the possible illegal immigrant problem. I'm not contesting the numbers, though I have to be honest I haven't checked them out, the problem I see is associating all the unrecoverable cost to illegal immigrants.

more than $200 million in unreimbursed costs sounds impressive but that figure is a total of unrecoverable costs incurred while treating legal and illegal immigrants as well as uninsured American citizens. That total isn't attributable solely to illegal immigrants; to infer that it is would be slightly misleading.

Do you know how much of the unrecoverable cost is specifically attributable to illegal immigrants? That's the figure we need before we can understand the scope of the problem.

We can make a rough guess of the costs based on what we do know. There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the US for instance, of those census results show that roughly 50% of them have, and are paying for, insurance cover, albeit insurance obtained through fraudulent means. That means that there's only 5.5 million potentially uninsured illegal immigrants. Not all of them are going to need treatment though. We can take a punt on that figure for the moment, we can refine it later, lets say that 10% of the population need medical treatment. That gives us 550,000 illegal immigrants getting treatment at the taxpayer's expense.

So how much of the $200 million is attributable to those 550 k?

To get near that figure we need to know what percentage the 550 k is of the total number of uninsured population - the set of people that are incurring the unrecoverable costs.

The total number of uninsured people in the US is, according to census estimates, 46 million, but lets err on the side of caution and make the calculation a little easier - lets call it 45.5 million. If we knock off the 5.5 million that are uninsured illegal immigrants we get a nice round 40 million. However only 10% (our earlier punt) of those will require treatment. That's 4 million incurring unrecoverable costs, if we add the illegal immigrants incurring unrecoverable costs we get 4.55 million if you divide the total cost by that figure you get $44 per person. Multiply that by the number in each respective group and you get:

Uninsured Americans = $176 million
Illegal immigrants = $24 million

$24 million is still a lot though but I can get it down a little more. Remember that punt we took on how many people require treatment? Well I might not know the exact figure but I do know that legal immigrants are less likely than US born Americans to seek treatment - 75% less likely in fact. It stands to reason that illegal immigrants would follow that trend. So our $24 million figure for illegal immigrants is actually $6 million and the figure for Uninsured Americans jumps up to $194 million.

If there are 138 million tax payers in the US each one of them is paying around 2 cents a day in additional tax towards the unrecoverable costs of the illegal immigrants.

When you look at it that way it doesn't seem to be that big of a problem.

  

[This message has been edited by Grinch (09-19-2009 05:03 PM).]

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


97 posted 09-19-2009 07:10 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"I followed the line of communication, Bob. Grinch asked John a question, and the next reply from John seemed to me to fit as an answer to the previous question"

Logical thinking.
Shame on you.


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


98 posted 09-19-2009 07:40 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

It's no doubt a difficult thing to track, but I think your estimates may be a bit on the low end, Grinch. The 200 million was the estimated costs to hospitals as unrecoverable, not the total cost to taxpayers. Here is a study that puts the estimate for total illegal immigrant healthcare costs to federal and state governments at 10.7 Billion annually. I assume that is the amount after any insurance payments are made on behalf of illegals who have some type of private insurance, otherwise it wouldn't be counted as a cost to the federal and state governments.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51751


And this amount doesn't include the amount that hospitals can't recover from insurance companies or the federal and state governments:

quote:
"Our people are really torn," said Brian Brannman, [the University Medical Center's] chief operating officer. "We want to take care of people who are ill. We're proud that we can save lives. But our employees are also worried about the survival of UMC. They know that the appetite of taxpayers for helping undocumented immigrants is limited."

Since April, UMC has been spending about $2 million per month providing emergency dialysis services to 80 illegal immigrants, Brannman said.

He projects that these services at UMC could run more than $24 million in the current fiscal year.

In each of the five prior years, the hospital provided the same emergency services to half as many illegal immigrants for a little more than $1 million per month.

Brannman said the hospital receives no reimbursement from federal, state or local sources to provide this life-saving treatment for people who have entered the country illegally.
. . .
"When we're projecting a budget deficit of $70 million for fiscal year 2010, you can see that $24 million in dialysis treatment that's not reimbursed is an awfully big chunk," Brannman said.
. . .
"There's no question that these illegals who come for dialysis treatment at emergency rooms back everything up," said Dr. Dale Carrison, UMC's head of emergency services, adding that most require treatment two or three times a week. "And there's also no question that they need help. But this isn't how emergency rooms were meant to be used."

Unfortunately, this hospital's experience is not unique. Until the government gets serious about eliminating illegal immigration, already-staggering unpaid medical bills will continue to grow.

Unless Congress makes every effort to reduce the strain on our health care system caused by illegal immigration, any overhaul will be unworkable and unsustainable.


http://www.cis.org/feere/healthcare
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


99 posted 09-19-2009 07:50 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I've been accused of that from time to time, John. Not as often as I would like, but it does happen sometimes!
 
 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 >> The times...   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ] 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