eternal light Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah J Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Eternal Light and Mary Hartman---Thanks to you both for lightening up this thread. Great song!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Hi all, Isn't 'retain the decorum/U.S. Senator', an oxymoron? But Blarney,isn't, he is a Rep. Still, he is a scum-bag,the best there is. Good post,O! KB D'oh! Gave him more rank than he has. Yes, you are correct sir. Barney is indeed a Representative and not a Senator. I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Eternal Light and Mary Hartman---Thanks to you both for lightening up this thread. Great song!! You're welcome, Deborah J! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackandGold Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 That's very true that some people do like to help others and aren't in it for the money. These days many doctors in private practice will tell you the pay isn't what it used to be. Insurance companies don't pay as much to them and they end up having to take many more patients and medical mal practice insurance is astronomical. I can only speak for the insurance company that I work for, but on average, our reimbursement to hospitals and physicians is approximately 20%-30% more than what Medicare reimburses for the same service. I believe that most commercial insurers reimburse (ballpark) what we do. One argument is that without private insurance supplementing what health care providers make from Medicare, the health care providers would not be able to survive, driving a %of providers out of business. The counter argument is that higher reimbursement from private insurers ultimately drives up the costs of services. I'm not going to argue either way, my point is that the government run plan reimburses far less than the private carriers. Obviously I am biased, and have concern from my own personal economic standpoint, but all the hype about a govt plan makes me wonder how familiar people are with Medicare and the associated costs to the individual. Since Medicare is the govt plan that I think you could assume an under 65 plan would be based on, there are quite a number of costs that could ultimately be applied. First, Medicare part A which covers inpatient care, has a minimum deductible of $1068. After 60 days, there is a per day deductible of around $300. Once you have been inpatient 90 days, you have around a $500 per day cost until you exhaust your benefit at $150 days. You'll get 90 of those days back next year. Rarely does anyone stay inpatient for more than 60 days in a year, so the average cost of a hospital stay is $1068. This deductible goes up almost every year. Skilled nursing facility is also covered under part A. The first 20 days are covered in full and then the next 80 are subject to a per day deductible of $130. Medicare part A does not have a premium if you worked long enough to qualify. Part B which covers most physician services has a premium of around $100 a month, an annual deductible of $135 and then covered services are reimbursed at 80%. Neither A or B covers drugs. You have to have a medicare part d plan to have drug coverage. This gets really complicated and is not my area of expertise. The standard plan has a deductible, drugs are reimbursed at 75%, until you reach the donut hole where you pay the total cost of the drug until you have spend a total of around $4000. There are different plans you can purchase that have varying premiums and deductibles/copayments. So if you have a hospital stay, a couple of doctors charges, and are on any sort of medications, you can see how the out of pocket costs of this adds up. If the part A, part B and part D is too confusing, you can purchase a medicare advantage plan which is basically a medicare replacement program offered though private insurers that is generally a PPO or HMO type of product. The government subsidizes this. This is less complicated but many commercial carriers in some areas of the country are no longer offering these because the government subsidy is too low and the insurance carrier has to increase the premiums to cover it. My only point after all of this typing, is that the current over 65 government plan, is costly, confusing and pays providers less than what they say they should be reimbursed. Additionally, the government pays insurers like us to administer it. So if you have a question about your medicare coverage or claim you are calling someone at my company, because we are the medicare administrator for the state. Afer working in the business for 20+ years, I have no confidence that the feds can do a better job than we do. Again, I am speaking only for the company that I work for. I worked on implementing the HIPAA legislation for 6 years (clinton), and the HSA/QHDHP plans for 3 years (GW). I am pretty sure whatever occurs my job is secure for at least a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Bill Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Thanks for the info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPN Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 I say we shoot everyone and let god sort it out. Oh yeah, almost forgot I'm an atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPN Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 How about posting some data to support your conclusions. Every poll I've seen says the majority are against the changes the dems want to make, especially "single payer" which people oppose at the rate of almost 2 to 1 and is the ultimate aim of the lefty's. The reason the people are "quivering in our socks" is they don't want the dems to ram it through anyhow like they are talking about doing. (the nuclear option) source You & I must be reading different polls. I've heard the majority support Single Payer & Public Option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPN Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Just 34% of voters nationwide support the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats if the so-called “public option” is removed. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 57% oppose the plan if it doesn't include a government-run health insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted August 26, 2009 Author Share Posted August 26, 2009 Hmm... Put up or shut up? I like it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 This is my favorite part of the whole health care reform debate. The majority of people that appear to be protesting at the town halls and what not are senior citizens. I've seen quite a few photos taken where there are even people in wheelchairs or at least people who appear to be disabled in some fashion. And they're screaming that they don't want the government in their health care and yada yada yada. Ummm, hey Mr. Elderly Gentlemen.....don't you use Medicare/Medicaid? Isn't that run by the.............GOVERNMENT?!?!?!?!?! The very people protesting government-sponsored health care are using government-sponsored health care. The sad thing is, they have NO clue that they are being used by right-wing talking heads and people on the fringes of the party to try and muddy the waters. They have no clue. The majority of people who attend protests, both right-wing and left-wing, have no fucking clue why they're there. They're walking around, waving signs and screaming things, completely oblivious to what it is they are protesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 I'd comment on this, but I have no data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Hartman Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 I don't give a flying squirrel what they do any longer. Hee.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah J Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Hmm... Put up or shut up? I like it... I see this man running for President in a few years!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Hmm... Put up or shut up? I like it... I would refer you and Rep. Weiner to BlackandGold's earlier post. Typical liberal grandstanding - actually submitting a throwaway amendment that is disingenuous in nature. Medicare is an established program that was made available to a portion of the populace who NEEDED it. As opposed to, say, forcing an overwhelming percentage of Americans to pay extra for (on top of what they currently pay) something they already have, and eventually be forced to switch to anyway. They can scream "option" all they want, but it's well-established that single-payer is the ultimate goal of Obamacare, in his own words. So it's a flawed premise Oscar Meyer has based his amendment on - ending an established program for a specific portion of Americans that ISN'T compulsory vs. preventing the establishment of a compulsory program for ALL Americans, a majority of which are opposed to, oh by the way. BTW, Nathan, you kinda shied away from my question to you earlier in this thread... Would you have a problem if your school lowered some of your grades, lowering your GPA a little, in order to give a few grade-points to students who weren't doing as well, so that their GPA could be raised to a decent level? It would seem only fair. Some people aren't lucky enough to get as good of grades as others. C'mon, Nathan, as you just said, "Put up or shut up? I like it..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 The majority of people who attend protests, both right-wing and left-wing, have no fucking clue why they're there. They're walking around, waving signs and screaming things, completely oblivious to what it is they are protesting. Considering none of these assclowns have read nor do they care to read the bill(s) themselves, I would submit that it's the Senators and Representatives who are holding these town hall meetings to begin with who have no fucking clue. Considering many of the protesters have been demanding for these idiots to actually read the bill they're trying to sell people on, I find them more credible than a representative who, without actually reading the bill, comes out to tout the party line. As for people having no fucking clue, 85% of Americans HAVE health insurance, so they actually have personal experience with the system, and as such actually do have a clue. But you have no problem assigning them as mindless conserva-bots who do what talk-radio tells them. God forbid I ever-so-slightly imply your conclusions are influenced by similar left-wing marching orders. One thing's for sure - all those "supporters" of Obamacare, with their pre-printed signs they were issued as they arrived and spend the entire meeting shouting down those who have questions or opposing views DEFINITELY have a clue why they're there - to out-shout anyone opposing Obamacare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPN Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 This is my favorite part of the whole health care reform debate. The majority of people that appear to be protesting at the town halls and what not are senior citizens. I've seen quite a few photos taken where there are even people in wheelchairs or at least people who appear to be disabled in some fashion. And they're screaming that they don't want the government in their health care and yada yada yada. Ummm, hey Mr. Elderly Gentlemen.....don't you use Medicare/Medicaid? Isn't that run by the.............GOVERNMENT?!?!?!?!?! The very people protesting government-sponsored health care are using government-sponsored health care. The sad thing is, they have NO clue that they are being used by right-wing talking heads and people on the fringes of the party to try and muddy the waters. They have no clue. The majority of people who attend protests, both right-wing and left-wing, have no fucking clue why they're there. They're walking around, waving signs and screaming things, completely oblivious to what it is they are protesting. I don't agree the left has no idea what they are protesting, but I agree with the rest of what you said. I just saw part of a Town Meeting in WI on CNN the other night. A retired teacher (looked like he was probably in his 80's) got up and said that very thing-that he didn't want a government takover of health care and that he doesn't think anyone would want that. WHO DO THESE PEOPLE THINK MEDICARE IS RUN BY?!?!?!?!? Fortunately in this case the next guy who stood up to speak was a caseworker or underwriter of some kind who clarified that, and he had a list of many programs that were once called "socialism" by those who didn't want them to pass-included medicare, social security, the 40 hour work week... And these tv ads by America's Health Insurance Companies that say if we work together for reform the term pre-existing condtions can be a thing of the past...YOU BASTARDS INVENTED THE TERM...you're making the ads because you know the pressure is on, so you have to make it look like you're part of the solution, instead of the PROBLEM! From these ads, we're supposed to believe you're suddenly altruistic?! Oh well, it will probably work for you-if people are dumb enough to say no government takeover/don't touch my medicare, they'll probably believe you're taking the initiative to improve the very system you've created that kills and bankrupts us, while you make billions in profit, out of a sudden attack of conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 It's the first play in her little liberal play book - label anyone who disagrees with socialist utopian policies as a moron, a bigot, misinformed, etc. Folks, you must remember Electrophile worked on the Obama campaign and having drunk the Kool-Aid cannot seem to differentiate between her President and her country. Did you not notice you're using exactly the same rhetorical strategy that you're accusing Electrophile of using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Steve, Steve, Steve. You are so full of fail, I wonder how you wipe your ass without poking your eye out. I didn't work on the Obama campaign in that I was never paid for anything. I merely volunteered and passed out some flyers and talked to people at community events. I think I did that for about 4 months. I was hardly his campaign manager and speechwriter. Secondly, you wouldn't know what socialism was if it came up and kicked you in the taint. Scandinavian countries are socialist. We are not. Nor will we ever be because Obama is not trying to turn us into a socialist country. You talk about ME drinking Kool-Aid, ain't that the pot calling the kettle black. I swear, you would run down the street buck naked with a roman candle coming out of your ass if Rush O'Hannity said it's what "real Americans" would do. I don't watch MSNBC, I don't read liberal blogs, I don't get my news and information from the places you stereotypically think Democrats do. Lastly, I can differentiate between the President and the country. One is a man the other is a collection of states. See? Not hard. Really Steve.....take a Valium, lie down and breath deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 I haven't said Electrophile has no idea what she's talking about! I do say it's unfortunate most everything she says has an overt liberal bias because obviously that is what she is - a bleeding heart liberal eager to spend everyone else's money but her own solving societies ills. That doesn't bother me, but what is aggravating is how she constantly frames our exchanges as "D vs. R" which is completely false. I am not a Republican. I do not identify with any political party. You said she drank the kool-aid, in other words that she is incapable of thinking straight and making fundamental distinctions (such as between president and country), and mindlessly follows her leader. In other words, exactly what you said she accused others of doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 You said she drank the kool-aid, in other words that she is incapable of thinking straight and making fundamental distinctions (such as between president and country), and mindlessly follows her leader. In other words, exactly what you said she accused others of doing. Apparently everyone else does it but him. Oh yes, Obama is just spending tons and tons of money. If you're not a Republican and you're certainly not a Democrat......where was your condemnation of the money Bush was farting out of his ass toward Iraq? To the tune of TRILLIONS, mind you. Not billions. TRILLIONS. Trillions of money WE DIDN'T HAVE. I don't like the amount of money Obama is spending. Never have. I liked the idea of the Stimulus, but he's only released about 15% of the money and to see a greater return on that, he needs to release more of it to the states so they can start getting their job markets off its ass to some degree. I know here in North Carolina we could use the money badly. Other states have an even greater need for it. Maybe I need to put it in my signature or something so I don't need to repeat it every time I talk about the man. However, we need health care reform. I don't give a rat's ass if you think we do or not. The fact is, we do. What I want is for Obama to get something done on that end and yet have it be less expensive than the numbers I've been currently reading about. A happy medium if one ever existed. I don't know how that'll get done seeing as he wants to work with Republicans on compromises but that shrieking harpy Nancy Pelosi is tying his hands up. I was so glad to read that Democrats in Congress are getting sick of her. Replace her with someone more centrist, for the love of GOD. Obama is not as far to the left as people think he is, he actually had to do what Clinton. Campaign left, govern center. This country wouldn't know what to do with a real "liberal" in the White House. All our Dem presidents for the most part have been pretty center-left, rather than left-left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 BTW Steve, why do you insist on using Obama's full name when I've never seen you call any other President in recent history by their full name. Are you trying to emphasize the fact his middle name is Hussein because you think it has meaning outside of the fact it's his middle name? I've seen you do it quite a few times, but yet whenever you mention Bush or Clinton or any other politician for that matter.....you don't use their full name, just their last name. Rather odd, don't you think? You seem to have an obsession with the man's middle name and for the life of me, I cannot imagine why. Or maybe I can, I just don't want to think you're that ridiculous. That's a serious question, I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I don't see a reason to use a person's full legal name when addressing them unless they're being born, being buried or being sworn into the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 So you are that ridiculous. Imagine that. I cannot believe you linked to WorldNetDaily. You cannot tell me you're not a Republican when you link to WorldNetDaily. That would be like me linking to DailyKos or The Huffington Post after saying I'm not a Democrat. You'd think I was off my rocker. WorldNetDaily?! What next, Steve? FreeRepublic? Little Green Footballs? National Review Online? Michelle Malkin's blog? Holy crap, you expect that to be taken seriously? Holy freakin' footballs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 WorldNetDaily is the right-wing equivalent to The National Enquirer. It's further to the right than Pat Buchanan. Would you choose a story from the National Enquirer to back up an assertion you were making? Probably not. You say something utterly preposterous such as "render a subservient bow" and "Since he has chosen to comport himself as a Muslim subject" and then post something from freakin' WorldNutDaily to back it up. No, that was a conscious choice on your part. If such a thing were in fact true (and it ain't) there would have been far more reputable sources at the top of the search results you could have linked to. But you chose WorldNutDaily. Why oh why do you claim you're not a Republican when you espouse right-wing talking points, espouse traditional social conservative values and then link to the right-wing's version of a tabloid magazine? Can you in even the smallest possible way see how someone might not believe you when you say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 WorldNetDaily is the right-wing equivalent to The National Enquirer. It's further to the right than Pat Buchanan. Would you choose a story from the National Enquirer to back up an assertion you were making? Probably not. You say something utterly preposterous such as "render a subservient bow" and "Since he has chosen to comport himself as a Muslim subject" and then post something from freakin' WorldNutDaily to back it up. No, that was a conscious choice on your part. If such a thing were in fact true (and it ain't) there would have been far more reputable sources at the top of the search results you could have linked to. But you chose WorldNutDaily. Why oh why do you claim you're not a Republican when you espouse right-wing talking points, espouse traditional social conservative values and then link to the right-wing's version of a tabloid magazine? Can you in even the smallest possible way see how someone might not believe you when you say that? There are THOUSANDS of links to choose from. I went with the first one that provided photographic stills. If you go to You Tube there are HUNDREDS of video links. Now you presume to suggest it didn't happen? Who is the nut-job in this exhange again? I don't "espouse" anything, I give a clear articulation of my beliefs, which are primarily based upon principles and conservative values. This is neither unique nor exclusive to the Republican Party. If similarities are drawn than so be it, but I have once again given you straight-forward and honest answers to your inquiries. Carry on with mocking my views, but know they will not change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.