View Full Version : Brown says
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8Y2sAdDw98
I heard that on NPR. I liked that line about getting past campaign mode.
not sure how I take it. he is saying health care needs changes and there are some decent things within the bill that wouldn't be bad. no coverage for pre-exisiting conditions...not sure how I feel about this. I am young and don't have any issues but for someone that has something already, that could be an issue. I could understand if you are looking for an extended warranty on a vehicle and you the transmission is shot and motor is blown, but for people it is a little bit different.
The bottom line comes down to he said he would be the 41st senator.
the dems have already said they are going to back off the issue and still try to get something together but more along the lines of non-controversial issues...problem there is always controversy on everything.
the also said they wouldn't be passing the exact senate bill in the house...they wouldn't even come close to having the votes for it.
I trust dems like I trust my little puppy around a starving coyote but I really don't think all of them can come to an understanding and stand together even if they have to take it in the ass a little from each other.
health care is all but dead IMO. Obama wants it and wants to salvage whatever he can to make good to his promise but the people don't want it and the senators and congressman most definitely don't want to risk not getting re-elected to help obama and his agenda. what they don't know is the people are going to continue to be pissed because our hard earned money is being given away in the hundreds of billions, they want to tax us more...on our own health of all things, 10% of people don't have jobs and most people don't feel like the .gov is doing a damn thing to help create jobs like they promised.
I think operation wetback needs to go into effect. that will create jobs.
google it and you will see.
GreenScoutII
01-21-2010, 12:25
Ok Sniper, I'll google that and check it out.
As for healthcare reform, what they were trying to get through was a losing proposition all the way around. It would have been incredibly expensive and would not have made medical care more accessable to anyone. The way I saw it, they were attempting to force people to purchase insurance from private companies. This situation was a lot like immenent domain in my mind. Completely unconstitutional.
Ironically, the left is as pissed at Obama as we are, but for different reasons. I have some pretty liberal family members (in laws) and they are of the opinion that a Canada style system is the reform we need. Of course, I disagree on that point. But one point I actually do agree with them on is that the bill they were trying to get through would have served only to enrich insurance companies.
We do need reform to our system. The socialist solution (Obama) is not it though.
I'm not so sure that it would enrichen insurance companies. When you have to write EVERYBODY, you can't choose your desirable market that will allow you to make money and serve your customers.
Just take Katrina for example. Insurance companies weren't required to write insurance on anyone but those that they wanted to. Katrina caused several insurance companies to go insolvent and go out of business. When you HAVE to insure everyone, there is no protection for you in the event of a disaster, not to mention that forced insurance violates and undermines the whole idea behind insurance in the first place.
Just imagine what would happen if health insurance was forced and there was an actual outbreak of something like swineflu on the scale that the media always scared you into believing. Having to pay for the medical costs of all those people, just to have them die and stop making payments would ruin the entire industry.
Troublco
01-21-2010, 12:50
My mother lives in Canada. You know what they do if they need something sooner than the system says they'll get it? They come down here. There are a few good things about that system, but there are (almost) always a few good things about any system. Does there need to be some health care reform? Undoubtedly! I've dealt with enough crap from insurance companies and hospitals to know. But Obamacare ain't it. I really fail to understand why anyone would think that the Government would be the outfit to run a program like that. They screw programs up like rabbits procreate, and then sit there looking wide eyed and confused when people tell 'em what they think about how things are run. [Rant1]
We've been over this before a few times. Less regulation and take the insurance out of health care. Health care and insurance are two different concepts that shouldn't be mixed.
We've been over this before a few times. Less regulation and take the insurance out of health care. Health care and insurance are two different concepts that shouldn't be mixed.
Less regulation in which side? Healthcare or insurance?
Great question. I meant the health industry. When I say less regulation, I don't mean back alley abortions and bathtub births either. I (and a lot of people) like to use lasik eye surgery as a great example. Health insurance doesn't pay for it, so people price shop it, thus pushing the prices down each year, as the technology gets better and better. At the same time, it is not so heavily regulated that they have to jump through hoops and can't keep their prices down for the public. That industry is a perfect example of how the health care industry should be handled.
Excellent analogy Stuart. And to add some more food for thought: How many people have lost their eye sight due to Lasik surgery? How many people have lost their lives or have had other health issues (septic shock, etc) in regards to abortions? Wonder if a parallel could be made between the regulations of those two industries and the price points of insurance...
So what about regulation on the insurance side? Less or more, or is the balance right?
I'm struggling to come up with an example of government regulation on insurance companies that hinders the way that they do business so much that it effects the customer. I'm sure there are things that the insurance companies don't like (like in any industry) but I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Obamacare would change that however, by forcing insurance companies to cover everyone. Naturally, the insurance companies would push back and just raise rates. However, Obamacare is also trying to tax the profit out of what they call "Cadillac policies," so insurance companies would have a thin line between being forced to provide policies cheap enough for people to afford, and charging enough for those same policies without going out of business.
I can think of one example of poor laws that are supposed to have the customer in mind, and just gouges the insurance industry.
Let's say that I rear end Big Bear, total his car, and break his neck. In Colorado, what will happen is that he'll get a lawyer and sue me for his injuries. My insurance company will pay for his car, and pay for his injuries and lawyer representation. If Big Bear gets money from the attorney, then my insurance company will pay back the attorney, or pay back Big Bear, who is then responsible for paying back his attorney.
In Montana, Big Bear would lawyer up and sue me for damages to his car and his broken neck. My insurance company would pay for his car. Then, the Big Bear's lawyer would front big bear some money for his medical bills. My insurance company would then have to pay Big Bear for his injuries, then ALSO pay his lawyer back the money he fronted for those same injuries. Basically, my insurance company would end up paying for Big Bear's injuries twice. Once to the lawyer, and once to Big Bear. I've been out of claims for a few years, and I'm getting rusty, but insurance companies can be made to pay for the same accident/injuries up to three different times. Needless to say, insurance companies hate doing business in Montana, and attorneys love it because they can sit around and rake in the money. That's the one example of legislation having a serious negative affect on private business in the insurance industry. What do you think that does to rates up there?
I'm struggling to come up with an example of government regulation on insurance companies that hinders the way that they do business so much that it effects the customer. I'm sure there are things that the insurance companies don't like (like in any industry) but I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Obamacare would change that however, by forcing insurance companies to cover everyone. Naturally, the insurance companies would push back and just raise rates.
Ok, but isn't the end result of that that we have 10-30 million Americans uninsured right now, and 20-40 thousand people dying every year because they can't afford health insurance? Or are you content with that (meant as an honest question rather than an attack on your character)?
I mean, one end result of people not having insurance is that it pushes our rates up anyway, which was one of the problems this bill was meant to address.
No. We don't have food insurance, but people still manage to eat right? There are a lot of reasons that people aren't insured, and most of them can't be addressed by any type of legislation. If I can't afford insurance now, I'm sure as shit not going to be able to afford it when it is mandatory and the prices go up. The only difference is that I'll turn into a subject of the government because I'll owe the gov fines because I couldn't pay for something I couldn't afford.
No one dies because they don't have health insurance. Sure, people dying is unfortunate, but nothing is ever going to change that. The human race has thrived just fine without even the concept of health insurance for who know how many millions of years. Crying about people dying because they are uninsured now is just silly.
No one has said it yet, but they are bound to at some point. The difference between requiring car insurance and health insurance is that the car insurance that is required is liability insurance to help you pay for the damages that you do to other people. Not having health insurance is never going to affect anyone but you. So your family spends a lot of money trying to keep you alive? No one made them. That is a cold, hard, black and white way to look at the issue, but it is the reality.
Again, being uninsured doesn't kill anyone and never will. If there comes a time that things are so expensive that people just can't afford treatment, more insurance and third parties still isn't going to be the answer.
No. We don't have food insurance, but people still manage to eat right? There are a lot of reasons that people aren't insured, and most of them can't be addressed by any type of legislation. If I can't afford insurance now, I'm sure as shit not going to be able to afford it when it is mandatory and the prices go up.Yeah, one of the misconceptions of the bill was that people were going to have to pay 'fines' if they didn't want to get health insurance. I thought it sounded counter-intuitive too until I found out what was actually proposed.
No one dies because they don't have health insurance. Sure, people dying is unfortunate, but nothing is ever going to change that. The human race has thrived just fine without even the concept of health insurance for who know how many millions of years. Crying about people dying because they are uninsured now is just silly.
Is that a semantic argument or a serious one? I mean, technically, everyone dies due to the cessation of respiration and electrical activity in the brain, but I'm not going to say no one dies of cancer or heart attacks.
So your family spends a lot of money trying to keep you alive? No one made them. That is a cold, hard, black and white way to look at the issue, but it is the reality.
I guess that's the crux of the issue, isn't it? I wonder how many of those opposed to healthcare reform would feel the same way if opponents came out and said this rather than peppering in words like 'socialism,' 'Nazi,' and 'death panel.'
I'm not trying to pick a fight here, by the way. I have health insurance. Fortunately, I have never had to test it to the extent where I would find out what it really covers or not, but I imagine eventually I will... unless healthcare reform is passed in the future, which I believe will also eventually happen for demographic and sociological reasons more than anything.
Simple enough, Get goverment out of private sector bussiness.. Lower taxes, get rid of HUD, EPA and a few other letters of the alphabet.. Make welfare leeches WORK for the money, plenty of trash along the hiways,, Keep them to tired to breed. Then maybe, I might be able to spend more time working than throwing the ball for the dog..
What was actually proposed as far as not getting health insurance?
If the government makes health insurance mandatory, and at the same time makes it illegal for health insurance companies to deny coverage for any reason, what happens when people just don't pay?
Health insurance is the whole reason that people can't afford health care in the first place. People don't even know how much something costs, nor do they care. Why should they? They aren't paying for it.
What was actually proposed as far as not getting health insurance?
From what I understood, it was along the lines of if you refuse to pay, then a capped amount would be garnished from your salary/savings and used to provide you with a basic level of insurance.
It's fair enough if you don't have health insurance because you decide it's a risk you're willing to take, but those people still get sick, and when they get sick they go to hospitals. The hospitals can't refuse to treat them so the costs they incur have to be made up somewhere, and they're made up via our premiums.
Should my car payments be higher because some people don't pay their loans back?
I've needed a car in my life 1,000 times more than I've ever needed health coverage.
I think the biggest problem with health care in this country is insurance. Why the hell is a fundamental service so unaffordable? Answer: Insurance.
Once people became insulated from the real costs of health care, they simply consumed without regard to the cost or need. For the privilege of not having to understand or be involved in the business aspect of your health care, you allow insurance companies to tack on a 30% fee. Hospitals and doctors in turn inflate their prices to protect their bottom lines from the encroachment of said fees. Since you don't see the bill, you don't care. Since you don't care there's no driving force prompting health care providers and insurance companies to compete on pricing. End result is ever spiraling costs.
Could you imagine how expensive food would be if you had to pay food insurance and show an insurance card every time you went grocery shopping? Those with insurance would consume everything without regard to price. Grocery stores would spiral prices ever upward and those without insurance would starve because they couldn't afford the sticker price.
While I can understand the concept of 'catastrophic' health insurance to guard against the financial burden of an expensive illness (cancer, organ transplant, etc), I see no reason why normal day to day health care needs should require insurance. This concept is no different that having insurance on your house in case it burns down. That same insurance isn't required to go to Home Depot when you need to re-paint the exterior.
I think the biggest problem with health care in this country is insurance. Why the hell is a fundamental service so unaffordable? Answer: Insurance.
Once people became insulated from the real costs of health care, they simply consumed without regard to the cost or need. For the privilege of not having to understand or be involved in the business aspect of your health care, you allow insurance companies to tack on a 30% fee. Hospitals and doctors in turn inflate their prices to protect their bottom lines from the encroachment of said fees. Since you don't see the bill, you don't care. Since you don't care there's no driving force for health care providers and insurance companies compete on pricing. End result is ever spiraling costs.
Could you imagine how expensive food would be if you had to pay food insurance and show an insurance card every time you went grocery shopping? Those with insurance would consume everything without regard to price. Grocery stores would spiral prices ever upward and those without insurance would starve because they couldn't afford the sticker price.
While I can understand the concept of 'catastrophic' health insurance to guard against the financial burden of an expensive illness (cancer, organ transplant, etc), I see no reason why normal day to day health care needs should require insurance. This concept is no different that having insurance on your house in case it burns down. That same insurance isn't required to go to Home Depot when you need to re-paint the exterior.
This is exactly it everyone. Like I've said before, "health care" and "insurance" are two completely different concepts that should not be mixed. This is exactly why Lasik is so cheap. No health insurance so people price shop.
I remember reading on Slate a few months ago an article comparing two different markets. One was McAllen, Texas (I remember it because that's where my 360 went to be repaired and it pained me to imagine the woman I spoke to on the phone with the gorgeous accent was probably a chronically obese diabetic) which has the highest healthcare costs in the country and among the crappiest actual health in the country, and the other was somewhere (I forget where exactly because they had nothing to do with fixing my 360 so screw them) where it was all run by the Mayo Clinic and they got better treatment for less.
In Texas all the doctors were partners in the actual hospitals so they had a vested interest in ordering as many tests and treatments as possible.
Here's the article in question, from the New Yorker, via Slate. It's long, but fascinating.
http://tinyurl.com/qwh8yg
Ok, but isn't the end result of that that we have 10-30 million Americans uninsured right now, and 20-40 thousand people dying every year because they can't afford health insurance? Or are you content with that (meant as an honest question rather than an attack on your character)?
I mean, one end result of people not having insurance is that it pushes our rates up anyway, which was one of the problems this bill was meant to address.
I will have to make a little interjection here. what about the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants here that come in and get free medical help?
That is a large part of the reason people can't afford insurance. when the hospitals have to sit on losses like these and can't deny saving a persons life or delivering a baby, that cost gets handled somewhere else...that being out of my insurance premiums.
I spent $1200 on health care coverage last year. I used all of maybe $250 for 2 dentist visits, and eye doctor visit and a medical required for flying.
Same with car insurance. I spent ~$900 last year, and didn't make a claim...same thing for the last 8 years or so, yet I am supposed to have coverage for un-insured motor vehicle? that doesn't make sense to me....maybe Stuart can clear that up for me.
I find it very unfortunate that people die due to health reasons, but we all go sometime. Even Kennedy who had the best health care of anyone out there couldn't be saved. 20-40 thousand, where did you get this number?
how many more die in auto accidents, or walking down the street, overeating causing diabetes or heart attacks, clogged arteries.
It is unfortunate that everyone can't be covered but there are more than likely a lot more underlying reasons than they just simply can't afford it.
Talk to doctors and they will confirm...one example: my moms boyfriend tells me he is always amazed the people who are welfare, getting disability checks stroll in with an "emergency" and he already knows the hospital will see little to no money for the visit yet this person has the newest cell phone and they can sit there and jab with friends or text till their fingers fall off. Do those people also deserve to live off my tax dollars to cover their insurance as well...seems like I am already doing that, so why raise my taxes further, somebody is going to get rich, those un-insured are still going to get covered by my pay is going to take a hit. I find that to be the most unfair and apparently so do most of the other tax payers out there...even the ones in MA.
Simple enough, Get goverment out of private sector bussiness.. Lower taxes, get rid of HUD, EPA and a few other letters of the alphabet.. Make welfare leeches WORK for the money, plenty of trash along the hiways,, Keep them to tired to breed. Then maybe, I might be able to spend more time working than throwing the ball for the dog..
100% agree.
.gov in the private sector only means there is 1 more person to pay except the .gov makes sure you pay thanks to the IRS...there is another one we should eliminate.
What ever happened to people in prison making license plates, digging ditches, actually doing some work to repay.
I am sure there is some still going on, and I know there is because I used to have Trustees from the adams county detention facility work for me at the adams county parks, but it sure does seem like prison is more of a cake walk that a punishment for crimes.
Colorado Luckydog
01-21-2010, 21:12
Illegal immagrants, welfare abuse, and the government screwing it up is the problem with health care prices. A good start to repair the problem would be, open the state lines for competition, make welfare participants pass a drug test or deny coverage, and start arresting every illegal fuckstick and send them home.
We know the causes of the problem, we just gave the left wing suckers so much rope, they may hang us all. The problems may be to big to repair. It will take a fed up America, the firing of almost all of our politicians, and putting the right people in charge. Basically this country needs an enema!
I will have to make a little interjection here. what about the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants here that come in and get free medical help?
It might surprise you, bearing in mind my political leanings (although I'm - for the sake of argument happy to identify myself as - a liberal and I own and shoot guns so that probably blows someone's mind) that I have no problem with the idea that if an illegal immigrant shows up at a hospital they can be patched up/made stable (basic human decency after all) and then returned to their country of citizenship.
20-40 thousand, where did you get this number?
Various studies put the number anywhere between 18-45 thousand a year. Same with the numbers of uninsured, various studies cite different numbers. Critics of those figures suggest that includes illegal immigrants and people who choose to go without insurance rather than can't afford/get which is why I said 10-30million.
It might surprise you, bearing in mind my political leanings (although I'm - for the sake of argument happy to identify myself as - a liberal and I own and shoot guns so that probably blows someone's mind) that I have no problem with the idea that if an illegal immigrant shows up at a hospital they can be patched up/made stable (basic human decency after all) and then returned to their country of citizenship.
Various studies put the number anywhere between 18-45 thousand a year. Same with the numbers of uninsured, various studies cite different numbers. Critics of those figures suggest that includes illegal immigrants and people who choose to go without insurance rather than can't afford/get which is why I said 10-30million.
well your liberal thinking is off since illegal immigrants don't go home after them come get patched up. The have their kids here and then they end up in the public education system where they not only require special classes (ESL), but they also get free lunch on my tax dollars. Everyone in my family except me is a teacher. I substitute teach. I see it every day I sub and it pisses me off every day I sub because 90% of those little fuckers are the most disrespectful kids I have ever dealt with.
AND that still doesn't avoid the fact that my tax dollars are going freely to someone who broke the FUCKING LAW when they crossed the border illegally then took advantage of the insurance premiums I pay each month working in MY country. What gives them ANY right to come over here and take something from me. That is stealing, not getting "patched up". How could you possibly think that is okay....
You still haven't linked any of your "various studies". I can make up random numbers all day and tell you experts and critics put the number figure around this, but in the end it is like liberal thinking...all bullshit.
Illegal immigrants are criminals from the day they set foot on US soil, so they don't count as un-insured because they shouldn't be here in the first place.
People who CHOOSE not to have health insurance should have that right...not be fined for it like the dems want. If they feel they will be okay and live a safe enough or secluded enough life then fine, that is their choice but their numbers also don't get counted.
well your liberal thinking is off since illegal immigrants don't go home after them come get patched up.
No, your conservative reading and comprehension is off because I didn't say that. I said patch them up and send them home. I don't mean cure them and point them in the direction of their home country and say "do you promise to go back there?"
AND that still doesn't avoid the fact that my tax dollars are going freely to someone who broke the FUCKING LAW when they crossed the border illegally then took advantage of the insurance premiums I pay each month working in MY country. What gives them ANY right to come over here and take something from me.Agreed. I didn't say any different and I'm not sure where you got the idea that I did from anything I wrote.
That is stealing, not getting "patched up". How could you possibly think that is okay....Again, nowhere did I say anything like that. What the hell do you teach?
You still haven't linked any of your "various studies". I can make up random numbers all day and tell you experts and critics put the number figure around this, but in the end it is like liberal thinking...all bullshit.Obviously there's no point in linking to any of the studies, is there? One, I'm a liberal so I'm probably lying anyway. Two, even if I wasn't, you wouldn't read them. And three, if you did read them, you would just dismiss them as bullshit. After all, you can prove anything with facts.
Illegal immigrants are criminals from the day they set foot on US soil, so they don't count as un-insured because they shouldn't be here in the first place.Agreed, didn't say anything different.
People who CHOOSE not to have health insurance should have that right...not be fined for it like the dems want. If they feel they will be okay and live a safe enough or secluded enough life then fine, that is their choice but their numbers also don't get counted.Meh, whatever. You seem so angry, all the time.
MuzzleFlash
01-22-2010, 01:02
Speaking of liberal bogeymen, have you seen the Bamster on TV now? Suddenly he's Teddy Rosevelt taking on the banks and insurance companies like they're choking us to death.
If the insurance companies are doing so well, why is their average return on capital around 5%? Shit, that's barely better than a federally insured CD which is a helluva lot less risky than underwriting medical bills of an aging obese population of couch potatoes (like me).
That evil Goldman Sachs just put down a big compensation package for their employees after a banner quarter. But they took TARP money. So what? Once its paid back with interest, our interest in this company doesn't matter anymore. Don't get me wrong, I wish we'd never bailed out Wall Street, Chrysler or GM because losses and failure teach lasting lessons that bailouts do not. Nothing should be too big to fail. Obama wants to ensure this by overregulating and downsizing banks because he's a socialist. I want to let them fail because I'm a capitalist.
Why is it that people just go off on corporations without researching what the hell they are talking about? Why should I give a shit what a CEO gets paid if the company never took TARP money or if they did, paid it back with interest?
What a CEO gets paid is up to the stock holders of their company. Steve Jobs may be a liberal narcissist asshole that I couldn't even stomach an elevator ride with, but who can deny the billions of market cap he's brought home for Apple shareholders? Is he worth a big fat paycheck? Hell yes.
Instead of taxing outsized executive bonuses 75% as the socialists in the White House want to do, we should be ensuring that shareholders have a bill of rights allowing them to discover and call into question the compensation practices of the company without having to wage a proxy war.
No, your conservative reading and comprehension is off because I didn't say that. I said patch them up and send them home. I don't mean cure them and point them in the direction of their home country and say "do you promise to go back there?"
Agreed. I didn't say any different and I'm not sure where you got the idea that I did from anything I wrote.
Again, nowhere did I say anything like that. What the hell do you teach?
Obviously there's no point in linking to any of the studies, is there? One, I'm a liberal so I'm probably lying anyway. Two, even if I wasn't, you wouldn't read them. And three, if you did read them, you would just dismiss them as bullshit. After all, you can prove anything with facts.
Agreed, didn't say anything different.
Meh, whatever. You seem so angry, all the time.
patch them up and send them home can have a lot of meaning. when you send kids to school that means they can walk, drive, ride the bus. even then they don't have to go. so why not say exactly what you mean. I don't speak liberal, I don't think liberal. I can't understand bullshit speak.
This still doesn't get by the fact that in your mind you want to still give them free health care. that still comes with a price. there should be NO price, NO help, NO anything for illegals. The only money I want spent on illegals is fingerprints, photos and a bus ride to the border where they WILL work to build a giant wall, not get paid, get fed only what is necessary and once they repay for their trespasses, drop them in the middle of southern mexico.
You said you agree with the idea they could be patched up/made stable then sent home, so if they aren't going to pay anything and live off my tax dollars, they are stealing...which you agreed with...more failed liberal logic. obviously that is not what I teach because we would end up with more morons running around costing me money with failed thinking.
I read links, I look at things to have some kind of basis for believability when there is a reliable source... not word of word of mouth. I can sit here and tell you all day that I am Al Gore but I have had a change of heart. There isn't anything to back that up no is there? Same with your random numbers that are pulled from your ass. Show some links, bring out some of the studies and that gets somewhere. random shit written on the internet has no meaning if you are trying to show facts when you have no proof. more failed liberal logic. where did you go to school?
That is my typical response from liberals. they finally realize they spouted out bullshit from their mouths, they got caught and they give up.
oh, and yes I am angry. I am tired of getting fucked all the time thanks to liberal minded morons who think everyone should be handed everything that I work for. My tax dollars are not out there to make illegals lives better. They are supposed to be used to make my life better and to help those who truly need it that also pay their taxes.
And I am not talking about the welfare babies, the ones who live off welfare and don't try to get a job, yet still have the latest and greatest cell phone, 24" rims on their car they bought since they get assisted living, food stamps, a welfare check, possibly some payment for a disabled child (which they don't use that money for) so now they can afford a new vehicle payment.
That is why i am angry. And liberals like you want to say that is okay.
THAT SHIT OS NOT OKAY, ITS A FUCKING OUTRAGE
Speaking of liberal bogeymen, have you seen the Bamster on TV now? Suddenly he's Teddy Rosevelt taking on the banks and insurance companies like they're choking us to death.
If the insurance companies are doing so well, why is their average return on capital around 5%? Shit, that's barely better than a federally insured CD which is a helluva lot less risky than underwriting medical bills of an aging obese population of couch potatoes (like me).
That evil Goldman Sachs just put down a big compensation package for their employees after a banner quarter. But they took TARP money. So what? Once its paid back with interest, our interest in this company doesn't matter anymore. Don't get me wrong, I wish we'd never bailed out Wall Street, Chrysler or GM because losses and failure teach lasting lessons that bailouts do not. Nothing should be too big to fail. Obama wants to ensure this by overregulating and downsizing banks because he's a socialist. I want to let them fail because I'm a capitalist.
Why is it that people just go off on corporations without researching what the hell they are talking about? Why should I give a shit what a CEO gets paid if the company never took TARP money or if they did, paid it back with interest?
What a CEO gets paid is up to the stock holders of their company. Steve Jobs may be a liberal narcissist asshole that I couldn't even stomach an elevator ride with, but who can deny the billions of market cap he's brought home for Apple shareholders? Is he worth a big fat paycheck? Hell yes.
Instead of taxing outsized executive bonuses 75% as the socialists in the White House want to do, we should be ensuring that shareholders have a bill of rights allowing them to discover and call into question the compensation practices of the company without having to wage a proxy war.
I fully agree.
I personally don't think that illegal immigrants are that much of a problem. They are a problem, but they aren't the main problem. I think Illegals are most likely to show up and get in and out as quick as possible, just enough to keep on living. Not to mention the fact that just because you are here illegally, doesn't mean that you've ever needed health care. Mutt already stated the main problem. People don't know what things cost and they don't care. Do you know how many more movies I watch when I don't have to pay for them?
patch them up and send them home can have a lot of meaning. when you send kids to school that means they can walk, drive, ride the bus. even then they don't have to go. so why not say exactly what you mean. I don't speak liberal, I don't think liberal. I can't understand bullshit speak.
I said "they can be patched up/made stable (basic human decency after all) and then returned to their country of citizenship." I didn't think that was particularly vague. So what's your alternative? An illegal immigrant shows up at the hospital, and your response is..?
This still doesn't get by the fact that in your mind you want to still give them free health care. that still comes with a price. there should be NO price, NO help, NO anything for illegals.So your response is they get turned away from the hospital? Ok, fair enough. It's fine if that, and the following, is your idea, but there aren't going to be many people who share your idea, liberal or conservative and certainly not doctors.
The only money I want spent on illegals is fingerprints, photos and a bus ride to the border where they WILL work to build a giant wall, not get paid, get fed only what is necessary and once they repay for their trespasses, drop them in the middle of southern mexico.See above.
I read links, I look at things to have some kind of basis for believability when there is a reliable source... not word of word of mouth. I can sit here and tell you all day that I am Al Gore but I have had a change of heart. There isn't anything to back that up no is there? Same with your random numbers that are pulled from your ass. Show some links, bring out some of the studies and that gets somewhere. random shit written on the internet has no meaning if you are trying to show facts when you have no proof. more failed liberal logic.Seriously? You're basically asserting that I made those numbers up, or pulled them off some blog somewhere... I can only assume you didn't take the precaution of actually checking to make sure there aren't any studies out there which is where I drew those numbers from? It's actually more amusing to NOT give you any links and let you keep insisting I made the numbers up. Disagreeing with the results is one thing, but accusing me of lying based on nothing at all, that's classic. Keep going.
where did you go to school?University of Warwick.
That is my typical response from liberals. they finally realize they spouted out bullshit from their mouths, they got caught and they give up.You're right, I give up. You caught me out. I made up those numbers. I even planted the studies and stories about the studies. I spent MONTHS putting them out there for an elaborate prank on you, but you're too smart for me. Damn!
oh, and yes I am angry. I am tired of getting fucked all the time thanks to liberal minded morons who think everyone should be handed everything that I work for. My tax dollars are not out there to make illegals lives better. They are supposed to be used to make my life better and to help those who truly need it that also pay their taxes.
And I am not talking about the welfare babies, the ones who live off welfare and don't try to get a job, yet still have the latest and greatest cell phone, 24" rims on their car they bought since they get assisted living, food stamps, a welfare check, possibly some payment for a disabled child (which they don't use that money for) so now they can afford a new vehicle payment.
That is why i am angry. And liberals like you want to say that is okay.
THAT SHIT OS NOT OKAY, ITS A FUCKING OUTRAGEI don't remember saying any of that was ok. Link to where I said it was ok, or realize that you were spouting bullshit and give up.
I personally don't think that illegal immigrants are that much of a problem. They are a problem, but they aren't the main problem. I think Illegals are most likely to show up and get in and out as quick as possible, just enough to keep on living. Not to mention the fact that just because you are here illegally, doesn't mean that you've ever needed health care. Mutt already stated the main problem. People don't know what things cost and they don't care. Do you know how many more movies I watch when I don't have to pay for them?
I actually like the sound of your idea about removing insurance from healthcare altogether. Is there anyone out there who advocates this, or anywhere I can read more about it?
I said "they can be patched up/made stable (basic human decency after all) and then returned to their country of citizenship." I didn't think that was particularly vague. So what's your alternative? An illegal immigrant shows up at the hospital, and your response is..?
So your response is they get turned away from the hospital? Ok, fair enough. It's fine if that, and the following, is your idea, but there aren't going to be many people who share your idea, liberal or conservative and certainly not doctors.
See above.
Seriously? You're basically asserting that I made those numbers up, or pulled them off some blog somewhere... I can only assume you didn't take the precaution of actually checking to make sure there aren't any studies out there which is where I drew those numbers from? It's actually more amusing to NOT give you any links and let you keep insisting I made the numbers up. Disagreeing with the results is one thing, but accusing me of lying based on nothing at all, that's classic. Keep going.
University of Warwick.
You're right, I give up. You caught me out. I made up those numbers. I even planted the studies and stories about the studies. I spent MONTHS putting them out there for an elaborate prank on you, but you're too smart for me. Damn!
I don't remember saying any of that was ok. Link to where I said it was ok, or realize that you were spouting bullshit and give up.
Anyone shows up, they provide insurance card or cash/credit card/some method of payment. You can't pay, sorry. That cuts down on a lot of the fraud/free health care problems. If people want to donate money to create free clinics and doctors donate their time that is more than fine, but MY dollars should not be given away freely to people who aren't in the country legally or who are sucking on the .gov's tit in more than one way (welfare, food stamps etc.). those programs were designed to help people who are truly in need until they can get back on their feet. I am all for that, but I condone it's abuse.
Why would I bother to look for numbers that could be random. How hard is it to post a link that shows where you get your information from?
You wanted to post numbers to try to persuade me to believe something you wrote down yet give no backup information? Doesn't work.
And i never implied you said any of that was okay. I placed you in the group of liberals since you are a self proclaimed liberal and you mentioned in an earlier you still want to give away free health care and send them home. the problem with that is they are still getting free health care. the problem still exists and it will be abused when they tell all their buddies about it.
You asked why I was angry and I gave a response, I didn't say you said any of those things. I simply placed you in the liberal category that you like to be in. if you take that as spouting bullshit, then so be it. You still want to give away my tax dollars and my insurance premiums and I have a problem with that.
Why would I bother to look for numbers that could be random. You wanted to post numbers to try to persuade me to believe something you wrote down yet give no backup information? Doesn't work.
So that you don't appear foolish by immediately suggesting the numbers are bullshit, I suppose. Why would I make up numbers and publish them via the largest information and fact checking resource in history; I would make myself look stupid if I did.
I wasn't trying to persuade you of anything. You asked me where I got the figures from, I made the mistake of assuming it was a reasonable question rather than a challenge.
And i never implied you said any of that was okay. I placed you in the group of liberals since you are a self proclaimed liberal [...] I didn't say you said any of those things. I simply placed you in the liberal category that you like to be in.
By placing me in that 'group' you are implying I think those things are ok. My politics are broadly liberal. That doesn't mean I rigidly follow some liberal dogma. You're a conservative. There are some conservatives out there who harbor racist attitudes towards our president. Can you see where I'm going with this?
Surely the fact that I'm a gun owner should make you realise that not everyone who calls themselves liberal hold the exact same views.
clublights
01-24-2010, 04:29
What a CEO gets paid is up to the stock holders of their company. Steve Jobs may be a liberal narcissist asshole that I couldn't even stomach an elevator ride with, but who can deny the billions of market cap he's brought home for Apple shareholders? Is he worth a big fat paycheck? Hell yes.
Not to Take too much away from your well laid out and very true post.... BUT...
Steve Jobs' is paid $1.00 dollar a year from Apple Inc. True he gets HUGE bonuses .. however those are mostly in stock ... he has a VERY vested interest in making sure Apple does well. If Apple fails he not only fails as a CEO he loses his net worth in a VERY parallel and linear way.
This .. in MHO is how EVERY Company should run ( yes Apple is doing VERY well and this is working out VERY well for Jobs... but when he took the job at Apple it was in the red ... badly. )
When CEO's are taking millions in cash bonuses WHILE a company is failing is where the issue lays in MY eyes. AIG big fat cat's getting bonuses??? Are you kidding me ? I thought a bonus was for doing a GOOD job.
On one hand .. yeah sure the "Pay Czar" is some serious government over the bounds line stepping horse crap. But... if your gunna take taxpayer cash ... you should not be getting a bonus for running the company into the ground.
So that you don't appear foolish by immediately suggesting the numbers are bullshit, I suppose. Why would I make up numbers and publish them via the largest information and fact checking resource in history; I would make myself look stupid if I did.
I wasn't trying to persuade you of anything. You asked me where I got the figures from, I made the mistake of assuming it was a reasonable question rather than a challenge.
By placing me in that 'group' you are implying I think those things are ok. My politics are broadly liberal. That doesn't mean I rigidly follow some liberal dogma. You're a conservative. There are some conservatives out there who harbor racist attitudes towards our president. Can you see where I'm going with this?
Surely the fact that I'm a gun owner should make you realise that not everyone who calls themselves liberal hold the exact same views.
You still haven't posted your links. you obviously can't read. post a link when you post numbers or you are full of shit. go look at the other posts and when someone has a story or numbers they place in their post they have a link. just because you are a liberal doesn't mean people should believe you. and yes you are in the liberal group.
I suggest you call yourself an independent than if you feel that way, not a liberal. You can go where you please with your talks, you will dig yourself a deeper hole.
There are idiots who are gun owners out there as well. the more and more you speak, the more and more you don't listen, the more and more you appear to fall into this category as well.
Fodder pro-n-con depending on your perspective. That said, here's some back-ground [w/ sources] that outlines the numbers often regurgited by the left when trying to rationailize support for reform and "tug at America's heart-strings."
For the record (my bias)-- I have nothing but disdain for proponents of socialized care. Are there improvement opportunities with respect to health care services delivery and insurance industry reform? Of course, but I expect greater solutions to prevail because this socialist experiment is an arrogant slap in the face to all Americans and a long-term fiscal disaster [entitlement] in the making if implemented.
Source: http://www.factcheck.org/ (http://www.factcheck.org/)
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/uninsured-us-citizens/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/uninsured-us-citizens/)
Uninsured U.S. Citizens
March 10, 2009
The "47 million uninsured" figure is from the 2006 U.S. Census Bureau report. In 2007, the Census Bureau reported that the number actually declined somewhat, to 45.7 million people under 65 (the age of Medicare eligibility)…79 percent of the uninsured are native or naturalized U.S. citizens. The remaining 21 percent accounts for both legal and illegal immigrants…[more snipped]
Sources:
Kaiser Family Foundation. "The Uninsured: A Primer." Oct. 2008.
Carmen DeNavas-Walt et. al. "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007." United States Census Bureau. Aug. 2008.
Source: http://www.factcheck.org/ (http://www.factcheck.org/)
http://factcheck.org/archives/search-results/?cx=006313184908531579811%3Ahm8n5-dxba0&cof=FORID%3A10%3BNB%3A1&ie=UTF-8&q=How+many+uninsured+die+every+year&sa=Search (http://factcheck.org/archives/search-results/?cx=006313184908531579811%3Ahm8n5-dxba0&cof=FORID%3A10%3BNB%3A1&ie=UTF-8&q=How+many+uninsured+die+every+year&sa=Search)
Dying from Lack of Insurance
September 24, 2009
A new study from researchers with the Harvard Medical School found that 45,000 deaths a year can be attributed to the lack of health insurance. Our readers ask: Really? And, they want to know, isn’t this finding actually from the single-payer advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program?
[more snipped]
The 45,000 deaths figure became the basis for an eye-catching billboard from the Health Care for America Education Fund, a group associated with Health Care for America NOW, a coalition of liberal and union groups backing health care overhaul efforts.
[more snipped]
Now, on to the tough question: Is the 45,000 figure accurate? We can’t say for sure, but scores of other studies also conclude that persons without health insurance have a higher chance of dying prematurely than those with health insurance…The 45,000 estimate is at the high end of estimates, but earlier studies also have put the number of excess deaths from lack of insurance coverage in the thousands:
Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/20/bill-pascrell/pascrell-says-22000-americans-die-yearly-because-t/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/20/bill-pascrell/pascrell-says-22000-americans-die-yearly-because-t/)
Pascrell says up to 22,000 Americans die yearly because they don’t have health insurance
July 30, 2009, PolitiFact rated as True a statement by Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell of New Jersey that "as many as 22,000 Americans die each year because they don’t have health insurance." We based that ruling on the same study that Pascrell did. Subsequently, a reader pointed out a paper published last spring in the online edition of the journal HSR: Health Services Research that contradicts the study Pascrell relied on. So we are changing our rating to Half True and providing this new analysis.
When Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell of New Jersey said on July 30 that "as many as 22,000 Americans die each year because they don’t have health insurance," the number he cited was an updated version of one originally calculated by the federally chartered Institute of Medicine. In 2002, an IOM panel of more than a dozen medical specialists estimated that 18,000 Americans died in 2000 because they were uninsured. They came up with this figure by looking at long-term studies that measured the links between insurance status and death rates. The IOM then used annual statistics on insurance rates and deaths to determine an estimate of extra deaths attributable to the lack of insurance.
[snip]
But a more recent paper raises questions about the IOM's conclusions.
The paper, published online in April in HSR: Health Services Research, is by Richard Kronick of the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at the University of California (San Diego) School of Medicine. Using data on adult health and mortality from the National Center for Health Statistics, which is a part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Kronick concludes that the Institute of Medicine's estimate (or any that replicates its methodology, such as Dorn's) is "almost certainly incorrect."
The most notable difference between the Institute of Medicine's data — which were drawn from the CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey as well as the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey — is that Kronick adjusted it for a number of demographic and health factors, such as status as a smoker and body mass index. When he did that, "the risk of subsequent mortality is no different for uninsured respondents than for those covered by employer-sponsored group insurance." In other words, once you compare death rates in an apples-to-apples fashion — comparing insured smokers to uninsured smokers, for instance — the likelihood of dying evens out. This, in turn, would mean that IOM's estimate of 18,000 deaths would drop essentially to zero.
[snip]
well, i too haven't read every post in this thread so what i say may be repetitive.
as someone who works in the health care industry and deals with insurance about half my time at work, ill give my two cents on health care. first off, i cannot believe we are even considering an over arching health care system that covers everybody like canada and britain have. its unrealistic. well, i suppose if you want sky high taxes, then its doable, but otherwise its completely unsustainable. not only that, but you are just trading one evil for another. some people here can't get adequate care because they are too poor, in the government system you would see people still not get care, itll just be different people. my wife's entire family is from canada and all but her parents still live there. most are engineers, following in her grandpa's footsteps. they come over the border all the time to pay for care, especially diagnostics. her grandpa was told he couldn't have surgery done on his heart because he was too old and fragile and it was too risky for the cost. so he came across and the family pitched in and paid for it. her uncle had terrible back pain from an accident at work. couldn't sit, stand, lay down, nothing. they said it would be 8 months to get an MRI. so he went to michigan, paid $500 and got it checked out. turned out he had a disc out of place. my point is, you hear horror stories here, but there are horror stories elsewhere as well. its the nature of the beast. this is the real world we live in, no system is perfect.
i don't pretend to have the answer, its a difficult problem. we can't keep health care as it is, thats for sure. part of the problem is the huge spike is law suits in theis country, part is people (particularly illegals) going to the ER for every little problem, where they can't be turned away, part is government programs creating a society that thinks it deserves this and that and won't go out and get it for themselves. lots of things. but i can tell you if they pass health care reform as it is you are simply exchanging one bad for another, plus a whole ton of money. im not a cold, heartless bastard that thinks since i have the money to buy healthcare and others don't thats their problem, but for the good of a nation we need to realize the warm fuzzies we get when talking about covering everyone just isn't a realistic answer. it sounds nice on paper (which is why some of its supporters think you are just an evil person if you don't agree) but in a country of 300 million it can't be done effectively. people try to use switzerland and such as examples, and thats just dumb. a country of a million versus a country of 300 million has way different dynamics.
i think it would be ideal for either states or communities to have their own programs since they know how to better care for their people and where the needs are as opposed to the federal government just trying to get it with the shotgun effect. too much waste and corruption if you do that. but i fear at the local levels the government doesn't care enough to put forth such effort. it used to be back in the day communities took care of themselves and each other, but now every relies on the feds.
as far as insurance companies, i have no problem with them being taken out of the picture if its effective, but remember insurance companies are just a business like any other. they need to make a profit. they aren't evil, theyre just a business that has to ensure it survives. remember also insurance companies employ many people. they do a lot of good aside from the "bad".
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.