posted
Could you show me the known facts of why Mexicans and Hispanics come to Connecticut please? An opinion is an opinion and all are welcome but if one wants an opinion to be respected they should take the time to prove the veracity of their words. Do you, in fact, have any evidence to show that the Hispanic and Mexican populations of Connecticut abuse the welfare program more than other racial groups or do you disparage against them because it is convenient and currently popular to do so?
Poor sees no race or gender? I would agree with that statement. If you also agree then I am again wondering why Mexicans make up so much of your rhetoric about welfare?
So you get to choose whose uterus gets implanted and whose doesn't because you are a taxpayer? Do women not have equal rights in America if they are poor?
I would also fully support education and skills training requirements. You and I see eye to eye on that one at least.
I take it back we agree on two points. Free care for children under 18 and affordable care for all is what I desire as well.
I thank you for bringing a part of your story to the board and though I think you opinions are somewhat biased and in need of challenging I return your words of personal respect.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
I talk of my town which I loved, my grandfather was Mr. Willimantic. Now the town is known as Willirico and Nationally as Herione Town, featured on I believe 60 minutes.
Our hispanic/latin population is 3x that of the CT average and 2.5x that of the US average.
Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are mexican and latin thanks to 23 years of soccer. Alot of what I talk of comes directly from them, They get mad at the situation more than anyone because the are out there busting butt and hate that their ethnicities have bad reps in our area. Yes I'm sure there are other races but here they are maybe 10% of DSS.
It is a well know fact and I have friends who have personally seen and taken pictures cause it was so wierd to see. It says in the airport in Puerto Rico 'Go to willimantic Ct if you want the American dream'
As to the statistics of abuse, thats kind of difficult to find. That is where lack of over sight comes in. I'm not blaming case workers, unfortunately their case loads are impossible to keep up with. Most of them here do office visits according to my friend colleen whose been at DSS for 12 years. They just can't get out to do home visits more than once or twice a year. And with out that they can't find the abuse, ie working under the table, having more people living with them, or any number of other ways.
Which uterus? We'll in my opinion if you are on state or govenment support and keep having children just to get more money, then yes they should be required to either go on the pill or have an IUD. With free money comes restriction. You can't have it both ways... we'll you can't support yourself so we will do it for you.. but sure keep reproducing so we can spend more... Sorry if it sound cold, but thats my opinion.
As well as that our town is now up to 32 sober houses in town. All approved by our town government because the get so much state money for each house. It's more or less that it feels they use these programs to bring money to the town , but none of us can figure out where it goes! The town finally voted for the green party and Our first selectwoman is trying hard to make improvements.
Trust me bigfoot, if you knew me you would know I don't do anything because it's "the convenient or popular" thing to do. I'm actually the opposite. I volunteer quite a bit, I do the Special olympics, I do the local soup kitchen once a month and if I can't I donate food. I had support when I was down and love to give back. Just don't like being taken advantage of.
Well I'm off, need some sleep. To you and every one else... If you are a father.. HAPPY FATHERS' DAY!!! Posts: 108 | From: Connecticut | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
There we go!! Stats, Figures, and facts! I love it. That is a post with some meat!
I even respect your opinion on procreation restriction though there is no way you could ever convince me such a tactic could ever be legal.
I would suggest that your problem (which is not uncommon except for the whole Puerto Rico sign thing - weird!) is not that you have too many freeloaders, it is that you do not have enough resources in DSS. One of mans greatest qualities is that he is a changeable beast but only if the change comes from within. If you want extenral changee you need to concentrate on changing the system not the man. It is up to him to change himself.
Different topic, did you worker friend not have any type of short term disability with his insurance company? He didn't qualify for TANF?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: do you disparage against them because it is convenient and currently popular to do so?
I believe this is what it is though he and others will never admit it... let's face it BF, hispanics/latins are the immigrant scapegoats for everything since the last half of the 20th century much like the italians/irish/pole/jews etc. were of the late 19th and early 20th century whether the board likes to admit it or not...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Newbie13: We have a very heavy mexican and hispanic population and they move here to work the system. Pop out 3.. 4... 5 kids and get subsidized housing and about $1500 per kid. I drive by the local housing complex(about 2500 units) and I see new Cadilacs, Lincolns, etc parked there(not all but quite a few) And just ask myself how? My employee severed 3 fingers working at his house. They saved them but was going to be out about 6 months. So he went down to DSS to try and get some temporary assistance. He pulled in and a young maybe 25 year old hispanic girl with 3 kids pulls up in a new CTS. She's in line in front of him to re up her food stamps.. Approved! He gets denied! He flipped. He has always worked hard, has four boys and he gets denied!
I'm hispanic so you could imagine why i take offense to your comments. Especially the stereotype of "popping out 3,4 or 5 kids" to get welfare benefits. There are many races on welfare and to single out one race like that is calling into your prejudices which i suspect is due to your friends' experience. If it was a black woman or white woman who got her food stamps instead I suspect your comments would be different and target those races instead.
It is true that hispanic women tend to have more then the average white woman in terms of kids. On average imo of 3 kids per hispanic family but that is because we are much more family oriented and not because we look to get welfare checks. My mother had 4 kids and was never once on welfare. Worked all her life so you can see why i take offense to your stereotype that all hispanic women are out to get on welfare. Hispanic people (both illegal and legal) are very hard working people and usually for cr*p pay but that is never mentioned in your posts as well as other peoples' posts on this board and you can imagine why that f*cking ticks me off...
As for the lincolns, caddy's etc. you seen. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps those are owned by drug dealers in those housing complex and not by the women on benefits? Much like you see in black housing complexes with the local young kids who turn to drug dealing and own flashy cars. You may say you know what you are talking because you claim your friends are hispanic and such but being Hispanic and claiming to know the hispanic experience by knowing hispanics are two different things.
I can't claim to know the homeless experience like your own homeless experience by saying I knew/know homeless people so I do not bother to try to claim so and neither should you about hispanics.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
newbie13 Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are mexican and latin thanks to 23 years of soccer. Alot of what I talk of comes directly from them, They get mad at the situation more than anyone because the are out there busting butt and hate that their ethnicities have bad reps in our area. Yes I'm sure there are other races but here they are maybe 10% of DSS. ------------------------------------------------- When it comes to people there is only one race the human race
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I totally agree Ray.. but Statistics unfortunately are race based.
And Machi, like I said this about my area and experience, and because they are the majority of receipients. I'm not saying it is like that in other parts. But the abuse is country wide in one way or the other by ALL people!!
As for immigrants I have no problem, I'm 3rd generation American and damn proud of it! My great grandparents came over from Syria and Lebenon on dads side, and Quebec on my mothers side. My sister in law is full mexican and I love her just like anyone else. I love all people BTW.
As to the cars, that entire complex is state subsidized housing, and I see plenty of women driving the vehicles also.(maybe their just borrowing them from someone)
I agree with you about the hispanic experience, but thats actually most of what I lived through school. Our schools are about 60% hispanic children. So we do have a great community and cultural diversity here.
I agree very very much with you on Hispanics getting used to the max by people. It absolutely disgusts me and I've lost a few contractors because I won't pay them $5 dollars an hour to bust ass. Minimum I pay anyone is $10 an hour that comes in for a day or two.
Look I'm not here to piss people off or offend you! But peoples opinions mixed with some statistics is what is going to be present here. All of us are guilty of having different opinions and experiences that bring us to biased conclusions. I try to always respect the opinions of any and everyone!
Well back to the trading board! Cheers everyone
Much love to all!
Posts: 108 | From: Connecticut | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
tell me Mach, do you deny that the observation is correct?
I'm hispanic so you could imagine why i take offense to your comments. Especially the stereotype of "popping out 3,4 or 5 kids" to get welfare benefits.
cuz it's known fact that this is how welfare works no matter who is doing it.
and there's people from all races doing it. i beleive there are two to three white people on welfare for every person of color.
the cohesive factor that everybody seems to miss is that it's women on welfare- single women in specific.
we have a large subculture in America that does this, and our society supports it.
people complain, but most of the complainers (IMO) have never been to a third world country where those people live in tin huts with chickens scratching on the hearth.
the American way of life will not be available to the whole world until the rest of the world adopts the economic policies we have adopted.
illegal immigration is a threat to maintaining the American way of life because we can only manage to add so many people to it per generation.
that's why LEGAL immigration needs to be fair.
it seems to me that people willing to risk their lives in the desert to come here, could and should be able to take LESS risk at home to demand the adoption of the better principles we have established here.
there is something to the idea of requiring welfare recipients to use birth control, it's nothe kids fault their parents are irresponsible.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: tell me Mach, do you deny that the observation is correct?
I didn't say it wasn't correct in general but I just don't like it when one race is singled out. It used to be white and black women that were singled out and now because of everyones' immigration phobias it is hispanic. This you can't deny Glass. People make generalizations and stereotypes without being certain for sure with stats.
quote:cuz it's known fact that this is how welfare works no matter who is doing it.
I only knew one person in my life (white by the way) who did this but I wouldn't call it a "fact". I believe the majority do geniuely need assistance and it's a few rotten apples that make the rest look bad. If anything instead of attacking these women (the good ones) we should be focusing more on the fathers who abandon their families or do not provide child support more.
quote:and there's people from all races doing it. i beleive there are two to three white people on welfare for every person of color.
At least you acknowledge that white people are also on welfare. Something that alot of people on this board seem to forget or not mention.
quote:the cohesive factor that everybody seems to miss is that it's women on welfare- single women in specific.
yes that is true but why are they in that position? Do we ever ask ourselves that? Like I said already where are the men who are the fathers and/or husbands to these families? Why do we not go after them who truely are irresponsible so less people are on welfare?
quote:we have a large subculture in America that does this, and our society supports it.
I wouldn't say we support it more like we know it's a necessity because children will starve if we don't and whether you like it or not we can't allow that in our country because they are the innocent ones in all this and they should and do deserve our support.
quote:people complain, but most of the complainers (IMO) have never been to a third world country where those people live in tin huts with chickens scratching on the hearth.
I have been and you know that I have so i can speak on that experience.
quote:the American way of life will not be available to the whole world until the rest of the world adopts the economic policies we have adopted.
Our economic policies in recent times have shown to not be perfect and to be outright disasterous wouldn't you say? If anything the world should come together and figure out better economic policies for all and not just adopt one country's policies.
quote:illegal immigration is a threat to maintaining the American way of life because we can only manage to add so many people to it per generation.
that's why LEGAL immigration needs to be fair.
But it's not fair and you already know that so that is why i can empathize with the ones who risk coming here. Our immigration requirements are not fair and have not been fair for a long time. It imo favors well off immigrants over poor ones.
quote:it seems to me that people willing to risk their lives in the desert to come here, could and should be able to take LESS risk at home to demand the adoption of the better principles we have established here.
Yes you are correct but until our Gov't pressures other countries to resolve their poverty problems that will never happen. And I know people say it is not our problem but it is our problem as well as everyone elses'. We turn a blind eye to what happens in other countries such as Mexico with no middle class by not pressuring them in the name of good relations and the almighty dollar.
quote:there is something to the idea of requiring welfare recipients to use birth control, it's nothe kids fault their parents are irresponsible.
To me that is a civil rights violation to force people to use birth control much like telling a woman what to do with her body when she is pregnant (not allowed to abort) on her first trimester or as others have pointed out in the past like telling people what they can or can't ingest into their bodies (drugs) as well as other examples of telling people what they can or can't do with their bodies.
By the way my stance on the welfare issue is that i am for WORKFARE in which a benefit recepient is required to actively look for work or get training/education in order to keep their benefits. Last time around it had some kinks but in general I thought it worked better then the old system of welfare. And I think we should go after the fathers more to be more responsible as well.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our economic policies in recent times have shown to not be perfect and to be outright disasterous wouldn't you say? If anything the world should come together and figure out better economic policies for all and not just adopt one country's policies.
perfect? no way, the best so far? pretty much. we hit a pretty bad economic patch here and the blame falls on newt, Billary and the Bush Gang IMO. all of those people did this mess together. You can argue over who is more to blame, but they did this together. the crash of the banks is survuvable, the unlimited migration of poor people into hte US (or any country) will not be survivable by any country. they are two separate issues for the most part.
To me that is a civil rights violation to force people to use birth control much like telling a woman what to do with her body when she is pregnant (not allowed to abort) on her first trimester or as others have pointed out in the past like telling people what they can or can't ingest into their bodies (drugs) as well as other examples of telling people what they can or can't do with their bodies.
not really. nobody has the civil right to welfare either, so it's a trade.
i don' relish the idea, but we do know that many people on welfare (of all races) have children to game the system...
fact is both liberal and conservatives benefit from welfare in many ways as i continuously point out to people over and over.
some of the places i have been to made me sick with their poverty and not all of them are outside the US border.
most adults mired in poverty are not going to make it out, but their children can if we don't ignore them.
We turn a blind eye to what happens in other countries such as Mexico with no middle class by not pressuring them in the name of good relations and the almighty dollar.
i don't argue that happens, but i still believe that you cannot force your ideals on other people, you can only show them the power of your ideals and try to recruit them to seeing things the way you do.
even the arguments between conservative and liberal prove out to be the most productive way,
if you notice most of my posting history is not to take a "side" as much to find the "correct" way. of course my opinion of the correct is only an opinion.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I give kudos to everyone! I love we have the ability to converse, disagree, agree, and hopefully come to a compromise to help the most people. In many places this would or could not happen.
I know everyone believes globalism is great, and maybe it will be, but sa I believe Bigfoot said Change comes from within. Lets focus on US first and try to make our country a great one again!! Then we can maybe have a better influence on others! Thank you all for being you!!
Posts: 108 | From: Connecticut | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Former Rep. Tom Davis To Elderly Woman With Diabetes: ‘Good Luck’ Finding Health Insurance » On CSPAN’s Washington Journal yesterday, former Republican congressman Tom Davis received a call from an elderly woman named Dorothy, who said that because she has diabetes, health insurance companies “reject” her. “They don’t even want to accept me,” said Dorothy. “Is that, is that possible they could get away with that? That seems like discriminating.”
Davis responded by saying that he understood her “dilemma” and that she probably wouldn’t be able to retire by 62 as she desires. Advising her that she’d be alright if she found “a job with a major employer,” Davis said it would be “difficult” on her own:
DAVIS: I don’t think you’ll find, probably be able to find some health insurance but if its with a small business or you’re going out on your own, it’s difficult at this point. There may be a government plan or private plans that are mandated coming out of this that are maybe able to help you. … I don’t know any reason why you shouldn’t be able to find something out there, but you want to look for an employer that has a health care plan. Good luck.
Later in the show, another caller criticized Davis for his “good luck” response, saying that it “encapsulates the entire Republican Party’s attitude towards any problems that are facing the American people today.” Davis replied that he didn’t mean “good luck” as a “kiss off,” but just as “good luck to you as you try to move through this problem.” Beyond responding to Dorothy with seeming callousness, Davis’ answer to her problem is also contradictory in its approach to a public health care option.
Davis first tells Dorothy that “a government plan” may “be able to help you.” (Which is true.) But when challenged by the later caller, he argued, “I don’t know that she can count on Washington to solve it for her.” In the next sentence, however, he said that she “can probably get some relief” when she qualifies for Medicare, which is government-provided. A NYT/CBS News poll this weekend found that 72 percent of Americans support creating a public health insurance option.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can Republicans Scare The Public Away From The Public Option? Ezra Klein points out that the public, in two successive polls now, strongly supports a public health insurance option and over at ThinkProgress, Matt Corley debunks the conservative myth that bipartisan health care reform must protect the private insurer’s monopoly for covering Americans under 65:
By claiming that a public option would destroy bipartisanship, Grassley is ignoring the preferences of a strong majority of Americans. Earlier this week, a New York Times/CBS News poll found that a public health insurance option (which would lower costs and improve quality) is supported by 72 percent of Americans, including 50 percent of Republicans. Additionally, Grassley’s antipathy to a public plan flies in the face of his own constituents. In May, the Des Moines Register Iowa Poll found that 56 percent of Iowans support a public plan.
Republicans have staked their entire opposition to health care reform on attacking and mischaracterizing one of the most popular aspects of health care reform. Sounds odd until you consider that the same NYT-CBS News poll that found that 72 percent supported a public option, also concluded that” two thirds are concerned their own health care will get worse if the government creates a system to provide health care to all Americans.”
So their argument goes something like this: pass a public option, employers will drop coverage, and Americans will be stuck with an inferior public plan. Their latest claim that President Obama has reneged on his pledge to allow Americans to keep their existing health coverage, strikes at this very vulnerability.
It’s worth pointing out, however, that the public plan, along with all of the other private plans in the Exchange, would have to offer comprehensive benefit packages that provided quality care at affordable rates. Secondly, progressives are not interested in dismantling the employer system. From a logistical point of view and to those concerned about continuity of care, moving the 160 million Americans who receive employer-sponsored benefits into new plans would be a costly nightmare. The idea is to build on the employer sponsored system and achieve coverage through shared responsibility. That way, you preserve the employer contribution, an important source of funding health care reform, and allow Americans to say in their current plans.
The goal is to reduce immediate shifts but still preserve choice. For this reason, the House Tri Committee health care bill phases in participation in the Exchange when it goes into operation in 2013:
- Individuals and employers with 10 or fewer employees in 2013 - Individuals and employers with 20 or fewer employees in 2014 - Individuals and employers with more than 20 employees in 2015 Comments 2 SharePermalink
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
funny how the polls showing people WANTING Obamacare are New York Times favorites. All you have to do is be a reporter for the New York Times...go to Park Slope in Brooklyn and ask them and then all of a sudden the whole country apparently wants it.
What a joke.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
About as joke as Fox news identifying all politicians that are involved in a scandal as a Democrat. Which one is a bigger joke in distorting the facts? Stop Mooing:
No other network is as in bed with Obama as MSNBC. ABC sure does a good brown nosing, in fact all networks except Fox news provide biased coverage for Obama. Not much real investigating. Oh, they will here and there ruffle his or Bidens feathers just to make themselves look fair.
Ever stand in line while getting groceries? Over the months its been an Obama Kool Aid drinking party with all the magazines on the racks.
I was reading GQ's issue from last month I believe and even the editor was talking like Keith Olbermann. So stop your mooing about Fox News. One network against the rest. Please.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dont twist my words. You know fox leans right as well as I do.
I didnt write "fact..." I wrote IN fact...as in Fox is the only station out there that doesnt have their nose up Obamas rear end, and Obama hates it just like you.
The bias is in the rest of the networks so busy on trying to smear Fox they cant do a good job themselves of putting both sides out there.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: The bias is in the rest of the networks so busy on trying to smear Fox they cant do a good job themselves of putting both sides out there.
I'm not twisting your words. You say it just fine when you put your hoof in your mouth.
Like right now you said the other networks cannot put both sides out there. Isn't that the same exact thing Fox does? LoL Again, stop Mooing...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone see the proposal to make the UAW EXEMPT from health care taxes? Anyone see whats going on?
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In reversal, Specter announces support for public health insurance option. At a union rally in Washington, DC yesterday with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) declared his support for a public health insurance option. Further, Specter said that Americans have a “right” to health care, and predicted that health care reform will happen this year. “I think Senator Schumer has the right idea about having a public component,” Specter said:
I compliment you on your tenacity and your determination and your passion. I agree with you that health care is a right. … I do believe that there will be health care legislation. I know you are very interested in the public component and I think Senator Schumer has the right idea about having a public component which is to have a level playing field with the private sector, but the public component can be in place. [...]
Your enthusiasm has a big effect on what goes on three blocks away on the Congress of the United States. And you will get health care.
Previously, Specter opposed the creation of a public option. In May, NBC’s David Gregory asked Specter if he would support health care reform that included a public component. “No,” Specter replied.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
New Budget Estimate Of Public Plan Proves It Lowers Cost And Covers More Americans A couple of weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a preliminary score of the health care legislation under consideration in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The bill was estimated to cost $1 trillion over 10 years, while reducing the number of uninsured by “only” one-third. As many informed ****gers noted at the time, the cost estimate was incomplete because the legislation that the CBO reviewed did not contain language about a public health insurance plan or an employer mandate.
Nevertheless, Republicans seized on the opportunity to engage in merciless political attacks, citing the incomplete CBO score as proof that health care reform is not worth doing:
John McCain: “[The CBO estimate] should be a wake up call for all of us to scrap the current bill and start over in a true bipartisan fashion.”
John Boehner: “[T]he public option would cost over $1 trillion, and would cause 23 million Americans to lose their private health care coverage.”
Lindsey Graham: “The CBO estimates were a death blow to a government run health care plan.”
The HELP Committee has since added language for a public plan option to its legislation, as well as an employer mandate provision. The AP reports the new results:
The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd said in a letter to other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. [...]
The [employer mandate] provision is also estimated to greatly reduce the number of workers whose employers would drop coverage, thus addressing a major concern noted by CBO when it reviewed the earlier proposals.
In other words, the addition of the public plan dramatically reduced the overall cost of the bill and ensured coverage of almost all Americans. So what excuses will McCain, Boehner, Graham, and other Republicans offer now? Their attacks were not only found to be baseless, but their concerns about the costs and coverage have also been addressed.
UpdateThe incoming president of the American Medical Association, Dr. J. James Rohack, said his organization now supports a public plan, after initially indicating its opposition. The AMA supports an “American model” that includes both “a private system and a public system, working together,” he said.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
we will only solve the health care cost crisis by doubling the number of MD's (particularly family practice and or GP's)
a GP has so much overhead due to the way they have to run us thru like cattle that they could make the same amount of PROFIT by seeing fewer people and spending a little more time with each patient and getting it right the first time instead of having to do so much CYA work.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Washington Post reportedly selling health care lobbyists and CEOs access to its journalists, Obama officials.By Lee Fang at 10:45 am Washington Post reportedly selling health care lobbyists and CEOs access to its journalists, Obama officials. The Politico reports that the Washington Post, for a price of $25,000 to $250,000, is “offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, non-confrontational access to ‘those powerful few’ — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own reporters and editors.” While the Politico notes that on-the-record events and conferences are becoming a trend in the newspaper industry, this type of closed, pay-for-access event raises serious ethical concerns. The flier for the event, titled “Health-Care Reform: Better or Worse for Americans? The reform and funding debate,” reads:
Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth [...] Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama Administration and Congressional leaders […] Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. [...] Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 […] Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post [...] An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done. [...] July 21, 2009 6:30 p.m.
In recent weeks, the Washington Post has editorialized against a public option as a part of health care reform. Defending the status quo of a private insurer-dominated system, the Post wrote, “A public plan is not necessary to maintain a competitive market in health insurance.”
UpdateEzra Klein posts an e-mail sent by Marcus Brauchli, the editor of the Washington Post, to the Post's newsroom staff which reads, "The flier circulated this morning came out of a business division for conferences and events, and the newsroom was unaware of such communication. It went out before it was properly vetted, and this draft does not represent what the company’s vision for these dinners are, which is meant to be an independent, policy-oriented event for newsmakers. As written, the newsroom could not participate in an event like this."
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What To Make Of The CBO’s New Cost Estimate Of The HELP Bill Jonathan Cohn and Tim Foley have some very good summaries of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) new analysis of the more complete HELP bill. The CBO score will dispel some of the gloom surrounding the frustrating mark-up process and dissuade (intellectually honest) critics from using the CBO’s preliminary estimate to fearmonger about the costs of reform.
The HELP committee does not have jursidiction over Medicaid expansion or financing of reform. Thus, its bill only covers an additional 20 million Americans and costs approximately $600 billion. However, if we assume Medicaid expansion to about 150% FPL we expand coverage, but we also add to cost, bringing the final bill to somewhere around $1 trillion over 10 years. Cohn runs the numbers for what the final results may look like:
- 20 million: Number of uninsured in 2019, compared to 54 million without reform.
- 95 percent: Percentage of Americans with coverage in 2019.
- 21 million by 2019: Additional people covered through Exchange and employer mandate.
- 20 million by 2019: Additional people covered through Medicaid expansion of up to 150% FPL.
The preliminary CBO score of the early and incomplete HELP legislation placed the cost at $1 trillion and this latest analysis suggests that the committee has been able to find savings of some $400 billion ($1 trillion - $600 billion = $400 billion). Some of that new revenue will come from the employer mandate (an AP story suggests that the mandate will generate $52 billion over 10 years), but where do we get the rest? Lower subsidies (the original version may have provided subsides at 500% FPL, now it looks like it’s down to 400% FPL)? The public option? Only the yet-to-be released CBO score can provide those answers.
But the HELP Committee’s chairman’s mark - which, for the first time includes language on the public plan and the employer mandate - does offer some new details for how the mandate and the public plan could be structured:
- Employer mandate: Large employers would have to provide coverage to their workers or pay $750 per full-time employee, $375 for each part-time employee. Businesses with less than 25 employees will receive a tax credit, on a sliding scale, based on the number of workers. Ezra Klein points out, “the CBO estimates that “a mere 150,000 will lose their coverage. That’s nothing. And it means that a lot more Americans end up insured and the government spends a lot less in subsidies.”
An employer mandate is meant to strengthen the employer-based system of coverage and reduce crowd-out into the Gateway. Crowd out (and this is what critics latch on to when they claim that Obama overstated his promise to allow Americans to keep their present coverage) is less likely if employers are required to contribute a meaningful amount “to the cost of covering their uninsured workers,” because the cost of allowing their workers to be covered through other options is not much lower.
The dear colleague letter that accompanied the new mark stated that “the completed bill virtually eliminates the dropping of currently covered employees from employer-sponsored health plans,” but some may be surprised that a modest flat fee is a sufficient deterrent to dropping coverage. The decision to charge every firm the same penalty — instead of charging firms on a sliding scale based on payroll — does not account for firm size or profitability and smaller firms and firms with lower-wage workers, could be disadvantaged.
However, it should also be noted that Massachusetts requires employers with more than ten employees to either offer a “fair and reasonable” contribution for their employees’ coverage, or “pay an annual ‘fair share’ contribution of $295 per employee.” In Massachusetts, few firms reported making changes as a result of health reform, firms reported making few changes in cost sharing or in offering more plans are a result of the mandate.
- Community Health Insurance Option: Will have to compete on a level playing field with private providers and offer competitive rates and premiums. Presumably, the plan will be able to use its administrative efficiency and its market power (assuming it is able to attract a significant number of applicants and providers) to lower premiums:
- Health care providers and individuals are NOT required to participate in the new plan, it is entirely voluntary.
- The Secretary of Health and Human Services will establish the public option in every single Gateway (whether it is regional or national) and provide the national plan with start-up funds that will have to be repaid in 10 years.
- The new plan provide coverage only for the essential health benefits, but states may offer additional benefits if they choose
- Premium rates should cover the expected costs of the plan
- The rates negotiated with providers shall not be higher, in aggregate, than the average reimbursement rates paid by health insurance issuers offering qualified health plans through the Gateway.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
After Agreeing To Reduce Drug Prices, PhRMA Intimidates Lawmakers Who Support Drug Rebates Since agreeing to voluntarily reduce drug prices by “as much as $80 billion worth of discounts,” Big Pharma has embarked on a campaign to prevent moderate House Democrats from supporting a measure that would ensure that savings are actually realized. The POLITICO’s David Rogers has the scoop here, but suffice it to say, this rather public intimidation effort against lawmakers who dare vote for a provision that could save the government billions of dollars on prescription drugs, casts serious doubt over whether the industry ever plans to realize its voluntary pledge.
The background is rather straightforward. Back in 2003, the Medicare part D legislation moved the six million Americans who were eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid into the Medicare part D program. This created a windfall for the industry. Whereas Medicaid obtained an average discount of about 34 percent from pharmaceutical companies that chose to participate in the Medicaid program, “the average discount obtained by the Part D plans was 14 percent,” according to a report issued by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA).
“Under Medicare Part D, the six million dual eligible beneficiaries can take the same drugs they got under Medicaid. The only difference is that the federal taxpayer is now paying 30% more. Add it up, and it amounts to a drug manufacturer windfall worth at least $3.7 billion dollars in just the first two years of the Part D program” Waxman explained:
The drug companies are making the same drugs. They are being used by the same beneficiaries. Yet because the drugs are being bought through Medicare Part D instead of Medicaid, the prices paid by the taxpayers have ballooned by billions of dollars.
Now, if drug manufacturers provided the Medicare Part D program with the same prices that Medicaid receives, “these drug costs could be reduced by as much as $86 billion” over 10 years. Waxman’s legislation would effectively reinstate the rebate for the 6 million who were moved out of Medicaid and, in the process, save taxpayers billions of dollars. And for the industry, that’s precisely the problem. Rogers explains that “PhRMA sees any rebates as a big step backward. In making its deal with Baucus, the industry believes it won a commitment from the senator that he won’t sign a final House-Senate conference report that includes what Waxman wants.”
In other words, PhRMA is only comfortable embracing imaginary voluntary savings. Their agreement with Baucus encourages them to issue coupons or rebates to seniors for “unspacified discounts.” The savings “would benefit Medicare beneficiaries directly” and it’s unclear “what portion would accrue to the federal treasury.” Waxman’s bill would generate guaranteed savings that could help finance health care reform.
The two agreements have different winners and losers to be sure, but any health reform legislation should hold the industry to its word. One option is to design a policy that would trigger Waxman’s rebate proposal if the industry fails to produce the $80 billion it has pledged. After all, these days, triggers seem to be all the rage in health care policy.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Truth About Foreign Health Care Mitch McConnell was on the floor of the Senate the other day droning on about the nightmare of rationing and Soviet-style bread lines that are sure to result from the government guaranteeing affordable health care for everyone. Meanwhile, Jonathan Cohn actually traveled to foreign countries—specifically France and the Netherlands—to check out their health care systems. He reports that things are pretty awesome:
But in the course of a few dozen lengthy interviews, not once did I encounter an interview subject who wanted to trade places with an American. And it was easy enough to see why. People in these countries were getting precisely what most Americans say they want: Timely, quality care. Physicians felt free to practice medicine the way they wanted; companies got to concentrate on their lines of business, rather than develop expertise in managing health benefits. But, in contrast with the US, everybody had insurance. The papers weren’t filled with stories of people going bankrupt or skipping medical care because they couldn’t afford to pay their bills. And they did all this while paying substantially less, overall, than we do.
It’s also really important to just make a simple conceptual point. Right now health care is rationed by your ability to pay. And under any even remotely plausible vision of health care reform for the United States it would continue to be the case that people with the means and desire would be able to pay doctors to do pretty much whatever. Insofar as any “rationing” would take place at all it would be in terms of what the government is prepared to pay for. Comments 24 SharePermalink
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw something about the Swiss form of health care...looked very interesting and plausible.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Rahm Emanuel endorsed the trigger public option. “‘The goal is to have a means and a mechanism to keep the private insurers honest. The goal is non-negotiable; the path is’ negotiable.”
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
