quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
this is funny:

Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).

what is a non-resident alien?
see IRS form 851:

Since resident and nonresident aliens are taxed differently, it is important for you to determine your status. You are considered a nonresident alien for any period that you are neither a United States citizen nor a United States resident alien.

You are considered a resident alien if you met one of two tests for the calendar year.

The first test is the "green card test." If at any time during the calendar year you were a lawful permanent resident of the United States according to the immigration laws, and this status has not been rescinded or administratively or judicially determined to have been abandoned, you are considered to have met the green card test.

If you are a resident alien, you must follow the same tax laws as U.S. citizens. You are taxed on income from all sources, both within and outside the United States. You will file Form 1040EZ (PDF), Form 1040A (PDF), or Form 1040 (PDF) depending on your tax situation. The return is due by April 15, and should be filed with the service center for your area. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the due date is delayed until the next business day.

it goes on and on, but basically it means you do business here, and pay SOME taxes but don't really live here as a legal definition.

in other words? you are legally a not a citizen and you don't live here

---

quote:

---

At least somebody has read part of it even if congress hasn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Yes, Glass. Just like the Patriot act...and the TARP...and the Stimulus...

I'm not saying it's just one side. But to be THAT blatant about it smacks of some pretty healthy hubris.

---

i remember when Hillary didn't read the security breifings before she voted to give Bush war powers in Iraq.


here's the "thing"

memebrs of Congress are similar to any CEO of any corp.

they assign tasks to their employees.

now, i cannot speak directly for any particual meber of congress, but if it were me in there?

i'd have the task divided up into reasonable amounts of data and sifted by my TRUSTED staff and then get breifed by them all at one conference so they can compare notes and hear my questions as i ask them.


as i recall the election cycle in '08? one of the main themes until the TARP program was the congress did nothing


When Democrats won control of Congress in 2006, Republicans were eager to tar them as "do nothing," an echo of Democrat Harry Truman's successful 1948 presidential campaign during which he railed against the "Do Nothing Congress" led by Republicans.

"The Democrats in charge of this Congress have been heavy on fluff and light on substance," says Republican leader Rep. John Boehner of Ohio. "Resolutions are fine but why aren't we also passing legislation to lower gas prices? What about health-care reform and runaway entitlement spending?"


BTW? that's from the WSJ not exactly a "Liberal Rag"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910897089651793.html


of course as soon as they do something? it's too fast.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
in case you aren't sure if this was a major them? i can pull over 100 articles to backitup:

Put Up or Shut Down?
“Do-Nothing Congress” has little time left for appropriations.

By David Freddoso

September 4, 2007 6:30 AM


The Democratic 110th Congress has passed 80 bills that President Bush has signed into law. These include 35 bills naming or renaming federal facilities (mostly post offices); ten bills extending current laws and levels of spending on such items as Indian housing and a commission on diplomacy, and one bill allowing construction of a 540-foot stretch of road in eastern Missouri. Just before the August recess, Congress also unanimously passed a bill to rebuild the collapsed bridge in Minnesota.

that's the National Review

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTRhZWE0NTg2OWYyMjIzMzc2OTc2M2EwM2U3MGQ4NmI =

and on and on and on ad nauseum...
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
to be fair? this do-nothing theme has been the theme of one side or the other in almost all the campaigns
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 
And I don't disagree with any of that. If you do nothing, nothing can come back to haunt you, I guess. This was something in Pres. Obama's campaign that I actually applauded. His '5 day online' pledge. I had my doubts because in general, the most vocal opinion is not always the majority opinion. But I thought that it would be a step in the right direction to hold those '545 people' accountable. I still hope he gets around to implementing it before his time is up.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
politics is some screwed up stuff.

imo you have to be a little crazy to want to follow a career in it.

i don't even think there's a cure for the insanity
 

---

Posted by Lockman on :
 
Term limits...then at least in their last term they aren't just trying to get elected again.
 

---

Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
So...what does this mean for me since im a small business owner? Will I be strong armed?
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CashCowMoo:
So...what does this mean for me since im a small business owner? Will I be strong armed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newbie13:
Why doon't we make this a true democracy and get ride of most of government and let the people vote on the issues?
Then and only then will the majority of voices be heard!
Instead of some I don't care except for my namesake senator or represenative!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newbie13:
RAYBOND...
Blah...blah....blah.... blah

There's just as much democratic redorick about issues as well! DEMS/ REPS who gives a F*CK.
What about the AMERICAN PEOPLE???
poor, rich, middle class, white, black, or hispanic.. amongst many more!

What's all wise raybonds solution? or better yet compromise to benefit the most americans? not just either parties interest?!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
Question....who here has read or even attempted to read H.R. 3200? Other than Glass that is...lol

---

not me...I been wading through this:

http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/ppdp/2009/ppdp0904.pdf

Talk about dense
 

---

Posted by rounder1 on :
 
I will ask a the same question that is before congress.....I will just put it in more simple terms:

Why should any other person carry the burden (without freedom of choice) for my lifestyle, my genetics, my misfortune?

Ultimately, the passage of this bill will curb the profitability of the medical practice in the U.S.......follow the logic.

If that happens....the best and the brightest will focus their interests elsewhere because it will cease to be as profitable to cure cancer, aids, alzheimers, herpes, syphilus, .........to infinity.

I would imagine that they would all become personal injury lawyers and run commercials every five minutes on Fox News (i like fox....but they should quit runninn those stupid commericials).

We all go back and forth about everything that the government does......rarely do we b***h about private industry.

Does anyone on this board, beit dem or rep., really want to trust the welfare of their family to the political machine that has become D.C.......

I say "HELL NO." Give me the overpriced insurance company and the Doc that has to drive a Mercedes.........At least I know what their motivations are.

With the government fools you don't know what your up against........

You guys do a ton of research and I thank you all for it; but, c'mon......imo.....this is not an area of your life that you want the government in.

If you accept this we should change the governments nickname from "uncle sam" to "daddy sam."
 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rounder1:
I will ask a the same question that is before congress.....I will just put it in more simple terms:

Why should any other person carry the burden (without freedom of choice) for my lifestyle, my genetics, my misfortune?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rounder1:

If that happens....the best and the brightest will focus their interests elsewhere because it will cease to be as profitable to cure cancer, aids, alzheimers, herpes, syphilus, .........to infinity.

---

quote:

---

But while the rhetoric is stirring, it has very little to do with reality. First, research and development (R&D) is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies—dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration, and smaller even than profits.

Second, the pharmaceutical industry is not especially innovative. As hard as it is to believe, only a handful of truly important drugs have been brought to market in recent years, and they were mostly based on taxpayer-funded research at academic institutions, small biotechnology companies, or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The great majority of "new" drugs are not new at all but merely variations of older drugs already on the market.

Third, the industry is hardly a model of American free enterprise. To be sure, it is free to decide which drugs to develop (me-too drugs instead of innovative ones, for instance), and it is free to price them as high as the traffic will bear, but it is utterly dependent on government-granted monopolies—in the form of patents and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved exclusive marketing rights. If it is not particularly innovative in discovering new drugs, it is highly innovative—and aggressive—in dreaming up ways to extend its monopoly rights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by T e x:
Why should any other person carry the burden (without freedom of choice) for my lifestyle, my genetics, my misfortune?

hold on, take a breath...

what is the "burden" you describe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by T e x:
Why should any other person carry the burden (without freedom of choice) for my lifestyle, my genetics, my misfortune?

hold on, take a breath...

what is the "burden" you describe?

---

quote:

---

I require intensive medical treatment.....that comes at a premium cost......why should you have to pay for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bigfoot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rounder1:

If that happens....the best and the brightest will focus their interests elsewhere because it will cease to be as profitable to cure cancer, aids, alzheimers, herpes, syphilus, .........to infinity.

---

They're attention will wander elsewhere eh? Kinda like big Pharma's has???

quote:

---

But while the rhetoric is stirring, it has very little to do with reality. First, research and development (R&D) is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies—dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration, and smaller even than profits.

Second, the pharmaceutical industry is not especially innovative. As hard as it is to believe, only a handful of truly important drugs have been brought to market in recent years, and they were mostly based on taxpayer-funded research at academic institutions, small biotechnology companies, or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The great majority of "new" drugs are not new at all but merely variations of older drugs already on the market.

Third, the industry is hardly a model of American free enterprise. To be sure, it is free to decide which drugs to develop (me-too drugs instead of innovative ones, for instance), and it is free to price them as high as the traffic will bear, but it is utterly dependent on government-granted monopolies—in the form of patents and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved exclusive marketing rights. If it is not particularly innovative in discovering new drugs, it is highly innovative—and aggressive—in dreaming up ways to extend its monopoly rights.

---

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by T e x:
Is this your answer to my "burden" question?

quote:

---

I require intensive medical treatment.....that comes at a premium cost......why should you have to pay for it.

---

cuz if it is, I can answer that, too...

---

Yes Tex that is my response to your question.....but I should clarify so that I do not mis-represent.

I, personally, do not require that level of medical care. I started down a hypothetical road and got side tracked by my passion on the subject.

In the interest of fair debate.....you should know that I am a very heathy 30 year old.

Upon reading your reply......I realized that I had given a false impression that could have played towards a position that I am fortunate enough not to have.

My apologies.
 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 
Before its patent ran out, for example, the price of Schering-Plough's top-selling allergy pill, Claritin, was raised thirteen times over five years, for a cumulative increase of more than 50 percent—over four times the rate of general inflation.

-same article-

Sometimes greed needs to be contained by more than just competition. Especially when they are given patents preventing competition from occurring.
 

---

Posted by thinkmoney on :
 
And, I already know folks that are rich that are putting money into retirement and depleting all souces of income cause better to live off of
daddy BaMA THEN TOO WORK and pay for all others' - better to get it for free - let dad Bama pay for my house, food, education and health and then why should I work? Maybe, Ill work a little to have the big screen tv and phone but Uncle Sam can do thw rest -

What is happening is anti americn - I am for FREEDOM no welfare and govt to deciode all -

Freedom founded this country and made it great it dont take a village to care for us - it may take a village when dad runs off but not when folks are responsible and want to be free-
 

---

Posted by rounder1 on :
 
Look fellas,

I am not claiming to have the answer to this.

Glass,
Yeah bad drugs have come to the market. U appear to be a research guru so I am not wanting to see if you can dig up more bad than I can good. However, if you applied your researching talents equally to both.....I bet you would find more good. And who says that government run H.C. stops the bad from making it to the market......The FDA is a government agency......all the prior bad drugs were approved by them.

B.F.
I love Claritin. Allergies have kicked my a$$ for the last decade. They made a profit off of it. They should have......cause I remember when the best you could get was sudefed.......great for staying up all night partying.....or for a 5k race.....not much for allergy/sinus relief. Ask this.....if they had not had the option of attaining a patent.....would it have been developed? Prolly not....it would not have been financially reasonable to pursue.
 

---

Posted by thinkmoney on :
 
In socialissm , motivation and incentive is killed - creativity is gone and atrophy is present -

Most folks rather wait in line or flee than to pay for all lazy butts -

Like I said, freedom is why my ancestors came to this country not socialsim - not govt run health, education and all else - I doubt it will go thru cause no matter how bad Bush was - who wants to give govt conrol of most of how we live and die?

Who the hell is Obama even to consider it? He is a control freak - very arrogant and insecure cause daddy left him - it may be mean but it is true - those that are most insecure are most arrogant and want control - if his plan is so good - he and all of govt workers should have it===
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
I bet you would find more good

i would bet you that i can show that every drug brought to market in the last forty years was subsidized by your govt at some level or another.

claritin is a decent drug since it has few side effects, but it can hardly be counted to saving lives.


hre's a good example of how complicated the drug co's legal strategies become with most of their drugs:

Schering-Plough goes to court to protect loratadine patent
Drug Store News, Feb 18, 2002

KENILWORTH, N.J. -- Schering-Plough announced Jan. 31 that it has filed separate suits against Johnson & Johnson's McNeil Consumer Healthcare and American Home Products' Whitehall-Robins Healthcare for an alleged patent infringement on the company's prescription loratadine product, Claritin. According to Schering-Plough, the suits "seek to prevent McNeil and Whitehall from manufacturing, using, selling or otherwise making a loratadine product until after the expiration of the metabolite patent [desloratadine]." Desloratadine is listed as the active ingredient in Clarinex, a prescription-only allergy remedy that is expected to be Claritin's successor.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3374/is_2_24/ai_83117374/

they basically got several patents in sequence and tried to enforce them all.

keep in mind that the lawyers that work on these "strategies" get 500$ per hour.

you pay that too when you pay.
 

---

Posted by rounder1 on :
 
c'mon Glass,

The corn that I eat has been subsidized by the govt......but corn will grow without them.....Indians did it for years.

Just cause the govt sticks their hands in it does not make it theirs.......and U know that.

That is like saying that cause the govt. helped me get an education that my brain would not have been possible without them.
 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 
Commodities markets fluctuate not to mention the environmental factors that affect growing paterns. Subsidies for crops are meant to provide a base so there are some protections for small farmers who bet their livelihoods every time they plant their fields.

Patents are supposed to safeguard intellectual properties so that someone else can't take your hard-earned research and drive you out of your own market.

Problem is these companies aren't the ones doing the hard work and they are abusing the patent protections to price gouge the public. America pays the most of any industrialized nation for pharmaceutical drugs and that is provable and preventable.
 

---

Posted by T e x on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rounder1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by T e x:
Is this your answer to my "burden" question?

quote:

---

I require intensive medical treatment.....that comes at a premium cost......why should you have to pay for it.

---

cuz if it is, I can answer that, too...

---

Yes Tex that is my response to your question.....but I should clarify so that I do not mis-represent.

I, personally, do not require that level of medical care. I started down a hypothetical road and got side tracked by my passion on the subject.

In the interest of fair debate.....you should know that I am a very heathy 30 year old.

Upon reading your reply......I realized that I had given a false impression that could have played towards a position that I am fortunate enough not to have.

My apologies.

---

no problem...

sometimes I merely help with the thought process


 

---

Posted by Newbie13 on :
 
oh sorry pagan that after 13 hours of working for myself I miss spelled a word. Do you have anything of substance to add? oh what are you another party basher instead of some one for real people!
----------------------------

Rounder... great read. For myself, unless ABSOLUTELY nessacery I could and would never ask anyone to pay for me. Which I have had to do in the past because of a very bad injury.
Yes some people need the help, but so many are capable and just lazy because the gov takes care of them.
-------------------------------

TEX... I believe the burden is financial.
 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 
I had an appointment with my primary care doctor regarding a flair up of a chronic condition two weeks ago. My purpose was not to get his opinion but to get his referral. He also ordered an ultrasound to discount other more serious problems. One week ago I met with the specialist who has ordered another round of physical therapy and an new batch of equipment once the therapy is completed. To discount different more serious problems she ordered a CT scan.

A few days ago I had a CT scan and got the results yesterday. None of the problems they were looking for but it seems I have a 1 centimeter spot that is most likely nothing more than a polyp but still needs checking so now my physical therapy sessions are on hold until after I see a different specialist and do whatever he makes me do.

The point of this isn't to tell you about my medical history (and by the way except for one issue I am a healthy full-time working no restrictions no disabilities adult who generally goes to the doc about once a year).

The point is that I went in for a flair up of something I know well but if I didn't have insurance I would have already blown through more than a grand and I haven't even finished the diagnostic stage yet. Depending on the hoops the third doctor puts me through this could end up totaling more than 3-4k easy. And that is for something well documented in my medical history along with one unexpected item.

You young'uns (I'm not THAT much older than you) who have never seen the bottom line of a hospital stay before can talk breezy about paying your own way all you like but I know full well where I and my wife would be if I didn't have good insurance.

NYC would'a given me a travel voucher years ago.

There is a reason why 60% of all bankruptcies are tied to medical bills.
 

---

Posted by jordanreed on :
 
thank god for a national health care....this has to be pushed thru...it shouldnt be a political issue,,but a human(humane) issue!
 

---

Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
What do you have to say about this Jordan?

http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan- will-eliminate-private-insurance/


Also:

"Specter was shouted down when he said that lawmakers divide up the bills into sections and have their staffs read portions because, "We have to make judgments very fast."


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/03/audience-shouts-sebelius-specter-heal th-care-town-hall-philadelphia/
 

---

Posted by Lockman on :
 
Bottom line....I only want a government health care plan that those who write the plan, paticipate in.

Don't tell me what kind of insurance I'll be receiving and then have our President and congress on another plan. A true vote for a health care plan is by someone who will be living with it.
 

---

Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
Change you can believe in!
 

---

Posted by poorman on :
 
Originally posted by rounder1:

If that happens....the best and the brightest will focus their interests elsewhere because it will cease to be as profitable to cure cancer, aids, alzheimers, herpes, syphilus, .........to infinity.

It is never profitable to " CURE " any sickness. What is a money maker is finding a way for people to live with it lol
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
well what do you know I agree with you lock. Don't throw a bone to the vast population while you eat the new yorks and say look what I have done for everybody.

I will say this that is the way it will most likley happen from any of our leaders.

I do know one thing our health does need reform it is getting to the point that our business cannot compete on a world market 50 million people are uninsured and the tax payer does wind up in the end paying for them and we rank 37 in the world as far as a nation is evalueated for health care some third world countries rate higher than us.
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
as far as pay I don't think anybody but the ultra rich can afford paying for health care by themselves.

The last outpatient severice I had done was a one hour surgery to a nasal passage the bill was $9800.that does not include doctors visits drugs or anything elese. that was 2002 I bet it is more today.Glad I had insureance to cover it
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by poorman:
Originally posted by rounder1:

If that happens....the best and the brightest will focus their interests elsewhere because it will cease to be as profitable to cure cancer, aids, alzheimers, herpes, syphilus, .........to infinity.

It is never profitable to " CURE " any sickness. What is a money maker is finding a way for people to live with it lol

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lockman:
Bottom line....I only want a government health care plan that those who write the plan, paticipate in.

Don't tell me what kind of insurance I'll be receiving and then have our President and congress on another plan. A true vote for a health care plan is by someone who will be living with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jordanreed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NpTumjHylw&feature=fvw

couldnt of said it better myself...

---

I've read your posts before, Jordan. I think you could.

That guy's a nut.
 

---

Posted by Lockman on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lockman:
Bottom line....I only want a government health care plan that those who write the plan, paticipate in.

Don't tell me what kind of insurance I'll be receiving and then have our President and congress on another plan. A true vote for a health care plan is by someone who will be living with it.

---

that sounds like single payer to me lock, i don't want single payer.

---

I don't either but if that's the way this is headed lets make sure everyone has the same deal.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
i don't think that's the way this is headed.

IMO there's more mythology than fact floating around the media right now.

i've gotten decnt care out of the VA when i used it, but i had to fight for it.

i found it better than kaiser permanente, and easier to find people in the VA system that would get things done right for me in the VA sytem. at kaiser? the policy was being followed uniformly whereas in the VA, for some reason, the first person you would see tended to be a jerk (the PA) and once you got past them? things got better.

physicians assistants who tended to be the first line of care were the worst. Doctors in the VA system tended to be just as good and treated me just as well as doctor i get on insurance, but you don't see them first.

the PA's tended to be monsters.

in the US we have only one doctor pr 400 and some patients where theres about 1 doctor per 300 in countries that have single payer and or other highly socialised medical plans.

we need more family practice doctors in the US, and fewer specialists.i like the doctor i have now, and i think most people do.

the doctors would be able to work under less stress, and give better care to each of thier patients and probably make the same money if we could cut insurance/billing costs.

as has been observed by many our health is priceless.


corporate America is looking at their health care costs as competitive hindrance.

Obama is getting jammed up by the people who have no interest in seeing anything fixed simply because they see it as a way to score political points.

i've never been on medicare, and don't have any direct expereince with it. but getting medicare passedw as just as hard as this has been (literally, it took several presidents) and i don't hear too many people complaining.

i think we should get something passed and it will probably take a few tries to get it right.

the US spends about double per person on healthcare than any of the other industrialised nations. there is no evidence that we are getting more for our money either.

the last time i was at the doctors offcie which has 4 doctors practicing in one building? i saw 5 or six drug reps wandering around, i see that many or more every time. there's another place we could save alot of money.

the drug co's spend much more on advertising than they do on research. sure it creates alot of important jobs, but those 5 dollar pills to us cost a penny to make and deliver in most cases
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 
The Daily Show has figured out how to solve the health care crisis.

You're Welcome
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
Its going to be tough and the Government is doing all thyat it can

they have held and stopped a banking crisis

Saved what they could of the auto industry and still working on it

But to get things going again purchasing power is what is needed and I don't think even the government can stop the job loss and be able to create the milions of jobs necessary. Don't forgetwe have had 40 years of sending our jobs snd somtimes whole industries overseas. I hope we can do it. IMHO it will be close
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 
I sincerely hope that your 'half-full' viewpoint is right, Ray. I see it a little more cynically.

Its going to be tough and the Government is doing all thyat it can

All that it can to consolidate power...

they have held and stopped a banking crisis

Or they over-stated the crisis and then bought their way into more influence in the banking sector..

Saved what they could of the auto industry and still working on it

Or, yet again, bought their way into management of the auto industry and gave it to the unions that got Obama elected.

But to get things going again purchasing power is what is needed

No, I think what is needed is to change our economy from a consumption based economy to a production based economy. You have to produce more than you consume to prosper.

and I don't think even the government can stop the job loss and be able to create the milions of jobs necessary.

I don't think it's their place to create jobs, Ray. It's their job to encourage the private sector to create jobs. That's why we're still losing them.

Don't forgetwe have had 40 years of sending our jobs snd somtimes whole industries overseas.

Agreed, that is part of the problem, but I think it's a symptom of a bigger issue.

I hope we can do it. IMHO it will be close

Until the feds remember that it's their job to serve and protect 'we the people' instead of line their pockets and get re-elected I don't think we even have a chance.

And I'm not usually a 'half-empty' guy.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
Or they over-stated the crisis and then bought their way into more influence in the banking sector..

you know i listen to fox and other conservative pundits regularly and i hear this all the time.

ask Larry Kudlow, he speaks freely about it,
we collapsed.
the people in the markets that didn't want govt bailouts wanted to buy Capital assets for pennies on the dollar.
i mean pennies, as in under 10 cents and i mean it literally.

there is noone anywhere in the business of economics that even remotely suggests that we did not collapse.

the only arguments are whether it is "good" to bailout, or better to allow the system to fold and rebuild.

people now claiming that it was a trumped up power grab are not informed or just like to make chit up as they go.

the millions of home foreclosures are very real.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 

I don't think it's their place to create jobs, Ray. It's their job to encourage the private sector to create jobs. That's why we're still losing them.

then we have to ban imports.

because every job we lose to production is not made up by "middleman" jobs.

yet thats called protectionism?

Don't forgetwe have had 40 years of sending our jobs snd sometimes whole industries overseas.

Agreed, that is part of the problem, but I think it's a symptom of a bigger issue.

the bigger issue is that Wall St wants to make 15% per year ROI overseas instead of 7.5% here.

the other issue is that large companies destroy their competition using the govt.
they always have always will
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 

quote:

---

you know i listen to fox and other conservative pundits regularly and i hear this all the time.

---

You listen to Fox?!?!? Then you're obviously brainwashed and can't be taken seriously.

quote:

---

there is noone anywhere in the business of economics that even remotely suggests that we did not collapse.

the only arguments are whether it is "good" to bailout, or better to allow the system to fold and rebuild.

---

quote:

---

the millions of home foreclosures are very real.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:

quote:

---

you know i listen to fox and other conservative pundits regularly and i hear this all the time.

---

You listen to Fox?!?!? Then you're obviously brainwashed and can't be taken seriously.

quote:

---

there is noone anywhere in the business of economics that even remotely suggests that we did not collapse.

the only arguments are whether it is "good" to bailout, or better to allow the system to fold and rebuild.

---

Collapse is a relative term, Glass. How far and what the consequences would have been had we not done the bail outs will never be known outside of the realm of speculation.

That being said, as I recall, the threats at the time were that should the stimulus package not be passed, we would have had mass riots, runs on the banks, and martial law in the U.S. It is odd to me that if it was that serious, less than 10% of the money that was allocated seems to have stemmed the tide of global chaos...since that's all that has been spent and here we are without martial law...so far.

quote:

---

the millions of home foreclosures are very real.

---

And inevitable. You cannot continue to loan money to people that have no realistic chance to make their payments under the conditions of the mortgage and not expect a housing collapse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
I'm at work so I have limited internet access, Glass. Do a google search for Rep. Brad Sherman and martial law. He claims that he and other members of congress were told that if they didn't pass the stimulus bill there would be such chaos that Martial Law would need to be declared.

Oh, and Sherman is a Democrat...from Cali no less.

---

quote:

---

I urged my colleagues not to take the extreme statements seriously and urged them to defeat the bill. It should be clear from the context of my speech that I did not believe that martial law would be declared under any circumstances and I did not think that such absurd and outlandish comments should cause members to vote for the bill.
I also want to stress that I have no reason to think that any of the leaders in Congress who were involved in negotiating with the Bush Administration regarding the bailout bill ever mentioned the possibility of martial law -- again, that was just an example of extreme and deliberately hyperbolic comments being passed around by members not directly involved in the negotiations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
I'm at work so I have limited internet access, Glass. Do a google search for Rep. Brad Sherman and martial law. He claims that he and other members of congress were told that if they didn't pass the stimulus bill there would be such chaos that Martial Law would need to be declared.

Oh, and Sherman is a Democrat...from Cali no less.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
And that's exactly inline with my point, Tex.

None of the fears that were being put forth had any basis other than possible 'worst-case' scenarios. He never backs off in his clarification that members were indeed told there would be Martial Law. Rep. Sherman states clearly that this was something floated around to scare people into voting for the bill. He didn't believe it would happen, but what about those that DID believe in it and cast their vote accordingly.

BTW, the link on Wiki to his clarification statement didn't work for me so I had to dig it up myself.

http://bradsherman.house.gov/press_room_2007_2008/morenews/BailoutComment.html

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Glass, I think you misunderstand my intent. I don't argue that a crisis of unprecedented proportions existed in the financial sector. Many factors including the obscene leverage and bad mortgages and dishonest ratings in loan packaging and others set the stage for an unavoidable fall.

That's not my contention...

What I believe is that instead of being a Doctor acting to aid a dying patient, the Gov moved in like a Vulture over a thirsty desert traveler.

The powers currently in congress\white house believe that the Government should have MORE and MORE control over our lives. Crisis isn't to be avoided in this thought process, it is to be embraced and utilized. Are they new in this? Of course not. But the fact that it has been done in the past does not excuse the nefariousness of it.

Was the financial crisis orchestrated? No. Encouraged to some degree by those in positions to do so? I believe so.

---

quote:

---

That being said, as I recall, the threats at the time were that should the stimulus package not be passed, we would have had mass riots, runs on the banks, and martial law in the U.S. It is odd to me that if it was that serious, less than 10% of the money that was allocated seems to have stemmed the tide of global chaos...since that's all that has been spent and here we are without martial law...so far.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by T e x:
The powers currently in congress\white house believe that the Government should have MORE and MORE control over our lives.

You're confusing admins...

Look, if you wanna knock Obama, the knock is his inexperience and getting scattered, trying to do too much and losing focus. This other stuff? Do you troll the Net, looking for "weird" stuff?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
The fact that only 10% of the money has been spent and here we are at what many are calling a rebounding point in the recession goes to show that such a large allocation of funds is NOT needed.

all the TARP money went out very fast, it has all been put itno the banks for months now.

the Obama stimulus is now higher than ten percent,

and i don't beleive we are doing as well as some people are trying to say on the tube.

what they are saying is we are slowing down in our fall, not rebounding. our GDP is still not positive, and i belevie it's worse than they posted see surfers thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
Transition to a producer society? Not saying I don't like the idea but just how in the world are we gonna do that SF? You wanna compete with China? In urban areas the average salary has risen to $1000 dollars per year. In the countryside it is still around $300 dollars per year. How do you see us successfully competing against a such a low cost basis without destroying the economy you want to save?

---

quote:

---

SEC plans more subpoena power, enforcement units


By Jonathan Stempel Jonathan Stempel – Wed Aug 5, 8:58 pm ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission plans to issue more subpoenas and give people more incentives to cooperate with investigations as it works to tighten oversight of financial markets.

Speaking in New York, Robert Khuzami, the director of the SEC's enforcement division, said the changes will help the regulator as it focuses "on cases involving the greatest and most immediate harm and on cases that send an out-sized message of deterrence."

Khuzami, a former federal prosecutor, is presiding over a division much criticized by lawmakers for missing Bernard Madoff's $65 billion Ponzi scheme and for not doing enough to protect investors during the financial crisis.

The changes call for SEC staff to now generally have power to issue subpoenas by getting approval only from their supervisors, not the full Commission.

"If defense counsel resist the voluntary production of documents or witnesses or fail to be complete and timely in responses or engage in dilatory tactics, there will very likely be a subpoena on your desk the next morning," Khuzami said.

Other changes include plans to seek authority to submit more immunity requests to the Justice Department to encourage people to testify without fear of criminal prosecution.

The SEC also plans to create new groups to investigate cases involving asset management, foreign corrupt practices, market abuses, municipal securities and public pensions, and structured products. One group already exists to investigate subprime mortgage abuses.

Khuzami said the SEC also plans to create a new office to monitor incoming tips and complaints, and hire its first chief operating officer to boost efficiency and speed the reimbursement of funds to harmed investors.

Management will also be streamlined, and staff will need his permission for "tolling agreements" that give them more time to conduct investigations. He said these have become too common, causing delays that reduce the SEC's accountability.

DETERRENCE NOT ALWAYS "HIGH-PROFILE"

The SEC has had a number of high-profile enforcement cases in recent months, including penalties levied against Bank of America Corp and General Electric Co and insider trading charges brought against Angelo Mozilo, the former chief of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial Corp.

Speaking on the sidelines at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Khuzami said the emphasis on deterrence does not mean the SEC will overemphasize higher-profile cases at the expense of cases involving fewer investors or smaller amounts of money.

"Deterrent impact is not tantamount to high-profile," but could focus on novel areas of potential wrongdoing, Khuzami said. "It's not connected to big corporate cases necessarily."

He did say that the increased subpoena power may induce companies to be more aggressive in addressing wrongdoing to avoid "the necessity" of a subpoena. Some companies do not disclose SEC probes before subpoenas are actually issued.

While acknowledging a "general sense of renewed urgency" to aggressively root out wrongdoing, Khuzami downplayed the suggestion he feels pressure to do more.

"I would take issue with the premise that I am under pressure to bring enforcement actions," he said in a question-and-answer session after his speech. "No one has told me to bring more cases. What they have told me is we need to be vigorous advocates for investors."

On Wednesday, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro told CNBC television that she would like by year end to see definitive rules governing short-selling, a practice blamed for feeding carnage in bank stocks. She also wants the regulator to work on many fraud cases with criminal authorities.

Before joining the SEC, Khuzami was a prosecutor for 11 years with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and was chief of that office's securities and commodities fraud task force for three years. He was subsequently general counsel for the Americas at Deutsche Bank AG.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Gary Hill)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
Transition to a producer society? Not saying I don't like the idea but just how in the world are we gonna do that SF? You wanna compete with China? In urban areas the average salary has risen to $1000 dollars per year. In the countryside it is still around $300 dollars per year. How do you see us successfully competing against a such a low cost basis without destroying the economy you want to save?

---

I only have a minute or two before I go to work so I'll expand on this later in the day, Big.

First, culturally we need an about face. We've been fed the 'I gotta have that too' crap for too long. As a culture, we need to change our mindset as to the differences between wants and needs. Too many of the middle and lower class are knee deep(or worse) due to misunderstanding the difference between these two priorities. Credit has been TOO EASY to obtain and I believe this is a contributing factor to our current economic situation. Too many people are in too much debt...but at least they have nice TV's\cars\homes.

Secondly, as a nation, we need to utilize the resources that nature has given us. The 'Green' folks have it right in some ways (wow! did I actually type that?). I actually DO like the idea of solar\wind\hydro power vs. importing oil. But we need to understand that they are limited in their own ways. Add nuclear to the list and we start to leave the coal\oil for power production paradigm. Speaking of...DRILL FOR OIL AND START EXPORTING IT!!!! The reserves that we know of would all but pay off the national debt in a relatively short time period once in full production. Developing nations will be using oil for a long time as they advance technologically. FEED THE NEED.

Will hit on this more later today if I have any downtime.
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by T e x:
Apparrently, SF has backed off, for the time being...

---

When your day starts at 3:30 am, Tex, you gotta sleep some time.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
Speaking of...DRILL FOR OIL AND START EXPORTING IT!!!! The reserves that we know of would all but pay off the national debt in a relatively short time period once in full production. Developing nations will be using oil for a long time as they advance technologically. FEED THE NEED.

Ok, this is a common misconception. the world is not running out of oil any time soon, and as you say, we are not out of oil either

we are running out of "cheap" oil. the days of finding oil by "shootin' at sumfood" are long over.

why do you think the OPEC members set oil prices where they do? their stated goal was ONLY 80$ not 100$ 120$ or 140$, that's because they know how much they can charge without bringing too much competition into the market.

the price of oil going so high was another major contributing factor to the collapse.
as rising oil prices had their infaltionary impact on the economy? th Fed responded by raising rates. this triggered the "unimaginable" rise in ARMS monthly payment that actually began the very first wave of the foreclosure problem.

the price of oil went so high because the oil traders were getting 10 to one leverage on the face of the trade. it became painfully obvious that quite a few traders were getting much more.

the common theme in all of the collapse areas is in fact too much credit/leverage. it always is.
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
Health insurance executives undermine insurance lobbyist’s pledge to reform insurance market.
Yesterday, during an interview with Bloomberg Radio, Karen Ignagni — the President and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) — reiterated insurers’ commitment to reforming the health insurance marketplace:

That’s what people want. They want to be in. They don’t want to be rejected because of preexisting conditions, and they want to make sure they have continuity of care. We’ve committed to that. That’s what our industry is doing. We are one of the first to step up and offer real change that affected our industry. And we’re still committed to that.

While the insurance industry has publicly supported regulations that would guarantee everyone coverage and outlaw pre-exising condition exclusions, Ignagni may be overstating the industry’s commitment to so-called “market reform.” On June 16, despite Ignagni pledges of commitment, insurance executives from UnitedHealth Group, Assurant, and WellPoint specifically refused to “commit” to ending the controversial practice of rescinding coverage after an applicant files a medical claim. Watch a compilation of Ignagni’s claim and insurers’ refusal to end rescission:
As former health insurance executive Wendell Potter argues, insurers seek to “drive down” costs by refusing to insure “unhealthy people,” a tactic borne out by the fact that 47 million Americans currently lack health insurance. The “insurance industry has been one of the most successful, in beating back any kinds of legislation that would hinder or affect the profitability of the companies,” said Potter. The Wonk Room has more.
 

---

Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
Speaking of...DRILL FOR OIL AND START EXPORTING IT!!!! The reserves that we know of would all but pay off the national debt in a relatively short time period once in full production. Developing nations will be using oil for a long time as they advance technologically. FEED THE NEED.

Ok, this is a common misconception. the world is not running out of oil any time soon, and as you say, we are not out of oil either

we are running out of "cheap" oil. the days of finding oil by "shootin' at sumfood" are long over.

why do you think the OPEC members set oil prices where they do? their stated goal was ONLY 80$ not 100$ 120$ or 140$, that's because they know how much they can charge without bringing too much competition into the market.

the price of oil going so high was another major contributing factor to the collapse.
as rising oil prices had their infaltionary impact on the economy? th Fed responded by raising rates. this triggered the "unimaginable" rise in ARMS monthly payment that actually began the very first wave of the foreclosure problem.

the price of oil went so high because the oil traders were getting 10 to one leverage on the face of the trade. it became painfully obvious that quite a few traders were getting much more.

the common theme in all of the collapse areas is in fact too much credit/leverage. it always is.

---

If we could keep oil at a set price of $75 per barrel that would be perfect.
 

---

Posted by Lockman on :
 
Let's face it what ever this Health Care legislation becomes, it's just the first step towards a single payer government controlled Health Care System.

Once the ball starts rolling down hill they'll never stop it. Let's hope we get the best program possible because we're gonna be paying dearly for it. And let's make sure that what ever congress votes to saddle us with, they too must be committed to the same program for themselves and their families.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
i think Congress SHOULD get the VA

if it's good enough for the troops?
 

---

Posted by wallymac on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
i think Congress SHOULD get the VA

if it's good enough for the troops?

---

That's a sure fire way to improve the care our Vet's get. I'm with you.
 

---

Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
Why dont they do that?
 

---

Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
Drug Industry Helping Obama Overhaul Health Care


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's drugmakers stand ready to spend $150 million to help President Barack Obama overhaul health care this fall, according to numerous officials, a staggering sum that could dwarf attempts to derail Obama's top domestic priority.

The White House and allies in Congress are well aware of the effort by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a somewhat surprising political alliance, given the drug industry's recent history of siding with Republicans and the Democrats' disdain for special interests.

The campaign, now in its early stages, includes television advertising under PhRMA's own name and commercials aired in conjunction with the liberal group, Families USA.

Numerous people with knowledge of PhRMA's plans said they had been told it would likely reach $150 million and perhaps $200 million. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to divulge details.

Additionally, the industry is the major contributor to Healthy Economy Now, which recently completed a $12 million round of advertising nationally and in several states. The ads were made by firms with close ties to Democrats and the White House and generally reflected the administration's changing rhetoric on health care.

In an interview, Ken Johnson, senior vice president of PhRMA, said, "We will have a significant presence over the August recess, both on television and newspapers and on radio, but we have not finalized details for our fall campaign."

Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, said the partnership with the deep-pocketed drug industry is one of mutual self-interest, even though the two groups disagree on numerous issues. "We want to achieve coverage for everyone. For PhRMA, this would improve volume for prescription sales because everyone" would have better access to medicine, he said.

Any health care bill that makes it to Obama's desk is expected to extend health insurance to the nearly 50 million who now lack it. That would mean a huge new pool of potential customers for drug companies and other health care providers. That, in turn, has created an incentive to offer concessions to the White House and lawmakers in hopes of shaping the bill, rather than simply opposing it.

Drugmakers were the first group to reach agreement with the White House and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., announcing several weeks ago that they would absorb $80 billion in costs over a decade.

Even before the announcement, according to several individuals, the White House sought help from PhRMA in passing legislation.

Now, with the legislation under attack, the industry is providing key support during August as Republicans work to inflict a high-profile defeat on the president.

A significantly more ambitious advertising effort by PhRMA is expected to begin around Labor Day.
Jim Messina, a deputy White House chief of staff who is deeply involved in the administration's health care effort, brought Democratic senators up to date recently on the help PhRMA, labor unions and other outside groups are providing.

At the same time, the drugmakers are counting on the White House to block efforts by House Democrats to extract more than $80 billion from their industry in the legislation.

The partnership is complicated because many Democrats in both the House and Senate oppose key goals of the drug industry. Liberals, in particular, favor the importation of prescription medicine from Canada and other countries. They also want the government to have authority to negotiate directly with companies for lower drug prices under Medicare.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has been critical of drug manufacturers, and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said several weeks ago the House was not bound by PhRMA and Baucus' agreement.

By the White House tally, overall advertising so far by PhRMA and other supporters of the bill has swamped efforts by opponents. Republican strategists concede it would be extremely difficult to match an effort of the size PhRMA is planning.

For comparative purposes, 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain was limited to spending $84 million a year ago when he accepted government funding for his fall campaign.

Independent calculations show Healthy Economy Now has spent about $12 million on three ads that ran nationally and in 17 states and the District of Columbia.

The messages meshed with the White House's changing rhetoric. An ad that began in mid-June said patients would be able to choose their own doctors. Another, launched in mid-July, focused on consumer protections, including a ban on insurance companies denying coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions.

To make the ads, the group hired GMMB, a political consulting and advocacy advertising firm with close ties to the White House and Senate Democrats, as well as AKPD, top White House strategist David Axelrod's former firm.

Jeremy Van Ess, a spokesman for Health Economy Now, said the decisions were made by the organization, and not at the White House's request.

"Absolutely not. ... It's no secret in Washington that these two firms we had are the best out there," he said.

PhRMA/Families USA spent about $5.7 million in nationwide advertising for the two months ending Aug. 9, according to information compiled by a different organization.

Two weeks ago, the drug industry added another weapon to its arsenal, launching a series of ads under its own name in a few key states at a cost of about $1 million so far.

Among them is Nevada, where the industry has purchased time through Labor Day to air commercials thanking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his efforts to pass health care reform.

Reid's public approval is weak in the state, although he does not yet have a Republican opponent for 2010.

While the White House and Democrats benefit from PhRMA's help, they seem reluctant to discuss it openly.

When PhRMA became the first big health care provider to agree to accept reductions as part of legislation, Obama made the announcement at the White House with the head of AARP in attendance. Billy Tauzin, the former Republican congressman who is head of PhRMA, was not invited.

More recently, Reid omitted the drugmakers from a list of outside interests trying to help pass legislation.

The drug industry's campaign is the culmination of a broader shift it has undertaken. A few years ago, the industry hired Steve McMahon, a longtime Democratic strategist, to oversee its political advertising.

Drugmakers have also funneled more money to Democrats in recent years, a trend that began soon after they gained control of Congress.
 

---

Posted by T e x on :
 
cool--about time the pharmies get on board

trust you realize I'm going off your headline--you've proven it's a waste of time to read beyond your initial "theme."
 

---

Posted by T e x on :
 

quote:

---

CBO Admits (Very Quietly) That HR 3200 Will Reduce Costs

by Tim Foley

category: Obama and Congress

Published July 26, 2009 * 11:16PM PT

Since I’m sure we’ll be greeted Monday morning with a chorus of opponents of reform citing the latest Congressional Budget Office pronouncement as proof that we should give up on health care reform, I thought I should call attention to the last two paragraphs of the document. Last week, many took CBO Director Doug Elmendorf’s verbal testimony as proof that the current reform proposals in the House, the Senate and the White House would not appreciably reduce health care costs. What, I wonder, will they make of CBO’s new pronouncement that HR 3200 would “achieve tens of billions of dollars in Medicare savings each year”?

The context: Rep. Steny Hoyer asked the Congressional Budget Office to “score” the proposal to create an independent body modeled on the existing Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Since this new commission – IMAC – would be staffed with providers and experts, not politicians, they’d be empowered to make policy decisions to reduce Medicare spending unencumbered by political calculation. The President would decide whether to implement their proposals each year as a package deal (no amendment or picking and choosing), and they would become law unless Congress passed a law to put them on ice within 30 days. White House Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag has championed this idea as a way to overcome political inertia and generate long-term savings.

CBO determined there may well be substantial long-term savings, but marginal short-term savings. However, given the furor of last week, it’s striking that part of the reason why Elmendorf and his staff don’t believe IMAC will yield much short-term savings is because their recommendations will likely overlap with provisions in HR3200 that will already be reducing costs. Full quote, with no elisions:

Several percent of annual Medicare spending would amount to tens of billions of dollars per year after 2019. By that point, H.R. 3200, as introduced, would already be on track to achieve tens of billions of dollars in Medicare savings each year, primarily as a result of provisions that would reduce payments to Medicare providers relative to those projected in the current-law baseline. (Total federal resources devoted to health care programs would increase under the introduced version of that bill, however, because of the provisions aimed at making health insurance available to more people.) Substantial additional savings from an IMAC-type proposal would probably require significant changes in coverage, benefit design, and payment and delivery systems aimed at reducing the quantity and intensity of services provided. Some of the savings that could be expected from such changes are probably already captured in CBO’s assessment of the long-term savings that would result from provisions of H.R. 3200, but it is difficult to assess the extent of that overlap.

Something to keep in mind as you hear pundits thundering that the CBO says health care reform won’t reduce costs.

---

quote:

---

“Where we do disagree, let’s disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that has actually been proposed,” Mr. Obama told the audience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bigfoot:

quote:

---

“Where we do disagree, let’s disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that has actually been proposed,” Mr. Obama told the audience.

---

Awesome response. This is why folks like me are so high on our current President.

---

There are things people disagree on that wont change. Its Obamas way or the highway. Same as Bush. Im glad im a cow and not a sheep.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
you know, people should be worried about the state of our Union.

they should have been worried for the last ten years.


what is the American dream?

your own house, your own car, enough money to retire and not have to eat cat food?

this has all been in serious jeopardy for awhile.

i hear people say we are at a major crossroads TODAY?

we passed that crossroads a long time ago.

when the median household income will not provide enough money to buy the basics involved in the American dream? it's already slipping away.

the median house price was over 200,000$ and the median income was under 50,000.

before you tell me that people need to work harder on education and their own upward job mobility? let me point out that the jobs that do not pay a living wage still have to be filled with somebody.

at the beginning pf 2008? the us govt debt was already above 30,000$ per person in the US.

the median household (not perperson) income was only about 45 thousand at that time...

since the average household is 2.5 people? the average per person income in the US was about 1/2 the US govt debt per person.

add to that the personal debt? at 8000$ per household for credit cards only? the country was well over 2 years in debt before the system collapsed....
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 
I'll leave the jokes about being 'high' and supporting Obama till later in his term, Big.

As for the current discussion, here is where I see the biggest issue...

Haste...haste...haste...

Obama (and Pelosi\Reid\Waxmen) has been in such a rush to 'fix' healthcare that they don't have anything to actually back up their claims that they AREN'T trying to gobble up private healthcare.

All the American people have is a 1000+ page bill from the House (not even finalized for a vote yet) that many members ADMIT to not having any intention of reading (see Conyers).

So, the people start reading the bill (thankfully not passed yet), and start coming up with questions about the 'legaleze' speak. For example, the provision we've posted before that seems to state that if your current private policy changes in any way you cannot keep it and must go to the public option. Without having '2 days and 2 lawyers' to explain it to you, you could resonably take it to mean that the government want to do away with private health care insurers. And that is one of more 'clear' sections of the bill.

If Obama really wanted to put these 'wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that has actually been proposed', he needs to come out with an actual plan that HE endorses. One that he can get up to the mike and tell the people exactly what he wants to do and then let the PEOPLE say if that is what they want.

GET SPECIFIC!!!
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
SF, all of these "seems" to say things have been the imagination of a few crazy people.

the fact that there are so many people that blindly beleive the people like beck and limbugger when they make these crazy statements is just sad.

just last election? people called the congress a bunch of do-nothings.

i can pull 100's of articles saying so...
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 
And I don't even pretend to argue with the 'imagination of a few crazy people' line, Glass. Here's the rub, though...the administration has done nothing to truly counter the 'disinformation' other than to try and dismiss it out of hand. No references to parts of the actual proposed bill to aleviate the fears. No proposals to congress in either house to solidly state the direction it wants to go.

Let me try to make my point this way:

Some one comes out and claims on cable news that Obama is anti-feline. Yes, that's right. He hates cats!!!

The logical person asks: Where did he say that?

The reporter is unable to show anything to prove the claim, or there is actually information to the contrary(if he had several cats as pets) and for the most part the claim dies out. Some people might cling to the idea because it holds water with what they already believe but it gains little to no momentum by and large.

Now.

If both parts of congress had a proposed bill ready for vote, posted it online for ALL to see, read, understand and form an opinion on; then these pernicious rumors would have NO room to grow in. Anything stated as being in the bill could be verified or dismissed by looking at the actual bill.

Drafting a bill pretty much in the dead of the night and throwing it at the House of Reps with little to no time to actually read\understand\consult your constituents on is fertile rumor ground because none of our elected reps can even find the section the rumor is based on, let alone show that such is not supported by the bill.

By simply dismissing opposition/specific rumors as 'hate mongering anti-Obamaites' only lends credit to the rumor because it isn't being countered. That is what I think the Admin\Congress needs to do. Produce an actual hard bill and give people time to read it before they vote on it.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
but the people yelling aren't waiting.
this really is democracy at work.

however, what i am "concerned" about is how many people appear to me to be just plain stupid.

take Palins' claim for instance:

Palin says in the America she knows, people won't have to "stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."

She says such a system is "downright evil."

we already stand in front of a "panel" to have this determination made, it's called a job interview.

if you don't have job interviews to determine it? then you must have a nice bank account...

most of this stuff makes no sense on the surface.

i agree that we should have more information, however, when the white house asked for people to forward the rumors so theta they could respond to them? they were then accused of making a list...

said list being a "bad" thing to be on...

when the founding fathers created this Republic? they made it a Republic because of this sheer stupidity. they saw pure democracy as mob rule..
 

---

Posted by jordanreed on :
 
the only fear was perpetrated by the far rights parroting of the health industries fear campaign against reform...and obama has repeatedly responded accordingly.
 

---

Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
I remember when people even on THIS board were calling Bush and his administration a bunch of nazis, hitler, violent protests in the streets.

I remember a bunch of left wing groups vandalizing Denver during the past elections. Stop the spin machine Jordan.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
i recall no violence in the streets.

i do recall people being jailed in NYC during the GOP convention and then being released because they had committed no crimes other than showing up to protest without a permit.

as for calling Bush a nazi? i remember that too...

i don't recall it being touted on TV by any of the media tho...

the criticism here is becoming what is journalism and what responsibiltiy do people have for being honest?

it's not illegal to lie in most circumstances.

but you have to wonder why people are making stuff up like this.

i mean people who are expected to know better.
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 

quote:

---

said list being a "bad" thing to be on...

---

[tinfoilhat]Depending on what the list was used for, it WOULD be a bad thing to be on.[/tinfoilhat]

quote:

---

when the founding fathers created this Republic? they made it a Republic because of this sheer stupidity. they saw pure democracy as mob rule..

---

quote:

---

people knew he was runnng on that when they elected him. so caliming that health care reform goes against what the people want is again not a valid argument.

---

I don't think that the majority of people that are voicing their concerns here are adamantly against ANY healthcare reform, Glass. I think that they are simply against what has been proposed as HOW to do it.

It's not: NEVER, NO HOW, NO WAY!

But more of: NOT LIKE THIS!
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
but that's not what i am seeing on fox or the rest of the media.

what i see is people being irrational.

i already posted a perfect example of the irrationality in Plains post.

i see people that are obviously old enough to be on medicare yelling that they don't want govt run healthcare. it's crazy, and it's not a good sign of the state of the cognitive ability of the general populace IF you beleive they represent the general populace...
 

---

Posted by Relentless. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
The Rebublic was supposed to be somewhere between Mob Rule and and Oligarchy. If the Representatives aren't representing the true interests of their constituents; but simply substituting what they think is best, we're no longer 'of the people, by the people, and for the people.' And that's my biggest fear for where we're headed.

OK, Obama got elected on a platform of changing health care.

people knew he was runnng on that when they elected him. so caliming that health care reform goes against what the people want is again not a valid argument.

keep in mind that i am not convinced yet at all about whether we are getting the "right" bill or not.

i do think we should have people involved, and i do think people should be able to decide if it is a good bill on facts.

what i want to see is some serious dialogue.

that's not what we are getting here. what i see happening is a bunch of flatout lies being repeated over and over again. that's how you make lies into the "truth" as people know it.


i could care less if i was on a list, i was posting my concerns online in public about the Iraq war in early 2004, when very few others were.

i posted here several years ago that i see the US as bankrupt.
we were actually worse off then i knew.

i was not worried about being on a list because i didn't lie.

that list? it's another paper tiger, the whitehouse wanted the rumors posted so they could address them.

how many separate and distinct crazy rumors are out there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
The Rebublic was supposed to be somewhere between Mob Rule and and Oligarchy. If the Representatives aren't representing the true interests of their constituents; but simply substituting what they think is best, we're no longer 'of the people, by the people, and for the people.' And that's my biggest fear for where we're headed.

OK, Obama got elected on a platform of changing health care.

people knew he was runnng on that when they elected him. so caliming that health care reform goes against what the people want is again not a valid argument.

keep in mind that i am not convinced yet at all about whether we are getting the "right" bill or not.

i do think we should have people involved, and i do think people should be able to decide if it is a good bill on facts.

what i want to see is some serious dialogue.

that's not what we are getting here. what i see happening is a bunch of flatout lies being repeated over and over again. that's how you make lies into the "truth" as people know it.


i could care less if i was on a list, i was posting my concerns online in public about the Iraq war in early 2004, when very few others were.

i posted here several years ago that i see the US as bankrupt.
we were actually worse off then i knew.

i was not worried about being on a list because i didn't lie.

that list? it's another paper tiger, the whitehouse wanted the rumors posted so they could address them.

how many separate and distinct crazy rumors are out there?

---

What was the percentage of the populace that voted for Obama?
Unless it was more than 50% then there is no way to say health care reform is what the people want.
A large chunk of the populace don't vote because they very well know it does not matter who is in office.. The end is always the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CashCowMoo:
Glass, I dont think it is going to pass.

---

You come across as highly disingenuous...

first you ask:

Glass, what would YOU do then if you were Obama?

Then, he gives you a long, thoughtful answer--taking some time to formulate.

And you dismiss his idea as:

"don't think it will pass."

Why would anyone want to help you if you continue to act so juvenile and belligerent?
 

---

Posted by Relentless. on :
 
If I am given two effin crooks to vote for and I vote for neither then it is not my m**#$^F(**&$ fault when the **** hits the fan... It will be the fault of
A - The Elected crooks and their puppetmasters
B - The raging morons who voted them into office.
Plain and simple...
 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 
Relentless,

I generally like your posts when you have something worthwhile to say but why are you wasting space here? You have already said you don't want nothing to do with it.

So go stand in the corner, hold you breath, and have nothing to do with it until someone notices and gives you a cookie... but right now us adults are talking.
 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 
Nah, I'd never be able to type intelligible words if I were high SF. I laugh too much to concentrate on anything.

How can the pres give specifics when there aren't any yet SF? Did you hear specifics about the Chevy Volt before it was unveiled the other day? When the contractor came over to discuss renovating your bathroom did he come with a parts and labor breakdown?

No...cuz it wasn't created yet.

First conservatives have railed that things are moving too fast and when the Pres relents on his timetable to give folks the time they cried out for, now they complain there are no specifics.

Meanwhile when we should be using this Fall break to have meaningful discussion of exactly what we DO and Do NOT want in the final bill (which is what those who are holding town hall meetings during their vacations are trying to do) conservative spin doctors have everybody so busy putting out phantom fires with the formless specters of death panels and benefit loss that meaningful discussion becomes near impossible.

The tactic may be a great stalling tactic but it won't keep reform from going through and it is what will keep the republican party weak going into 2010 and 2012. Eventually lies get exposed and no one, not even conservative cows likes being lied to repeatedly.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
If I am given two effin crooks to vote for and I vote for neither then it is not my m**#$^F(**&$ fault when the **** hits the fan... It will be the fault of
A - The Elected crooks and their puppetmasters
B - The raging morons who voted them into office.
Plain and simple...

---

quote:

---

How can the pres give specifics when there aren't any yet SF?

...

No...cuz it wasn't created yet.

---

And that's why he's losing traction on this, Big. He has literally nothing to show the American people other than pretty promises that 'nobody's gonna kill your grandma.'

Now, bear with me a moment and look at this as though he weren't the 'chosen one who cometh to bring us from the darkness into light.'

He says that he isn't for rationing healthcare. He says that he doesn't want to take away anyone's private healthcare plans if they like them. He says that the government doesn't want a say in your healthcare decisions. He says alot of nice things.

But...

Many people who have objectively (supposedly) looked at the current incarnation of the House's healthcare bill forsee just the opposite in all of these cases. They are looking at the ONLY concrete piece of information available. Not promises, not hopeful plans; just the actually proposed plan.

Some of those spouting misinformed rumors have agendas. Given. But some of the critics of the proposed legislation aren't simply right-wing parrots trying to smear Obama. They are raising valid (in their opinions) objections to the current bill.

Others, both rumor mongers and honest critics, have many nightmare scenarios to put before the american people from other 'government-run' systems. While these may or may not be indicative of the systems in question, they have the impact needed to make people question the effectiveness of similar plans here.

They HAVE something to show to support their positions against the plan.

Obama doesn't.

Now...(sorry for the long windedness)...

quote:

---

First conservatives have railed that things are moving too fast and when the Pres relents on his timetable to give folks the time they cried out for, now they complain there are no specifics.

---

quote:

---

The tactic may be a great stalling tactic but it won't keep reform from going through and it is what will keep the republican party weak going into 2010 and 2012. Eventually lies get exposed and no one, not even conservative cows likes being lied to repeatedly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
[QUOTE]Ok, I have to throw the B.S. flag, Big. Let's be honest with ourselves on this one. Obama didn't relent on any timetable out of the desire to have meaningful discussion about concerns. He was simply unable to force it through before anyone could read anything and form on opinion. The stalling of the Repubs (granted not out of the goodness of their hearts) is the only reason we're even able to have a discussion before it got passed and signed.

---

B.S. Flag yourself SF. If Obama wanted to ramrod his personal agenda and force Universal Healthcare on America, guess what??? He's got the filibuster-proof majorities in both halls to do it. If that were his goal then a bill would already be signed into law by now.
 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 
Could you give me an example of these objective people whom you have placed so much of your faith in that you are willing to forgo reading the paper yourself in exchange for their opinions SF?

Or are you just spouting
 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 
Feel free to be long winded SF. I will read it-If in bits and pieces.

Please understand if I come across heated that I want Specifics 'From You' in regards to who it is that is saying there are dangers to beware from within the health plan. I want to know your sources because quite frankly, there ain't many within your party that are credible anymore.
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
These morons that are yelling so louad at the town halls don't knbow what to call Obama A Fascist or Marxist

Police detain town hall protester carrying ‘Death to Obama’ sign.
The AP reports that the Secret Service “is investigating a man who authorities said held a sign reading ‘Death to Obama’ outside a town hall meeting” held by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD). yesterday. The protester’s sign also declared, “Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids.” The detention of the unidentified, 51-year-old man by local police comes on the heels of two Democratic members of Congress reporting that they received faxes to their offices featuring pictures of Obama accompanied by the phrase, “Death to All Marxists! Foreign and Domestic!”
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 

quote:

---

B.S. Flag yourself SF. If Obama wanted to ramrod his personal agenda and force Universal Healthcare on America, guess what??? He's got the filibuster-proof majorities in both halls to do it. If that were his goal then a bill would already be signed into law by now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
Could you give me an example of these objective people whom you have placed so much of your faith in that you are willing to forgo reading the paper yourself in exchange for their opinions SF?

Or are you just spouting

---

quote:

---

I do agree that the paragraph needs to be reworded and clarified and I will say as much to my congressman. Good SF! Now we are really talking.

---

quote:

---

He says that he isn't for rationing healthcare. He says that he doesn't want to take away anyone's private healthcare plans if they like them. He says that the government doesn't want a say in your healthcare decisions. He says alot of nice things.

But...

Many people who have objectively (supposedly) looked at the current incarnation of the House's healthcare bill forsee just the opposite in all of these cases.

---

quote:

---

in the industrial world we rank 37th

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rhwdetroit:

quote:

---

in the industrial world we rank 37th

---

I'm just curious as to what the factors are in this rating. I heard this thrown around in the news but I never heard a basis for this. I'm not arguing it, it could be true, but where did it come from?

---

quote:

---

Which is it SF? Are people not going to be able to by private health insurance or is the gov setting up a regulation authority? Those are two very different things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:

quote:

---

Which is it SF? Are people not going to be able to by private health insurance or is the gov setting up a regulation authority? Those are two very different things.

---

What I am concerned about, Big, is twofold.

Part 1) As I listed from Glass's link to Media Matters' interpretation of the IDB article, once the reform bill takes effect (in it's current form), insurance policies as they currently exist will no longer be available. Even with the grandfathering clause viewed in it's entirety, no new policies will be extended that do not meet the exhanges regulations.

Let that sink in for a moment.

The government is going to mandate that private insurance companies increase their risk exposure by forcing them to accept 'pre-existing condition'-ers. These new poilicies will be guaranteed money losers as they, by definition, will need more money to cover than they will EVER produce in premium generated income.

Now, if you were in charge of the Insurance Company and knew that this increase in risk\cost was coming, what do you do to balance it out to maintain profitability? Raise premiums. But wait, Obama said that he is going to limit\cap premiums that insurance companies can charge.

Keep with me, I'm almost there...

So, we have an increase risk exposure mandated by law. We have a capped income pool, also limited by law. And...wait for it...a competing entity with unlimited funds (as they look at tax payer dollars).

How long do you think that private companies can survive in that environment?

Increased risk is why many property insurance companies stop issuing policies in certain geographical areas. The risk to return ratio doesn't make sense. That is exactly what the reform bill is going to mandate by capping premiums and mandating pre-existing condition acceptance.

More later...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
no new policies will be extended that do not meet the exhanges regulations.

correct.

however, the insurance plan(s) that the congress persons enjoy already has such an exchange rule. guess what? there are plenty of competing companies.

they choose form a set of policies that meets the criteria.

one of the rules in that exchange is no existing condition exclusions.

in essence? the Congress is TRYING to extend the same coverage they have to everybody...

that is not how the IBD and fox friends present it tho is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
GEB, take a look at that article on rescission. Link above..

i am...

An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.

i've been aware of this for years. it's hard to prove because you only hear word of mouth stories, the data is not easuy to prove

---

quote:

---

“Late in the hearing, Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show ‘intentional fraud.’

“The answer from all three executives:

” ‘No.’ “

---

quote:

---

Given your sources, I'm not saying I agree with this post, but take a look at merely one practice of current insurance "business as usual":

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=27994

---

Ok, I have to ask you then, Tex...

Do you disagree with my conclusion if the following is true:

IF an insurance company's risk is increased...

and

IF an insurance company is unable to raise money to offset said risk through raising premiums...

and

IF there is a competeing entity that has an unlimited amount of capital to use...

THEN

There would seem to be a problem with them being able to stay afloat long term?
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 
Now, I have a gripe to air...

I understand, in part, that alot of the arguement I'm seeing come from you, Glass, Big and others are in response to the many critics of Obama's health care reform efforts and not all of them are directed at what I've personally posted...but...

I am a little annoyed that I keep getting responses that seem to indicate that I don't believe ANY reform is necessary.

I fully agree with you that the above linked information shows the dirty side of the industry. But our efforts, in my opinion, should not equate to the 'cure the disease by killing the patient.'

Let me be clear. YES, we need to change the current system. I agree with Obama 100% on this. (I never thought I'd type that. ) But it's the HOW that I worry about.
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lockman:
Thanks you! SF you spelled it out in a nut shell.

The Government will also force private insurance companies to provide coverage for abortions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
no new policies will be extended that do not meet the exhanges regulations.

correct.

however, the insurance plan(s) that the congress persons enjoy already has such an exchange rule. guess what? there are plenty of competing companies.

they choose form a set of policies that meets the criteria.

one of the rules in that exchange is no existing condition exclusions.

in essence? the Congress is TRYING to extend the same coverage they have to everybody...

that is not how the IBD and fox friends present it tho is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Now, I have a gripe to air...

I understand, in part, that alot of the arguement I'm seeing come from you, Glass, Big and others are in response to the many critics of Obama's health care reform efforts and not all of them are directed at what I've personally posted...but...

I am a little annoyed that I keep getting responses that seem to indicate that I don't believe ANY reform is necessary.

I fully agree with you that the above linked information shows the dirty side of the industry. But our efforts, in my opinion, should not equate to the 'cure the disease by killing the patient.'

Let me be clear. YES, we need to change the current system. I agree with Obama 100% on this. (I never thought I'd type that. ) But it's the HOW that I worry about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Big, as far as the IBD article, see above answer to Glass.

quote:

---

I do agree that the paragraph needs to be reworded and clarified and I will say as much to my congressman. Good SF! Now we are really talking.

---

And yet, worded as quoted, that is how Pelosi was pushing it through the House. And this is what has many conservatives (note the lack of use of Rep\Dem) concerned. This wording (and others in the bill) only has one of two possible excuses for their vaguery\ambiguity.

1) The authors are sadly lacking in skill\knowledge of how to clearly delineate their intended objectives.

or

2) The authors fully INTENDED it to be vague to allow for maximum manipulation after the law was passed. The wanted it to be ambiguous to allow them to sell it as one thing and then rule with it from another interpretation.

Which do you truly believe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:

quote:

---

Given your sources, I'm not saying I agree with this post, but take a look at merely one practice of current insurance "business as usual":

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=27994

---

Ok, I have to ask you then, Tex...

Do you disagree with my conclusion if the following is true:

IF an insurance company's risk is increased...

and

IF an insurance company is unable to raise money to offset said risk through raising premiums...

and

IF there is a competeing entity that has an unlimited amount of capital to use...

THEN

There would seem to be a problem with them being able to stay afloat long term?

---

quote:

---

You first--you read that article I linked to? The Consumer Digest repost of the LA Times piece on rescission...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Once again, Glass...

The current system needs changing...

Already stated my support for that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:

quote:

---

You first--you read that article I linked to? The Consumer Digest repost of the LA Times piece on rescission...

---

Yes, I did. Is there a particular part you want to discuss? Rescission is supposed to be an 'out' for the Insurance company when fraud is discovered. If you lie to the company and tell them that you are perfectly healthy when you know you have a lump the size of a grapefruit in your abdomen they absolutely shouldn't be on the line for your bills.

Now. If some companies are truly abusing this clause and simply using it to get out of an honestly entered into contract, then by all means run them up the flag pole and sue the crap out of them.

The only problem is under the law as it currently stands(as I understand it), they don't have to prove 'intentional' fraud. Only that you knew\should have known that the information left out of your application for insurance would have disqualified you for coverage. Right or wrong, that's the law as it exists.

Unless there is some specific part you would like my input on (which I would be happy to provide), do you disagree with my previously stated conclusion if those conditions listed ARE true?

---

quote:

---

A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.

The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
I agree.. Government would make a more logical choice...
Just not ours...
If it passes I give it a few years before we are all used as test subjects for chem warfare or bio warfare...
That and taxes will be through the roof.
I lived under Canada's system for ten years and never had a problem with it...

---

well that's refreshing...I thought you despised all gummint.

Seriously? I envision sumpin like the co-op utility model, but better. If there *is* profit? Share it among co-op members.

Just saying, there's some things that work great as strictly for-profit. AND, any of these co-ops I'm building should NOT have a monopoly. That way, if a for-profit can achieve a better model, thereby lowering costs and delivering equal or better quality--HIT IT.
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
I really don't have an answer either this health care is a real problem in America.I do know one thing that has to go is having your medical care as part of your employment package. What does where I work have to do with my health care
 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 
OK...I will try and pull back a bit as well now that we are really talking about the bill and not about the spin.

So SF (and Lock), what concerns you most is the cost of the plan and the idea that government is going to put some regulations on private providers which makes you believe that the intention is not to provide basic care for all but to run private companies out of business and leave the gummint (as Tex would say) the sole health care provider in the nation is this correct?

BTW...seems the end of life care provision is being removed from the Senate version of the bill. I am of two minds on this. On the one hand most hospitals already have a nurse talk to patients about health care directives when they are checking vitals so it really isn't an important part of the bill. On the other hand it just galls me a little to think that Palin and the other "death council" fearmongerers are going to claim this as a victory. I don't think we should be rewarding dirty politics like this.
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 
Half and half...

I honestly don't give a fig about how much it's going to cost. Really. I don't. If you want a good health care plan for ALL Americans it's going to be expensive. If all you wanted to do is give free bandaids to everyone then you can save a bundle of money.

My concern with the current projected cost is HOW it's going to be paid for. Lumping the burden of paying for the plan (or any other) onto the backs of a small groups of people (the 'rich') to pay for the benefits for the many (mostly poor\underinsured in this case) is not just in my opinion. The rich have as much right to the protection of property as the poor. The fact that they have more of it does not disqualify them from that constitutional protection.

As far as the second part of your question, whether it's the government's intent to drive private insurers out of business or not doesn't really matter. It's the inevitable outcome under the currently intended plan. Noone has provided anything to dispute my belief on this. The insurers CANNOT survive under the proposed limitations. It's just not possible imho.

Now, to finish with a tinfoil hat aside. I actually DO believe that the government WANTS to be either the main source of healthcare or the only source. Government is all about power and no administration that I know of has EVER backed done from the chance to increase the feds' reach.
 

---

Posted by Relentless. on :
 
Think this about sums it up:

quote:

---

Yesterday on "ABC-TV" (better known as the all Barrack channel) during the "network special on health care".... Obama was asked:

"Mr. President will you and your family give up your current health care program and join the new 'universal health care program' that the rest of us will be on?".....

(bet you already know the answer)...

There was a stoney silence as Obama ignored the question and chose not to answer it.... in addition, a number of Senators were asked the same question and their response was..."We will think about it." And they did.

It was announced today on the news that the "Kennedy health care bill" was written into the new health care reform initiative, ensuring that that Congress will be 100% exempt !

This should speak volumes to all of us. so, this great new health care plan that is good for you and me... is not good enough for Obama, his family or Congress...??

---

yup
 

---

Posted by T e x on :
 
Ya, I don't agree with that, either.

But then, that possibility was never on the table. No admin would change that.

They *should*
but they won't...
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 

"Mr. President will you and your family give up your current health care program and join the new 'universal health care program' that the rest of us will be on?".....


uhhh, this question is impossible to answer since the president has his own personal physician, and he said as much in New Hampshire, so the question was repeated in Boseman.

this is exaclty what they are trying to work toward.

The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) is a system of "managed competition" through which employee health benefits are provided to full-time permanent civilian employees and qualified retirees of the United States Government. The FEHBP allows insurance companies and employee associations such as labor unions to develop health, dental, and allied plans to be marketed to governmental employees.

These plans are available to employees during an "open enrollment" once probationary status has been passed by a new employee, during which time the employee, if accepting enrollment, will be covered fully in any plan he or she chooses without limitations regarding "pre-existing conditions." After the initial enrollment, changes can be made only upon a "qualifying life event" such as marriage, divorce, adoption or birth of a child, or change in employment status of a spouse, or during the annual "open season," during which employees can enroll, disenroll, or change from one plan to another. The exact dates of the open season change from year to year, but are basically from the Monday of the second full week in November through Monday, the second full week of December.

Premiums vary from plan to plan and are paid in part by the employer (the U. S. Government agency that the employee works for) and the remainder by the employee: the employer pays an amount equal to 72 percent of the average plan premium for self-only or family coverage (not to exceed 75 percent of the premium for the selected plan), and the employee pays the rest. Certain employees (such as postal workers) have a higher portion of their premiums paid as the result of collective bargaining agreements.

Some plans, particularly the one offered by some employee unions such as the National Association of Letter Carriers, and by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association on behalf of its member insurers, are nationwide; others are regionally-available plans such as HMOs. The FEHBP is open to members of United States Congress; in the 2004 presidential campaign, Senator John Kerry proposed opening enrollment in this plan to all Americans, which would certainly have changed it drastically.

Check these sites for more information: www.OPM.gov/insure, ]www.FEPblue.ORG
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
Well after reading some of these posts I now know why I am a democrat and a progressive. The whole thing about health care is to make it available to everyone.

Worring about some damn insurance co that was one of many that has got us into this mess is foolishness. Let them run thier business if they want to,and if they put out a good product people will buy it if they don't they go by-by that simple.

If they keep on the same path of bigger profits all the time they only have a very few methods of making them. raise the price,give less care, and turn down claims. Insurance companies keep refining this practice until they cover very little don't cover any preexsisting and want to insure only healthy people for a certain lenght of time.

We need a public option that is government run every time the issue comes up we get closer.Truman,Nixon,Clinton, And now Obama,who if he does not get anything passed will have made the best case for health care reform and so far has got the best message out and made more awarness about the subject so the next time around we will get the prize.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
if they put out a good product people will buy it if they don't they go by-by that simple.

in the Fed Employee program that Congress has? yes, every year they can switch to another participant.

however, in many cases? you take what your employer gets for you.....

what we really need IMO? is for Doctors, who are the ones who order off the menu for us, to wake up and smell the coffee...

they brewed this mess. they know what they are doing.

when they tell you they have to order so many extra tests to protect themselves because of lack of tort reform? ask them who owns the lab that did the tests
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
Right glass , Another point I would like to make is that the current system smoothers small business start ups. I remember when I was much younger in the late sventies I had a very good plsn for starting up a business and it was the issue of health care insurance that stopped me I needed at this time to keep us all insured and between preexsisting and higher payment I had to make a moral play to my family because of health coverage. See in many countries that is not even a thought health is considerd a right of birth.

I have to think how many other young people that are full of lifes energy and ideas can't make the move without the fear of loosing there health care. So they keep there 9 to 5 job. Think how much socity suffers by holding back this force of growth and enterpanure sprit
 

---

Posted by Pagan on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
if they put out a good product people will buy it if they don't they go by-by that simple.

in the Fed Employee program that Congress has? yes, every year they can switch to another participant.

however, in many cases? you take what your employer gets for you.....

what we really need IMO? is for Doctors, who are the ones who order off the menu for us, to wake up and smell the coffee...

they brewed this mess. they know what they are doing.

when they tell you they have to order so many extra tests to protect themselves because of lack of tort reform? ask them who owns the lab that did the tests

---

IMO Glass, I think you are getting a bit off track. So many here are defending the insurance companies. Complaining they might fail if there is a government insurance program. Seems to me these are the same people who were saying "don't bail-out the auto industry! Let them fail!". Yet they wanna see these bloodsucking insurance companies survive if even if they are bleeding the populace dry?!?! Makes no sense to me. The insurance industry has never had a true viable competitor that would force them to actual put out some competitive rates. Well guess what boys and girls. If health reform legislation passes, they will be forced to compete, or go the way of the Dodo. About damn time IMO. I've had health care insurance insurance, auto insurance, homeowners insurance for many years. Never filed a major claim with any of them. Yet they continue to bleed us all dry with they're ridiculous rates and restrictions. It is time for a change.

Ok...end of rant.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
i think that big businesses would also like to see health care shifted off their books as it continues to become more and more expensive.

they get a tax break now, McCain was offering a tax plan that would have shifted at least part of that tax break away from employers and to the plan owner.


the idea of tax protected savings accounts would be good, until you need a 70,000$ surgery for a pacemaker
 

---

Posted by T e x on :
 
ya, would be good to have "separation of work and health care" so employers could hire without fear, and workers could say "eff off--I won't take abuse" without fear.
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 
You tell em, Pagan!!

Screw the insurance companies!

I say we all boycott them and tell them to go to hell! Next time your sick, Pagan, you show them you won't be sucked in by their scheme. You go ahead and pay full price for your doctor's visit, prescriptions and live off your ample savings account while you miss work!! That will show them!!


And don't get me started on the auto insurance. You tell them to pi$$ off too! And if you just happen to be in a 'no fault' wreck? You just go ahead and buy a new car out of your own pocket!! And if it happens to be your fault, and you hurt someone in the wreck...you just pay for their healthcare and new car out of pocket too!!

That will show those blood suckers!!!

You go boy!!
 

---

Posted by Pagan on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
You tell em, Pagan!!

Screw the insurance companies!

I say we all boycott them and tell them to go to hell! Next time your sick, Pagan, you show them you won't be sucked in by their scheme. You go ahead and pay full price for your doctor's visit, prescriptions and live off your ample savings account while you miss work!! That will show them!!


And don't get me started on the auto insurance. You tell them to pi$$ off too! And if you just happen to be in a 'no fault' wreck? You just go ahead and buy a new car out of your own pocket!! And if it happens to be your fault, and you hurt someone in the wreck...you just pay for their healthcare and new car out of pocket too!!

That will show those blood suckers!!!

You go boy!!

---

quote:

---

I've had health care insurance insurance, auto insurance, homeowners insurance for many years. Never filed a major claim with any of them. Yet they continue to bleed us all dry with they're ridiculous rates and restrictions. It is time for a change.

---

quote:

---

Your such an imbecile it is astounding. Where did I ever say that crap you are spewing knucklehead. And I wasn't addressing you in that post. I try to avoid engaging idiots like you in conversation...it's pointless. I was addressing Glassman. I know you are mentally deficient...but try and keep up for a change.

---

Only four personal attacks in three lines?

You're slipping, Pagan. I know you can do better than that.


 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
It's all good to gripe and moan about how much the EVIL insurance companies charge until you need them to pay for your children to be delivered or your car replaced or your home rebuilt after a fire. Then you fully demand they pay your what you're due.

What ingrates we are.

LOL...

we wouldn't need them if big brother paid for it.

it's always amusing to play games with economic theory...

people like to say that if we overtax the rich? they won't work anymore. LOL, they'll work, and they'll still be the rich. they'll just charge more.

cutting taxes didn't incentivise them to charge less now did it?
 

---

Posted by T e x on :
 
It's all good to gripe and moan about how much the EVIL insurance companies charge until you need them to pay for your children to be delivered or your car replaced or your home rebuilt after a fire. Then you fully demand they pay your what you're due.

Lol, are you paying attention? The gripe is they're self-serving and too damn powerful. You can *demand* what you're due all you want and still not get it. My auto insurance paid off on a bogus claim and raised *my* rates for being involved in a wreck that was clearly not my fault. My homeowner's paid...but not the full amount, on either my contents or my structural--and the mortgage company shorted me about $6 grand that they should have refunded. As I read your post, I'm supposed to be happy about all that.

To repeat from that repost of the LA Times article, bold my emphasis:

quote:

---

An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.

"No one can defend, and I certainly cannot defend, the practice of canceling coverage after the fact," said Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.), a member of the committee. "There is no acceptable minimum to denying coverage after the fact."

The executives -- Richard A. Collins, chief executive of UnitedHealth's Golden Rule Insurance Co.; Don Hamm, chief executive of Assurant Health and Brian Sassi, president of consumer business for WellPoint Inc., parent of Blue Cross of California -- were courteous and matter-of-fact in their testimony.

But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle.

---

quote:

---

LOL...

we wouldn't need them if big brother paid for it.

it's always amusing to play games with economic theory...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Ok, Tex, here's a part of my previous post I would love an answer to in regarding yours...

For all the problems you listed, did you receive more money (in total) than you've paid into the insurance companies (in total)?

I'm guessing just with the house fire claim you did.

So, in all, you've received more money than you spent...and still you're not happy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Ok, Tex, here's a part of my previous post I would love an answer to in regarding yours...

For all the problems you listed, did you receive more money (in total) than you've paid into the insurance companies (in total)?

I'm guessing just with the house fire claim you did.

So, in all, you've received more money than you spent...and still you're not happy?

---

quote:

---

By your logic, there's no point in contracts: "they" get to decide "what you need" instead of paying out on the schedule they agreed to.

---

quote:

---

There's also a hint of this: "To tell the truth, you actually were lucky to have been burnt and spent six weeks in a coma and lost your family home that your Dad built."

---

quote:

---

Why are you asking about me, personally?

---

quote:

---

How about this: We're in a card game, and you win. There's supposed to be $10 grand in the pot, but I'm light $2 grand. Oh, well, you still won more than you had....

And that would be OK with you?

---

quote:

---

i'm sorry SF, but that's about as dumb a question as i've ever heard.

---

Bah, I'm sure I've surpassed it sometime here.

Seriously, though, in retrospect I probably could have worded it better. Hopefully my follow up to Tex cleared up what I meant a little. (shrug)

quote:

---

when i lost my house?...

---

quote:

---

as they said in barterown? Right or wrong, we had a deal. And the law says: bust a deal and face the wheel!

---

I loved Thunderdome...even with Tina in it.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
If they broke contract with you...SUE THE #$#$ OUT OF THEM

i wish it was that simple. i had a good case, but i also had agood lawyer and he told me that by the tme we sued and won? i would not get enough money to make it owrth my while.

he said i would have to be happy with winning in principle. the co's know this, they have the best lawyers on retainer and they pay them anyway....

paperwork and discovery can become very expensive.

in spite of all the big cases you hear about on the news? they are very rare as a percentage of overall cases...
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:

quote:

---

as they said in barterown? Right or wrong, we had a deal. And the law says: bust a deal and face the wheel!

---

I loved Thunderdome...even with Tina in it.

---

quote:

---

but the major points are:

1) insurance companies cheat people alla time [cf rescission ]

---

quote:

---

2) not enough people have health insurance, and ethically that's wrong

---

quote:

---

3) the obfuscation and even hate coming from the naysayers seem more directed at manifesting Obama's "waterloo" instead of joining in a sincere debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by raybond:
American people are sure funny. One of the issues OIbama was elected on was a public option medical insurance policy that any american could buy since it seems private insurance companies can't do the job. Well now he is close to doing the jo b and they are all choking and leaving the ship like rats I guess we have to have at least 150,000,000 people left uncovered for folks to demand health care that they can afford to purchase. I don't know why I care so much I have great medical coverage and so does my family. I just would like to see a much healthier nation with people that feel good.

Truman could see this and he could not get it done same for Richard Nixon,Hillary Clinton tried and Obama is losing ground to bad for thoes of you that need it you are letting the greedy criminal element win again

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by thinkmoney:
What Obama should be focusing on is JOBS, JOBS , JOBS, and then deficit - also jailtime and fines, etc. for all the wall street criminals -

He also should apologize for a phony pork stimulus --

And, no more spending----

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by thinkmoney:
What Obama should be focusing on is JOBS, JOBS , JOBS, and then deficit - also jailtime and fines, etc. for all the wall street criminals -

He also should apologize for a phony pork stimulus --

And, no more spending----

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by thinkmoney:
oops ---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:

quote:

---

Given your sources, I'm not saying I agree with this post, but take a look at merely one practice of current insurance "business as usual":

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=27994

---

Ok, I have to ask you then, Tex...

Do you disagree with my conclusion if the following is true:

IF an insurance company's risk is increased...

and

IF an insurance company is unable to raise money to offset said risk through raising premiums...

and

IF there is a competeing entity that has an unlimited amount of capital to use...

THEN

There would seem to be a problem with them being able to stay afloat long term?

---

I am going back through this thread as it has gotten away from me and though I know it wasn't directed at me I would like to answer.

My answer is that the pressure of competition forces the company to become more efficient and cost conscious without allowing the company to just cut problem customers out of the plan as an answer.

As Glass and others have posted medical insurance companies have some of the highest profit margins in the country. They also have some of the highest advertising budgets in the country. Are you really honestly concerned that they aren't gonna find a few corners to cut to make ends meet? I am not.

As to unlimited money....if these plans have unlimited resources then why is Medicare a decade away from going broke?


There is a funny human reaction that can happen when placed into a seeming no-win situation. It's called dependency or institutionalization depending on which type of situation is being discussed. It happens to battered women, kidnap victims, inmates in prison, the elderly. It's main characteristic is a unexplainable reliance and devotion to the very object or person which is restricting your freedoms.

I believe that in a large part this is some of the backlash that is being fought here. Most everyone in the country knows their wallets are being raped but many have been institutionalized into believing the system as it stands now is the only thing that is protecting their health.

Join me SF. Let's set our brothers and sisters free from their shackles!
 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Ok, Tex, here's a part of my previous post I would love an answer to in regarding yours...

For all the problems you listed, did you receive more money (in total) than you've paid into the insurance companies (in total)?

I'm guessing just with the house fire claim you did.

So, in all, you've received more money than you spent...and still you're not happy?

---

quote:

---

Woah....SF....do we need to explain the definition of insurance and how it works? Cuz it sounds to me like you are mixing it up with your savings account.

---

quote:

---

As to unlimited money....if these plans have unlimited resources then why is Medicare a decade away from going broke?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
So you are...
The same government that has just admitted they are going to take the ten year deficit to TEN TRILLION dollars is the government you are telling me is the pinnacle of efficiency?
Where did that pesky drawing board go?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
So what are we going to call this new country?

I vote "Happy Land"
Seems the name should be as far from reality as possible, in keeping with the perceptions of its inhabitants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
DMV
Amtrack
USPS
Military
Foreign Relations
EPA
Customs

The list goes on and on as names and acronyms fully embraced as the most inefficient cluster ****s on the planet.

It was just one short year ago that you and your type hated and despised the government... Now some moron who you've been told is like you is supposedly in charge of it and you can't wait to have him sire you with his idea of what's right.

Pointless really..

I was in the military pal, as was every male member of my family going back multiple generations...
Short of fighting the next revolution... we've done enough.

---

quote:

---

have you read Atlas Shrugged yet DQR?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
Glass, it was never the best place to live because of the federal government's actions...

That's not precisely true... a great many things have come from both NASA and military research...

Point being our government is not in a position to provide nor manage health care for the citizens...
It is heavily in debt and its resources(us) have nothing left to offer(recession). It is a government like so many other failed governments... corrupt beyond a satanic wet dream.

Yes a government properly regulated and monitored would be the ideal choice for a health care manager...
We don't have one of those...

---

well, i won't disagree, but i will ask how we go about getting one.

the Govt is aheckofalot more involved in getting food on your table than anyone NOT in the producer biz knows and the producers want to keep it that way
 

---

Posted by Relentless. on :
 
Yeah no doubt.
I don't know really.. I think getting rid of the fed is an essential first step. Could be that representatives should be picked via lottery rather than electing them. Seems to me the election process has been corrupted beyond repair. The obvious argument against would be A:

What if we get a moron via the lottery?
Umm... look around.. That's all we have now.

B:
What if the lottery is rigged?

Rigged worse than the current election system?

Dunno, just a thought.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
face it, society in every instance is simply a cleptocracy
 

---

Posted by T e x on :
 
I say get rid of all "quasis"

if it's governmental/regulatory, it should be subject to FOI/Open Records acts.

I doubt the Federal Reserve is, & I know the DTCC is not.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
that is an excellent point Tex, and Ron Paul is for that too...

Ron has some really excellent points, but i have to admit that when i listen to him cover all of his points he gets too far gone on some of them.

the DTCC is part of the Federal Reserve. i found that on their site last year, but right now it is not mentioned on their site, so they may have distanced themself when or after they acquired/partnered with Euronext.

they are another example of being too big to fail and should not be as big as they are...
 

---

Posted by T e x on :
 
"too big to fail"

feed 'em fish heads and dob mud up their asses...

I'm sick to death of too-big-to-fail bull-bully-bullchit.

How come US homeowners are not "too big to fail" ?
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
right you are tex but it just ain't fair or just.
but money and power always have advantage in the USA. The only way to stop it is to stop the lobby system
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
It was just one short year ago that you and your type hated and despised the government... Now some moron who you've been told is like you is supposedly in charge of it and you can't wait to have him sire you with his idea of what's right.

_________________________________________________-

Yes you are 100% correct and I still hate Bush and I still think he is a semi Fascist that given the chance he would would be a full blown Hitler with all the traits of his grandfather who was a Nazi supporter. And I have no shame in that.
 

---

Posted by Relentless. on :
 
How can you hate anyone who is semi anything?
Wouldn't you semi-hate him?
And that's merely dislike.

I bet you're thrilled now that Obama is in office and has repealed all the laws and orders put in place by Bush the semi-fascist. I can almost hear you rejoicing as Obama pulled the troops out of the mideast. You were overjoyed when Obama closed Gitmo. You were filled with glee when Obama distanced himself from and then refused to use hired mercs like Blackwater to do what the constitution wouldn't allow regular military troops. I know you were darn near orgasmic when Obama declared the repealing of the patriot act.

Yes... how far we've come...
What a bright day.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
i liked it when he opened the investigation of the institution of the unlimited nobid contract process for Cheney er i mean Halibuttorn.
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
No fully hate I don't care what part of him is or is not the cancer that he is is out of the way for a while or maybe for ever so there is no need to waste any more time on him.
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
I am glad you don't enjoy the day give you something to post about and maybe I will learn a few things from your post.

Any way have a good day I think I will rejoyce now that I know I am a killer thanks for bring that out.

If we love to fight so much how come the idea of a draft scares most people
 

---

Posted by Relentless. on :
 
Slavery has never been enjoyable... to the slaves.
 

---

Posted by wallymac on :
 
"I can almost hear you rejoicing as Obama pulled the troops out of the mideast"

What fantasy show did that happen on? Last I looked we still have troops in the middle east. I will be very happy when the troops come home but want it to be done in an orderly and safe manner.

"You were overjoyed when Obama closed Gitmo."
Once again, Gitmo is still open. Yes Prisoners will be transferred and Gitmo will be closed in the future but it is still open. Funny thing, people in the US don't want the prisoner's transferred to US Soil so arrangements are being made with other countries to house these prisoners.

"You were filled with glee when Obama distanced himself from and then refused to use hired mercs like Blackwater to do what the constitution wouldn't allow regular military troops."

Ironic, people want us to follow the Constitution to a T but it's bad to not do an end run around it.

"I know you were darn near orgasmic when Obama declared the repealing of the patriot act."


Eight years after being enacted, and three years after being reauthorized, the controversial USA Patriot Act was repealed by Congress by a vote of 99 to 1 in the Senate and 520 to 18 in the House.

Doesn't look like there were too many people against it.
 

---

Posted by Relentless. on :
 
Sarcasm is a form of humor that uses sharp, cutting remarks or language intended to mock, wound, or subject to contempt or ridicule.[1] It is first recorded in English in The Shepheardes Calender in 1579:

Tom piper) An Ironical [Sarcasmus], spoken in derision of these rude wits, which make more account of a rhyming Rimbaud, then of skill grounded upon learning and judgment.
—Edmund Spenser[1]

It comes from the ancient Greek σαρκάζω (sarkazo) meaning 'to tear flesh' but the ancient Greek word for the rhetorical concept of taunting was instead χλευασμός (chleyasmόs). Sarcasm appears several times in the Old Testament, for example:

Lo, you see the man is mad; why then have you brought him to me? Do I lack madmen, that you have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence?
—Achish, king of Gath, I Sam 21:10-15[2]

Hostile, critical comments may be expressed in an ironic way such as saying "don't work too hard" to a lazy worker. The use of irony introduces an element of humour which may make the criticism seem more polite and less aggressive but understanding the subtlety of this usage requires second-order interpretation of the speaker's intentions. This sophisticated understanding is lacking in people with brain damage, dementia and autism,[3] and this perception has been located by MRI in the right parahippocampal gyrus.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
Eight years after being enacted, and three years after being reauthorized, the controversial USA Patriot Act was repealed by Congress by a vote of 99 to 1 in the Senate and 520 to 18 in the House.

what? that's news to me

there's not even 500 members of the House... that article is incorrect. i dunno how it got published , but it is the only reference to the so-called repeal of the patriot act
 

---

Posted by wallymac on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
Eight years after being enacted, and three years after being reauthorized, the controversial USA Patriot Act was repealed by Congress by a vote of 99 to 1 in the Senate and 520 to 18 in the House.

what? that's news to me

there's not even 500 members of the House... that article is incorrect. i dunno how it got published , but it is the only reference to the so-called repeal of the patriot act

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
Sarcasm is a form of humor that uses sharp, cutting remarks or language intended to mock, wound, or subject to contempt or ridicule.[1] It is first recorded in English in The Shepheardes Calender in 1579:

Tom piper) An Ironical [Sarcasmus], spoken in derision of these rude wits, which make more account of a rhyming Rimbaud, then of skill grounded upon learning and judgment.
—Edmund Spenser[1]

It comes from the ancient Greek σαρκάζω (sarkazo) meaning 'to tear flesh' but the ancient Greek word for the rhetorical concept of taunting was instead χλευασμός (chleyasmόs). Sarcasm appears several times in the Old Testament, for example:

Lo, you see the man is mad; why then have you brought him to me? Do I lack madmen, that you have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence?
—Achish, king of Gath, I Sam 21:10-15[2]

Hostile, critical comments may be expressed in an ironic way such as saying "don't work too hard" to a lazy worker. The use of irony introduces an element of humour which may make the criticism seem more polite and less aggressive but understanding the subtlety of this usage requires second-order interpretation of the speaker's intentions. This sophisticated understanding is lacking in people with brain damage, dementia and autism,[3] and this perception has been located by MRI in the right parahippocampal gyrus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wallymac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
Eight years after being enacted, and three years after being reauthorized, the controversial USA Patriot Act was repealed by Congress by a vote of 99 to 1 in the Senate and 520 to 18 in the House.

what? that's news to me

there's not even 500 members of the House... that article is incorrect. i dunno how it got published , but it is the only reference to the so-called repeal of the patriot act

---

http://www.nytimes-se.com/2009/07/04/patriot-act-repealed/

I should have read further. Looks like just another example of misused sarcasm.

---

everybody makes mistakes. shake it off: you post well.
 

---

Posted by T e x on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
the GOP should be glad they have the health care bill to argue about instead of defending themselves for all the things they did wrong.

it would not surprise me to see some of those "issues" get addressed if things keep going the way they have been the last month or so...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
Things keep going the way they are and we'll soon see another "terrorist" attack of some sort.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
the GOP should be glad they have the health care bill to argue about instead of defending themselves for all the things they did wrong.

it would not surprise me to see some of those "issues" get addressed if things keep going the way they have been the last month or so...

---

it took them all of a few hours to begin the next attempt to take over the news cycle:


CIA likely to be investigated over prisoner abuse

Attorney general urged to reopen terror interrogation files

* Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
* guardian.co.uk, Monday 24 August 2009 13.53 BST


The US is close to ordering a criminal investigation into the conduct of the CIA during the Bush administration, it emerged today.

The US justice department's ethics office has recommended to the attorney general, Eric Holder, that he reopen a host of CIA alleged prisoner abuse cases during the interrogation of al-Qaida suspects.

The disclosure comes on the day that the justice department is scheduled to release an internal investigation into the CIA's behaviour, as well as other documents relating to the agency's treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo and in secret prisons round the world in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/24/cia-investigation-prisoner-abuse


Barack Obama initially said he did not want to look backward, with his advisers saying the row would distract from his heavy domestic and foreign agenda. But Holder is said to have been disturbed by what he read in internal justice department reports and it would be difficult for him to ignore the findings of his ethics office.

they're all disturbed that they lost control of the media
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
The AFL-CIO draws a line in the sand over the public option.
Yesterday, the AFL-CIO drew “a line in the sand” when it outlined three elements any health care bill it supports must have: a public health insurance option, an employer mandate, and no taxation of health benefits. AFL-CIO Secretary Treasurer Richard Trumka told the press that this means the 11 million member-strong labor organization “won’t support the bill if it doesn’t have the public option in it.” Today, Trumka appeared on MSNBC and explained to Norah O’Donnell that the inclusion of these three elements marks the difference between “coming up with a bill that you have reform and actually having health insurance reform.
The AFL-CIO’s declaration comes at time when there is speculation that Obama may be willing to sacrifice the public option, with reports that “some administration officials welcome a showdown with liberal lawmakers … [for] Obama to show he is willing to stare down his own party to get things done.” Despite the political wrangling over the inclusion of a new public plan in the final health care bill, the public remains overwhelmingly in support of including such an option.
 

---

Posted by T e x on :
 

quote:

---

With almost 20 years inside the health insurance industry, Wendell Potter saw for-profit insurers hijack our health care system and put profits before patients. Now, he speaks with Bill Moyers about how those companies are standing in the way of health care reform.

---

quote:

---

Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
Define gibberish

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
Going to jail for not getting health insurance?
My problem with that?
What ****ing country is this?

---

quote:

---

It takes a full hour and a half before he stumbles upon the topic he should have started skewering from the moment his film began: Bear-Lehman-AIG-Merrill Lynch-Goldman Sachs et al, and all the short-seller raids and bank runs and trillions of dollars in MBS's, CDS's, CDO's and CLO's that this entails.

Moore fails to make any serious attempt to show how and why Wall Street failed so dismally at managing risk. Instead we get silly stunts akin to what he was doing 20 years ago, in his far superior debut, "Roger & Me."

---

 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
i hear prisoners get excellent health care. and they don't pay a penny
 

---

Posted by Relentless. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by T e x:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
Going to jail for not getting health insurance?
My problem with that?
What ****ing country is this?

---

I would think it would be discussed here:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

but I don't see it. I see "a fine" or "a tax," but nothing about jail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by T e x:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
Going to jail for not getting health insurance?
My problem with that?
What ****ing country is this?

---

I would think it would be discussed here:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

but I don't see it. I see "a fine" or "a tax," but nothing about jail.

---

What happens when you don't pay a fine?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
Going to jail for not getting health insurance?
My problem with that?
What ****ing country is this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
Oh.. and for anyone that thinks the FEDS of all worthless organizations will simply forgive any unpaid fines?
Yeah...
Holding merely delusional as a lofty goal...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by raybond:
Grayson’s Right: Under The Republican Plan, ‘Don’t Get Sick’ (Or You Might Have To ‘Die Quickly’)

Last night, in a controversial speech on the House floor, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) announced that the Republican alternative health care proposals would force sick Americans to “die quickly”:

It’s my duty and pride tonight to be able to announce exactly what the Republicans plan to do for health care in America… It’s a very simple plan. Here it is. The Republican health care plan for America: “don’t get sick.” If you have insurance don’t get sick, if you don’t have insurance, don’t get sick; if you’re sick, don’t get sick. Just don’t get sick. … If you do get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: “die quickly.”
No Republican wants Americans to die, but the party’s efforts to stonewall meaningful health care reform perpetuate a status quo in which 45,000 Americans die every year because they lack health care coverage and thousands more see their policies canceled or denied by private insurers that are beholden to Wall Street’s profit expectations and not patient health.

Grayson intentionally over-stated his case. It’s not that Republicans want to kill people; it’s that their opposition to meaningful health care reform and their “free market” alternatives would further deregulate insurers and allow companies to continue pushing individuals into high deductible policies that don’t provide adequate coverage and actually harm Americans who can’t afford their medical bills:

“Don’t get sick.” Under the Republican alternatives, private insurers will deny coverage to Americans who suffer from chronic illnesses like cancers or asthma and lure healthier applicants into high deductible policies that provide limited coverage once they become sick.

“Die quickly.” If Americans in these policies do fall ill, they will go bankrupt paying off their medical bills and join the 78 percent of bankruptcy filers burdened by health care expenses who had health insurance but “still were overwhelmed by their medical debt.” Grayson is facetiously suggesting that Americans would be urged to skip the “bankruptcy” part, avoid being a financial burden on their family, and simply pass away.

In other words, the Republican alternatives harm Americans by placing our fate in the hands of the very same private for-profit corporations that have created the health care crisis in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lockman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by raybond:
Grayson’s Right: Under The Republican Plan, ‘Don’t Get Sick’ (Or You Might Have To ‘Die Quickly’)

Last night, in a controversial speech on the House floor, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) announced that the Republican alternative health care proposals would force sick Americans to “die quickly”:

It’s my duty and pride tonight to be able to announce exactly what the Republicans plan to do for health care in America… It’s a very simple plan. Here it is. The Republican health care plan for America: “don’t get sick.” If you have insurance don’t get sick, if you don’t have insurance, don’t get sick; if you’re sick, don’t get sick. Just don’t get sick. … If you do get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: “die quickly.”
No Republican wants Americans to die, but the party’s efforts to stonewall meaningful health care reform perpetuate a status quo in which 45,000 Americans die every year because they lack health care coverage and thousands more see their policies canceled or denied by private insurers that are beholden to Wall Street’s profit expectations and not patient health.

Grayson intentionally over-stated his case. It’s not that Republicans want to kill people; it’s that their opposition to meaningful health care reform and their “free market” alternatives would further deregulate insurers and allow companies to continue pushing individuals into high deductible policies that don’t provide adequate coverage and actually harm Americans who can’t afford their medical bills:

“Don’t get sick.” Under the Republican alternatives, private insurers will deny coverage to Americans who suffer from chronic illnesses like cancers or asthma and lure healthier applicants into high deductible policies that provide limited coverage once they become sick.

“Die quickly.” If Americans in these policies do fall ill, they will go bankrupt paying off their medical bills and join the 78 percent of bankruptcy filers burdened by health care expenses who had health insurance but “still were overwhelmed by their medical debt.” Grayson is facetiously suggesting that Americans would be urged to skip the “bankruptcy” part, avoid being a financial burden on their family, and simply pass away.

In other words, the Republican alternatives harm Americans by placing our fate in the hands of the very same private for-profit corporations that have created the health care crisis in the first place.

---

This is really helpful in the debate, what a jacka$$.

---

Ya mean kinda like the GOP talking about Death panels?
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
i simply yelling out you lie?
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
Pelosi: ‘There’s no reason for Mr. Grayson to apologize. If anyone should apologize, everyone should apologize.’

Republican lawmakers have been pressing Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) to apologize for saying that the Republican alternative health care proposals would force sick Americans to “die quickly” (even though their own members have been making absurdly false claims about Democratic plans). Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) said that Grayson should “do the right thing and recognize the comments that he made were disrespectful to the House and to the decorum.” Today in her weekly press conference, however, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that there’s no reason for Grayson to apologize:

Apparently Republicans hold Democrats to a higher standard than they hold members of their own party. … There’s no reason for Mr. Grayson to apologize. If anyone should apologize, everyone should apologize.

Yesterday, Grayson did say he was sorry — to all the people who have lost their lives because they didn’t have health insurance (almost 45,000 Americans each year).

* Comments
* 52
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
are these people even really sick?

Placebos Are Getting More Effective. Drugmakers Are Desperate to Know Why.
By Steve Silberman 08.24.09

From 2001 to 2006, the percentage of new products cut from development after Phase II clinical trials, when drugs are first tested against placebo, rose by 20 percent. The failure rate in more extensive Phase III trials increased by 11 percent, mainly due to surprisingly poor showings against placebo. Despite historic levels of industry investment in R&D, the US Food and Drug Administration approved only 19 first-of-their-kind remedies in 2007—the fewest since 1983—and just 24 in 2008. Half of all drugs that fail in late-stage trials drop out of the pipeline due to their inability to beat sugar pills.

The upshot is fewer new medicines available to ailing patients and more financial woes for the beleaguered pharmaceutical industry. Last November, a new type of gene therapy for Parkinson's disease, championed by the Michael J. Fox Foundation, was abruptly withdrawn from Phase II trials after unexpectedly tanking against placebo. A stem-cell startup called Osiris Therapeutics got a drubbing on Wall Street in March, when it suspended trials of its pill for Crohn's disease, an intestinal ailment, citing an "unusually high" response to placebo. Two days later, Eli Lilly broke off testing of a much-touted new drug for schizophrenia when volunteers showed double the expected level of placebo response.

Some products that have been on the market for decades, like Prozac, are faltering in more recent follow-up tests. In many cases, these are the compounds that, in the late '90s, made Big Pharma more profitable than Big Oil. But if these same drugs were vetted now, the FDA might not approve some of them. Two comprehensive analyses of antidepressant trials have uncovered a dramatic increase in placebo response since the 1980s. One estimated that the so-called effect size (a measure of statistical significance) in placebo groups had nearly doubled over that time.


http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage= all


who cares if it works better than a sugar pill as long as it's profitable?

this may seem like a "disconnect" but we need to ban advertising of all prescription drugs immediately, because of the power of suggestion.

besides i'm tried of hearing about side effects of prostate pills during the news...

we could prolly cut health care costs alot by simply presrcibing sugar pills..

Why are inert pills suddenly overwhelming promising new drugs and established medicines alike? The reasons are only just beginning to be understood. A network of independent researchers is doggedly uncovering the inner workings—and potential therapeutic applications—of the placebo effect.

how long before the drug co's patent placebos too?
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
want to cut health care costs? tell people they aren't sick when they aren't.

Nearly half of the doctors polled in a 2007 survey in Chicago admitted to prescribing medications they knew were ineffective for a patient's condition—or prescribing effective drugs in doses too low to produce actual benefit—in order to provoke a placebo response.


http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage= all

hmmmmmmm....

"The quality of care that placebo patients get in trials is far superior to the best insurance you get in America," says psychiatrist Arif Khan, principal investigator in hundreds of trials for companies like Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb. "It's basically luxury care."

Big Pharma faces additional problems in beating placebo when it comes to psychiatric drugs. One is to accurately define the nature of mental illness. The litmus test of drug efficacy in antidepressant trials is a questionnaire called the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. The HAM-D was created nearly 50 years ago based on a study of major depressive disorder in patients confined to asylums. Few trial volunteers now suffer from that level of illness. In fact, many experts are starting to wonder if what drug companies now call depression is even the same disease that the HAM-D was designed to diagnose.

LOL:

The pharma crisis has also finally brought together the two parallel streams of placebo research—academic and industrial. Pfizer has asked Fabrizio Benedetti to help the company figure out why two of its pain drugs keep failing.

cuz they don't work?
 

---

Posted by Lockman on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by raybond:
Pelosi: ‘There’s no reason for Mr. Grayson to apologize. If anyone should apologize, everyone should apologize.’

Republican lawmakers have been pressing Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) to apologize for saying that the Republican alternative health care proposals would force sick Americans to “die quickly” (even though their own members have been making absurdly false claims about Democratic plans). Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) said that Grayson should “do the right thing and recognize the comments that he made were disrespectful to the House and to the decorum.” Today in her weekly press conference, however, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that there’s no reason for Grayson to apologize:

Apparently Republicans hold Democrats to a higher standard than they hold members of their own party. … There’s no reason for Mr. Grayson to apologize. If anyone should apologize, everyone should apologize.

Yesterday, Grayson did say he was sorry — to all the people who have lost their lives because they didn’t have health insurance (almost 45,000 Americans each year).

* Comments
* 52

---

45,000 Americans lose their lives each year because they didn't have health insurance? Was there a study? A poll? Where does this figure and validity come from? Nancy Polosi?
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
i heard Rush limbaugh say it and cackle, and i heard Glen Beck say it and cry, so it must be true
 

---

Posted by jordanreed on :
 
limbaugh DENIED! or soon will be for nfl ownership
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
Study finds 45,000 people in U.S. die each year because they lack health insurance

Reuters

Friday, September 18th 2009, 12:49 PM
Related News

* Articles
* Women dies after catching fire during surgery
* Obama offers plan to control medical malpractice suits
* Spanking in early childhood leads to violent behavior - new study
* Union: Teachers deserve day off if they get swine flu

WASHINGTON - Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.

Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.

The findings come amid a fierce debate over Democrats' efforts to reform the nation's $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry by expanding coverage and reducing healthcare costs.

President Barack Obama's has made the overhaul a top domestic policy priority, but his plan has been besieged by critics and slowed by intense political battles in Congress, with the insurance and healthcare industries fighting some parts of the plan.

The Harvard study, funded by a federal research grant, was published in the online edition of the American Journal of Public Health. It was released by Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors government-backed or "single-payer" health insurance.

An similar study in 1993 found those without insurance had a 25 percent greater risk of death, according to the Harvard group. The Institute of Medicine later used that data in its 2002 estimate showing about 18,000 people a year died because they lacked coverage.

Part of the increased risk now is due to the growing ranks of the uninsured, Himmelstein said. Roughly 46.3 million people in the United States lacked coverage in 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau reported last week, up from 45.7 million in 2007.

Another factor is that there are fewer places for the uninsured to get good care. Public hospitals and clinics are shuttering or scaling back across the country in cities like New Orleans, Detroit and others, he said.

Study co-author Dr. Steffie Woolhandler said the findings show that without proper care, uninsured people are more likely to die from complications associated with preventable diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

Some critics called the study flawed.

The National Center for Policy Analysis, a Washington think tank that backs a free-market approach to health care, said researchers overstated the death risk and did not track how long subjects were uninsured.

Woolhandler said that while Physicians for a National Health Program supports government-backed coverage, the Harvard study's six researchers closely followed the methodology used in the 1993 study conducted by researchers in the federal government as well as the University of Rochester in New York.

The Harvard researchers analyzed data on about 9,000 patients tracked by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics through the year 2000. They excluded older Americans because those aged 65 or older are covered by the U.S. Medicare insurance program.

"For any doctor ... it's completely a no-brainer that people who can't get health care are going to die more from the kinds of things that health care is supposed to prevent," said Woolhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard and a primary care physician in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
 

---

Posted by Relentless. on :
 
People do not run a higher risk of death because they don't have insurance.
The probability of death .. is 100% each and every friggen time.. For everyone.
That's right...
Everyone dies.
Health insurance just means you die poor.
 

---

Posted by Lockman on :
 
How many people die because they have Health care, that's the study we need.
 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 
huh? So Relentless says health insurance is a suckers game that will take your money and Lock is saying that you shouldn't get health care because it might kill you?

LOL I want some of whatever you guys are smokin!
 

---

Posted by Lockman on :
 
Does anyone actually know what these clowns in washington are actually debating? I haven't actually seen any legislation as of yet.

The public option will be the deciding factor.

Also the idea of not allowing preexisting conditions is gonna be a tricky one. Do you fine or tax those that don't sign up for health insurance?
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lockman:
How many people die because they have Health care, that's the study we need.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
huh? So Relentless says health insurance is a suckers game that will take your money and Lock is saying that you shouldn't get health care because it might kill you?

LOL I want some of whatever you guys are smokin!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
Not at all surprising... Government subsidizes all industries in one way or another.

---

quote:

---

PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail
Friday, November 06, 2009

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

- - - - - - - - - -

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]

---

 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 
I never scoffed.

I just asked and will ask again what other form of enforcement would you prefer?

I would assume as in most cases of this sort fines would be the norm and jail time would be the exception.
 

---

Posted by Relentless. on :
 
Oh there was scoffing
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

isn't that normal for people who don't pay taxes?

a big concern now becomes how you maintain insurance "between" jobs to avoid being taxed on "no income"...

didn't they offer some sort of assistance to low income earners to get insurance?

i suppose you now need a lawyer if you lose your job just to make sure you don't get thrown in jail
 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 
I know I have scoffed some of what you have said....don't remember it on this topic but in the interest of moving forward I will admit said scoffing.

Now, what other form of enforcement would you prefer to be used?
 

---

Posted by Relentless. on :
 
I would prefer that it were not a crime to not have health insurance... Seems there is absolutely no constitutional authority for the federal government to demand it...
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
I would prefer that it were not a crime to not have health insurance... Seems there is absolutely no constitutional authority for the federal government to demand it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
Preamble of the constitution Relentless.

promote the general welfare

It is not only in the constitution it is one of the reasons why the constitution was created.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
Preamble of the constitution Relentless.

promote the general welfare

It is not only in the constitution it is one of the reasons why the constitution was created.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
Bull****.. this is the fault of the voters and the media that guides them.
Doctors for the most part are reactionary in their monetary desires..
You are still making excuses for the governments you have elected.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
The few doctors I know are getting eaten alive by insurance costs... Granted I don't know alot of doctors but I do know a few.

---

"eaten alive"? what's that mean? they only make 150,000/yr instead of 190K?


This spring the ASA Committee on Professional Liability again conducted a survey of
46 medical liability insurance carriers to assess rate changes and market trends in
2004. We compared 2004 premiums to similar surveys in 2002 and 2003.4,5 The
average premium for anesthesiologists in 2004 was $20,611 (range = $3,958 to
$62,400) compared to $15,476 (range = $4,855 to $58,089) in 2002, representing a
33-percent increase [Figure 1]. The premiums are highly variable, however, with
markedly high premiums for anesthesiologists with prior history of a lawsuit,
performance of higher-risk procedures (e.g., invasive pain management, officebased
surgery), and for those practicing in localities with high liability risk. Mean
premiums were fairly similar in 2003 and 2004, although some states experienced
increases of more than 40 percent (Alabama, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, New
Hampshire and Oklahoma). In 2002, five states had average premiums of greater
than $20,000, while 22 states had average premiums of more than $20,000 in 2004.
The highest average premiums (>$30,000) during 2004 were found in Florida,
Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia, with premiums in Florida leading the
nation. Rate increases have been particularly severe when insurance carriers have
withdrawn from the market in the state.

http://depts.washington.edu/asaccp/prof/asa68_6_5_6.pdf

eaten alive my ass.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
BTW? i had a couple dozen tests by neurologists and anaesthesiologists.. i know exacly why they have the high premiums and no, i didn't sue any of them, but i should have

some of the crap they do shouldn't be done to animals. i have no sympathy for any of them.

my insurance as a repo man was higher
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
Malpractice Insurance Premium Increases Have Small Effect On Physicians, Study Finds
Main Category: Litigation / Medical Malpractice
Article Date: 12 May 2006 - 0:00 PDT

Medical malpractice premiums cost an average of $18,400 in 2000, down from the 1986 average of $20,106 in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to a study published on Tuesday in Health Affairs, the Boston Herald reports (Heldt Powell, Boston Herald, 5/8). Researchers at Suffolk University Law School examined surveys from 1970 to 2000 conducted by the American Medical Association's Center for Health Services Research and its successor, the Center for Health Policy Research. The nationwide surveys looked at samples of all self-employed physicians in regards to their income, practice expenses and practice characteristics. The researchers finds that malpractice premiums increased from 6% of physicians' total expenses in 1970 to 11% of expenses in 1986. Premiums fell to 6% of expenses in 1996 and then increased to 7% of expenses in 2000.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/43147.php
 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 
Further within the Constitution under the powers of congress.

quote:

---

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
You really think it won't hold up glass?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
There is precedent. Government requires auto insurance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
Granted. However if the argument is that government is overstepping their authority by requiring that you do business with somebody the example stands as legitimate precedent.

If the argument is the government requiring you to insure yourself....well, I guess we will see as Relentless said.

You know what is next if it does get struck down though right? Single payer option becomes the new holy grail for liberal democrats.

---

no, you have the choice not to drive on public streets, or you can buy liability insurance.

recently the Supreme Court has been changing it's views on driving cars since the country is now built in such away that we have a hard time living at all without hem, but they still see cars as a privilege not a right. Hence their argumetn that stopping you at random checkpoints is not a violation of the 4th ammendment even tho it clearly is -if you read the Constitution literally...


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

isn't your car an effect?


6 plural : movable property : goods

isn't a roadblock "just because" unreasonable? yes it is...

the whole point of getting warrants was to stop "fishing expeditions" which road blocks clearly are...

a portion of the bill can be struck down without breaking the whole bill...

there are many options to fix our medical delivery/payment situation, but the doctors are in charge and in the end? they will get what they want...

they have the most powerful Union the world has ever seen...

i think most of us want them to be paid well...

on the other hand? when they precribe you a 300$ medication when a 25$ will work? you have to ask yourself why. they make a kickback on it..

the FDA has been pulling generics off the market because they were grandfathered in. The new drugs that replace them are ten or even fifty times as much.. yet these old standby drugs are know to work and have been being prescribed since before the FDA began aproving drugs...

this really is about corporate feudalism. i don't want to see single payer, but i see that nobody is trying to set up a decent replacement...
 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 
House got their 218. Moving to the senate.
 

---

Posted by Relentless. on :
 
Treasonous... Everyone who voted for an unconstitutional bill should be jailed.
 

---

Posted by jordanreed on :
 
so scared!
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
Got our 218 now to the senate to kick more republican butt. Good day for the white hats we are getting closer than ever before its like a wish come true.


 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
Treasonous... Everyone who voted for an unconstitutional bill should be jailed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
Senate Health Care bill to cut deficit (according to CBO)? LOL.. that's UnAmerican...

---

quote:

---

they will leave the GOP in tatters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:


You can't tell me that when Reagan swept the country that some Dems didn't vote for him out of disgust with their party's actions. It needs to happen every now and then (more than it has in recent times) imo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
I'm not holding Reagan up on a pedastal, Glass. This isn't about how his term were spent.

Pulling in 44 out of the 50 states tells you something about the political environment that ushered him in. And I fully believe that many Dems of the time either didn't go vote out of disgust, or actually voted for him to get rid of Carter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by raybond:
Lieberman’s Offer to You: Nothing

Well, as I wrote this morning:

That said, I agree with Chris Bowers that in a lot of ways the real story here is that the Senate leadership has, at every step of this process, underscored that a “reconciliation” path to a health care bill is off the table. That means Lieberman has unlimited control over what happens, and no incentive to compromise, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he’s being uncompromising. Can’t liberals be just as stiff-necked as Lieberman? Sure, they could. But liberals members do have an incentive to compromise—the tens of thousands of people who die every year for lack of health insurance. The leverage that Lieberman and other “centrists” have obtained on this issue (and on climate change) stems from a demonstrated willingness to embrace sociopathic indifference to the human cost of their actions.

And it looks like Lieberman used that leverage to the hilt and we’re looking at a bill with not so much as a faint trigger of a public option.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
Do you have documented proof that tens of thousand of people die each year simply because they have no health insurance? That's a scare tactic and you know it.

so, take the opposition view and say nobody dies because they don't have health care and where does that take you?

if it were true, and i don't think anybody beleives it is, the answer would be that we with insurance already pay for the people that don't have helath care insurance (we do, but not all)

all those BK filings on health care bills? we pay for them too, we also pay for all those damn TV commercials.

this is why it's funny when people claim that any health care bill will cost us more. done well? it would cost us alot less.

we have built our health care system sitting on a railroad track and the trians a'coming.

i see no reason to think anything has been fixed.

and quite frankly? the GOP wants it to be worse than it is now. don't they?

in a couple years? people will remeber that they sat on their butts and and threw rottten fruit instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting to work. cuz it's gonna be worse.

---

quote:

---

The problem with Obama is he is to nice and he should have stayed here and fought instead of going to China and other places, his country was facing a crisis and he should of been here at the helm. Most of the country wanted Bush's hide and he did not hang him, like I would have. Obama will pay the price for this in the end he will be another Jimmy Carter unless he can pull a Regan.

---

Did you just criticize the Holy One, Ray!?!?!

There may be hope yet.


 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
yes I did not for the same reasons you would and I will never be conservative in heart I have seen there cruelness first hand also there lies. I would never change camps. But I will admit when we are wrong and hopefully a correction can be made.
 

---

Posted by Lockman on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by raybond:
[QB] what have the republicans done but obstruct when asked they want it to stay the same they are the monsters in this county. The dems made it the way it was to keep the insurance companies in the loop and maybe get a few republicans to go along but the bought off crooks won't do that they want there masters to keep the 31% and not a dime less.

What choice did the republicans have but to just let the Dem's self destruct. If your not given a real chance to have your voice heard what would you do?
The Democrat congress had the ability to pass any legislation they wanted, but once the moderates realized they where going to have to answer for this lunacy, they ran for cover.
Our congress works best with split power so real debate and compromise can take place.
Usually a congress that does nothing is better than what we've seen here.
 

---

Posted by Lockman on :
 
Question: What exactly is wrong with our presnt Health care system? and how is this legislation being pushed thru congress gonna fix what's wrong?


I think maybe we should identfy the problems with what's in place and then work to repair those, creating an entirely new untested system doesn't seem to be the best way to go.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lockman:
Question: What exactly is wrong with our presnt Health care system? and how is this legislation being pushed thru congress gonna fix what's wrong?


I think maybe we should identfy the problems with what's in place and then work to repair those, creating an entirely new untested system doesn't seem to be the best way to go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by raybond:
I agree 100% with that glass. Insurance companies only insure good risks in this country the tax payer picks up the bill for the sick and elderly.The fear mongers or republicans got the bill side tract by fear and obstruction. They never brought one thing to the table for debate they just said no and were well paid for it.

---

I don't believe there was any room in the closed door meetings for Republicans to bring their ideas. Maybe that will change now, but I doubt it at least until after the november elections.
 

---

Posted by jordanreed on :
 
Republicans has,have,had,nothing to offer...doors were open for their help but ,as is widely known , they condemned and critisized with nothing helpful offered. give one example of an idea to help reform out current health care travesty.
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 
Tort reform...

Cross State Boundry Competition...

Oh, wait, you only asked for one. Sorry, Jordan.


 

---

Posted by jordanreed on :
 
isnt that what the dems have been saying all along?..competition??...of course it is!!..monopolies dont want competition

come on,,give me something!!
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Tort reform...

Cross State Boundry Competition...

Oh, wait, you only asked for one. Sorry, Jordan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pagan:
Wait.....I know the answer!Get rid of the Republican party altogether! Problem solved!

---

quote:

---

In a letter to the White House on Monday, the top two House Republicans, Representatives John A. Boehner of Ohio and Eric Cantor of Virginia, said members of their party would be “reluctant to participate” in the meeting with Mr. Obama if the bills passed by the House and the Senate were the starting point. The American people have “soundly rejected” those bills, they said.

---

quote:

---

The “rapacious” behavior that Rockefeller condemns includes raising premiums to increase their profits, denying coverage to women who have had Caesarean section pregnancies, and rescinding coverage of customers for frivolous reasons. Kevin Drum notes that Republican “have been relentlessly trying to talk about everything but this. They’ve barely acknowledged the preexisting conditions problem at all.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:

quote:

---

The “rapacious” behavior that Rockefeller condemns includes raising premiums to increase their profits, denying coverage to women who have had Caesarean section pregnancies, and rescinding coverage of customers for frivolous reasons. Kevin Drum notes that Republican “have been relentlessly trying to talk about everything but this. They’ve barely acknowledged the preexisting conditions problem at all.”

---

Why is it that everyone complaining about the 'rapacious behavior' seems to forget that these companies are 'for profit'?

Their objective is to make money...not provide humanitarian services...

---

quote:

---

Health Care for America Now's study also highlighted the following statistics:

* The five largest insurance firms firms made $12.2 billion, an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, from 2008.
* Four out of the five companies saw earnings increases, with CIGNA’s profits jumping 346 percent.
* The companies provided private insurance coverage to 2.7 million fewer people than the year before.
* Four out of the five companies insured fewer people through private coverage. UnitedHealth alone insured 1.7 million fewer people through employer-based or individual coverage.
* All but one of the five companies increased the number of people they covered through public insurance programs (Medicaid, CHIP and Medicare). UnitedHealth added 680,000 people in public plans.
* The proportion of premium dollars spent on health care expenses went down for three of the five firms, with higher proportions going to administrative expenses and profits.

---

quote:

---

It's absolutely legitimate, and on top of that there's no incentive to stay well.

---

quote:

---

Let's take obesity. It accounts for 10% of the cost of health care in the U.S. -- we will never be able to control the cost of health care until we begin to control the epidemic of obesity.

---

quote:

---

Three things -- smoking, diet, and lack of exercise -- cause 40% of premature deaths in the U.S. They contribute to 70% of the chronic diseases, things like emphysema and heart disease. And that's 75% of the cost of health care. It's huge!

---

quote:

---

Right now hospitals lose about 5% on treating Medicare patients and about 14% on Medicaid patients. If we push more people into the Medicare and Medicaid categories and decrease the amounts that private insurers pay, that's going to be a problem for hospitals. I tell people at our hospital that we have to figure out how to treat people more efficiently with a higher quality.

---

quote:

---

And part of the problem in health care is we really didn't have the numbers. We still don't have the numbers in lots of ways.

---

quote:

---

Most people don't realize that we are organized in a very different way -- very few hospitals are organized the way we are. First, all of us have salaries. It doesn't make any difference, if I'm a cardiac surgeon, whether I do two heart operations a day or four. I take home the same amount of money at the end of the week. So there's no incentive to do extra tests or any of that.

Second, we all have one-year contracts, and we have annual professional reviews. So the quality of the doctors is controlled, there's no tenure, and if you don't make it, you don't get a pay raise or you may not stay. That is one of the most important things we do. It's quite different from most places, where doctors can practice for as long as they want to practice.

Also, interestingly, we are physician-led, which is quite different from most medical organizations, which may have an administrator running the hospital and a dean running the medical school. This is more like a corporation, and the CEO is a doctor. The chief of staff is a doctor, and the CIO is a doctor.

---

quote:

---

so SF, tell me who is supposed to pay for the care of the "uninsurable"?

---

quote:

---

taxpayers already pay,

---

quote:

---

and we do that because we are basically decent.

---

quote:

---

Part of why some of us wonder if government run universal healthcare isn't a better option is precisely that question only turned about.

---

quote:

---

Is it right for a company to attempt to increase profitability at the expense of the fiscal and physical health of its clients?

---

quote:

---

P.S. According to the President more people are insured under government programs this year then under private plans. I haven't fact checked that yet though.

---

quote:

---

remember when you told me that "entitlements" are going to drive US bankrupt and i agreed? these medical costs are a major part of the entitlements that are going to BK US.

---

quote:

---

we already agree that "we do it because we (as a society) feel that it should be done." so why don't we just do it right? this way the costs are born up front and honestly, not buried in a deficit for children and their children to pay in the form of taxes.

---

quote:

---

the insurance co's are allowed to discriminate in order to make profit

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
Companies have to be able to choose with whom they do business to maintain profitability.

that's the excuse they used at the whites only lunch counters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
Companies have to be able to choose with whom they do business to maintain profitability.

that's the excuse they used at the whites only lunch counters.

---

Flag on the field, Glass...

This isn't about race, age, religion, sexual preference, etc.

This is about profit and business sustainability. Period.

---

quote:

---

They are crooks and we are forced into there hands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
the way i see this whole battle shaping up?

the insurance co's have been villified more than they deserve.
they can and will absorb the "uninsurable" if forced to.

they'll charge everybody more, until doctors themselves are held accountable for what they are doing.

they blame tort on all these tests they perform, well those tests are profitable. I have refused treatmetns and or tests quite a few times, some of the doctors were pricks about it, i found others.

---

quote:

---

Now, stop for a minute and let that last part percolate for a minute...we do it because we (as a society) feel that it should be done. If the Dems just wanted to create an expanded version of Medicare that would cover all of the 'uninsurables' I would say more power to them...IF it was part of a budgeted spending plan that didn't run up our national debt to achieve. As I have outlined in other threads, if Big G stayed within its budget, and through prioritization ranked public health care as high enough to receive funding, I'm all for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
the way i see this whole battle shaping up?

the insurance co's have been villified more than they deserve.
they can and will absorb the "uninsurable" if forced to.

they'll charge everybody more, until doctors themselves are held accountable for what they are doing.

they blame tort on all these tests they perform, well those tests are profitable. I have refused treatmetns and or tests quite a few times, some of the doctors were pricks about it, i found others.

---

Lest you have forgotten, Glass...under the current 'exchange' plans...there will be caps on insurance premium hikes.

The Insurance companies won't be allowed to compensate for the influx of uninsurables...

They WILL go out of business under these plans.

---

quote:

---

please show me the actual verbiage.

---

quote:

---

That's not bad. lol, I don't hate that.

What's wrong with that, as a starting place?

---

Glad you like it, Tex.

As for what's wrong with starting there...nothing.

quote:

---

what *current plans* ???

It's all BS and clusterphuk, so far

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:

quote:

---

please show me the actual verbiage.

---

(2) ANNUAL LIMITATION ON DEDUCTIBLES FOR
EMPLOYER SPONSORED PLANS
(A) IN GENERAL
.—In the case of a health plan offered in the small group market, the deductible under the plan shall not exceed—(i) $2,000 in the case of a plan covering a single individual; and(ii) $4,000 in the case of any other plan. The amounts under clauses (i) and (ii) may be increased by the maximum amount of reimbursement which is reasonably available to a participant under a flexible spending arrangement described in section 106(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (determined without regard to any salary reduction arrangement).

.....

(4) PREMIUM ADJUSTMENT PERCENTAGE
.—For purposes of paragraphs (1)(B)(i) and (2)(B)(i), the premium adjustment percentage for any calendar year is the percentage (if any) by which the average per capita premium for health insurance coverage in the United States for the preceding calendar year (as estimated by the Secretary no later than October 1 of such preceding calendar year) exceeds such average per capita premium for 2013 (as determined by the Secretary).

.....

(5) PREMIUMS
.— 16(A) PREMIUMS SUFFICIENT TO COVERCOSTS
.—The Secretary shall establish geographically adjusted premium rates in an amount sufficient to cover expected costs (including claims and administrative costs) using methods in general use by qualified health plans.

.........

Just pull up this link and do a search document for premiums, Glass. It's loaded with restrictions and outright price setting by the Secretary.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/read-senate-health-care-reform-bill/

---