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  ]
 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174
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 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


150 posted 09-23-2009 05:46 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Reagan was a “B” grade movie actor and a doddering, probably clinically senile president

Well, at least he didn't grow peanuts. Carter continues to be what he has always been - an embarrassment to the Democratic party. It's so easy to view history in the way you want to see it...doesn't take any intelligence to do that. Thank God Reagan was around to cleanup Carter's mess.

Bedtime for Bonzo? A "B" movie??? You have some nerve!!!!!
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


151 posted 09-23-2009 05:55 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


I don't think they should even be making the vaccine and I definitely won't be acting as an unpaid guinea pig even though I've been told I'm in a high-risk group.

The risk from the current strain is too small, as is the mortality rate, which makes the decision to produce a vaccine against such a mild strain, instead of the seasonal flu vaccine, an example of stupidity of the highest order.

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


152 posted 09-23-2009 06:23 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

So what you’re saying, Denise, is that a government run health care program is ok with you as long as it benefits Seniors like yourself.

Don't worry, Denise. I get the same stuff, since the VA picks up my bills. Somehow the years I gave my country just don't seem to matter to those who didn't in the same way that the 40+ years you paid into the system doesn't really count to those who have only put in a fraction of that time. We live in an "instant gratification" society where everyone  wants things NOW, regardless of how much they have or have not contributed.

That's just the way it is......
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


153 posted 09-23-2009 09:04 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

           Red Herring, I think, Mike.  Both your service and Denise's pay in to the system count, and to suggest otherwise would be silly.  That's not the same as pay for as in cash money from an investment, though, is it?

     Neither my time paying in nor Denise's will pay for what we will get paid out monetarily if our lives proceed
predictably.  And your service didn't pay for your care afterward in any sort of fiscal way; nevertheless, it's an honor to fund it, and you deserve it in spades.  You are entitled to it as far as I'm concerned.

     The question that arises, to my mind at least, as to whether the medicare system and the VA hospital system are good systems.  When I suggested that there were substantial problems with the way the VA was being treated and that it's services had been compromised a year or so ago, you were very quick to tell me that the VA was a very fine system indeed.  I still believe that there have been some problems with the system in the areas I mentioned at the time, that is long term nursing home type care, and trauma care for head injuries and in treatment for depression and some of the psychiatric illnesses.  I don't know if you continue to disagree with me about these or not.

     Otherwise, you were very happy with the VA, which is much the sort of system that I believe many folks who look for single payer health care may have in mind.  It seems to be run well, according to what you tell me, and do a good job under public administration.  The Drug companies are not happy because they must actually bid to supply drugs and actually accept more realistic prices than most of us can obtain privately.  If you've had any person pressure from the VA telling you to kill yourself to save the rest of us some money, you haven't said anything that I've heard about it.

     If you have, let me know and I'll start writing letters of complaint to as many people as I can find.  

     A lot of people buy supplements to help with medicare, but other than that, I haven't heard a lot of complaints about the system itself.  It is defrauded by the private contractors on occasion.  If the private contractors were eliminated in favor of public employees, as it works with the VA, some of that problem might go away, of course.

     If these things endanger the private insurance venders, then perhaps the private insurance venders might consider acting in a competitive fashion instead of trying to suppress competition and tack on an extra 15% profits while continuing to raise premiums and reduce coverage and increase co-payments. I fail to see what's communistic about your VA coverage or, for that matter, Medicare.

     With what the insurance companies are taking from our corporate and individual citizens already, I believe it may well already to fund a substantial part of a single payer system, and perhaps all of it if we include actual bids for medication supplies.

     Thoughts for the day,

Hope you're feeling better, Bob Kaven
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


154 posted 09-23-2009 09:46 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

The late Senator Edward Kennedy proposed Medicare for All, where all Americans would benefit and all would contribute to the financing of the program through payroll taxes and general revenues. If Medicare as it now exits isn’t considered a “socialistic/communistic” program, why would Medicare for All be any different?

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


155 posted 09-24-2009 01:18 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, you have certainly heard me sing the praises of the VA and, at this particular time, you will hear me sing them louder than ever. I prefer it over any private hospital and it's doctors over any others. Does it have it's occasional problems? Of course but you will be hard-pressed to find any private hospitals that don't. Most seniors are very happy with their Medicare, also. Do you want to make the claim that this proves that socialized or single-payer health care is the way to go?

Few people are willing to talk about the truly massive unfunded obligations of Medicare and Medicaid ($33.4 trillion), which dwarfs unfunded Social Security obligations ($4.6 trillion) and the national debt ($10 trillion). The U.S. also has "$2.3 trillion unfunded liability for medical and disability benefits promised to civil servants and military personnel who retire." http://www.lesjones.com/posts/005074.shtml

Both of them are in dire financial straits. Even though there is a significant number of people who use them, that number pales in comparison to the 45 million Obama claims needs health care. If both of those entities are so deeply in the red (estimates say that Medicare can be completely insolvent by 2017), what do you think would happen if the entire 300+ million Americans were on a similar plan? It boggles the mind....and yet Obama claims it will not add to the deficit, a ridiculous statement by any measure. He also claims part of it will be financed by taking tens of millions from Medicare, which is already almost insolvent beyond repair. How can you think that a government which cannot run any business, from the post office to Amtrak to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to MEdicare without it going deeply in the red can handle single-payer health programs without the same result? Obama has already quadrupled the national debt....and now wants to go into an area which will add billions and even trillions to it. Why doesn't he just aim toward reducing the costs and waste that he claims he can do? SImple---he just wants the health care system to be government-run....period.

Jennifer, Yes, Teddy proposed a health care system for all but I've never seen anywhere his plans for financing it completely through personal contributions and payroll taxes. If you have, I'd like to see it. Kennedy, like Obama, have no experience running a  company at all and yet they both feel/felt they could run something as large as the entire health care system. History proves them wrong.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


156 posted 09-24-2009 09:23 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Democrats defeated Republican efforts to spare cuts in some areas of Medicare, the government-run insurance program for the elderly, and rejected a controversial measure sparked by the probe over a letter from insurer Humana Inc. to its customers.

Republicans also demanded more information on the bill's budgetary impact and called for the Democratic-controlled panel to slow its deliberations on the reform plan, which Baucus had hoped to bring to a final vote this week.

The panel, which has a 13-10 Democratic majority, rejected a Republican effort to delay a final committee vote until the bill could be put into legal language and posted on the Internet, and budget experts could estimate its full cost.

Baucus said Republican Senator Jim Bunning's proposal would create at least a two-week delay as the Congressional Budget Office completed its final analysis of the bill.

"If it takes two more weeks, it takes two more weeks," said Senator Olympia Snowe, the only panel Republican considered a potential supporter of the final bill. "We're talking about trillions of dollars in the final analysis. What is the rush?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090924/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_17


This is a pretty clear indication of how the Democratic congress and Obama are working. The GOP simply wanted the final bill to be posted on the internet 3 days before the vote, along with it's projected costs. They wanted the public to be able to read it first and see the costs involved. Obviously, Dems don't want that to happen. They simply want it to get passed and THEN the public can see what they are saddled with, a la cap and trade and stimulus. A two week delay would be such a tragedy? Over what is probably the most important bill the government has ever authored?...a pathetic excuse to keep the public in the dark. They can veto whatever they want. Sooner or later, they will have to face the public....and a large part of the public is not pleased with their tactics.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


157 posted 09-24-2009 10:49 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I don’t trust WHO nor SAGE, Bob. We can only take their word for it regarding how this current flu is acting, and who it finds ‘tasty’. And our current administration espouses the same philosophy on age based treatment, and not only as it relates to this flu.


I am not a ‘senior’ quite yet, Jen. I’m almost 7 years away from Medicare eligibility. But do I get any credit, in your mind, for contributing toward it for perhaps 35+ years longer than you?  If Medicare goes away tomorrow, who is the biggest loser, you or me?

What I want, or think should be, in a perfect world, which this certainly isn’t and never will be, doesn’t matter. We cannot afford to provide healthcare for all, adding to the burden of what we are already obligated to under Medicaid and Medicare. Similar programs have been implemented in three different States and none have lived up to their stated objective of containing costs while increasing healthcare availability.


What I am opposed to, and do not want, is government rationing of healthcare based on age.


I suppose like most other things, credibility is in the eye of the beholder, I would consider most “main stream media” sources as the least credible in recent history. But here are three different sources, other than WND. I don’t know how credible you will find these articles, but here they are:

Commentary on Medicare for all:
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/medicare-for-all-crazy-socialized-and-unlikely/

There’s no free healthcare:

quote:
The test cases mirror Obamacare in one way or another. In 2003, Maine decided to cover the uninsured by expanding the state's Medicaid program and creating a government-run "public option" to provide health insurance with subsidized premiums. Controls on hospital and doctor costs would lead to reduced premiums and savings for everyone, without tax increases, or so it was claimed. Five years later, "the system that was supposed to save money has cost taxpayers $155 million and is still rising," the Wall Street Journal reported. Meanwhile, Medicaid enrollment has doubled to 22 percent of the state's population, and access to the public plan has been capped.
In Massachusetts, "universal" coverage was enacted in 2006 along with a requirement that everyone be insured or pay a fine. (By 2009, the fine was up to $1,068.) Again, the claim was made--a claim Obama repeats--that costs would decline once everyone was covered. Today, 97 percent of Massachusetts citizens are covered, the highest rate in the country. But costs have soared to the point the New York Times characterized them as "runaway." Spending on the state's health insurance program has risen by 42 percent. A major cause shouldn't have surprised anyone: The newly insured have flooded doctors' offices for medical care paid for by others. Now Governor Deval Patrick, a close ally of Obama, wants to impose cost controls.
The Tennessee experiment began in 1994 with one thought in mind: curbing the rise in health care costs. TennCare was established to cover everyone either on Medicaid or unable to obtain insurance. Rather than bend downward, the cost curve has steeply climbed. In a decade, spending surged from $2.5 billion to $8 billion. To cope with this, the state is cutting the TennCare rolls and reducing benefits. The program still consumes a higher share of the state budget than any Medicaid program in the country.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/973rqxkx.asp


Outrageous. Going after Humana for daring to alert recipients of Medicare Advantage that services could be cut under health care bill:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574427200839672342.html


The desire for ‘instant gratification’ is a big problem and on the rise, I agree, Michael. You can hear it in Acorn & SEIU chants of : What do we want? Healthcare! When do we want it? NOW!!!!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


158 posted 09-24-2009 11:14 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well presented, Denise. Three attempts - three failures...and on only state levels. And yet some people still want it on a national level, as if it's success would be a given. Amazing stuff....
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


159 posted 09-24-2009 03:56 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Thanks Michael. I don't know why people can't see that everytime it has been tried it has been a disaster.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


160 posted 09-24-2009 03:58 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     What would happen to the financial state of Medicare, about which many Republicans are justly worried, if the Republican sponsored bill of a few years back that forbade any competitive bidding on medication costs for that program were modified?  What if those medication costs were put out to competitive bid as they are in the VA?

     I am aware that there are problems here, but it might be useful to see what we might do if taking a little bit of this exceedingly generous payoff to the drug companies — originally a Republican payoff and now, perhaps, a Democratic payoff — might do to make insurance reform and health care reform more viable.

     We might also look at the National Health Service in the U.K. and at the various other successful health care delivery systems in the industrial world that work better than ours and see how they finance them.  All of them spend less than one out of every six dollars in their economy on health care and still manage to cover everybody pretty darn well.  

     If people from overseas come to the U.S. for some of their health care, it's a sure bet that some of the people in the U.S. would like to come to the U.S. for their health care too, only they can't afford it.  Very very high end care is beyond the resources of most people anywhere, with few exceptions, and to pretend otherwise is to distort the picture.  If you have insurance, you may be able to afford it, depending on the quality of the insurance.  If you're in the VA system, yes; if you're in Medicare, perhaps, though for some services, such as long term nursing care,  you may have to give up your house and everything you own.

     In case you hadn't noticed, we have Americans going overseas for some medical care, too.  Many Americans go to Canada for eye surgery, for example, as well as their medication.  

     To spend one out of six dollars for medical expenses in our economy, and to have that figure on the rise, and to have the return we get for those dollars on the decline when other countries proportionately  pay considerably less and have a reasonably stable cost suggests to me that we, my friends, are being cheated badly.  And the people who are cheating us are putting on one heck of a fight to be able to continue to do it.  

     If what we're doing is cheating us, I'd suggest that we look very hard at the things the cheaters are yelling loudest about, and think very deeply about them.  The odds are they they are not yelling about them to protect us; and the sounds they are making are sounds of pain that they might actually have to supply some of the services that they've been advertising and bragging about for all these years.  And that the things that they're telling us to be afraid of may be the things that they're already doing to us, in spades, and would like top do more of, if we let them.  Let's not let them.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


161 posted 09-24-2009 06:13 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It's so interesting the Chicago-style tactics being employed here. Humana tells it's members where they can expect a reduction in benefits under the proposed plan and Congress issues a gag order on them.

The Democrats are trying to blitzkreig the bill through congress without letting the public know what's in it, beforehand, the same way they did the stimulus and cap and trade.

Shona Holmes, the Canadian lady who spoke against the Canadian health system, said she would have died if she had not received treatment in the states. SHe stated that Ontario, which is large, has only 69 neurosurgeons and what Canada doesn't advertise is the waiting time for diagnostic testing. She claimed that there is even a website where one can check to see where they are on the waiting lists for testing. SInce making this public, she had recieved a large amount of hate mail and death threats.

SOmebody is certainly afraid of something....maybe the truth?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


162 posted 09-24-2009 06:25 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, I would welcome competitive bidding on medication. That is always an excellent way to bring costs down. The government doesn't have to take over health care to do it. I would also welcome people being able to shop for insurance nation-wide, the way congress does, instead of it being limited to their own state. Democrats won't include that, saying it's too complicated.

How does England and Canada afford to do it? I don't know the quality of their services, as compared to the states. I don't know how much in taxes go out of their paychecks.

I also have no problem with going after the insurance companies. The government does not have to take over health care to do it.

Obama wants to take over health care for the same reason Hillary (not Clinton) climbed Mount Everest....because it was there.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


163 posted 09-24-2009 06:32 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
estimates say that Medicare can be completely insolvent by 2017


2015 according to Medicare - and they should know.

Medicare is a flawed system, it's a good idea but it breaks the basic rules of a health care ponzi scheme - not enough people putting money in and too many taking it out.

It's easier to see the problem if you scale it down a bit.

If ten people put a dollar into a hat every week and one of them gets to take out $40 every four weeks the system is self-sustainable. If you increase the number of people taking out to two you have to either double the amount each puts in or halve the amount they each take out. If you don't you run out of money pretty darn quick, unless of course you can increase the number of people to 20.

That's what Obama is trying to do, he can't increase the amount being put in or reduce the amount being taken out - the only option is to increase the number of people putting in.

BTW Bob - That's one of the reasons why the system works in the UK - the more people you can get putting in the better, and it's also the reason that it'll ultimately fail. Ponzi schemes always do, the balance between those putting in -  the amount they're putting - those taking out -  the amount they're taking out - simply can't be sustained.

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


164 posted 09-24-2009 06:50 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

...and when you increase the number of people putting in, you increase the amount that will be taken out...and the two amounts are not equal.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


165 posted 09-24-2009 07:29 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
...and when you increase the number of people putting in, you increase the amount that will be taken out...and the two amounts are not equal.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean Mike.

If you mean the number of people taking out increases as more people join then no, that's not technically correct. The percentage stays the same. If ten put in and one takes out that's 10%, if 20 put in the number taking out goes up to 2 but that's still only 10%.

If you mean the amount of money goes up then that's questionable too. In the money in the hat example there's no reason for the output to increase. In health care there's a very strong argument that the outputs (costs) would actually reduce due to economies of scale.

That's all theoretical of course. In reality it wouldn't work in America because there's no control of the end providers who ultimately determine the cost, which harks back to Bob's question regarding the disparity between the actual cost of health care in the US in comparison to other countries.

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


166 posted 09-24-2009 07:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, if ten put in and only one takes out, I can understand the comparison, as long as the amount one is taking out is not greater than the ten putting in. I find it unlikely that only one out of ten will be taking out. We're talking about health here, not getting hit by lightning. It would be interesting to know the average medical bills one rings up during a normal lifetime. I feel fairly confident that it is higher than the amount one puts in times a bunch. If you open free health care up to everyone then those costs will increase because people will use it much more often than they would with private insurance, where they would have to first meet a deductible.

The other factor would be timing. Right now we baby boomers are in our 60's...an awful lotta people reaching the area of expensive health needs. Amounts going out will certainly exceed by far any amounts coming in.

The only answer I see is not having more people pay in - it's reducing costs - insurance, pharmaceutical, legal and waste. The government does not have to take over health care to do that.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


167 posted 09-24-2009 08:51 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'll  explain my math another way.

Let's suppose that for every ten dollars one paid into health care,one received twenty dollars worth of care. I consider that to be a very  low estimate.

So, with ten people putting in ten dollars and getting twenty worth of health care, you have 100 going in and two hundred going out.

Make that one hundred people and you have 1,000 going in and 2,000 going out...a difference of 900 between the two examples. Make that 300 million people  and tell me what you've got. The amount of people going in definitely does make a difference.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


168 posted 09-25-2009 01:34 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Yes.  And everybody who goes in at the beginning, doesn't necessarily  end up collecting, either.  Men in particular have a bad habit of dying younger.  This, by the way, one of the excellent arguments for immigration, which is figured into the system as a plus.  Those immigrants pay for a lot of boomers.  And the illegals pays for some of them too.  By the way.  As I mentioned a few posts back.

     When people first started paying into the system, it was basically men who paid in, and their input covered their own retirement and survivor's benefits for their spouses and kids.  It was very meager, and it was never meant to be a full retirement income.

     Now, of course, everybody who works puts money in, roughly doubling the base, at least proportionately. Of course the money that was meant for social security is regularly stolen by congress — borrowed, I think the word is that they use for other purposes.  It is a very large pool of liquid cash, and the congress has never been very good about keeping its hands off.  What I do not know and would love to find out is how good they have been about paying that money back and what form that payback has come in.  That is, has the payback come in a form that is as spendable as the form it was borrowed in.  If there has in fact been payback at all.

     For that matter, is it true that we have borrowed money from the Chinese and are only paying back interest on the principle.  How good a deal is that one for us, while we're looking at places to get a little bit of money coming in.  How about paying down that principle, folks?  That should free up a lot of money for the programs that we're talking about.  What genius saddled us with that sort of ongoing gift?  Any credit card company in America would love to have that sucker on a hook, thank you.

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


169 posted 09-25-2009 09:00 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

And everybody who goes in at the beginning, doesn't necessarily  end up collecting, either.  Men in particular have a bad habit of dying younger.

I considered that, Bob, and on the other end of the spectrum, you will have people who need an extremely large amount of treatment, due to cancer, leukemia, dialysis, transplants and so on. Health care, along with population, is not a zero sum game. If it were, with more people being born than dying, health care systems would never run out of money. It doesn't work that way, which I'm sure you know.

For that matter, is it true that we have borrowed money from the Chinese and are only paying back interest on the principle.  How good a deal is that one for us,

Not a good deal at all, Bob! How about telling Obama to stop???? How can we pay down principal while he had quadrupled the debt.....and continues? We have watched him put our future generations in so much debt they have no chance of repaying it and you're wondering why we are not paying down principal??????? Surely you jest.....

What genius? I'll give you a hint (he's a lousy bowler)
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


170 posted 09-25-2009 02:14 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Mike,

The odds of getting struck by lightning are closer to 1: 280000 than 1:10.



You are absolutely spot on though in some respects when it comes to my simple example and Medicare.

My example however was to show how a single payer health scheme works and to show the options for balancing the books when it doesn't. I wasn't specifically talking about Medicare - that's a far more complicated beast - but the basic rules are the same.

Medicare is a flawed system as I said earlier, it's neither fish nor fowl but I think I can explain why it's flawed if you like. I can also explain why I believe that Obama thinks that increasing the number of people will reduce costs.

It's a long story though, it'll take me a while to get it into a half-understandable form but I'll give it a shot if you're interested.

.

[This message has been edited by Grinch (09-25-2009 03:08 PM).]

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


171 posted 09-25-2009 04:21 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Maybe this will wake some people up about the intent of our politicians regarding healthccare.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html

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


172 posted 09-25-2009 04:53 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Sorry Denise but I don't get it.

If a law is passed that makes it illegal to not purchase health cover and you don't purchase cover what do you expect - a glass of milk and a cookie?

If anyone makes a conscious choice to break the law they have only their selves to blame when they face the consequences of their decision - criminals get no sympathy from me.


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


173 posted 09-25-2009 06:59 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“If anyone makes a conscious choice to break the law they have only their selves to blame when they face the consequences of their decision - criminals get no sympathy from me.”

Wasn’t it against American law one time to aid and abet runaway slaves?

Sorry Grinch, just having fun . . .


.

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


174 posted 09-25-2009 08:02 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Also witches.  I think there was some sort of law about runaway witches, and if you threw a physician in a pond and he drowned he was innocent, but if he floated he was guilty of tort reform.  All these were early Republican trial balloons, or that's what me and all my Liberal friends say down at the Liberal caucus and saloon, where all the lunches are free seven days a week.  Yessirree, Bob.  

     And I ought to know, cause I'm Bob.

     Just a little Off-Left of Center humor there.
 
 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