»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Oh, those Little Details!!
| The Alley |
|
Oh, those Little Details!! |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Page 425 of Health Care Bill Health Care for ALL??? On page 425 it says in black and white that EVERYONE on Social Security, (will include all Senior Citizens and SSI people) will go to MANDATORY counseling every 5 years to learn and to choose from ways to end your suffering (*and your life*). Health care will be denied based on age. 500 Billion will be cut from Seniors healthcare. The only way for that to happen is to drastically cut health care, the oldest and the sickest will be cut first. Paying for your own care will not be an option. Interviews* http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=13798591&content_dir=ua_congressorg |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Yoinn Senior Member
since 2007-08-16
Posts 649Michigan |
Oh, those little rumors page 425 a different view of it http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2009/07/27/health-care-bill-page-425-the-truth.htm |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
that Medicare will pay for — not mandate — Thanks for the link, sir. I contend that it's quite a difference to mandate rather than pay for. I know of no senior citizen (and I know many) who is required to attend these "end of life" sessions, by order of the government. |
||
|
Yoinn Senior Member
since 2007-08-16
Posts 649Michigan |
perhaps...lol I don't debate such stuff. Just giving people some reading on the matter yoin...(now where is my golf clubs ) |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "during which the entire spectrum of end-of-life options can be explained and discussed so said individuals can knowledgeably choose their own treatment preferences in advance: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING " And what might those "preferences" offered be to those, apart from the unborn, the most vulnerable: Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony, or something else for their end equally soothing? . |
||
|
Yoinn Senior Member
since 2007-08-16
Posts 649Michigan |
that Medicare will pay for — not mandate — this line is not implying that citizens are now mandated it is refering back to the line in your post that implies that the health bill will make it so. "On page 425 it says in black and white that EVERYONE on Social Security, (will include all Senior Citizens and SSI people) will go to MANDATORY counseling every Yoin |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the 7 term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner de9 scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, 10 if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has 11 not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Page 425 |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
LOL. Here we go again. It does make you wonder, though. I mean, if this thing is really so bad and all, why do people apparently feel it necessary to fabricate stuff like this? |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Ron, consider me the ostrich for the moment, but I've been "hearing through the sand" of these very moments... so you infer that what is written above is not true? I mean, before I eat my earthworms and all and go searching for myself when I hear every day from my own "highly regarded to himself intellectual" [read hubby] that it "is"! ?  I hold all of my PiP constituents in high regard...but I just don't know which piece of paper, anymore, that they hold high, that I might be able as an ostrich, to chew upon...  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Soylent Green |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike you've surpassed yourself. The only problem I can see, apart from the claim being complete twaddle, is that there's a distinct possibility that people will start to think that you actually believe this rubbish. Please tell the good folks reading this that you were only joking and you don't really believe it. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Obama himself stated at the last 'townhall' meeting in response to a question about the treatment of an elderly person (who received a pacemaker) if that would have been available under his plan and he said that perhaps a pain pill instead of surgery is the better route to take. But pain pills don't correct cardiac arrhythmias. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You're right Denise, sometimes cardiac arrhythmia doesn't require any treatment at all, that's probably the point your President was trying to make. If not it's a point he should have been making. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And they can be life saving, Grinch. Is that a decision that the government should be making instead of it being a decision between the patient and the doctor, similar to the argument made by those favoring abortion rights? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Folks, quote: I believe that there may be some confusion here. The Advanced Care Directive is not an attempt to get people to kill themselves. My wife and I each have one. So should you, and they should be updated regularly to conform to your wishes. What they are is a written document about what you wish to happen if you are not available to make health care decisions for yourself. They will be used by the health care providers as a guide to what they will do in case you become unable to communicate your wishes directly; should you, say, lapse into a coma. In my case, I have said that I want my wife to make the health care decisions for me, if I'm not available to do so. In this document I am allowed to stipulate whether I wish heroic measures to be taken to keep me alive — repeated resuscitation, being maintained on a ventilator, being maintained if I show not vegetative signs of life, being maintained if I cannot breath for myself, being maintained if I show not higher cortical function and so on. I can specify these things, and let my own personal wishes be known. The medical folks will then carry out these wishes, or the wishes of my nominated health care proxy — in my case, my wife. These documents should be reviewed every five years because some of your thinking may have changed in that time — perhaps you now want your cousin to be your proxy rather than your father. Perhaps your father has died and you no longer have him available to make those proxy decisions for you. Perhaps you would now wish to be kept alive as long as the professionals can manage it rather than wanting them to pull the plug if you're brain dead. These things can change over time, and the documents should reflect your current thinking. In terms of the government wishing this to be the case, it means that there is less overall dissatisfaction with the system, and that folks are more likely to be getting the care they want to be getting at the moment. I've just had to go through this with the death of my own father in December and the death of my father in law last month. Both of them were fortunate to have had directives to make their wishes known and to make sure they were followed, since neither of them were conscious at the end. If you do not have a health care directive on file with your hospital and you physician, you really ought to consider one. At the very least, you could consider researching the subject and decide on the pro and con elements yourselves. Don't let the difficulty over partisan quarrel over health care get in the way of your finding out about something that will give you more control over your health care and your treatment instead of less, and which would have headed off much of the terrible problems with the Terry Schiavo case a few years back. If she had left her wishes in writing on file with her health care providers, much of the divisive struggle might well have been availed. We would actively know whether she wished to be still on life support today, or whether she had been kept alive for years against her expressed wishes as a political football. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
They can be life saving Denise, I agree, but that doesn't mean that a pacemaker is the correct treatment in every case. Perhaps a pain pill instead of surgery is the better route to take in some cases. quote: It should be a decision made by the patient based on the best advice of a qualified Doctor, which is what is being proposed. It won't actually work that way though, for the same reason it doesn't actually work that way at present. You see Doctors don't always give the best advice Denise, they sometimes give the advice that's less likely to result in costly litigation. If you have cardiac arrhythmia you may not need a pacemaker, but a pacemaker will cure the symptoms regardless of whether you need one or not. So the Doctor covers his rear and suggests a pacemaker when perhaps a pain pill is the better option. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Simple question: under those words can a doctor legally offer for equal consideration an option he knows will shorten a patient’s life compared to other alternatives? . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Simple answer: Yes, in fact they do it all the time. But that isn't what's happening in the case of pacemakers; in the case of pacemakers an estimated 30% are being fitted when they will not affect the length of a patients life one way or the other. Cases where a pill, drug or no treatment at all would achieve the same result. . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
All this provision does is give Doctors a mechanism for billing Medicare for counseling the elderly patient on end of life decisions -- as Bob described it -- something they are already doing -- this gives them compensation for it -- thereby making more time for the patient in the process. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
It should be more than elderly patients who have advanced care directives on file. Terry Schaivo was not elderly. A lot of patients who end up with others making the decisions for them will not and are not elderly and may not have predicted they would be in the situation beforehand. It is a good idea for everybody to have an advanced directive on file and to keep it updated unless you don't mind other people, and perhaps random other people at that, making these decisions for you. I had a perfectly charming conversation with my wife one morning, went into the kitchen to pour myself a cup of coffee, and walked back in to find her having what looked like a stroke. She was in the hospital for a month. Fine one moment, does she need life support ten minutes later. Fine now. I was able to act in accordance with her wishes because not only did I know what they were, but they were written down, so that if her dad or her brothers and sister had wanted to quarrel I could have showed them right there in black and white in the hospital files, no questions. Everybody would have known her wishes. It's better that way. Of course somebody's always going to think that you're trying to kill them. Folks like that are useful, they keep the system as absolutely explicit as it can possibly be, and the rest of us can rest comfortably knowing that as explicit as that may be, it will never be explicit enough. I want people that suspicious on my side. I may not like dealing with them all the time, but I am grateful for the job they end up doing and I know it works out well for me in the long run. And it keep my linguistic skills up, learning how to swear in new languages or how to get more inventive in the language that I have. Very useful all around. |
||
|
Klassy Lassy Member Elite
since 2005-06-28
Posts 2187Oregon |
There is plenty to worry about in the wording of bills being sent to congress, because there are people in government who are narcissitic and drunk with self-imprtance. We see the corruption in waste and fraud and prejudice all too often. Usually there is greed at the base of it, which, by its nature, precludes compassion and thrives upon manipulation. This is not the first time I've read that the elderly and the terminal should accept their fate without recourse and that health care assistance should not be an option for them. It is the first time however, that I've read they should not be allowed to buy their own if they can afford it. It is despicable that those in congress, have written for themselves and their spouses huge amounts of money for their well-being for the entire rest of their lives at taxpayers expense, setting themselves above the rest of the citizens, while there are those who do not have enough to eat or to even see a doctor when they need one. I can't help feeling, whether or not this particular line referred to in the bill is being misconstrued or not, that there are those in high places who will leave the old and sick to perish. Were it not for charitable organizations among the private sector of America, there are many who would fall the through the cracks with catastrophic illnesses. One of the segments of society that includes is housewives, who, for one reason or another, have not been in the workforce for 10 years or more outside of their stay-at-home duties with family. We need to pay attention. What if these lines had not been amended, and what of the person responsible for writing them? I am not convinced that anyone intelligent enough to write a healthcare bill is ignorant of the meaning of the word "mandatory". That the line had to be amended to begin with makes red flags go up. There is an underlying current of a very unhealthy motivation (or apathy) here, and a need to be aware. It seems to me, that is getting to be harder to do as days pass and we have to dig to get at the truth. My opinion...for what it's worth! |
||
Mysteria 
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Brad, I had to respond to you as that is exactly what I was thinking. By the way, that is my all-time favorite movie. Definitely more than "food for thought" came to mind. Here is what Snopes has to say about this rumor: Snopes |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. There should be no ambiguity, as there obviously is, concerning this matter; ambiguity lends opportunity to abuse. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ambiguity? What ambiguity? All you have here is a serious case of someone ignoring the blatantly obvious truth written in black and white and replacing it with the obviously ridiculous. The most frustrating thing about this nonsense is that all you have to do is read the proposed bill to debunk this myth yet there are people who prefer to perpetuate the myth instead of looking for the truth. Why is that? Why do otherwise seemingly intelligent people read the inane outpourings of a complete stranger and start repeating them as if they were handed down by JC or his dad without checking them out? When someone offers you a pig in a poke people doesn't it make sense to actually take at least a quick look inside the sack? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It is because some people seem to want such myths to be true. They want to make Obama and his healthcare reform look as bad as possible and if a false myth may help them, they will use it as far as they can. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
You could be right Ess. Maybe Mike will drop in and explain the phenomenon in more depth. I've noticed that it happens a lot and would be interested to find out why people seem so ready to suspend disbelief and lend so much credence to the patently ridiculous without even a cursory check to confirm whether what they're promoting is true. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Then let a paragraph be added denying the misunderstanding so completely that no future can claim to read differently. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Can't be done, Huan Yi. The nature of paranoid thinking is that it cannot be falsified or tested.. Any conclusion is further proof of the initial conclusion, no matter how contrary it may seem. Paranoid thinking is thinking under pressure of panic. I tend to go with the Sullivanian view of unbearable anxiety rather than the Freudian view of homosexual panic. But if the thinking slows down or widens out, typically the person becomes vulnerable to feelings that may be very difficult to bear, and the tight rapid circular thinking tends to keep these feelings outside the area of consciousness. If you want to talk about therapeutic approaches and management, that's outside the thread I think. But that would be why the notion of an unmistakable explanation is one that doesn't tend to work. It simply offers the new explanation as more material to be included in the scary stuff with which others are trying to fool us. But then you already knew that, didn't you, Huan Yi! (Sorry, a small paranoia joke there. I couldn't help myself.) Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
grinch, I have no desire to further discuss any issue with you so comments directed to me are a waste of time. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Well that's certainly one way of dodging the issue Mike, a tad dramatic but whatever floats your boat. If you don't mind I'll continue to post my opinions and views though. You never know having an opposing point of view might actually be useful to someone reading these threads. If not they can ignore them too; it's a free country. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Scary Stuff: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105525 Analysis of Plan: http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/healthcare_overview_obama_072909.pdf |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, If these nitwits are lying so blatantly about the health care proxy and advanced care directives that I discussed at length above, I can hardly begin to imagine what distortions and lies they are telling about the rest of this stuff. The problem with reading folks who are in the business of scaring you, Denise, is that you can count on them to try their hardest to do exactly that. After you've gotten you daily dose of fear and anxiety, though, why not read some sources that at least try to be objective. These folks are trying to scare you by quoting their own opinion pieces as though they were researched fact pieces. At least when I tell you about advanced directives, I've had some experience with them and know about them at least a bit. Nobody has ever tried to talk me into killing myself. One puff headed idiot tried to talk my wife into putting her dad onto a ventilator, which would have helped the hospital manage him, but wouldn't have helped her dad or the rest of us at all. We told him to take a hike. Truth be told, if we had it might have prolonged her dad's life a little, perhaps it might not have; but we were all very clear that he did not want that sort of thing. We'd spoken to him about it and we were all very clear about his wishes and we had a clear advanced directive from him, so the doctor couldn't have gone behind our backs for his convenience. We were all able to say goodbye to each other in a decent manner. Denise, you look at this stuff and you stop reading and trying to understand what's going on.. It's not like there aren't things to be frightened about out there, just try to get more of a balance in your information diet. Stay critical of the Democrats, certainly; simply start being critical of the Republicans as well. For that matter, be critical of the independents. You're doing fine with the democrats, though I do disagree with you about some of your conclusions. So what! Simply add a little extra suspicion as well. Is that asking too much? Not to be too trusting of folks in general? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Bob, the government does not belong in these matters. If someone wants to do an advance directive, fine. The government has no business pushing people in that direction. Provisions in this bill also give the government direct live access to patient's financial records and bank accounts for electronic funds transactions. What does that have to do with reforming healthcare? This is the only analysis of the plan that I have seen. Can you provide something similar from another source? I have heard opinions from two differnet doctors this week. One said that one of my coworker would no longer be able to receive her shots in her hip for bursitis if/when this plan goes into effect since she is medicare age. Another's husband was told today that since he is 65 he will go to the back of the line when it comes to appointments, and that my coworker's mother would not have been able to get her emergency iliostomy since she is 87 years old. So that means she would have been slowly poisened to death? And given pain pills, I'm sure. Maybe offered a fatal dose of Morphine? Don't you see anything even remotely immoral in this, the government madating who will be treated and what they will receive? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Being told to take a pain pill for an arrhythmia is like being told to put an ice pack on your head for a broken hip. One has nothing to do with the other, so how can someone say it may be the better route to take, Grinch? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "The problem with reading folks who are in the business of scaring you, Denise, is that you can count on them to try their hardest to do exactly that" Gee, who comes to mind . . . . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Denise, Unless the medical condition known as Cardiac arrhythmia is different from Cardiac arrhythmia in the UK then they have everything to do with each other. Cardiac arrhythmia is a term that covers a whole host of conditions where abnormal electrical impulses cause the heart to beat in an irregular pattern, sometimes quicker sometimes slower. Some cases are symptomatic of a more serious condition others are harmless but worrying natural fluctuations which can be classed as normal variants. Palpitations due to chemical imbalance falls into this category. The causes of this blanket condition are as many and varied as other conditions that describe a general symptom rather than a specific ailment. Take cephalalgia, that's a headache to you and me. Cephalalgia has many causes, from the mudane to the serious, depending on the cause the treatment is different. If you've just returned from a rock concert a pill and a sleep might fix it, if you drank a little too much the night before plenty of fluids and an icepack might be better. If however you've got a brain tumour then unfortunately surgery may be necessary. What you wouldn't expect is to receive surgery every time you went to a rock concert or drank a little too much. As it happens I suffered from Cardiac arrhythmia a couple of years ago, which is why I got interested in the condition enough to find out as much as I could about it. More recently my sister suffered from it too - neither of us had a pacemaker fitted. She was given a course of drugs to fix a chemical imbalance and I had surgery to fix a blocked artery. On the other hand my friend did have a pacemaker fitted when he suffered from it, I guess what I'm saying is that the treatment needs to fit the cause. In the case of pacemakers for Cardiac arrhythmia it's a suitable treatment for some but not a panacea for all. In the US however statistics show that doctors fit them at a greater rate than other countries, and just to drill home the fact studies have concluded that in at least 30% of the cases they weren’t necessay. Given the fact that doctors are fitting pacemakers when they don't really need to you have to ask why. I believe that it's due to the constant fear of litigation, which in the US seems to be a national passtime. Given all the above I think the statement your president made: perhaps a pain pill instead of surgery is the better route to take Makes perfect sense and is more than reasonable. What do you think? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I think medication to remedy a chemical imbalance is not a pain pill, and I think Obama does not know what he is talking about. I think that studies showing 30% of pacemakers were unnecessary is due to fear of litigation. We need tort reform, not government takeover of our healthcare system. I think that anyone 65 and older will be denied most care on a cost/benefit anaylysis. And I think that the politicians believe that they have ocme up with a solution to relieve the system of the stress to it by the aging of the baby boomers. I think that our first class medical care will deteriorate to the level of Europe and Canada and that our lifespans will follow suit. I think most of our politicians will be voted out in 2010 if they press foeward in the Fall for passage of this montrosity of a bill. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: If the chemical imbalance is causing pain any pill that removes that pain can, quite rightly, be called a pain pill. quote: Yes you need tort reform. quote: But that isn't what is being proposed Denise, what's being proposed is a reform of your health care system, which, everyone seems to agree, is also required. quote: They will definitely be denied some care, but that already happens under the current system, it will happen under any system. What this bill will do is allow more care. quote: I agree. The current system can't continue, it requires reform before it collapses through lack of funds. This bill is a proposal to avoid that. quote: Life expectancy in the US is 2.6 years less than in Canada and 1.3 years less than life expectancy in the UK. It's 3 years less than Sweden, 2 years less than Germany and 3.1 years less than france. The world health organisation ranks the US 37th as far as health care provision is concerned, just below Costa Rica and Dominica. Canada is 30th, the UK is 18th and France is number one. Under your "first class medical system" I'd be walking around a house I could no longer afford with a pacemaker I didn't need. quote: Maybe, one thing's for sure if they don't pass it your health care system is likely to collapse completely in the next 5 to 10 years. Sorry about all the quotes Denise but I wanted to clearly answer each point specifically and it's often the easiest way. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
This bill will allow more care in the sense that more people will have health coverage, including millions of illegal aliens, as well as 'end-of-life' counseling for seniors. The some care that this bill will deny is life-saving care to people 65 and over because they won't pass the cost/benefit ratio establiished by the bureaucrats. Many factors figure into life expectancy rates, probably the strongest being genetics, followed closely by lifesytle and accessibility to health care. Since America is a nation of immigrants, it's life excpectancy averages are effected by the various ethnic differences of the population. But White Americans have the same rates as those of Western Eruope. And a lack of life-saving health care to our senior citizens will have a detrimental impact on the overall rates. Our system will not collapse in 5 to 10 years without this bill. They need to go back to the drawing board and come up with something better, something that actually addresses the problems, like insurance issues and tort reform, not something that denies care to save money. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Your system will collapse Denise unless something is done, you can't sustain the cost, so what do you suggest instead of this bill Denise? Or are you suggesting that you just continue on regardless? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Didn't you read what I said above? They need to go back to the drawing board and address the real problems with insurance issues, tort reform, etc. We don't need this bill which will lead to a government takeover. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdx_2cuPgQQ&feature=player_embedded |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Sorry Denise, to be honest I ignored most of your last post largely because most of it has already been proven to be a total fabrication debunked on numerous occasions. I don't mind going over it one more time though if you like. quote: The bill I read refers to legal residents of the United States - if you've found a section that allows coverage to illegal aliens post the page and section and I'll be happy to check it out again. quote: The bill certainly proposes that costs for sessions explaining living wills will, in future, be paid for and included as standard in all health schemes. At present such counselling is either paid for by the individual or, begrudgingly by health insurance companies. quote: As I understand it the comparative analysis and cost analysis suggested is to compare types of treatment not to rate the requirement and eligibility of individuals. This goes back to our pacemaker conversation, if you compare the minimum $12,000 cost of a pacemaker against the $3 pain pill the pain pill wins in a cost/benefit analysis in 30% of the 200000 + cases of pacemakers fitted last year. What you are actually talking about isn't, as far as I recall, even in the bill. It's a presumption based on similar health schemes such as the NHS. The NHS certainly does restrict treatment for high cost low benefit treatments. Individual cases are judged by an independent but government funded board called NICE. You have the same restrictions in the US Denise, yours are currently decided by private health insurers who decide which treatment is allowed and which isn't. This pretty much explains it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2 It's fairly lengthy but worth reading, I've checked out most of the data contained in it, I could nitpick a few of their figures but, on the whole, they'd be inconsequential nits. quote: Congratulations, unfortunately western Europe has a large population of non-caucasians too so you don't get points for claiming a case of apples and oranges. We can get into the specific demographics if you like, but I'd rather suggest that race, creed or colour shouldn't even come into it. The aim should be that everyone is healthier and lives longer. Saying that white Americans live long and healthy lives sort of suggests that black and hispanic Americans don't - are you ok with that? Surely the goal should be to at least aim for equality. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Of course the aim should be longer lives for everyone, but I don't create the statistics, and as I shared earlier, genetics plays a big role. Asians live the longest, followed by Hispanics, then Whites, then American Indians and then Blacks. And of course, lifestyle and income levels are contributing factors as well. The Attorneys at Liberty Counsel read and analyzed the bill, which I provided in an earlier link: http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/healthcare_overview_obama_072909.pdf And just like Senator Conyers, I must rely on attorney interpretation to understand anything the way this bill is written, and believe me, I've tried. Here is a portion of their analysis: Sec. 113, Pg. 21-22 of the Health Care (HC) Bill MANDATES a government audit of the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self-insure in order to “ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure”! • Sec. 122, Pg. 29, Lines 4-16 - YOUR HEALTH CARE WILL BE RATIONED! • Sec. 123, Pg. 30 - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE deciding what treatments and benefits you get. • Sec. 142, Pg. 42 - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice! • Sec. 152, Pg. 50-51 - HC will be provided to ALL NON-US citizens. • Sec. 163, Pg. 58-59 beginning at line 5 - Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID health care card will be issued! • Sec. 163, Pg. 59, Lines 21-24 - Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. • Sec. 164, Pg. 65 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations (ACORN). • Sec. 201, Pg. 72, Lines 8-14 - Government is creating an HC Exchange to bring private plans under government control. This is just way too much government in our lives. And I suspect that ayone 65 or older will get no treatment of any kind other than pain pills, since that will be the 'best route' going by a cost/benefit analysis. Rationing is rationing, whether Obama tells the Governors to avoid using that word or not. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Do you think they will handle health care better than they handling the cash for clunkers? God help us. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090801/D99Q3N5G1.html |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, Thanks for using AP. I liked the article. You seem to see the program as a failure. I see it putting a lot of money exactly where it needs to be put to help get the wheels turning again. I'm quite possibly wrong on this one, but it feels to me more like an accidental success than an incompetent failure. I think if we wait a little while and see what the outcome is for this, we'll both have more information. Hope the Grandkids are thriving and that you're having a ball with them. All my best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Thanks for the specific sections and line numbers Denise, they're exactly what I needed. I'll read through them, do a bit of research, and try to supply a plain English interpretation of what they mean. It may take me a while though, my wife has just given me one of her famous "to do" lists. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks, Bob, the grandkids are doing well. I haven't seen them this week though. They are having fun at the beach! With the Cash for Clunkers deal I was focused more on their poor management of it, the 'tax-form' difficult forms that the dealers must submit on each transaction, the length of time it is taking for them to electronically submit each one, and the large number coming back as 'rejected'. An administrative nightmare that only the government can devise. And let's not forget their under-estimation of how much it would cost. Now they are requesting $2 Billion more. I don't think this program will have much long term benefit to the economy - just till the next cash infusion runs out. It also doesn't seem to me that it will bode well for those whose income levels push them to the used car lot. The inventory of used cars will be down and prices for what is there will go up. Enjoy Grinch! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There were car dealers on tv down here worried. They have been participating in this, and absorbing the rebates while waiting for the government to re-imburse them...and it hasn't been coming and they're worried. Some of them are in bad financial straits because of it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
OK she's still writing the list so I've managed to look up two of the claims - I'll be back with the rest ASAP. Sec. 113, Pg. 21-22 of the Health Care (HC) Bill MANDATES a government audit of the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self-insure in order to “ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure”! True. It doesn't actually say "books" though. It says that the Commissioner will report on the solvency and coverage of large group and self-insured company schemes. The details of both are a matter of public record - you could do it yourself if you really wanted to. The reason to include this report is simple. The bill is trying to create a minimum standard, it has access to private schemes and the new public schemes but without this report the self-insurers could slip by without being of the minimum level. Conversely there's a danger that some self-insurers are promising their employees benefits that they can't possibly pay for - hence the solvency check. If they didn't include this it would create a loophole or "incentive" for unscrupulous employers to create a self-insured or large group schemes that were below standard or under funded. • Sec. 122, Pg. 29, Lines 4-16 - YOUR HEALTH CARE WILL BE RATIONED! Untrue This section simply states that the claimant's co-payment contribution will not exceed $5000 for an individual and $10000 for a family. It also states that the common practice of co-insurance, which can cost a claimant a large amount of money, will not be allowed. Currently to stop people, mainly hypochondriacs, abusing the system by claiming treatment they don't really need the insurance companies levy a charge or co-payment to dissuade fruitcakes from clogging up the system. Sometimes they do this by using co-insurance instead of predefined co-payments. Co-insurance basically allows the insurers to set a maximum percentage that they will pay - the rest is payable by the claimant. Co-insurance is a bad thing which can leave a claiment with a massive bill which is why the bill stipulates that it shouldn't be used. Back later. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
My co-pay now to doctors is $15 per visit, $25. for specialist, nothing for procedures and hospitalizations. And only $14. is deducted from my pay. If/when this bill is passed, as a city employee, I will be forced into the public option and will have to contribute 4% of my gross pay. Sounds like I'll be one of the ones getting screwed in this deal. And if a compnay doesn't opt to continue private coverage they don't get the government audit. I wonder which way most employers will go? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Do you really believe, Denise, that you're getting decent insurance for only $14? I used to play a lot of poker when I was in the service. I had a guy, once, after winning several hands in a row, gleefully announce he was now playing with my money. I felt like telling him, if it was my money I wanted it back. I didn't, though, because I knew with that attitude it really would be mine again soon enough. People get funny ideas about money. The total cost of your insurance program, Denise, is your money the instant it leaves your employer's hands. So is the employer contribution to FICA, your retirement, and any other funds they spend to keep you working for them. All of these contributions and deductions exist because someone somewhere doesn't trust you to manage your own money wisely enough to not become a burden on society. If your employer didn't give someone that money to take care of for you, he'd be giving it directly to you. It's your money. If you want to avoid comparing apples to oranges, you have to realize that you're currently spending far more than $14 for insurance. Is it more or less than four percent of your gross pay? I have no idea, of course, but statistically we know you're almost certainly paying more than you should. Fifteen years ago, the insurance industry paid ninety-five cents of every premium dollar towards your medical expenses. Today, that has dropped to eighty cents. We know, without absolutely any doubt, they are making HUGE profits. Those profits aren't coming from your employer, Denise. They're coming right out of your pocket. That guy who was playing cards against me with "my" money? He gave it all back, of course. He also gave me a good portion of "his" money, which instantly became MY money once it exchanged hands. People get funny ideas about money, and it invariably costs them dearly. It certainly has cost this country dearly. It irks me to no end that everyone is talking about medical care as if it's the same thing as medical coverage. People in this thread, and throughout government and the media, keep using the term medical care incorrectly. Your insurance company doesn't provide medical care. They just make it so you don't have to manage your own money wisely enough to avoid becoming a burden. They provide a false sense of security that your medical bills will be covered. Ultimately, the insurance industry encourages you, albeit inadvertently, to get some funny ideas about money. When was the last time you bought a car or major appliance and didn't bother to even ask how much it was going to cost? When was the last time you laid out more than a month's wages and didn't at least try to negotiate a better price? Or look around for one? That's capitalism, my friends. It's fueled by supply and demand, which in turn is fueled by a realistic valuation of our exchange currency. When you start playing the game as if you're "playing with someone else's money," capitalism doesn't work so well any more. Denise, you can tell me right off the top of your head how much money is deducted from your paycheck every week. Can you tell me how much the entire insurance policy is costing? Can you tell me how much your last major medical procedure cost? Or are those irrelevant to you because they're someone else's money? The cost of medical care in this country is sky-high because YOU (the collective you, not picking on Denise), the consumer, stopped caring how much it cost. Someone else is paying for it, right? That someone, however, has very limited negotiating power with your doctor or hospital. Why? Because when they try to negotiate better deals (HMO and all the other things tried over the years), YOU shop around for an insurance policy you like better. Their inevitable response? The market forces them to give you what you want and then raise their rates to cover the escalating cost of medical care. Duh? (Oh, and while we're at it, since the consumer doesn't seem to give a damn any way, let's increase our juice from five to twenty percent.) Government sponsored programs work, in countries like Canada and Sweden, precisely because they remove consumer choice. You don't get to shop around for different insurance policies any more. That gives your insurance provider (the government) more power to negotiate equitable medical costs. It's certainly not something we should be happy to see. But you didn't do it when you had the chance? It's going to be a little hard to complain, I'm afraid, when your government steps in to glue capitalism back together again. Insurance, in its current guise, is the greatest economic evil this society has ever faced. It drives a wedge between supply and demand, emasculating the very principals that make capitalism work. Medical coverage is NOT medical care, and this country is never going to get its head screwed on right until it recognizes the difference. We need to get rid of these funny ideas we have about money and realize it's impossible to play (or pay) with someone's else's cash. Whether it flows through your employer or your government, through private or public insurance, the money that goes into your doctor's pocket always comes out of yours. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The city pays for my health coverage, minus my contribution of $14 per pay or $28. per month. The last estimate that I heard was that the coverage that I have cost around $350. per month. That is one of my benefits of employment, the employer contribution to my health insurance coverage. So I guess it can be looked at as their money or my money. Perhaps salaries would be higher if insurance weren't in the equation at all, but if we decline coverage we don't get additional money in our paychecks. 4% of my gross salary will be much more than I am paying now, and for that I will be put onto the government public health insurance plan. I've never had a major medical procedure to date, so I can't answer that one. The point remains that as damaging as insurance companies have been, I don't think having the government step in to be the insurer is preferable, and I don't agree that things are working out so well in Canada & Sweden by removing consumer choice. I'd rather retain choice of an insurer than give up my accessibility to treatment, which seems to be the by-product of the government keeping the costs of medical care low. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Actually, Denise, I completely agree. A much better solution would be for you to take your $378 a month and put it in the bank for a rainy day. If you had done that for the past 30 or 40 years, with accumulated interest, you'd likely be able to pay for about any medical procedure you might need. And when you did have to pay for one? With the money coming straight out of your own bank account, I'll bet you'd be mighty interested in how much it cost and whether an equally good doctor could do it for a little less. That's good ol' capitalism at work. Unfortunately, most people don't save money for rainy days any more. And people who haven't had time to save, the young adults, they get sick, too, and the days of family helping each other over those humps have long since passed. Family is too busy not saving for those own rainy days, I guess. Private insurance, however, doesn't work. It never has and never will. Capitalism simply doesn't operate efficiently when you allow someone to get between supply and demand. Consumers end up shopping around for insurance instead of shopping around for the best (cost/benefit ratio) medical treatment. Even now, even today, all the conversations in these forums, across the Internet, in Congress, the Senate, and the White House, testify to the loss of focus where it should be. The government certainly isn't the best solution. Not by a long shot. It's just the only one we haven't completely botched up yet. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
• Sec. 123, Pg. 30 - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE deciding what treatments and benefits you get. Not true. There will however be a private/public Health Benefits Advisory Committee who will recommend the minimum benefits that must be supplied by every scheme. The panel will be made up of medical and other experts and will represent all sections of the health industry including consumers. • Sec. 142, Pg. 42 - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice! Not true. The Commissioner will be responsible for ensuring that the health care schemes available contain the minimum standards. Suppliers of health schemes are free (in fact encouraged) to supply coverage above the minimum standards. • Sec. 152, Pg. 50-51 - HC will be provided to ALL NON-US citizens. Not true This section stops insurance suppliers from discriminating against people who have personal characteristics that make them more inclined to require future medical treatment. If eight generations of your family had heart problems this section protects you against being denied cover. If you're obese, a smoker, have a current and ongoing medical condition this section ensures that you'll still get cover. • Sec. 163, Pg. 58-59 beginning at line 5 - Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID health care card will be issued! Not true The government will not have access to your finances; this section is basically a list of amendments to the current Social Security Act to allow standardization of electronic and paper data and medical records. There is a section that mentions the possibility of a national ID card similar to the National Insurance Card issued to everyone in the UK. However this bill does not allow the implementation of such a card, it simply mentions them as a possible mechanism to allow easy access to services at the point of need. • Sec. 163, Pg. 59, Lines 21-24 - Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. Not true. This section allows standardised electronic transfer of funds between health care providers insurers and consumers to speed up payments and delivery of services, • Sec. 164, Pg. 65 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations (ACORN). Not true. This is to stem the drop in retiree benefits supplied by employers and to stop insurers hiking the premiums of any employer offering retiree cover. It ensures that the employer will be paid 80% of any claim over $15000 but less than £90000 where the claimant has retired but is over 55 but less than 65. It's a safety net to ensure those people who retire early maintain the cover they've paid for. • Sec. 201, Pg. 72, Lines 8-14 - Government is creating an HC Exchange to bring private plans under government control. Not true. The Health Insurance Exchange will be similar to the stock exchange, a place where participating insurance suppliers will be able to trade their wares. If you think of it as one of those comparison web sites offered for other services you won't be far from the concept. I hope that helps Denise. Feel free to ask any questions if anything isn't clear. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ron, Just curious, how would those who couldn't save for a rainy day fund their health care requirements if all insurance schemes, both public and private didn't exist? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You should run for Congress Ron. I like the idea of the money and the power and the decisions being put in the hands of the people where they belong. People being the way they are though I think we do need insurers. But we should take it out of the workplace and give people the same benefit that employers now get, the availability to pay for health insurance with pre-tax dollars. It would truly make it a free market system and drive down the costs. Quite a few of the Republicans have come up with similar plans. Thanks for going through some of the points Grinch. There will be a commission though to implement the cost/benefit analaysis in deciding what care will be allowed and what will not be allowed. It may not have been one of these points but it is in there somewhere in the 1,000 plus pages. Obama didn't deny it at the last town hall he did when he told that woman that perhaps a pain pill would be the better route to take than the pacemaker. And if I am the consumer and I am in the public option, something over which I will have no choice, the government will be my insurer and so they will have access to my checking account. I wouldn't want a private insurer having that access either. That is absolutely unacceptable to me. Mistakes can be made, your checks could start bouncing because of it, and it could take months or years before something is corrected/reimbursed, especially if you are dealing with impersonal and/or inept bureaucrats. If I owe them anything they should wait for me to send them a check and vice-versa. I also don't like the idea of centralizing all the medical data. Privacy can be compromised easily that way. Even young kids have been known to hack into databases. I don't trust the government with this much power in our lives. Shouldn't you be asleep by now, Grinch? What's it like close to 2 AM over there? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/research/obamacare-one-pill-two-pill-red-pill-blue-pill/ |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “One particular provision in the Democratic bill has seniors worried, and rightly so. A new “Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation” could ration access to medicines and treatments based on the government’s assessment of the value of a human life and the “cost-effectiveness” of treatment. This became abundantly clear when Senator Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) introduced an amendment designed to ensure that the new center could not put a value on life-saving treatment by using “quality of life” and “cost-effectiveness” measures “for the denial of Medicare benefits to patients against their wishes.” Because Democrats rejected the amendment in a party-line vote, the proposed new entity would be able to impose restrictions on access to treatment, as is common in European countries with socialized medicine. Elderly, disabled, and medically dependent patients would be at greatest risk of being denied necessary care.” http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDNiNDIzOTBlMzQ4YjE4MmYwZDc2YTNjNjQyYjBiNGY= . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Good reply, Ron. I do have a problem with a couple of points, though. Yes, people could put aside their own money for those rainy days. They could do the same with car insurance, property insurance, life insurance and all of the other insurances. Car insurance we are forced to carry to be able to drive. Homeowner's insurance we are requires to have to get a loan. Now we could all wait and save our pennies to buy our vehicles and houses in cash, I suppose, but how many people will be able to do that? And if your house burns down and the sparks happen to burn down the house next to yours due to YOUR fire, did you set aside enough money for a rainy day for THAT? And, if you happen to have a heart attack while driving, and kill someone else will your rainy day fund cover that? As far as health insurance is concerned, even 20 year old can get sick with major diseases or have accidents that require major medical care. Maybe they didn't have enough rainy day time to prepare. Does one say...too bad? We don't live in a world now where, if your barn burns down, the neighbors all come over for a barn raising party and help you build a new one. Unions are simply another insurance company. "Pay us so much a month and, if the company tries to screw you over, we go to bat for you". The people could simply set money aside in case something happened to their job. So then, I'm setting aside money to buy a house, buy a car, pay for my burial should I die, have a fund to get me through in case I lose my job, pay others for any damages any accident of mine may cause...I better have one heck of a salary to handle all of those rainy day fund deposits. Insurance is not evil. It's like A.R. said about cash.."Money is not evil - it's the love of money that is". Insurance is a rational vehicle for protection. What the insurance companies have done to it, though, have created an abomination. What the lawyers have done to cause (or give insurance companies an excuse to) insurance rates to go sky high is also an abomination. What doctors have had to pay to get the insurance coverage that is required to pay lawsuits is another one. THOSE are the problems with our health coverage. Are those things mentioned in Obama's plan for his universal health care? I would think they must be but I see no mention of tort reform or anything like it in the papers or political conversations on tv or even coming from Obama himself in his town meetings. Just the last couple of days the White House machine has begun a campaign against the evil insurance companies. One has to wonder, though, if they are sincere about it or just throwing out a boogy man fro the populace to join the government in squashing....still nothing about lawyers and tort reform. When you get a flat tire, you change it. You don't junk the car. When your health care system has a flat tire or two, you change them. You don't junk the system, which many, including those in other countries, will claim is the greatest in the world. SOmeone sincere about making the health care system work more efficiently and able to cover more people will go after the non-medical facets of it that are not allowing that to happen. When I hear Obama, or any president, saying he is going after insurance companies and lawyers to normalize the health care system - and actually does it - then I will believe and support them. That's not what Obama wants, however. He simply wants government control of it in the same way he wants government control of basically everything in our lives. That is what drives him and the Democratic leadership behind him and he will trash the system we have now to get it, even if it brings on inferior care to the populace. He has underestimated the American people this time, though, into thinking that his smooth rhetoric and foretelling of gloom and destruction (once again) will persuade them to support yet another government takeover, His attempt to get it past the radar before they could react has failed and he has a tougher road ahead than he thought to be able to pull it off. Let him go after the regulation of the insurance companies and lawyers and leave the medical system out of it and he has my support. Won't see that happening, though. Insurance companies have lobbyists and Congress is contructed mainly of lawyers. It would be nice if he could put as much effort into cleaning up Washington as he is trying to do with health care...but we won't see that, either. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
They certainly underestimated us in Philly yesterday!  http://panzramic.com/index.php?q=node/341 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Very interesting, Denise. I especially like the part where the lady in the wheelchair asked about the Community Choice Act, to which Sebilius responded that Specter had told her it was in the Senate draft and, when one audience member called out that it was not, Specter had to take the mike and say, "Well, it isn't now but we plan on putting it in later", and received catcalls and boos. deservedly so. One has to almost feel sorry for Specter and the rest. They are trying to sell a bill they really know nothing about and haven't even read. ...and this is from the city of Brotherly Love! Wait till they get to the tough spots! When Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius and Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) came to the National Constitution Center to answer questions about health care reform, they were greeted by an overflow crowd of approximately 400 people, the majority of whom were supporters with legitimate questions. Unfortunately, though, a well-organized, belligerent and loud group of right-wingers stood in the aisles and across the back and disrupted the town meeting throughout. Gee, what a surprise coming from the Huffington Post. I saw no majority of supporters but I did see people with legitimate questions, which were not answered. Apparently that makes them belligerant....how about angry at the snow job Spector and the others have been sent out to do? There was one chant that hit the mark...READ THE BILL!!! Now THAT would be novel... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I think Grinch has addressed the issues Huan Yi has brought up relating to the health care bill in his write up above. There is another issue related to this, however, that pertains to evaluations of treatments and outcomes that should be mentioned because I don't believe anybody has brought it up as yet, and it is to the point. Folks are going with the assumption that more treatment is better treatment. This may not be necessarily so. Take for example, the case of hysterectomies. The percentage of hysterectomies performed tend to vary greatly from area to area. Some areas show a much higher instance of hysterectomies than other areas, and certain hospitals and physicians in those areas show the majority of those cases. Research on the necessity of these operations may show that the number of hysterectomies, at least in some places, is way too high, and that they may be performed much more than necessary. When I was a child, tonsillectomy was very common. Among the kids I knew, almost all of them had had the operation done. Today, one scarcely hears of it. I would be interested in knowing if there had been a regional difference in the number of those operations performed; I don't know if there's data available. It seems reasonable, however, to imagine that there may be cheaper more effective treatments available that out to be tried first, unless the situation presents itself as an emergency. It seems reasonable to see if the same were true for hysterectomies. Doctors depend on such research to tell them whether in a particular case a cancer requires a radical mastectomy or a lumpectomy and have developed a procedure that is an effective test for helping them make that decision. These are things you want to know about procedures as a patient. These are things your insurance company wants to know now, and if the government is smart, they will want to continue to know things like this if they get involved in evaluating health care insurance. It turns out that this sort of research may be very closely linked to malpractice insurance costs as well. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yep, that would be novel, Michael! Actually the crowd estimate was closer to 1,000. That is a huge hall, and it was standing room only. But the liberal blogs and media are always underestimating our total turnouts. And the breakdown by those on hand was approximately 60/40, 60 being the regular folks and 40 being the Acorn/SEIU plants. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I don't know, Grinch, the same thing we do with people who can't save enough to put food on the table or a roof over their heads in between pay checks? There are a lot of people in this world who have no choices. I know that, and I honestly think we have to help them, not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it's in everyone's best interest. Most people, however, have choices. They just continue to make unwise ones. In either case, however, I don't think a system that disrupts the mechanisms of free enterprise for everyone else is the best answer. quote: Put that way, Mike, it really does sound onerous. Perhaps even impossible? Which, I guess, is why the insurance companies are all going broke? I mean, that's what they're doing isn't it? Putting aside your money for a rainy day? And, for their troubles, keeping not just the investment interest, but twenty percent of the principal? Buying insurance for your car, your house, your medical coverage, all of it, is no different than buying insurance at the blackjack table in Vegas. The mathematical odds are known, verifiable, and overwhelmingly against you. If you're going to gamble, you might as well spend your money on lottery tickets instead and gamble big. quote: Agreed, Mike. And when you have smoke rolling out from under the hood, you don't get out of the car and ploddingly change one of the tires. Won't do no good. There seems to be a lot of evidence, Mike, and even a lot of bipartisan agreement, that American has problems that far exceed a simple flat tire. Even the Republican Strategy drafted by Frank Luntz recognizes that. quote: He can't say that, Mike, not any more than Bush can safely characterize military action as a crusade. If you read between the lines of the bill, however, you should discover you're going to get your wish. Insurance companies will no longer be able to over-charge for under-coverage, and the lawyers will have extensively fewer grounds for frivolous law suits. They're both going to end up making a lot less money (which explains why both are fighting the bill tooth and nail). And that money they don't make is going to end up in OUR pockets. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ron, quote: Those were the people I was talking about. As far as people who can but make the choice not to I'm 100% with you. I don't have private health insurance, despite my company offering, what most people would call, a very good scheme. Instead I save my money, and if and when I need to, I pay for any additional treatment I need. Of course over here there's always the NHS, my preference would be to opt out of that if I could. When contemplating a system without health insurance though I always get stuck on the genuine "have nots". The only answer I ever come up with is a central fund raised through taxes that supplies services only to those in real need based on "means testing", a much maligned system, at least in the UK but one proposed by Ross Perot in 1992 as a possible answer to rising social security cost. A system I think should be looked at again. I think eventual it will come; rising costs will naturally force a reduction in eligibility for all social systems including health care until the only people it'll cover are those it has to cover. Until then this bill is, in my opinion, a good answer to the wrong problem. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Err.. I thought I went over ALL of your points Denise. If you have any more though fire away, I'll be happy to read the relevant section of the bill and get back to you if you supply the details. quote: I honestly haven't come across anything like that, I'll Google the claim though and try to find the relevant page and section that supposedly says that. I'm guessing that it isn't true, but we'll see. EDIT.............. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/07/whats-in-healthacre-bill.html I think I found the fruitcake making the inane claims. Are there any you want me to shoot holes in Denise? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I just gave a sampling of the entire list, that's why I said some...not some of the sampling, some of the entire list. It's in there somewhere Grinch because Obama was talking about cost/benefit at the town hall and probably a pill instead of a pacemaker is the better route as well as the blue pill vs. red pill example. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, See my posting # 62. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ah! You mean comparative analysis Denise. I thought I'd nailed that one in post 42 quote: What you're talking about is on page 502 - section 1181 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the ‘Center’) to conduct, support, and synthesize research (including research conducted or supported under section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) with respect to the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically. They look at the cost of the blue pill and the cost of the red pill and if they both offer the same benefit they go for the one with the lower cost. They look at the 30% of pacemakers that didn't need to be fitted and find an alternate and more cost effective treatment. That's just common sense Denise and if the administration doesn't do it they deserve to be hung from the nearest lamppost, I mean, who wants to pay more for something when there's a cheaper alternative? Is there anything else on the list you want me to check? I've had a quick look and I think i can show that none of them hold much water. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "I think Grinch has addressed the issues Huan Yi has brought up relating to the health care bill in his write up above" The write up is by a U.S. senator. "Sam Brownback is a U.S. senator from Kansas and the ranking Republican on the Joint Economic Committee." . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Huan, The Senator is wrong. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Dear Huan Yi, The statement is by you. You are using the quote to advance a point of view. Had the statement not been by you and had it not been to make a point, it would not have appeared in these pages, would it? Because it certainly wasn't actual hard news or information. It was opinion. You are the one who brought those issues up to us. Similarly, had you wished to distance yourself from ownership of those particular words, you had the option of saying, "As Sam Brownback, our ranking Republican senator from Kansas said. . ." You chose not to do that. Only your usual, The National Review. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "The Senator is wrong." Yet now, isn’t that a tiny bit scary? Just who is it that knows? . |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
"They look at the cost of the blue pill and the cost of the red pill and if they both offer the same benefit they go for the one with the lower cost." Grinch ...hoping this is what will happen ...since I cannot afford health insurance at the moment and have been pretty healthy up until recently needing now to lower my blood pressure... Why is it the Dr. precribes for me (knowing I am someone without health insurance and needing to pay the full cost of a prescription and visit in cash) a medicine that will cost me $70.00/ month when there are generic $4 ones that every one lines up for at the pharmacies and will do the same thing? This one is a new one I guess that the salesman for the pharmaceutical company decided to try to get Drs to use and so the Dr gave me a few weeks first of the samples which did work...but tomorrow I will have to go back to the dr (without an appointment because that would cost me over $120 for the visit just to ask him a question) so I will drop by the office desk and ask if the DR can call in a generic prescription, hoping he will ok it. that to me is an example of wasteful spending of my money on medicine when I am trying to come up with enough money to have some form of health insurance which $70/month would be better used towards, although it will take closer to $300 a month for insurance and I will still have a $5000.00 deductible that unless I have some major illness I will never reach in a year's time. And it isn't that I don't work, although for the summer I am off. A substitute teacher, even long term, does not qualify for any benefits and isn't even offered the chance to pay into any plans that the teachers and other county employees have, even if working every single school day in a year. just relating my present situation ~~ M |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Bob, I don't trust that a government bureaucracy will not ration, and will not take it to all new levels, higher than any private insurer ever did. When you have the president discussing various cost/benefit situations and Congressmen expressing concerns over the issue, I wouldn't assume that the government will make decisions favorable to the patient. I think they will always put the bottom line first, even before the welfare of the patient. The Dr. might just have forgotten at the time that you don't have insurance to cover the higher cost drug, Maureen. The same thing happened to my daughter. Just call him on the phone and ask for a script for one that has a generic available for it. My daughter did that and since then she also just asks while in his office if he has samples for this that or the other, that he is prescribing and she always reminds him that she needs something that comes in a generic form. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I mean, that's what they're doing isn't it? Putting aside your money for a rainy day? No, Ron, that's not what they are doing, as you well know. They are taking your money, investing it to make money of their own and counting on your bills not to exceed the profits they make in the meantime. Banks do the same thing but you can only get your money back, plus a little interest. A much better solution would be for you to take your $378 a month and put it in the bank for a rainy day. If you had done that for the past 30 or 40 years, with accumulated interest, you'd likely be able to pay for about any medical procedure you might need. Then I'm moving to Michigan if that's the way it is there, Ron. True, if we could be sure we would never need medical treatment for 30 years, that would be a wonderful thing and, if could be sure never to be in a car accident for that long, we could save a lot there, too, on car insurance (if it weren't against the law not to have it). Does that sound feasable to you? If we could be sure our house never caught on fire or a hurricane like Katrina came to call on us, we could save even more. But people do get sick, accidents do happen and Katrina does come to call. Let's say you go 10 years without needing any medical attention. That would be a bit over 40,000. How long would that last in a hospital setting? A gardener friend of mine needs an operation for the same reversal I will be going through shortly, His bill is 28, 000.00 for it....and that's a pittance regarding what the original operation cost to warrant such a reversal. Your 40,000 wouldn't go too far. Then your savings would be gone, you would need to start saving again and you would be older, where medical attention in the nearer future would be more of a certainty. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with insurance companies. Sure, they make a lot of money. They do it through volume, the same way bank presidents are rich or car dealerships are rich....a piece of profit from a large amount of customers. Make a buck from a million people and you're a millionaire...and the people who gave the buck are not worse off. You make it sound like you give them your money and they give it back to you if and when you get sick. It goes way beyond that. If you are seriously ill or involved in a dehabilitating accident you will receive benefits that far exceed what you paid the insurance company. What's more than that is that you get a piece of mind from being covered. That means a lot to some people, not having to worry that an illness will wipe out their savings, cause them to lose their house and put them hopelessly in debt. Do you want to walk around every day with the fear in the back of your head that, is some drunk idiot runs into you, everything you worked for is gone? There is a value to not having that on your head. You want to lower insurance costs? Go after the lawyers who make it so expensive. Interestingly enough, nobody wants to do that, though. Private insurance, however, doesn't work. It never has and never will. Really? Perhaps the almost 70% of the people who, when polled recently claming they were satisfied with their health plans, may disagree with you. Perhaps the thousands of foreigners who come every year to use our helath system might disagree with you. The United States is a testament that it has worked for many years. Can it be better? Of course. Can it be made less expensive? Sure...but it doesn't need a government takeover to make it happen. You want to claim that it's a car with smoke pouring out of it's engine? Go ahead....I'll file that in my Global Warming folder under proclaimed disasters. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Naked Thoughts, I believe that there is a federal law that mandates you have a right to request a generic of the same drug (if there is one available) from the pharmacy. You won't or shouldn't have to return to the doctor about that. If there is no generic of the particular drug you're requesting, you can ask the pharmacist to call your doctor, and ask for the generic of a drug of equivalent effectiveness and mode of activity. The doctor will frequently oblige without the need for another office visit. If you call the doctor's office and explain the situation to the nurse/receptionist, the doctor will frequently call in another Rx for something more cost/effective as well. Many doctors are used to this sort of thing from having to do it in response to insurance plans that will pay for one and not another similar drug, so it's really seldom that you'll run into a problem about this. It's often simply a matter of personal modesty on the part of the patient and not wanting to be a bother. It may be possible to get one of the very cheap Walmart prescriptions, the $4.00 ones, though I don't know which of the blood pressure medications they offer. Some of the older Blood Pressure medications have unpleasant side-effects, and should probably be avoided if possible. You should speak to your pharmacist and/or your physician about details of that sort. If this is information you already have, pardon me for running off at the mouth. Good luck, and take the BP meds regularly; they're very important. All my best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Were that true, Mike, then the insurance companies would operate like the banks to which you compare them. They'd pay us interest on the money they're investing and give it back to us any time we asked. The reality, however, is that insurance companies are required by law to set aside (i.e., not directly invest) reserves from which they anticipate paying claims. The percentage differs from state to state, but is always substantial. They're doing nothing more than playing the odds, the same you do when you walk up to a craps table. The only difference is they're playing at several million tables. quote: You want guarantees, Mike? You know better than that. You can't be sure. Neither can the insurance company. The difference is they're willing to gamble on the math and reap the rewards from assuming some risk. You could, too. And since most of the things that can go wrong in your life are heavily influenced by your own choices and behaviors, you'd even be betting on yourself. Instead of betting against yourself, which is exactly what insurance is. Your argument is essentially that we need insurance because everything is so expensive. My argument is that everything is so expensive because we rely so heavily on insurance. quote: Probably because my company wrote their software for the better part of a decade? I saw their numbers first hand and directly dealt with their attitudes toward customers. I know WHY they make a lot of money, Mike, and for most of twenty years, I haven't voluntarily paid a dime more for insurance that I had to. quote: Please, Mike, don't confuse "health plans" and "health system" with financial medical coverage. They are two very different animals. I absolutely agree that our doctors and hospitals are the best in the world. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it is grossly overpriced and will remain grossly overpriced so long as a free market system is circumvented. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I have to agree with Ron: quote: I’ve paid out grands to insurance companies, without a single large expense due to good health. One day, I just didn’t have any insurance anymore. I lost my job along with about everything else and that premium payment slipped away, unnoticed for a time, because I was more concerned with maintaining food and shelter. After a bit, I did ok. Didn’t worry too much & I started shopping around for insurance coverage. And my ex was ordered by the courts to provide insurance for my daughter, so I didn’t really worry there either. But then I had to take my daughter to the doc for an ingrown toenail. Seems she stubbed her big toe pretty good and the nail grew back wrong. It got infected and she couldn’t wear a shoe. So I called “The best foot doc in town,” gave all the info for a new patient, made an appointment for the next day. They called me back and said, “Sorry we can’t see your daughter because she’s uninsured.” Huh? My ex had skipped outta town and had gotten fired from his job and, unbeknownst to me, my daughter was no longer covered. So I offered cash. They said, “No, we’re very sorry. We only see insured patients because, depending on the procedures necessary, the expense could be rather large.” So I said, “So what’s the worst we’re looking at here with an ingrown toenail? An amputation? Tell the Doc to call me back and let me know how much I need to bring him in cash just to see about a toe, and if cash isn’t good enough then maybe this town needs to know the Doc ain’t cut out for a pedicure let alone cutting off a toe. Either way? She’s going to the prom soon and she’d like to be able to wear a pair of shoes, whether she’s got a pair of toes or not. ” He called me back, apologizing for the inconvenience, and saw my daughter the next day. The price for correcting one ingrown toenail: $200. One beautiful girl walking proudly down the stairs for her first prom: Priceless. The price that would have been billed to the insurance co? $400. Something ain’t right. There is a “handshaking” going on between Docs, insurance co’s, pharmaceutical co’s, & the Gov, and it’s all shady to me. I don’t feel secure about it AT ALL. I know there’s several issues that I don’t have time for right now, but I hear “illegal aliens, hmo’s, expected losses, malpractice suits, forced coverages implemented by the Gov,” yada yada are all a culprit we’re having to pay for in our premiums. So, if not a Gov takeover, how bout a private citizen takeover? Because there’s something terminally wrong with medical coverages’ inflated premiums, and medical cares’ inflated egos. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, I trust and I believe are statements that are borrowed — in many ways — from the language of love and religion. While somebody else may ask you about them, ultimately they are about faith and not fact. That doesn't mean that they aren't potentially true, as in "I will trust in the law of gravity," it simply means that you take the notion as already proven, whatever the facts may be, and you start from there. This is the language you've used about government involvement in health care in the posting above, and as such it really doesn't permit a response. What you believe is what you believe. It is foundational, a priori, presuppositional and reflexive, and it is your absolute right to have it that way. [Edit - Discuss the post, please, not the behavior of the posters. - Ron] I, for example, am of the belief that some sort of governmental health care reform will be a good thing. That is a belief of mine. It is hard to change, though I suppose it could be changed. I am not so clear about the facts of its affordability, or how we might fund it. Discussion about this is helpful to me, it makes me think about various possible ways of funding a health care system and what the actual difficulties in the current system are, and what the potential difficulties of possible future systems might be. I need and want to consider facts and opinions about those areas. Any thoughts? And not simply Denise, of course. Sincerely, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Ron (08-04-2009 10:00 AM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=7752706&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
And since most of the things that can go wrong in your life are heavily influenced by your own choices and behaviors Here we have to disagree, Ron. Many diseases are not influenced by your own choices. How many babies are born with defects every year? They had no choice in that. How many people are hurt and killed in auto accidents every year? There is always somebody at fault and a victim not at fault. How many people are injured or killed in natural catastrophies each year? Were all of these a victim of their own choices? Hardly. I'm not painting the insurance companies out to be white knights. Truth be known, I despise them as a necessary evil....but they are necessary. I've known people who who have been completely devastated without insurance coverage and I have no doubt you do, too. Our question here is not whether changes need to be made but is government takeover of the system the right way to go about it? The government can't even run their own cafeteria or post office. Are they the ones to run health care? Should we welcome a plan that the congressmen acknowledge they haven't even read...just to do something? You want to talk gambling, Ron? THAT is gambling. If the government wants to do something worthwhile, let them go after the insurance companies and lawyers, since that's where the problem lies. They won't do that, however, because of special interests groups, lobbyists and the amount of lawyers in Congress. Instead they ignore that and just say "Let us run it. Let us add another trillion or two to the total of our debt that we are passing on to our future generations ." People have learned from the stimulus bill. They have learned from the quadrupling of the national debt under Obama. They are actually demanding that their congressmen read the bills before passing them, which is a novelty with this administration. They have caught on to the Obama blitzkreig method for getting bills through. Does something need to be done? Assuredly. Is it the incredible emergency Obama (and, apparently, you) claim it is? We have 250 million who are legal residents and have the funds to afford health insurance taken care of and 10 million who don't. Does that constitute an emergency immediate government takeover? Are the millions of people protesting such a takeover all "right wing wackos", even the democratic members of congress who claim it won't work? The Democrats have always been the crisis party. They invent crises to prove they are needed to take care of them, be it an educational crisis, a loan crisis, a real estate crisis, an unemployment crisis, an environmental crisis....the list goes on and on. Obama has shown he is the king of crises. Everything has to be done immediately or the country will be destroyed. The health industry needs revamping. It is not a crisis and this time Obama's beating of chest and proclaiming disaster will not work.....thankfully for the country. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
So Mike, back to everything's fine and there are no problems, again, I see. And there are no money problems or real estate or unemployment problems. And if we think there are, it's all the fault of the Democrats, anyway. And our health care is so good that our folks don't buy their prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies because it's the fault of the lawyers and the insurance companies. And we have the best health care in the world, but people can't use it because it costs too much. As you say, Mike, "Oh, those little details!" Or as I might say, Wow! |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Mike didn't say that there weren't any problems, Bob, he said that the answer isn't a governmenet takeover of the health insurance/health care system. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I don't see how regulation is a takeover. A National Health service would be a takeover. Some regulation of what is or isn't appropriate treatment for various conditions is regulation. Why one area should have many more times the number of one particular operation than another area with the same sort folks in it and the same range of illnesses, for example, says that somebody ought to be justifying their use of that operation a lot more carefully. Hysterectomy is one example of this. Tonsillectomy is another. A lot of these operations have no particular advantage over non-surgical treatments. Sometimes they are necessary. Certain kinds of prostate exams for cancer in men, regularly performed in the United States, are not scientifically justified, even if the result is positive for cancer. Don't believe me, talk to your doctor about the issue and why doctors feel they must continue to do these exams. Some regulation and a standard of care would by itself provide considerable relief from problem torts, I suspect. As for back surgery, I urge you to examine the evidence for the usefulness of most forms of back surgery done in this country, and what the outcomes tend to be. Sometimes, it can be very useful indeed, by the way. Regulation sets price ranges and the sort of services that need to be included at each price level, and there are plusses and minuses to regulation. When the utilities managed to get gas and electric prices deregulated here in California, I'm told they promised a 20% drop in prices. We got Enron and the foundation of an absolutely enormous state deficit. The state got taken to the cleaners. It seems it has yet to get back. If the market were allowed to function, etc., etc. But the market is generally not allowed to function due to the presence of speculators who distort market forces out of all relationship to reality. Because Obama is Republican Lite, his approach to Health care reform steers clear of fundamental changes in the system. There is no National Health care, nor is there a single payer. I would like to see a single payer. Despite your complaints, I'm afraid that what we have here is much more a Republican plan than a Democratic one. It leaves the insurance companies in charge and still making a decent profit. That's why you don't hear them screaming very loudly. Here are some references showing some cheaper, less invasive, and sometimes non surgical treatments working as well as the high priced spread. If you're interested, certain acupuncture treatments are as effective or more effective than methadone for treatment of cravings for the drug of choice. That, you'll need to look up yourself. http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/1/173 http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(06)00463-7/abstract. http://www.primarycare.ox.ac.uk/pc-bibliography/BurtonGlasziou2009 [This message has been edited by Bob K (08-04-2009 04:25 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I had to read this twice and I'm still shaking my head in disbelief. That's one fairly large pachyderm you've just introduced into the room Denise. If you look at it closely enough you'll see the evidence to back up almost everything Ron has been saying in one short little statement. It also supplies all the evidence required to prove that what you desperately need is someone, somewhere, doing a little comparative analysis. . |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: Wait... Who was it that said WMD's were found? and... who wrote a big fat honkin' blank crises check before he checked out that the Fed Resies can't even account for?? I mean even if one could prove that the dems planned a crisis 20+ years ago, why throw the fight and shoot your last wad of ink on something that is totally NOT worth the paper it's written on? From whence did that man come from? Nay, not the Dem's side of the fence. On the Environment??? I believe Gore holds the title for the most convenient lies the earth has ever witnessed, and his uneducated flatulence has been great fuel for the new green bully bills that will inevitably cost us trillions out the arse. Sorry. Woe be I to defend the Dems because of all that's nuts and nutless, but I won't overlook the Reps that have thrown their weight, wrongly. but of course that just adds to the amount of distrust one has now, especially with the "little details." |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Pot kettle black. quote: There seems to be a bit of hypocrisy here Mike, the above statement, the one that started this thread, is obviously the construct of someone who hasn't read the bill. Either that or they have a serious BS disorder or an ulterior motive. Should you welcome a plan that somebody else hasn't even read? Heck no, that's almost as bad as making blatantly spurious and unfounded claims about what it contains without having read it. You can't welcome a bill you haven't read, equally you can't criticise it either. The devil is indeed in the detail, and the detail in this case isn't that hard to find, it's written down in black and white in the text of the bill. Don't take the word of somebody who hasn't read it, don't even take the word of someone who has read it - like me. Go read it yourself, make your own mind up. There are lots of reasons not to like this bill; you don't need to dig up irrelevant reasons that someone else has invented. Post a few of the bad parts of the bill, the really bad parts, not the made up diatribe of internet bloggers and fools who haven't even read the bill. I'll even start you off if you like: This bill makes it compulsory for every able citizen to ensure that they have adequate health insurance. In so doing it takes away the free choice of some citizens who would rather fund their own medical expenses or forego medical treatment. Under this bill our old friend Bill Gates will be forced to line the pockets of some insurance executive who's skimming off up to 30% when it's obvious that he can cut out the middle man and get a much better deal paying direct. At the same time there's a provision to exempt individuals and groups on religious grounds. It discriminates against a large proportion of the population based on religion and affords rights to one group denied to another by act of law. All men are not, it seems, created equal. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So Mike, back to everything's fine and there are no problems, again, I see. If you care to check, Bob, you will see multiple instances where I declared there are indeed problems. It appears that, once again, your attempt at sarcastic rebuttal has shot wide of the mark. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: quote: You included multiple highly debatable assertions in your posting. You have been explicit about when and why you will not source statements that you are reasonably clear I will check, because you have seen me check these statements out very often and present you with the results. You have not sourced these statements, including such statements as follow: quote: Opinion does not make an assertion true. There is nothing to check here. There are only opinions. quote: There is nothing to check here. There is only opinion, and there is no logical connection between the assertions. quote: Your figures are at odds with most figures quoted. Obama frequently cites 45 million, which may be high. With increasing job loss, and the expense of Cobra programs, which allow people to continue their health care insurance programs by picking up the cost themselves for limited amounts of time, growing increasingly more difficult to manage, there seems little reason to think that these figures are dropping. quote: Your assertion of "a government takeover" does not a government takeover make. You offer no proof, only sweeping assertions, and you haven't shown any of "those Little Details" that you wanted this thread to address. Or the absence of them. quote: You sound much relieved. Here the Democrats have been telling us that there is an economic crisis, a housing crisis, an unemployment crisis, a loan crisis, an environmental crisis and a health care crisis and you are here to tell us that this is not the case. In fact I was telling you about some of these things before Obama got to office. Not true, is what you said then; it's your imagination. Everything is fine, you're an alarmist. Now, there's no crisis, what's your hurry, if you do the things you want to do, it'll cost too much money. Would've cost a whole lot less if you'd believed me the first time around, wouldn't it? At least that's my opinion. Now you're telling me that Democrats are inventing crises I was telling you about all that time ago, when they were obvious enough for a fool like me to see them. Obama isn't the king of crises. He's simply been given a lot of them to deal with by the conservative slant in this country for a long time. Not the king of crises; perhaps the king of crises management, which is why people elected him. They hoped maybe he could clean up the mess on the floor. You look like you're trying to stop him. As for me, What's there to be sarcastic about? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, Bob, they had hoped he would clean up the mess on the floor and are beginning to realize that he is not, thus the dropping of his popularity and belief of him and his programs in the polls. He offered change...and Americans are not liking the change he is making. His vows to clean up Washington and no more politics as usual have also been forgotten. The only change we are seeing is Obama changing his mind over what he promised before being elected and what road he is traveling down now. Stop him? You mean stop his incredible appetite for spending money we don't have? You betcha.. He's simply been given a lot of them to deal with by the conservative slant in this country for a long time. Ah, yes...the blame it on the conservatives rallying cry. That's not playing as well in Poikeepsie as it used to...not even in Detroit. Obama did not invent the crisis screaming. Gore had actually been the king until he was dethroned. I saw a montage long, long ago of Gore and all of the crises he was warning the public about, while he was running for President. It was very entertaining. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Your lips are moving, I think. I look in vain for actual verifiable information. Instead I see you backpedaling from offering any. You see my request for you to supply facts and not to obscure them as a "tactic." How am I supposed to see your refusal to stand behind your assertions then? For example, quote: And that would be which[/] Americans and [i]when, Mike? And about which changes would we be speaking? If you aren't specific about these things, you could be talking about any American President at any time in their administration. And that would make your statement about Obama just about meaningless, wouldn't it? Which, as you've expressed it, it pretty much is. In order to make the statement meaningful, you'd have to be specific enough for folks to actually talk with out about it, check out the facts behind your assertions, and talk with you about them. quote: You sound like that line from Bill Clinton Republicans keep liking to quote about what the meaning of "is" is. Apparently addressing the recession that got its start under the last administration is "politics as usual." That's good to know. I thought that creating it was pretty much Republican banking and financial policy, their changes in rules about separation of banking and insurance, and their deregulation of the banking industry in general. I thought that attempting to correct that wasn't politics as usual, but there you have it. My mistake. I thought that trying to get health insurance reform and trying to expand health insurance, especially to children, was not business as usual. Health insurance reform and the health insurance crisis — which I do believe is a crisis, silly me — hasn't been given much Republican push in Congress since it was buried by the Republicans and the more conservative Democrats in the early 90's. Apparently, the time between has been very busy for the Republicans and their Conservative Democratic allies, since they haven't come up with much by the way of an attempt at a national solution since. Apparently, doing so now counts as your notion of business as usual. I am afraid that you may be right about the Obama failure to push on civil liberties, drawing clear and meaningful lines forbidding any use of torture as an instrument of policy (or anything else, for that matter), and regaining some of the incursions the PATRIOT Act has made possible. I don't like agreeing with you about this, but about this I think the facts are on your side. If only you'd mentioned some of these things, I'd feel even better about giving you credit here. As it is, mostly I simply dislike that President Obama hasn't acted on these issues, and shows no signs that he's about to. Do you, however, care about any of those issues, or are they only mine? Your anger about the ecological issues and what you believe the Democrats are doing or are about to do or may do, suggests that you certainly believe that Obama is serious about action in this area, and, furthermore, you don't like it. I may have misread you on this, though, and perhaps you feel that what the President is doing and plans to do in this area falls into "Business as Usual" as well. Please feel free to let me know. quote: I'm sorry, I thought for a moment that you were talking about President Bush. President Obama was clear that we'd have to spend money to get out of the hole we were in. He supported the Bail-out bill that was unpopular with other Democrats, if you remember, and even went back in the middle of the campaign to vote for it, even though it was going to increase the deficit. I knew that, perhaps you didn't or perhaps it slipped your mind. I knew that he was going to increase taxes, though not on the middle classes, those who earn less than $250,000 per year. I can't remember when I wrote that I hoped that he wouldn't raise taxes on those under $250,000 if he was elected, but I thought it was possible he might. If you remember it, let me know. If not, I suspect the only person it's important to is me. My Point is that there are two different economic philosophies at work here, and that they seem to be in flux at the moment. The traditional Republican economic view has been presented by Freedman (recently, at least); and over the past eighty years or so, the Democratic viewpoint has tended toward the Keynesian. The Republican spending over the past eight years has been a break with their usual market philosophy, and a bit of a freak with the Freedman style economics, as I understand it, which is not very well. The way that the Republican spending over the past eight years was structured was to provide a large deficit at home, and it did so. The Keynesian economics that the Democrats have usually followed does permit deficit spending in times of fiscal emergency. I understand Keynes only slightly better than I misunderstand Freedman, you understand, but I believe this is the case. I leave the field for better understanding of economics than I have to take the matter further. The amount of research I'd have to do to get up to speed would take a lot of time away from my writing just now. Since you criticize me for writing answers that are too long or perhaps too detailed or perhaps merely incoherent, I think it best that I stop here. Yours, Bob |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
And that would be which[/] Americans and [i]when, Mike? And about which changes would we be speaking? Just take a look at the latest polls, Bob. They're on tv, in the newspapers and on radio. There are polls on both his popularity and confidence in his handling of the economy....not to mention health care....and they are all nose-diving. Those Americans, Bob. I'll get back to the other innuendos about my evasive character later....it's late. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I am not talking about your character. I am talking about how you conduct your conversations and your style of debate and discussion. Character is Who. Style is How. I offer these as potential definitions: Perhaps you'd care to venture a more pithy and exacting set. Nose diving to what, compared to other governing Presidents and according to which polls? You seem to think that I read the same stuff you do, watch it and listen to it and read it. I do occasionally. What I see are mostly right wing sponsored polls which don't seem to reflect very much reality, in the same way that the inflated figures at the time of Obama's election weren't terribly accurate either. Only for that particular cut in time were they accurate — as in predictive of an election. The statistics for overall trends are different and involve finding a line shows the slope of an average between data points over time. There aren't enough data points as yet to justify your hyperbole. You may end up being right at some point, but I don't thing the data works for you at this point. Not really in either statistical analysis, though it'd be a serious pain to run it, and to figure which data would be the most reflective of reality. Would you be talking about Americans overall, about recent voters, about long term voters, voters by age, voters by issue, male voters, female voters, or some mixture. If so, which mixture would be the best one to go with? Were you to offer specific polls, then it would be possible to consider them with these factors in mind to get some notion of their validity. You would also want to look at the test instruments to see if the questions showed some sort of bias. The polls you speak about could be showing the first really authentic data that supports a real trend, and as such it would be very significant data indeed. It could also be not so good. Unless we know who and what, yours statements about "polls" are not meaningful. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The Community Organizer who doesn't like it when those who disagree with him organize as a community now is sending out a call to his troops of counterprotesters. What a hypocrite. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/06/obama-rallies-health-care-counterprotesters/?feat=home_headlines |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
 Beware those 'treats' from Barack Obama! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XivhwO_zWWg |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
My sentiments exactly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA2mGMw1_ow |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “The White House request that members of the public report anyone who is spreading "disinformation" about the proposed national health care makeover could lead to a White House database of political opponents that will be both secret and permanent, . . . "I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House," Cornyn continued” http://www.washingtonexaminer.com /opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamas-dissident-database-could-be-secret----and-permanent-52571822.html Watch yourself . . . . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thank goodness for the PATRIOT Act, then, I guess. Of course, if true, the story describes something done out in the open, doesn't it? Stuff done by the last administration is still coming out only in dribs and drabs. We have no idea what they did because they passed legislation to make sure that they didn't have to say, so that forever after, silence itself became suspect. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: And they could be made into a pretty daisy chain decoration to brighten up the Oval office. Or paper airplanes. Or napkins. Or folded into those neat origami animals. Or anything else you could possible imagine. It's a great word - could - it allows you to make almost any claim you like without any evidence whatsoever. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thank God the request for citizens to spy on and report fellow citizens who disagree with legislation being pushed by this administration was done openly! What's next, teachers telling kids to spy on and turn in their parents if they disagree with anything the administration says or does? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/ If you can, watch Glenn Beck today at 5pm EDT on Fox News. He will be discussing the proposed legislation and how it can effect seniors. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://www.newsmaxstore.com/contribute/lav/video.htm |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
The purported "facts" on the page you just linked to in post 102 Demise are just plain wrong; in fact I'll go even further, in some instances, they're out and out lies. I don't really understand the logic of repeating lies when the truth is so readily available; I guess it must be one of those cultural differences. I've spent quite a bit of time debunking the inane claims other people make that you like posting links to, do you disagree with any of the explanations I've given so far? I only ask because you keep posting the same claims, which suggests that you still believe some of them. I'm quite willing to go into each one of the claims in-depth, I'll even retrieve the relevant sections of the bill and break them down line by line if you like to prove how true, or untrue, they are. All you need to do is specify what you believe is in the bill and why it's wrong. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Of course, if true, the story describes something done out in the open, doesn't it? Wow, Bob,I'm amazed at the lengths you will go to in order to justify democratic actions. SOmewhere it is written that the government cannot interfere with free speech. WOuld one not call intimidation interference? Of course they put it out in the open. They want it stopped. They want people to know that speaking against Obama health care puts you on a list. You, despiser of the Patriot act, don't have a problem with that? Perhaps there will be rewards for children turning in their parents. Hmmmm...some past world leader tried that same tactic....can't really really remember who. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, you keep asking what polls? What Americans? Ok.... Obama, who took office in January, remains popular with Americans, although his overall job approval rating slipped to 56 percent, down 5 points from April, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Nearly 70 percent said they had concerns about federal intervention in the economy, including Obama's decision to take an ownership stake in General Motors and the prospect of more government involvement in healthcare. Obama has made healthcare reform a top priority of his administration. The CBS/New York Times poll also found a distinct difference in Obama's overall standing and how Americans viewed his major initiatives. Obama's job approval rating held steady at 63 percent from the previous poll last month, but fewer than half of respondents approved of how he was handling healthcare reform and efforts to save GM and Chrysler, according to the survey. The poll also found that Americans were alarmed by the amount of money doled out to boost the economy and a majority thought the government should focus instead on reducing the federal deficit. Both polls also found a majority of Americans opposing Obama's decision to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The NBC/Wall Street Journal survey of 1,008 adults, conducted Friday to Monday, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. The CBS/New York Times telephone poll of 895 adults was conducted Friday through Tuesday and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55H06I20090618 Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date. Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative. Recent Gallup data echo these concerns. That polling shows that there are deep-seated, underlying economic concerns. Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse. Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy. When Gallup asked whether we should be spending more or less in the economic stimulus, by close to 3-to-1 margin voters said it is better to have spent less than to have spent more. When asked whether we are adding too much to the deficit or spending too little to improve the economy, by close to a 3-to-2 margin voters said that we are adding too much to the deficit. Support for the stimulus package is dropping from narrow majority support to below that. There is no sense that the stimulus package itself will work quickly, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, close to 60% said it would make only a marginal difference in the next two to four years. Rasmussen data shows that people now actually oppose Mr. Obama's budget, 46% to 41%. Three-quarters take this position because it will lead to too much spending. And by 2-to-1, voters reject House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's call for a second stimulus package. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html Now I will concede that if you consider Gallup, Wall Street Journa/NBC, Rasmussin and CBS/New York Times as all right wing sponsored polls which don't seem to reflect very much reality, then this won't matter much to you at all but it appears that you are saying that since you don't agree with the polls, the polls must be wrong.....ok, that's fine. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I do appreciate your interpretation of the bill proposed by Congress that you provided, Grinch. And no matter how vague and non-threatening some of the provisions may "seem" to some folks, some of us are extremely skeptical of the government and its intentions by inserting itself so drastically into our health system. These people (lawmakers and lobbyists) are expert at wording legislation for maximum deception. Even if it could be said that its intentions were good, experience tells us the results won't be. Here is a link for those wishing to sign a petition and contact your representatives via email or mail. It's all free. http://www.cprights.org/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
In a letter to Obama Tuesday, Republican Sen. John Cornyn wrote that, given Phillips' request, "it is inevitable that the names, email address, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House." Cornyn warned the president that "these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program." "I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House," Cornyn continued. "I urge you to cease this program immediately." http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamas-dissident-database-could-be-secret----and-permanent-52571822.html How about that, Bob? If Bush had requested critical e-mails of his policies being sent to him and placed in a database, how loudly would you be screaming about that? Is it different since it's Obama? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/06/serfs-up |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I've looked at the article quoted by Huan Yi and and Mike. My feeling is that the White House didn't think the statement through. The way it was stated might well have a chilling effect on Freedom of Speech, and I don't like it for that reason. That said, there has been a certain amount of disinformation being spread about the Health care debate and the health care issues. At this point there is no health care bill. There are multiple proposed bills —and they may be at odds with each other —; and that's in the House. I don't have any idea what version the Senate is working on. There has been not reconciliation of the differences to provide a text, etc. The Republicans are bringing up issues in a bill as yet unwritten, which may or may not have these elements in their final text. Certainly it sounds as though some of our folks here believe it. So if there is a certain amount of this disinformation being distributed, then it would be nice to be able to confront those people who are spreading it. That would be nice, it would be satisfying, and I'm not sure that it can be done within the constraints of upholding the civil liberties that a Liberal administration should hold itself to. Should there be some method of gaining that information without trampling over the civil liberties of the jerks and liars who are spreading this pernicious garbage so freely about the country, I would be all in favor of it. I simply don't see a way to do that right now. It doesn't mean that I think the spreading of this disinformation is something that I'm fond of. But I think there should be some more non-chilling way of dealing with the information itself. What folks say about currency may also be true about information: Bad money drives out the good. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Free people have the right to tell any lie they want. Without fear of repercussion. Any interference with the right to lie only serves to diminish our Truths. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, As a poet, I am fond of the right to lie myself. To assert the right to do so without repercussion asserts control over the freedom of others. They may have something to say about that. There are laws about libel, fraud, and breach of contract which limit a person's right to lie freely and without repercussion. Whatever the lies you tell yourself in the privacy of your own home are your business. If a lie of yours damages somebody else, your wish to avoid repercussions is merely wishful thinking. You have thrown yourself on the mercies of antagonists. Indeed, in reality this may be one of the things that limits the lies we tell. We fear the retaliation we may have provoked. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So if there is a certain amount of this disinformation being distributed, then it would be nice to be able to confront those people who are spreading it. I won't disagree with that, Bob, but Aunt Mabel or Jerry who cashiers at the grocery store? If an agency, or a newspaper or some facet of the society that has the ability to influence the public comes out with out and out lies about policies, then the government has the means and ability to confront them...but to compile a list of ordinary citizens airing their gripes, even if their assumptions or informations are wrong? To send out a public request to have that information forwarded to them is valid? That takes Big Brother to a whole new level. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Obama called out the troops and they are coming out. http://patterico.com/2009/08/06/angry-mob-of-racist-extremists-beats-black-man-at-town-hall-meeting/ |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I don't want to chill free speech. I don't want to give speeches only in front of vetted same party audiences, and only take pre-prepared questions, as has happened at various times. I think it is highly unlikely that this is an enemies list and think that the notion that it might be is nutty. However, it doesn't matter that I think it's nutty. I understand that somebody someplace will actually think it isn't, and that person's civil liberties will be curtailed, and that should not be allowed to happen. So I'm unhappy with this particular announcement. I also think that they'd be silly not to know where the disinformation is coming from. I am puzzled how to balance the two needs. I doubt anybody is interested in Aunt Sally or cousin Elroy. I think that the interest is in the organizations that fund the disinformation campaigns and in tracing back their funding. It would be interesting to shine a little light on that funding and see where it comes from and try to find out what motivates it, and have a truth squad operation to counter these various pieces of disinformation as they show up. That, I think, is somewhat alarming. I believe in part that that is what this business about Nixonian "enemies lists" is all about. In large part. I'd be very interested in finding out where the funding for these disinformation campaigns is coming from. RNC? Pharma? The Insurance Companies? I don't know. Again, these are realistic concerns, but some other way needs be found to deal with them. The right of free speech must not be abridged. Yours, Bob Kaven By the way, Mike, thank you for footnoting your references on the polling. I found them interesting. The organizations you mention are all, as far as I know, good organizations who know how to run a poll. It would be interesting to know exactly what the questions were that they were asking as well. In a couple of cases, I noticed, Obama's popularity remained high, but there was disagreement on specific issues. Exactly how to read that result is difficult for me to know. I do, very much, however, appreciate the extra time and energy you put into doing that research. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I doubt anybody is interested in Aunt Sally or cousin Elroy. I doubt that, too, Bob, but I also doubted it about Bush being interrested in them in his wiretapping. Pelosi and the others had no problem with the protests against Bush, the ACORN disruption of rallies, the placards of Bush wearing a Hitler moustache. Nor did she have a problem with Sauros doing major contributions to contribute to those activities. Now, however, she is horrified at the "mysterious funding" from unnamed sources behind this "astro-turf" grass roots movement, consisting of mainly right-wing wackos. She is simply shooting herself in the foot once again because the American public can remember when it was the democrats on the side they are now screaming about. Also, included in these protests and demands for answers, are democrats and independents, which have found themselves labeled as right wing wackos, also. I doubt they appreciate that. Regardless of all of the Bush faults, he took the constant abuse and never screamed foul of tried to get people to turn in others who presented contrary views. Obama has lowered the bar to a new level and this shows a very shakiness on his part. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Also Thursday, the AFL-CIO announced plans to mobilize labor activists to attend town hall meetings in 50 congressional districts this month to counter the conservative protesters. White House aides David Axelrod and Jim Messina traveled to the Capitol for their presentation to Democratic senators. Senators saw videos of disruptions at events held by House members, and were told to organize their events more carefully as well as work with labor unions and other friendly groups to generate enthusiasm. They also were urged to use these events to stress insurance reforms such as a limit on out-of-pocket expenses for those covered by insurance, a ban on coverage cancellation for the seriously ill and protections for small businesses. Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, also said any advertising attack would be met with a bigger response, these officials said. "If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard," Messina told senators, according to two people in the room. "It's a challenge, no question about it, and you've got to get out there and make the case," Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said afterward. "This is not the time for the faint-hearted." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/07/health-punch-back/ |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: They don't "seem" vague to me Denise, they're pretty clear and I haven't seen one section that contained anything that could be interpreted as "threatening". Mind you I've actually read the original bill, I dare say the provisions could seem vague and threatening to someone who hasn't read them. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You are of exceptional intelligence, Grinch. I, like some of our congress folks, have tried, but would need legal counsel to even begin to decypher what we are reading. What I do know is that this bill represents the biggest intrusion into our lives by the government. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Most of the Bush speeches were in front of vetted audiences. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Hmm. Isn't that simply an admission that you don't know what you're talking about? I mean if you can't decipher what it means how do you know it contains all the bad stuff you keep linking to? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. " Isn't that simply an admission that you don't know what you're talking about?" Which leaves you, (“The Senator is wrong”), God, and Obama? Wait a minute, there is no God . . . Not sure I'm comfortable with that. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Huan, I agree you shouldn't be comfortable with taking the word of somebody else, that's why I said this: quote: For all you know I'm as dumb as the senator you quoted. Luckily the truth is in black and white in the text of the bill. All we, that's you, Mike, Denise, the senator and me have to do is read it. It isn't written in ancient Greek, Aramaic or Klingon - it's in English and available all over the Internet. I've read it and I maintain that: It doesn't say that people are going to be forced to go to suicide lessons It doesn't say that treatment is going to be withheld based on age. It doesn't say that you'll be forced to take the government Option. If you've read it and believe that it does post the section and page and I'll be happy to discuss it. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Well, people, (even dumb US Senators), can have different interpretations, as can future superior being bureaucrats. As a wise man said: "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I understand enough of what I read to know that it is a massive government intrustion into our lives. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Obama's Health Policy Adivser, Ezekial Emmanuel's views on healthcare delivery should shed some light on where this administration wants to take this country. One of his beliefs is that medical care should not be expended on the disabled, and those, for instance, with dementia, (the useless eaters? Where have we heard that before?) but rather given to those who can contribute to society. The views of two other advisers are also shared here, including one who wants to set up that independent board to determine healthcare policy, completely taking it out of the hands of Congress and the public: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CHBvKGmevI |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Most of the Bush speeches were in front of vetted audiences. Bob, you simply CANNOT be serious!!!!  To a manwho asks for facts to back up claims, I ask for your facts to back up that incredible statement. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Denise, That's because you're reading the wrong thing. You're reading an interpretation of the bill that's twisted and slanted to fit somebody else's biased beliefs and agenda. What you should be reading is the original text. Have you ever heard of Chinese whispers? There's a good example that purportedly happened during the First World War when Communication between the front line and the command centre at the rear was a real problem. Sometimes the only way to get a message from the front line was to pass it verbally from man to man, but that has its problems too. Allegedly on one occasion the simple message "Send reinforcements, we're going to advance" was sent from the front line by this method. Unfortunately the message was somewhat misheard and corrupted as it was passed from man to man. The message that was finally received by the confused commanders at the rear was "send three and four-pence, we're going to a dance". I dare say that if you asked each person who passed the message along whether they'd got it right they'd be adamant that they had, I also suspect that if each of them went back to the source of the message they'd realise their mistake. You're deriving what you know from a Chinese whisper Denise; the garbled interpretation from some poor sap who's probably repeating, with errors, what another fool has passed on to him. Just like you he knows it's true based on what he heard and read and the people who hear and read what you're repeating will be just as adamant. In the trenches of the First World War misunderstandings and garbled messages were understandable and excusable. In the case of the health bill however you have the source of the message that is as easy to access as the garbled messages you're being given but you choose to ignore it. I honestly can't understand why somebody would intentionally do that. . [This message has been edited by Grinch (08-08-2009 06:27 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Keep fighting the good fight, Denise. There are millions fighting with you. There are plenty of videos to support you. Obama is a good example of "Are you going to believe what you see or what I tell you?" Fewer people are going with the 'what I tell you' option...and with good reason. The direct quotes from the presidential advisors in your video presented are not Chinese to those who understand English. Have a sunny Philly day |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: If only that were true.. Unfortunately it isn't. People are going along with whatever any fool tells them instead of reading the source themselves. The consequence is they end up looking just as foolish as the dipsticks that are originating all the twaddle and rumour that's being bandied about. You still haven't told us if the claim you posted to start this thread has any truth in it Mike, or whether it's simply another example of the lies and rumours being spread about. Personally, and after reading the bill, I maintain that it's the latter. Feel free to offer any evidence that I'm wrong, I haven't seen any so far but we all live in hope. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "You're reading an interpretation of the bill that's twisted and slanted to fit somebody else's biased beliefs and agenda." And what is to prevent someone in power from making the same interpretation as fulfills worst fears? Are the words somehow magical that once law they will strike down anyone not reading them as you do now? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I was referring to the actual bill that I was reading, Grinch, when I said it was a massive intrusion of the government into our lives. I guess folks born into freedom, with only moderate socialistic programs here and there, as opposed to those born into full blown socialism, can spot attempts at tyranny more easily. Two different mind sets reading the same words have differing interpretations. Thanks for the encouragement, Michael. It means a lot. Yes, hearing the words of Obama's very own personal advisors on health can't be called a misinterpretation by anyone. Exactly, John. I was flabbergasted to see an on the run interview of one of the congresswomen who said words to the effect, "the important thing is to get this bill passed now. We can fill in the details later." Unbelievable. Do they take us for complete idiots? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Perhaps the fact that the bill doesn't actually say anything that even resembles the wild claims that are being made might be a slight disadvantage to someone trying to make suicide compulsory. Hopefully if some lunatic decides to try to say otherwise there may be one or two people who actually care enough to read the bill and say "Hold on there dipstick - it doesn't say anything like that in this bill". On the evidence so far though I don't hold out much hope. Folks are just as likely to say "Hey I saw it on You Tube so I guess it has to be true". . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Or maybe they can't. We can prove it one-way or the other though. Post one section of the bill, just one, that shows the tyrannical intentions you say are easy to spot. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You aren't getting it Grinch. Just the fact that the government is attempting to insert itself into the system, to control the system, to essentially call the shots, is evidence enough of its tyrannical intentions. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, Why didn't you say so right at the start, all the false claims you keep posting were throwing me. You don't really believe any of them are really in the bill you just don't like your Government - I can understand that. Do you want some ammunition to use against them? How about this piece of law - it's a dowser: "The President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes" If this isn't tyranny writ large I don't know what is. According to the above the US Government can just claim anything they want and they can do anything they like, including shooting you in cold blood, while doing it. Am I getting the hang of it Denise? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service to a governmental entity This one seems to make it legal for a service provider to hand all your computer information to any government entity - your postman is technically a government entity. I'll dig up some more there are oodles of them. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, It's not only your computer data Denise - the government can take any written material too! The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items), provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution Including all your bank records if you've made an overseas payment. The Secretary of the Treasury may require any domestic financial institution or domestic financial agency to maintain records, file reports, or both, concerning the aggregate amount of transactions, or concerning each transaction, with respect to a jurisdiction outside of the United States, 1 or more financial institutions operating outside of the United States, 1 or more classes of transactions within, or involving, a jurisdiction outside of the United States, or 1 or more types of accounts How did all this stuff get passed!! |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
That's if they let you set a bank account up in the first place: The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, may prohibit, or impose conditions upon, the opening or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent account or payable- through account by any domestic financial institution or domestic financial agency |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
You can't sue the bank if they hand your details over either. Any director, officer, employee, or agent of such institution who makes, or requires another to make any such disclosure, shall not be liable to any person under any law or regulation of the United States, any constitution, law, or regulation of any State or political subdivision of any State, or under any contract or other legally enforceable agreement (including any arbitration agreement), for such disclosure or for any failure to provide notice of such disclosure to the person who is the subject of such disclosure or any other person identified in the disclosure. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It's scary what the government has managed to pass into law, isn't it, unbeknownst to most regular folks, I'm sure. We don't need to give them even more control over our lives, especially in the health care field. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I'd go further than that Denise, what you should do is demand that all these tyrannical laws that have already been enacted are kicked into touch. All the passages I posted would be a good place to start, they're more akin to something you'd have in a communist dictatorship than a supposedly free country. I took them all from H.R. 3162, you've probably already read it. For those who haven't it's full title is: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 Or the Patriot Act I'll dig out some more selected passages and maybe a few You Tube links - just in case anybody doubts how bad your Government is. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Frightening! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFVQ0HZz2mc The government needs to be stopped, now!! |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Can you believe it they never even got the chance to read it either. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdT0RNYoFfM&feature=related |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Denise, you only have to look at selected comments on Grinch's other threads to recognize what his true philosophy is. Don't waste you time. I'm not. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
This Judge read it and thinks it never should have been passed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNRSs6LsGeI&feature=related |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That didn't last long Mike. quote: I'm hoping Denise will take your advice and doesn't just do "what you tell her". . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvu12z832Xc&feature=related How did this happen? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There many ways to fight the good fight, Denise. Wasting time arguing with someone declaring how bad our government is is not one of them. Don't be baited. You are going up against a master The link is interesting, though. It appears Judge Napolitano's (who happens to be a regular on FOX news and blows that bias theory to bits) complaint was that only two people in congress had read the 300+ page Patriot Act before signing. 300+?? Hardly compares to the 1200 page stimulis package or the 100+ page health care bill or the (how many?) paged cap and trade bill, which congress didn't read.....but those were democrats not reading so that's ok. ,,,so it's off to the poker game as the Alley and cyberspace characters fade from view. Have a good night, everyone  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
So what's your point, Grinch, that we should allow more bills to be passed without their reading them, or is it more along the lines of "why the big deal now"? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Goodnight Deer ------------------------ Personally I think you should continue to fight the good fight Denise, your Government has definitely passed insidious laws that fly in the face of your constitutional rights. We may disagree about the nature of the erosion of rights inherent in the current Health bill but there is obvious evidence to support your theory in previously passed legislation. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
You're just attacking the health bill from the wrong angle Denise. Making stuff up or repeating obviously fictitious claims isn't going to get you anywhere, all you'll succeed in doing is to convince people that you're as wrong as the dipsticks making up that rubbish. There's a real danger that everybody is going to be so busy discussing things that aren't really in the bill they're going to miss talking about all the bad stuff that is in it. I posted one earlier but everybody ignored it: quote: There are lots of similar things surrounding this bill, lots of them are bad and all of them are true, pick a few of those and you may have a chance of winning the good fight. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I think this is a better solution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4DpMrcmUL0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ewethepeoplehealth%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded Register, it's free, and pass it around to everyone you know. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, My wife and I have company right now, so I’ve only had time to do a little bit of research of the Bush exclusion of protesters and the vetting of his audiences. I’ve included some of the sites I’ver found below: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/13/AR2005101300693.html http://denverthree.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=21 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4076497 http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0520-05.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/11/29/BL2005112900634_pf.html http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a020305fargoblacklist http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201568_pf.html http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/07/30/news/wyoming/63b4fcb928fe8e6987256ee10054e715.txt http://www.prwatch.org/node/4073 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3695-2004Oct27.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-08-09-ask-bush_x.htm Had I more time, the list would be shorter. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I am impressed and applaud you. You have driven the point home effectively. I was basically thinking of the reporters in the press conferences and how they drooled at the opportunities to get a "gotcha" moment with Bush, but your articles show that audiences were indeed carefully constructed, obviously a presidential tactic, regardless of party affiliation. Thanks for taking the time.... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, I'd be careful recommending that people get involved with potential snake oil salesmen like Thomas N. Tabback. His idea, which isn't new btw, not-for-profit insurance schemes have been running in the UK for over 100 years, does have some advantages but there's a whole heap of stuff he's not telling you. The first thing he's not telling you is what constitutes profit in his proposed scheme, you can bet your bottom dollar that his salary to run the thing won't be classed as profit. Or do you expect him to run this Ponzi scheme for nothing? Another thing he's not telling you is that he's not that bothered whether the health care bill gets passed or not because his business plan recognises that his scheme would be legitimately allowed under the new proposals. He's onto a winner whatever happens and will be laughing all the way to the bank. Another thing he's not telling you is that any savings you make will be eaten up by increases in tax to pay for all the people the government is obligated to supply health care to. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I have nothing against anyone earning a salary, Grinch. Most everyone needs a salary, I would think. If this nationalized health plan isn't passed our taxes won't go up to cover it. They'll go up, of course, but for different reasons. Did anyone actually believe Obama when he said he wasn't going to raise taxes? Yeah, well I guess some people did. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Isn't that exactly what you and Denise have been doing, Mike? I think Denise said, "Just the fact that the government is attempting to insert itself into the system, to control the system, to essentially call the shots, is evidence enough of its tyrannical intentions." How is that not "declaring how bad our government is?" What I see, Mike, are people who just plain don't like something. They don't really understand why they don't like it, so they keep trying to find justifications for their dislike. As soon as one justification is shot down, they look for another. Eventually, in their frustration, they start blaming the people shooting down their justifications. "We don't need to talk to THOSE kind of people." Wouldn't it be easier, Mike, to just admit you don't like the current President of the United States? Wouldn't it be simpler to admit you aren't prepared to like anything he does? You don't really need reasons, you know. You don't need to make stuff up. I think most of us are perfectly willing to accept your enmity at face value. The irony, of course, is that had John McCain been elected in 2008, he almost certainly would have been forced to address the health care issue, too. It's just not something that could be ignored or avoided much longer. The Democrats would probably be spreading all this silly disinformation in 2009, and I have absolutely no doubt you and Denise would be on the frontlines trying to argue your way to some kind of truth. The legislation would be different, I'm sure, though essentially the same, and since you insist on the necessity of someone else to pay your bills, I suspect you would support it just as vehemently as you oppose this. Same game, different sides. And in the end, no one ever wins. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You paint us with a broad brush, Ron. I am truly shocked. This has nothing to do with 'not liking Obama'. It has to do with his socialist/communist agenda. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting thoughts, Ron. What I see, Mike, are people who just plain don't like something. No doubt about that, Ron. We don't...and we feel we have justifications for it, like a quadrupling of the national debt, a government takeover of private companies, a stimulus package that wasn't, an attempt to raise taxes for everyone under the guise of cap and trade, and a government takeover of the health system. Wouldn't it be simpler to admit you aren't prepared to like anything he does? I don't know, Ron. Up to this point he has not done anything I like or I think is beneficial to the country. He is what he is, a man with no experience trying to wing it with little regard for what consequences his actions will have on the American people. The irony, of course, is that had John McCain been elected in 2008, he almost certainly would have been forced to address the health care issue, too. No doubt he would, as anyone elected to the presidency would have to address. I doubt, though, he would do it in the same way, destroying private health care while claiming he is not out to destroy private health care. I doubt he would have quadrupled the debt, also. Would he have been a good president? Beats me....I was never a strong McCain supporter. I do think, however, he would have caused less damage, which is normally the best we can hope for from a president. since you insist on the necessity of someone else to pay your bills. I have no idea where that comes from. Same game, different sides. And in the end, no one ever wins. True enough....and the same people who jumped all over Bush for eight years, who brought ridiculous things into the Alley, who spared no opportunity to bad-mouth him are now the same people who are saying "So what?" or "No big deal" when things come up against Obama. Interesting how that works, no? They screamed about the money spent in Iraq and have nothing to say about the trillions Obama has gone through. I can guarantee you one thing. If t his were a republican president, you would see one amazing transformation here. His spending spree would be raked over the coals, the tears would come out for how we are putting our future generations in insurmountable debt, cynicism over how he pushed through an incredibly expensive stimulus bill, how he has only used 10% of it in 6 months, how his promise of shovel-ready jobs was a lie and how the unemployment rate has climbed ever since. They could complain about the army of czars he has created who report only to him and not congress, who all make between 130,000.00 - 170,000.00 and have staffs, also. There is a wealth of items they could, and would, bring up, instead of saying, "No big deal". No, of course, no one ever wins. This is the Alley, not congress. We display our views, vent our frustrations, applaud our selections and the world goes on. Since no one ever wins, why have the Alley, if it's purpose is to come up with wins? That's not why you created it, I'm sure. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, In reference to your last post. The judiciary has that task, doesn't it? Yoyrs, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, 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. 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. It's my personal point of view. I want to know what people think. Sometimes they make a better case than mine, or actually say something interesting, and while I often think I know what they'll say in advance, U find that really isn't always true. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I think you're missing the point Denise. The only reason your health care system has to be changed in the first place is the fact that in the next 10 years it's going to run out of money. Five years if the latest estimates from the people running Medicare are right. This bill is designed to raise the funds needed to continue Medicare. If it, or something very like it, doesn't get passed or if the amount of funds it generates isn't enough the difference will have to come from an increase in tax or a reduction in services supplied. quote: Yes and no. Obama laid out a roadmap explaining what he was going to do long term with regard to the economy, based on that plan he calculated that he wouldn't have to raise taxes for the middle class. Inherent in that is a fairly big caveat - "based on his plan". If China decides to invade Florida his plan goes out of the window and your taxes will go up. If the health care bill or an alternative isn't put in place his plan is scuppered - Medicare will run out of money and hey presto your taxes will go up. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The judiciary's job is to make law, Bob. It will be the unelected Czars and other assorted Presidential advisors who will fill in all the details if this ambiguous bill becomes law. There are many ways in which the healthcare/insurance issue can be addressed to improve the system. This bill isn't the way to go, Grinch. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Perhaps not. I don't believe that it has to be "this" bill, the only thing I'm certain of is that health care and its impending collapse needs to be addressed. Does it have to be right now? Last year the people who run Medicare reported that the funds required to continue major parts of the health system at current levels would rise to 20% of GDP by 2018. That 20% figure is important, it's a watermark which, according to most economists, is a line in the sand beyond which the US would not be able to borrow enough money to fund it's commitments. Here's the rub Denise, thanks largely to the economic situation those figures have had to be amended. For one thing GDP is going down, while at the same time the increase in unemployment and the increase in retirees thanks to the boomers means the cost of health care is rising faster than previously predicted. Consequently the new date for hitting that 20% watermark has come down by three years to 2015. Given that the deadline has moved, and is likely to get closer if the recession gets any deeper, your government has a small window of opportunity to get a new system up and running. That isn't simply a logistic restraint. Traditionally the first year of a new Presidency is the best chance to enact major changes, if Obama waits the momentum built up will grind to a halt and he won't get any reform in place. So what are the options? You could drastically reduce costs by scaling back Medicare and Medicaid. You can put a system in place that generates revenue that can offset the cost of Medicare and Medicaid and reduces the overall cost. You can do nothing and watch your economy go down the pan. Before you ask your snake oil salesman's plan won't work; in fact it'll make the situation worse. If it was actually a "not for profit" scheme it would reduce the revenue paid in tax, money that your government needs to fund Medicare. So there you have it Denise, if you can come up with a scheme that generates revenue, reduces overall cost and allows Medicare and Medicaid to survive past 2015 all your problems are solved. What do you suggest? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://www.healthtransformation.net/cs/events |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD_YOlUBoIk |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Really, Bob? You don't recall the ACORN demonstrations and the MOVEON demonstrations conducted where republican speeches took place? Now ACORN is using the police to keep demonstrators off the public sidewalks outside of building where democratic actions are taking place. There have been clips of that on tv, in case you missed it. Having exercised your own right to free speech, doesn't mean that it's great to suppress that of other people. Suppression is never a good thing .But these people aren't suppressing - they are asking for answers and, when they get double-talk or political evasion, they don't accept it. Have you watched any of the videos? Listened to any of the questions? They ask valid questions and want a valid answer. I can symphacize a bit with the politicians because they don't have valid answers to give. They haven't read the bill and don't even know what's in it, by their own admission. Obama just sends them out there with a "calm the public" rallying cry and doesn't give them any ammo to do it. The people, the ones concerned about their health care, the republicans, democrats and independants who ask the questions, are sincere about wanting answers. Do I take pleasure in the squirming? In the attempts at evasions that don't work? You bet I do. I take pleasure in seeing them sweat while wishing they were somewhere else. They deserve it for the fraud they are trying to perpetrate on the American people. Do you know what I would take more pleasure in? Getting straight answers from them....but that's not happening. At any rate, the storm troopers have been called out and, if there are any confrontations, the press will make sure the republicans started it....nice to know there are some things one can count on, isn't it? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, The world is not flat. My politics are more socialist than Obama's, and even I don't subscribe to your mythical socialist communist agenda. It is not the judiciary's job to make law, Denise; it is the job of the Congress. The job of the judiciary is to make certain that the laws that are passed stay within the basic ground rules that the founders of the country set out in the constitution, and within the body of law that has grown up since that time. They interpret what the intent of the law may have been. They cannot make new law, though right and left each accuse the other of attempting to use the courts to do just that. The PATRIOT ACT was passed and presented in a very brief period of time, perhaps a week or two weeks. Folks really didn't know what was in it, and it was written in such a way as to obscure its contents even then. You have been complaining about the health care bill being forced down our throats for three weeks or a month now. There is not even a single final version by either the senate or the house for discussion. The Congress is in August recess, and there is plenty of time to look at the bill and study it, and the various proposals being made. Of course you could substitute complaining about not having time for actually preparing yourself with the information you'd need. But if you did that, you'd actually understand and be able to talk about the issues with some sort of first-hand information. That might be very damaging to some of the assertions that you're making right now about single payer systems and about denial of treatment to elderly folks, because you'd find out they weren't true, and you'd have to decide whether you could still keep saying them then, the way you do now, even when you've been given the quotes and the references by Grinch that refute your assertions. What gives? Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I'm sorry, Mike, you may be completely accurate about this, but I haven't seen any of it or heard it reported. In fact, I have very little about ACORN at all outside these pages, where evidently it is very big news indeed, and I haven't really understood what the big deal is. I mean, perhaps it is a big deal, but this is the only place — other than Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly — that I've heard about it. MoveOn.Org is a left wing news source and fund-raising organization. The horror that Righties put into their voices when they talk about it suggests to me that they must be doing something right. Demonstrations that take place where Republican speeches take place seems to me to be different than disruptions that will not allow meetings to continue, and that disrupt the exercise the free speech of other people. One of the explanations that was not accepted at one of those meetings last week was that there was no final text of the Bill, so clear answers about what was in it could not be given. This the demonstrators shouted down. The fact that it happened to be true didn't matter. Those demonstrators wanted answers that didn't exist, and if they couldn't get them, that meeting didn't have a right to continue or for anybody else to take part in. Those demonstrators were fools, and they wanted to reduce everybody else to their level and they succeeded. And it sounds to me, Mike, that you approve. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You felt the need to tell me that the world is not flat? Care to explain that one, Bob? Socialism and Communism are not myths. I wish they were. Millions of people would have been spared from misery and slaughter. My mistake, Bob. I had my terms mixed up. I was thinking Congress, not judiciary. But of course, as often as not, the judciiary has been guilty of making law, now haven't they?! Grinch's excplanation of what the bill means is only as valid as the others out there who are explaining what it means. It is so ambiguous it could mean anything. And as these bills often do, the details will be filled in at a later time. That's the problem. I have attempted to read it. I'd need a lawyer to figure it out, though. Funny, even though there are still different versions, nothing finalized, no consensus, the bill had to be passed before August 1st. People are sick of this 'this has to be passed right now or the world will end' nonsense. And they don't want the government controlling their health care. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The PATRIOT ACT was passed and presented in a very brief period of time, perhaps a week or two weeks. Folks really didn't know what was in it, and it was written in such a way as to obscure its contents even then. Bob, substitute stimulus bill, cap and trade or health care bill in place of Patriot act and it reads the same, the only difference being that the last two didn't get all the way through, although not through lack of effort by Obama to make it so. There is not even a single final version by either the senate or the house for discussion. The Congress is in August recess, and there is plenty of time to look at the bill and study it, and the various proposals being made. True enough but the fact that there is not a final version is a result of public disapproval. What you ignore is the fact that Obama insisted the bill be passed BEFORE the August recess, even without a final version....or did you miss that part? MoveOn.Org is a left wing news source and fund-raising organization. The horror that Righties put into their voices when they talk about it suggests to me that they must be doing something right. Well, then, one must suppose that you feel FOX news, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Levine and all of those right wing entities that instill the same horror in Lefty voices must also be doing something right. Thanks for acknowledging that. Those demonstrators wanted answers that didn't exist, An incredible and accurate statement, Bob. Yes, you are exactly right! Thing is that the Obama marching band (congressmen and spokespersons) who were sent out to placate the masses gave the impression that they were there to answer those questions. Think your statement over, Bob. If there were no answers to be given, why were there town hall meetings to discuss the bill and take questions? Why bother having them at all? What would be the point? The demonstrators weren't fools at all. They simply proved that they were not going to be fooled by the fools and their doublespeak on the stage. Do I approve? Wholeheartedly.... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/ |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“President Obama insists that if you like the health insurance you have today, you will be able to keep it. But under his health plan, if you have employer provided health insurance, that won't be your choice, it will be your employer's choice. Your employer will have every incentive to dump you into the so-called public option, government insurance plan, and pay an 8% payroll tax instead. If the employer's work force averages $50,000 a year in wages, then the employer would only have to pay $4,000 per year per worker under the payroll tax, which would likely be less than what he is paying for your current health coverage.” http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/07/peter-ferrara-new-study-obama-health-pla/ Which many if not most employers will see as good sense. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: 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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. 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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: 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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here's another good article: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/11/when-a-president-lies-why-lind/ |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Well, Denise, I pointed out some specifics first; perhaps you could reply to them. Then, if you care to get specific about your thoughts the other way, I'll take a shot at replying to yours. I have brought the issue up before, you know. This is the first response that I can recall where you attempt to address the issue, and even in this case, you shift the subject to, "You do it too," instead of addressing the specifics you already have before you. And have had for a while. After we deal with the original subject, I'd be happy to deal with your new one. But to avoid getting things mixed up, let's deal with them one at a time, and in the order in which they were brought up, then take them chronologically. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: The substance of your posting is above, quoted directly. I have broken down the quote into constituent parts. One of two of these parts may be taken as either objectively true or at least testable with some research. Among those statements, I would include: 1) "He wanted the bill passed quickly. He demanded that the bill be passed BEFORE the congressional recess." This is a researchable and possibly true statement. It certainly fits with many of my own memories. 2) "There was no going to the public for their views mentioned then." While there certainly may have been others who suggested that going to the public to get their points of view would be a useful thing, I don't know that anyone other than myself who actually suggested it. Perhaps I am unconsciously echoing Democratic talking points; but I am not aware of it, as would be implied by the use of the word "unconsciously." Trying to blame The Democratic Party for my thinking is not something I would recommend as a reasonable course of action. Thank you, of course, for granting me that amount of influence in Democratic circles; but as you've pointed out from time to time, I don't even have the power to upset you. How can I run Democratic national policy? The other statements that you make all seem to demand that I grant you the ability to Read President Obama's mind with a substantial accuracy. Many people do believe in telepathy, and perhaps you are one of them. To ask me to join you in this, however, is asking more than I can deliver. As a therapist, I find that the more empathy I can muster, the better I can come to some understanding of what a person is talking about, but that ability doesn't really work well when I dislike or hate somebody, or when I assume the worst about them. I have heard you say that you wanted to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt, and I want you to know that I credit you with wanting to do that, at least at times. I also know that in fact, this is very difficult for you to accomplish, and not, probably for lack of effort. I would like to point out that you do not know and cannot prove that: 1) "These town meetings are Obama's worst nightmare." or that, 2) " He didn't want this, tried everything he could to avoid it." Or that, 3) " Democratic tradition, going back to the people and getting their ideas. That's not what Obama wanted." or that, 4) " He did not want the public to have time to ask questions." or that 5) " 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." or that 6) "The only reason it didn't work that way was because of the dissidents in his own party that wouldn't buy it." or that, 8) " 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." And that the only way you might come to such conclusions is if you thought you knew what was going on inside The President's head, and that requires telepathy. What you are doing as asking us to accept your assumptions about what goes on inside the head of somebody whose politics you dislike and whose motives you distrust and whose experience you do not understand as being accurate. I reject those premises. I think there is too much space for dislike and misinterpretation to come in, and to be substituted for readings of actual available fact and observation, such as you attempted to do in the first two statements I mentioned above, which were at least researchable. I think that you were asking me — and the rest of us, by extension — to accept your editorializing for a presentation of fact and logic. Earnest and well-meaning as you are, I don't think I can do that here. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And now, Michael, my governor has inserted himself into the issue of the packed town halls with people demanding answers and voicing their opposition to what they are hearing....he says we're nothing but a bunch of crazy 'birthers' who can't accept reality and who are dangerous and want to destroy the country. Well, Ed, (Gov. Rendell) this outpouring of citizen engagement in the democratic process has nothing to do with the disputed eligibilty issue, it has to do with health care legislation trying to be rammed through without being read, close on the heels of all the other budget busting bills rammed through in the past six months, and when the people have started to find out what it may portend for themselves and their families, they want straight answers, not political double-speak. And as for accepting reality, I guess Ed has been privy to seeing the documentation that Obama is withholding from the rest of the nation, I guess. Obama has spent over $1 million in legal fees to suppress the release of any and all documentation of his entire life, not only his birth certificate, but his school records, medical records, university applications and transcripts, passport records, selective service records, Ill. Senate records, etc. If you want people to accept your narrative as reality, then give them something to work with. None of the other candidates stonewalled when asked to release their records. Obama did, with a complete pass from the press, and still is, even to the point of signing an executive order as soon as he took office to seal all his documentation, not to be released unless ordered to do so by a court order. And the longer he continues to stonewall, and the more money he spends in doing so, the more people begin to wonder 'Why?' Bob, I'm not even sure at this point what you are talking about anymore. I read your opinions on the health care issue, as well as Grinch's. I don't agree with those opinions. The bill is too ambiguous, it literally could mean anything, and if passed, the details will be filled in by unelected Czars, advisers, and bureucratic committees. It seems to me to be too much intrusion into our personal lives. I think that is dangerous. You don't, I guess. So we will just have to agree to disagree. Yes, we need reform, but this isn't the way to do it, in my opinion. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The other statements that you make all seem to demand that I grant you the ability to Read President Obama's mind with a substantial accuracy. No, Bob, I would ask you to apply a little logic to the events if possible, that's all. Logically, Obama did not plan on taking the bill to the American public for their input because he demanded congress pass it IMMEDIATELY, before the recess. Add that to the fact that he also didn't take the stumulus bill to the people or the cap and trade to the people and you can up with a logical certainty that the health bill would not have ben presented, either. If he had not planned to take it the the people and now has no choice but to take it to the American people, that would have to be some kinf of nightmare for him, especialy when seeing what kind of results are coming from those meetings. You don't have to be a mind reader, Bob. You just need to open your eyes and see what's there. The other part of my comment was not about the Democratic party - it was about you. 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 That's YOUR comment, Bob, not theirs. I was calling you on it. You did mention that you were not speaking for the Democratic leadership and it's obvious you couldn't have because that tradition is foreign to them, or at least to Obama. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Where and when did the Republicans go to the population and ask for their input on ways the party should do things, Mike? Don't you remember Bush's comment to the gathering of zillionaires where he called them his base? That's where the money comes from for the Republicans. They are the base. Not to say that there aren't poor republicans, only to say that they don't have much influence to wield in the party decision making process. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...and how does republicans not going to the people translate into democrats going to the people? Using finger pointing to evade your statement does not give it validity. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/25813.pdf . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, Thank you for posting the statement. Even though it proports to be non-partisan, the references given for the author suggest otherwise, as I'm sure you may have noted. Nevertheless, it appears to be interesting and well thought through, and I, for one, am interested in giving it a read. It's outside my usual range of sources, so it's especially welcome. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, I'm sorry here, I'm having trouble making sense of your comment. quote: First, thank you for acknowledging the Republican tendency to leave the rank and file out of the decision making process. I appreciate your honesty. Secondly, I haven't evaded my statement. I still say that the Democrats go to the people to get reactions to their platforms and programs and to talk them over and get advice. There's a much greater range of diversity in the Democratic party than is permitted in The Republican Party. There are Conservative Democrats as well as Liberal Democrats as well as Centrist Democrats, and in forming policy all these factions need to be consulted. There is constant dialogue and quarreling going on amongst them, You yourself spoke of the conservative Democrats as "dissidents" not so long ago. They remain Democrats because there is constant conversation within the party, and constant attempts to go back to the roots and find out what the party regulars want and need. As the joke goes, "I ain't a member of no organized party. I'm a Democrat!" That's how Democrats get to stay Democrats... Trying to get the whole bunch of them to go any one place together is like trying to herd cats. Without constant communication, the herd scatters. I'm not trying to evade my statement, I'm reasserting it, proudly. The proof of it's validity is the fact that such of bunch of folks with such basic disagreements have managed to stay together and move in the same basic direction. The fact is that the Republican Party runs on a completely different set of principles. If the Democrats are a bottom-up kind of party, and depend on communication between the various groups that make up the party as well as communication from the leadership to the base, then the Republicans — I think— are a top down sort of party. People who don't agree with the decisions at the top tend to get thrown out of the organization. This has happened to a lot of the more centrist Republicans over the past 25 years or so. Senator Spector is only the most recent in a long line of Republicans who have either had to leave the party or have somebody selected and funded by the more conservative ranks of the party to run against them. Threats were even leveled against Senator McCain for being too much of an independent prior to his running for President in this past election, for not being Republican enough. By Rush Limbaugh, amongst others, if I recall correctly. I would think that these events would give sufficient validity to my assertions of the difference in style between the parties. It's a difference in style, in which it seems to me that the Republicans stand up for their version of authority, and the Democrats stand up for their version of consensus. Should you see this differently, I have no objection to it, but I would like to hear your reasoning and your logic. I would not claim my version of this is entirely original. I would suggest, On Moral Politics if you'd like to look at the model I'm trying to sketch out laid out in more detailed terms. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
On Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think by George Lakoff. Interesting stuff about both political ends of the spectrum and what the characteristic styles are that each sort of thinking tends to take. Something to interest everyone. Almost everyone will find something to pick a bone with, almost everyone will find something to agree with. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I still say that the Democrats go to the people to get reactions to their platforms and programs and to talk them over and get advice. ...and I still say did Obama go to the people before ramming the stimulus package through congress? Did he go to the people before ramming the cap and trade bill through the house? Was he planning to go to the people before demanding congress pass the health care bill before recess? I haven't seen a response from you regarding that, although I've mentioned it several times. Obama has gone to the people because he HAD to and for no other reason, otherwise they would have been left out of the loop altogether. The old "actions speak louder than words" is very applicable here. You may claim that democrats go to the people but actions since Obama took command show anything but. I will base my conclusions on their actions, not your claims. If the Democrats are a bottom-up kind of party, and depend on communication between the various groups that make up the party as well as communication from the leadership to the base, Since that is a conditional statement has been proven to be untrue based on the three events I have mentioned above, then that invalidates the rest of your suppositions and makes them unworthy of consideration. Of course you are going to champion the Democratic party as I am going to champion the Republican party (although I am very dissatisfied with them). Conservatives favor less government interference in public lives. Liberals favor more. For that reason I'm a conservative. Personally, I think Obama could care less about either Democrats or Republicans. What he shows me is that he is for Obama and is not averse to throwing either under the bus if they get in his way. The sacrificial lambs he is sending out to these town hall meetings is an indication of that. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Of course you deserve a response to questions you ask me, Mike. Let me try and take these pretty much in order, and do my best to give you a response. quote: Obama made a point of voting as a Senator and during the campaign for Bush's stimulus package. He made no secret of it, and was elected. Nobody loved the fact that the country was in economic trouble. Senator McCain, likewise made his position clear. He was not elected. The verb "to ram" is not accurate and is prejudicial. Nobody loved that package or the Obama package. There was simply disagreement on its necessity. I myself disliked it, but thought it a necessary response to the worse than expected economic conditions that Obama found when he got into office. There was a debate, not simply in the congress, where it grew heated, but President Obama went out on the road and had a series of meetings with people across the country to talk with people about the bill. By doing so he was able to shore up enough votes to get the bill passed. It's not clear to me that he would have been able to do so if he had not. You have used the words "community organizer" now and again in your political comments about the President. This was one of the selling points for the party about The President. Going to the grass roots, getting at the needs of the community and getting the community organized around getting those needs met is what Community Organization is about. So yes, I'd have to say that he went to the people, otherwise the bill wouldn't have passed at all. Also, you forgot the town meetings he attended (and gave) across the country exactly about this subject. Going to the people. About cap and trade, I don't think I can comment since I don't know enough about the issue of the history of the issue. It's always seemed too much of a straight economics sort of thing for me to follow. If you can tell me what it is about this issue that you find bothersome, maybe I can do some research, but not knowing enough about the issue, I don't know whose side I come down on. quote: Here were are back with mind-reading again. There is no way I can tell you what the plans were in The President's mind. It doesn't matter how hard you press me on this one, I can't do that. In fact, you seem to be able to believe you can do that more reliably than I can, given some of your recent assertions. What we do know is that he ran on insurance and health care reform, and that the response to his assertions that health care needed quick and deep reform was very strong. We also know that there are a lot of lies being spread about the plan, which is still in committee in the house and the senate both. Some of the lies treat the plan as though it was already in a single version and complete and ready to be voted on, and that it contained provisions that would be unlikely to get past either house of congress or the veto of the President. I think it was hopeful of the President to try to get it out of congress before the August Recess. Perhaps also impractical. Once past the August Recess, it falls under the pressures of the coming elections. The issue seems likely to become even more politicized than it is now, and the possibility of any meaningful legislation appears to me to be more and more unlikely. I suspect that the August Recess was probably a deadline for when the issue had any chance at all for getting through this congress: That's my political estimation. I think that the President was probably counting too heavily on the election results at that point, and he should have gone back to the people more aggressively than he did, especially in the districts with the Blue Dog Democrats. I don't think he did enough to get support to counter the insurance money, and the Pharma money and the Republican money being put into the issue. I also think that he was flinching away from pushing for a single payer system, which might have made very little difference in the amount of difficulty he was getting. Probably his is naturally too conservative to support such a course, however. quote: Perhaps you hadn't noticed that the two halves of your sentence aren't related to each other. Actually, a President doesn't have to go to the People, as our last president more or less proved. The constitution pretty much set it up that way, so that he is elected every four years instead of every two years. He is set up as an administrator to make executive decisions. He is not as untouchable as a senator, but probably has more concentrated power. This suggests that Obama goes to the people out of choice, to inform and to learn and to teach and to lead. Since his party has control of the Presidency and both houses, he does not HAVE to, despite your suggestion otherwise. As for your "otherwise they would have been left out of the loop altogether" is an assumption about what President Obama is thinking and planning. Leaving aside the telepathic qualities of that assumption, there are logical problems with it as well. The statement resolves itself down to, If he didn't keep them informed, they wouldn't be informed. Should one choose to avoid an unnecessary use of the negative or use a more concise version, once could as easily and correctly say, He keeps them informed. As one might have said about President Bush, He Lies to them. quote: I think that's for the best. No matter how well meaning I am, I am frequently wrong, I'm sure. I'd like to suggest you try your own research as well. quote: Stimulus, cap and trade, and health care are the three examples you use. I am not informed enough to discuss cap and trade with you. I wish I was. If you let me know what your actual objections are, I'll see what I can do. I responded to your comments about the Stimulus bill and the Health care bill, fairly decently I believe. You need to judge that for yourself. I still believe that the Democrats are a bottom up sort of party, and communication between the various parts of it remain vital to its ability to function. I don't see that I need to prove this to you. The Democrats have reached out to a wide range of groups, not simply ethnic, and religious groups, but also groups across the political spectrum, ranging from somewhat conservative to centrist to fairly Liberal. The Republicans have been getting more and more conservative and have busily been excluding people whose professed religious views and moral views and even sexual orientation don't fit. I've had relatives and friends who've been Republicans and who are fine people but they seem to become different somehow when I start talking politics with them. I'm sure they must feel the same way about me — the part about seeming crazy when we talk politics, I mean — the fact that they act friendly is enough for me otherwise. quote: I think that may or may not be true, about Conservatives and Liberals, I mean. You're the expert in why you're a Conservative. I think it may once have been a more accurate statement than it is today. The United States has drifted very far in the direction of becoming a Security State. Wire taps and the degradation of the protections citizens (and others) once enjoyed under the Constitution means that the Government has penetrated into more and more areas of our lives. It was once true that the congress had the power to declare war. We have been involved in many conflicts since WWII that have been wars in all but name. The Intelligence organizations that we so reluctantly started with world war II have now reached into every country in the world, and, quite possibly, into our own as well. The legislation that would inform us about their activities protects these agencies from examination. I am, personally, unclear why we went to war in Iraq. I am certain that it is likely that we will never know. At one point we were a nation of knowledgeable citizens who were equipped to make informed decisions. Now we are willing to believe that there are decisions that we aren't smart enough to help make that will affect our lives and the lives of our children. One of the more recent Republican initiatives was to abolish social security, or at least to take enough funding out of it to be certain that it would fail. The Republican mantra was that You know enough to make your own financial decisions. You can invest your own money in the market and do better than social security. You might, if you will, imagine the state of the country today if that particular bill had been passed and the stock market had performed as it did a year or two ago. The economic consequences would have sent the entire country through the floor, and we would not be talking about a serious recession at all. We would be talking about possibly the largest depression since the thirties, and maybe ever. I don't believe that the government can or should do everything for the people of a country. That's a really bad idea. But a social safety net is a good idea, and the situation we're in right now is one of those times that points out why. Among other things, it was the partial undoing of the separation of the banking and insurance industries that may well have precipitated it, originally part of the safety net put in place in the great depression. I believe that it is a function of the government to do things for the people that need to be done and which the people can't do for themselves. A safety net is one of those things. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I responded to your comments about the Stimulus bill and the Health care bill, fairly decently I believe. You need to judge that for yourself. >\ Decently but not accurately, Bob. If you can show me where Obama went to the people to discuss the stimulus package, where he told them what was in it and what it respresented, then I will be more apt to agree. You say that's how he got it passed. Of course it isn't. Citizens didn't vote for the bill....congress did. All he had to do was to tell them to pass it immediately...which they did, without even reading it. Cap and trade got even less exposure. Obama told Pelosi to do what was necessary to get it passed in the house and she did. There was no public presentation there at all. There is no way I can tell you what the plans were in The President's mind. One doesn't need to read his mind, Bob. One only needs to read his actions. His actions were to get Congress to pass his bills as quickly as possible, citing destruction of the country as the alternative. His actions were also to have the American people know as little as possible about the bills before they were passed. That's how stimulus and cap and trade got through. That's how the health care would have gotten through had it not been for his own party finally balking at his demands. Democrats go to the people? It appears to be only as a last resort. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Thank you for the "decently." I appreciate that. As for the "accurately," I think perhaps you might go back and actually read what I said again. I'm not asking for cheers, here. I am saying that I believe that Obama was talking with the people about the need for the stimulus package. If he hadn't then the Blue Dogs in the Democratic party would have voted it down in combination with with the Republicans. Democrats don't tend to vote in a monolithic block like the Republicans do. They're too ornery. The congress votes, not the people on these things, yes. The congress is vulnerable to public pressure, as you know, which is why special interest groups attempt to bring it to bear on these sorts of issues and why the public posturing by the members of congress about their positions on them. I wouldn't have to remind you of this had you not somewhat disingenuously said, "You say that's how he got it passed. Of course it isn't. Citizens didn't vote for the bill....congress did." Obama does try to take things to the people. But I was talking about communication within the party, if you'll remember, and how Obama was good at that, and how the Party valued that quality. Remember when I was talking about the bottom up and top down differences in style between the parties? And the differences between inclusiveness and exclusiveness between the parties? And how Obama was good at understanding those things. Not to say that Obama doesn't try to reach Independents and even Republicans, simply that the Republicans are not likely to listen. I spoke about the conversation about his stimulus bill. Republicans were not interested and were not even considering the matter. This was after pushing through the first stimulus bill in much the way that you describe Obama doing the second one, and over the objections of many Democrats. For the record, much as I disliked Bush — still do, actually — I thought the stimulus was necessary, and supported it. Even though my party was not thrilled by it. I made the same assessment on Obama's stimulus bill, even though your party was against it. I think we are just beginning to see the effects of the first stimulus bill now, and that it hasn't been enough to get us out of the recession. I believe that the effects of the second, Obama, stimulus bill will be showing up in maybe four or five months, and then we shall have to see, won't we. Even that may not be enough, or it may only produce jobless recovery, which is almost as bad. Obama had to do a lot of selling and informing to get that second stimulus bill through, and not just of his Democratic constituents either. Republican members of Congress may not have been supporters of the bill, but Obama held news conferences and televised town meetings to make sure that he got the message across to anyone who wanted to listen. If they didn't agree, people at least knew where he stood and why he stood there and what his thinking was the way it was. There weren't any secrets. I told you I didn't understand cap and trade. I asked you to be more specific so I might at least have a shot at responding. My request is still on the table. Stimulus going through quickly, and under pressure? Yes. The reasoning was the same as when Bush did it. I didn't like it in either case, but I thought it was necessary given the size of the problems. I knew we were in an enormous economic emergency and had been for several years. If Bush was willing to do something about it, I was willing to accept his efforts, even though I wanted more time to know what was in the bill and even though I'd been burned — as had everybody else in the country — by Bush's use of these tactics before, as in the PATRIOT ACT. It seemed appropriate from what I knew of the bill. I was just as willing to extend trust to Obama, who hadn't shown the grim track record that Bush had. The Emergency was still clear. I had been talking about it for years, and had some idea of how serious it could be, so I thought the risk was appropriate here, too. It would have been much much better if the whole problem had not been created by the policies of the previous ten years or so, but as Eliot said, "The past is prologue." As for health care, I don't know what the man was thinking. There wasn't a bill available to pass at that time, just as there isn't one available now. The congress and the people aren't sure what they want for a plan, and that's probably as much of the holdup as political disagreement. People are close to psychotic with the crazy fantasies they have about what's in a bill that isn't even a bill yet, and I have to say that I don't think the Right is actually helping people think about what they want. They're simply trying to scare people to death with fantasies that nobody wants to include. Maybe you could show me the legislator who wants to be known as the guy who shot bambi and grandma, or the administrator that didn't stop such craziness in its tracks. Maybe Republicans don't mind cutting back money for children's health care, or for the care of the elderly, and can justify it as getting the government out of our lives, but I think that Democrats actually do mind, and for the most part believe that we owe our widows and children and the like as much help as we can give them. Goodness me oh my, has this health care debate degenerated into a foul slime pit or what? That's all I can do for today, Mike, but it's a pleasure to talk with you, and I hope that everything's going very well. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
He tells the tale of Lori Hitchcock of New Hampshire, who was denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition and who has been uninsured for two years because she can't find a job. He talks about Katie Gibson of Montana, whose coverage was dropped because of a pre-existing condition even though her new insurance company confirmed she'd be eligible. Same old campaign tactics, picking out individual names and claiming "I,m doing it for them!", the same tactic Biden and Hillary tried to use. Obama says he is pushing forward on health care because he reads hundreds of letters a day from people begging for health care reform. Will anyone who believes he sits down to read hundreds of letters a day please raise your hands? Same tactics...different day. Maybe the republicans should list a couple of the 70+ percent of the almost 300 million who claim to be happy with their health care as it is. Maybe he could do something so that Lori can find a job instead of instituting policies and creating a business scare that their taxes are going up to the point they are not hiring and even cutting back, causing unemployment to continue going up. Now THAT would be a help.. and for the most part believe that we owe our widows and children and the like as much help as we can give them. Well, Bob, what we have given our children is an insurmountable debt they will have to live with throughout their life....that's Obama's contribution to their well-being. It IS enough to make one sick |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And all these people with their 'stories' at his town hall meetings were plants and democratic machine operatives, one even using her daughter to ask a 'random' question, and one at another democratic town hall, lying and presenting herself as a doctor, and others, Acorn and SEIU members being brought in to town halls by busloads to try to counter the regular citizens. Now, which side is the Astroturf? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106811 |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: That didn't used to be the prevailing wisdom regarding the responsibilities of a limitied federal government, Bob. Here is a speech by Representative David (Davy) Crockett: quote: |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Scrapping Medicare and Medicaid along with all the other government supported health schemes is certainly one option to avoid the imminent fiscal tsunami that your country faces with regard to Health Care Denise. I have to admit that there are strong economic reasons for advocating a system where health care is rationed based on the ability to pay. Is such a system one that you'd prefer Denise? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The Communist Party USA, is also calling on their members to flood the town halls to drown out the voices of those in opposition to socializing our health care system. http://cpusa.org/article/archive/27/ The lines are clearly drawn in this battle. On the one side we have Obama, the Democratic machine, Acorn, the SEIU, and others who have 'cut deals' with Obama, like Pharma, and the AARP, and now the CPUSA. On the other side we have "We the People". Grinch, Medicare and Medicaid are firmly entrenched systems that can't be dismantled. We don't need more plans like it to make the situation even more dire. We will have to find the money to continue to fund what is already in place, what has already been promised, for those is need, without rationing, without government cost/benefit boards. Maybe a few less jets for congress as well as a reduction in other congressional perks, maybe a lot less pork barrel spending. Reforms need to be made but this plan isn't the answer. People can investigate the plans offered from the other side of the aisle. It's a shame that Pelosi won't let them come to the table. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
A couple of jets wouldn't even touch the interest on the amount that's required Denise. Your government needs to generate additional revenue and cut costs or you won't need to shut down Medicare - it'll simply run out of funds and collapse. The additional revenue doesn't need to come from this bill though; if this bill or a similar scheme isn't put in place you could still fund Medicare by the government's normal revenue raising method. Increase taxes. So what do you suggest as an alternative to the proposals? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here are two from the House and one from the Senate. And Tom Price acutally is a doctor: http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/Solutions/EmpoweringPatientsFirstAct.htm http://johnshadegg.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=80722 http://demi nt.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=6a20ea31-effc-42d1-b22a-788c561db3d2&Type=Press+Release&Month=2&Year=2006 |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Which one would you suggest is the best answer to fund Medicare and reduce costs as an alternative to the current proposals Denise? I'll obviously read all three and come back with any comments and questions they may raise but if I knew which you preferred I could perhaps concentrate on that one first. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Denise, So I should put you down for voting against Medicare, and social security and the VA? I look forward to your sending back your benefits in a spirited act of principled defiance against government intrusion into the lives of its citizens and as protests about programs that — imply because they are socialist — must be by Republican logic, total and abject failures. You will, of course insist that all your Republican friends give up all claim to these programs and as an act of personal and voluntary charity, much as you pointed out Mr Crockett doing in the early 19th century, selflessly donating that portion of their personal and private income to those deserving of it. Of course, I suspect that you will find, like many Republicans, that there is nobody more deserving of the money that you personally object to so strenuously as you, yourself, so long as the money is there and checks are being written. If you were so upset about the money being spend on the bailout, why weren't you screaming your head off at every Republican borrowed dime that led up to the catastrophe in the first place? And at the idiotic policies that siphoned money into the pockets of the super rich in the form of tax cuts while borrowing the difference between what we needed to run the country and what we were giving away from the chinese? I was upset at that little Republican scam while you were pretending there was nothing wrong. Meantime we are not stuck paying off the interest only on that money and not paying off on the principle. Why were you not screaming your head off while the debt was being run up? Your upset, Denise, is not with the debt, where it should be in the first place, it's with the recession that came predictably from running it up and them from the crows coming home with the IOU's clutched in their little beaks with requests for payment. You didn't object to the drunken binge, you simply want to avoid the painful hangover, and the necessity of cutting back or quitting the the crazy fiscal behavior that got us into the mess in the first place. You are trying to grapple with the consequences of Republican policy and behavior, and you're wanting to blame the guys who say we've got to clean the mess up. How much more responsibility do you want to avoid here? How many other people would you like to blame? It seems to me that you're very ready to step up to the plate and declare, boldly, "It's the other guy's fault! I didn't see a thing." The Reagan Treasury secretary wrote about this particular strategy after leaving office. This was why he left office. David Stockman, if you'll remember. He spoke about the Reagan strategy being to put us into debt so deep that we couldn't afford any social programs at all. Reagan was one of Bush's heroes, and I find it difficult to believe that the overall strategy has changed all that much. It was distasteful and cynical then and it remains so now. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Well Denise I've read them. In reverse order: The third one just suggests that the government would set up an exchange like register, similar to the one in the current proposal, to ensure that costs were clear and transparent. It doesn't contain any ideas regarding how to deal with the Medicare problem. The second one advocates the ability to purchase health care cover from alternative States. This is also in the first bill. It ignores Medicare too. The first one goes into a lot more detail than the other two, which are pretty light. The main idea in this one is to give people who qualify tax credits up to a maximum of $240 a month to offset the cost of health care. It includes a section regarding individual States being responsible for insuring anyone turned down by the insurance companies for having a pre-existing condition and details of a new class of middlemen to be inserted between the patients the insurers and the doctors. It's got a few figures in it: For instance a 300,000,000 per year recurring fund to go to the States to help them to insure the uninsurable. Plus 100.000.000 to set up an anti fraud task force. One undisclosed sum is the amount that will be paid in tax credits, it does give clues that suggests that around 53% of the population may be eligible so the cost per year is likely to be a fairly large number. Oh! The proposal includes the revocation of the recently passed stimulus package - presumably to pay for all those tax credits until tax increases can cancel them out. At first glance this proposal is to spend a lot of money and ignore the Medicare problem. But that's only at first glance; it's much cleverer than that when you read the small print. This bill is actually designed to cost almost nothing and do nothing apart from bar abortion from health care packages and reverse the stimulus bill. They should have named it the Ostrich plan. I'd stick with just dismantling all government funded health care provision - it makes far more economic sense. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It seems to me that you're very ready to step up to the plate and declare, boldly, "It's the other guy's fault! I didn't see a thing." together with.... You are trying to grapple with the consequences of Republican policy and behavior Bob, I can't tell if you are referring to Denise or yourself. There will come a time shortly when you can't just poke fingers at the past and say, "It's not Obama's fault!" Actually, that day is here. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
A plan that includes tort reform, free-market choices for patients, portability, and ability to purchase insurance without restrictions by geography and elimation of fraud and abuse in the Medicare & Medicaid systems, and is patient centered, would be a big step in the right direction, Grinch. Nothing will be perfect, but the less government bureaucracy the better. Once government entitlement programs are instituted it is difficult if not impossible to dismantle them, but maybe one day, before the system collapses in on itself, Medicare and Medicaid could be phased out over time and vouchers and tax credits given to offset cost of insurance given for those as well. Just like most of the country, Bob, I was in shock at the intial bailouts by Bush, and then even more so by the subsequent ones by Obama that led to his virtual takeover of banks, insurance companies and the auto industry. Obama isn't cleaning up any mess, he's just making it worse while telling us to shut up and get out of the way so that he can clean up the mess left to him. As I said before, this issue is the one that broke the camel's back, in that he now wants to take over 1/7 of the U.S. economy through the healtcare bill. His latest power grab has opened the eyes of many, finally, to his M.O. It's too important and personal of an issue not to scream about. It hits much closer to home than bailouts of impersonal financial institutions. It wasn't the Republicans (though they spent like drunken Democrats in recent years) that brought us big government socialistic programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. We have FDR (New Deal) and LBJ (Great Society) to thank for instituting systems that were economically unsustainable, and have brought us to the point we are today where we have politicians devising schemes to 'off' the elderly. A week's salary is probably comparable to what most American's give voluntarily during the year toward charities, Bob, some even more. Conservatives tend to give more than liberals, maybe because liberals believe charity should come from the state. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” — Lady Margaret Thatcher |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, The bill you suggested wouldn't do a darn thing one-way or the other regarding health care. It's very carefully designed not to. States aren't obliged to join the scheme, in fact they'd be stupid to consider it, what with all the additional penalties tied into accepting a proportion of the 300,000,000 handouts each year. How many additional people will gain health care under this bill? I predict exactly ZERO. The premise is that an uninsured person buys health cover and they get part of the cost back as a tax credit when they fill in a tax return the following year. That's called a catch 22 situation, they can't afford health care so you offer to pay them back some of it if they pay for all of it first - brilliant! Unless you're self-employed - in which case you can't claim any of it. You can if you are fully employed and earn up to 3 times the poverty level. Which means if you earn $60,000 a year you can claim but if you're self-employed and earn £13,000 you can't. Your proposed bill wouldn't reduce the cost of Medicare to any degree greater than Obama's proposal, however Obama's proposal increases the number of people covered, would reduce the cost of existing cover and generates additional revenue. The only proposal you've suggested so far that makes more economic sense than Obama's bill is the dismantling of Medicare, Medicaid, VA health cover and the other government funded schemes. They wouldn't be that hard to dismantle either Denise. All you'd need to do is pass one simple bill repealing the existing legislation then turn up your TV to drown out the sound of all the riff-raff begging for handouts to pay their health care costs. Simple solution - end of problem. Of course the cost of your health care will immediately more than double and the number of health care providers would probably halve but at least you won't be paying other people's bills. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
If you open up the insurance market nationwide, increase competition for consumer dollars you'll see prices come down. Offer many different plans with different coverage options, deductibles, etc, custom designed for the consumer and watch prices come down. Keep coverage optional and flexible, ranging from full coverage to catastrophic coverage. The States should only be involved in the area of the indidgent who can't afford care and in those who are high risk and can't get affordable care independently. Insurers could also be mandated not to drop people with health issues and mandated not to refuse people with pre-existing conditions tthrough some type of incentive program. There are many things that could be tried before we give our healthcare system over to the government which has never successfully run anything except into the ground. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Government suspends 'cash for clunkers' program amid confusion USA Today These are the people we want to run health care????? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
What was the confusion, Michael? Did the car dealers actually think that the government was going to reimburse them? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Have you got a link Mike? The only article I can find is from last month when they reported, falsely, that the scheme had been scrapped. Most of the articles say that the scheme is going so well that the money allotted has been trebled. Perhaps that's where the confusion has come from. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “In Britain, they use a “Quality-Adjusted Life Year” formula to decide that you don’t really need that new knee because you’re gonna die in a year or two, maybe a decade-and-a-half tops. So it’s in the national interest for you to go around hobbling in pain rather than divert “finite resources” away from productive members of society to a useless old geezer like you. And you’d be surprised how quickly geezerdom kicks in: A couple of years back, some Quebec facilities were attributing death from hospital-contracted infection of anyone over 55 to “old age.”” http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTAxYzFjODdiN2E3OWUyNzY1MDU1ODM1ZjZjYmY3YjM= “Quality-Adjusted Life Year” formula How does that work? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, I don't have a link and I apologize for that. The story was on my Yahoo home page under the Top Stories from USA Today. I read the story and then made my entry here. Around 10 minutes later, it dawned on me that I should have included the link and I went back but the headlines had been updated by others. My mistake... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ok, my brain is awake enough now to use my computer history to find it http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-07-30-cash-for-clunkers-program-suspended_N.htm?obref=obnetwork The Obama administration promised Friday that the financially strapped "cash for clunkers" program would be alive at least through the weekend, and the House of Representatives approved additional money for the program later in the day. Before the vote, John McEleney, chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association, said many dealers have been confused about whether the program will be extended and for how long. Many stopped offering the deals Thursday after word came out that the funds available for the refunds had been exhausted. "We are hoping for some clarity from the White House and Congress before the day is over," McEleney said Friday. Carmakers and dealers have booked expensive advertising to capitalize on buyers' interest in CARS, and now will be left promoting a tie-in with an uncertain government program — one that wasn't supposed to end until Nov. 1. "Disappointed," said Chrysler spokesman Scott Brown. "It's too late to recall the ads," says Beau Boeckmann of Galpin Ford, the nation's largest Ford dealer, in Los Angeles. Galpin had done about 100 clunker deals and was hoping for more. " We had increased our ad budget to get the word out. We are very heavy on radio, newspaper and getting direct mail together," Boeckmann says. "Now what do you tell people when they walk in" for a clunker deal? "It's tough." Some dealers had stepped back, worried the program would go broke before paying them. "If you don't have an absolute guarantee of payment, you could be left floating a lot of money" in anticipation of federal CARS reimbursements, says Peter Greiner, a Ford dealer in Casper, Wyo. "They made the right call," says Will Churchill, a Honda and General Motors dealer in Fort Worth. "The government doesn't have any idea how big this deal is." That seems to be the main issue. The government finally came up with a good thing and miscalculated it completely and now the dealers and the public are in limbo through the government's lack of planning. Seems like I've heard that before. Oh, yes...when the unemployment figures didn't go down based on Obama's expectations. The reason? They "miscalulated" how bad the economy really was. I repeat....these are the people we want to run health care? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here's a Healthcare rationing primer, John. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afuekTcSFfM Can we spell lobbyist? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Quality-Adjusted Life Year It's a method of measuring the quality of life rated against a standard year of perfect health, which has a rating of 1.0 For instance: If you had an incurable disease but your life expectancy could be extended by one year of full health by taking a pill your QALY would be 1.0 Under this system 0.0 would mean you were dead 0.5 would mean your quality of life was half of the norm etc. In almost all health care systems the QALY is used to calculate the benefit of any treatment. The QALY is also used in other situations. One example being in cases where there are competing patients for a single treatment, a heart transplant perhaps. If two or more people could receive the heart their QALY figures can be used to decide who gets it. It's also used in conjunction with an acceptable cost per year figure to allow or disallow specific treatments. In such cases the individual patients QALY is replaced by a general QALY claimed or proven for the specific treatment. If the QALY offered by the treatment is 1.0 and the acceptable cost per year figure is $100,000 a treatment that cost $100,000 or less would be deemed acceptable. It's used in almost all health care systems in some form or other, including those in the US. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, That's an old article. The scheme wasn't suspended; it was actually extended to keep up with demand by trebling the allocated cash available. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, but it was forced to be adjusted based on the lack of planning and miscalculations of the government due to their not thinking it through in the first place, which is typical of this government's record so far. I repeat...is this the type of government we want handling our health care? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
News from the American College of Surgeons: http://www.facs.org/news/obama081209.html |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Good link, Denise! (which will also be ignored) Obama has based this entire campaign on lies and misinformation. First he claimed that it would actually show a profit and, when the CBO came out and stated that was an impossibility, he changed it to "Well, it will have to be paid for some way (in response to a town hall meeting question about will his plan create higher taxes). He claims that America wants his plan, even though over 70% claim they are satisfied with their current plans. He had declared that he has the endorsement of AARP, which caused AARP to come out immediately and repudiate it. He has painted doctors in the worst possible light, stating how doctors will forego treating a situation until it gets worse and they can make more money from it. He trashes everyone he can without regard for their professionalism or integrity. The fellow he put in charge has declared that "Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously" while Obama claims just the opposite. Specter claims he will never vote for a plan that raises taxes and will vote for it, anyway, even though Obama concedes taxes will have to be raised. The town hall speakers are lying through their teeth and outraged that they are being called on it. This government is "the gang who couldn't shoot straight". The only thing they can hit is their foot....over and over. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. I'm not sure your correlation between the two would hold up for long, Mike, but my quick answer would have to be a resounding YES. Too much success is a problem, sure, but it's a problem most individuals and businesses would love the chance to face. Of course the alternative to unexpected success is to do nothing at all. Or, at least, delay doing anything for as long as possible. Gee, that sounds strikingly familiar, doesn't it? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
8/16/09 Dear Mike, quote: I don't think I remember a time when you were able to give a a limit on the time when you were willing to stop blaming FDR. Kennedy you were actually gracious about, and I thank you for that. LBJ still came in for occasional less than admiring comment, despite the civil rights bill. Carter came in for more than excoriation at your hands, not only for activities during his administration but for activities widely admired throughout the rest of the world during the years since his retirement. I believe you may have actually called President Clinton "President Clinton" once or twice during our conversations about the man. I confess, I remember either 'Clinton" or the more frequent and more deliberately insulting "slick willie," a reference that uses a trope that substitutes the part for the whole. In this case a deliberate and vulgar anatomical reference for a President of The United States I have done my best to avoid speaking of even President Nixon in this fashion, the man who actually did the things that other presidents since have only been accused of doing. At the drop of a hat, you have shown yourself willing to blame President Clinton for many of the things that it seems clear that President Bush bore responsibility for well into President Bush's second administration with proof evading even the most subtle theorizing of Niels Bohr's Uncertainty Principle... With your Republican affiliation, of course, — the party whose grip on both science and logic remains sketchy, the party for whom Sarah Palin remains the center of hope and direction, and the party whose major spokesman heaped savage scorn and rage upon law breakers and drug addicts until his arrest for oxycontin use made him understand that draconian measures were not really the right way to proceed against people with his particular set of problems — I can't imagine that you'd see any irony or even contradiction in this. I would imagine that "the day is here" when the Democrats aren't trying to clean up the problems that the Republicans have quite possibly on purpose created. I believe I mentioned David Stockman above. Not before. And certainly not while there appears to be a causal chain between the Republican actions and the following economic catastrophe, both predictable and, ahem, predicted. I told you, if you remember, that the longer we waited to start paying back the debts we were running up the more nasty the solution would look. Your response, if I remember correctly, was "what problems? It's all in your mind!" Welcome to Bob's world, smartie pants. You could have made it much simpler a year or two ago, but you were in denial. You could make it reasonably simple now, though certainly painful, but you're still in denial. You can probably manage to put it off longer, too. Your party recommends it, as it has right along, and you're nodding like one of those bobble headed dashboard figures as the Republican Party powers that be drive you down the highway. I guess you figure they have to be right eventually, on the stopped clock being right twice a day theory. I figure they had their shot with the first bailout bill. I didn't like it, but I thought that was right. Maybe I'm wrong this time. I've got to tell you, I sure hope so. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, I saw the video last night and I think Obama made a few gaffes in the speech regarding the cost of preventative treatment for Diabetes versus subsequent amputation costs. He said that the preventative treatment costs were a pittance; the total actual costs are estimated to be $7000 to $10000 with an additional $27,000 in aftercare costs. He also replaced the "physician" in his first example with "surgeon" in the second - the obvious comparison he wanted to make was like-for-like total cost not the total cost of one versus the partial cost of another. His claim that the physician would actively chose amputation over preventative surgery to make more money is, to my mind, just plain stupid. If he'd have said, "spurred by the fear of litigation" I may have agreed. Finally he got the total cost of amputation wrong. It's $30,000 to $60,000 total cost for the amputation and $43,000 to $63,000 for additional aftercare costs. I got the gist of what he meant though, which is that prevention is better, and cheaper, than the subsequently required cure. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Nobody would disagree that prevention isn't cheaper. It's not always and either/or situation though, as the letter from the American College of Surgeons states. He has to stop demonizing everybody, from the protestors, to the insurance companies, to the doctors and surgeons. It's just politically stupid. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. The ‘Preventive Care’ Myth http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTA3MTVjOWM4MWVkNTk3NDQ0Mjg3MDVkMGY4M2EwMWY= . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I stand corrected, John. Thanks for sharing the link. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here's another eye-opening article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Cool video, including some scenes from Philadelphia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LBU2UHgqsQ |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
A very good article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_Universe_Theory |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, I see no reason that I should criticize your generosity. If you've given what you feel comfortable giving, that's your business. As for the late congressman, he was famous for tall tales during his lifetime. I see no result quoted in your story that suggests that he actually chipped in the week's salary, only that he used the his suggestion as a way of keeping other people from voting on the proposal. Having succeeded in blocking the proposal, I'd feel more appreciative about the congressman if he'd actually chipped in his own dough. Perhaps you think he was merely being sharp. Apparently the rest of the congress thought some sort of memorial was appropriate. Crocket saved the dough alright, and shorted the man the honor the honor that others thought he deserved. Oh good. The Christian standard for charity — not for everything, but for church support only — is traditionally a tithe put at 10%. Certainly you are in favor of keeping big religion out of our lives as well, and I see that you've managed to refigure the amount of a Republican's more than generous support for charity to be 1/52 or, perhaps, about 2% of the Republican's annual income, apparently to cover the 10% for church support and all other private charity contributions as well. Indeed, you Republicans have a knack for inflating your sense of generosity and shorting your fellow man. I'm thrilled to hear you say that Republicans are more charitable, but I'd sure like to see some facts and figures to support what sounds like unsupported opinion to me. It would also be nice if the support was from a non-partisan source and was quoting some facts and not further partisan opinion from more partisan sources. I do appreciate the efforts you've been making in that direction the last several months. Simply because I'm a Democrat doesn't make me right, but it does give me a right to ask for where you get your facts, and what those facts are. I suspect the facts won't bear you out. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, Interesting article by Krauthammer. However, not all preventive care is useful, and not all should be used in all cases. Krauthammer takes the position of arguing against all preventive care options being taken in all cases. I doubt anybody is actually taking that position, which is expensive and potentially dangerous and probably counterproductive. Some preventive case, however, is not expensive, is reasonably cheap, and is even supported by some folks on the right. Reducing the cost of premiums, for example, for those people who follow generally considered healthy life styles has gotten support by some right wing groups as a way of bringing some health care costs in line. Stopping smoking, introducing regular exercise and a low fat diet are all fairly good ways of preventing many of the causes of long-term disease and premature death. They aren't terribly expensive and show a high cost to benefit return. I think that Mr. Krauthammer would be silly to suggest that we eliminate these; nor do I think that you, Huan Yi, would wish to make such a recommendation either. Regular screening for prostate cancer and regular mammograms, however, may need to be rethought as preventive care. Mammograms have a very high rate of false positives, and may not be the high quality test that many of us think they are. I'd need to see more research on this, myself, to feel comfortable on an intellectual level, though I'd never want my wife to stop getting hers regularly. She finds them reassuring, and I don't actually know they're unhelpful. Prostate screening tests may actually prove harmful in the long run, and in some places, like England, they seem to be phasing them out. Mr. Krauthammer, however, by painting with too broad a brush, is distorting the actual picture on preventive care to make a political and financial point that is at odds with my understanding of the medicine involved. If the preventive medicine is applied appropriately, in line with the medicine and not in line with Mr. Krauthammer's misdrawn debating point, I think that he is fairly clearly trying to present misinformation to win a political point. I don't approve of the ethics of such a discussion. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denis, Grinch addressed your American Thinker link in his posting 236. By acting as if Grinch had said nothing addressing the matter, you discount his work and goodwill in the discussion. You also failed to note that the "death panel" hocum had been fact-checked by the AP and had been once again dismissed as baseless. To remind you of what grinch's point was, he said essentially that the method you condemn for determining distribution of health care services is the method that is now used by the insurance industry we function under in the United States. This would be the system that you want to keep. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron!!! Bob called me smarty pants!! Oh, that's ok, we'll give him that one. Bob, in your trip through the past you seemed to have skipped over JFK, who created the VietNam war, and Bill Clinton, even though you have acknowledged he has a measurable responsibility for the housing crisis....and you accuse me of picking and choosing? You are right that I said no big deal two years ago when, actually, it WAS no big deal then. You didn't see the economy in the news then because it was so good the liberal press didn't want to draw attention to it under a republican president. I had asked you one time back then to walk around and tell me what people were complaining about with reference to the economy and you never did....and with good reason. No one was complaining. After the housing bubble burst (which, I repeat, you blamed Clinton for in a big way) THEN the dominoes began falling and THEN the press jumped on it and "It's the economy, stupid", the rallying cry of democrats which had mysteriously been absent for a long while, resurfaced like the phoenix. SO now you want to lay it at the feet of Bush and republican presidents for the past half-century, at least...be my guest. Obama has taken a bad situation and made it ten times worse and you want to claim that the other nine times should all be laid at Bush's feet, also. That dog don't hunt, Bob. Our incredible debt that has been laid at the feet of our future generations is all Obama's. Our nationalization of private industries is his, also, and a nationalization of our health care industry will definitely be his. I have little doubt you will never put any blame on him but that won't change it. Ron, when something is overly successful it means one makes money, not has to draw more money from the public till to pay for the success. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Indeed, you Republicans have a knack for inflating your sense of generosity and shorting your fellow man. I'm thrilled to hear you say that Republicans are more charitable, but I'd sure like to see some facts and figures to support what sounds like unsupported opinion to me. Since I am one of "you republicans", let me suggest that, as a litmus test, simply check the contributions of your leaders, since they certainly lead by example, right? Check out the charitable contributions of Obama, Clinton, Kerry and Gore, for example, and compare them to the ones from Bush or whatever other republican leaders you choose to select. You may be surprised at the results.... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Bob, this is the section of the article that I found eye-opening. I was in no way ignoring Grinch's explanation of QALY. But not ignoring it doesn't mean that I don't find the entire concept morally reprehensible when calculating dollar expenditures against human life. My point for bringing this in was to show that the government has already set up a bureaucracy to make those determinations. It doesn't have to be in the house or senate bills, and their saying that they've taken out the offending language means nothing because the system is already in place anyway. quote: Michael is right, Bob, you can do a search to find out the charitable giving of liberals versus conservatives. I remember the statistics being released during the campaign. The tithe to the church would not be considered charity, Bob, but rather a sacrificial obligation to your church of choice for its expenses, programs, etc. Charitable giving would be above and beyond that. [This message has been edited by Denise (08-17-2009 01:40 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, You made the assertion. You back it up. I see no reason to assume a difference. If you do, and are confident enough to say so, prove it. Otherwise, what separates you from the person who confidently asserts the world is flat? In both cases, the person who makes the assertion is — hopefully — well meaning and sincere. Should you wish others to take your assertion seriously, non-partisan factual support is both appropriate and necessary. Asking me to do your work for you is disingenuous; I regard doing your research as a waste of my time. I have my own work and research to do, don't I? I can't afford to pay you to do my research for me, and don't expect to. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Maybe it's my imagination, Bob, but your 'tone' seems to have gotten a bit snippy lately. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Should we? That entire post seems to be about you, Mike, rather than anything you've posted here? Bob, though warned many times, is apparently incapable of learning the difference. Unfortunately, I haven't been around as much as usual, so a few more things are slipping by. I also have to admit, frankly, that I've grown tired of picking up after Bob. I've edited or deleted more of his posts in the past six months than anyone else over the past six years. It grows tiresome after a while, especially when it seems to teach nothing. Perhaps Bob would like to make a suggestion on what I should try next? quote: Ah, so Bush's war in Iraq was even more of a dismal failure than I thought, Mike? Do we really want to judge success simply by how much money it puts in government coffers? From where I sit, Mike, (and I think Michigan is getting more benefit from the program than any other state) "Cash for Clunkers" is stimulating the heck out of new car sales while simultaneously helping to lower carbon emissions by measurable (if not particularly significant) amounts. I'm not sure the real ROI is calculable, but at this point, I think calling the program anything but a resounding (and completely unexpected) success would require a redefinition of "stimulus." This part of the bill is doing exactly what it was intended to do. And, yea, doing it much better than anticipated. That's the kind of problem we need. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Well, Ron, I confess this business has gotten under my skin. I think I should take some time off, at least from the Alley. And I certainly wouldn't want to tax your good-will further; you've been very good. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Those links you provided were very interesting Denise. They don't actually prove your claim that Republicans give more to charity but they were interesting nonetheless. Why don't you open another thread and I'll explain why it's impossible, as well as pointless, trying to prove your assertion and why Arthur C. Brooks is talking twaddle. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Well, I never said that Republicans give more, I said that Conservatives tend to give more than Liberals do. Conservatives encompass more than Republicans. But it doesn't really matter to me anyway who gives what. I had just read that a few different times in the past and thought it was interesting, along with the possible explanation that liberals probably give less because they think charity should come from the state, I thought it was interesting as well to see the charitable giving of the various candidates during the last election, which seemed to validate what I had read before. I read one refutation of it and got a headache! It was talking about .01 of this, that or another as opposed to analyzing it fully weighted. I had no clue what the guy was talking about. But feel free to give your refutation. Maybe I'll understand that. But like I said, it's not important to me one way or the other. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, I certainly agree that cash for clunkers has been a success, in terms of numbers of participants and car dealerships who have gotten a much needed shot in the arm. It appears, though, the more successful it is, the more it costs us but then what's another couple of billion when the economy is mired in quicksand, anyway? I may as well help Mr. and Mrs. Schwartz get a new car...why not? No, my only point about bringing up CFC was this: COuld you have anticipated that the CFC program would be so successful? A program giving consumers thousands and thousands of dollars to trade in their junkers for new cars? Of course you could have. So could I. So could any American with half a mind. It's a no-brainer. Who seems to be the only ones who COULDN'T realize it would be so popular? Yep, the government. DO I want them running health care with the same lack of foresight? Nope.... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, Sorry about the Republican/Conservative mix up - my bad. quote: They may do Denise; it's just impossible to prove one way of the other. There are lots of reasons why, some more likely to give you a headache than others. One simple reason however is that some people prefer to keep their charitable donations to themselves so any data collected is immediately suspect. Arthur C. Brooks conclusions are useless for a whole slew of additional reason though. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I was under he impression that charitable donations were recorded on income tax records. Politician, especially, like to have them known for political reasons. When confronted with his miserly ways in terms of charity, Gore claimed he gave his "time". I wonder how many people ate his "time" at the soup kitchens. Did they put ketchup on it or eat it plain? The man who makes millions a year doesn't seem to follow his own teachings very well and serves as a poor representative of his party,,,,he is not alone. As Denise said, it really doesn't matter in this scope of things....it's a matter of personal choice and not giving is Gore's. That's nothing to surprise anyone.. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Only if you declare them to claim deductions Mike, which was my original point - people sometimes prefer not to reveal something they see as a private matter. Take Gore for instance. Would it surprise you if I said that he donates 15.5% of his income to charitable causes? That he simply believes that what he donates is a private matter? I don't know if that's true in Gore's case btw - more importantly neither do you. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
Just a comment Mike about the cash for clunkers...if so many people especially around here were having their cars repossessed for not paying their car payments, I am wondering how many of these trade ins of older cars they had sitting around will start another mess of repossessions in the near future when the same people who couldn't afford newer cars back then are trying it again (especially with so many still losing their jobs...) just a curious wait and see. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Would it surprise you if I said that he donates 15.5% of his income to charitable causes? Surprise is not the word. Flabberghast comes to mind...and, no, I can't say definitely that he doesn't any more than I can definitely say the earth revolves around the sun but, considering Gore's lust for the spotlight it is not logically reasonable. Maureen, there are a lot of by-products to CRC. The Salvation Army in Miami is crying the blues, and rightfully so, because car donations have dropped from 437 to just over one hundred, due to people trading them in instead of donating them. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Science could solve this problem by discovering Heaven; a happy place where everyone who comes is young, strong, handsome or beautiful again. Then no old one would waste the country’s time and money staying alive. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Serious studies indicate that Obamacare would kill millions of jobs. With 9.4 percent unemployment, this is hardly the time to foul the labor market even further. The culprit is Obamacare’s proposed tax burden on employers with payrolls exceeding $250,000. Section 313 of H.R. 3200, House Democrats’ key bill, concocts a tax of up to 8 percent on the total payrolls of employers who do not give their workers health insurance. This tax would apply to employers who do provide insurance, if their plans are not “qualified” by the new Health Choices Commissioner. Employers would be taxed on personnel who refuse company coverage in favor of their spouses’ policies.” There’s more. . . http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTIwY2VkZmI2MjU3YThlNzE5ZTlmOTQ5NGJmMjA5NGE= That would have an impact on employer employment decisions . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Florida set a state record today with it's highest unemployment rate in 34 years....DEFINITELY not the time to put more jobs in jeopardy. If Obama would put more effort into job creation and stability (and not the 30 day jobs he is trying to pass off as proof of his job creation), we would be a lot better off. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Yea, because all those people without jobs have really good medical coverage while they're busy not working? Florida's 10.8 percent unemployment rate sounds pretty good to Michiganders, Mike. The good news for us, though, is that -- for the first time in about 14 months -- we're going down instead of up. Our rate just dropped from 15.2 percent to 15.0 percent. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Employers would be taxed on personnel who refuse company coverage in favor of their spouses’ policies.” This is what really surprised me. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Nothing surprise me anymore, John. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I'm beginning to wonder if anyone has actually taken the time to read the whole bill. Section 313 in full: quote: |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Employers would be taxed on personnel who refuse company coverage in favor of their spouses’ policies.” Is specifically this right or wrong? PS Grinch, I don't see the major disparity between your qouted: "who is a small employer for any calendar year, subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting the applicable percentage determined in accordance with the following table for ‘‘8 percent’’: If the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year: The applicable percentage is: Does not exceed $250,000 ..................................... 0 percent Exceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 2 percent Exceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 4 percent Exceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 6 percent" and the articles: ". . .employers with payrolls exceeding $250,000. Section 313 of H.R. 3200, House Democrats’ key bill, concocts a tax of up to 8 percent on the total payrolls of employers who do not give their workers health insurance" ? . [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (08-21-2009 05:24 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Specifically, absolutely and categorically - WRONG! Read section 311. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Grinch, I need the link. John . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
My name's Grinch not Google. http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/vl/www/wwwcon.htm . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. OK someone else please do it then. Also I take it you don't disagree there being no major disparity between our respective qoutes in: "PS Grinch, I don't see the major disparity between your qouted: "who is a small employer for any calendar year, subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting the applicable percentage determined in accordance with the following table for ‘‘8 percent’’: If the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year: The applicable percentage is: Does not exceed $250,000 ..................................... 0 percent Exceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 2 percent Exceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 4 percent Exceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 6 percent" and the articles: ". . .employers with payrolls exceeding $250,000. Section 313 of H.R. 3200, House Democrats’ key bill, concocts a tax of up to 8 percent on the total payrolls of employers who do not give their workers health insurance" ?" . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Huan, I agree that two years after the bill is enacted any Company with an annual payroll of over $400,000 will pay 8% of the average wage in lieu of contributing to an individual employee's health plan. Companies with a total payroll of $250,000 will pay nothing and a sliding scale will be used up to the $400,000 figure. The part of the article that dealt with the amount charged was simply vague on that point. But that's not the bit that I disagreed with and quoted which was just plain wrong or an out and out lie. Here's the full quote from the article - the bit I maintain that's wrong is in bold: quote: The article is basically twaddle with a couple of vague references to half explained parts of the bill presented in a purposely confusing and negative light. Anyone who reads the bill would recognise that. quote: I'll save someone else doing your work for you Huan. If you ever get around to actually reading the bill you'll find that section 311 explicitly excludes employees who refuse to participate in a company scheme in favour of their spouse's policies. quote: The claim in the article is wrong. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, those umployed would have coverage if they weren't unemployed. The focus should be on job creations, not destruction. WHen you start celebrating a 15% unemployment level, you're in big doo-doo! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hey, Ron...at least Michigan has a good congressman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Mike, I certainly agree that job creation should be a focus. Personally, I think it is and has been. I just don't agree it should be an excuse to do nothing about a whole lot of things that are going to be painful in large part because we've put them off for so long. I'd really like to think that our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, can chew gum and walk at the same time. quote: Mike, Congressman Roger's argument only holds water if you accept his underlying premise that health care reform is automatically "punishing the 85 percent" at the expense of the 15 percent currently without coverage. That's pretty much the same premise that's been shot down again and again and again in this thread as so much nonsense. The need for opponents of the legislation to make up problems that don't exist doesn't lend much credence to their positions. When did the truth stop being enough? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I suppose truth and liberty, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107575 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Mike, I certainly agree that job creation should be a focus. Personally, I think it is and has been. Ron, I just don't know how you can say that. In 5 months that incredible amount of stimulus money has been sitting there, doing nothing, with only 10% of it being used. Where are the shovel-ready jobs Obama spoke of that would provide immediate employment? I don't see where he has done anything to stimulate job creation. ALso, when you are fighting unemployment, you don't threaten employers with higher taxes, which is what Obama has done. His actions have stifled employment with the proof being that it has risen to record levels. Surely you don't call that coincidence? That's pretty much the same premise that's been shot down again and again and again in this thread as so much nonsense. SHot down by whom? Us? It's nice that you think we are so much smarter than your congressman. Maybe we ARE! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: See, that's exactly the danger people face when they spread misinformation, either knowingly or just because they don't take the time to check something they WANT to believe is true. Misinformation gets characterized as lies and the people who spread it are labeled as liars. The minute you complain about something that was never true, more legitimate complaints are seriously weakened. quote: Now, THERE is a legitimate complaint. To take it seriously, however, we have to assume it wasn't taken out of context, that the President actually meant what the quotation implies he meant. Personally, I can't make that assumption because most of what I've heard from this source has been utter garbage, manipulated to build fear and confusion. This potentially legitimate complaint gets lost in the muck. quote: Sometimes, I suppose maybe they are, Denise. Some people, for example, think they have the freedom to not pay taxes, to exact vengeance on alleged criminals, or to pollute the land and waters that everyone else has to share. Google Tragedy of the Commons and you'll find the problems of defining individual freedom is hardly new. There are really only two choices regarding health care. One, we can let people die. If you don't take care of yourself, if you don't build a support network of family and friends, if you don't get off your butt and work to fulfill your basic needs, then it has to be YOUR problem, not society's. Don't show up on a hospital doorstep unless you can pay for its services. Two, we can not let people die. If health care is going to be a basic human right, as so many want to claim, then it has to be regulated so that EVERYONE has exactly the same basic human right. If a poor indigent doesn't get to choose his doctor, Denise, then neither do you. Especially if your choices impact the rights of others by raising the cost for those who can't afford it. Basic rights are, well, basic. You and I don't get to upgrade ours just because we can afford more. Either health care is a social problem with a social solution or . . . it's not. What it cannot be, I think, is a social problem with a private, individual solution. That's not fair to those who can't afford your solution. quote: So long as that ten percent is being used wisely, Mike, and the remaining 90 percent is available when it's needed, I have no problem with that. I don't spend all my money at once, either. On last night's local news, I heard that our Michigan State Police was hiring and training fifteen troopers and three sergeants, a move directly attributed to $6.5M of stimulus money. Two days ago, I was forced to detour around a freeway overpass in Kalamazoo, again a project that wouldn't have happened without Federal stimulus money. (It was a big deal a month or two ago, in fact, because it was the 200th or 2000th or something such project to break ground. Bidden cut the ribbon.) Is it enough? No, of course not. But I'm not blaming this administration for failing to instantly solve economic problems they inherited from past administrations (and, no, Mike, I'm not limiting that to just the last one, either). Problems more than a decade in the making aren't resolved in just a few months. quote: Mostly by Grinch, Mike. Read your originating post some twelve pages back, Mike. Is there any point made in that post still in question for you? In my opinion, every single point was shot down as nonsense. People are spreading misinformation widely. And, yea, that definitely includes a few politicians from Michigan, too. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
In my opinion, every single point was shot down as nonsense. and I have to repeat...shot down by whom? Forgive me but I do not consider Grinch to be the Amazing Kreskin here. He reads things the way he wants to read them, like everyone else, and creates his own definitions as he goes along. He has made his political slant very clear. and the remaining 90 percent is available when it's needed, and you would consider that time to be....when? How about when unemployment is at an all-time high? That would seem like a good time to me. How about you? And the shovel-ready jobs I mentioned...what happened to them? It's good that you are getting more troopers. What happens next year when stimulus money doesn't come in? WHo pays their salaries then? That stimulus check is not designed to be an annual event. That's why many cities turned it down. n his remarks, the president ticked off points of contention that dissenters have with his proposals – "government takeover of health care … government funding of abortion … death panels" – and dismissed these concerns as "fabrications." In one swipe, Mr. Obama reduced his opposition to liars. The jury is out as to whether he reduced them to liars or exposed himself as one. He has certainly made comments about preferring a single payer system, which would indicate government takeover. He also made a speech to planned parenthood concerning abortion funding (I'll look for it). He has certainly made comments about giving grandma pain pills instead of surgery and how spirit or will to live was too difficult to measure to consider it. Did he reduce anyone to liar status just by saying it wasn't true? Did he reduce AARP to liars by claiming he had their endorsement when they claimed he did not? Did he reduce the CBO to liars by claiming the health bill would not increase the deficit when they claimed that was an impossibility. Obama denying things does make anyone a liar automatically. His creditability was weakened by the billions in pork in the stimulus bill he promised would be there and then, when uncovered, declared it wouldn't happen with any bills "in the future". Obama's declarations are not written in stone, believe me. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Although the plan is clear in some respects, it is hazy vis-a-vis the abortion question. John McCormack, a writer for the magazine Weekly Standard, hoped to resolve the question recently. "During a campaign conference call about health care yesterday, I asked Obama-Biden surrogate Gov. Kathleen Sebelius if Obama's health care plan would mandate coverage for all legal abortions," he writes. "I really don’t know the specifics of that," Sebelius replied. "An Obama-Biden spokesman told me via email that he'd find an answer to my question. But subsequent emails and phone calls in the past 24 hours from me to Obama-Biden spokesmen have gone unanswered," McCormack adds. "Apparently the Obama-Biden campaign doesn't think it needs to provide basic factual information about their candidate's health care plan. Will any one in the mainstream media hold Obama accountable?" McCormack asks. Without a specific answer, voters are forced to guess what Obama's plan would do. McCormack points to the speech Obama gave to Planned Parenthood activists in July 2007, where he pledged to cover abortions in any national health care plan. "In my mind reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, and so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose," Obama said. "We're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It'll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services" Mike Dorning of the Chicago Tribune followed up on the Obama speech and reported that an Obama representative said "reproductive services" included abortions. http://www.lifenews.com/nat4415.html |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
That's exactly right, Mike. If abortion is not specifically EXCLUDED in this bill it WOULD be covered under any plan the government comes up with under the umbrella of reproductive health, according to an attorney that I heard on one program and a former senator, Rich Santorum on another program. Both stated that the courts have ruled that way in previous cases. Three or four amendments soecifically excluding abortion from the bills have all been shot down by the Democrats. And if the government intruding itself into every area imaginable seeking to control it through health advisory boards that will determine acceptable treatments, and the government setting physican pay, reimbursement rates, taxes on employers and employees, etc. isn't a government takeover, I don't know what would be. And having bureaucrats determining treatments based on cost/benefit analysis is essentially a Death Panel if you are the one being denied care that could save or extend your life or the life of a loved one. It doesn't have to be specifically spelled out in those words in the bill. Just look at the philosophy of the 'health' advisors that Obama has surrounded himself with and I think it's easy to ascertain the direction they will take if this bill is passed and it is time to 'fill in the details'. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: The above are all lies Mike. You don't need to be Kreskin to see that, all you need to do is compare the above claims of what's supposedly contained in the bill with what is actually written in the bill. Fortunately my political slant doesn't affect my ability to do that, and it shouldn't affect yours either, you only require the ability, and inclination, to read the original bill to shoot those claims down in a ball of flames. BTW - For the record, and for what it's worth, I tend to support and vote for whichever political party seems to have the best policies - the last time around it was the Conservatives and it's likely to be them again next time. Does the health care plan cover abortion? Which health care plan Mike? Do you mean the minimum standard plan that's proposed in the bill? If so the answer is easy, nobody knows because the standard health plan hasn't been agreed yet. The bill contains a proposal that a standard will be established, it lays out the mechanism by which that standard will be agreed, but until it is agreed nobody knows whether it will contain cover for abortions. That's probably why Kathleen Sebelius couldn't give a specific answer. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
There is quite a bit that isn't 'said' in the bill Grinch, and I'm sure that's intentional. It is purposely vague, but lays the groundwork in giving the government the power to say it means whatever the government says it means when they go back in to 'fill in the details' if/when it's passed. Obama himself said to judge him by the company he keeps. Look at his advisors and czars. That should help people understand what those details might be. I'm sure Sebelius is aware that by it not being specifically excluded that by default it is included under 'reproductive health', and it doesn't matter if it is a basic plan or an enhanced plan. But she won't come out and say that and cause even more public outcry over the attempted takeover of the healtcare/insurance industries. As for "bearing false witness", no one does it better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk And here is a slip of the tongue moment by Maxine Waters. Sometimes the truth slips out! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3I-PVVowFY |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
The local government council in the town where I live has just announced a plan to refurbish the town library. The proposal is to form a committee to discuss what facilities are going to be included in the new library layout and to field suggestions from interested parties. Personally I'd like a separate reading room with a refreshment area to replace the open reading area that's two floors away from the nearest place to get a coffee. The proposed plan however doesn't mention a reading room. I asked a local councillor whether there would be one but he simply said that he didn't know. Do you think it would be reasonable for me to start a petition to get the refurbishment plan shelved based on the fact that it doesn't specifically state whether there's going to be a separate reading room? I don't - In fact I think that would be a decidedly stupid idea. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
We are not speaking of reading rooms or petitions here and there is little correlation between the two. nobody knows because the standard health plan hasn't been agreed yet. To me, that is the point that makes this whole thing ludicrous. Obama is touting his health plan. The minions he sends out to town hall meetings are touting his health plan. The Democrats are praising his health plan.......and there is no health plan! That certainly gives Obama and company nice wiggle room, doesn't it? Sebilius can't be expected to answer questions about the health plan...because there is no health plan. Obama is outraged that there are lies about a health plan that doesn't exist. Participants at the town hall meeting are branded as terrorists, Nazis, organized crime and right wing conspiratists by demanding to know what is in a health plan that doesn't exist. Obama demanded that COngress pass his health care plan before they recessed, even though there was no health plan. I have a radical suggestion. Why not have a finalized health plan and THEN talk about it, then explain it to the people, then defend it and be able to answer question concerning it? Does that sound so illogical? Obama is trying to sneak the health plan that doesn't exist the same way he handled the stimulus and cap and trade. "Just take my word for it, people, that it's good for you and we need it and don't worry about the details." Well, with health care, that ain't flying and it irritates Obama that his word is not good enough....when his track record now indicated that his word is indeed not good enough. Why not avoid the confusion? Finalize a health plan. You don't want rumors? Finalize a health plan. You want to be able to explain the specifics of a health plan? Finalize a health plan. Americans don't know what's in the plan and, lately, even many Democrats don't know what's in the plan....mainly because there is no plan. Obama seems to claim what's in the plan that doesn;t exist based on daily polls. The public option is vital. The public option is not vital. Whatever to polls indicate the public is against somehow elicits a speech from Obama that it is not in his health plan, which he can;t really say because there is no health plan. Ron claims that Obama has effectively branded critics as liars for their interpretations of a health plan that doesn't exist. Is that supposed to make sense?? Obama is a car salesman trying to get a customer to write a check, speaking of the beauty of the vehicle, the savings in gas mileage, the lush interiors, the safety factors, how it's a car they can't live without...but he's not showing them the car! He just wants the check in advance and have them believe that it will be everything he says, and he's incensed that they actually want to see it first! That's a shame.... Obama said illegal immigrants would not be part of the health care overhaul, taxpayers would not be mandated to fund abortions and he does not intend a government takeover of health care — all claims that critics have made at contentious town hall-style meetings with members of Congress. Fine. Mr. President. Show us that in a finalized health plan. There is no health plan finalized. The rest is just blahblahblah... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Little correlation? Forgive me if I don't believe a word you say Mike, you have a history of being wrong - hang on let me check again for myself: The council are proposing to reform the library. The government are proposing to reform health care. The council are proposing to form a committee to agree the facilities that will be included. The Government is proposing to form a commission to agree what cover will be included. Nobody knows yet whether the library will get a reading room. Nobody knows yet whether abortion will be included in the health plan. Hmm.. Rat-a-tat-tat Another false statement shot down. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You make too much sense, Michael. You'd never make it in DC! Just like the abortion issue, amendments excluding illegals were thrown out by the Democrats. Sounds a little suspicious to me. And here's a take on Obama's 'appeal' to the Church: http://townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2009/08/22/obama_makes_a_political_booty_call_to_the_church |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
If abortion were going to be excluded, Grinch, the amendments to that effect would not have been thrown out. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. I think they call that a law, Mike. You know, like after our legislature has voted on it and the executive branch has signed it? Until a bill has been voted in or out, it can't be considered finalized. Oh, and I'm not quite sure why we're talking about abortions? They're still legal, aren't they? If they are non-elective medical procedures, why shouldn't they be covered? quote: Again, Denise, there are only two choices. One, we can let people die. Or, two, we can not let people die. Are you suggesting we should add a third alternative and let some people die? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Yes they would Denise. For the same reason they'd throw out a clause that excluded in-growing toenails and cosmetic surgery. The health bill isn't the right instrument in which to lay out what is and what isn't covered in a standard health plan. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out why. If you list everything that is and isn't covered in a bill that's enacted into law you'd need an amendment every time you wanted to change what is and isn't covered. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Library - health care Reading room - abortion Ah, yes. I can see the equality now. Thanks for pointing it out. Your record of making sensible comparisons remains constant. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
No problem Mike. I don't mind taking the time to point out your mistakes. It's what friends are for. BTW, you still haven't told us whether you still believe in all that twaddle you posted at the start of this thread. Do you still believe that the government is going to force old folk to attend suicide clinic? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Until a bill has been voted in or out, it can't be considered finalized. True enough, Ron, but there is no bill to be voted on...at last count there were three. Why not go to the American people and say "This is the final draft of the bill Congress will vote on concerning your health care"? Then valid questions could be asked and answered. Does that seem unreasonable? They're still legal, aren't they? Yes, Ron, they are, but you're not paying for them. Are you ready to begin? Are you suggesting we should add a third alternative and let some people die? That seems to be Obama's plan in a nutshell. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, Grinch, the government is not. Obama has since stricken that part from the bill....the polls, you know. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Rat-a-tat-tat It was never there in the first place Mike - it was a lie. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I'm not crazy about being forced to pay for ANY medical procedure, Mike. I'm still the guy who thinks people should pay their own way, remember? Insurance, in any form, is evil. However, if I'm going to have to pay one person's medical bills for them, I don't think that person should be able to tell me not to pay someone else's medical bill just because they ostensibly don't like the procedure or the person. If we're going to have bread and circuses, let's at least be fair about it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
OK, grinch, they have stated publicly that they have eliminated that part of the bill that was never there...sounds good to me. Our conversations have taken their same predictable path....carry on without me. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I know - odd isn't it - you make a claim, I shoot it down then you wander off to sulk for a while. Like you say - very predictable. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Even your insults are predictable, Grinch. We are done here. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Do you have a link to that, Mike? I'd love to read it. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: As I understand the proposals right now Ron, it's a question of buckets of money. There would be, as proposed, different public plans one could choose. One plan would cover abortions, one wouldn't. Assuming a model where the insured's premiums are used within that plan to pay claims-- a person's money (or government money for that matter) who didn't want to participate in a plan that covered abortions -- wouldn't be paying for any abortions. If, on the other hand, the public option is to be treated like medicare and medicaid today -- that is; merely lumped into the general fund -- then it could be argued that 'government' funded abortions were taking place. I think the offensiveness of this prospect to some of the voters would be undesirable. It can also be legitimately argued under such a scenario -- that regardless of which plan one chose to enroll under -- if tax money being paid by the top 2% is being used to subsidize the premiums for those falling below 300% of the poverty line -- then tax-dollars would be used in some instances to pay for abortions. I think this is one of the few legitimate points to debate in this issue, and it's one where the Dems aren't being completely honest with the public -- if not with themselves. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: No Mike. Obama is not touting 'his' health plan -- and I think that's one of the problems this process has faced. He took the lesson too well from the HillaryCare plan and hasn't submitted a plan at all -- leaving all the work to the Congress and Senate. What he is doing is talking about what kind of a bill he'd be willing to sign into law when it comes to his desk, and, he's talking about the lies that are proliferating through the media about details that are not in any of the proposals in the House or Senate. What the President has talked about was eliminating waste from Medicare by looking at what procedures work best and advising Doctors and patients about the best outcomes and treatments -- as modeled by the Mayo clinic. John McCain just today -- on 'This Week' made a total train wreck out of the issue by denouncing that very thing -- and then a few paragraphs later saying we need to cut waste out of medicare. Now -- which one is it Mike? Do we need to cut government spending or not? The status quo is -- fight with your insurance company for whatever tests, treatments, or medications your doctor wants to perform/prescribe. Now -- who has the best motive to authorize a treatment (which, by the way is never done under Medicare -- doctors simply do what they want without pre-authorization) a CEO and board of directors who are interested in quarterly earnings, salaries, and bonuses -- or elected officials who will stand or fall by the vote of the people who are receiving health coverage? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Based on everything I've read LR this is how it's supposed to work although my understanding us that there will be 5 public health plans (or options) available, ranging from the base level minimum standard up to a super-inclusive plan. So far none of the plans have been formalised and they won't be until the proposed commission outlined in the bill is set up to decide what each will cover. If that's the case all, some or none of the available plans might include cover for abortions, we simply don't know at this point. The Dems are shuffling their feet on this issue when they don't really need to. Whether abortion, in-growing toenails or breast enlargement are covered in the public plans should be an argument debated under the auspices of the commission at a later date. In my opinion they should be saying that loud and clear to clear up the confusion. . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Under the Capps amendment Grinch, public plans that include abortion would be allowed -- but federal subsidies to cover them would be dis-allowed. The decision as to what coverage would go into what plan would be ultimately the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who works, of course, for the President. So, the legislation as it stands right now would put it in the President's hands -- who says there is no truth to the allegation that abortions will be covered by Federal tax dollars. Technically true -- but a tad too ambiguous and a little bit of accounting slight of hand going on if you ask me. There is enough dis-ingenuousness going on in this debate already coming from the right -- why not put the buck down and say we're simply not going to do it? The house narrowly defeated the Stupak amendment which would have kept abortion out of the public option -- which was a mistake in my opinion. This would have been a great way, and still would be, to bring along the blue dogs. The concern is that there are millions of women now who have abortion coverage through their employer supplied insurance that would lose it if they were enrolled in the public plan through either the choice of their employer -- or in the event they were unemployed. I think the easy way to do this is to merely leave abortion coverage in the realm of the private insurance plans -- that could be purchased as a supplement to whatever public option one is enrolled in -- of course with the public plans still allowing for coverage of abortion in cases of rape or incest as originally outlined in the Hyde amendment back in the 70's. As usual -- two good sources for separating fact from friction -- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/07/john-boehner/boehner-says-democrats-health-care-plan-would-lead/ http://factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/ |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Since this plan/non-plan, otherwise known as HR3200, the only one released so far and ready to go to the floor for a vote as soon as Congress reconvenes, it having passed all the necessary committees, has provisions in it for a Board to call the shots on coverage, payments, fee schedules, etc., and all amendments to address the concerns of the citizens regarding abortion and illegal alien coverage have been thrown out, I'd say it's a pretty good bet that those will be covered. If the government wants to do that, fine, as long as our tax dollars don't go to paying for it. And that's what they are saying right now, isn't it, that this plan will be deficit neutral? Anyone want to place a wager on that one? That's about as true a statement as the one they keep touting that if you like your insurance you can keep it, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. What about those of us who have already been told by our employers that we can't keep our current insurance, that they will pay the 8% and put us all in the public option or government co-ops? And the CBO said millions will find themselves in that position if this particular bill is passed. No Ron, there is another option. Pay for emergency care only for illegals just prior to their deportation. How about this for a plan: We have the government offer government insurance, optional, of course, in a free society, to those who need insurance and can't get it elsewhere, and leave the rest of us the hell alone. No, but that won't do, will it, because health coverage for the uninsured is not the issue with them. Controlling the entire system is their aim. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, Ron, I don;t have a link. I watched on This Week with George S. Do we stick with the status quo that over 70% of Americans say they are satisfied with? Good question. In a country where one child in a classroom objecting to having God in the Pledge of Allegiance can cause the school to stop using it, I suppose so. Yes, LR, we need to cut government spending. We also need to cut government takeovers. The issue is not whether or not we need health care reform. The issue is...is government takeover the solution? The government says nothing about reigning in the insurance companies, the pharmaseuticals or tort reform. They say nothing about the estimated 700 million dollars annually lost to fraud. They simply say, "Let us run it". There are many areas they can go after to streamline the system. Have you heard them say anything about tort reform, for example? Is that mentioned in the bill somewhere? Can any reasonable person look at the government's plan and not see it's designed to put private insurance out of business? Can any reasonable person look at it and not see that it will add more to the deficit? Obama's government wants to run the show....period. Look at the outrage by Democrats at the mere suggestion by Obama that the public option is not essential. Pelosi had a cow! They just want to run it, whether it is better or not for the American people. Obama doesn;t want to run it the same way he doesn;t want to run the auto companies....and then proceeds to run the auto companies. People deserve to know what the final bill will contain and when the Health Secretary can't even explain it because SHE doesn;t know what it will contain, there's a problem. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: This merely points to the obvious Denise -- that you don't have any choice right now. Your only choice is to quit and go somewhere else -- or somehow come up with the money to buy an individual plan. Back in 1993 I found myself in the unenviable position of trying to turn around a company that was facing newly-found competition due to the falling of the iron-curtain and certain technological advances that made the distance from there to here unnoticeable. I had to take the company down from around 100 employees to six -- to focus on a particular market segment that I could defend through pure talent and automation. The problem that I didn't expect was that health insurance -- even then -- would shoot me in the foot. I no longer had enough employees to buy group coverage -- which I knew would be the case -- but what I didn't know was how difficult it was going to be to obtain individual policies for my remaining people. Ultimately I wasn't able to do it -- not from a cost standpoint -- which was tremendous in and of itself -- but because when these key players were 'screened' for coverage it couldn't be bought at any price. One was too overweight. One had diabetes. One had cancer that was in remission -- you get the picture. While you'll find me agreeing Denise -- that you'll have about as much choice about what health coverage your employer has as you do now -- which is none -- I disagree that you won't be able to keep your doctor.... in fact -- it's going to be easier to choose a doctor. I remember when I went to work for a company with an HMO -- try keeping the doctor you want under one of those. quote: I'm completely in agreement Denise -- and that's what's being proposed -- the only difference you notice is that if it's left to your employer to provide the coverage -- you don't have an option now -- under a public option (let's just call it medicare for anybody who wants to buy into it) you'll have access to it. quote: I disagree. In fact -- I wish it was more the aim. A single payer system would be much more efficient than the compromise position the President and Max Baucus started from. But even at that -- single payer isn't National Health Care -- it's just the insurance company that would be paying private doctors and medical institutions for their services rendered. Mike -- show me where tort reform has done anything to reduce premiums anywhere -- let's start with the State that has the most radical Tort reform -- Texas -- get me the facts. Or Missouri -- Or Indiana. quote: Yes. Private insurers exist even in countries that have national systems. If they can provide a supplemental or superior coverage here -- they will be able to 'survive'. But 'survival' isn't the aim of these companies is it -- protecting their bloated profits they extort from us is. I haven't seen Fed Ex or UPS shutting their doors and grounding fleets -- have you? quote: Yes -- because this is being done two ways -- the reduction in unnecessary spending takes care of 500 billion Mike -- that leaves about 250 billion or so to be taken care of by eliminating the Bush tax cuts -- and of course the premiums that will be paid by the insured. Of course when the Republicans wanted to pass Medicare part D -- the prescription drug coverage -- they didn't care about adding a trillion dollars to the deficit -- or controlling the costs of the drugs -- they just did it and gave us the bill. You should feel good this time that the Dems are approaching the solution in a fiscally responsible manner. quote: When you contradict yourself that quickly Mike it just really leaves me with nowhere to go. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
show me where tort reform has done anything to reduce premiums anywhere You'll have to show me where tort reform has been initiated at all. Do you not think that exhorbant lawyer fees and multi-million dollar lawsuits fit into the cost of premiums? Really? You don't think the cost of mal-practice insurance figures into premiums? Then you must not feel that major stores do not fit the costs of shoplifting into their prices as an off-set. Tort reform certainly would lower premiums...if it were ever done. Ron, here's one. There are others.. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, announced yesterday that the end-of-life counseling provision would be removed from the proposed House health care bill. The provision provided for Medicare to pay for counseling on advance directives, such as living wills and durable powers of attorney, but in recent days Republican “deathers,” such as Sarah Palin, have misled the public with scare tactics, by making false claims that the counseling sessions amounted to “death panels” that would kill seniors. Sen. Grassley said the provision was dropped, because it “could be misinterpreted.” And he later added, “Maybe others can defend a bill like the Pelosi bill that leaves major issues open to interpretation, but I can’t.” http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/08/14/end-of-life-c ounseling-removed-from-bill-after-deathers-falsely-say-it-would-kill-granny/ |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I already gave you three states that have enacted Tort Reform Mike. You want more -- okay: http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_tort_reform_state_table.htm Of course these costs are considered -- and they represent somewhere between 1 and 2 percent of the costs of our healthcare system. The only problem Mike -- is that when these reforms have been put in place the insurance companies haven't reduced premiums at all -- in fact -- how much have they gone up in the last 10 years? Nearly 100 per-cent? It's just nothing to hang your hat on Mike -- and it's an issue you'll recall we discussed at length in the past. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
LR, I thought section 123 of the original bill proposed that the details of the health plans would be formulated by committee. Specifically the newly formed Health Benefits Advisory Committee who would forward their recommendations to the Seretary of Health and Human Services.. Has that been changed to exclude the committee stage? If so that's definitely a worrying move. One of the things that impressed me was that the public plans would be formulated by a wide range of interested parties. Including representatives of patients, doctors and health care experts. . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
That's the thing Grinch -- a committee that forwards recommendations isn't setting the policy -- the Secretary is....who works for the President. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “One section titled, "What Makes Your Life Worth Living?," offers a checklist of scenarios -- the person filling out the form is asked to rate whether life would be worth living under each of them. "I am a severe financial burden on my family," says one of them. "My situation causes severe emotional burden for my family," says another. “ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/23/sen-specter-calls-hearings-end-l ife-care-guide-veterans/ It could be in the near future just a simple cut and paste from one government brochure to another . . . . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I have a choice right now, LR. I can choose from two different plans or choose to have nothing. The government plan will not allow non- participation. There will be serve penalties for those who can't prove coverage in a 'qualified plan' (definition yet to be determined) at the end of the year when they do their taxes. But they aren't sure yet what the penalty will be. That will be up to Sebelius. Technically we can choose not to participate, but only in the sense that we can choose not to pay our taxes. Abut the only thing the government is very good at is coercion. This is another reason that people don't trust the government with life and death decisions: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358590107981718.html |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I see you beat me to the punch, John! |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Thank you for confirming that your original post was a misleading scare tactic and a false claim Mike. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Have you read the "Your Life, Your Choices," information booklet Huan? http://www.rihlp.org/pubs/Your_life_your_choices.pdf Page 21 has the relevant section "What makes your life worth living?" . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Oh no, apparently more dumb people including another senator . . . . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I agree Huan - what the heck are they thinking - obviously, unlike us, they haven't actually read it. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So then Denise -- five choices wouldn't be better than two? Of course you have the option to choose none right now -- but what has coerced you to choose one? Did your employer let you choose which company(s) would be your provider? The aforementioned company I worked for with the HMO -- they gave me the choice too -- HMO or Major Medical -- guess what the difference between the costs were -- not much of a choice -- if there's one thing the free market is good at -- it's coercion. It's my understanding that the 'penalty' for not having insurance is a 'fine' or 'tax' that would be equivalent to your premiums -- which would be used to enroll you in a health care plan. I've been half-waiting for the Towey thing to come up -- what Fox and WSJ (same thing) fail to tell you is that Towey is trying to sell his own end of life book to the VA and has been trying to do so for a long time -- http://www.agingwithdignity.org/about.php Let's take a look at 'Your life your choices' quote: Feeling suicidal? No? Let's contrast it with the living will Towey wants to sell to the government: http://www.agingwithdignity.org/catalog/nonprintpdf/Five_Wishes_Final.pdf Sorry -- you just have to go to the link -- Towey is so proprietary about his document we can't cut and paste from it... 'Your Life Your Choices' is not currently in use by the VA and is still being revised with a release date due in 2010. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON – An independent senator counted on by Democrats in the health care debate showed signs of wavering Sunday when he urged President Barack Obama to postpone many of his initiatives because of the economic downturn. "I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy's out of recession," said Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. "There's no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is cost health delivery reform and insurance market reforms." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090824/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul_14 Thank you, Joe. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I got that LR and you're right in that ultimately they're only recommendations but I saw it as at least an attempt to reassure people that the contents would be the product of a transparent process. I can understand why there has to be a final sign off but I saw it as a decision of veto for fiscal or constitutional reasons. Perhaps that was a little naïve, I can see how it could be abused but I go back to the effort they've put in to make the decision inclusive - if the intent was to leave the choice solely to a government suit why go to the trouble of building such a powerful group to oppose or contradict the choices. Can you imagine the headlines if the Secretary tried to slip something in without the committees approval or agreement? I guess you can only put so many checks and balances in place - or maybe the answer is to really confirm the intent and actually limit the secretary's powers to one of veto on fiscal or constitutional grounds. BTW Nice catch on the Towey pdf - I can take that off my "must research" list. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I don't know Grinch. Committees without power really only serve the purpose of keeping up appearances. I wouldn't want the committee's recommendation to be binding but I wouldn't want the Secretary to be able to implement without the committees recommend. I'm not real sure how the committee members are getting selected either. If that's the best they can do I'd be more inclined to be in favor of the co-op option. I don't think it's the bogey man the left are making it out to be. I lived in Tennessee under TVA which utilized electric co-operatives to deliver my electricity and it worked like any public utility should. I really see the health care payment system as a public utility in much the same light. Having local control and Federal-backed funding wouldn't be such a bad plan. Further -- I don't think it would be a backtrack for the Obama-Biden ticket -- all they campaigned on was a 'Public-Exchange'. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: In theory, that's what we're already doing, Denise. Except, of course, it isn't working. When was the last time you called INS to have someone deported? Short of racial stereotyping, illegals immigrants tend to look a lot like everyone else. And, twenty years in Southern California, I never had one person come up to me and tell me they were illegal. You? quote: Get a new employer? Seriously, Denise, you need to ask yourself WHY your employer doesn't want to continue paying for private coverage. And whether they'll continue to pay for it when the premiums continue to rise at several times the rate of inflation. The status quo is NOT an option, Denise. Not any more. quote: See my response to Denise, Mike. The status quo is not an option, no matter how many people are satisfied with it. So long as medical costs and coverage continue to climb, we're all on a downward spiral. Let those 70 percent pay their OWN costs or even their own premiums for a while and then ask them again how satisfied they are. quote: Reign in how, Mike? Do you want government setting drug prices instead of the market? Can you think of any industry where that has worked real well? I can't. Or do you want to stop holding doctors and hospitals responsible for their services? What kinds of doctors do you think we'll get if they know you can't sue them? quote: There, see, the government IS talking about reigning in the insurance companies. Seriously, some of the things being discussed will indeed force private insurance to adjust and become more competitive. That's a good thing. Other things being discussed will go a long way towards making tort reform unnecessary. Those million dollar judgments add relatively little to your insurance premium. All the unnecessary tests doctors order to avoid those judgments is another matter entirely. Some of the things being discussed (like the advance care planning you're happy to have taken off the table) will help eliminate the need for those unnecessary tests and procedures. quote: Com'on, Mike. When asked if you still believe the government is going to force old folk to attend suicide clinics you said, no, because that part of the bill was removed. But the part you now point at as being removed clearly said no such thing. Aren't you just going in circles? Can't you just admit that you listened to the wrong people and got bad information? I think it's a real shame that intentional obfuscation got advance planning yanked from consideration. Counseling clearly doesn't force (or necessarily even encourage) anyone to end their life prematurely. It does help apprise them of their choices and I strongly suspect it would eliminate a TON of expense keeping people alive past any real hope of a meaningful (by any definition) life. Without advance directives, in today's legal climate, no doctor or hospital dares do anything that might land them in court. quote: The only choices you have, Denise, are the ones your employer has decided to give you. That won't change. What you're really worried about is that your employer will give you different choices than those you currently have. That's going to happen no matter what the government does. quote: I think we've already put it off, Mike. Through a couple recessions? "Putting a lot of that off" didn't work for me when I was married and facing a massive honey-do list. I don't think it will work now, either. Seriously, I think it's high time America decided to suck it up and do what needs to be done, with a little less regard to the immediate costs. We're tougher than that. I hope. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, Ron, there is certainly little care for immediate costs. I'll grant you that. Of course, when the country is in as much debt as it now is, what's a few more billion?? Apparently you think sucking it up and doing what's necessary means letting the government take it over. I don't. Time will tell which opinion is the most accurate. Do you see passage of Obama's plan as a help or hindurance to the unemployment situation? Just saw on the local news that cost of living increases for Social Security receiptients have been suspended for the next two years. Oh, well, when you;re that old you don't need as much anyway. I'm sure Congress will also forego the cost of living increases they give themselves, too, right? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Towey's pamphlet is a standard Living Will leaving something that is a private decision, private. The VA book, created by the former Hemlock Society, includes a detailed list of scenarios one might find themselves in and asking them to select how they feel about each one, even asking them to explain if they don't wish to fill it out. It seems to be designed to 'lead' the patient to consider the 'life is not worth living' option for any and all problems imaginable. It's too leading and intrusive in my opinion, and is good example why it isn't a good idea to let government get involved in these things. Why not just offer a simple living will? Currently we are offered an HMO and a PPO, and a third PPO is offered for union members, with no financial penalty for declining. The government can offer a million health care choices. None of them are really a choice if a tax penalty is involved. As to the amount, the only thing I read was that the amount has not yet been determined but would have to be significant enough to make choosing a plan the better route to take. Mike didn't get bad information, Ron, nor is he going around in circles. It is the politicians that are doing that. The end of life counseling that was taken out that Mike referred to was in one of the Senate bills. It still exists in the House version, and could very well end up in a finalized version. I know that reforms need to be made, but as I said before this attempted government takeover of the healthcare industry is not the answer. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
The thing about propaganda Denise -- is that it's a two-way street. One has to desire the message of the propaganda in order for it to be effective. There isn't anyone who would objectively read "Your Life Your Choices" an conclude that it 'steers' anyone in any direction other than preparing a living will that addresses the major concerns involved in the process. It uses real life scenarios to help clarify the meaning of a person's wishes in end of life decisions and is particularly sensitive to religious and spiritual considerations. How would the VA handing a vet 'Five Wishes' be any more or less 'private' than handing them 'Your Life Your Choices'? If a person reads 'Your Life Your Choices' and winds up feeling that life is not worth living -- then that says something about them -- not about the 'pamphlet'. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I see it as a psychological inducement to lead someone who may be in a vulnerable situation to begin with to view themselves as a burden on their families or on society and that probably the best for all concerned is to end it all. I forgot my main point that I wanted to make on losing my health insuracne at work and being forced into a government plan, as milions will be...how can Obama and others still claim that if we like what we have we can keep it, when it is patently false? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
You won't be 'forced' into a government plan Denise -- anymore than you're 'forced' into the plan you have now. If you want to opt-out of the plan your employer offers you and buy your own private plan then you'll be free to do that -- although -- it will obviously not be free. Everyone who is in the position of 'choosing' health plans -- whether individuals or H.R. departments -- will still be choosing what coverage they seek. Please explain to me the difference between the two end of life preparation pamphlets as you see them and how YLYC 'induces' someone to end their life. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Reb, you will be forced into a plan if that is the plan your employer chooses and what employer will not choose a government plan that saves him thousands a month to carry? Yes, if you are solid financially, you can not accept the employer's choice and find insurance on your own but that means you pay 100% of the cost, instead of only a portion. In a plan supposedly designed to help the average citizen, what kind of choice is that? Then there's that little clause that states that, within a few years, all insurance companies will have to be approved by the government to continue coverage? Do you think many, if any, will survive that? And what about the part that says you can continue your private coverage but, should you drop it, you cannot continue with another company because insurance companies will be allowed to service existing customers but not write new business? How many insurance companies will survive that? All of these points, with references, have been brought up in previous threads here. Anyone who looks at these points and still believes that private insurance will continue is fooling themselves. If you want to just say good riddance to those evil insurance companies, fine, but this pretense that private insurance will continue is not valid. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama still may push through an overhaul of the American health care system, but political indicators point to a needed overhaul of his own tactics for selling reform. Barely eight months in office, Obama is trapped between the jaws of a tightening vise. On one side, Republicans refuse to countenance further government involvement in health care; on the other, liberal Democrats insist Obama keep his campaign pledge to make sure the estimated 50 million Americans who are without coverage can afford health insurance. "The people don't have sufficient information, and I'm surprised the administration and others backing reform haven't done much more to educate the public," said Robin Lauermann, professor of politics at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090824/ap_on_an/us_obama_health_care_analysis_4 That's the point I was trying to make, Ron, with my earlier posts. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
As the White House prepares to release worse-than-expected deficit projections this week, even Democrats in Congress said that whatever health care bill emerges this fall will have to cost less than the $1 trillion price tag contemplated earlier this year. "It's going to have to be significantly less than what we've heard talked about," Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., one of six senators from both parties seeking a bipartisan health care bill, said on CBS' Face the Nation. "We've got to have the deficit reduced as a result of this effort. That is absolutely imperative." Now, the health care debate is being framed by new figures expected Tuesday that will show deficits totaling $9 trillion over the next 10 years, up from the $7 trillion predicted in May, the Associated Press reported, citing White House officials. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the numbers have not been officially announced. McCain told ABC's This Week that the high deficit "gives people pause about another trillion dollars that would have to be spent to reform health care." http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-08-23-healthcare_N.htm?csp=34 So the 7 trillion predicted by the government in May has become 9 trillion, remindful of the 8.5% projected unemployment that went over 10%. At least they are consistent in their inabilities to be accurate. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Mike, why do you suppose an employer is currently carrying insurance? Couldn't they save thousands a month by NOT carrying insurance? quote: Ah, I see now why you didn't understand my earlier comments, Mike, about misinformation and lies being shot down again and again as so much nonsense. You must be skipping some of the posts? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sure, they could save money by not carrying insurance, Ron. They could also save money by paying all employees minimum wage. Health benefits and other perks are a way to attract and keep good employees. Should they decide to revert to governmental coverage, well, they are still offering a better perk than the employee paying all himself so they can still do it and make it a perk. As far as the second half of your reply, ok you have me curious. I'll go back and check all entries. Still waiting for you to answer my question about unemployment issues.... All insurance companies will have to be approved by the government to continue coverage Is that also misinformation or should we just accept on faith that the government, competing against these companies, will be honest and fair? (swampland still available) |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I don't either LR; in fact when I originally read the bill my initial thought was that the real intention was that the "government plan" would be contracted out to a private company. Or that it was a sacrificial lamb put in there to attract enough negative reaction that when it was finally removed the bill would sail through and all sides could claim some sort of a victory. There's still time yet. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And if they are competing with other employers who don't revert to governmental coverage, Mike? I can only speak from my own personal experience as an employer for several decades. Generally, there were two reasons for picking one insurance plan over another. First, I had to compete with other companies. If my benefits were sub par, I simply couldn't attract the best employees. Second, whatever group plan I selected for my employees was the same group plan I had to use. I couldn't get one for them and a different, better one for myself. It didn't work that way, at least not ten or fifteen years ago. It's easy to play the what-if game. What if all employers revert to public coverage? What if all employers decide insurance premiums have just plain gone to high and can't be continued at all? What if new stem cell research increases the average life span to 150 years? There are a thousand things that could go wrong. There are just as many that could go right. Basic human nature (which is at the core of employer supplied medical coverage) isn't going to change all that much. The employers who currently shaft their employees at every turn will still do so, and the employers who take care of the employees will also still do so. And in both cases, it will be for much the same reasons. quote: You mean: Do you see passage of Obama's plan as a help or hindrance to the unemployment situation?[/quote] I don't think the health care plan is intended to address unemployment, but I suspect the short term effect will probably be negative. If nothing else, the insurance companies will have to get rid of some dead weight when the windfall profits dry up. In the long term, however, the real goal of the plan is to lower health care costs and THAT will have a very positive effect on all facets of the economy. If, uh, we don't go broke first? quote: First, Mike, the government isn't competing with insurance companies. That would imply a goal centered on profits. Yea, right, the government make a profit? Maybe when pigs learn to fly. Second, all insurance companies already have to be approved by the government. Remember, I wrote software for that industry for over ten years? The regulations are Brobdingnagian. The only real difference is that regulation would be centralized at the Federal level instead of fragmented at the state level. With any luck at all, Mike, the Feds might even get it right. I can assure you, most of the states haven't. Here's the real issue, Mike. The insurance companies NEED to be regulated. Desperately so. Most of them make used car salesmen look like naïve saints. They are raping this country and no one has cared because the costs are being passed around a circle like musical chairs. Few consumers pay a premium. Most companies write off the premiums they pay as tax deductions and then pass on the remaining costs as higher product prices. In the end, everyone ends up paying and yet no one ever feels the knife being pushed deeper and deeper into our collective backs. In my opinion, any legislation the insurance industry doesn't like is probably good for the country. I know that's a generalization, but I think it's also a pretty good rule of thumb. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I don't think the health care plan is intended to address unemployment, but I suspect the short term effect will probably be negative. Exactly, Ron, and we have both agreed that unemployment is of paramount importance. Why now for something that will make it worse? If nothing else, the insurance companies will have to get rid of some dead weight when the windfall profits dry up. If nothing else, Ron? You know darned well there is something else, something like higher costs and higher taxes to businesses which will have a negative effect on employment and hiring. Right now the deficit has had to be revised by 2 trillion due to the collapse of a tax base due to unemployment due to the failure of Obama's stimulus plan. Is this the time to add to that unemployment? . With any luck at all, Mike, the Feds might even get it right. Luck, Ron? Divine intervention would have to be the more likely cause. Hopefully, you don't base the fact that they "might" get it right based on their track record....or maybe you do. Odds favor the fact that they must get at least ONE thing right before the world explodes into a feiry ball....but I wouldn't bet on it. Will you? The insurance companies NEED to be regulated Here you have my complete agreement. They DO need to be regulated. The pharmaseutical companies need to be regulated. Lawyer fees need to be regulated. The question is - do we need a government takeover of health care to regulate them? Can't the government regulate them in any other way? Is the government so weak they can't even handle insurance companies? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Sorry guys, I'm too wiped out to participate -- but I have read and appreciate all of your replies.  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...and I appreciate your input, reb...even when I don't agree. An e-mail that I got makes it pretty clear... The Government wants to pass a health care reform plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, to be passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, but exempts themselves from it, signed by a President that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a Treasury Secretary who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a Country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong????? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I agreed to no such thing, Mike. Unemployment is important, not paramount. It does not override all other concerns. quote: If there's anything I learned from Ayn Rand, Mike, it's that privileging short term benefits over long term benefits is rarely wise. You're looking at only the short term effects, and even those are questionable. Over the long haul, failure to get medical costs under control will do one hell of a lot more to employment and hiring than anything Obama or a Democratic legislature can even imagine. I don't know if they've got it right, but I do know we can't be afraid to let Joe the Plumber sit on the unemployment line a little longer if that's what it takes to solve a problem that has been building since before you and I were born. Sure, I wish the problem had been addressed before the economy went south. It wasn't. And the excuses for doing nothing then were different and still the same. If we delay now, what will be the next excuse? The opportunity was there, Mike. For a long time. All we ever got, though, were excuses. Now it's someone else's turn to try. quote: You haven't convinced me there IS a government takeover, Mike. Indeed, everything I've seen so far sounds more like the Feds are doing too little rather than too much. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Unemployment is important, not paramount. It does not override all other concerns. I think about 15% Michiganders may disagree with you, Ron, plus a few million more in the national unemployment lines. Employment puts food on the table. It pays bills. It produces sales. It provides a tax base. It pours money into a government sorely in need of money. To say it is not of paramount importance is like saying your money should be spent on haircuts and getting a pedicure instead of food. Employment is food. Regardless of what else you do to the body to make it better, without food it will die. but I do know we can't be afraid to let Joe the Plumber sit on the unemployment line a little longer if that's what it takes to solve a problem that has been building since before you and I were born. Sell that one to Joe the Plumber or Harry SixPack. Easy for us to say that, isn't it, Ron? I doubt you're concerned where your next meal is coming from and neither am I. That comment would come from a Taggert - and not Dagny....or perhaps Marie Antoinette. What is this problem that has to be solved so immediately that employment is secondary? Oh, yes, the health care issue that over 70% of the people are satisfied with. It is paramount because Obama says that it is paramount, the same way he said the bailouts were paramount, the stimulus bill was paramount, the cap and trade was paramount...anything that will give the government more power seems to be paramount, even more important that the ability to buy food and take care of one's family. Go back to Atlas Shrugged, Ron, and re-read what she says about sacrifice and the people who preach it. As she states, when someone speaks of sacrifice, they are speaking of YOUR sacrifice, not theirs. Obama won't miss a meal or cut back on household expenses anytime soon. Neither will any member of Congress...yet they are the ones telling the American people how sacrifices must be made, belts must be tightened, and unemployment lines must be accepted a little longer for the "common good". Please tell me you are not one of them. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I think Lieberman has touched off a largely academic debate since the plan won't be going into effect largely until 2012-13? You have to remember -- Obama is still trying to find a few good Men (and Women) so to speak -- in Washington to fill key vacancies -- still 43% go unfilled due to the extremely high bar he set for vetting these people. It's going to take time to implement once it is signed into law -- that's another reason to make progress quickly. Some jobs will be lost -- but that's just creative destruction -- right Mike? You were willing to throw a whole bunch of auto workers under the bus -- still seem to be -- in the name of creative destruction. Wherefore this newfound concern for Joe? Actually though -- I think the effect is going to be quite opposite once Healthcare Reform goes into effect -- because you'll see a wave of entrepreneurship like we've never seen since the wild wild west. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Sacrifice is when you give up one thing to get something else, Mike. This isn't sacrifice. This is paying the piper. If you really think 70 percent of America is satisfied with their health care, Mike, let's let them directly pay for it for a while (instead of indirectly paying for it). I'm guessing that 70 percent mostly includes the ones who still think they're getting something for nothing? The ones who haven't realized they are nonetheless at the mercy of their employers and insurance adjusters? The ones who have been running up the tab that Joe the Plumber and Harry SixPack will now have to pay? Supply and demand is broken in the health care industry, Mike. The problem has grown large and will continue to grow larger. If we don't fix it soon, it may not be fixable. I think it's time and past time we pay the piper so we can build a stronger economy for everyone. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You pick a strange time to pay the piper, Ron. What do you intend to pay him with? Yes, no doubt the 70% percent are deluded fools who have no idea what they are saying. There seems to be a lot of that these days. Build a stronger economy? Is that what we're doing? Do you see any evidence of that anywhere with regards to Obama's actions? The stimulus bill didn't stimulate. The "instant" jobs promised somehow never made their presence. The biggest beneficiaries of the cash for clunkers program were foreign auto companies. The deficit has more than quadrupled. The unemployment rate has gone up over 25% of what it was. Is this the stronger economy you refer to? It's becoming another cartoon strip... "Hello, Joe the Plumber. Sorry we don't have a job for you but you can rest easy in knowing that Brad Figley, a 30 year old engineer making 60,000 a year who doesn't pay for health care because he is young, healthy and feels he doesn't need it, NOW has health care, thanks to you! Your sacrifice has helped him and many like him have total health care benefits, just like you have! The next time your bank hassles you over mortgage payments, or your son complains there is no cash available to get him a baseball glove, remind them that you are helping fellow Americans in their time of need get health care...and say it with pride! Right.... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
still 43% go unfilled due to the extremely high bar he set for vetting these people. Thank you, Reb, for possibly the most hilarious comment ever to grace the Alley. What Leiberman has done is to get people to think. He is very highly regarded among all parties, and especially independents. Obama does not want to lose the independents - and by all polls, he is. A wave on entreprenurialship? Oh, you mean a wave of people scrambling for their lives? Could be...is that the way you want to claim the job loss will be offset? With the current unemployment at a decade long high right now, wouldn't you expect to see a wave now....or even a ripple? That's a pretty weak piece of reasoning... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, I keep hearing that 70% figure, to save me a bit of work is that 70% of the people who have private health plans who are happy? Or 70% of the number of insured whether by public or private cover? Or is it 70% of all Americans? It's a serious question btw, no tricks or traps, I'm honestly curious. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
My name's Mike, not Google. hmmm..where have I seen something like that before? ..not interested in a discussion with you, sir. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Btw, Ron, your comment.. Sacrifice is when you give up one thing to get something else, Mike. ....indicates you did not get a lot out of Rand's thoughts. When you give up something to get something else, that's not a sacrifice. That's an exchange. You value what you are to receive more than what you are giving up. Sacrifice is when you give up something and get nothing in return. THAT is Ayn Rand's definition of sacrifice. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
No problem Mike. I'll check it out. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I found some stats Mike: A random national sample of 1,201 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, PA. quote: Satisfied = 44% Dissatisfied = 54% No opinion = 2% quote: Satisfied = 18% Dissatisfied = 80% No opinion = 2% quote: a critical problem = 52% a serious problem but not critical = 36% a problem but not serious = 7% not much of a problem at all = 4% . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON – In a chilling forecast, the White House is predicting a 10-year federal deficit of $9 trillion — more than the sum of all previous deficits since America's founding. And it says by the next decade's end the national debt will equal three-quarters of the entire U.S. economy. But before President Barack Obama can do much about it, he'll have to weather recession aftershocks including unemployment that his advisers said Tuesday is still heading for 10 percent. "This recession was simply worse than the information that we and other forecasters had back in last fall and early this winter," said Obama economic adviser Christina Romer. The deficit numbers also could complicate Obama's drive to persuade Congress to enact a major overhaul of the health care system — one that could cost $1 trillion or more over 10 years. Obama has said he doesn't want the measure to add to the deficit, but lawmakers have been unable to agree on revenues that would cover the cost. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090825/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_economy_22 Not their fault...they just didn't know! (once again). The piper may have to wait..... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage. There's long been a schism in concern about health care costs: Most Americans are dissatisfied with the costs of the system overall, and apprehensive about their future expenses — but satisfied with their own current costs. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I'm going to ignore the partisan sniping and keep my limited focus limited to what's worth talking about! quote: The reasoning is the same that I've always used Mike: quote: Not only will people who couldn't start new ventures before be able to start them -- but people who are working for companies that are providing critical coverage will be available to go to work in those start-ups. If you know of a better way for job creation than new ideas and new business then I'm all ears. Or, I guess... eyes as it were. We know already Mike -- that you don't like the government providing jobs -- I thought you'd be in favor of entrepreneurship! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
For every guy in that corner cubicle making 60k with a great idea for a new business, there are thousands wishing they had that cubicle 60k job. What percentage of the working public does cubicle guy represent? Enough to offset the record-high unemployment level? Somehow I doubt it. So then the cubicle guy is being held back because he doesn't have free health insurance and has to stay with a job that provides it, thus stifling his entrepreneural spirit. He's probably held back because he has to make car payments, too, and maybe even house payments. Let's have the government provide everyone with cars and houses, too....easy solution. Then everyone will be able to go out there and form their own companies and live their dreams. Surely there must be somewhere in the constitution which entitles people to these freebies, no? LR, history is filled with entrepreneurs who went out there and took the chance...no guarantees, no safety nets, no nothing but courage and confidence in their abilities. Tell cubicle guy to grow some cojones and stop using excuses to drag his feet. A good entrepreneur will find a way to succeed. The bad ones should have stayed in the cubicles and suffered with their 60k and company-provided health care. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
LR, the thing that I find most abhorant about the VA YLYC book is that it lays upon people, at their most vulnerable, the proposition to consider if they might be a burden, emotionally or financially to their families and to society under a variety of different scenarios laid out in the book from depression, being confined to a wheelchair, living in a nursing home, not being able to 'contribute' to family or society, etc. And that if they wish to discuss their 'options', including 'I feel life isn't worth living', they are directed to contact the association formerly known as The Hemlock Society. By the way, haven't these folks, most especially, contributed more than their fair share to society? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I said nothing about 'free' health care Mike -- I said quote: Let's assume that he could afford to BUY it -- it isn't available at any price. So you think he just needs to have the balls to hang his wife's life out in the wind? For the sake of argument I'm just going to assume you made a huge mistake in your interpretation of what I said. How many of them do I think there are out there? Walk through the cubicles and ask them Mike. Talk to every guy you see on the street and ask him if he has an idea for a business he would like to start. Talk to the cashier at Wal Mart who took a job there just so she could get some health coverage because while she was just trying to do her own thing when she or somebody else in her family got sick. Entrepreneurship is exactly where NEW jobs come from Mike -- its the fastest way to ignite job growth and always has been -- and I'm not talking about the job of entrepreneur -- I'm talking about the jobs he or she creates. Except that with the ability to buy into a very large group plan -- the public option in whatever form it may take -- he or she will be able to attract people into their small company who feel trapped in jobs right now simply because of health coverage. It's going to put the little guy on an even keel with GE and Exxon Mike in their ability to attract top talent. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Why not ask those very folks for their opinion then Denise: quote: quote: quote: [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (08-26-2009 07:20 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Talk to every guy you see on the street and ask him if he has an idea for a business he would like to start. Talk to the cashier at Wal Mart who took a job there just so she could get some health coverage because while she was just trying to do her own thing when she or somebody else in her family got sick. I have little doubt almost EVERY person has dreams of what they could be, or could have been. It is human to be a dreamer. It is a different thing to be a doer. I dreamed of being a famous writer. Was I willing to put in the time and effort to be one? Nope...just wanted to be one. We have wannabe movie stars, sports heroes, great inventors, presidents all walking around, serving burgers, cashiering at Wal-Mart or washing cars. Ask those same people in the street if they would leave their jobs if they had free health care to start their own businesses and see what you get. Yes, I mis-interpreted the pre-existing part. Ok, then, so your position is that there are enough people out there with pre-existing conditions that have them locked into a job that is preventing them from creating their own businesses to justify ObamaCare? How many are you talking? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Millions? Yes, I know the answer is who can say but it's a big stretch to believe there are more than an extremely small percentage of the populace. Sure, they would be helped. So would the mythical Fanny Marks in Minnesota that Obama claims he is doing it for. So are the boys eating at the closed diner Biden claims it is for. We are talking about tens of millions who would be affected, not the small handful their, and your, examples point out. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: More reading: http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/careers/2009/08/05/will-health-reform-free-workers-from-job-lock.html |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You want to know the biggest reason people are against Obama's health care plan? They have lost faith in Obama. They have no faith in Congress. Obama can promise whatever he wants. People don't believe him - republicans, democrats, independents - and with good reason. His campaign promises were talk to get elected, nothing more. The "No more politics as usual" was gibberish. The "transparency in government" was a sham. His "oil exploration in the US" was a joke. His "no pork in bills I pass" was an SNL skit. The stimulus package, that Ron claims is working, is laughable. Take a closer look...... WASHINGTON – A sleepy Montana checkpoint along the Canadian border that sees about three travelers a day will get $15 million under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan. A government priority list ranked the project as marginal, but two powerful Democratic senators persuaded the administration to make it happen. Despite Obama's promises that the stimulus plan would be transparent and free of politics, the government is handing out $720 million for border upgrades under a process that is both secretive and susceptible to political influence. This allowed low-priority projects such as the checkpoint in Whitetail, Mont., to skip ahead of more pressing concerns, according to documents revealed to The Associated Press. A border station in Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's home state of Arizona is getting $199 million, five times more than any other border station. The busy Nogales checkpoint has required repairs for years but was not rated among the neediest projects on the master list reviewed by the AP. A checkpoint in Laredo, Texas, which serves more than 55,000 travelers and 4,200 trucks a day, is rated among the government's highest priorities but was passed over for stimulus money. • The Westhope, N.D., checkpoint, which serves about 73 people a day and is among the lowest-priority projects, is set to get nearly $15 million for renovations. It's hardly a recent phenomenon for politicians to use their influence to steer money to their home states. Yet Obama said the stimulus would be different. He banned "earmarks," which lawmakers routinely slip into bills to pay for pet projects, and he told agencies to "develop transparent, merit-based selection criteria" for spending. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090826/ap_on_go_co/us_stimulus_border_crossings_2 Yes, I have no doubt that our Obama supporters here can somehow justify giving a checkpoint that sees three travelers a day 15 million while a checkpoint that sees 55,000 a day receives nothing but please don't embarass yourselves by trying to do so. It's all politics...all the same "Washington as usual" that Obama swore would not exist in his "government of change". People are seeing these things. Even those who believed in Obama or were at least willing to give him the benefit of the doubt are now having second thoughts, yes, even democrats and especially independents. The poor on the unemployment lines buying liquor with their food stamps could care less....Obama is their man. What do they care that an Arizona border crossing gets 15 million to handle it's three people a day? But others do. They see a stimulus package, which Obama claimed to be vital to the existence of the country, being doled out as political favor. They see the unemployment soaring well above what Obama claimed it would reach. They see the deficit rise trillions above what Obama predicted it would reach. They do not see anything he has done which would promote employment. And now here he comes with promises of a health care plan, which ALSO is vital to save the country, the same way the stimulus and cap-and-trade bills are supposed to do. Hey, it could be a good thing but the fact is that the people don't BELIEVE him any more. His actions up to date have blown that. They see the fact that he tried to push it through Congress at lightning speed before they went on recess and before the public had a chance to question it and it looks suspicious. They see him trying to promote a plan that doesn't even exist on paper, telling the populace to take his word for it that it will be exactly what he says it will be, and they can't believe that to be true anymore, based on his track record. He sends out congressmen to town hall meetings to attempt to answer questions concerning a bill that doesn't exist and the people don't buy it because the trust is gone. Who knows? It could be a great plan if executed in the exact way Obama claims it will be but he is asking them to believe him that is will be that way but they want to see it in writing, based on something more tangible than his word. They don't trust him anymore....and why should they? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Countless workers in the United States are trapped in jobs they would like to leave because they cannot get health insurance elsewhere, calcifying innovation and mobility in the world's largest economy. All this article is saying, reb, is that people would change jobs if given the chance, with the loss of health insurance not being a factor. What does that have to do with lowering unemployment? Instead of working for company A they are working for company B. There's no change in the figures. Yes, they give 3 small examples of people who would strike out on their own but the only point the article is making is that people are not able to CHANGE jobs..a non-issue with regards to changing unemployment figures. The ones who would actually start their own companies and hire people to work in them would be the only figure that would make a difference...and it's certainly not the 20-50% they are talking about. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – With the help of a $250,000 reward, the founder of the Papa John's pizza chain has finally reunited with the muscle car he sold years ago to help keep his family's business afloat. John Schnatter sold the gold-and-black 1971 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 for $2,800 in 1983. The money helped save his father's tavern in Jeffersonville, Ind., and he used the rest to start what would become a worldwide pizza business. It's a good thing concern about health coverage didn't keep him from becoming a success, don't you think? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: You need 50 plus pages to say just that? Gotta love those 'experts'. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Countless workers in the United States are trapped in jobs they would like to leave because they cannot get health insurance elsewhere, " How many would "work" at all . . . Welcome to the real world. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
As a note of correction, the YLYC book was reinstituted in July. A spokesperson for the VA said it wasn't due for release until sometime in 2010, but Chris Wallace did a 'fact check' on that and found that it indeed has already been released. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
