Join or sign in Register for your free TechRepublic membership or if you are already a member, sign in using your preferred method below. Use Your Email Use FacebookUse Linkedin

“a government-run insurance plan”

Locked

[i]”A key Democrat voiced confidence on Sunday that Senate leaders will include a government-run insurance plan in the healthcare bill they bring to the full U.S. Senate for consideration — and suggested it might even pass.”[/i]

Source and full context:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091018/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare

What’s wrong with this picture? Or, if you’re bold enough to show your true colors, what’s right with it?

Topic

No boldness required.

In reply to “a government-run insurance plan”

I frequently hear the stats that 1/6th of our economy is tied up in health care, and 1/7th of the population are either not covered or inadequately covered. Some regard that 1/6th as making health care too large a slice of our economy for the gov’t to interfere. I regard it as too large a slice to allow to remain at that size, especially with the level of service provided.

I think the private sector has done a very poor job providing what I consider a necessary service. I don’t advocate any new programs; instead, this service should be provided by expanding those eligible for existing programs.

For-profit providers costs are out of reach for a substantial number of consumers. Instead of getting routine preventative care, they wait until a problem is critical or use emergency rooms for non-critical issues. Some claim putting these people (including illegal aliens) under a gov’t run program will mean the rest of us will be paying for their care. In reality, their costs are already shifted to the rest of us through the portion of our insurance premiums used to compensate providers for those losses.

In short, I just don’t see how Uncle Sam can manage this any worse than it already is.

I’m “pro choice” in this case (actually in all cases)

In reply to No boldness required.

So many people seem unable to back-up a step and consider the more important underlying premise – or principle upon which we govern ourselves. People should have the right to make personal choices in their lives without being dictated to by government. This is another case in which personal choice could be – and most likely WILL BE – infringed upon even more than it is already.

Spare me the rhetoric about proposed plans allowing people to choose their own insurance options, choosing their own doctors, blah, blah, blah. Those choices – as well as other life choices – WILL BE affected.

Do you choose to smoke? Do you choose to consume foods that pack on the pounds? Do you choose to have a diet that raises your cholesterol level? Do you choose activities in life that pose a greater risk? If so, be prepared to have some government (or insurance) bureaucrat dictate to you how you need to alter your life choices or pay more – or both.

And possibly, do you choose to live your life without any insurance at all? There are people who might want to be self-insured. Go to the doctor, pay cash, end of story. In those cases, it might only be the catastrophic cases that throw a wrench into the system. But then again, back-up and consider the whole premise of the system as we currently know it to be.

A citizen will be forced to buy insurance, whether they want to or not – freedom of choice will be denied.

A citizen will be forced to alter lifestyle choices or pay more, or be penalized – or both – etc. – freedom of choice will be denied.

More nanny state equals less choice. It’s simply not possible to have more of the former without having to give up more of the latter.

I don’t know about you, but being dictated to by anyone in government – presuming government knows what’s best – is most distasteful. In fact, it’s simply not acceptable to me.

Normally, I’d go along with choice

In reply to I’m “pro choice” in this case (actually in all cases)

The country needs to provide medical coverage for its people. To me, that’s simply a given. If we’re going to use the insurance model to cover medical costs, then everybody has to buy it. I think that insurance isn’t the best way; costs have gone out of control under insurance. But insurance seems to be what we’re going to do.

In any case, people deserve medical care that won’t bankrupt them. It’s the mark of a decent civilization that has achieved a certain level of prosperity. We already do guarantee all people necessary coverage; we just limit it to people who will fit under certain government programs, and to anyone else in emergency cases, and pass the costs on to the insured base and to the taxpayer. It’s not efficient and not effective.

There’s lots of choice that’s already gone. Try not paying your taxes, or not buying auto insurance, or remodeling your house outside of the building code, or printng your own money, or walking naked in the streets. When I was young, there was a draft; you couldn’t disregard it, at pain of going to jail; and if you cooperated, you could be sent into combat. There’s too much that is compulsory about life to pretend that you’ll be saved by basing medical care (i.e., life and death versus bankruptcy) on private choice and private resources.

Your first sentence

In reply to Normally, I’d go along with choice

You said, [i]The country needs to provide medical coverage for its people. To me, that’s simply a given.[/i]

What do you mean, [i]the country needs to provide [/i]…..? We’re a nation of self-governed individuals. For someone to say that [i]the country needs to provide[/i] anything is just another way of saying that one individual [i]must provide[/i] something for another individual.

Moreover, [i]medical coverage[/i] and medical care are two things that are distinctly different, yet talked about as though they’re one in the same. They’re not one in the same.

Self governed?

In reply to Your first sentence

Or, self-indulgent?

If all people would govern themselves properly, you wouldn’t have cases like Caylee Anthony, Adam Walsh, Nicole Brown, Sharon Tate, and Matthew Shepard.

Until then, you and I both need government to provide.

Otherwise, someone might self-govern you with a gun if you switch lanes too fast and cut them off.

After all, it would be their choice. Right?

Oh please, give me a break

In reply to Self governed?

Self governed and individual rights – AS LONG AS THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS IS NOT INFRINGED UPON.

Why do you insist on citing such silly examples?

The role of government is to protect individual rights. One person does not have the right to, as you suggested, [i]self-govern (me) with a gun if (I) switch lanes too fast and cut them off[/i] – just like there is no right to force me – or you – into any medical scheme.

Are you being forced now?

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

Does your job make you pay for insurance out of your check?

Mine does. They won’t give me the hundreds per month they pay. I get no option.

So, cry me a river. That’s already happening to millions of working Americans and you failed to write a big rant about that.

Or is it business’ right to push things on you, but not government?

So please. Make your assessment of process fair and equal whether private or public…before you put the onus of responsibility on the shoulders of your government alone.

jck

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

You said, [i]Or is it business’ right to push things on you, but not government?[/i]

Those are two distinctly different entities with two distinctively different issues. You choose to work for your company. Any benefit and compensation issues are negotiable.

If I work for you, as an example, absolutely yes, you do have a right to dictate terms of employment, and I have a right to either accept or decline. Competition (for employees) in a free market system tends to create a lot of companies that treat employees pretty well. If you’re at a place that doesn’t treat you fair, well, it’s your choice to remain.

If your analogy had any merit at all, I could choose to opt out of any government mandated program, which I don’t.

Business: I can choose to opt out of a company sponsored 401(k) plan. Government: I cannot choose to opt out of the Social Security ponzi scheme.

Don’t you see the distinction between the two?

absolutely wrong there, Max

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

[i]Any benefit and compensation issues are negotiable.[/i]

It’s not a negotiable set of benefits at this job, or any other job I have.

They say “This is what we offer.” not “This is what you can choose from.”

I don’t get a la carte or even yes or no choice to getting benefits or receiving the compensation they’d otherwise pay for me.

So, why not? Why can’t I have the money ($1,000s a month) instead of accepting insurance.

Reason: My job doesn’t give me the choice.

Besides, government is going to give you more choice than I have. You can choose from a plethora of plans from different carriers.

Whereas now, I get to take a choice of 2 plans from 1 carrier.

So, this government health insurance will be good for me. I can shop around and get the best rate, then make my employer let me have the choice where the benefit I EARN is spent.

Some do, jck

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

[i]Does your job make you pay for insurance out of your check?
[/i]

But you are not being FORCED to work for them… yet!

A La Carte Benefits

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

I did have an employer who did this.

Of course major medical was government, short term/long term disability was fixed, but the areas of the plan where we had options were in dental, prescriptions, life insurance, optical etc.

This allowed not only the ability opt out (why pay for optical if your eyes are perfect) but also for better co-ordination of benefits – if you are married and you can get a benefit from your employer or you partners employer, you can taylor your plan to cover the things your partner’s plan is weak in.

James

choice and a la carte

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

Tony:

The vast majority do not. Since all employers do not offer me that, I can not truly pick and choose who I work for. I worked at a job where I had *no* benefits, but the money was vastly higher. I could pay for insurance out of that. That was choice.

But, you aren’t going to see most companies paying people 60-75% more than what they pay now to give their people open benefits options.

Why? Because when they sign up with a single carrier, they get a price break for essentially forcing you to take their benefit plan AS IS. In essence, the insurance company gives a kickback to someone who is willing to force their employees to take their plan ONLY.

JamesRL:

Trust me, I’d like to have government healthcare. As bastardized as I’ve heard Canada’s system is, at least you get treatment for a critical need.

I sat in an ER, a couple weeks out of spinal surgery, with an infection and almost 101F fever for over 5 hours. I never got seen. They still charged my insurance $800 for taking my blood pressure and temperature twice, and having done a base urinalysis on me.

There’s one reason why our medical system here is so ridiculous. I got no care, and my insurance still paid $800 to them.

They should have gotten $100 for the UA, and $40 for the 20 mins total that RN spent with me charting me and taking vitals.

Oh well. Guess it doesn’t matter. I can’t change anything.

jck

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

[i]The vast majority do not. Since all employers do not offer me that, I can not truly pick and choose who I work for.[/i]

You CAN choose. You just don’t like the choices. Boo Hoo.

[i]I worked at a job where I had *no* benefits, but the money was vastly higher. I could pay for insurance out of that. That was choice.[/i]

I think that “vastly higher” money could be considered a benefit 🙂

[i]But, you aren’t going to see most companies paying people 60-75% more than what they pay now to give their people open benefits options.

Why? Because when they sign up with a single carrier, they get a price break for essentially forcing you to take their benefit plan AS IS. In essence, the insurance company gives a kickback to someone who is willing to force their employees to take their plan ONLY.
[/i]

If the company gives you exactly what they are currently paying for insurance, how is that any burden on the company? (in fact, by NOT paying for your insurance, they would probably have less in administrative costs.)

I’ve stated before that this is a problem. You don’t really get a price break with an employer paid plan. You pay MORE because the insurance company has a captive customer base. The solution, however, isn’t a government paid insurance plan, it is employee choice. This will spur competition and lower prices.

Fix the real problem. Don’t create more!

Really, Tony?

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

At one time, I had a job I liked. I wanted to stay there. I liked my benefits. I liked my pay. I liked my co-workers.

My contract was ended. There was other work to be done. I was the best qualified to work and maintain and expand that software I wrote for them.

So when the programming job opened, why wasn’t I considered for it?

I had no choice, even though I was the most knowledgable about the software and had the most experience working on it.

Ooops. There goes your ideology about me getting to choose what I like in the circumstance where I was the most qualified.

So sorry. You’re not right.

Sounds like

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

you want to MAKE someone like you. Indicates possible issues. Maybe the employer picked up on it too.

[i]I was the best qualified to work and maintain and expand that software I wrote for them.

So when the programming job opened, why wasn’t I considered for it? [/i]

Maybe someone else offered faster and/or better and/or cheaper. Maybe it was the owner’s nephew. Who knows? Who cares? It’s not the only job.

Eventually you’ll find a balance between the desire to control what other people choose, and the desire to eat. Good luck in your quest.

No, it’s not about control

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

It’s about showing you were wrong. I had no choice in the matter to choose to go to work at a place that I like for which I was most qualified.

You said I had choice. You were wrong.

And it wasn’t the owner’s son. It was the director’s daughter’s fiance who was a new grad from North Carolina State University who had no previous experience in the field and no knowledge of the 10,000s of lines of software I’d written.

I hope they got their money’s worth. I could have done it faster and better.

The original premise

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

was that you can choose (for the time being…) where NOT to work, not that you can choose where to work.

There’s an easy way to tell if you’re as valuable to your employer as you think you are…. tell him you’re going to quit if you don’t get what you want. See what happens. You’ll have your answer.

The original premise

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

pertaining to choice was that government is going to come in and take your choice away.

Well, employers already do that. I have no choice to have the insurance I want. I have to take what I’m given. They take part of what they would otherwise compensate me, and make it a “benefit”.

And since we’re on choice, you said I can’t force someone else to let me have a job?

True. However when I am the person who designed, created, tested, and implemented a system…there is no one in the world who knows more about it than me. When that job opened, I was truly THE best qualified in the world for it.

Now tell me, Tony.

What is so right about a company having the right to not practice fairly and take the best people who CHOOSE to apply for a job for which they are qualified.

But, your government can’t CHOOSE to practice the same way as business?

Why do you refuse to let anyone except a select group, which in most cases is the wealthy and/or those in control of the business sector, have freedom to do as they wish on a level playing field of professionalism?

Why don’t you see that denying me the right to do a job that I am the best qualified for…is FORCING me to CHOOSE something I don’t want?

Basically, your premise that making choice that you wish doesn’t apply in all cases. It’s a fairy tale that fair, free choice will ever exist ubiquitously. And since government and people can’t have it, neither should business.

Wrong

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

[i]Well, employers already do that. I have no choice to have the insurance I want. I have to take what I’m given.[/i]

There’s (currently) nobody preventing you from refusing your employer’s plan and buying your own coverage except you!

As I said, you might not like the choices, but they ARE there!

Sorry, Tony

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

[i]There’s (currently) nobody preventing you from refusing your employer’s plan and buying your own coverage except you!

As I said, you might not like the choices, but they ARE there![/i]

Yep. No one is preventing me from walking away from something I have EARNED.

I EARN that. WORK for it. Why can’t I choose what to do with that money?

Aren’t you the one always bitching about “don’t tell me how to spend my money”?

Well, why don’t you stand up for me now? I work 40-50 hours a week, plus put in time at home and even have worked from a bed with a broken neck to get my work done when most people would have laid around and watched Jerry Springer.

You’re full of hog wash. You stand up for business getting all the benefit and choice, and letting the little guy have the scraps.

Well, sorry. I think that if I EARN a right to have insurance, I should not have to have coverage from an insurance company not of MY choice.

So, stand up for me and my right to spend my money as I see fit, Tony. Don’t be a hypocrite.

And, yes. I can tell you for a fact. My employer allocates me a portion of money every month, then deducts it as “med ins” on my check stub. So, it is actual money I EARN that they take away from me and give me NO CHOICE.

Thank you.

No, jck.

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

[i]I EARN that. WORK for it. Why can’t I choose what to do with that money?[/i]

Government provided insurance isn’t going to solve that problem, it’s only going to change who’s keeping you from spending your money as you wish. Only if you don’t like it, it’s harder to change countries than it is to change jobs. The only way it makes sense is if you’re of the mind: “If I can’t do what I want, nobody else should be allowed to either”.

Misery loves company.

That’s funny, Tony

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

[i]Government provided insurance isn’t going to solve that problem, it’s only going to change who’s keeping you from spending your money as you wish. [/i]

According to the legislation, it establishes an “exchange” for priced options in healthcare insurance. People will be able to choose from those.

Right now, I have 1 choice.

Are you saying the exchange will have 0 choices?

[i]Only if you don’t like it, it’s harder to change countries than it is to change jobs. The only way it makes sense is if you’re of the mind: “If I can’t do what I want, nobody else should be allowed to either”.[/i]

Trust me, I know how hard it is to get a job in Europe. I’ve tried leaving.

My mindset is:

If Tony tells me all the time that he is for people being able to spend their money that they earn the way they want, why won’t he back me in being able to spend the money my employer takes from my paycheck and funnels to one insurance firm they brokered a deal with?

You have said it before: people should be able to spend their money as they see fit.

So, now are you practicing a double-standard because I am the person who wants to spend their money as the want?

And, are you advocating to hold only government not to spend your money for you as they want, but will allow any employer to take your money from you and do that to you?

Two double standards.

I’ve not “not backed” you.

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

[i]If Tony tells me all the time that he is for people being able to spend their money that they earn the way they want, why won’t he back me in being able to spend the money my employer takes from my paycheck and funnels to one insurance firm they brokered a deal with?
[/i]

You SHOULD be able to take the money your employer pays for insurance and buy your own. I’ve said it over and over again… on this board, on other boards, in letters to my representatives…

The government doesn’t have to go to the extremes it’s trying to to fix that problem.

Really?

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

It is a compensation I earn at my job, yet my employer is not required to pay that to me if I choose not to have insurance.

Say I was married, and I don’t want their insurance. My spouse has a far superior coverage. I want to take that money and buy supplemental life insurance instead, or AFLAC for specialty coverage.

My employer doesn’t have to give me squat.

You are saying on one hand I should get the money.

On the other hand, you are saying that even though there is no way on God’s green earth I can get that money that the intervention of the institution whose duty it is in this world is to protect my rights and serve to make the country better…shouldn’t be mandating my employer give me that option you say should be that way?

What’s wrong with this picture, Tony?

I should have it, but yet when I don’t have it there’s no way I can get it and government shouldn’t make a bill that requires them to do so?

Jesus.

My employer doesn’t have to give me squat.

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

No, and you don’t have to work for any employer who doesn’t compensate you in the manner you want (but see note at end).

Jck, I agree with you that you SHOULD get the money he is paying… The only difference between it and money on your paycheck is that you’re not paying income tax on it.

What I disagree with is that employers give some more than others based solely on whether you get family coverage or single. It’s should not be his burden whether you choose to marry or have children. Every employee should have the same dollar amount paid toward their insurance (or as I would prefer, their health spending account).

(Note: As more “transfer of wealth” policies go into effect, that will probably change… Human nature says that eventually, people will decide not to work as hard if they’re only going to have more of the fruits of their labor taken away and given to someone else. As work output starts to decline, less money will go into the government coffers, and more will go out. The government will then have no choice except to force labor. At that point the collapse of the country is imminent!)

but that’s the point

In reply to Oh please, give me a break

[i]No, and you don’t have to work for any employer who doesn’t compensate you in the manner you want (but see note at end).[/i]

You earn that insurance. They are paying $x for it. That is YOUR $x. It should be YOURS to spend as you wish.

And you’re right. They don’t have to.

But if the health insurance reform passes, your employer will have to let you CHOOSE. They are required to pay, and you will be allowed to shop for what you want.

[i]Jck, I agree with you that you SHOULD get the money he is paying… The only difference between it and money on your paycheck is that you’re not paying income tax on it.[/i]

Actually, I looked at my stub online now and looked at the tax tables on the IRS site. I don’t know if it’s difference in state law or what, but my insurance is pulled out post tax.

[i]What I disagree with is that employers give some more than others based solely on whether you get family coverage or single. It’s should not be his burden whether you choose to marry or have children. Every employee should have the same dollar amount paid toward their insurance (or as I would prefer, their health spending account).[/i]

My employer doesn’t do that. They pay wholly for single coverage. If you do single + 1 or single + family, you pay the difference in premiums.

[i](Note: As more “transfer of wealth” policies go into effect, that will probably change… Human nature says that eventually, people will decide not to work as hard if they’re only going to have more of the fruits of their labor taken away and given to someone else. As work output starts to decline, less money will go into the government coffers, and more will go out. The government will then have no choice except to force labor. At that point the collapse of the country is imminent!)[/i]

That’s foreshadowing that it will kill the country, like we weren’t already going to hell in a handbasket.

Fact is, public healthcare would save money in the long run. It stops conditions from worsening that require more expensive and lengthy treatment, more hands on care vs medication, and better prevents spread of communicable disease.

That’s why I would like to see us have a public health system. That way, ERs don’t get tied up by the “splinter in a finger” folks. And, someone doesn’t have to worry whether or not they can afford going in to see someone for chest pains or blood in their stool.

Preventative care provided by public services would be far cheaper than critical care by public services, which is what occurs when those who can’t afford it don’t get the basic care they need and their problems compound from something only needing an ointment to something requiring surgical procedure and rehabilitation.

Besides if your theory were true, I’d have quit working and gone on welfare years ago.

Maybe I should.

Terms defined

In reply to Your first sentence

“Medical care” is something you periodically need to keep on living. “Medical coverage” is paying the bills for care, so that you can get what’s necessary if you don’t have money, and so you won’t go broke in case you do have money. The threat of bankrupting one’s self would discourage a lot of people from getting care. In fact, it does so today, in a minority of cases, but still frequently.

To say that a country of self-governed individuals is nothing more than individuals, and that to pay somebody else’s medical bills is to financially favor one individual over another, is a fallacy. First, a country is more than the sum of its parts; it is beyond an aggregation of individuals. America means history and purpose, as well as laws, money, roads, the army, police, food inspection, free markets, etc.; lots of rights, rules, and freedoms that don’t come into being just because a dozen people get together in a room. Second, the wealth and opportunity we enjoy is due to the common work of all America; individualism counts, but the individual can leverage his initiative with social institutions that confer him wealth beyond his own powers to create it. Third, however your background may improve or limit your power to choose freely, sickness and accident are not in most cases the results of choice. You may choose to smoke or not, and either way you go, you may or may not get cancer; and the same goes for your dependent child, who never smoked. Of course, smoking, drinking, motorcycling, and overeating all increase risk, but there is more to health than statistics.

The government has an interest in the welfare of individuals. Its duty to care for individuals by overriding the rights of other individuals is accepted in the cases where children are removed from the homes of sexual abusers, or firemen break through doors to rescue somebody. Medical care is life over death, or well-being over suffering. Coverage is necessary to the care. Government is obliged to guarantee it.

Really?

In reply to Terms defined

[i]”Medical care” is something you periodically need to keep on living.[/i]

Someone who’s never been sick “needs” medical care?

Actually

In reply to Really?

[i]The government has an interest in the welfare of individuals.[/i]

It only has that interest as long as the individual is contributing to society more than he’s taking from it.

Actually, back to you

In reply to Really?

Government… “only has that interest as long as the individual is contributing to society more than he’s taking from it.”

Supposing that a person has contributed his life long, and is now retired. Does anybody have an obligation to him, in light of contributions past, though little is left of him?

Suppose a person, a child or a student, has not yet begun to contribute, and has only absorbed resources. Is it in anyone’s interest to guarantee his wellbeing, in light of contributions yet to come?

Only up to the point

In reply to Really?

the accounts equal out. After that, no.

Sounds like death panel logic to me

In reply to Really?

“Only up to the point the accounts equal out. After that, no.”

Sounds like an actuary gets to figure out which boy gets chemo, under your social justice. “Let’s see, Jimmy doesn’t have the grades that Joey does, so his future value is reduced. If his dad was anything but a forklift driver, the boy might pull out of it, but he’s looking like he’ll always be a working class loser. So, let’s give the $40,000 leukemia treatment to some more deserving kid.” If Darth Cheney were given the mandate to work up medical cost savings, death panels is what he’d think of. It explains why the phrase comes so naturally to Republican lips.

Survive or die.

In reply to Really?

[i]Sounds like an actuary gets to figure out which boy gets chemo, under your social justice. [/i]

No, you decide, by choosing to earn it.

The fact of my birth creates no obligation in anyone else except perhaps my parents, and only then for a specific time. It also creates no obligation in ME to anyone… It’s a contract I didn’t sign!

Also, I don’t think I should be allowed to CHOOSE to partake in risky lifestyle choices and expect the cost of the consequences of my choices to be forced onto others (If I CHOOSE to go skiing and break my leg, that should be on me. The alternative would be that since others are going to pay, they get to decide if I’m allowed to go skiing. You may value liberty less than safety, but I do not). The only time you should be obligated to pay for my illness or injury is if you were the cause of them.

None of that, however, prevents one from ASKING for help, nor from CHOOSING to provide help. But it should be voluntary. Otherwise, what’s the point of even trying? Why should I bother working, for example, if you’re just going to take it away from me and give it to someone else?

Survive or die

In reply to Really?

Isn’t it amusing that so many people that support the Theory of Evolution would work to fight the benefits of that system on the human race?

If Evolution is natures way of improving a species, what happens to that species when nature no longer plays any roll? DEevolution.

You talk as if you never had kids

In reply to Really?

or as if you don’t need them around for long. Since I don’t believe that, I can only conclude you don’t mind talking no sense.

Not sure who you were replying to

In reply to Really?

But I know JD and I are both fathers (and I am a grandfather).

[i]as if you don’t need them around for long.[/i]

I “need” air, water, food, and shelter… Everything else is gravy.

In natural selection

In reply to Really?

there has always been the caring of the young, or haven’t you ever paid attention to National Geographic?

Less emotion, it does not win discussions.

Survive or die?

In reply to Really?

I guess that by this you mean that if you can’t pay for medical care, it is fair that you die, and if you can, it is fair that you survive. JD cheerfully suggests that this is the happy game of natural selection at work, and if you can’t afford to keep your kids or yourself alive, you aren’t the kind of bloodline the rest of us need around. So, die.

I pointed out that anyone who was willing to flush financially impaired youth down the toilet of evolution spoke like he didn’t have kids of his own to protect (though knowing that you both do.) I remember a time when I had no insurance, two kids and a wife, and made about $5 an hour (1979.) A bad emergency would have put me on the wrong side of your survival line. Probably, if you’re a typical American story, there were equally hard times in your pasts, too.

So, whaddaya think? Is extinction what you meant, or would you have some kind of exception for your kids? And for yourself, and people like you?

Wrong Del

In reply to Really?

I do not believe in the Theory of Evolution as it is handed down to us from the Alter of Science, that all life originated from a single cell, that mutated into everything. There would be a DNA link between ALL living creatures if that were the case.

My point that it is people that DO believe in evolution that are fighting the effects of evolution. Sorry that you missed that point of my post.

Given only that information,

In reply to Really?

[i]I guess that by this you mean that if you can’t pay for medical care, it is fair that you die, and if you can, it is fair that you survive.[/i]

yes.

Careful JD

In reply to Really?

[i]My point that it is people that DO believe in evolution that are fighting the effects of evolution.[/i]

Someone will soon make the “you-know-what” reference.

So Tony

In reply to Really?

If Mother Teresa was still alive (and you can count the many that lead similiar lifes) and needed care, she would be SOL???

I don’t think it adds up.

Many would CHOOSE to help her,

In reply to Really?

but I would not FORCE you to!

More pointedly, if I thought I needed such, I would ask (and ask NICELY, even). I would not DEMAND!

So IF they

In reply to Really?

heard about it in time and IF enough donated in time and IF they then could schedule her, then she MIGHT survive.

Doesn’t sound like a very good system.

It’s the only one

In reply to Really?

that preserves liberty.

Who do you seek to protect?

In reply to Normally, I’d go along with choice

It isn’t the poorest that don’t have health insurance because they don’t end up paying for major medical issues.

Who is it you wish was covered, yourself?

My biggest problems:
We can not just run around and have the solution for every bleeding heart program be “lets make someone else pay for it!”.

We can not make ANYTHING “free” or it loses value to the user and overhead shoots out of control. Think UAW workers with zero deductible vs someone that has a high deductible. Who is more likely to go in for every splinter to have removed?

There is not a successful government model ever to show that “the government” will provide a workable solution. We are suppose to learn from history.

300 million Americans

In reply to Who do you seek to protect?

including the little brown illegals who pick our onions and blow our leaves.

This will not help the little brown illegals

In reply to 300 million Americans

as they currently get FREE health CARE, why would they want to pay for health INSURANCE?

The only people that have to fear losing everything because of medical bills are people that have something to loose.

If the current negotiations in congress/senate were honestly for our best interests, it would be about health CARE, but it isn’t.

posted in wrong place

In reply to This will not help the little brown illegals

.

Additional issues.

In reply to I’m “pro choice” in this case (actually in all cases)

I don’t see a government option as an alternative to private insurance as automatically leading to government dictation.

I too am opposed to mandatory insurance. In particular, it makes no sense to mandate insurance and then compensate people to buy it. This in particular makes the argument for a government option more persuasive. Why fund another program to launder tax money through private citizens on it’s way to insurance companies. Expand an existing program and keep it all under one roof.

I don’t see anything in the linked article that references the personal choices you mention. I’m opposed to government interference in those areas, but are the topics you raised included in any of the proposed legislation? If so, I’d appreciate links; I’ve been unable to find anything.

I don’t buy into ‘slippery slope’ arguments; I find concerns about what might be are too often used to prevent any change at all. I believe you and I have a philosophical difference on this subject.

When, in the entire history of humanity,

In reply to Additional issues.

[i]I don’t see a government option as an alternative to private insurance as automatically leading to government dictation.
[/i]

has that NOT been the case?

the problem with “pro choice”

In reply to I’m “pro choice” in this case (actually in all cases)

If you give the person the right to choose whether or not to have medical insurance, then you must give the medical establishment open right to choose who they treat.

Because, most hospitals are open to tort if they do not treat someone with illness or injury. Yet, they can not be guaranteed to make any income if that person can not pay.

Therefore, you must either provide both person and establishment the right to choose. Otherwise, you give the person all the power and the business no option in many cases.

BTW, the government-run insurance is an *option*. The privately-run insurers will still be there to choose from.

Also, it’s funny when you say this:

[i]Do you choose to smoke? Do you choose to consume foods that pack on the pounds? Do you choose to have a diet that raises your cholesterol level? Do you choose activities in life that pose a greater risk? If so, be prepared to have some government (or insurance) bureaucrat dictate to you how you need to alter your life choices or pay more – or both.[/i]

There are government-run health systems all over Europe, and none of them charge different rates for different people. How do they survive?

You and other Americans would have people believe they can’t. However, look at Holland, Italy, England, Australia, Israel, etc. They all still exist after decades. I wonder why?

Doom and gloom. Doom and gloom.

But I have to agree with you. Being dictated to by most anyone in government is distasteful. Maybe because of the fact that most of them are paid-for and bought by special interest.

If I had people up there who actually knew what it was to work for a living (instead of a bunch of silver-spooned capitalists), I might have less doubt.

Your dreaming

In reply to the problem with “pro choice”

Government health coverage is far from the utopia you make it out to be.

1. You say if the consumer has choice then the hospital/doctors must have a choice for who they treat. doctors, and to a lesser extent hospitals, do have choice. They can transfer or discharge patients for most any reason (there are exceptions, of course).

2. The government run “option” will only be an option for a limited time. It is not a slippery slope, nor is it guess work that the government plan will become the only plan. The government doesn’t have to compete for customers the way insurance companies do, they don’t have the overhead private companies do and they are not subject to all the same laws companies are. It is not a level playing fields. Many insurance companies have already come out saying they would gladly dump their more costly patients into the government “option”.

You ask how European health services survive, and the answer is “they don’t”. Most of them are bankrupt, or close to it, or severely limit care, or put off procedures in hopes the patient will die before it can be performed. There is a reason the worlds wealthy come here when they need serious care. Did you know there are more MRI machines in my home state of Colorado than in all of Canada and Europe combined?

The problem with our insurance coverage isn’t the industry, its the current level of government involvement. The government tells insurance companies they cannot compete across state lines, and require certain expensive but rare medical problems to be covered. Insurance companies would love to offer ala cart options, but government regulation makes it impossible. Get government out of the industry and you will see prices drop.

The one way the government could help is (1) go to a loser-pays legal system and (2) limit the damages that can be assessed for malpractice suits. This would lower doctors insurance rates and lower health costs all around.

And as long as we’re throwing out our own version of heath care utopia, I’d like to see a system that more closely approximates auto insurance. If I become seriously ill I should be able to call my “agent” who comes out and works with the hospital to help control costs and improve coverage. My agent could make sure I’m not being charged $10 for a single aspirin and assure I’m receiving the attention my case deserves.

A little nit.

In reply to Your dreaming

[i]they don’t have the overhead private companies[/i]

Actually they do…. they just don’t have to pay for it out of their own pockets.

If they are setup right, they do

In reply to A little nit.

Look at how Citizens Property Insurance in Florida works, Tony.

It is mandated under enactment to pay for itself out of premiums it charges, not taxpayer funds.

hahaha

In reply to Your dreaming

[i]Government health coverage is far from the utopia you make it out to be.[/i]

Utopia? No.

Better service in most cases than US healthcare that we end up paying through the nose for anyway? Yes.

[i]1. You say if the consumer has choice then the hospital/doctors must have a choice for who they treat. doctors, and to a lesser extent hospitals, do have choice. They can transfer or discharge patients for most any reason (there are exceptions, of course).[/i]

Yes, they should have a choice. If a person refuses to carry the insurance and can’t pay the bill out of pocket, a medical provider should have the option to say “if you can’t pay for my services, you won’t get treatment.”

And as I said, medical professionals don’t have a choice in the fact that under law in most states they are obligated to render care to the sick or injured. Hospitals can’t refuse critical care in most places. Even if they do, they risk tort from the person or their family if something befalls them that is deemed legally to have been “preventable”.

[i]2. The government run “option” will only be an option for a limited time. It is not a slippery slope, nor is it guess work that the government plan will become the only plan. The government doesn’t have to compete for customers the way insurance companies do, they don’t have the overhead private companies do and they are not subject to all the same laws companies are. It is not a level playing fields. Many insurance companies have already come out saying they would gladly dump their more costly patients into the government “option”.[/i]

Then in your noble wisdom and knowledge, please explain to me how private homeowners’ insurance companies in the state of Florida still exist while there is a state-run homeowners’ insurance carrier?? Please?

Doom and gloom. Doom and gloom.

Private carriers can compete with a public option. Believe it or not.

[i]You ask how European health services survive, and the answer is “they don’t”. Most of them are bankrupt, or close to it, or severely limit care, or put off procedures in hopes the patient will die before it can be performed. There is a reason the worlds wealthy come here when they need serious care. Did you know there are more MRI machines in my home state of Colorado than in all of Canada and Europe combined?[/i]

1. Most of them are bankrupt now, because of ailing economies. Look at the 1990s instead of a current, downturned economic climate which has effected everything.

2. Most of the world isn’t wealthy. Most people can’t afford to travel for healthcare.
Of course, look at Farrah Fawcett. Nothing worked for her in the United States. Did she stay here because it’s the best in the world.

Nope, she went to Germany.

Wonder why?

[i]The problem with our insurance coverage isn’t the industry, its the current level of government involvement.[/i]

Nope. It’s the fact that every year, the premiums go up, and your level of coverage goes down. That’s not government regulation. That’s capitalism. That’s companies, not government.

[i] The government tells insurance companies they cannot compete across state lines, and require certain expensive but rare medical problems to be covered. Insurance companies would love to offer ala cart options, but government regulation makes it impossible. Get government out of the industry and you will see prices drop.[/i]

Funny. BCBS has an arm in almost every state. They can’t compete across state lines? I had BCBS-MI at one time, and I live in Florida. Please explain this.

Insurance can compete across state lines, as long as they get licensed in the other state to do business. I can prove it to you. I have coverage letters from BCBS-MI for a job I held in Largo, Florida. My employer was not required to only use Florida-only insurance.

If your state doesn’t allow it, then change your state. But, don’t cripple OUR federal government because YOUR local government sucks.

[i]The one way the government could help is (1) go to a loser-pays legal system and (2) limit the damages that can be assessed for malpractice suits. This would lower doctors insurance rates and lower health costs all around.[/i]

Actually, our system would be better if we went to a “fraudulent claims pay” system, where the system isn’t full of BS suits.

As long as malpractice has to cover reasonable life-of-detriment circumstances, I agree. Limited punitive and reasonable care funds should be given.

[i]And as long as we’re throwing out our own version of heath care utopia, I’d like to see a system that more closely approximates auto insurance. If I become seriously ill I should be able to call my “agent” who comes out and works with the hospital to help control costs and improve coverage. My agent could make sure I’m not being charged $10 for a single aspirin and assure I’m receiving the attention my case deserves.[/i]

$10 for an aspirin? Try $14 for a 500mg Tylenol as of March 2009. I’ve got the itemized bill to prove it.

BTW, how much cost do you think it would take to employee enough people to handle things on a case-by-case basis?

Talk about causing skyrocketing costs.

I don’t care to lose choice of specialists

In reply to I’m “pro choice” in this case (actually in all cases)

If we’re forced to go with whatever specialists our gov’t run health care providers deem necessary, I’ll be highly displeased. My son has a condition with allergies and a problem with range of motion in his right foot. I take great care in going to the most highly reputable specialists within traveling distance, expenses be damned. If I am forced to go with whatever half assed joe schmoe md is close by, words cannot describe my outrage.

The healthy lifestyle bit is already being forced upon us. My health-care provider requires that I take physicals and “readings” by their “health-care team professionals” once per quarter. I always schedule physicals with my regular doctor on the same days, and my results are always predictable worse with the insurance doctors. Go figure. I still like to walk in with my own charts and histories just to be an ass about it. Then they tell me I should exercise more often because I’m in the upper regions of my bmi. I then explain that I have been exercising regularly 1.5 or more hours a day, 7 days a week in order to gain weight. The fact that BMI means nothing escapes them. The fact that my doctor says I am more healthy than I was ten years ago also escapes them. That isn’t covered on their little insurance exam placard. These people have just enough medical certifications to write down readings taken from samples they barely understand on machines they can barely operate. Yet their finding directly impact my wallet.

Insurance companies already suck. 🙁

I for one, believe the government will screw up health-care even more. The only difference is that I’ll be paying for all these people out there who elect not to have insurance because their premium’s high prices affect their lifestyle. I’ll also be paying insurance for people who are too lazy to work. We need “lazy ass” reform in this country, not health care reform. I’m a firm believer that people who need help should get it, but I’m also a firm believer that you should attempt to help yourself first.

-end rant-

🙂

Who says you will?

In reply to I don’t care to lose choice of specialists

In Canada, we can sign up with any specialist we like, and I’m sure many of the other countries that offer government programs are the same.

Like I’ve mentioned here before, my mom chose to go to a specialist in Toronto, about 100 miles away, for shoulder surgery, because she had heard he was the best in the country. Her family doctor wrote up the referral. The point is she could chose anyone at all. All of them would be covered by insurance (in the province, if she went outside, they may or may not cover it, depending on the situation).

And we don’t have quarterly physicals, nor in fact any requirements for physicals. I have to think your insurance company is trying to find a way to exclude you.

I have heard of a doctor (one in all of Canada) who decided to exclude smokers from transplants because they had a lower probability of success. Many other doctors mused they wouldn’t, when this story hit the news. But the doctors make that choice themselves, not government bureaucrats.

James

No motivation to be great

In reply to Who says you will?

The problem with your system is “the best doctor in the country” is paid exactly the same as the worst. There is no incentive under a government program to be the best in your field, except maybe as a matter of personal pride. And I’m sure that while you have your choice of specialists, the expense of getting to that specialist is on you. In our system the better a doctor is the more he is paid, so we have many specialists and many people all across the country who are truly great at what they do.

Not entirely

In reply to No motivation to be great

The only thing that fixed about pricing in Canada is the price of the actual procedure.

But of course the better you are, the more complex procedures you can do, the more money you get paid. Open heart surgeons get paid more per procedure than docs who do tonsilectomies. And the best in their field get asked to do more of them.

Also doctors can be part of their hospitals administration, teaching staff etc. So there is an incentive to be good, because the fees(salaries) they get paid for those tasks aren’t at all regulated.

Doctors here aren’t civil servants who scrimp and save. They make big incomes, and the best make small fortunes. The head of a big hospital makes more than the Prime Minister and the Governor General combined.

James

What a delusion

In reply to No motivation to be great

American doctors aren’t paid based upon their greatness. They’re paid based on what they bill and how many patients they see. Surgeons and radiologists are paid more than internists and generalists. Does that mean a scale of greatness has been applied?

Actually, Canadian doctors are paid varying amounts of money, based on a lot of factors. They are hospital and clinic employees, not government employees. In Canada, you are usually reimbursed for the cost of visiting a physician, if travel is involved. You can also see any specialist you want; you aren’t restricted to a few (like in an HMO, something a lot of Americans depend on.) There is no less or more a financial incentive to be superior in Canada than there is the United States; in both, the physician is paid through a third-party network of accountants and bureaucrats, government or private insurance, who are not connected to the actual work of patient care.

Your government run health care providers?

In reply to I don’t care to lose choice of specialists

So you are now FINALLY ale to afford medcial?

or are you assuming that you will lose yoru current option to pay the insurer of your chocie?

Either way, noody dictates who you can or can’t see, THAT is the result of private insurer’s that only want to pay for the level of care YOU pay for.

Under our government subsidized system, I can see the same professisonals and specialists that Bill Gates or President Obama could in Canada. I can walk into any hospital, doctors office, walk in clinic etc. ANYWHERE in Canada, and be accepted and seen to just the same as anyone else is.

It won’t be government-run health care

In reply to I don’t care to lose choice of specialists

It’ll still be insurance-company-run health care. That’s the Baucus plan. So, you won’t be going to see doctors under a hammer and sickle, each one with a commissar behind his back, guessing whether or not your treatment is worth it to the people. (Check Tony Tiger’s posts for an example of that sort of thinking, by the way.) It’ll still be under the sign of Aetna and Metropolitan, with an accountant behind every care provider, making sure it’s them who swindle you, and not the other way around.

Insurance companies will still determine whom you can see, and whether you pay extra for preferred specialists, if they give you anything at all. However, they won’t refuse you the freedom to see anybody at your own cost, the same as now.

Forces

In reply to I’m “pro choice” in this case (actually in all cases)

Look at Canada for example, our government spends a lot of money campaining about healthy diets, smoking cessation, drinking less etc.

Before I go on, I do agree that the bans have gone to extremes, in the sense of truckers being fined for smoking in their trucks, as it’s a workplace etc.

Health Canada has also pushed fast food joints to offer better menus, less fat, salt etc.

They have also made EVERY food manufacturer sellign into Canada, include the full dietary and nutritional contens on all food packaging, in the same format for easy recognition.

THESE are the invasive health practices we have forced upon us due to the govfrenment payign for health care. If i eat myself to a heart attack, it isn’t effecting my ‘insurance’ in any way shape or form. If I smoke myself into tripple or quadrouple bypass surgery even multiple times, my health plan is still nto effected.

They let consumers do as they please, they enact rules agains the manufacturers of such products to ensure the consumers have a choice and know exactly the dangers of their habits or chocies, they don’ thowever restrict those choices from the consumer though.

[i]”I don’t know about you, but being dictated to by anyone in government – presuming government knows what’s best – is most distasteful. In fact, it’s simply not acceptable to me.”[/i]

Me neither and that’s not the case here at all.

And that’s why

In reply to Forces

That’s why your system is bankrupt, why it takes forever to get an appointment with any specialist or to line up any kind of specialized procedure.

As I mentioned in another post, we have more MRI machines in Colorado than you have in all of Canada. Yes our coverage is expensive, but only because it is the best.

There’s another reason American care is expensive

In reply to And that’s why

It’s not because it is the best. Canadians provide better, on the average, than Americans do. American care is expensive because there are no controls on it. In most free market transactions you have a consumer exercising choice, but in health coverage, the consumer doesn’t make a contract with the insurer; his employer does. When the consumer gets health care, he doesn’t see the bill; the insurer does. The consumer makes no choices regarding cost or the composition of services he receives. The bills keep going higher. The doctor charges more; the insurer pays more; the employer pays more. The more it costs, the happier you are that you have insurance, ’cause otherwise, you’d be shafted.

In Japan, it costs under $100 to get an MRI, usually in no-waiting walk-in clinics. Why does it cost $1200 here? We have more machines to pay for, and nobody bothers to operate them in a cost-effective way.

More myths

In reply to And that’s why

System isn’t bankrupt, its under pressure, its not perfect, but neither is your system.

More MRIs in Colorado than Canada? Really – do you have a citation for that?

As for time to get an appointment with a specialist, thats another myth. There may be situations in some areas where it takes time, but I’ve read studies that say it doesn’t substantially differ from the uS, and certainly I’ve had many instances where I’ve seen no waits, or little waits.

Yes my Mom had to wait three weeks to see the best guy in the country for shoulder surgery, but it wsn’t an “urgent case”.

When my wife had an accident that caused brain damage, specialists were there within hours to help make assessments and map out treatments. One of them recommended a rehab program at another hospital and it took under a week to get her enrolled.

When my son had an medical issue as a toddler, he got an MRI in 2 hours, and that was after he was “stable” and in no immediate danger.

James

Are there 2 different healthcare systems

In reply to More myths

in Canada? That is, would someone in Nova Scotia be under a different system than you are? The reason I ask is because Daryl’s take on the Canadian system is much different than yours and some other Canadian posters. See his post in this thread:
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=319303&messageID=3184354

Provinces deliver health care

In reply to Are there 2 different healthcare systems

So yes, its different in each province to an extent, although it federal legislation that outlines the high level rules (no extra billing etc).

Prescription drugs aren’t covered here in Ontario or Nova Scotia (except for those on welfare, or in Ontario some co-pays for the elderly). But as Oz mentions, his province (BC) has generous government drug plans.

And things change over time. I remember when Alberta made big cuts and everyone from there complained, but now their system is generally acknowledged to be well funded.

That may be somethign to consider in the US, Canada is much smaller in population than the US (33 million versus 300). It would not be easy to force one system onto a population that large.

James

Nova Scotia

In reply to Are there 2 different healthcare systems

The people are undeniably some of the nicest people that walk on Earth. It is one of the most friendly and homely and welcoming places I have ever experienced.

It also sux in every other aspect though: Took cold in winter, too many black flies in summer. Education is a complete joke, I couldn’t believe how backwards the school was when I moved to Cape Breton, I swore I had just fallen from grade 4 to kindergarten again. I rememer laughign to my mother befor eexpressing concern tha i wasn’ tgoing ot learn ANYTHING living in Canada, thankfully when I moved out West things got better, but not to European standards by any means.
Health care, I remember my dentist in Cape reton, not that i could possibly forget such horrors. Belt drive drill, hard seat with little round pads for a headrest. a nightmare for sure.

But again, nicest people on the planet, warmest neighours and community spirit you will ever encounter.

In my experience

In reply to More myths

I often find that most Americans say they have the best health care system in the world, until they get sick. Most Canadian say we have the worst system in the world, until we get sick.

Its all perceptions. 😉

TCB

That’s true

In reply to In my experience

The people I hear moaning in Canada are people who get into a bar fight at 2AM and have to wait in the emergency room for an hour before getting their broken nose fixed.

or

People who haven’t needed to be in hospital for a while and have listened to teh NDP whiners going on about poor nursing conditions, crowded hjospitals etc.

The people who have just come from a doctor or have recently been released from hospital say how awesome our system is and how greateful they are for our health care plan.

Great oservation TCB!

Is that so?

In reply to And that’s why

Our system is bankrupt. Our system is SLOWLY falling apart but still nowhere near the level seen in the USA under yoru existing private structure.

As for takign forever to get an appointment, what BS media spin have you been reading?

A friend was told he needed a CAT scan a few weeks back, that particular hospital had a 3 week waiting list, they then asked is he could make it to another a few miles away, which I took him to the very next morning.
He is now ack at awork, and EVER SO THANKFUL that he left Alaama 8 years gao to start his family in BC. He said withotu our health care, he couldn’t provide insurance for his kids, would have died himself (diagnised with a kidney disease that threatened his life but he wouldn’t have even been diagnosed in Alabama)and now would have been immobile and suffering from acute sciatica. As he lives in Canada, his children are healthy, he is still alive and was able to see the specialists he needed and get the treatment he needed right away.

Having suffered severe spinal injuries for most of my life, I have seen more specialists than I can possibly count. Not ONCE, have I had to wait for anymore than a few days to see a specialist, get an MRI, CAT scan or any otehr treatment.

What you are parroting is the horror stories from people who demand non emergent support.

Something that Americans don’t understand is that people in teh most need get seen to first, people who have lots of money don’t take precedence over those who are the most sick. You WILL be made to wait, if you are ASKING for scans or treatments or specialists when other people in real need for such treatment are in line.

I find this upsets Americans, as flashing their money no longer gets them what they want.

Sick people taking priority over wealthy people when it comes to health care? Whatever next?

It’s impossible for your system to ever go bankrupt.

In reply to Is that so?

Unless everybody who earned money stopped or left.

Wrong

In reply to It’s impossible for your system to ever go bankrupt.

Not even remotely close.

Really? The New England Journal of Medicine begs to differ

In reply to And that’s why

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768

Basically it (and many other studies) show US healthcare is expensive because of the administrative overhead.

How about outcomes?
http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/3/343

This one shows if you are poor and have cancer, you will live longer on average in Canada than in the US.

These are peer reviewed scientific papers, not “journalism”.

Oh and I’m still waiting to hear about how many MRIs Colorado has…..I’ve now read articles on the internet about how “Colorado/Pittsburgh/Kentucky/LA County” have more MRIs than Canada. Yet none of those posts on the internet list the number of MRI units in any of those places.

The most up to date number I have for Canada is 222 MRI scanners, which is one less than the 7 scanners per million OECD average. But there are other reports than show we make more scans per machine than other jurisdictions.

James

And putting government in charge of ANYTHING

In reply to Really? The New England Journal of Medicine begs to differ

increases overhead. So an existing system that is over priced because of overhead will be made less expensive by adding governmental overhead?

Depends

In reply to And putting government in charge of ANYTHING

Why did the overhead in the US grow over time, the numbers showed that in the 70s, the size of admin(number of people involved in admin as a percentage of the total healthcare workforce) was roughly the same between the US and Canada, but the number of healthcare admins ballooned over the past three decades.

I can’t speak to the system thats being proposed in the US, it looks very very complicated. In Canada, with a single payer, its simple. Someone in the doctor’s office/hospital looks at the services provided. If they are on the “list”, they bill the government. If they aren’t on the list, they bill the patient. The government does have some auditors to look for doctors who may be billing for services not provided. But nothing like the massive infrastructure that reviews and approves and monitors and bills in the US private insurance. BTW my dental is provided by a private insurer, and I go through the same kind of bureaucracy as an HMO customer for that.

Single payer would simplify the bureaucracy, but thats not whats being proposed.

You assume that governments are worse at managing than private companies, but the recent recession has shown that bad management exists in many private companies as well. I’d say that many of the worst private companies are worse/more bureaucratic than a reasonably well run government program.

James

Actually a lot less overhead

In reply to And putting government in charge of ANYTHING

Lets see;
No overpaid Board of Directors
No Stockholders
No motivation to use profits to drive the business model and overpaid salaries.

Some superior Gov. run US Health Care Programs already in place;

http://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/tag/tricare/

Tricare Prime has been very good for me.

Actually

In reply to And putting government in charge of ANYTHING

Government wages tend to be lower than private sector by 14-40 percent outside the management band.

As well, the US government gets bigger discounts on their benefits for employees, or self-insures.

So, yes…it is cheaper for them.

Look at Massachusetts

In reply to No boldness required.

Private insurance increasing in costs… deductibles rising… new taxes…

“I see a bad moon a-rising.”

So one bad implementation means they’re all bad?

In reply to Look at Massachusetts

Good think Oog didn’t quit after that first fire went out.

Yes.

In reply to So one bad implementation means they’re all bad?

They’re all bad. Some are just more bad than others.

So what changes would you propose?

In reply to Yes.

Or are you satisfied with the system as currently run by the private sector?

Briefly

In reply to So what changes would you propose?

Create choice.

I believe that employer-paid plans are a large part of the problem. They have their employees in a virtual monopoly! I think we’d be better off if they put the money they are currently spending into a dedicated account, and allow us to choose our own insurer to be paid from that account.

Letting employees choose their own would put tens of millions of new customers in the market. Insurers would then be tripping all over each other to get our business, and prices would fall… to the point where it would be more affordable to more people. While this won’t entirely eliminate the problem, it would reduce the number of uninsured to a level that would be a lot less expensive to deal with.

We’d also have more choices… People have unique needs and each could customize their coverage to fit their needs, and change it as their needs change. And it would eliminate portability problems such as when changing jobs, since the account would remain with the employee, only a different employer paying into it. If your choice is less than what the employer pays in, the balance could be used for unreimbursed medical expenses. I would also like to see any balance in this account roll over.

Another small but real benefit would be a reduction of paperwork for the companies… time and money they could put into the VALUE of their product or service.

Families are struggling, and even though they say they only want to tax “the rich” to pay for it, we all know (or should know) that the rich eventually get it back from the consumer in the form of higher prices, so if we could figure out a way to improve the situation with a minimum of intrusion and tax money, it would be better for everyone.

Maybe we’re not that far apart.

In reply to Briefly

I too would like to see employers removed from the system, and also support putting that money (and decision) in the employees’ hands.

We differ over the government involvement. I don’t want the feds as a ‘single payer’ or ‘sole source’ system, but as one alternative to the private system. I’d like to hear more details about co-op systems too.

What I’d really like to see in ‘A Perfect World’ is people over 18 who don’t buy even the most basic insurance being held financially responsible for their treatment, to the point of denying treatment for those who repeatedly abuse the system. I believe society has a responsibility to offer affordable health care, but individuals who want to utilize it have the financial responsibility to cover their expenses.

Problems with your ideology on what should happen

In reply to Briefly

[i]Create choice.[/i]

The bills in both houses of Congress do that. It’s called an “exchange” where people can go to compare and contrast plans offered by multiple carriers.

[i]I believe that employer-paid plans are a large part of the problem. They have their employees in a virtual monopoly! [/i]

I’ve been telling you they’re doing that to me every month.

[i]I think we’d be better off if they put the money they are currently spending into a dedicated account, and allow us to choose our own insurer to be paid from that account.[/i]

There’s one problem with that:

Fund management costs, and that means employees would have to pay for some fund management of that account to some company. That’s a waste of money we should not be spending. So, you want to advocate spending more of the employees dollars on unnecessary things?

Put the money in the hands of the employee.

Not some money fund management group.

[i]Letting employees choose their own would put tens of millions of new customers in the market. Insurers would then be tripping all over each other to get our business, and prices would fall… to the point where it would be more affordable to more people. While this won’t entirely eliminate the problem, it would reduce the number of uninsured to a level that would be a lot less expensive to deal with.[/i]

Insurers will never chase “individuals” for their business.

What would happen?

Insurers would meet with groups of employees, rather than the HR department to woo you into their plan. And, they’d offer a speel about “the more of your co-workers you can get to sign up for our plan, the cheaper it gets for all of you!”

You’d basically set up a lot of pyramid schemes doing it through a managed fund at work.

[i]We’d also have more choices… People have unique needs and each could customize their coverage to fit their needs, and change it as their needs change. [/i]

Nothing mandates that insurers open a la carte options to their plans as of now.

What makes you think sticking money into an account at your place of work will do that?

[i]And it would eliminate portability problems such as when changing jobs, since the account would remain with the employee, only a different employer paying into it. [/i]

If this money isn’t going into an account with your employer, who is going to host it between employers? Do you realize the tax/finance management burden this represents?

[i]If your choice is less than what the employer pays in, the balance could be used for unreimbursed medical expenses. I would also like to see any balance in this account roll over.[/i]

That’s where medical reimbursement accounts work differently from what you want. Most of them at the end of the year get to keep any unused amounts.

That’s why I avoid reimbursement accounts. You go to submit stuff in November…they take 40 days to process it. They deny it all. You don’t have time to re-file. They make a quick $400 off ya.

[i]Another small but real benefit would be a reduction of paperwork for the companies… time and money they could put into the VALUE of their product or service.[/i]

As i’ve pointed out, your ideology would increase the management required to maintain, monitor, file things for the account you’ve proposed establishing.

[i]Families are struggling, and even though they say they only want to tax “the rich” to pay for it, we all know (or should know) that the rich eventually get it back from the consumer in the form of higher prices, so if we could figure out a way to improve the situation with a minimum of intrusion and tax money, it would be better for everyone.[/i]

Um…a question about finance for you.

If you don’t take the revenues you have and use them, and you don’t increase your customer base to generate more revenue to spend…how do you pay for something?

Just curious about your answer to that.

No new revenue = no new spending…unless you want to put off those resurfacing projects on I-80 for 10 more years?

That’ll save several hundred million there. That’s a nice start. 😉

jck,

In reply to Briefly

“Insurers will never chase “individuals” for their business.”

Then I wish that duck, gecko, and the gal with the heavy makeup job would go the heck away. If that advertising isn’t chasing individuals, what is it?

Well, actually, the chick’s kinda hot, kinda like a high-end mannequin or a very expensive inflatable.

If the only thing we’re quibbling about is whether the money goes to an administrated fund or directly to the employee, we’re closer to an agreement than our elected officials.

“That’s where medical reimbursement accounts work differently from what you want. Most of them at the end of the year get to keep any unused amounts.”

Must be nice. The reimbursement account where I work now is ‘use it or lose it’, as it was at my previous employer. My understanding is the law establishing them also specifies ‘use or lose’.

I don’t see it.

In reply to Briefly

[i]Fund management costs, and that means employees would have to pay for some fund management of that account to some company. [/i]

I have my electric, gas, phone, and cable bills automatically come out of my checking account. Doesn’t cost me a cent.

(perhaps you misunderstood. Employers would pay into an individual account for each employee. Not one account for multiple employees. This is no more complex than the direct deposit most employers now do.)

How is this different?

[i]Insurers will never chase “individuals” for their business.[/i]

They’re already doing it. Can’t watch TV for an hour without seeing at least one add wanting you to “change your car insurance and save hundreds a year”. Health insurance will be no different.

that’s what i was saying, Palmetto

In reply to Briefly

I had a med. reimb. acct. once. I had over $400 of it left. I filed prescription receipts plus cold meds and stuff from when I was sick in the calendar year. They refused over 90 percent of my claims, citing the receipts “didn’t have enough information of qualifying purchases”.

What a crock. It said “ACE BANDAGE” and “CVS Pharmacy” at the top. I would say that means…I bought an ACE bandage at CVS.

They’re a scam. I agree.

jck, if you think they’re a scam, you’re not agreeing with me.

In reply to Briefly

The problems you describe are more due to the administrator chosen than the concept. I don’t have a problem with giving the money directly to the employee, but I think an administrator is needed to ensure the money is spent on medical expenses and not blown on cigs and lottery tickets.

It takes some planning every fall when I decide how much to allocate for the next year. I collect the previous years receipts and add in any anticipated one-shot expenses like new glasses and a filling or two. I usually exhaust the allocated amount by early November. If a person can’t make an close estimate on how much to allocate each year, he or she probably isn’t capable of selecting a health care plan and should consider paying an administrator to make those decisions for him.

What I was talking about

In reply to Briefly

[i]If you don’t take the revenues you have and use them, and you don’t increase your customer base to generate more revenue to spend…how do you pay for something?[/i]

was who pays for tax increases on the rich. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Suppose I own a company. Hell make it simpler. Suppose I own a rental property.

I have costs for repairs and upkeep and taxes, and I’d like to make a little income (else what’s the point, right). I consider that when I set the amount I charge for rent.

Now suppose my property taxes go up. I guarantee that the rent is going to go up by the same amount (as soon as the current lease period expires).

A company is no different. Everything’s a business cost, which gets included in the price of the product or service. If any of those costs increase, you either have to cut something else, or raise prices.

I’ll explain, Tony

In reply to Briefly

[i]I have my electric, gas, phone, and cable bills automatically come out of my checking account. Doesn’t cost me a cent.

How is this different?[/i]

Your employer has a bank

You have a bank

When you earn money, your employer puts it directly to your account (or pays you a paper check you deposit where you wish)

An account like you’re talking about, where gross proceeds are held in escrow, are not individual accounts.

If they are kept individually as you would like, then you tend to either require hiring more accounting/auditing people to keep track of those accounts, tax liabilities, dividends earned on such monies, etc.

Or, you end up hiring a money management firm (like is what are done for most group funds of individual accounts, such as group retirement funds).

Either way, you are going to spend MORE just to have/manage/run/administrate that account, than you would just to pay the people to deposit the check and spend it how they wish.

Palmetto

In reply to Briefly

[i]but I think an administrator is needed to ensure the money is spent on medical expenses and not blown on cigs and lottery tickets.[/i]

It needn’t be elaborate. You can have “health checks” (or a health debit card) that takes qualifying purchases from that account. This is simple for today’s retail technology… identical, in fact, to how they figure what items are food-stamp eligible.

Palmetto

In reply to Briefly

It was the plan…period.

When I am told “you get reimbursed for any out of pocket medical expenses up to the value of your savings”, I expect when I submit a CVS pharmacy receipt that shows “ACE BAND” which is pretty clear to me that an ACE bandage was bought by me at CVS…that I’ll get my $6 or whatever back.

The receipts even had item codes on them that would prove what the item was. It was like the plan was requiring me to get a dump of CVS’ database for them to prove what the thing was.

I can understand not paying for cigarettes and stuff. But, my God. I had legitimate, illness-oriented purchases that they refused and had told me my money would be paid back to me for buying.

To me, that’s fraud.

Tony

In reply to Briefly

[i] What I was talking about was who pays for tax increases on the rich. I don’t know what you’re talking about.[/i]

The rich can pay for it. It’s called decrease in profit.

[i]Suppose I own a company. Hell make it simpler. Suppose I own a rental property.[/i]

Okay.

[i]I have costs for repairs and upkeep and taxes, and I’d like to make a little income (else what’s the point, right). I consider that when I set the amount I charge for rent.[/i]

Yep.

[i]Now suppose my property taxes go up. I guarantee that the rent is going to go up by the same amount (as soon as the current lease period expires).[/i]

Not necessarily. You can eat the cost if it’s only $80 a year. Or, you can charge another $100 a year and make a 25% profit on that $80 tax bill.

[i]A company is no different. Everything’s a business cost, which gets included in the price of the product or service. If any of those costs increase, you either have to cut something else, or raise prices.[/i]

Not everything is a business cost. That’s why companies take a business loss sometimes and write it off their taxes and end up getting back monies.

You don’t *always* have to roll an associated expense into your turn-around.

For example:

I operate a business. Part of my expenditures is insurance for my employees. I get to write off that liability as an operating expense and it decreases tax paid on gross funds.

Then of course, I file for a capital loss because I depreciated the value of my assets over a 5 year period, and lost the last 20% value of them which decreased my income level to a deficit in net.

Nonetheless, it’s a misnomer that business always has to increase rate based on expense to make a profit.

If your profit margin is adequate and you bankroll enough, when you reduce profits later because of small increases…you don’t have to worry about making minor rate alterations all the time.

Sorry, but the floating profit model of business is just a reason for poor business and finance management, and not a real reason to increase a price based on any cost shift occurring for or within an organization.

Otherwise, Wal-Mart would increase or decrease the cost of your can of pork and beans weekly.

You’ve misunderstood then.

In reply to Briefly

[i]An account like you’re talking about, where gross proceeds are held in escrow, are not individual accounts. [/i]

I’m talking about nothing more than a standard checking account in your name but only for health care purposes. You employer pays (the amount he is paying for health insurance) into that account. The health insurer of your choice withdraws premiums from that account. If the insurance you choose costs less, you can use that account to pay for your band-aids from CVS by using a card or check on the account (clearly identified as a health care account) when you pay for health care related purposes.

If the insurance you choose costs more than what the employer pays, you will have to add more money to that account.

What’s so difficult about it?

The problem with it, Tony

In reply to Briefly

For every individual holder, you have to provide statements, end of year totals, constant customer care, etc.

No bank is going to do that for free.

Hell, they won’t even let you talk to a teller free more than 2 times a month at Bank of America. They charge you per counter visit now after 2 times. So if you get paid weekly and want someone to deposit it for you, it costs you $3.50 per week after the first 2…to put money in their bank!

But what you are proposing spends your employees’ money, and according to you that is something that no one should do for them.

So, why do you advocate it?

I don’t know about where you are…

In reply to Briefly

[i]Otherwise, Wal-Mart would increase or decrease the cost of your can of pork and beans weekly. [/i]

but here they nearly do! Some things even more often! Milk, for example, can go up, down and back up in the same week. It’s almost as bad as gas 🙂

milk vs pork and beans

In reply to Briefly

One lasts 2 weeks. The other lasts 5 years.

If you had to pay for major work or an overhaul on a rental house every 2 weeks, you’d fluctuate your rates too. :^0

Stuff like pork and beans, little debbie snack cakes, bottled water, etc., have a pretty stable price.

It’s high volatility with short lifetimes that are priced in more rapid fashion.

Hopefully businesses aren’t always restructuring every couple of months.

Choice also

In reply to Briefly

[i]The bills in both houses of Congress do that. It’s called an “exchange” where people can go to compare and contrast plans offered by multiple carriers.[/i]

means the choice to “not choose”. Believe it or not, some people are perfectly capable of paying for their health care needs out-of-pocket, and should not be penalized by the government for choosing to.

It’s just crazy. On the one hand, they want to penalize you for not having a plan, and on the other, they want to penalize you for having one that’s “too good”.

Its not shelf life re:milk

In reply to Briefly

Milk is a staple. People buy it often, and often the need for milk alone initiates a trip to a store.

So stores use it as a loss leader. Milk sometimes gets sold even below cost, as stores are betting that people who come in for milk will buy a few other items, and in the end they will profit.

But no one wants to lose too much, so they try and stay at or near the lowest price but not by much.

Thats why milk prices fluctuate.

James

Choice and Milk

In reply to Briefly

Tony:

[i]means the choice to “not choose”. Believe it or not, some people are perfectly capable of paying for their health care needs out-of-pocket, and should not be penalized by the government for choosing to.

It’s just crazy. On the one hand, they want to penalize you for not having a plan, and on the other, they want to penalize you for having one that’s “too good”[/i]

I agree. If you can pay for all of your medical costs out of your own pocket, you should be considered “self insured”. Period.

But if you take the risk and don’t carry it and can’t pay, I want doctors and hospitals to have the right, without fear of being sued, to be able to refuse treatment. Period.

JamesRL:

Milk, like bread and cheese, has more spoilage too.

That’s why you’ll also see bread going on sale every week at a store because of it’s diminshed shelf-life.

But, that high turnover and higher than normal spoilage drives prices up and down based on consumer demand.

That’s why you don’t see a can of pork and beans $1.09 one week and $2.50 the next.

Plus, pork and beans are just fine food 🙂

Spoilage versus competition re Milk

In reply to Briefly

Mom and Pop convenience stores with local ownership may focus on having sales to reduce stock levels to reduce spoilage, but I can tell you that supermarkets/Walmart/Costco do not. They focus on the market. If you go into a mom and pop, there isn’t much to impulse buy. Walmart/supermarkets try to price to get you to come in.

The big national chains have target prices for these things, but they allow for regional pricing, and they allow local regions and even stores to adjust prices to match or beat competition.

One proof of this is when a new Walmart comes into an area. They will try to have the lowest price on milk and bread. But there have been monitors that show if some of the local competition close their doors, the prices on these items creep up.

Big store buyers adjust their orders and schedules to try and reduce the amount of spoilage.

James

Name one time

In reply to No boldness required.

Name one instance where the government did anything cheaper than the private sector could. How does adding unnecessary bureaucracy save money?

A PWC study found that the average family policy rate will increase by $4000 in the next 10 years if the bill is passed as-is.

Furthermore, the tax rates in countries with socialized health care are astronomically higher than our own despite the fact that their health care systems are inferior. (on the basis that we have a longer life expectancy)

How dare you spam my discussion

In reply to “a government-run insurance plan”

Go crawl into a hole with the other snakes.

I’m with you on that one 100%

In reply to How dare you spam my discussion

I suspect we’d have more participants on this discussion if this PTBs would drop the bomb on this idiot and his buddy. The topic is buried in all the ‘updated’ zombies.

I think you’re correct about that…

In reply to I’m with you on that one 100%

People just can’t figure out which are the active discussions because of the amount of spam these people are generating.

For the most part, I’m staying out of this discussion….but I know people in Canada are watching what’s going on down there with great interest. They’ve been “trying” to fix our health care system for years….it seems like it just keeps making things worse.

We may have free visits to the doctors/hospitals/specialists but we are taxed heavily for that & we have long waits for many procedures (years…not weeks), and when it comes to medications you darn well better have Blue Cross or some other insurance up here….so in addition to the taxes, I’m also forking out a couple hundred dollars a month for my Blue Cross.

So like I said earlier, many up here are watching with great interest & hoping we can grab a few ideas to sort out our messed up health care system.

Actually…

In reply to How dare you spam my discussion

I found it hilarious!!! :^0

Poor Max…SPAMMED. :^0

Actually, everybody is being spammed by this guy

In reply to Actually…

Look at all of his posts over the past day.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5268-6257-0.html?id=6265779

I’ll cry for them later too

In reply to Actually, everybody is being spammed by this guy

Tears of laughter.

I know how to block people from my website…hilarious this isn’t nipped my some web admin deep in the bowels of CBS Interactive.

I wonder the same thing

In reply to I’ll cry for them later too

[i]…hilarious this isn’t nipped by some web admin deep in the bowels of CBS Interactive.[/i]

Exactly. Why can’t they stop this guy?

No clue

In reply to I wonder the same thing

Each website should have its own log and IP exclusion list.

It should be a matter of finding the submission for one or all of those spams…then shoving it in the exclusion list.

Maybe they already have, and the spam bot just posted that fast.

Oh well.

Being handled all wrong

In reply to Actually, everybody is being spammed by this guy

why does the profile still exist?

I can see the need to put in anti-spam efforts in place.

First, the most posts by a valid users (or jck) is only about 300/400 over a week. Clearly, something like a 20 post cap per day on anyone who hasn’t been a member for a few months is not rocket science. There is already a 10 peer limit per day, why not in the discussions?

Another option, people that have not been members for at least a week should have to do the visual confirmation of a pic of text for every post.

What’s right/wrong with it?

In reply to “a government-run insurance plan”

What’s right? Providing affordable healthcare insurance. If you’ve ever had to pay over $10k a year just for a health insurance policy out of your wages, you would know why this is the right thing to do.

What’s right also? Maybe a government-run healthplan that’s priced fairly will make insurance companies either operate at a fair rate, or run the ones out of business who can’t compete with an insurance group outside of the ones whose executives they can schmooze with at the country club on Saturday to collaborate on rates and profitability.

What’s wrong? There are already regulations that, if enforced, would cut the cost. This is just double spending. The federal government needs to get off their arse and do their job, rather than pandering to each special interest that comes along.

Moral to this story: Never trust politicians to fix things.

Send a housewife or a farmer to represent you next time, who actually has to do something in life all day long to make things work.

Not some overly educated ninny who thinks his high-cost diploma makes his feces not stink.

Nuff said.

“Send a housewife or a farmer to represent you”

In reply to What’s right/wrong with it?

Of the people, by the people, for the people??

What a quaint and novel concept!

Government competition

In reply to What’s right/wrong with it?

I think many people see this, as healined often, as a way for the government to compete with private, free enterprise.

I don’t see that at all.

In countries with socialist, government run programs, such programs are monopolized and VERY expensive as a result. Offering government ALTERNATIVES to private business doesn’t compete with them, it offers what they refuse to offer themselves.

If all policy providers were offering affordable health care and the government competed to drop prices, that’s a different story.

What I see is a government filling a long needed hole that insurers were more than aware of in the past and have failed to provide a solution to, as they are focused on a much more proftable market segment.

Is there a private option in Canada or the UK

In reply to Government competition

I thought I had heard in Canada you could not pay to go to a private health care provider?

There are some pushing the envelope

In reply to Is there a private option in Canada or the UK

First of all, the hospitals, walkin in clinics, doctors ARE private health care providers. Where there is a law, it says that you cannot charge someone for a service that is mandated as medically necessary by the province. Prinvate organizations, who bill the government for their services.

For example lets use cirucumcision. Most North Americans take this for granted that newborn boys get circumcised, whether they be Christian or Jewish (though its less common than its used to be). It used to be on the list of “covered” procedures, so no one could charge. Now its not, so if a doctor does do this, they can hand the patient (or their parents) a bill.

The ones pushing the envelope, in Vancouver and Montreal, are “wellness” clinics who are looking to do more proactive diagnosis. They want to sit with you and do a whole battery of tests before they recommend lifestyle, diet changes etc. They would order up MRI, Cat scans etc., but not to diagnose an ailment but to get an overall picture of health. And they charge big $$. The courts have not yet ruled about whether it violates the principles of the Canada Health Act.

Pre-screenings

In reply to There are some pushing the envelope

have heard of them starting here as well.

I wouldn’t trust them.

It would be one thing

In reply to Pre-screenings

If they were screening on something from your family history – genetic predispositions. But they seem to be on a fishing expedition.

The one I heard about in Vancouver charged a big upfront $$ and they expected to have periodic appointments for checkups forever. It was kind like joining a gym.

James

Wellness clinics

In reply to There are some pushing the envelope

It’s abotu time the government caught on to such fraud, and teh consumers who believe in such S too. It’s like Feng Shui, you can pay THOUSANDS for a Feng Shui ‘master’ to come and rearrange your furniture. Another who claims to be equally qualified, will then turn up and exlpain how everything is wrong and should be the reverse.

Bottom line it’s a fabricated trade, like hollistic medicine at al. It’s not really a trade its no different than religion, it just maks people mentally secure in their own minds without any science or fact to support it.

You can

In reply to Is there a private option in Canada or the UK

But nobody does.

My brother did a while back. He had a spinal injury that they said could be cured by a US doctor now owning a private practice in Vancouver. He was told it was a proven procedure that had been used by the same doctor (as well as may others) with great results in the US for a numer of years, yet unapproved in Canada. He researched it and all American medical teams seemed to think it was a great operation to undergo. My brother’s one rich mofo so he forked out the dough and was VERY impressed with the no wait line, the in and out service, the fancy office and gorgeous nurses.

He still suffers from the exact same acute pain, is now seeing a normal specialist and undergoing therapy which is helping a lot more. The spinal surgery he got in such quick time, at a premium price was absoluetly pointless and completely useless.

In fact it lengthened his pain as he had to recover form that before he could seek a more viable treatment.

So yes there are options, for those who actually want to pay more for it.

There are several in the UK

In reply to Is there a private option in Canada or the UK

It’s also not that expensive for basics, as the NHS being free at the point of demand cuts the amount of potential profiteering.

Some would consider that a cloud round the silver lining. 😀

However you do or even don’t fund health care, the cost, which is f’ing huge will pop out somewhere.

Saying you don’t want to pay for others care is fine as far as it goes. But that just shifts the cost, employment, welfare, crime, defence, policing, insurance, cost of being civilised.

The thing about government funded healthcare is, like welfare it’s another vote buyer, and you can bet your arse politicians of all persuasions will start cashing in on it at the first opportunity.

That is funny

In reply to What’s right/wrong with it?

[i]”Send a housewife or a farmer to represent you next time, “[/i]

This, the one that has nothing but hate for Palin (someone he has never met, based only on what reporters have said about her) and her lack of qualifications, while has had nothing but praise for the current sitting president thanks to his education level.

Consistency, you know it not.

We think alike, jd

In reply to That is funny

I posted mine before I read yours.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=319303&messageID=3184621

Logic takes you to logical conclusions

In reply to We think alike, jd

It is like in a programming class, other than the names of the variables, if you follow a consistent form of logic, you will repeatedly come to a similar outcome.

It is when you are illogical or just lying that there is the deviation we see among many, especially where politics are concerned.

Emotional justifications always fall flat.

Your consistent form of logic

In reply to Logic takes you to logical conclusions

Okay, now that I stopped laughing…consistent form of logic.

The only consistency you show here is to take ANYTHING the media claims about Obama and run with it as if it is gospel.

Logic? yeah right, logic. 😀

Yeah, right.

In reply to Your consistent form of logic

Logic.

Talk about hypocrisy

In reply to Yeah, right.

JDClyde and logic in the same post, I could barely type it myself without laughing.

You are one of the most biased and easily lead people I’ve read on TR, you just seek out that which complies with your predetermined mindset and then parrot it as if it was truth.

jdclyde logic

In reply to Logic takes you to logical conclusions

10 palin = vice-president candidate
20 congress = lawyers writing stupid laws
30 vote for house wives to congress = white house control
40 end

No wonder you’re into fixing PCs. Wizards don’t let you make critical choices.

I don’t fix pc’s

In reply to jdclyde logic

network/system admin. B-)

It is what [b]I do[/b] that ALLOWS what [b]YOU do[/b] to work! 😀

[i]yes, joking aside, I recognize both professions are ineffective without the other, and neither is more important. A perfect network is nothing without something to run on it, and great software is useless if the user can not reliably access it.

You allow ME?

In reply to I don’t fix pc’s

*cough cough bull$hit*

I help do the Cisco routers where I work, administrate the DBs on SQL Server, Oracle, and MySQL, etc etc etc.

I wear your hat [b]AND[/b] mine at my job.

My main function is programming software for end-users, but I still have to help do everyone else’s job. We are a shop of 11 people supporting all the IT needs of almost 1,000 end users on 5 campuses.

Plus i do all my own network, database, systems, programming and HTPC systems work at home too.

I don’t need your services. I can configure Start->Control Panel->Network just as easily as I can use ipconfig, iwconfig, etc. 😉

So, I’m self sufficient in every aspect. I just don’t have MCSE, MCSD, CCIE, CCNA, or CNA behind my name. :p

Thanks tho. Nice of you to offer. :^0

Silly me

In reply to I don’t fix pc’s

I wasn’t aware that you also ran the routers, switches, and firewall for where you work. That is normally done by people that specialize unless it is a very small business, like back in days of old when the Accountant was IT by default.

So, are you really Network Administrator as well as Programmer? Sweet.

Run?

In reply to I don’t fix pc’s

No, I don’t “run” them.

I help troubleshoot them, including the scripting languages and configurations for them.

Just like I optimize databases, yet I’m not a DBA.

I wear a lot of hats.

I also do my own home improvements. I guess I’m Bob Vila too now.

And neither do you, JD

In reply to That is funny

“Consistency, you know it not.”

Talk about hypocrisy. You jump on anythign that is printed abotu Obama withotu hesitation, whether correct, a ridiculous spin etc. ANYTHING th media says you will jump all over and start a thread dedicated to teh crap they sling. However, when it is anyone but Obama or someone else you opt to dislike for the sake of it, you quickly dismiss anything the media says against him/her and throw it out as media BS.

I also agree with Max in that you two are very alike, in that specific manner anyway.

Blah blah blah

In reply to And neither do you, JD

I do not take one stance one day, and then another as time passes on. That is what consistency is.

I have been consistent with my objections to what Obama stands for, so? Disagreeing doesn’t make me inconsistent.

And I would never consider being compared to Max an insult.

No it isn’t

In reply to Blah blah blah

You seem to be confusing stubborn blindness with consistecy and again, Max does the same, sorry Max, I know it wasn’t your comment.

The ability to evolve, learn and change opinion as new information is found is what it takes to offer reasoned, rational thinking.

That is the core foundation of science, good scientists seek to be proven wrong, such proof illustrates fact as a result of theory.

Someone who is bent on simply sticking to their own biased beliefs, regardless of changing facts and sceintific proof, is a religious minister.

An inability to see beyond a predetrmined conclusion, regardless of contrary evidence and an ever changing landscape results in blind stubborness.

You have been consistent with your “feelings” towards Obama, unfortunately the stories you are being consistent with are NOT consistent except in their vengeance against Obama. It makes you a blind naysayer who wouldn’t accept anything Obama did as being correct, whether it is or isn’t, you simply will not allow youself to open your mind up and accept that he is actually a great benefit to your nation, because you didn’t vote for him. That unwavering dedication to dislike is not consistency beyond being consistently without justification.

In fact you are so blindly stubborn that you can’t even recognize how stupid and ignorant such a narrow, biased view really is.

Even I gave Bush credit where credit was due. I even supported McCain through some of his campaign speeches against Obama because he made more sense on certain subjects, THAT is being aware and paying attention to what is actually said without bias. It is easier for me to see your government without bias as it isn’t MY government, my only vested interest is that they don’t cause more problems for us than they already have; whether that means a republican or democrat in office makes NO difference to me at all.

You, on the other hand, are hell bent against ANYTHING Obama says, without questioning validity, application etc. It is simply Obama so it’s wrong and must be opposed, and YOU see that as being consistent. Consistently biased perhaps but not consisntent in that you weigh issues carefully and seek out the best solution.

th reverse is just as lind, supporting a president through al actions whether right or wrong, and withotu question. Why do Americans do that? “I voted for him so I have to support everything he does.” or “I didn’t vote for him so NOTHING he does is correct.”

I would never think that being compared to Max is an insult, I was actually apologizing to Max for bringing his comments up in a post to you, I really don’t like to use third party references to support my comments.

You simply don’t understand the terminology or application behind half of what you speak of.

To recognize blind conformity as being ‘consistency’, in a good way, is simply a result of blindness, a poor education and a complete misunderstanding of morals and justification.

Lots of talking without saying anything

In reply to No it isn’t

I reject the notion of adding one more government program after another, and the only “solution” offered is to go after “the rich”.

I don’t buy into the class warfare, nor all the race-baiting of anyone who would disagree with Obama or his policies.

Not agreeing with the likes of you is not a basis of being correct or logical, and while there are many adjectives people would use to describe you, “rational” is not one of them.

You are also not anyone I would ever take morals lessons from.

Race baiting?

In reply to Lots of talking without saying anything

Obama is actually teh one person who DOESN’T bring his race into everything he does, the media doea that.

Your third paragraph uses a double negative and thus doesn’t meant what you intended it to mean.

As for robing from the rich and giving to the poor, well if that’s what you truly believe as you fail to consider each actiion as an individual action instead of lumping everything into a ‘left is wrong’ mindset, Robin Hood was the people’s hero.

Morals lessons, as you clearly have no idea what the term morals means, you couldn’t take such lessons from anyone anyway.

Seriously, your overt and unapologetic bias towards anything democratic, simply makes all of your views on such issues laughable and pointless. I don’t even know why you bother other than to troll the forum.

No, he doesn’t.

In reply to Lots of talking without saying anything

But his supporters sure do!

I see Tony

In reply to Lots of talking without saying anything

So because some people who rely on the media for their own publicity use racial assertions, then Obama is a flawed president.

That makes sense, I suppose, if you’re not very clever.

Not “some people”…

In reply to Lots of talking without saying anything

People who are working with and for the President pushing their putrid agenda.

Okay, you’ve intrigued me

In reply to Lots of talking without saying anything

So what such people (working with or for the President) are using racism to further their putrid agenda.

Can you give me some examples of such racism used to further putrid agendas.

Here you go

In reply to Lots of talking without saying anything

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/15/2070242.aspx

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/06/acorns-lewis-suggests-opponents-are-racist/

http://www.now.org/news/blogs/index.php/sayit/2009/09/15/opponents-of-health-care-reform-deploy-old-tactic-racism

For starters…

That’s your support for accusations of race baiting?????

In reply to Lots of talking without saying anything

You are kidding right?

“I don’t buy into the class warfare, [b]nor all the race-baiting of [i]anyone[/i][/b] who would disagree with Obama or his policies.”
-JDClyde

To my comment that Obama does not race bait, you then said:
“No, he doesn’t.
But his supporters sure do!” – TonytheTiger

Yuo then reiterated:

“Not “some people”…
People [b]who are working with and for the President[/b]pushing their putrid agenda.” TonytheTiger

In what way does Jimmy Carter, commenter in your first link, work with or for Obama?

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – [b]President Barack Obama’s spokesman publicly disagreed with former President Jimmy Carter[/b] on Wednesday over Carter’s contention that some conservative opposition to Obama is based on race.

“The president does not think it is based on the color of his skin,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters.”

You have NO point there at all, Obama’s staff publicly denied Carter’s ‘theory’, who neither works for or with Obama.

From yoru second link of hopeless “proof”:
ACORN neither works for or with the president, it’s a collection of small community groups. That’s like saying just because a group of peers on TR says something about racism that they represent “People [b]who are working with and for the President[/b]”

From your Washington Post BS:
“Jan Erickson, NOW Government Relations Director”…

NOW is the National Organization for Women. I suppose in your mind they too represent “People [b]who are working with and for the President[/b]”

She noted racism because she “saw (protesters displaying) images of President Obama juxtaposed with the Nazi swastika and charges of socialism and a government “take-over” of health care.”

Since when was displaying images of a swastika NOT racist?

She was pointing out how protesters, those who support the republican agenda and oppose Obama, are displaying racial images. How is that wrongly portaying racism to further their own putrid agenda?
Based purely on your own criteria, it is then fair to say that those {b]who are working with and for the Republican party[/b] are displaying racial images.

You are WAAAAY of base Tony, you DON’T have a point that you can support.

Actually it was JD’s false claim that you tried to defend, with garbage unrelated to the comment itself and one even proved that such accusations were indeed accurate against Obama protesters.

I’m truly surprised at you, Oz

In reply to No it isn’t

You seem to be confusing a principled based position with, as you called it, [i]stubborn blindness[/i].

Actually, my eyes are wide open, and I don’t like the direction the country is going.

I don’t presume to dictate to others how they live their lives, but others on the left can’t make the same claim. That’s what they do; that’s who they are; and those are the kinds of policies they support.

For as long as we’ve engaged in various discussions, to see that you still misrepresent me is rather surprising. I often wonder why you do it. I suppose if I had to guess, you probably get more out of challenging me than trying to understand me. (Talk about [i]stubborn blindness[/i].)

I have debated it with you before

In reply to I’m truly surprised at you, Oz

And I have been very clear as to why I see what you feel are core values and principles as being stuorn blindness.

You actually believe that one set of principles covers all issues regardless of their complexity, instead of understanding and considering each element as an individual motion for serious consideration.

A core set of values, such as the ten commandments is not a bad thing to live by as a simple basis of consideration at all. But when you apply the ten commandments to every factor of life and sternly at that, you fail to recognize the intricacies that require individual consideration.

I think there are many things that you do actually consider on an individual basis and don’t apply a one size fits all set of rules to, however when it comes ot stomping your feet on a single political position, you feel that all arguments are one size fits all. Not recognizing that most of thse issues require independant consideration and can’t be lumped into the democrats always take and repulicans always give mentality.

Poltics meets in middle ground more often that you seem to realize and THAT’S where your blanket set of rules fails to offer righful consideration.

Perhaps in your case it’s not quite as bad as with JD, as he clearly doesn’t offer ANY consideration to what Oama does, he just downplays ANYTHING he says as left wing Obama BS. In turn it makes one apper to be shallow, small minded and plainly ignorant due to lack of consideration.

Oops.Wrong spot.

In reply to No it isn’t

.

I wasn’t talking about being the president or vice president

In reply to That is funny

I was talking about Congress, not the White House you ninny.

And if you knew much about Congress and how it came about, you’d understand that the people who originally went there were representative of the people of the times: tobacco farmers, plantationers, businessmen, etc.

Evidently, your form of consistency is formed of making correlations between congressional representation and White House administration as the same thing.

That’s real logic.

I don’t need it. So, take your form of consistency and shove it up Univ. of Michigan’s and Detroit’s rear…maybe it’ll help Fraudriguez and your auto industry out.

Send a housewife or a farmer to represent you . . . .

In reply to What’s right/wrong with it?

[i]Not some overly educated ninny who thinks his high-cost diploma makes his feces not stink.[/i]

Of course, if it’s a conservative Republican [i]housewife[/i], that person will be deemed unqualified for the job because she’s not an [i]overly educated ninny (with) a high-cost diploma.[/i]

Kinda’ like you were saying a year ago about Sarah Palin.

It was surprising

In reply to Send a housewife or a farmer to represent you . . . .

just how personally hateful people got towards her. It is one thing to disagree with someones politics or even dislike them based upon the way they are presented in the media, but to just be foaming in the mouth hateful like that?

I have disagreed with just about everything Obama has said or done, but I don’t recall attacking him based on his personality or lack of one? He is arrogant, true, that that isn’t what I disagree with, nor WHY I disagree.

Arrogant?

In reply to It was surprising

I think after the bumbling insecure fool you had ruin your global reputation for 8 years while sinking you into a deficit you are not likely to see the end of in your lifetime, ANYONE would seem arrogant.

The fact that Bush WAS arrogant was completely lost on you as yuo velievd all he said. He was the lord to never be questioned or you shall be deemed anti-Ameican and they’ll take your flag away so you can’t wave it aimlessly in the shower on Tuesday mornings.

Taht cocky Texan Prick was teh epitomy of arrogant Americans. “we are right in every way, you are either with us or against us.

There is no room for individual thought, I am correct and you shall all follow blindly or I shall spite thee.!”

So you then elect someone who actually HAS a thought process, and a few brain cells to support it and you call HIM arrogant for actually focusing on bettering your own nation, instead of trying to fix what he displays as someone else’s problems that he needs to resolve for the benefit of his own friends and family.

Yes

In reply to Arrogant?

and I did disagree with Bush on many issues. He was NOT a fiscal conservative.

As for the stance on countries that openly and knowingly harbor terrorist training camps and their leaders, he was right.

Of course, most of your attacks, be it against Bush, someone else in global politics, or even someone on this board, usually just turn into personal attacks instead of discussing the ideas presented.

Have fun with that. moving on….

Really, jd?

In reply to Yes

[i]As for the stance on countries that openly and knowingly harbor terrorist training camps and their leaders, he was right. [/i]

Most Arab country’s leaders know that there are Islamic terrorist training camps within the remote areas of their borders. Most of them turn a blind eye to it, because of religious purpose.

Yet, Bush was all huggy-hug with the crown princes of Saudi Arabia who are *known* to have contributed funds to Al-Qaeda fronts and still do to this day.

So, your boy Bush was full of crap. Just admit it. It was more important to him to cover up his hypocrisy than to do what he said he was.

LOL

In reply to Yes

Your personal attacks on Obama are so bold and mindless you are hardly one to talk. YOu will take any tiwsted tale and repeat it as if it is real news, without even lookign for validity. If it smears Obama you’ll jump right on it without any further consideration.

This is where you again show your utter hypocrisy, it’s like you are completely deaf dumb and blind to what you say yourself but accuse others of.

Sarah Palin’s politics were only part of the issue for me

In reply to It was surprising

I didn’t think she was any more qualified to hold the office of Vice-President than the then-current incumbent and definitely didn’t feel that she would be ready to be President should something happen to John McCain.

As for the way she was presented, both by the media AND the Republican party, the impression I got was that she was a female GWB; that didn’t improve my opinion. Don’t doubt it played well to the party faithful, though.

She was there

In reply to Sarah Palin’s politics were only part of the issue for me

to make up for McCain being such a weak candidate (who I did not vote for).

bwahahaahah

In reply to She was there

Make up for McCain being weak?

Let’s see…

A man who served his country, sacrificed body and mind, and has been an elected official, statesman, and diplomatic person for over 20 years…

is going to be reinforced by…

a 1 term council member, 1 term mayor, not even 1 term as of running time governor, whose experience was confined to one state, and who couldn’t remember the name of one magazine or newspaper she’d read.

Yeah. I’d say…a fine fine example of a backup. No wonder the republicans lost.

Weak candidate

In reply to bwahahaahah

does not mean weak person.

There are very few issues that I agree with the man on, and I know I am not alone.

Now, if Mitt had gotten the nomination instead, he would have given Obama a real run.

If nothing else during the last election, it was a joy to see the media finally turn on the Clintons…… Hillary finally knows what it is like to be a Republican running for office. 😀

whoa…hang on…

In reply to bwahahaahah

[i]Weak candidate does not mean weak person.[/i]

Since when does over 2 decades of elected representation make him weak?

[i]There are very few issues that I agree with the man on, and I know I am not alone.[/i]

And, you’re not the only opinion. Because he doesn’t suit your every need, it doesn’t automatically make him “wrong” or “weak”.

[i]Now, if Mitt had gotten the nomination instead, he would have given Obama a real run.[/i]

Actually, Mitt would have lost too. Polls showed that.

The person who had the best chance against Obama was indeed Rudolph Giuliani. He had the personality, the smarts, the sensible demeanor, didn’t come off like a car salesman, and had a proven track record as a state attorney and as the mayor of a city with a bigger GDP than some states.

[i]If nothing else during the last election, it was a joy to see the media finally turn on the Clintons…… Hillary finally knows what it is like to be a Republican running for office.[/i]

Why was it a joy? You like to see people suffer or be brought to tears? Holding a grudge against her because of her filandering husband?

The one issue I had with Hillary is that she tried to be too powerful and strong. She should have let her feminine side out more. People liked seeing an intelligent, articulate, strong woman who could also be feminine.

Of course, they did the same thing wrong with Palin making her into a GOP pitbull. Really bad idea though, especially since she came in politically handicapped and nowhere near as bright as someone like Hillary.

A weak candidate

In reply to bwahahaahah

is someone that does NOT strongly represent the people of the party. Something a blind, lockstep Democrat like you will never understand.

Who would know more about fixing an economy, a community organizer or a very successful business man?

Why was Mitt’s religion fair game, but Obama’s wasn’t? Because they couldn’t find any real dirt on him.

Why was Palin’s family fair game, but Obamas are not? (all kids should be off limits, but that will never happen for democrats that will do or say anything to achieve their goals “at any cost”).

As for Hilary

In reply to bwahahaahah

she made herself an unlikeable b1tch back in the days of “WE ARE THE PRESIDENT!”

It still amazes me that ever womens rights/advocates group out there didn’t turn on Bill over the abuse cases. Again, at any cost. So what if he committed sexual harassment, it was all in good fun, right?

reply #1

In reply to bwahahaahah

[i]A weak candidate is someone that does NOT strongly represent the people of the party. Something a blind, lockstep Democrat like you will never understand.[/i]

1) I’ve never been a Democrat. If you need proof, I’ll provide you with a copy of both my Florida and Oklahoma voter registration cards.

2) Your description of a strong candidate implies they are a “blind, lockstep” person who follows “strongly” to the party line.

You will call me wrong and weak for having my own views (that you profess to be “blind, lockstep”, when in fact i have my own views…and don’t march to any party), yet you will praise someone in politics as “strong” when they are “blind” and “lockstep” to the party and the whims of others.

That’s called hypocrisy, jd. You say I’m party and weak for it, yet you qualify someone else as strong…simply because they are of your beliefs of YOUR party.

Thanks for proving the level of yours.

So set your standard for what makes someone weak or strong, and don’t waffle like ole Dubya.

[i] Who would know more about fixing an economy, a community organizer or a very successful business man?[/i]

First of all, it depends on what’s wrong with the economy.

From what I can see, it’s coming back pretty well. Unemployment in most of the country has stabilized or improved. So has the housing market.

I guess that community organizer has done something right with his liberal buddies, huh?

As for very successful…what? Who? Let’s examine all this Republican success you’re implying:

McCain hasn’t been in business. His 2nd wife’s family was successful in Anheuser-Busch distribution even before they were married.

Palin’s husband’s family’s fishing business wasn’t a success. It made profits. But, they never lived well.

Bush bankrupted a baseball team and 2 oil companies.

Cheney operated Halliburton into debt.

Romney did well, but he was a hatchet man. The one positive I can say about Romney as a businessman was that he practiced what he preached. He went to cutting people and pay at the SLOC, and he took his pay and donated it. At least he’s not a hypcrite.

Oh, and Romney wasn’t a self-made millionaire. He came from wealth.

However if a good businessman would have made a good leader, Ross Perot should have been president…and Sam Walton.

[i] Why was Mitt’s religion fair game, but Obama’s wasn’t? Because they couldn’t find any real dirt on him.[/i]

Did I ever say Obama’s wasn’t? Moot point.

They never got dirt on Obama about his religion. He has been a Christian of his own choosing since he has been an adult. As a child, he could not help the schools he was forced to attend.

The reason that Romney was in the spotlight is because of the curiousity that Christians have in regards to the Mormon religion, e.g.- what is often referred to as “magic underwear”, etc etc.

[i] Why was Palin’s family fair game, but Obamas are not? (all kids should be off limits, but that will never happen for democrats that will do or say anything to achieve their goals “at any cost”).[/i]

Sarah Palin voluntarily went trapsing her children on stage with her at events other than the national convention, which is the standard.

Not to mention when you are a social conservative who preaches family values and no sex before marriage and religious values, then your 17 year old daughter comes up pregnant…well…you don’t seem to have passed on your “values” too damn well to your kids, now did you?

She set herself up for failure.

Obama kept his children out of the political arena. He did one interview with them involved. That’s it.

The only people who hated Romney’s religion were

In reply to bwahahaahah

…Republicans. Bible-thumping, holy-rolling, TV-preacher-watching, abortion-fighting evangelical Christians, 99% of whom seem to be Republicans. They couldn’t trust a Mormon because Mormonism was a “sect”. Democrats and main stream media didn’t do a hatchet job on old Mitch. It was the primary voters he was trying to appeal to, the grass-eating lunatics who’ve taken over the Republican party, who sabotaged him.

Incidentally, to poke another hole in your sense of victimhood, yeah, Obama’s religion was fair game. You remember how many weeks that crackpot preacher of his from Chicago, his “spiritual mentor” Jeremiah Wright, dominated the news? Two dozen times more prime news time was exhausted on that guy than on Romney’s Mormonism.

reply #2

In reply to bwahahaahah

[i] As for Hilary
she made herself an unlikeable b1tch back in the days of “WE ARE THE PRESIDENT!”

It still amazes me that ever womens rights/advocates group out there didn’t turn on Bill over the abuse cases. Again, at any cost. So what if he committed sexual harassment, it was all in good fun, right?[/i]

You know what’s really funny?

You’ll come down on Hillary so hard for being somewhat militant.

But, you have never gone off about Bush having been a convicted drunk driver.

I’ve said over and over and over Bill’s infidelity is wrong, and that Hillary should have been able to cut off his penis for it.

Why not man-up and be a good example and tell the world what you think of Bush and his drunk driving conviction, and how it was wrong of the court to let him off so lightly?

Come on. Step up. Admit your hero was a drunk who endangered the lives of others by getting behind the wheel of a car drunk.

Delbert: you’re right on the money

In reply to bwahahaahah

The bible-thumping Christians fear that which they don’t control.

And what is their party of choice?

Republican.

Nice point made there. 🙂

The people that brought the religion to the tv everynight

In reply to bwahahaahah

were the same people that are typically anti-religion to begin with.

Wright? It wasn’t because of HIS religion people had a problem with him, it was because he was/is a hateful racist punk. And then to have Obama like that he had no idea? 20 years and he had no idea the man he thought of as an uncle was a hateful racist punk? Got some swamp land in florida to sell you.

So, everyone who has ever gotten a DUI is worse than a sex offender? No, I do not believe that, but that is just my standards. Sad that you think so.

Bill is a fun party guy, so it shouldn’t matter? After all, he paid millions to settle out of court, AND lost his law license, but he is a swell guy…… And why did he do it? “because I could”.

TV people like Fox News, right?

In reply to bwahahaahah

Don’t know where you get the idea that television is a religion-hating institution. But, the biggest network of them all, Fox, is certainly willing to suck up to any important Republican or conservative constituency, and Fox was the biggest voice trying to link scary socialist Obama to the America-hating scary black wackadoodle preacher in Chicago.

Fox hates religion? Really?

wah wah wah

In reply to bwahahaahah

[i] The people that brought the religion to the tv everynight
were the same people that are typically anti-religion to begin with.[/i]

Wrong. Billy Graham, a staunch, long-time Republican supporter, was one of the first, and the most prolific people to bring television evangelism to America with his “television crusades”. He was far from anti-religion.

[i]Wright? It wasn’t because of HIS religion people had a problem with him, it was because he was/is a hateful racist punk. And then to have Obama like that he had no idea? 20 years and he had no idea the man he thought of as an uncle was a hateful racist punk? Got some swamp land in florida to sell you.[/i]

And Jimmy Swaggart, a big conservative supporter, was caught in a hotel with a hooker.

Louis Farrakhan is considered ultra-conservative.

Proof that stupidity knows no political affiliation.

[i]So, everyone who has ever gotten a DUI is worse than a sex offender?[/i]

Are you accusing or implying that Bill Clinton committed an act of rape or molestation, jdclyde?

[i]No, I do not believe that, but that is just my standards. Sad that you think so.[/i]

Your standards are to excuse your heroes and buddies from recrimination.

First of all, learn what a sexual offender is.

If Bill Clinton had raped Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, or Monica Lewinsky, I would have been for him going to prison and getting ass raped.

Don’t even imply I condone rape or molestation…ever.

Just because you excuse Bush from his drunk driving and won’t publicly chastise him for a criminal offense that endangers people doesn’t make Bill Clinton’s extramarital affairs that of a “sexual offender”.

[i]Bill is a fun party guy, so it shouldn’t matter? After all, he paid millions to settle out of court, AND lost his law license, but he is a swell guy…… And why did he do it? “because I could”.[/i]

Again, you’re being an idiot.

Bill Clinton paid what?

$850,000 to Paula Jones, even after she had been ruled against.

Gennifer Flowers got nothing from Clinton. She had a consentual affair with him.

Monica Lewinsky got nothing. She had a consentual affair with him.

So far, not even $1M. So, your number’s a bit skewed there, Einstein.

So, you go on excusing the fact Bush is a convicted drunk driver…

And, I’ll go on excusing Obama because he’s literate in the English language.

jck

In reply to bwahahaahah

“…literate in the English language…”, in which, the “L” of language needs be capitalized, is your forte? The one by which you applaud Obama? Pity Obama.

Actually, santee

In reply to bwahahaahah

By rules of composition of the English language:

Nouns, as well as adjectives describing nouns, are only to be capitalized in the case they are proper or of a full official title (in most cases).

“English”, in the context of my post, is the denotation of specific formal name of a derivation of a language subset.

“language” would not need to be capitalized, since it in itself is a generic term for a linguistic form of communication between 2 or more parties.

You are assuming that the phrase “English language” is equivalent to that of an official name such as “The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building” or “The United States Supreme Court” as a full and proper name.

However, “English language” as used in my post is within the parameters of discussing the specification of a particular type of designation, such as:

While in Asia, I fed the Indian boy.

You would not put “Indian Boy”. “boy”, in this case as with my use of “language”, is considered a common noun and should be lower cased.

Nice try, though.

You did a somersault

In reply to bwahahaahah

And landed running.

Pretty good.

No somersaults here

In reply to bwahahaahah

I just remember my English classes.

I can’t do any gymnastics anymore. Effects of a neck injury.

McCain was not a weak candidate

In reply to She was there

McCain’s [u]media image[/u] was a weak candidate.

But since it was to the benefit of both Democrats and the Republican core, nobody said anything.

Everyone has their own ideas of what is important

In reply to McCain was not a weak candidate

And I could not, would not support him, regardless of the letter behind his name. Something jck can’t recognize as NOT blindly following a political party.

I believe he would have been a disaster, had he been elected, if a slightly different but similar disaster than where I see Obama taking us.

You’re amazing, jd

In reply to McCain was not a weak candidate

[i] Everyone has their own ideas of what is important
And I could not, would not support him, regardless of the letter behind his name. Something jck can’t recognize as NOT blindly following a political party.

I believe he would have been a disaster, had he been elected, if a slightly different but similar disaster than where I see Obama taking us.[/i]

Do you remember what I even said about voting?

Did I say I’d vote for Obama in EVERY case?

See, this is where you’re just talking out of your arse.

I preferred Huckabee to Sarah Palin as a candidate for VP. He represented a moderate, conservative view with sensible ideals on how to implement change without shoving it down everyone’s throat.

I even told you I would have voted for a McCain/Huckabee ticket because I felt it was a more balanced, more experienced ticket.

I would have voted for Rudy Giuliani before any of them. The guy knows how to manage a big budget, lots of diverse people, etc. He knows how to get things done.

Anyways, you’re either just trying to yank my chain or don’t remember the conversation we had about a year ago of the candidates we preferred.

I have never EVER been party line…EVER. Democrat or Republican. PERIOD.

I think for myself. Unlike you.

Bottom line

In reply to McCain was not a weak candidate

you voted Democrat again, I voted independent. Tell me all about it, and following party lines.

NO ONE that was going to vote for McCain would change their vote for Obama because of ANY VP pic. Just a lie. total lie.

You loathed her, because you are just that way.

There was never a single thing about Obama, past or present, that would make me vote for the man. there is very little about McCain that would get me to vote for him, and I refused to vote “lesser of two evils”.

I was hoping to get more votes for Barr to ate least get the Republicans attention that they can no longer take votes for granted and throw anyone in front of us and expect our votes.

I will not vote for McCain.

Ummm..JD?

In reply to McCain was not a weak candidate

My current boss defines himself as a fiscal conservative. He always votes Republican. He said he WOULD have voted for McCain, but with Palin as his running mate he had to vote for Obama because the risk of having Sarah Palin in office was too scary for him to contemplate.

I’m sure he’s not the only one. To difinitively state that NO ONE would ever change their vote based on a VP pic is ludicrous. How could you know that?

More of jd talking out of his rear-end orifice

In reply to McCain was not a weak candidate

[i] Bottom line
you voted Democrat again, I voted independent. Tell me all about it, and following party lines.[/i]

Again? Hm. Who did I vote for in past general elections that wasn’t Democrat?

1988 Bush Sr. (not Dukakis, the Democrat)
1992 H. Ross Perot (Not Clinton, the Democrat)
2000 Harry Browne (the libertarian)

Wow, I vote REAL party line there.

You’re wrong again, jd. Admit it.

[i]NO ONE that was going to vote for McCain would change their vote for Obama because of ANY VP pic. Just a lie. total lie.[/i]

So I’m a liar now because I don’t make choices like you? That’s rich, oh all-knowing one.

As I said, I feared that if something happened to McCain, I wanted someone I believe could take over and manage the country. I didn’t think she could. I think Huckabee could.

[i]You loathed her, because you are just that way.[/i]

I loathed her? I thought she was hot. I just thought she was incapable of national leadership, and that she was a poor example of someone who supposedly espoused living and raising her children to have “family values”.

I never loathed her. I loathe child molesters. I don’t loathe hot women who I think are not capable or qualified to be 2nd of command of our country…just like I wouldn’t vote for a half-ass male candidate like Mike Dukakis in 1988.

[i]There was never a single thing about Obama, past or present, that would make me vote for the man. there is very little about McCain that would get me to vote for him, and I refused to vote “lesser of two evils”.[/i]

So you voted for the least of all the evils?

[i]I was hoping to get more votes for Barr to ate least get the Republicans attention that they can no longer take votes for granted and throw anyone in front of us and expect our votes.[/i]

Oh well, there ya go. Vote for Bob Barr. Guy jumped ship on the Republican party (weak candidate because he didn’t STRONGLY hold their values…remember?), waffled on same-sex marriage when he flipped parties (car salesman…says what you wanna hear), and supposedly opposes abortion even though he had his ex-wife get one (can you say… hypocrite??).

No wonder you endorse him. He’s such a “strong” candidate.

[i]I will not vote for McCain.[/i]

That still doesn’t change the fact you’re wrong. I don’t vote party line. Never have.

Rant on someone else you know things about that are factual, rather than what you want to think are.

Let me refraise that

In reply to McCain was not a weak candidate

I do not believe anyone that says that. Doesn’t mean they are lying, just that I do not believe them.

There is no conceivable way anyone that is a “fiscal conservative” would have supported Obama, ever. Ask him how fiscally conservative his vote turned out to be, if what you/he said is true.

IF Palin scared him away, he would have turned to the next closets match to his ideals, Independent, as I did, although I did because of McCain and all of the Republicans in Congress/Senate.

I believe someone could not vote for McCain because of it, but no, I do NOT believe for a second anti-Palin would make someone Pro-Obama in the voting booth.

rephrasing things

In reply to McCain was not a weak candidate

doesn’t change that, in most peoples’ eyes, Sarah Palin was not a strong candidate and did not help McCain’s chances.

And maybe they weren’t “pro-Obama”. Maybe they just saw less of a chance of more damage by Obama-Biden than they did McCain-Palin?

Anyways, you didn’t stick to your party. By your own criteria, you’re weak candidate for office, jd. Never run.

BTW, Barr is in no way a fiscal conservative nor for minimal government. Go look at his track record. He only voted for the Patriot Act after they voted in his pork on the bill.

He’s a scam artist like most of the rest of them…no matter what party he suckers into supporting him.

Wrong again, jck.

In reply to McCain was not a weak candidate

The people in the party moved away from me, not the other way around. Once you move away from the big two parties, it is nothing more than a symbolic vote to try to get peoples attention, but since you don’t have, nor believe in core principles, you would never understand.

And it was Mae that brought up fiscal conservative, not I.

One more chance of you trying to argue instead of converse, and again, you shoot and miss. Doesn’t that ever get old for you?

blah blah blah

In reply to McCain was not a weak candidate

[i]Wrong again, jck.[/i]

That is your opinion. Again, not a fact.

[i]The people in the party moved away from me, not the other way around. Once you move away from the big two parties, it is nothing more than a symbolic vote to try to get peoples attention, but since you don’t have, nor believe in core principles, you would never understand.[/i]

So, you gravitated from John McCain who is not a fiscal conservative, to Bob Barr who is even less of one?

Exactly what about Bob Barr’s belief system distances him from John McCain and not the Republican party values that you hold in such high regard? Please give me definitive examples.

[i]And it was Mae that brought up fiscal conservative, not I.[/i]

And, you made a definitive, absolute assertion that “no fiscal conservative” would do something. You don’t know what all fiscal conservatives would do. In fact, you are not the absolute authority on what the term means and stands for in America. Therefore, you are trying to project your beliefs on everyone else. How liberal of you.

[i]One more chance of you trying to argue instead of converse, and again, you shoot and miss. Doesn’t that ever get old for you?[/i]

How did I miss?

a) I pointed out that you went to Bob Barr
b) I pointed out how Bob Barr does not hold more close to Republican values (or any other for that matter) that you supposedly hold so dear.
c) I point out that, as Oz and Mae have told you, you make incredibly blanket, generic, inaccurate assertions about things as if you know everything without presenting proof.
d) I pointed out the hypocrisy of Bob Barr.

How is that shooting and missing?

I’m right on target. Barr is a man who jumped ship, went to another party, says what they want to hear, and has been a hypocrite for over 20 years all along in his political career.

You are the one leaping to conclusions and pretending that you have all the answers when your basis for doing things is founded on conjecture and knee jerk reactions.

If Obama ran with a Palin or a McCaughey, I’d have gone GOP

In reply to McCain was not a weak candidate

I didn’t like Palin a bit, even less than I liked GWB, whom I abhorred. She was an information-free goofball who knew how to do a few things well, like run a campaign that played up to popular paranoia. She has also turned out to be a complete publicity hound and self-serving narcissist. Of course, people who are in love with her don’t see these things as problems.

If Obama had chosen a VP who acted like her, I could not have taken him seriously. I didn’t think McCain was untrustworthy until he picked her. Given that he was in his 70s, if he had become President there was an excellent chance of him dying in the saddle, and Caribou Barbie taking over.

you gotta hand it to her though, Delbert

In reply to McCain was not a weak candidate

Palin is a really good looking woman. 🙂

Tell me Del

In reply to McCain was not a weak candidate

how happy are you with the VP we ended up getting stuck with?

Is he there for comic relief or as a distraction?

I admit to not being up on his life, but he was supposedly brought in because of being such an expert?

Joe aint so bad

In reply to McCain was not a weak candidate

Biden’s problem is that he can easily come up with good-sense practical-sounding ideas, which tend to be at odds with each other (or with the president) from one day to the next. Joe does like to hear himself talk.

He was actually my first choice for prez.

I think I’m happier with Obama, but I am starting to think that Hillary would have been best of all. However, unless Obama gets lung cancer and has to drop out of the 2012 race, we’re not likely to see Hillary make the push again.

Even I have the republican candidates credit on this one

In reply to McCain was not a weak candidate

I actually started a thread about how I gave McCain credit too. Both him and Obama were fair candidates for each party, far better choices than have been seen in a long while.

I had doubts about Obama as well as McCain, but say that they both had merits.

I think I had concluded that, IF I was American, I’d have voted for McCain based on his internal policy campaign. As a non-American, I supported Obama due to his campaigning on global affairs.

What I thought a bit odd was the running mates, I saw Palin as more toward Obama’s side and Biden as more republican. However THAT was also a good play on the part of the parties too, both seemed to offer a little more middle ground to their respective party and that would sway the voters still on the fence, one way or the other.

I’ve watched quite a few US presidential elections and the campaigns that lead to them and must tell you that this was one of my favorite, a real head scratcher at times too. But i think Palin blew it, the old age smear campaign against McCain was effective and yet the racial slurs and religious attacks on Obama just made him look even better to his part followers as THEY are the people that really don’t care about race and religion. All it did was make republicans look bad in the process.

McCain and Biden would have been interesting to see together, Obama and anyone else but Palin would have been interesting to see too.

What smear campaign?

In reply to McCain was not a weak candidate

Oz said, “the old age smear campaign against McCain was effective” … I don’t recall what that was about. What were the accusations?

Too old

In reply to McCain was not a weak candidate

They spent time focusing on the fact that he probably wouldn’t last a whole term, and two would be a real stretch. Which would of course make Palin president; yes, I cringe at that thought.

It was also brought up here a few times when it was being pushed through the various media outlets. You have to remember also, this it the USA and people don’t live as long in America, despite having what is purported to be the world’s best health care system. 😀

I don’t see where you draw your conclusions

In reply to It was surprising

A) I complimented Palin…on her looks.

B) Since when is Obama arrogant? This is a guy who goes out in work clothes and plants trees with normal people, as well as deals with leaders of countries. Seems pretty level-headed to me, as opposed to other leaders who pretty much never stepped outside of the White House except to go to their ranch.

You do have a bias though. That’s been pretty clear since February.

Neither does JD- unless he has a mirror

In reply to I don’t see where you draw your conclusions

He sits on it all day so he can’t possibly see it either.

Sarah Palin is more a reality show contestant than a governor

In reply to Send a housewife or a farmer to represent you . . . .

I guess that’s why she’s so popular in the party of hard-nosed unreality.

It would seem to me

In reply to Sarah Palin is more a reality show contestant than a governor

for her opposition to get so down, dirty and personal with her, it had to come from a need to destroy something they were afraid of.

You have to admit it was very shrill. When has there EVER been a time when a candidates family was attacked like that? Never.

Didn’t seem like that to me

In reply to It would seem to me

Sarah Palin came out of the gate with a shrill and confrontational style of attack. She was drafted into the job to be an attack commando, to fight harder and meaner so that the presidential candidate wouldn’t have to lower himself to do it. Palin brought her family to the fore, making them into lifestyle ads for her campaign, even going through handshaking lines with her Downs syndrome baby in a sling on her stomach (as if to say, look! He wasn’t aborted! Don’t forget!) Her family and the Johnson boy clearly didn’t feel comfortable in that spotlight.

I don’t know how I’d score how many snide things were said about the family; I’m sure a lot were. I bet there would have been a lot fewer if Palin had left her daughters home, and just suggested they deserved privacy. It isn’t true, by the way, that no other political family was ever attacked shamefully; Limbaugh made a famous comment about Chelsea being the White House dog. Hillary Clinton became more hated than her husband in the early first term, which took me by surprise; many seem to have despised her for being the wrong kind of woman, and for driving the news, which apparently also made her a fair target.

Palin would have experienced a less vicious sort of criticism if she were a less mean campaigner, but also if she had looked less like a silly amateur with delusions about being ready to take over the nation’s business. What made 25% of the nation love her (she’s just like us!) convinced 60% of the nation she was a ditz, a laughingstock, the nightmare of the Bush mind born again in curves on three-inch heels. She just looked crazy-stupid, playing to people who prefer that stuff over boring old competence and expertise.

That doesn’t change

In reply to Didn’t seem like that to me

she WAS the home town girl that JCK just lied about wanting a few posts higher.

Did or did not Obama use his daughters as props regularly? Why, yes, he did…..

Sarah Palin’s place of education

In reply to Send a housewife or a farmer to represent you . . . .

was never an issue to me.

It was the fact that she was absolutely dumb as a rock.

Are you disagreeing? Have you ever told someone you read certain things, then couldn’t tell them the name of at least one publication that you read?

To me, that was the earmark of either being blatantly stupid or blatantly lying about reading so much.

Usually when I grab a magazine or newspaper, I see the name of it before i open it.

And btw, most of the overly-educated ninnys on capital hill with high priced educations…are dumb as rocks too.

When put on the spot

In reply to Sarah Palin’s place of education

I have always been great at math.

Playing a game of 501, standing at that chalk board, all of a sudden the simplest of calculations just fail…..

But your bias would never allow you to see a Republican in any other light, so why bother?

Hm

In reply to When put on the spot

[i] When put on the spot
I have always been great at math.

Playing a game of 501, standing at that chalk board, all of a sudden the simplest of calculations just fail…..

But your bias would never allow you to see a Republican in any other light, so why bother?[/i]

So because she is Republican, we should just overlook the fact that she freezes up when put on the spot?

Is that who you want making decisions for your country?

Your bias would never allow you to see that we need capable, qualified, well-educated people to make good decisions…rather than someone who looks hot in a red dress or has slicked-back hair and a shiny white grin.

Guess when someone is well-spoken, easy-going, and worked their way up to get where they’re at…it’s not good enough…is it?

Yet you give Obama a free pass

In reply to Hm

Just how many states did he campaign in again? That is what I thought.

He has become a joke world wide as the teleprompter president because he can’t speak without it. When he doesn’t have it, it is “um, ah, um , well, uhhhh”

Tha’s not the only. . . . .

In reply to Yet you give Obama a free pass

….. free thing jck would give Obama!

Earth to space cadet jd

In reply to Yet you give Obama a free pass

States has what to do with being dumb as a rock or less of an experienced person than John McCain?

Actually, Obama is considered far more acceptable worldwide than Bush ever was. People respect him for his sensibility in that he is willing to try and work with countries rather than just throw a hissy fit if they don’t agree with him when he wants something done.

It’s called diplomacy, not stupidity.

As for the ‘um, ah, um, well, uhhhh”, your hero Bush was the king of that.

Since you’ve been really good about using YouTube, let’s take a look at some clips of your hero Dubya:

Stammering about if he did or didn’t confront King Abdullah about a woman who was lashed for being gang raped in Saudi Arabia:

Stammering about politics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8ChWyZZAaA&feature=related

Waffling:

Showing off his linguistic skills:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W28CQQsH9S8&feature=related

Stammering collages:

There ya go, ladies and gents. The King of Articulation and Proper Speech has spoken!! :^0

My,my, my Max…

In reply to Yet you give Obama a free pass

Would you like to be explicit about the terms of that implication you just made?

Want a reason I hate the “good ole freedom loving get government out of my pocket” conservatives?

I gave the Red Cross a chunk of my annual salary in 2005 to help Katrina victims. Good, honest, conservative people I thought.

Over $1B was funnelled off or embezelled within the organization alone. $300M just in funds that ended up missing.

And who were most of those big shots at ARC that did it: former RNC people.

It’s the “conservatives” that burned me on their agenda, which seems to be “don’t spend my money so I can spend yours the way I want and get more for me”.

Even the rich should work for what they have…and to keep it.

Seems all they can do is horde what they have, and take charity jobs making more and sucking off money from those who really need it.

Otherwise, they wouldn’t shop at thrift stores and buy up cheap things that needy people could use.

Articulation

In reply to Yet you give Obama a free pass

Articulation, being a bending pivotal point does actually describe Bush’s speeches quite well.

He would stammer a lot but would twist and turn anything asked of him into something else completely different that he actually could answer without needing the puppeteers hand up his arse..

But I suppose, accodring to JD’s hopelessly flawed theory, that poeple like Bono, Eric Clapton, Iron Maiden’s Bruce Dickenson, any famous actor or actress, any newscaster, and almost anyone else who addresses the pulic directly, is also a bumbling fool as they all use a teleprompter in order to remebmer the words they wish to present properly.

The only reason Bush didn’t use a teleprompter was because you have to be able to read. I can just see him turning to ask his cronies to help with the bigger words, and mouthing all the words he could figure out as he sounded them all out before repeating them.

Actually, maybe it would have been better for him to take 20 minutes to read a 2 minute speech out loud. At least it wouldn’t be a 2 minute speech with 18 minutes of mindless, filler BS in it.

Bush seemed to be struggling with the children’s story he read to little kiddies while his nation was being attacked by terrorists, but Bush trying to keep up with a telemprompter would have been something really fun to watch actually. 😀

Typical jck fashion

In reply to Yet you give Obama a free pass

excuse one because of another.

What does states have to do? Obama had visited more states than we have, that could be seen as a problem?

As for Bush or not, has nothing to do with Obama. Does not take away that he can not give a speech without the prompter.

Yeah, the world likes to have a US president that agrees with them, but most people are like that. They like the person that tells them they are right, don’t they?

And yes, the world recognizes him as the teleprompter pres. That they like the “we are wrong, you are right” message has nothing to do with that.

typical jdclyde rhetoric

In reply to Yet you give Obama a free pass

[i] Typical jck fashion
excuse one because of another.[/i]

Who excused anything?
Bush is a bumbling fool…8 year track record of it.
Obama tries to phrase things properly with thought and consideration.

Besides, you tried to excuse Palin with your own bumbling in some childhood school game. Running America is not a game.

[i] What does states have to do? Obama had visited more states than we have, that could be seen as a problem?[/i]

I’ve visited over 40. I don’t know about you.

[i] As for Bush or not, has nothing to do with Obama. Does not take away that he can not give a speech without the prompter.[/i]

He can give a speech without a teleprompter. He has done it before.

Oz made a good point, however. He uses a teleprompter to articulate points and phrase things correctly. When he speaks off the cuff, maybe he does bumble. But (unlike Bush), Obama doesn’t seem to have trouble coming up with words like “independent” or “self-governing” instead of only being able to say “sovereign”.

Obama knows his native language well.

[i]Yeah, the world likes to have a US president that agrees with them, but most people are like that. They like the person that tells them they are right, don’t they?[/i]

The world likes a US president that doesn’t go and make unilateral moves, and tries to work with the rest of the world instead of rushing like a bull in a china shop.

[i]And yes, the world recognizes him as the teleprompter pres. That they like the “we are wrong, you are right” message has nothing to do with that.[/i]

Actually, let’s go back to what the world thought/thinks about Obama:

Guardian information from Friday 17 October 2008:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/17/uselections2008-barackobama1

Pew Research Center international poll from July 23, 2009:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1289/global-attitudes-survey-2009-obama-lifts-america-image

The world likes him mainly because they think he will “do the right thing” with regard to international affairs.

That means…working with others…not acting like a bully.

There’s a difference JD

In reply to Yet you give Obama a free pass

People use teleprompters so as to not lose position in an important commentary, especially when constantly being nagged and interrupted. This doesn’t mean he is incapable of memorizing someone ele’s words as Bush did. It simply means he wants to articulate his thoughts correctly in front of a live audience.

“Does not take away that he can not give a speech without the prompter.”

Who says? YOu are referring to his thoughtful replies when people pose baited questions to him in a press conference.

Such questions SHOULD be carefully considered. The reply must also be carefully thought out to offer a reply without stepping into some slimy reporters bait who wants to remove a few sound bites and twist them to mean what they were never posed as.

Bush on the other hand would simply parrot the same old garage and repeat himself over and over again as he only knew one answer to all questions. Why do you think Bush’s comments were constantly attacked as hypocrisy, double speak, etc.? He just spewed rubbish to shut people up and never really thought of the question or an valid answer. Whene cornered he would just say America, America, America, Saddam bad, AQmerica good, we won’t let terrorists get away with this…..America, America, America!

The guy was a clown without the red nose and big shoes, which I suppose just makes him an idiot.

Now that you have a thoughful president who weighs his words carefully, articulates an answer, delivers a clear and concise speech and actually has a brain cell that can stand up and be counted, he’s a phony.

I don’t know where you dream such rubbish up, there certainly isn’t any truth or validity behind any of it.

The world?

In reply to Yet you give Obama a free pass

The WHOLE world recognizes him as a ‘teleprompter president’? As an inhabitant of the world, I certainly have never regarded him as a ‘teleprompter president’. In fact, I’ve never once read anywhere that the WORLD recognizes him as a teleprompter president. Or that ANYONE regards him as a teleprompter president, much less the WHOLE WIDE WORLD. Until now.

Really, that would be a stupid way to recognize anyone, wouldn’t it? WTF is wrong with reading from a teleprompter anyway?

maecuff

In reply to Yet you give Obama a free pass

Telepronpters are for liars apparently. If you can’t deliver a well articulated speech without a teleprompter, you ar a poor president and hopeless leader.

If you read through, there is mention of how GWB never used a teleprompter (or if he did, at least the whole world didn’t call him a teleprompter president), it was either ecause he was preprogrammed and they couldn’t rely on him reading that fast, or he simply cannto read period, which makes him far more educated, articulate and capable of steering the US into better times than Obama.

Damn, now I spit hot tea all over my notebook just reading it back.

Proof that Bush has used a teleprompter

In reply to Yet you give Obama a free pass

Youtube video of Bush at a Texas Gubernatorial debate:

Watch how as a candidate for Governor of Texas…how he is reading a teleprompter to the right of the camera.

He’s used them before. That’s a crock of crap.

jck, you simply can’t look beyond your own blinders

In reply to Hm

The cuts of any interview about which you speak were spoon-fed to you (and like minded people) so you would form the very opinion you did. To see the rest of the story, watch the film that was left on the floor.

Cut and paste isn’t just for written words.

But you’d never acknowledge such a thing. It wouldn’t support your desired end conclusion.

Yes Max

In reply to jck, you simply can’t look beyond your own blinders

And, jdclyde has done the same.

So, why not chastise him as well?

Because, you hold the same biases…and your blinders twice of mine.

Hence, why you can’t open your eyes to any opposing view because it doesn’t meet your desired end conclusion: You think you always have to be right.

Oh, come on Max!

In reply to jck, you simply can’t look beyond your own blinders

The KING of taking comments out of context and portraying them as something else…well JD’s pretty good at it too, and yet you are harping on someone else for commenting on sound bites? 😀

Get real, nobody is that stupid, we’ve been reading your posts for years now. I think JD does it more often but it’s so obvious where he’s going with these things that it’s just laughable now and he can’t be taken seriously, but YOU, Max, come on!

You actually still have some credibility, because while you take other people’s comments out of context to debate with them, you are pretty articulate when it comes to politics and what was said by whom and when.

But talk about the pot calling the kettle black, man that’s ripe! You simply can’t be serious, I’m sure you laughed out loud when you typed that, even YOU couldn’t believe it.

Oz – some things are obvious to me

In reply to jck, you simply can’t look beyond your own blinders

As it relates to this particular tangent, it’s clear to me that jck absolutely ADORES Barack Obama. He supports and defends the guy at every opportunity. Obama can do no wrong in jck’s eyes – thus my comments. (And before you try to suggest that I was the same way with Bush, don’t forget the numerous times I openly disagreed with his domestic policies, among other things, and criticized him for it.)

But you are SO PREDICTIBLE, Oz. Your message have become nothing more than accusations of: being biased, taking things out of context, being a hypocrite, being blind, and so on. Empty and meaningless attacks.

In short, you bore me. I won’t reply to such nonsense, and you don’t post anything of substance worthy of a serious reply.

But keep trying. Every once in a while a craps player actually hits the yo.

P.S. Oz, I’d bet you $100 that you can’t find even ONE sentence in any discussion in which jck even hinted criticism or disagreement with Barack Obama. The guy is infatuated with him. It’s both funny and sad at the same time

Maxwell

In reply to jck, you simply can’t look beyond your own blinders

You squander your gifts.

So does Oz.

Santee – (re: my previous message)

In reply to jck, you simply can’t look beyond your own blinders

I remember the time I actually hit the yo. I left the blackjack table being up about $1,000 – make that $1,050 – and I put the extra $50 on hitting the yo at the craps table.

It paid 15-1. Oh my!

P.S. Many thanks. I appreciate your comments.

Max?

In reply to jck, you simply can’t look beyond your own blinders

What’s this “yo” that you hit? What’s a yo?

Delbert – What’s a yo?

In reply to jck, you simply can’t look beyond your own blinders

One roll of the dice at the craps table – if it hits 11 (called a yo), it pays 15-1 on the bet.

P.S. Fun as hell if it hits!

Wanna win $100 Oz?

In reply to jck, you simply can’t look beyond your own blinders

[i]P.S. Oz, I’d bet you $100 that you can’t find even ONE sentence in any discussion in which jck even hinted criticism or disagreement with Barack Obama. The guy is infatuated with him. It’s both funny and sad at the same time[/i]

Go look in the socialism thread that Max started.

I believe, in contradiction to Max’s claim, that I stated that I don’t believe the government should force people to buy insurance.

At the same time, I think anyone who chooses not to have insurance risks being turned away for treatment from for-profit medical providers.

I believe I disagreed with Obama’s stance (Actually, Baucus’ Senate draft/bill) that requires buying medical insurance.

Go check my posts, Oz. If you win the $100 from Max, you can buy me a beer if I come to BC.

BTW, Max. Do you love anyone more than you love yourself? I doubt it. Get A Bullwinkle mask on and host your own segment of Mr. Know-It-All.

No need jck

In reply to jck, you simply can’t look beyond your own blinders

I know you don’t support him blindly. So do you REALLY think Maxwell is going to mail off $100.00 though? Nope, just words to display self assurance, which we all do. (besides, at the rate you’re going it would need to be more than $100.00 US anyway)

Max, I know very well you didn’t support all of Bush’s actions, and we have discussed that on several occasions. What you fail to realize is I see the same in JCK, he feel does actually weigh and consider presidential actions before he supports them too.

As for weight of my comments, I remember things very well (especially verbal conversations, I can recall the tone of voice used, specific comments that I can re-quote exactly etc.) and perhaps that’s why I find a need to remind you of your double standards when you accuse others of the exact same things you do yourself.

If it bores you to be reminded when you accuse others of things you do yourself, you could stop doing it or bite your fingers to stop accusing others of it too.

As for ‘hypocrisy’, what else do you prefer I call it when you hold such double standards?

JD?!!?!??!!?

In reply to jck, you simply can’t look beyond your own blinders

Oz…

Put down the bottle. :^0

Or share it with me, dammit! ]:)

jck

In reply to jck, you simply can’t look beyond your own blinders

the requiring EVERYONE get in the pool is the central point of all the health care schemes right now, to get more and more of the healthy people paying more and more for the unhealthy people. That IS the key.

As for jck/jd, they both start with a “j”. His observation skills are not as keen as his recall skills….. 😀

I just know one medical thing

In reply to jck, you simply can’t look beyond your own blinders

I’m self medicating tonight.

I have written 2 modules, 1 patch, reindexed tons of DB data, and helped troubleshoot a routing issue.

I need lots of booze soon.

I’m going home. Good night, Lucy.

If I had met either of you

In reply to jck, you simply can’t look beyond your own blinders

I would never cross your names up again, just the way it works for me.

When I’m typing a reply I might be thinking of something one of you said, while replying to the other, and will typpe out the wrong name. I’m pretty danm usy right now, so posting is just something I do while thinking of what to type into an email, what to send to a client, what to say to move a client in a certain direction etc. I don’t always have my mind fully on TR.

On the other hand, it seems you were bright enough and still managed to figure out who I was referring to though.

I haven’t even gone back to figure out where I screwed it up, I just assume I mixed up the reference somewhere.

EDIT: Okay the title was wrong. Sorry, jck.

I was messing with you Oz

In reply to jck, you simply can’t look beyond your own blinders

I’ve done it before too.

I am busy too. I just fixed an issue where I had to research crap in 5 tables. *5*!!!!

And, they won’t let me re-engineer the app to make it more efficient. Go figure.

Well it’s a Cindy Lauper song

In reply to “a government-run insurance plan”

But if you really feel that one’s support for an individual program, also deemed imperative by large percentage of your population, illustrates the true character of the supporter, so be it. Either way your protective claim does not scare me away from offering my opinion.

[b]Fears of government control[/b]
You have to realize that what you are seeing as social reform is actually very different from what socialist programs actually offer.

Government run insurance companies in socialist countries are usually monopolies, those monopolies often come at a higher price due to lack of competition and offer the consumer less choice.

[b]Socialist programs result in monopolies[/b]

Take for instance, the Insurance Corporation of BC (motor vehicle)for many years they had a monopoly. They were extremely overpriced, offered the worst claims services and literally screwed each and every driver in BC for decades. Now the ADDITIONAL insurance is opened up to other market players, meaning your base insurance is still covered by ICBC but you have a choice of more options when it comes to third party protection, theft, comprehensive etc. They aren’t much better in most cases but there are options and thus their prices are slightly lower.

For many MANY years, Stentor was an umbrella encompassing most provincial telephone services in Canada. The price for long distance calls was insane, features were expensive and there was no competition. Stentor was a monopoly, available in some provinces where the local telephone service was not owned by the provincial government, such as in BC. However THAT monopoly was owned y US giant, GTE, but again protected and supported by Canada’s government. Opening up that market to private companies has lowered the cost of such services dramatically again.

[b]The American answer to such programs[/b]

In the US, this form of government provided medical insurance works in the opposite way. Your PRIVATE system is flawed, overpriced and unaffordable for many. The government is offering an affordable alternative for those who cannot afford or choose not to deal with a private insurer, the absolute reverse of what has happened in Canada and the UK.

Private insurers are soaking consumers as there is no reasonable limit to how much they can charge and how little they can offer for it. For years the issue of competition has been raised, but they refused to act in a way that made services available to a wider portion of the US population.

At this time, in order to protect Americans health, to retain the nations strength and power, the government realizes that people need to be healthy first and foremost. People must be ale to go to work, must be healthy enough to support the military, must be fit enough to outperform competitive nations.

[b]Retaining or recovering America’s strength and power[/b]

PEOPLE offer your strength, not just independence and capitalism. PEOPLE’s strength and determination made America rise to the top, not private, free enterprise.

So for your government to offer an affordable alternative to an already overpriced rip-off of a system, despite what your fears of losing individual liberties may be, it is something people have asked for and supported in America for years, only to be completely ignored as the rich get richer and the poor get sicker and weaker. (sorry, long sentence there)

So yes I support ANY system that affords the poor access to more affordable health care. I support ANY system that opens up new opportunities to the downtrodden. I support ANY system that will offer an equal playing field and afford more people opportunity to better themselves.

[b]The free ride[/b]

I know you’ve worked very hard to get to where you are and don’t like seeing others being handed a free ride, and YOU know that I am not different in that respect either.

But this is just basic health care, not opportunity or riches, it simply opens doors for others.

[b]Government competing with private business[/b]
In the case of government competing with business, I don’t think the objective or even possible outcome is competition with private business.

You will always choose your own insurer and will pay the premiums that you deem fair for such a service. That is your freedom which is afforded to you as a result of your own hard work resulting in a higher income that affords you such choice. I don’t think fears of lower quality due to their being forced to offer lower rates should be an issue. I think that IF they decide to offer a low cost alternative to low income clients, the cost for your insurance and the additional benefits/services provided will be superior still.

[b]Socialism[/b]

Government control of a program in order to monopolize and control a market segment is not what this is at all. In fact it is the absolute opposite. They are offering an alternative to private care, it’s not changing from government control to very limited private care.

A lot of what you said is true

In reply to Well it’s a Cindy Lauper song

It’s true that the government program is not in competition with the Insurance companies. It cannot be because it isn’t subject to the same laws and regulation it imposes on insurance companies, nor does it have to make a profit (it can always raise taxes).

What does this mean? It means that it’s not a level playing field, for one.

Secondly, in the beginning you’ll see insurance companies dumping their most costly clients into the government program to free up more capital within the company. This will necessarily cause the government to raise taxes to pay for their program. With everyone paying those taxes many will figure, ‘Why pay twice for coverage?” and drop their private coverage for the government “option”. This expansion of the government program is expensive, so taxes are raised again…

Think of it like the public school system. Many more people would send their kids to private schools so their kids will get a better education, but they can’t afford it. If they weren’t already paying for public schools through their taxes they would have the money. It’s the same thing with a government health program.

Level playing field

In reply to A lot of what you said is true

Yes, a level playing field with private insurers has worked oh so well for you up until now. How well does it work for those who cannot afford it?

You are complaining about paying increased taxes when the existing system is failing your nation by not supporting those without coverage. THOSE people are paid for today from YOUR tax dollars and don’t pay premiums. In a government run system, those less fortunate will at least be paying premiums and not relying on YOU, Joe Taxpayer, to foot the entire bill for them.

Your argument is nonvalid, you already pay for what yuo will be paying less for.

As for insurers giving up costly patients, that’s absurdity. Insurance companies make the most momey off of their most costly patients by denyign them coverage and raising their rates, THEY are the reason your premiums are so high too, to further counter that cost.

And stop whining about taxes. You are an American, you MUST pay taxes.
If your taxes weren’t allocated to health care, they are not going to lower your taxes, you will always pay them and that’s part of living in a democracy. They will raise or lower your taxes as they deem fit.

Chances are, a republican president will come in and need money for something else entirely different, he will then blame the cost of subsidized health care for a rise in taxes. That raise in taxes will be allocated elsewhere, get support for his dismissal of the program entirely and you’ll be spending more tax dollars anyway but to something else instead…and spending more money on your premiums again, while those less fortunate than you just perish.

But hey, as long as they don’t raise your taxes to support health care for the less fortunate, who cares who suffers; as long as it isn’t your wallet?

Here – read one of the bills

In reply to “a government-run insurance plan”

Happy reading:

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf

FYI, 1500 pages. No text.

In reply to Here – read one of the bills

.

What do you mean, no text?

In reply to FYI, 1500 pages. No text.

A cut and paste of the introduction and table of contents (lost its formatting):

To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce
the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
llllllllll
Mr. BAUCUS, from the Committee on Finance, reported the following original
bill; which was read twice and placed on the calendar
A BILL
To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans
and reduce the growth in health care spending, and
for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
4 (a) SHORT TITLE.?This Act may be cited as the
5 ??America?s Healthy Future Act of 2009??.
6 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.?The table of contents of
7 this Act is as follows:
2
O:\FRA\FRA09275.xml [file 1 of 7] S.L.C.
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I?HEALTH CARE COVERAGE
Subtitle A?Insurance Market Reforms
Sec. 1001. Insurance market reforms in the individual and small group markets.
??TITLE XXII?HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE
??Sec. 2200. Ensuring essential and affordable health benefits coverage for
all Americans.
??PART A?INSURANCE REFORMS
??SUBPART 1?REQUIREMENTS IN INDIVIDUAL AND SMALL GROUP MARKETS
??Sec. 2201. General requirements and definitions.
??Sec. 2202. Prohibition on preexisting condition exclusions.
??Sec. 2203. Guaranteed issue and renewal for insured plans.
??Sec. 2204. Premium rating rules.
??Sec. 2205. Use of uniform outline of coverage documents.
??SUBPART 2?REFORMS RELATING TO ALLOCATION OF RISKS
??Sec. 2211. Rating areas; pooling of risks; phase in of rating rules in
small group markets.
??Sec. 2212. Risk adjustment.
??Sec. 2213. Establishment of transitional reinsurance program for individual
markets in each State.
??Sec. 2214. Establishment of risk corridors for plans in individual and
small group markets.
??Sec. 2215. Temporary high risk pools for individuals with preexisting
conditions.
??Sec. 2216. Reinsurance for retirees covered by employer-based plans.
??SUBPART 3?PRESERVATION OF RIGHT TO MAINTAIN EXISTING COVERAGE
??Sec. 2221. Grandfathered health benefits plans.
??SUBPART 4?CONTINUED ROLE OF STATES
??Sec. 2225. Continued State enforcement of insurance regulations.
??Sec. 2226. Waiver of health insurance reform requirements.
??Sec. 2227. Provisions relating to offering of plans in more than one
State.
??Sec. 2228. State flexibility to establish basic health programs for low-income
individuals not eligible for Medicaid.
??SUBPART 5?OTHER DEFINITIONS AND RULES
??Sec. 2230. Other definitions and rules.
Subtitle B?Exchanges and Consumer Assistance
Sec. 1101. Establishment of qualified health benefits plan exchanges.
??PART B?EXCHANGE AND CONSUMER ASSISTANCE
3
O:\FRA\FRA09275.xml [file 1 of 7] S.L.C.
??SUBPART 1?INDIVIDUALS AND SMALL EMPLOYERS OFFERED AFFORDABLE
CHOICES
??Sec. 2231. Rights and responsibilities regarding choice of coverage
through exchange.
??Sec. 2232. Qualified individuals and small employers; access limited to
citizens and lawful residents.
??SUBPART 2?ESTABLISHMENT OF EXCHANGES
??Sec. 2235. Establishment of exchanges by States.
??Sec. 2236. Functions performed by Secretary, States, and exchanges.
??Sec. 2237. Duties of the Secretary to facilitate exchanges.
??Sec. 2238. Procedures for determining eligibility for exchange participation,
premium credits and cost-sharing subsidies, and individual
responsibility exemptions.
??Sec. 2239. Streamlining of procedures for enrollment through an exchange
and State Medicaid, CHIP, and health subsidy
programs.
Sec. 1102. Encouraging meaningful use of electronic health records.
Subtitle C?Making Coverage Affordable
PART I?ESSENTIAL BENEFITS COVERAGE
Sec. 1201. Provisions to ensure coverage of essential benefits.
??PART C?MAKING COVERAGE AFFORDABLE
??SUBPART 1?ESSENTIAL BENEFITS COVERAGE
??Sec. 2241. Requirements for qualified health benefits plan.
??Sec. 2242. Essential benefits package defined.
??Sec. 2243. Levels of coverage.
??Sec. 2244. Application of certain rules to plans in group markets.
??Sec. 2245. Special rules relating to coverage of abortion services.
Sec. 1202. Application of State and Federal laws regarding abortion.
Sec. 1203. Application of emergency services laws.
PART II?PREMIUM CREDITS, COST-SHARING SUBSIDIES, AND SMALL
BUSINESS CREDITS
SUBPART A?PREMIUM CREDITS AND COST-SHARING SUBSIDIES
Sec. 1205. Refundable credit providing premium assistance for coverage under
a qualified health benefits plan.
??Sec. 36B. Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health benefits
plan.
Sec. 1206. Cost-sharing subsidies and advance payments of premium credits
and cost-sharing subsidies.
??SUBPART 2?PREMIUM CREDITS AND COST-SHARING SUBSIDIES
??Sec. 2246. Premium credits.
??Sec. 2247. Cost-sharing subsidies for individuals enrolling in qualified
health benefit plans.
??Sec. 2248. Advance determination and payment of premium credits and
cost-sharing subsidies.
4
O:\FRA\FRA09275.xml [file 1 of 7] S.L.C.
Sec. 1207. Disclosures to carry out eligibility requirements for certain programs.
Sec. 1208. Premium credit and subsidy refunds and payments disregarded for
Federal and Federally-assisted programs.
Sec. 1209. Fail-safe mechanism to prevent increase in Federal budget deficit.
SUBPART B?CREDIT FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS
Sec. 1221. Credit for employee health insurance expenses of small businesses.
??Sec. 45R. Employee health insurance expenses of small employers.
Subtitle D?Shared Responsibility
PART I?INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
Sec. 1301. Excise tax on individuals without essential health benefits coverage.
??CHAPTER 48?MAINTENANCE OF ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS COVERAGE
??Sec. 5000A. Failure to maintain essential health benefits coverage.
Sec. 1302. Reporting of health insurance coverage.
??SUBPART D?INFORMATION REGARDING HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE
??Sec. 6055. Reporting of health insurance coverage.
PART II?EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY
Sec. 1306. Employer shared responsibility requirement.
??Sec. 4980H. Employer responsibility to provide health coverage.
Sec. 1307. Reporting of employer health insurance coverage.
??Sec. 6056. Large employers required to report on health insurance coverage.
Subtitle E?Federal Program for Health Care Cooperatives
Sec. 1401. Establishment of Federal program for health care cooperatives.
??PART D?FEDERAL PROGRAM FOR HEALTH CARE COOPERATIVES
??Sec. 2251. Federal program to assist establishment and operation of nonprofit,
member-run health insurance issuers.
Subtitle F?Transparency and Accountability
Sec. 1501. Provisions ensuring transparency and accountability.
??Sec. 2229. Requirements relating to transparency and accountability.
Sec. 1502. Reporting on utilization of premium dollars and standard hospital
charges.
Sec. 1503. Development and utilization of uniform outline of coverage documents.
Sec. 1504. Development of standard definitions, personal scenarios, and annual
personalized statements.
Subtitle G?Role of Public Programs
PART I?MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR THE LOWEST INCOME POPULATIONS
Sec. 1601. Medicaid coverage for the lowest income populations.
5
O:\FRA\FRA09275.xml [file 1 of 7] S.L.C.
Sec. 1602. Income eligibility for nonelderly determined using modified gross income.
Sec. 1603. Requirement to offer premium assistance for employer-sponsored insurance.
Sec. 1604. Payments to territories.
Sec. 1605. Medicaid Improvement Fund rescission.
PART II?CHILDREN?S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM
Sec. 1611. Additional federal financial participation for CHIP.
Sec. 1612. Technical corrections.
PART III?ENROLLMENT SIMPLIFICATION
Sec. 1621. Enrollment Simplification and coordination with State health insurance
exchanges.
Sec. 1622. Permitting hospitals to make presumptive eligibility determinations
for all Medicaid eligible populations.
Sec. 1623. Promoting transparency in the development, implementation, and
evaluation of Medicaid and CHIP waivers and section 1937
State plan amendments.
Sec. 1624. Standards and best practices to improve enrollment of vulnerable
and underserved populations.
PART IV?MEDICAID SERVICES
Sec. 1631. Coverage for freestanding birth center services.
Sec. 1632. Concurrent care for children.
Sec. 1633. Funding to expand State Aging and Disability Resource Centers.
Sec. 1634. Community First Choice Option.
Sec. 1635. Protection for recipients of home and community-based services
against spousal impoverishment.
Sec. 1636. Incentives for States to offer home and community-based services as
a long-term care alternative to nursing homes.
Sec. 1636A. Removal of barriers to providing home and community-based services.
Sec. 1637. Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration.
Sec. 1638. Clarification of definition of medical assistance.
Sec. 1639. State eligibility option for family planning services.
Sec. 1640. Grants for school-based health centers.
Sec. 1641. Therapeutic foster care.
Sec. 1642. Sense of the Senate regarding long-term care.
PART V?MEDICAID PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE
Sec. 1651. Prescription drug rebates.
Sec. 1652. Elimination of exclusion of coverage of certain drugs.
Sec. 1653. Providing adequate pharmacy reimbursement.
Sec. 1654. Study of barriers to appropriate utilization of generic medicine in
federal health care programs.
PART VI?MEDICAID DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE HOSPITAL (DSH)
PAYMENTS
Sec. 1655. Disproportionate share hospital payments.
PART VII?DUAL ELIGIBLES
6
O:\FRA\FRA09275.xml [file 1 of 7] S.L.C.
Sec. 1661. 5-year period for demonstration projects.
Sec. 1662. Providing Federal coverage and payment coordination for low-income
Medicare beneficiaries.
PART VIII?MEDICAID QUALITY
Sec. 1671. Adult health quality measures.
Sec. 1672. Payment Adjustment for Health Care-Acquired Conditions.
Sec. 1673. Demonstration project to evaluate integrated care around a hospitalization.
Sec. 1674. Medicaid Global Payment System Demonstration Project.
Sec. 1675. Pediatric Accountable Care Organization Demonstration Project.
Sec. 1676. Medicaid emergency psychiatric demonstration project.
PART IX?IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MEDICAID AND CHIP PAYMENT AND
ACCESS COMMISSION (MACPAC)
Sec. 1681. MACPAC assessment of policies affecting all Medicaid beneficiaries.
PART X?AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES
Sec. 1691. Special rules relating to Indians.
Sec. 1692. Elimination of sunset for reimbursement for all medicare part B
services furnished by certain indian hospitals and clinics.
Subtitle H?Addressing Health Disparities
Sec. 1701. Standardized collection of data.
Sec. 1702. Required collection of data.
Sec. 1703. Data sharing and protection.
Sec. 1704. Inclusion of information about the importance of having a health
care power of attorney in transition planning for children aging
out of foster care and independent living programs.
Subtitle I?Maternal and Child Health Services
Sec. 1801. Maternal, infant, and early childhood home visiting programs.
Sec. 1802. Support, education, and research for postpartum depression.
Sec. 1803. Personal responsibility education for adulthood training.
Sec. 1804. Restoration of funding for abstinence education.
Subtitle J?Programs of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention
Sec. 1901. Programs of health promotion and disease prevention.
Subtitle K?Elder Justice Act
Sec. 1911. Short title of subtitle.
Sec. 1912. Definitions.
Sec. 1913. Elder Justice.
Subtitle L?Provisions of General Application
Sec. 1921. Protecting Americans and ensuring taxpayer funds in government
health care plans do not support or fund physician-assisted suicide;
prohibition against discrimination on assisted suicide.
Sec. 1922. Protection of access to quality health care through the Department
of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense.
Sec. 1923. Continued application of antitrust laws.
7
O:\FRA\FRA09275.xml [file 1 of 7] S.L.C.
TITLE II?PROMOTING DISEASE PREVENTION AND WELLNESS
Subtitle A?Medicare
Sec. 2001. Coverage of annual wellness visit providing a personalized prevention
plan.
Sec. 2002. Removal of barriers to preventive services.
Sec. 2003. Evidence-based coverage of preventive services.
Sec. 2004. GAO study and report on medicare beneficiary access to vaccines.
Sec. 2005. Incentives for healthy lifestyles.
Subtitle B?Medicaid
Sec. 2101. Improving access to preventive services for eligible adults.
Sec. 2102. Coverage of comprehensive tobacco cessation services for pregnant
women.
Sec. 2103. Incentives for healthy lifestyles.
Sec. 2104. State option to provide health homes for enrollees with chronic conditions.
Sec. 2105. Funding for Childhood Obesity Demonstration Project.
Sec. 2106. Public awareness of preventive and obesity-related services.
TITLE III?IMPROVING THE QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF
HEALTH CARE
Subtitle A?Transforming the Health Care Delivery System
PART I?LINKING PAYMENT TO QUALITY OUTCOMES UNDER THE
MEDICARE PROGRAM
Sec. 3001. Hospital Value-Based purchasing program.
Sec. 3002. Improvements to the physician quality reporting system.
Sec. 3003. Improvements to the physician feedback program.
Sec. 3004. Quality reporting for long-term care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation
hospitals, and hospice programs.
Sec. 3005. Quality reporting for PPS-exempt cancer hospitals.
Sec. 3006. Plans for a Value-Based purchasing program for skilled nursing facilities
and home health agencies.
Sec. 3007. Value-based payment modifier under the physician fee schedule.
Sec. 3008. Payment adjustment for conditions acquired in hospitals.
PART II?STRENGTHENING THE QUALITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Sec. 3011. National strategy.
Sec. 3012. Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality.
Sec. 3013. Quality measure development.
Sec. 3014. Quality measure endorsement.
PART III?ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PATIENT CARE MODELS
Sec. 3021. Establishment of Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation
within CMS.
Sec. 3022. Medicare shared savings program.
Sec. 3023. National pilot program on payment bundling.
Sec. 3024. Independence at home pilot program.
Sec. 3025. Hospital readmissions reduction program.
Sec. 3026. Community-Based Care Transitions Program.
Sec. 3027. Extension of gainsharing demonstration.
8
O:\FRA\FRA09275.xml [file 1 of 7] S.L.C.
PART IV?STRENGTHENING PRIMARY CARE AND OTHER WORKFORCE
IMPROVEMENTS
Sec. 3031. Expanding access to primary care services and general surgery services.
Sec. 3031A. Medicare Federally qualified health center improvements.
Sec. 3032. Distribution of additional residency positions.
Sec. 3033. Counting resident time in outpatient settings and allowing flexibility
for jointly operated residency training programs.
Sec. 3034. Rules for counting resident time for didactic and scholarly activities
and other activities.
Sec. 3035. Preservation of resident cap positions from closed and acquired hospitals.
Sec. 3036. Workforce Advisory Committee.
Sec. 3037. Demonstration projects To address health professions workforce
needs; extension of family-to-family health information centers.
Sec. 3038. Increasing teaching capacity.
Sec. 3039. Graduate nurse education demonstration program.
PART V?HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Sec. 3041. Free clinics and certified EHR technology.
Subtitle B?Improving Medicare for Patients and Providers
PART I?ENSURING BENEFICIARY ACCESS TO PHYSICIAN CARE AND OTHER
SERVICES
Sec. 3101. Increase in the physician payment update.
Sec. 3102. Extension of the work geographic index floor and revisions to the
practice expense geographic adjustment under the Medicare
physician fee schedule.
Sec. 3103. Extension of exceptions process for Medicare therapy caps.
Sec. 3104. Extension of payment for technical component of certain physician
pathology services.
Sec. 3105. Extension of ambulance add-ons.
Sec. 3106. Extension of certain payment rules for long-term care hospital services
and of moratorium on the establishment of certain hospitals
and facilities.
Sec. 3107. Extension of physician fee schedule mental health add-on.
Sec. 3108. Permitting physician assistants to order post-Hospital extended care
services and to provide for recognition of attending physician
assistants as attending physicians to serve hospice patients.
Sec. 3109. Recognition of certified diabetes educators as certified providers for
purposes of Medicare diabetes outpatient self-management
training services.
Sec. 3110. Exemption of certain pharmacies from accreditation requirements.
Sec. 3111. Part B special enrollment period for disabled TRICARE beneficiaries.
Sec. 3112. Payment for bone density tests.
Sec. 3113. Revision to the Medicare Improvement Fund.
Sec. 3114. Treatment of certain complex diagnostic laboratory tests.
Sec. 3115. Improved access for certified-midwife services.
Sec. 3116. Working Group on Access to Emergency Medical Care.
PART II?RURAL PROTECTIONS
9
O:\FRA\FRA09275.xml [file 1 of 7] S.L.C.
Sec. 3121. Extension of outpatient hold harmless provision.
Sec. 3122. Extension of Medicare reasonable costs payments for certain clinical
diagnostic laboratory tests furnished to hospital patients in certain
rural areas.
Sec. 3123. Extension of the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program.
Sec. 3124. Extension of the Medicare-dependent hospital (MDH) program.
Sec. 3125. Temporary improvements to the Medicare inpatient hospital payment
adjustment for low-volume hospitals.
Sec. 3126. Improvements to the demonstration project on community health integration
models in certain rural counties.
Sec. 3127. MedPAC study on adequacy of Medicare payments for health care
providers serving in rural areas.
Sec. 3128. Technical correction related to critical access hospital services.
Sec. 3129. Extension of and revisions to Medicare rural hospital flexibility program.
PART III?IMPROVING PAYMENT ACCURACY
Sec. 3131. Payment adjustments for home health care.
Sec. 3132. Hospice reform.
Sec. 3133. Improvement to medicare disproportionate share hospital (DSH)
payments.
Sec. 3134. Misvalued codes under the physician fee schedule.
Sec. 3135. Modification of equipment utilization factor for advanced imaging
services.
Sec. 3136. Revision of payment for power-driven wheelchairs.
Sec. 3137. Hospital wage index improvement.
Sec. 3138. Treatment of certain cancer hospitals.
Sec. 3139. Payment for biosimilar biological products.
Sec. 3140. Public meeting and report on payment systems for new clinical laboratory
diagnostic tests.
Sec. 3141. Medicare hospice concurrent care demonstration program.
Sec. 3142. Application of budget neutrality on a national basis in the calculation
of the Medicare hospital wage index floor for each allurban
and rural state.
Sec. 3143. HHS study on urban Medicare-dependent hospitals.
Subtitle C?Provisions Relating to Part C
Sec. 3201. Medicare Advantage payment.
Sec. 3202. Benefit protection and simplification.
Sec. 3203. Application of coding intensity adjustment during MA payment
transition.
Sec. 3204. Simplification of annual beneficiary election periods.
Sec. 3205. Extension for specialized MA plans for special needs individuals.
Sec. 3206. Extension of reasonable cost contracts.
Sec. 3207. Technical correction to MA private fee-for-service plans.
Sec. 3208. Making senior housing facility demonstration permanent.
Sec. 3209. Development of new standards for certain Medigap plans.
Subtitle D?Medicare Part D Improvements for Prescription Drug Plans and
MA?PD Plans
Sec. 3301. Medicare prescription drug discount program for brand-Name
drugs.
10
O:\FRA\FRA09275.xml [file 1 of 7] S.L.C.
Sec. 3302. Improvement in determination of Medicare part D low-income
benchmark premium.
Sec. 3303. Voluntary de minimus policy for subsidy eligible individuals under
prescription drug plans and MA?PD plans.
Sec. 3304. Special rule for widows and widowers regarding eligibility for lowincome
assistance.
Sec. 3305. Improved information for subsidy eligible individuals reassigned to
prescription drug plans and MA?PD plans.
Sec. 3306. Funding outreach and assistance for low-income programs.
Sec. 3307. Improving formulary requirements for prescription drug plans and
MA?PD plans with respect to certain categories or classes of
drugs.
Sec. 3308. Reducing part D premium subsidy for high-income beneficiaries.
Sec. 3309. Simplification of plan information.
Sec. 3310. Limitation on removal or change of coverage of covered part D
drugs under a formulary under a prescription drug plan or an
MA?PD plan.
Sec. 3311. Elimination of cost sharing for certain dual eligible individuals.
Sec. 3312. Reducing wasteful dispensing of outpatient prescription drugs in
long-term care facilities under prescription drug plans and
MA?PD plans.
Sec. 3313. Improved Medicare prescription drug plan and MA?PD plan complaint
system.
Sec. 3314. Uniform exceptions and appeals process for prescription drug plans
and MA?PD plans.
Sec. 3315. Office of the Inspector General studies and reports.
Sec. 3316. HHS study and annual reports on coverage for dual eligibles.
Sec. 3317. Including costs incurred by AIDS drug assistance programs and Indian
Health Service in providing prescription drugs toward the
annual out-of-pocket threshold under part D.
Subtitle E?Ensuring Medicare Sustainability
Sec. 3401. Revision of certain market basket updates and incorporation of productivity
improvements into market basket updates that do not
already incorporate such improvements.
Sec. 3402. Temporary adjustment to the calculation of part B premiums.
Sec. 3403. Medicare Commission.
Sec. 3404. Ensuring medicare savings are kept in the medicare program.
Subtitle F?Comparative Effectiveness Research
Sec. 3501. Comparative effectiveness research.
Sec. 3502. Coordination with Federal coordinating council for comparative effectiveness
research.
Sec. 3503. GAO report on national coverage determinations process.
Subtitle G?Administrative Simplification
Sec. 3601. Administrative Simplification.
Subtitle H?Sense of the Senate Regarding Medical Malpractice
Sec. 3701. Sense of the Senate regarding medical malpractice.
TITLE IV?TRANSPARENCY AND PROGRAM INTEGRITY
11
O:\FRA\FRA09275.xml [file 1 of 7] S.L.C.
Subtitle A?Limitation on Medicare Exception to the Prohibition on Certain
Physician Referrals for Hospitals
Sec. 4001. Limitation on Medicare exception to the prohibition on certain physician
referrals for hospitals.
Subtitle B?Physician Ownership and Other Transparency
Sec. 4101. Transparency reports and reporting of physician ownership or investment
interests.
Sec. 4102. Disclosure requirements for in-office ancillary services exception to
the prohibition on physician self-referral for certain imaging
services.
Sec. 4103. Prescription drug sample transparency.
Subtitle C?Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement
PART I?IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY OF INFORMATION
Sec. 4201. Required disclosure of ownership and additional disclosable parties
information.
Sec. 4202. Accountability requirements for skilled nursing facilities and nursing
facilities.
Sec. 4203. Nursing home compare Medicare website.
Sec. 4204. Reporting of expenditures.
Sec. 4205. Standardized complaint form.
Sec. 4206. Ensuring staffing accountability.
Sec. 4207. GAO study and report on Five-Star Quality Rating System.
PART II?TARGETING ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 4211. Civil money penalties.
Sec. 4212. National independent monitor pilot program.
Sec. 4213. Notification of facility closure.
Sec. 4214. National demonstration projects on culture change and use of information
technology in nursing homes.
PART III?IMPROVING STAFF TRAINING
Sec. 4221. Dementia and abuse prevention training.
Subtitle D?Nationwide Program for National and State Background Checks
on Direct Patient Access Employees of Long-term Care Facilities and Providers
Sec. 4301. Nationwide program for National and State background checks on
direct patient access employees of long-term care facilities and
providers.
Subtitle E?Pharmacy Benefit Managers
Sec. 4401. Pharmacy benefit managers transparency requirements.
TITLE V?FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE
Subtitle A?Medicare and Medicaid
Sec. 5001. Provider screening and other enrollment requirements under Medicare
and Medicaid.
12
O:\FRA\FRA09275.xml [file 1 of 7] S.L.C.
Sec. 5002. Enhanced Medicare and Medicaid program integrity provisions.
Sec. 5003. Elimination of duplication between the Healthcare Integrity and
Protection Data Bank and the National Practitioner Data
Bank.
Sec. 5004. Maximum period for submission of Medicare claims reduced to not
more than 12 months.
Sec. 5005. Physicians who order items or services required to be Medicare enrolled
physicians or eligible professionals.
Sec. 5006. Requirement for physicians to provide documentation on referrals to
programs at high risk of waste and abuse.
Sec. 5007. Face to face encounter with patient required before physicians may
certify eligibility for home health services or durable medical
equipment under Medicare.
Sec. 5008. Enhanced penalties.
Sec. 5009. Medicare self-referral disclosure protocol.
Sec. 5010. Adjustments to the Medicare durable medical equipment, prosthetics,
orthotics, and supplies competitive acquisition program.
Sec. 5011. Expansion of the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program.
Subtitle B?Additional Medicaid Provisions
Sec. 5101. Termination of provider participation under Medicaid if terminated
under Medicare or other State plan.
Sec. 5102. Medicaid exclusion from participation relating to certain ownership,
control, and management affiliations.
Sec. 5103. Billing agents, clearinghouses, or other alternate payees required to
register under Medicaid.
Sec. 5104. Requirement to report expanded set of data elements under MMIS
to detect fraud and abuse.
Sec. 5105. Prohibition on payments to institutions or entities located outside of
the United States.
Sec. 5106. Overpayments.
Sec. 5107. Enhanced funding for program integrity activities.
Sec. 5108. Mandatory State use of national correct coding initiative.
Sec. 5109. General effective date.
TITLE VI?REVENUE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A?Revenue Offset Provisions
Sec. 6001. Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage.
Sec. 6002. Inclusion of cost of employer-sponsored health coverage on W?2.
Sec. 6003. Distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin.
Sec. 6004. Increase in additional tax on distributions from HSAs not used for
qualified medical expenses.
Sec. 6005. Limitation on health flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria
plans.
Sec. 6006. Expansion of information reporting requirements.
Sec. 6007. Additional requirements for charitable hospitals.
Sec. 6008. Imposition of annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical
manufacturers and importers.
Sec. 6009. Imposition of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers.
Sec. 6010. Imposition of annual fee on health insurance providers.
Sec. 6011. Study and report of effect on veterans health care.
13
O:\FRA\FRA09275.xml [file 1 of 7] S.L.C.
Sec. 6012. Elimination of deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D
subsidy.
Sec. 6013. Modification of itemized deduction for medical expenses.
Sec. 6014. Limitation on excessive remuneration paid by certain health insurance
providers.
Subtitle B?Other Provisions
Sec. 6021. Exclusion of health benefits provided by Indian tribal governments.
Sec. 6022. Establishment of simple cafeteria plans for small businesses.
Sec. 6023. Qualifying therapeutic discovery project credit.

Uh, Max?

In reply to What do you mean, no text?

I meant there was no text in the body of my post, just a title.

LOL

In reply to Uh, Max?

Okay, you can all join me in laughing at myself. (Maybe I’ll give myself [i]the link[/i]!)

Not the link, Max

In reply to LOL

But a facepalm would probably be appropriate.

http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/facepalm1.jpg

😉

LMAO

In reply to Not the link, Max

That was funny. And accurate.

P.S. Thank you for not making me give myself [i]the link[/i].

Okay now that WAS good

In reply to Not the link, Max

Firstly, good one Max, you are at least man enough to laugh at making a silly mistake, DOH!

Secondly, the facepalm, definitely works! Haven’t seen that one before. Maybe even worth making it a flash and adding the ‘YOU ARE AN IDIOT’ audio to it.

Anyway, I have to run, apprently there’s a new Three’s Company episode on and in this one there is some kind of misunderstanding between the kids due to overhearing only part of a conversation.

Ozzie, that must be a re-run.

In reply to Not the link, Max

I swear I’ve seen that one…

Oz – Everyone deserves “the link” at least once.

In reply to Not the link, Max

The trick is, beat ’em to the punch and give it to yourself! (What do you mean more than once? I resemble that remark!)

I feel your pain.

In reply to LOL

I too was once a noob 😀

Was once?

In reply to I feel your pain.

Hey, you left that door wide open!

I just had to go back to the well, didn’t I?

In reply to I feel your pain.

Obviously once too often…

I have to congratulate you

In reply to “a government-run insurance plan”

on drawing the commenters. Most discussions don’t swell this quickly.

Thank you, Delbert, however. . . . .

In reply to I have to congratulate you

….. I think it simply illustrates how passionate people are on the issue. And actually, I’d concede that both sides of the argument have merit (even though there are more than two sides). Our medical delivery system, in so many ways, really sucks. The difference, however, is agreeing on how to fix what’s broken. Another difference is defining what’s really broken.

But a government controlled fix, in my estimation, will not only fail to fix what’s really broken, but it will actually make matters worse – much worse. And those things that I estimate will be worse actually extend well beyond the delivery of medical care.

Consider this (regardless of the service provided). In almost every case of commerce, if Entity-A receives a service from Entity-B, then Entity-A somehow compensates Entity-B for the service provided – or Entity-B freely gives the service to Entity-A. That’s the way a free enterprise system works. However, if Entity-A receives a service from Entity-B, but Entity-C is expected to pay for the services delivered, AND Entity-A pays Entity-C to pay Entity-B (in some form, either directly or indirectly), then problems are inevitable.

In my opinion, we need to go back to square one and design a system that makes the most sense – AND make it one that doesn’t violate the principles upon which our country was founded and allowed us to prosper – but the bottom line being, DO NOT violate these principles.

We need to also acknowledge a couple of facts of life. One: No one will escape this life alive; we will all die; there is no cure for death. Two: Life is not fair; some people are born into better circumstances than others; some people will make their lives better than other people can or will make life for themselves; some people have better breaks in life than others; some people have worse breaks in life than others; and any attempt to make life fair for some will only result in making life unfair for others.

The medical delivery system is broken, to be sure. But if we rely on government to fix it, then the broken pieces will only be smashed to smithereens. At least that’s what I believe. And that’s what I want to prevent.

P.S. Ask yourself this. When did the medical delivery system start on its path to be broken? My answer is this: when another entity was expected to pay for such services. Therefore what?

It’s trending to worse under the current system

In reply to Thank you, Delbert, however. . . . .

If it gets more expensive under a government-mandated structure, we can at least console ourselves with the fact it was getting more unaffordable every year anyway. I am not satisfied with the insurance model, for the reasons you point out; it has allowed the health care sector to price itself out of affordability, and removed the marketplace pressures that would govern the cost in a more typical environment. It will get worse.

However, what’s worst of all is to leave care unaffordable. It’s unfair. Granted, life doesn’t work out equally, and the lower orders have to accept what is their share, and they generally do, which is what makes it possible for prosperous guys like you and me to be so comfortable. I’m not saying we’re rich; the rich get their share, too, and we all of us generally accept that they’re entitled, as well. However, the French found in 1789 that a decade of bad harvests and declining living standards brought the country to revolution; apparently the poor decided they had an entitlement to eat that nobody had been aware of for previous centuries. Call it a social contract: the poor and the working class put up with the pretensions and comfort of the middle classes and the rich, provided they get their due, too. They accept less, but it has to be enough to give them hope for their kids and a working man’s dignity until death. Cross that line, and you risk revolution. As society gets richer, the line moves.

I don’t believe we can end poverty; I don’t believe we can stop the working class boy from tattooing himself and quitting school to prove that he won’t fit into anybody’s box, and thereby boxing himself in for the rest of his life. The kind of society we run needs a high proportion of underachievers, anyway: guys who party hard on Saturday night, and keep their heads down and work their 40 hours the rest of the week, and women who will stand by them, pregnant and patient, and knowing that nobody in the family will get too far. We can congratulate ourselves, some of us, on not having made the choices these others have stumbled into. But we have to provide for them, both as a matter of justice and as an issue of enlightened self interest.

(Edited to remove a gratuitous slap at the Palins. Sorry.)

I can only see it working this way

In reply to “a government-run insurance plan”

The government run insurance plan covers preventative care only and some basic health issues, but nothing catastrophic. You have to buy extra insurance if you want that.

Taxpayers can’t afford any other kind of public option. Where is the money coming from anyway?

AV

But AV, consider this

In reply to I can only see it working this way

If you consider ONLY the service provider and the service receiver, preventitive care and basic health issues are EXTREMELY cheap and easy to deliver. Those are the things that a person should pay for out of pocket OR have provided as a matter of charity (voluntary and private charity, not forced government charity). Why should a [i]government run insurance plan[/i] pay for those things? That’s crazy!

Moreover, and I tire of harping on this, but the role of government in the United States IS NOT to cater to the needs and wants of the individual, but rather protect the individual’s right to determine those things for him/her self.

Charity can’t do it

In reply to But AV, consider this

It has to be guaranteed. Basic healthcare should be provided by the government. Just preventive care. If I had to pay for that out of pocket, it would cost too much.

Government does have a limited role. Anything more is individualy responsibility.

AV

I disagree

In reply to Charity can’t do it

Basic health care should be provided by government? Really? Guaranteed health care? Is that the role of government? By what authority? At its lowest common denominator, are you suggesting that my health care should be guaranteed by forcing you (through government) to pay fot it?

Okay, AV. I go to the doctor, but I insist that you pay the bill. What a deal.

Face it, Max

In reply to I disagree

If Obamacare passes, you’re going to live forever. It’s “guaranteed” 🙂

[i]Okay, AV. I go to the doctor, but I insist that you pay the bill. [/i]

No, you go to the emergency room for a splinter. Demand a CT Scan AND an MRI, and an $80 aspirin, and insist that AV pay the bill 🙂

No CT scan or MRI is for free

In reply to Face it, Max

Thats outside of the public option plan.

AV

What?????

In reply to No CT scan or MRI is for free

Inferior care?????

Demand?

In reply to Face it, Max

What yuo are failign to see is that such a system would correctly NOT allow patients self diagnosis and self treatment as they do now.

I Canada, I can’t go in and DEMAND an MRI or CAT scan, I can DEMAND to see a doctor and he/she will detrmine my treatment options.

$80 Aspirin? Private system

But it is a difference

In reply to Demand?

In Canada, there are two parties involved, the patient and the doctor. If the doctor says, get an MRI, then the patient will get an MRI. If things are urgent, then the patient can be bumped up the line. It happened with my son, he got one in hours when he had an espisode of turning blue. My wife went to a CT scan as soon as she was stable (about 90 minutes) after a head injury.

You can of course get a second opinion, but if you are a doctor who is too “liberal” with tests, you may come to the attention of the college of physicians and surgeons.

In the US, with no HMO and cash, you need a doctor’s referral. With an HMO, the doctor has to submit the treatment plan to the insurer for analysis.

James

We’re already paying for the uninsured

In reply to I disagree

People that pay for private insurance are already paying for those that don’t have insurance through their premiums. It would probably be cheaper to offer a bare bones public option that is subsidized by the government. People using it will still have to pay into it.

It would be cheaper to have a public option with an HMO than to have the uninsured go to the emergency room for treatment for everything.

AV

AV – The bottom line

In reply to We’re already paying for the uninsured

You either want government to decide things concerning your private life or you don’t. I don’t – PERIOD – and I’ll let ALL chips fall where they may. How about you?

Really?

In reply to AV – The bottom line

[i]You either want government to decide things concerning your private life or you don’t. I don’t – PERIOD – and I’ll let ALL chips fall where they may. How about you?[/i]

Sp you decide:

Where schools are built?
Roads are constructed?
Where you go to vote?
Where you can buy a gun?
Whether or not your wife gets a mammogram that finds the lump that saves her life?

You only think you want to make all the decisions in your life.

If you had to make (and pay for) everything government provides you, you would either live meagerly or your neighbors with more guns would come steal your stuff.

That’s right. Police, fire, medical regulation, land rights, highways, etc.

All done by that evil government that makes your life safe and easier.

You should get a group together, go buy an island, and make your own way. See how great life is having to do everything yourselves.

Look carefully…

In reply to AV – The bottom line

at the preamble to the United States Constitution.

“Promote” the general welfare does not mean “provide”. If they’d have meant “provide”, they would have specifically said “provide”, because in the previous sentence, they did (“provide for the common defence,”)!

Some things, why not?

In reply to AV – The bottom line

First of all the government is just offering an option to people needing insurance.

Currently your tax dollars, as well as insurance premiums, pay for this ewho are in dire need.

If those same people were paying a portion of their own costs, how does that put the government in control of your private life in any way shape or form, that they don’t already have control of now?

You are not giving them more rights to control your private lives, by electing them you have already given them that right. The government that is elected by the people is entrusted to spend your tax dollars.

If you think paying taxes is the same as allowing the government to control your private life, they are already spending your tax dollars to help those who pay nothing in taxes OR premiums. YOU DO IT NOW.

How is allowing them a way to balance the cost, by having people pay a portion of what you already pay for now, seen as giving them more control?

This greater government control kick is absolutely illogical.

If you DON’T allow them to charge these people for what you already pay for, you are therefore accepting the government paying for the entire cost out of your tax dollars.

Promote the general welfare

In reply to AV – The bottom line

It means that Congress may provide legislation that acts in a general best interest of a nation.

If AFFORDABLE health care for millions of uninsured Americans is not acting in the best interests of the nation, you have some really screwed up thoughts towards your nation.

I think we should have a public option

In reply to AV – The bottom line

Personally, I’d rather pay into something with a fixed cost instead of not knowing how much of the insurance premiums I pay now cover the uninsured.

I don’t like government control but in this area it makes sense. Everyone needs healthcare and we all should support basic needs.

We pay anyway. Maybe we can cut costs.

AV

Edited: Whoops! Lousy editing.

AV – don’t fall into the trap

In reply to AV – The bottom line

A [i]public option[/i] means a government (public) option will compete with a [i]private (corporate)[/i] option.

Consider this:

Corporate must operate with a profit, while government can run unlimited deficits.

Corporate is limited to operating under monetary limits, while government can print money.

Corporate must operate under existing laws, while government makes the laws – which is exempt from following.

I could go on.

Do you really understand what you just suggested?

If you were [i]private[/i] and I was [/i] public[/i], would you like to compete with me if I could make (and change) all the rules all the time, and you were forced to be profitable while I could run unlimited deficits?

Have you really considered the true difference?

P.S. Let’s play a game of poker. The only thing is, you must play under the private option rules, while I play under the public option rules. After all, there’s nothing like a public pair beating a private full house.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

In reply to AV – The bottom line

Firstly, your examples are such extreme exaggerations they become laughable analogies. Secondly, a private is only a forprofit organization because they have no restrictions as to how badly they can rip off customers and deny others access to affordable options.

In your poker game, the private would also insist that your bets cost double the value of the chips you play and if you didn’t have enough to anti up you would be left out of the deal.The public would ensure that you can still play as many chips as you wanted but would also lower the anti to make it an affordable game for others to join too.

You are just forunate that you are still able to afford your premiums, others who may also work hard and pay taxes may not be so lucky.

Nice try, Oz. But all you accomplished is. . . . .

In reply to AV – The bottom line

….. sounding totally stupid.

Oz, watch your wording

In reply to AV – The bottom line

AS IT IS NOT health care that is being debated in congress and the senate, but INSURANCE. The two are NOT the same thing.

NOTHING is being done to increase affordable health CARE or improve quality of living for anyone.

And the proposed plans will do nothing but increase the costs, not lower them. That is the reason sane people oppose these half baked and RUSHED plans.

Health care, JD

In reply to AV – The bottom line

You are right, I should have said health care insurance.
You didn’t seem to have a problem figuring it out though, well done.

You can be so pathetic sometimes, Max.

In reply to AV – The bottom line

I often get props in PM’s for actually calling you out on your comments. You then say things like, it makes me look stupid or that it is disingenious or whatever to simply dismiss my comment, that others notice are accurate observations.

Then, with your lack of a valid reply, you just reiterate my views and make yourself look stupid and my point more accurate. That is of course unless you feel everyone reading here agrees with your point of view and doesn’t see the invalidity of your comments, ridiculous and overly exaggerated analogies and double standards.

You are almost as bad as when JD points out a flaw in Obama or his policies,everyone knows JD is bitter about Obama and is hell bent on proposing his personal bias instead of reality and it detracts from what he is saying, however he doesn’t seem to see it himself. (sorry for dragging you into it JD).

Your constant double standards and extreme exaggerations that you use to support your claims, actually detract from what COULD have been a valid observation that desrves consideration. Instead, you turn it into a ridiculously exaggerated blast against total control on the Borg ship and remove any credibility from it.

Wasn’t my point, Oz

In reply to AV – The bottom line

the point was that the whole focus for what the current administration is doing is on the wrong target in the first place.

You are talking about people getting the care they need, but CARE is NOT part of the plans they are trying to hush through.

THAT is where a lot of us have a big problem, of throwing a lot of feel-good money at a problem, knowing full well they are not addressing the real issues.

Yes, I know what you were moaning about

In reply to AV – The bottom line

I know you are on about the level of care,m which most Americans seem to feel is the est care in the world.

YOu seem to e missing teh point though, if care is increased, cost is increased, private premiums are increased, fewer people can afford such care than today.

Step 1: Make CARE of any sort, affordable.

Step 2: Increase the level of care available for those people.

Who cares how excellent care is if you can’t access it?

In a dream world though, Oz

In reply to AV – The bottom line

According to some folks:

If care increased, then parts of the cost for it should go down.

At least, some people think that as demand goes up and more needs to be produced that manufacturers and suppliers will always lower their prices to match.

I’d like to be smoking the pipe they’re on. As the banks got money cheaper and cheaper from the Fed during the housing boom here, you didn’t see the banks dropping their rates to match.

Capitalism impedes fair practice of business.

“Capitalism impedes fair practice of business. “

In reply to AV – The bottom line

rubbish. Politicians on the take impede all fair practice.

Rubbish

In reply to AV – The bottom line

Capitalism impedes fair business.

There, about as useful and correct as your irrelevant slagging.

We are in deep …………

In reply to AV – The bottom line

I don’t feel sorry for private insurance companies. Yes, they operate under laws, but the laws have always been in their favor, especially the anti-trust laws. They’ve been fixing their own prices for years. Its about time they had a comeuppance.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4380-Healthcare-Reform-Examiner~y2009m10d22-House-committee-votes-to-end-antitrust-exemption-for-insurance-companies

A public option and an end to the anti-trust exemption that protects them, would force insurance companies to compete. Too bad if they have to compete against the government. It might be the only way to force them to become more competitively priced. Otherwise, its business as usual. Prices go up 10 to 15% every year and I pay more and more for less. Denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. I could go on forever. Its obscene. A couple of years ago I had a $5000 MRI. I can’t imagine what it costs now.

I wouldn’t like government involvement in other industries, but its a different story with healthcare. If 47 million people don’t pay for it right now and still use the services, then who do you think is footing the bill? Not them. Its the rest of us with insurance.

Everyone should pay. We all use it and we all need it.

AV

talk about rubbish, jd

In reply to AV – The bottom line

Who made the businessmen and businesswomen running banks loan money out to people they *knew* couldn’t pay?

Who made the businessmen and businesswomen running banks give their loan officers directives to increase loans out?

Who made the businessmen and businesswomen running banks push their people to increase quotas of loans given?

NOTHING in the law said they had to put out a number of loans. It said they had to help…not give out stupid loans.

It was the collective greed in the capitalistic minds of bank management who caused them to see the bonus clauses in their contracts that made them do stupid things WE had to bail out…not government law, rule, regulation or oversight.

THEY were greedy. They screwed our country.

No matter how you slice it, capitalism-fed greed caused it. Pure and simple.

Just like the greed of the autoworkers unions broke the auto industry when times got tough.

Capitalism is capitalism, whether it’s a person, union, management, or whomever, trying to siphon off all the money they can rather than reinvest it into their industry.

Deny that if you can.

The only thing the government didn’t do right is throw all the bastards in jail.

Give up, AV

In reply to AV – The bottom line

You can’t convince people like jd and Max that, in their use of company paid country club memberships and company paid vacations and company paid lunches, that corporate management work together to control rates and force increases in profits by reducing coverage and increasing policy premiums.

You are right though in what you said. But convincing those who trust business to do right are placing all their eggs in the egg basket that the wolves in business have been raiding for decades.

Simple AV, force “the rich” to pay for it all

In reply to I can only see it working this way

That is what you do when a majority voting block are lead to believe they have a “right” to “free” health insurance. Vote away other peoples rights.

We are moving backwards as a country.

The rich don’t pay

In reply to Simple AV, force “the rich” to pay for it all

they only pass along their costs.

Well that shouldn’t bother you then

In reply to Simple AV, force “the rich” to pay for it all

From what I understand, you, much like myself are far from being rich.

Guess what Oz

In reply to Well that shouldn’t bother you then

When rich people get taxed more, they pass it along as a business cost in what they sell, and you buy.

Doesn’t matter to you though

In reply to Guess what Oz

Americans don’t buy anything they manufacture themselves, the cost is too high from all of your overtaxed ‘richies’ (stole that term from Pretty in Pink).

Americans only buy cheap, Chinese knock-offs as that way they can afford the industrial sized bags of Potato chips at Piggly Wiggly.

Hey!

In reply to Doesn’t matter to you though

By God! I’ll have you know!

– My car was made in KOREA!
– My speakers were made in UTAH!
– I buy chips at 7-11!

I am a good American. I diversify. :^0

Your speakers were made in China

In reply to Hey!

RBH is based in Layton Utah. They were actually ‘assembled’ in China. RBH products come in boxes that say made in China, I am not sure how the EMP boxes are marked though.
Final assembly is cheaper there.

RBH designs the product, manufactures the crossovers, driver cones etc. They are then shipped to China, where they have a private plant for the purpose of assembly, using MDF cabinets that most likely comes from their high demand for Canadian lumber.

Hey, have you even hooked the bloody things up yet?

The assembled parts are then shipped back to Utah for distribution.

Signature series models are designed, and handmade in Utah, they just don’t have the facilities to accomodate assembly of other products locally.

As for 7-11 (Southlands Corp.), your pure blood, Texas originated company; Toshifumi Suzuki is the Chairman of Southlands and Masaaki Asakura is the EVP/COO. Couple of good ole down home Teaxas boys I suppose. 😀

I forget which Korean car you have though, isn’t it was a Toymotor Prius?

In contrast I drive an American designed SUV, built in Canada, with a German engine. 😀

My speakers (The Scandyna’s) were made by a merger between a Scandinavian (Scanspeak) and Danish (Dynaco) company, a second set was designed by good old UTAH based RBH Sound (woop woop RBH!!)and assembled in China and another set was hand made in Utah.

Many of my clothes are European imports (nothing beats European suits for cut, tailoring and design).

Damn free trade and world affairs, you don’t know where ANYTHING comes form these days. It is really nice to have such a HUGE marketplace though, as long as you avoid teh cheapo knock-off’s, you can get superior quality products by buy each nations specialty exports.

EMPs

In reply to Hey!

I think the parts are made in China. I think the speakers are made in Utah.

I have 3 hooked up. The two I can’t put on the back wall yet because they didn’t come with built-in hangers on the back of them so I either have to get some or get and make space for floor stands.

The sound is much better, but that’s comparing them to the cheapo Sony’s.

For $200 though, you were right. They were a steal.

Thanks again for the tip.

RBH doesn’t assemble EMP’s

In reply to Hey!

I promise you that the only product assembled at the RBH factory in Utah is Signature series, I’ve been there, I know the builders. They don’t have the space nor manpower to handle the production numbers of the other models.

The benefit of RBH though is that they don’t buy assembly line products. For example: q lot of other manufacturer’s such as Polk, Klipsch, JBL etc. will se the same factory as other companies. Theu don’t do the R&D themselves, very costly and they just ‘create’ a product based on what is available in that factory’s bins, crossover components etc. They will often design one or two crossovers, from the same parts and use them for all models too.

In contrast, RBH was a desinger and builder before manufacturing. They actually spin their pwn aluminum cones in the Utah factory. They design their own crossovers and have th R&D department to do so for each model independently and even upgrade it over time to the point of near perfection.

They then send those plans and designs to their custom shop in China where they are assemled to meet extremely tight standards that RBH sets out, they don’t make other products, juts EMP, RBH, Destination Audio and Status Acoustics (all RBH products). They are then shipped back to the US for distribution.

This allows for much greater R&D more time spent developing the correct components and assembly under much stricter quality control and factory standards than are found in north American factories.

And voila, damn nice speakers come out of it.

Glad you are happy, now get some real critical listening down, shut down tone controls (flat settings) and EQ’, turn off any effects, as I assume you already do. If you have the option, play with the large and smal front speaker settings, you’ll probably find that a large speaker setting sounds best.

I just went by what the box said

In reply to Hey!

There was no mention of anything but Utah on the box.

I’ll look at the speakers.

They had a problem with the RBH brand that way

In reply to Hey!

All RBH boxes except Signature Series were changed to say Made in China. Sales plumetted instantly. I work with a few retailers from various parts of the Orient, they can’t sell a Chinese made product to Oriental customers, they just won’t buy anything Chinese.

With EMP designed for the online market segment, they have to appeal to an even wider audience, so it’s possible they wiggle around a way of tagging them as being from Utah. I have a pair of their 35″ on-wall models in the sounds room, they offered us a good deal on a HUGE shipment when they cleared them out. We never took them up on it due to the large number we needed to commit to. They are okay sounding, not their best product by any means, but the tag on them clearly states made in China.

Due to needing to buy a lot of them in order to get a good price and havign RBH in the soundroom, we cannot sell them so we just have the one pair here. A distributor agreement states you cannot sell other RBH made products with them, nor can I sell them and add an RBH sub in the package (they do need a sub).

These are not the same speakers you got at all, not even close.

Yours are all but RBH, same crossovers and even use the TK series drivers, that’s why they were such an exceptional deal. EMP’s, as a brand, are usually rather low end.

Unfortunately

In reply to Well that shouldn’t bother you then

I was born with standards and work ethic, where I believe people need to pull their own weight in life.

I am not looking to take anything from anyone else, that I have not earned.

Actually, been spending more time lately helping people less fortunate than myself.

So you don’t believe all people should pull their own weight in life.

In reply to Unfortunately

“…been spending more time lately helping people less fortunate than myself”

Why can’t THEY pull their own weight in life? Do they have no standards or work ethics or are there exceptions to your blanket assertion ?

Actually, mr oz media

In reply to So you don’t believe all people should pull their own weight in life.

they are people that I know have been laid off, are actively looking for work and are doing what they can to take care of their families. It is the people that are looking for a handout for nothing that I have no use for, but if you are working to make a go at it, I will do what I can to help.

I believe people should work to pull their own weight in life, but sometimes there are setbacks, and that is what friends are for. Something, it sounds like, you are not familiar with.

If they are making the effort and just not making ends meet, I am more than willing to help out in any way I can. Looking right now at what I can give to the food pantry, since thanksgiving is coming up soon. over a decade ago, they had provided me an my family with a good meal, how can I not do the same now that I am able?

Not everyone has to be legislated to help. How about you, just going to be a dick to everyone, or will you be doing anything to help those around you?

Ah…the seething and loathing coming from MI is intense

In reply to Actually, mr oz media

Cause, that’s “just how you are”. :^0

BTW, jd. No matter how generous or giving you are, if someone is not paying for their way in life they are “not pulling their own weight”.

Yeah, there are setbacks. But, not doing is not doing no matter how hard you try.

Oz was right. Your support of those in need is admirable, but your assertion that people who don’t pull their weight don’t deserve things was very generic and poorly expressed, and did not make your opinion and standing you said here meet with how you practice in life.

Just thought I’d interject that.

Ever hear “it is the thought that counts”?

In reply to Actually, mr oz media

I base people by their efforts, not their results. Not everyone is going to be successful, and many of the hardest workers I have ever known make less than 24K a year.

I am living in a state unreal unemployment thanks to Granhom “blowing us away”.

Wonder if we can sell/give Detroit to Ohio?

The thought that counts

In reply to Actually, mr oz media

is nice.

But it won’t buy you a box of Cheerios.

Food stamps do.

BTW, the unemployment where I live is almost as bad as Michigan. 13.8%.

Yours isn’t the only state.

Blah blah blah

In reply to Actually, mr oz media

you are not even honest enough to see there is a difference between someone that is working to improve their situation and having a hard time, vs someone that doesn’t try?

you are sad…..

No blah blah blah

In reply to Actually, mr oz media

I am saying if you’re poor, you’re poor. If you have nothing, whether you work or not to improve, poverty and all the good efforts in the world still gets you nothing.

Achievement (making that money) buys you food, not effort…not good will…not going to church.

That is, of course, within the parameters of “doing for yourself”, and not “taking a handout”.

Besides, what’s wrong with food stamps and welfare? Hm? Please explain how having take that is wrong?

posted in wrong spot…removed post

In reply to Actually, mr oz media

.

When did I comment on welfare and foodstamps?

In reply to Actually, mr oz media

I am not talking about if people should or shouldn’t get government assistance, I am talking about what I PERSONALLY do, and who I am willing to do it for.

YOU are bringing up welfare/foodstamps.
YOU are bringing up success/failure.

If you have a point, make it.

Are YOU saying regardless of effort, phuck’em all?

You couldn’t be more wrong

In reply to Actually, mr oz media

How can you flip flop that way? It boggles the mind really.

As me not understanding how some people fall on hard times, I have used that exact same argument here many times (especially regarding the reasons I see a need for welfare support) and people just don’t get it.

So if the government offers cost effective insurance plans, you see that as simply giving free medical to people out of your pocket, and you thus assume all people collecting such a plan would also be people who simply decide not to work and collect your dime instead. What a moron!

There are MANY people “making the effort and just not making ends meet” that simply cannot afford insurance premiums, perhaps they are in entry level jobs or have had cuts at work and don’t get a partial subsidy from the employer, that is another part of the plan is to make offering such support more affordable for smaller businesses.

In your world there is only YOU and everyone else should be just like YOU. People who are trying to BE you are worthy of support.

But what if a person is working full time, has a mortgage, has children a car and everything else that any hard working person could have, however they can’t afford such high premiums because they don’t get partial support from an employer? NOW they have options that were not available before.

What about the poorer neighourhoods where employers pay very little for people to do menial jobs and THEY can’t afford nor get benefits from the employer? they work just as hard if not harder than you, they pay taxes, they raise families and they get screwed with premiums? I suppose THEY qualify in your mind.

So where’s the line of division?

Anyone SHOULD be able to afford insurance if they are actively working or looking for work and all others should not? Kind of like welfare? But you don’t like welfare either as there are people that scam the system, just as they will medical.

So in essence, a flawless and perfect system would be okay but one that can be challenged or circumvented should not be put into action. Unfortunately ANY system is beaten and exploited, and usually the only people that added restraint stops are the people who are actually the ones who need and deserve such support.

Sorry JD, there ARE no perfect systems, but that doesn’t mean they have to ditch them all because some punk will get stitches and fractions of a cent come out of your tax dollars.

As for me being a dick to everyone and not helping those around me, f**k your fat hole you ignorant c**t.

I’m very confident that I do more to help people in a week than you do in a year.

Last week I got together with a friend and we went to three different local coffee bars that sell cakes, sandwiches and muffins. We found out they are throwing away food everyday, they can’t give it to the food bank because it’s perishable. So we took it upon ourselves to take the unsold products, twice a week to Main & Hastings (core of the drug addicted and homeless in Vancouver) and hand them out. they don’t earn, they don’t work, they are addicted to drugs or alcohol, once had families and have children, once were upstanding citizens and just fell on hard times that got worse to the point where the world gives up on them. THEY STILL DESERVE TO EAT, even though they don’t fit your criteria of who needs help.

Will you also be spending thanksgiving with your family or will you be at the homeless shelters serving them their Thanksgiving dinner? In other words, throw some money their way and let them take care of their own needs. You do realize that volounteer help is needed more than money with most such organizations.

When was the last time you and your family decided to participate in giving someone else Christmas? Buy and decorate a tree for them, take them dinner and presents, spend Christmas day with them? There’s more to it than donating money.

When was the last time you collected all of your old jackets and blankets and went to the streets to hand them out to people who look cold? Have you walked down an alley littered with drunks and junkies to help the few that are in need of warmth, a cup of coffee or a hot meal?

Don’t even TRY implying I don’t reach out others around me all the time, it’s not an annual event it’s a commitment to helping people. I don’t qualify people to see if they deserve my help, everyone is a human that had a mother and father, everyone deserves help where help can e provided.

I don’t believe you actually had the audacity to even suggest that, you ignorant f**k.

it’s not about particularly welfare or food stamps, but hand-outs

In reply to Actually, mr oz media

You’re so against them, jd.

Unless of course, you deem them okay.

When I had a mother in the hospital sick and lived on $20 for a month, did I get anyone giving me money? gas card? free trip to the salon? gift certificate for a bottle of scotch?

Nope.

The most I got was crashing at a buddy’s house or a cup of coffee if they were having one, or one of mom’s co workers would bring me a cake (just what my ass needed).

If a cop doesn’t pull you over for 5mph but will for 25mph over…is going 5mph over not breaking the speed limit law?

Taking a handout, whether from a food pantry, a neighbor, the US Dept of Agriculture cheese bank, etc., is a handout…no matter what its source.

My mother and father called taking things from others without absolute need or doing something for it “mooching”.

Saddest thing is though, I have a family in my neighborhood.

The one son comes over to bum money and stuff. I finally quit answering the door. I figure if he can get off his butt to come beg, he can take and put a nail on a broomstick and get a trash sack and go around and pick up aluminum cans and cash them in.

I tried to talk to him, and tell him he could do odd jobs. Guess it didn’t sink in.

You probably thought I would say it’s his right to get handouts, huh?

Welp, you’re wrong. Never ever said welfare (in its current form) was right. Never said begging was right. I said they have their times they’re needed, but never said they were right.

You just assume because I voted for Obama that I’m some bleeding heart extremist.

Well, I bleed for some people. But, I’m not extreme.

I just don’t let a bunch of weenies in a “think tank” or “party” tell me what my value set should be.

I’m my own person…at least, til I get married. Then, the wife will tell me how to behave. :^0

I know

In reply to Actually, mr oz media

But they are too hard to divide to consider ditching programs that many are worthy of receiving.

There will always be welfare scammers, there will always be a majorty of welfare recipients who actually warrant collecting it.

There will always be people who scam permanent disabilities and soak insurance companies, then there are the majority that are truly permanently disabled and warrant such support.

People even scam food banks when they don’t need to, that doesn’t mean we should do without food banks.

Just because peopel can and will scam ANY system designed, it doesn’t mean such systems are bad or have failed us. There HAs to be some leniency offered in such systems of else people with valid reasons may be excluded from benefits. Those tiny openings and allowances are easily exploited.

If we tighten them down, as they trie dwith wlefare here in the late 80’s, we end up cutting off people who are really in need and warrant such su