Discussion:
Conservatives Distort Facts on Health Care Again - Exposed (No Surprise Again)
(too old to reply)
wy
2009-07-23 18:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Yes, to conservatives the truth can be so painful to accept, hence the
ongoing denial.

Canadian Straw Man
July 17, 2009
More ads claim that Congress is pushing a Canadian-style health care
bill.
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/canadian_straw_man.html

Summary

Two ads from related independent groups make claims about an overhaul
of the health care system, saying Congress wants a government-run
health care system:

One ad claims that “Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health
care to the U.S.” But the health care bills moving through Congress
don’t call for a single-payer system like Canada’s, and legislation
that does support a purely government-run system is quietly dying in
committee. Obama, too, has said repeatedly that he doesn’t back a
conversion to a single-payer system.

Another ad, targeting specific members of the Senate, similarly claims
that “Congress is rushing to take over health care.” It says that a
government health insurance option would cause “tens of millions” to
move from their current insurance to a government plan. That claim is
on the mark, according to one study, which found that millions would
move from private insurance to a much cheaper government option.

Analysis

We've written before about conservatives claiming that Congress, or
Obama, or Washington, or Democrats in general want the U.S. to have a
Canadian-style, government-run health care system. The truth of the
matter is that the president has repeatedly said he doesn't. In fact,
since being sworn in as president, Obama has riled advocates of such
single-payer systems by largely excluding them from the health care
debate. He has answered several questions from members of the public
who asked at town hall events: "why not" have such a system. Sen. Max
Baucus of Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and one of
the leaders in drafting legislation, has said bluntly: "single-payer
is not going to get even to first base in Congress." Yet, the Canada
claims continue.

In an ad airing (for the third time this year) on national cable
channels, a group called Patients United Now says that "Washington
wants to bring Canadian-style health care to the U.S." The group's
back-up for the claim? An opinion piece that we previously found to be
riddled with errors; an article from CQ.com that says the National
Institutes of Health will fund comparative effectiveness research
studies that examine cost – which, the article notes, the NIH already
does; and another news article in the San Francisco Chronicle that
reported conservatives have criticized such research, saying it leads
to "rationing," while proponents have said it will improve health care
and reduce costs.

Patients United Now: "Survived"

Shona Holmes: I survived a brain tumor. But if I’d relied on my
government, I’d be dead. I’m a Canadian citizen. As my brain tumor got
worse, my government health care system told me I had to wait six
months to see a specialist. In six months, I would have died.

Announcer: Government runs health care in Canada. Care is delayed – or
denied. Some patients wait a year for vital surgeries – delays that
can be deadly. Many drugs and treatments aren’t available– because
government says patients aren’t worth it.

Holmes: I’m here today because I was able to travel to the US, where I
received world-class treatment. Government health care isn’t the
answer. And it sure isn’t free.

Announcer: Now, Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health care
to the US. Government should never come between your family and your
doctor. Learn more at PatientsUnitedNow.org.

Holmes: My advice to Americans? As patients, it’s your care. Don’t
give up your rights.

As we've said before, the stimulus legislation, the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, called for the creation of a council that would
coordinate and support comparative effectiveness research, which
examines which medical drugs and treatments are most effective, and in
some cases, most cost-effective. The government has funded such
studies since the late '70s. In this chart of research funding, the
NIH estimates it will have spent $50 million on "cost effectiveness
research" each year from 2007 to 2010.

To be sure, the cost factor prompts critics to say the research will
lead to the government, or perhaps insurance companies, denying
certain medical procedures based on cost alone. Proponents say such
research provides valuable information to the public and physicians on
which procedures work best and whether more costly treatments are
actually more effective. Patients United Now, a 501(c)3 project of
Americans for Prosperity Foundation, says in its back-up that funding
comparative studies is "a critical step toward rationing," but ARRA
specifically forbids the council coordinating such research from
issuing any restrictions or even guidelines on care:

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Nothing in this
section shall be construed to permit the Council to mandate coverage,
reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer. ...
None of the reports submitted under this section or recommendations
made by the Council shall be construed as mandates or clinical
guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment.

Patients United Now also points to Rep. John Conyers' "Medicare for
all" legislation, a single-payer health care bill that the Michigan
congressman has introduced for several years running. This year,
Conyer's bill, H.R. 676, was introduced in January and hasn't moved
from committee since. It quietly died in committee in the last
Congress and in previous attempts.

Shona's Story

The ad begins with an emotional story from Shona Holmes, a Canadian
who says she would have had to wait six months to see a specialist
about a brain tumor. Instead, she traveled to the United States – the
Mayo Clinic in Arizona – to pay for faster treatment that restored her
deteriorating vision. Holmes' story has appeared in several newspaper
articles, and she has spoken to the House Energy and Commerce
Committee. An article on Shona's case on the Mayo Clinic's Web site
quotes her neurosurgeon as saying, "We needed to remove the cyst to
save her vision."

Her case and another, of Lindsay McCreith, who traveled to Buffalo,
N.Y., to have surgery on a brain tumor, are well known. Both filed
suit in Ontario to overturn laws that effectively ban citizens from
having private insurance or paying for care themselves. (Similar
provisions in a Quebec statute were struck down by Canada's Supreme
Court in June).

The ad goes on to claim that "[s]ome patients wait a year for vital
surgeries." We can't say how many "some" are, but the back-up for the
ad points to one case in Ontario in which a man waited nearly a year
for skull replacement surgery. Another article in the Globe and Mail
in January 2008 cited a study conducted for the Canadian Medical
Association that found while most Canadians get treatment within
recommended wait times, some don't. "The average Canadian patient who
was not treated within the medically acceptable period in 2007 waited
a year for a hip or knee replacement and seven months for cataract
surgery," the Globe and Mail reported.

We certainly won't argue with anyone's desire to get surgery –
particularly for a brain tumor – sooner rather than later. But as
we've said about other ads, all this sets up a straw man argument,
criticizing Canada's health care system despite the fact that a purely
government-run system isn't what's being seriously considered in
Congress or being proposed by the president.

Government Running Health Care?

Another group, a 501c(4) called Patients First and backed by Americans
for Prosperity, has another ad on the airwaves, this one targeting 12
senators. The one-week, $1.3 million ad buy was announced by the group
July 8.

AFP Patients First Ad

Announcer: Washington now runs your banks, insurance and car
companies. But do you trust Washington with your life? Congress is
rushing to take over healthcare too, paid for by $600 billion in new
taxes, and cutting $400 billion from Medicare. Plus, tens of millions
will lose their current insurance, and wind up on the government
health plan. What will happen to your family's healthcare if
Washington runs it? Tell Senator Warner to vote no on government run
healthcare.

The ad asks, "[D]o you trust Washington with your life?" and claims
that "Congress is rushing to take over healthcare too."

As we've said, not so much. But the ad also refers to a public health
insurance option, like Medicare, that some in Congress want to see as
part of an overhaul of the health care system. The numbers on taxes
and cuts (others would say "savings") to Medicare refer to draft
legislation being written by legislators in the House, who, according
to the Bloomberg News article cited in the ad, were still negotiating
on the inclusion of a government insurance option. Since then, a House
bill has been released, and it does contain such a provision.

The Patients First ad says that "tens of millions will lose their
current insurance, and wind up on the government health plan." That's
based on an analysis by the Lewin Group, which says it operates
independently as part of UnitedHealth Group, owner of the insurer
United Healthcare. Comparing the House bill to Lewin's findings, the
government plan, which would be significantly cheaper than private
plans, would attract about 43 million people, 32 million coming off of
private coverage. That's "tens of millions," as the ad says, and we'll
note again that the ad was released before the details of the House
bill were announced. According to the study, there also would be a
reduction in the number of the uninsured of 27 million. Those numbers
are based on enrollment in the public plan being only open to small
firms and individuals, and payments to doctors and hospitals being
similar to Medicare rates. The House plan would pay doctors Medicare
rates plus 5 percent. A Senate bill that passed the Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions Committee also proposes a public option open to
individual and small businesses; reimbursement rates would be
negotiated, however, which could well lead to fewer people moving to a
government plan. (For more on the Lewin Group study, see our previous
article about a health care ad that wasn't so careful in its
wording.)

Lewin's estimate is just that, however, and the Congressional Budget
Office projected different numbers in an analysis of these two bills.
The CBO estimated that fewer people would take up the public option
under the House bill, finding that "total enrollment in the public
plan would equal about 11 million or 12 million, counting both
individually purchased policies and employer-sponsored enrollees." As
for the Senate bill from the HELP committee, the CBO said its public
option "did not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment
projections, largely because the public plan would pay providers of
health care at rates comparable to privately negotiated rates."

Different versions of this ad are aimed at 12 Democratic senators:
Mark Warner of Virginia, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska,
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Blanche
Lincoln of Arkansas, Max Baucus of Montana, Kent Conrad of North
Dakota, Harry Reid of Nevada, Mark Begich of Alaska, Michael Bennet of
Colorado and Thomas Carper of Delaware.

– by Lori Robertson

Correction, July 20: We originally wrote that one version of the ad
was aimed at Sen. John Warner of Virginia. He's a former senator; the
ad targets Sen. Mark Warner.

Sources
Galloway, Gloria. “Wait for surgery savages economy, doctors say.” The
Globe and Mail, 15 Jan 2008.
Congressional Budget Office. Letter to Rep. Charles B. Rangel. 14 Jul
2009.
Sheils, John and Randy Haught. “The Cost and Coverage Impacts of a
Public Plan: Alternative Design Options.” Lewin Group. 6 Apr 2009.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Pub. L. 111-5. 17 Feb
2009.
U.S. National Institutes of Health. Estimates of Funding for Various
Research, Condition, and Disease Categories. NIH.gov. 15 Jan 2009,
accessed 16 Jul 2009.
Mayo Clinic. Profile: Shona Holmes. Mayo Clinic Web site. Summer 2007.
Reichard, John. "NIH Chief Doesn’t Rule Out Cost Component to
Comparative Studies." CQ Healthbeat News. 26 Mar 2009.
e***@netpath.net
2009-07-23 18:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Only lying is being done by House Democrats trying to block House
Republicans from mailing constituents the Obamacare Flow Chart. But
you can get that flow chart here: http://www.gop.com/pdf/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
- and see what liberals don't want you to see.
wy
2009-07-23 19:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@netpath.net
Only lying is being done by House Democrats trying to block House
Republicans from mailing constituents the Obamacare Flow Chart.  But
you can get that flow chart here:http://www.gop.com/pdf/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
- and see what liberals don't want you to see.
Did you even bother to read the source of that chart? No, of course
not. Here it is:

Source: Joint Economic Committee, Republican Staff
Congressman Kevin Brady, Ranking House Republican Member

Get back to me with a chart that's produced by an independent body.
No wonder it looks like something out of science-fiction.
Bugsy Siegel
2009-07-24 15:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by e***@netpath.net
Only lying is being done by House Democrats trying to block House
Republicans from mailing constituents the Obamacare Flow Chart.  But
you can get that flow chart here:http://www.gop.com/pdf/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
- and see what liberals don't want you to see.
Did you even bother to read the source of that chart? No, of course
Source: Joint Economic Committee, Republican Staff
Congressman Kevin Brady, Ranking House Republican Member
Get back to me with a chart that's produced by an independent body.
No wonder it looks like something out of science-fiction.
Congress and Obama wants to pass their health care plans without
granting the public enough time to have experts translate the legalese
of their 1000 page bill.

So what if the Republicans came up with the chart? Why do Democrat
leaders want to stifle the chart? Is because they refuse to debate the
issue? What are the Democrats hiding?

In regards to Canada, private health clinics are sprouting up
throughout the country because those clinics have a lower doctor to
patient ratio and lower wait times.

If interested go to:

http://www.medbroadcast.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=18746&rss=67&rid=999999&channel_id=1039&rot=3

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-health-care-business/

H.R. 676; Section 102 states the coverage of the government plan,
Section 104; states that it is "unlawful for a private health insurer
to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits
provided under this act. That eliminates private health insurers.
Destroys the health insurance industry. Only one provider ""the
government ObamaHealthPlan"".


-

U.S. Internal Revenue Service:
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-07-25 04:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by e***@netpath.net
Only lying is being done by House Democrats trying to block House
Republicans from mailing constituents the Obamacare Flow Chart.  But
you can get that flow chart here:http://www.gop.com/pdf/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
- and see what liberals don't want you to see.
Did you even bother to read the source of that chart?  No, of course
Source: Joint Economic Committee, Republican Staff
Congressman Kevin Brady, Ranking House Republican Member
Get back to me with a chart that's produced by an independent body.
No wonder it looks like something out of science-fiction.
Congress and Obama wants to pass their health care plans without
granting the public enough time to have experts translate the legalese
of their 1000 page bill.
Like that's done for any bill. Remember the bailout? I don't recall
any "granting the public enough time to have experts translate the
legalese" of that bill, not to mention that its cost to the taxpayer
makes the health bill look like a spit in the bucket.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So what if the  Republicans came up with the chart? Why do Democrat
leaders want to stifle the chart? Is because they refuse to debate the
issue? What are the Democrats hiding?
The chart is actually irrelevant. Reps and Dems can come up with the
same kind of chart for how just about any department in the government
is mind-boggingly interrelated. The Homeland Security chart probably
looks like a real doozy.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
In regards to Canada, private health clinics are sprouting up
throughout the country because those clinics have a lower doctor to
patient ratio and lower wait times.
And they only appeal to those who have money to shell out for the
privilege, meaning it's often just for the privileged. The Canadian
system is actually a pretty good one despite the Republican propaganda
you hear, especially when you take into account that it covers
everyone. It's also a system that's lasted for nearly half-a-century
now, costs far less per capita to run than the U.S. system, and you
also can't really complain about getting a broken leg repaired free of
charge with it, whereas in the U.S. you'd be lucky to get it done for
10 grand - and that's only if your specific HMO plan will cover the
full cost of it. That's the problem with HMOs, you can never be sure
what'll you need to be covered for because you never know what'll hit
you. In a single-payer user system, it doesn't matter what hits you,
you're covered, and you won't go bankrupt and lose your home over it,
either. Not too many Canadians would want to give up on it because
they realize how ultimately valuable it is to them, even if they
sometimes might have to wait a bit longer to get care, but the real
emergencies are always handled promptly because they are, after all,
real emergencies.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.medbroadcast.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=1...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-h...
H.R. 676; Section 102 states the coverage of the government plan,
Section 104; states that it is "unlawful for a private health insurer
to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits
provided under this act. That eliminates private health insurers.
Destroys the health insurance industry. Only one provider ""the
government ObamaHealthPlan"".
Which is how most of the rest of the world operates and does so at far
less cost to everyone. For a country as rich as the U.S., it really
has the unhealthiest population and the most ripped-off in terms of
costs, and when any of the nearly 50 million that aren't insured end
up in hospital, who do you think ends up paying the tab for that? The
government, thanks to your paid taxes. So private insurance saves you
nothing, it's only there for corporate greed.
Bugsy Siegel
2009-07-25 14:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by e***@netpath.net
Only lying is being done by House Democrats trying to block House
Republicans from mailing constituents the Obamacare Flow Chart.  But
you can get that flow chart here:http://www.gop.com/pdf/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
- and see what liberals don't want you to see.
Did you even bother to read the source of that chart?  No, of course
Source: Joint Economic Committee, Republican Staff
Congressman Kevin Brady, Ranking House Republican Member
Get back to me with a chart that's produced by an independent body.
No wonder it looks like something out of science-fiction.
Congress and Obama wants to pass their health care plans without
granting the public enough time to have experts translate the legalese
of their 1000 page bill.
Like that's done for any bill. Remember the bailout? I don't recall
any "granting the public enough time to have experts translate the
legalese" of that bill, not to mention that its cost to the taxpayer
makes the health bill look like a spit in the bucket.
The question is do you remember the bailout bill? It was passed by a
Democratic controlled Congress. 172 Democrats voted in favor of the
bill while 62 opposed it; and 91 Republicans voted for it and 108
voted against it. So that throws your argument down the crapper. Want
to try something else?
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So what if the  Republicans came up with the chart? Why do Democrat
leaders want to stifle the chart? Is because they refuse to debate the
issue? What are the Democrats hiding?
The chart is actually irrelevant. Reps and Dems can come up with the
same kind of chart for how just about any department in the government
is mind-boggingly interrelated. The Homeland Security chart probably
looks like a real doozy.
You sure are weak when it comes to making an argument. You did not
answer any of my questions or even try to spin it.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
In regards to Canada, private health clinics are sprouting up
throughout the country because those clinics have a lower doctor to
patient ratio and lower wait times.
And they only appeal to those who have money to shell out for the
privilege, meaning it's often just for the privileged. The Canadian
system is actually a pretty good one despite the Republican propaganda
you hear, especially when you take into account that it covers
everyone. It's also a system that's lasted for nearly half-a-century
now, costs far less per capita to run than the U.S. system, and you
also can't really complain about getting a broken leg repaired free of
charge with it, whereas in the U.S. you'd be lucky to get it done for
10 grand - and that's only if your specific HMO plan will cover the
full cost of it. That's the problem with HMOs, you can never be sure
what'll you need to be covered for because you never know what'll hit
you. In a single-payer user system, it doesn't matter what hits you,
you're covered, and you won't go bankrupt and lose your home over it,
either. Not too many Canadians would want to give up on it because
they realize how ultimately valuable it is to them, even if they
sometimes might have to wait a bit longer to get care, but the real
emergencies are always handled promptly because they are, after all,
real emergencies.
I'm not talking about emergencies. No emergency clinic in this country
can turn away a patient. It's the law.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.medbroadcast.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=1...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-h...
H.R. 676; Section 102 states the coverage of the government plan,
Section 104; states that it is "unlawful for a private health insurer
to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits
provided under this act. That eliminates private health insurers.
Destroys the health insurance industry. Only one provider ""the
government ObamaHealthPlan"".
Which is how most of the rest of the world operates and does so at far
less cost to everyone. For a country as rich as the U.S., it really
has the unhealthiest population and the most ripped-off in terms of
costs, and when any of the nearly 50 million that aren't insured end
up in hospital, who do you think ends up paying the tab for that? The
government, thanks to your paid taxes. So private insurance saves you
nothing, it's only there for corporate greed.
The US system allows us to have the latest and best medical technology
has to offer.

We also have lower doctor-to-patient ratios.

Government has enough trouble running Medicare. Why doesn't government
fix that first?

Your 50 million figure is so wrong.

It doesn't take into account a good percentage make over $75,000 and
could afford to buy their own.

Many, through their work, are offered health in insurance but opt out
of their employer's program.

Part of the 50 million are legal and illegal immigrants. They still
have emergency care at their disposal.

Many qualify for government programs such as Medicaid or SCHIP.

When you break it down up 14 million need health insurance.

You are saying to those who choose to go without health insurance,
"You vill take the government option or suffer the consequences."


-

U.S. Internal Revenue Service:
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-07-25 21:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by e***@netpath.net
Only lying is being done by House Democrats trying to block House
Republicans from mailing constituents the Obamacare Flow Chart.  But
you can get that flow chart here:http://www.gop.com/pdf/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
- and see what liberals don't want you to see.
Did you even bother to read the source of that chart?  No, of course
Source: Joint Economic Committee, Republican Staff
Congressman Kevin Brady, Ranking House Republican Member
Get back to me with a chart that's produced by an independent body.
No wonder it looks like something out of science-fiction.
Congress and Obama wants to pass their health care plans without
granting the public enough time to have experts translate the legalese
of their 1000 page bill.
Like that's done for any bill.  Remember the bailout?  I don't recall
any "granting the public enough time to have experts translate the
legalese" of that bill, not to mention that its cost to the taxpayer
makes the health bill look like a spit in the bucket.
The question is do you remember the bailout bill? It was passed by a
Democratic controlled Congress. 172 Democrats voted in favor of the
bill while 62 opposed it; and 91 Republicans voted for it and 108
voted against it. So that throws your argument down the crapper. Want
to try something else?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So what if the  Republicans came up with the chart? Why do Democrat
leaders want to stifle the chart? Is because they refuse to debate the
issue? What are the Democrats hiding?
The chart is actually irrelevant.  Reps and Dems can come up with the
same kind of chart for how just about any department in the government
is mind-boggingly interrelated.  The Homeland Security chart probably
looks like a real doozy.
You sure are weak when it comes to making an argument. You did not
answer any of my questions or even try to spin it.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
In regards to Canada, private health clinics are sprouting up
throughout the country because those clinics have a lower doctor to
patient ratio and lower wait times.
And they only appeal to those who have money to shell out for the
privilege, meaning it's often just for the privileged.  The Canadian
system is actually a pretty good one despite the Republican propaganda
you hear, especially when you take into account that it covers
everyone.  It's also a system that's lasted for nearly half-a-century
now, costs far less per capita to run than the U.S. system, and you
also can't really complain about getting a broken leg repaired free of
charge with it, whereas in the U.S. you'd be lucky to get it done for
10 grand - and that's only if your specific HMO plan will cover the
full cost of it.  That's the problem with HMOs, you can never be sure
what'll you need to be covered for because you never know what'll hit
you.  In a single-payer user system, it doesn't matter what hits you,
you're covered, and you won't go bankrupt and lose your home over it,
either.  Not too many Canadians would want to give up on it because
they realize how ultimately valuable it is to them, even if they
sometimes might have to wait a bit longer to get care, but the real
emergencies are always handled promptly because they are, after all,
real emergencies.
I'm not talking about emergencies. No emergency clinic in this country
can turn away a patient. It's the law.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.medbroadcast.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=1...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-h...
H.R. 676; Section 102 states the coverage of the government plan,
Section 104; states that it is "unlawful for a private health insurer
to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits
provided under this act. That eliminates private health insurers.
Destroys the health insurance industry. Only one provider ""the
government ObamaHealthPlan"".
Which is how most of the rest of the world operates and does so at far
less cost to everyone.  For a country as rich as the U.S., it really
has the unhealthiest population and the most ripped-off in terms of
costs, and when any of the nearly 50 million that aren't insured end
up in hospital, who do you think ends up paying the tab for that?  The
government, thanks to your paid taxes.  So private insurance saves you
nothing, it's only there for corporate greed.
The US system allows us to have the latest and best medical technology
has to offer.
We also have lower doctor-to-patient ratios.
Government has enough trouble running Medicare. Why doesn't government
fix that first?
Your 50 million figure is so wrong.
It doesn't take into account a good percentage make over $75,000 and
could afford to buy their own.
Many, through their work, are offered health in insurance but opt out
of their employer's program.
Part of the 50 million are legal and illegal immigrants. They still
have emergency care at their disposal.
Many qualify for government programs such as Medicaid or SCHIP.
When you break it down up 14 million need health insurance.
You are saying to those who choose to go without health insurance,
"You vill take the government option or suffer the consequences."
-
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-07-25 21:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by e***@netpath.net
Only lying is being done by House Democrats trying to block House
Republicans from mailing constituents the Obamacare Flow Chart.  But
you can get that flow chart here:http://www.gop.com/pdf/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
- and see what liberals don't want you to see.
Did you even bother to read the source of that chart?  No, of course
Source: Joint Economic Committee, Republican Staff
Congressman Kevin Brady, Ranking House Republican Member
Get back to me with a chart that's produced by an independent body.
No wonder it looks like something out of science-fiction.
Congress and Obama wants to pass their health care plans without
granting the public enough time to have experts translate the legalese
of their 1000 page bill.
Like that's done for any bill.  Remember the bailout?  I don't recall
any "granting the public enough time to have experts translate the
legalese" of that bill, not to mention that its cost to the taxpayer
makes the health bill look like a spit in the bucket.
The question is do you remember the bailout bill? It was passed by a
Democratic controlled Congress. 172 Democrats voted in favor of the
bill while 62 opposed it; and 91 Republicans voted for it and 108
voted against it. So that throws your argument down the crapper. Want
to try something else?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So what if the  Republicans came up with the chart? Why do Democrat
leaders want to stifle the chart? Is because they refuse to debate the
issue? What are the Democrats hiding?
The chart is actually irrelevant.  Reps and Dems can come up with the
same kind of chart for how just about any department in the government
is mind-boggingly interrelated.  The Homeland Security chart probably
looks like a real doozy.
You sure are weak when it comes to making an argument. You did not
answer any of my questions or even try to spin it.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
In regards to Canada, private health clinics are sprouting up
throughout the country because those clinics have a lower doctor to
patient ratio and lower wait times.
And they only appeal to those who have money to shell out for the
privilege, meaning it's often just for the privileged.  The Canadian
system is actually a pretty good one despite the Republican propaganda
you hear, especially when you take into account that it covers
everyone.  It's also a system that's lasted for nearly half-a-century
now, costs far less per capita to run than the U.S. system, and you
also can't really complain about getting a broken leg repaired free of
charge with it, whereas in the U.S. you'd be lucky to get it done for
10 grand - and that's only if your specific HMO plan will cover the
full cost of it.  That's the problem with HMOs, you can never be sure
what'll you need to be covered for because you never know what'll hit
you.  In a single-payer user system, it doesn't matter what hits you,
you're covered, and you won't go bankrupt and lose your home over it,
either.  Not too many Canadians would want to give up on it because
they realize how ultimately valuable it is to them, even if they
sometimes might have to wait a bit longer to get care, but the real
emergencies are always handled promptly because they are, after all,
real emergencies.
I'm not talking about emergencies. No emergency clinic in this country
can turn away a patient. It's the law.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.medbroadcast.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=1...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-h...
H.R. 676; Section 102 states the coverage of the government plan,
Section 104; states that it is "unlawful for a private health insurer
to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits
provided under this act. That eliminates private health insurers.
Destroys the health insurance industry. Only one provider ""the
government ObamaHealthPlan"".
Which is how most of the rest of the world operates and does so at far
less cost to everyone.  For a country as rich as the U.S., it really
has the unhealthiest population and the most ripped-off in terms of
costs, and when any of the nearly 50 million that aren't insured end
up in hospital, who do you think ends up paying the tab for that?  The
government, thanks to your paid taxes.  So private insurance saves you
nothing, it's only there for corporate greed.
The US system allows us to have the latest and best medical technology
has to offer.
We also have lower doctor-to-patient ratios.
Government has enough trouble running Medicare. Why doesn't government
fix that first?
Your 50 million figure is so wrong.
It doesn't take into account a good percentage make over $75,000 and
could afford to buy their own.
Many, through their work, are offered health in insurance but opt out
of their employer's program.
Part of the 50 million are legal and illegal immigrants. They still
have emergency care at their disposal.
Many qualify for government programs such as Medicaid or SCHIP.
When you break it down up 14 million need health insurance.
You are saying to those who choose to go without health insurance,
"You vill take the government option or suffer the consequences."
-
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-07-25 21:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by e***@netpath.net
Only lying is being done by House Democrats trying to block House
Republicans from mailing constituents the Obamacare Flow Chart. But
you can get that flow chart here:http://www.gop.com/pdf/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
- and see what liberals don't want you to see.
Did you even bother to read the source of that chart? No, of course
Source: Joint Economic Committee, Republican Staff
Congressman Kevin Brady, Ranking House Republican Member
Get back to me with a chart that's produced by an independent body.
No wonder it looks like something out of science-fiction.
Congress and Obama wants to pass their health care plans without
granting the public enough time to have experts translate the legalese
of their 1000 page bill.
Like that's done for any bill. Remember the bailout? I don't recall
any "granting the public enough time to have experts translate the
legalese" of that bill, not to mention that its cost to the taxpayer
makes the health bill look like a spit in the bucket.
The question is do you remember the bailout bill? It was passed by a
Democratic controlled Congress. 172 Democrats voted in favor of the
bill while 62 opposed it; and 91 Republicans voted for it and 108
voted against it. So that throws your argument down the crapper. Want
to try something else?
The question is, so to speak, that it doesn't matter who's running the
show, you just ain't ever gonna get your "granting the public enough
time to have experts translate the legalese" of any bill ever - Ever.
Which is what you were trying to say as some sort of lame attempt at
suggesting a democratization of the process. America is not a
democracy, it's a republic, in case you had forgotten.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So what if the Republicans came up with the chart? Why do Democrat
leaders want to stifle the chart? Is because they refuse to debate the
issue? What are the Democrats hiding?
The chart is actually irrelevant. Reps and Dems can come up with the
same kind of chart for how just about any department in the government
is mind-boggingly interrelated. The Homeland Security chart probably
looks like a real doozy.
You sure are weak when it comes to making an argument. You did not
answer any of my questions or even try to spin it.
If you had intelligent questions based on actual relevant facts, I
would've answered them precisely. But in the absence of intelligent
questions based on relevant facts, I can only do my best. And if it's
not satisfactory, then you need to go back and tweak your questions
with some real stuff. You only get what you give.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
In regards to Canada, private health clinics are sprouting up
throughout the country because those clinics have a lower doctor to
patient ratio and lower wait times.
And they only appeal to those who have money to shell out for the
privilege, meaning it's often just for the privileged. The Canadian
system is actually a pretty good one despite the Republican propaganda
you hear, especially when you take into account that it covers
everyone. It's also a system that's lasted for nearly half-a-century
now, costs far less per capita to run than the U.S. system, and you
also can't really complain about getting a broken leg repaired free of
charge with it, whereas in the U.S. you'd be lucky to get it done for
10 grand - and that's only if your specific HMO plan will cover the
full cost of it. That's the problem with HMOs, you can never be sure
what'll you need to be covered for because you never know what'll hit
you. In a single-payer user system, it doesn't matter what hits you,
you're covered, and you won't go bankrupt and lose your home over it,
either. Not too many Canadians would want to give up on it because
they realize how ultimately valuable it is to them, even if they
sometimes might have to wait a bit longer to get care, but the real
emergencies are always handled promptly because they are, after all,
real emergencies.
I'm not talking about emergencies. No emergency clinic in this country
can turn away a patient. It's the law.
It's not only emergencies. You live under some grand delusion that
the U.S. has the best system in the world. Here, educate yourself
with these extracts from a recent article, the entirety of which you
can find at:

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:stbQpcw9HqsJ:www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm%3FREF%3D384+medical+wait+times+u.s.+canada&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

...

In his talk, Troy Brennan conceded that "the (US) healthcare system is
not timely." He cited "recent statistics from the Institution of
Healthcare Improvement — that people are waiting an average of about
70 days to try to see a provider. And in many circumstances people
initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is
intolerable," Brennan said.

Brennan also recalled that he had formerly spent much of his time as
an administrator and head of a physicians' organization trying "to
find appointments for people with doctors."

While Brennan's comments went unreported by the media, his data
matches several studies and a report in a June 22 Business Week
article which opened by citing the case of a New York woman who had to
fight for a timely second exam following suspicious results from a
first mammogram and then still had to wait a full month.

...

A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the
US, and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany,
Australia, New Zealand and Canada, found waiting times were worse in
the US than in all the other countries except Canada.

And, most of the Canadian data so widely reported by the US media is
out of date, and misleading, according to PNHP and CNA/NNOC.

In Canada, there are no waits for emergency surgeries, and the median
time for non-emergency elective surgery has been dropping as a result
of public pressure and increased funding so that it is now equal to or
better than the US in most areas, the organizations say.

Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for
elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks.

"There are significant differences between the US and Canada, too,"
said Burger. "In Canada, no one is denied care because of cost,
because their treatment or test was not 'pre-approved' or because they
have a pre-existing condition."

"Furthermore, when a service problem emerges in Canada, prompt
analysis and resource deployment is mobilized to resolve the problem,"
noted PNHP's Young. "In the US, the situation only worsens each year,
hence we are presently in an enormous crisis. That's why we a need a
single payer system, such as HR 676 which is now before Congress, that
can respond to new demands."

Furthermore, US statistics fail to account for the even longer waits
for the nation's 44 million uninsured and tens of millions of insured
Americans who put off needed medical care due to their high co-pays or
deductibles, CNA/NNOC and PNHP noted.

Canada also surpasses the US in a broad array of health barometers,
including life expectancy, infant mortality rates, adult mortality
rates, deaths due to HIV/AIDS, mortality rates for cardiovascular
diseases, and years of life lost to injuries and communicable
diseases, according to data from the World Health Organization and the
Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development.

"As nurses, we never worry about costs, billing, whether a procedure
will be covered or anything like that. I never have to worry about
whether one of my patients will get the treatment or care they need,",
Bev Dick, RN, vice president of the United Nurses of Alberta wrote in
a Portsmouth (NH) Herald commentary July 1. "That's the reason nurses
are so supportive of our public system. And we have fought to protect
it."
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.medbroadcast.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=1...
The link is incomplete, it doesn’t work.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-h...
Well, let's understand that FOX news is not a news network, it's a
frat boy network of frustrated conservative pundits who are more
interested in kicking mud around than providing real solid
information.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
H.R. 676; Section 102 states the coverage of the government plan,
Section 104; states that it is "unlawful for a private health insurer
to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits
provided under this act. That eliminates private health insurers.
Destroys the health insurance industry. Only one provider ""the
government ObamaHealthPlan"".
Which is how most of the rest of the world operates and does so at far
less cost to everyone. For a country as rich as the U.S., it really
has the unhealthiest population and the most ripped-off in terms of
costs, and when any of the nearly 50 million that aren't insured end
up in hospital, who do you think ends up paying the tab for that? The
government, thanks to your paid taxes. So private insurance saves you
nothing, it's only there for corporate greed.
The US system allows us to have the latest and best medical technology
has to offer.
Only if you can afford to pay the HMO premiums that would allow you
acces to it all. HMOs decide what treatment you'll get, not you or
your doctor. If you've got maximum coverage, you probably have little
to worry about; if not, then whatever new and best technology you
might need for whatever rare disease you might get will mean nothing
to you. Next time you get meds from a doc, ask if they're the real
deal or generics. Don't be surprised if you get generics or even
second-best to the real deal if your coverage is "incomplete".
Nothing wrong with generics, but I'd worry a smidgen if you got second
best.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
We also have lower doctor-to-patient ratios.
Government has enough trouble running Medicare. Why doesn't government
fix that first?
Government does what it does and it's always going to be flawed, no
matter what the program is. The best it can hope to do is minimize
the flaws. Obama sees a global picture of how to get it done, but
then that's the problem because most people can't see globally. Most
people fail to make all the connections to see why A into B won't lead
into C but will go straight to E and then backtrack to D after which
it will skip to M and go backwards to J and so on and so on. That's
the way the system is being run now. Obama gets it and what he wants
to do is try to get more linearity out of the process, as in A, B, C,
D, E, F, maybe skip to H, then back to G, then resume with I, J, K, L,
M and skip again to O, back to N and onto P, Q, R, so on. It's all
about ironing out the big wrinkles.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Your 50 million figure is so wrong.
Well, it was 47 million a couple of years ago according to the Census
Bureau, it's almost 50 million now for sure, especially with the
current recession and nearly 10% unemployment rate.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=628
Post by Bugsy Siegel
It doesn't take into account a good percentage make over $75,000 and
could afford to buy their own.
So you're only talking about one-quarter of U.S. earners. That kind
of leaves a couple of hundred million Americans out of the picture
then.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Many, through their work, are offered health in insurance but opt out
of their employer's program.
Part of the 50 million are legal and illegal immigrants. They still
have emergency care at their disposal.
Many qualify for government programs such as Medicaid or SCHIP.
When you break it down up 14 million need health insurance.
You'll have to cite all that because it don't square with the Census
Bureau.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are saying to those who choose to go without health insurance,
"You vill take the government option or suffer the consequences."
Which one is supposed to be "suffering the consequences"? The one who
has coverage of some kind or the one who has coverage of no kind?
Anyone ever tell you that you've got a bit of a warped way of looking
at reality?
Bugsy Siegel
2009-07-26 23:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by e***@netpath.net
Only lying is being done by House Democrats trying to block House
Republicans from mailing constituents the Obamacare Flow Chart. But
you can get that flow chart here:http://www.gop.com/pdf/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
- and see what liberals don't want you to see.
Did you even bother to read the source of that chart? No, of course
Source: Joint Economic Committee, Republican Staff
Congressman Kevin Brady, Ranking House Republican Member
Get back to me with a chart that's produced by an independent body.
No wonder it looks like something out of science-fiction.
Congress and Obama wants to pass their health care plans without
granting the public enough time to have experts translate the legalese
of their 1000 page bill.
Like that's done for any bill. Remember the bailout? I don't recall
any "granting the public enough time to have experts translate the
legalese" of that bill, not to mention that its cost to the taxpayer
makes the health bill look like a spit in the bucket.
The question is do you remember the bailout bill? It was passed by a
Democratic controlled Congress. 172 Democrats voted in favor of the
bill while 62 opposed it; and 91 Republicans voted for it and 108
voted against it. So that throws your argument down the crapper. Want
to try something else?
The question is, so to speak, that it doesn't matter who's running the
show, you just ain't ever gonna get your "granting the public enough
time to have experts translate the legalese" of any bill ever - Ever.
Which is what you were trying to say as some sort of lame attempt at
suggesting a democratization of the process. America is not a
democracy, it's a republic, in case you had forgotten.
The point is, the Dummycrats can pass bills at will. They have a
filibuster proof majority. Again you're making a poor argument why
the Dummycrats won't pass a bill without GOP obstruction. The Dummies
never cease to remind Republicans they control all three branches of
government.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So what if the Republicans came up with the chart? Why do Democrat
leaders want to stifle the chart? Is because they refuse to debate the
issue? What are the Democrats hiding?
The chart is actually irrelevant. Reps and Dems can come up with the
same kind of chart for how just about any department in the government
is mind-boggingly interrelated. The Homeland Security chart probably
looks like a real doozy.
You sure are weak when it comes to making an argument. You did not
answer any of my questions or even try to spin it.
If you had intelligent questions based on actual relevant facts, I
would've answered them precisely. But in the absence of intelligent
questions based on relevant facts, I can only do my best. And if it's
not satisfactory, then you need to go back and tweak your questions
with some real stuff. You only get what you give.
I guess they were too complicated for you since you couldn't come up
with a simpleminded answer.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
In regards to Canada, private health clinics are sprouting up
throughout the country because those clinics have a lower doctor to
patient ratio and lower wait times.
And they only appeal to those who have money to shell out for the
privilege, meaning it's often just for the privileged. The Canadian
system is actually a pretty good one despite the Republican propaganda
you hear, especially when you take into account that it covers
everyone. It's also a system that's lasted for nearly half-a-century
now, costs far less per capita to run than the U.S. system, and you
also can't really complain about getting a broken leg repaired free of
charge with it, whereas in the U.S. you'd be lucky to get it done for
10 grand - and that's only if your specific HMO plan will cover the
full cost of it. That's the problem with HMOs, you can never be sure
what'll you need to be covered for because you never know what'll hit
you. In a single-payer user system, it doesn't matter what hits you,
you're covered, and you won't go bankrupt and lose your home over it,
either. Not too many Canadians would want to give up on it because
they realize how ultimately valuable it is to them, even if they
sometimes might have to wait a bit longer to get care, but the real
emergencies are always handled promptly because they are, after all,
real emergencies.
I'm not talking about emergencies. No emergency clinic in this country
can turn away a patient. It's the law.
It's not only emergencies. You live under some grand delusion that
the U.S. has the best system in the world. Here, educate yourself
with these extracts from a recent article, the entirety of which you
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:stbQpcw9HqsJ:www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm%3FREF%3D384+medical+wait+times+u.s.+canada&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737

New reports from EUROCARE suggest that cancer care in Europe is
improving and that the gaps between countries are narrowing. However,
comparisons with US statistics suggest that cancer survival in Europe
is still lagging behind the United States.

http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp

Of the top 1000 hospitals in the world, the top 24 are in the United
States.

Canada first gets on the list at 43. England enters the list at 56.

The USA has 536 hospitals in the top 1000.
Canada
Post by wy
...
In his talk, Troy Brennan conceded that "the (US) healthcare system is
not timely." He cited "recent statistics from the Institution of
Healthcare Improvement — that people are waiting an average of about
70 days to try to see a provider. And in many circumstances people
initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is
intolerable," Brennan said.
With my insurance, I can see my primary provider within 2 business
days. A specialist within two-three weeks.

That stat is wrong.

When I had to rely on Medicaid for six months several years ago. I saw
a primary within a week and specialist within two months.
Post by wy
Brennan also recalled that he had formerly spent much of his time as
an administrator and head of a physicians' organization trying "to
find appointments for people with doctors."
While Brennan's comments went unreported by the media, his data
matches several studies and a report in a June 22 Business Week
article which opened by citing the case of a New York woman who had to
fight for a timely second exam following suspicious results from a
first mammogram and then still had to wait a full month.
...
A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the
US, and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany,
Australia, New Zealand and Canada, found waiting times were worse in
the US than in all the other countries except Canada.
And, most of the Canadian data so widely reported by the US media is
out of date, and misleading, according to PNHP and CNA/NNOC.
In Canada, there are no waits for emergency surgeries, and the median
time for non-emergency elective surgery has been dropping as a result
of public pressure and increased funding so that it is now equal to or
better than the US in most areas, the organizations say.
Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for
elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks.
"There are significant differences between the US and Canada, too,"
said Burger. "In Canada, no one is denied care because of cost,
because their treatment or test was not 'pre-approved' or because they
have a pre-existing condition."
"Furthermore, when a service problem emerges in Canada, prompt
analysis and resource deployment is mobilized to resolve the problem,"
noted PNHP's Young. "In the US, the situation only worsens each year,
hence we are presently in an enormous crisis. That's why we a need a
single payer system, such as HR 676 which is now before Congress, that
can respond to new demands."
Furthermore, US statistics fail to account for the even longer waits
for the nation's 44 million uninsured and tens of millions of insured
Americans who put off needed medical care due to their high co-pays or
deductibles, CNA/NNOC and PNHP noted.
Canada also surpasses the US in a broad array of health barometers,
including life expectancy, infant mortality rates, adult mortality
rates, deaths due to HIV/AIDS, mortality rates for cardiovascular
diseases, and years of life lost to injuries and communicable
diseases, according to data from the World Health Organization and the
Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development.
"As nurses, we never worry about costs, billing, whether a procedure
will be covered or anything like that. I never have to worry about
whether one of my patients will get the treatment or care they need,",
Bev Dick, RN, vice president of the United Nurses of Alberta wrote in
a Portsmouth (NH) Herald commentary July 1. "That's the reason nurses
are so supportive of our public system. And we have fought to protect
it."
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.medbroadcast.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=1...
The link is incomplete, it doesn’t work.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-h...
Well, let's understand that FOX news is not a news network, it's a
frat boy network of frustrated conservative pundits who are more
interested in kicking mud around than providing real solid
information.
You can't dispute the story.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
H.R. 676; Section 102 states the coverage of the government plan,
Section 104; states that it is "unlawful for a private health insurer
to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits
provided under this act. That eliminates private health insurers.
Destroys the health insurance industry. Only one provider ""the
government ObamaHealthPlan"".
Which is how most of the rest of the world operates and does so at far
less cost to everyone. For a country as rich as the U.S., it really
has the unhealthiest population and the most ripped-off in terms of
costs, and when any of the nearly 50 million that aren't insured end
up in hospital, who do you think ends up paying the tab for that? The
government, thanks to your paid taxes. So private insurance saves you
nothing, it's only there for corporate greed.
The US system allows us to have the latest and best medical technology
has to offer.
Only if you can afford to pay the HMO premiums that would allow you
acces to it all. HMOs decide what treatment you'll get, not you or
your doctor. If you've got maximum coverage, you probably have little
to worry about; if not, then whatever new and best technology you
might need for whatever rare disease you might get will mean nothing
to you. Next time you get meds from a doc, ask if they're the real
deal or generics. Don't be surprised if you get generics or even
second-best to the real deal if your coverage is "incomplete".
Nothing wrong with generics, but I'd worry a smidgen if you got second
best.
I was able to get an MRI last year for a $50 co-pay with a referral
from my primary care physician with one week wait.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
We also have lower doctor-to-patient ratios.
Government has enough trouble running Medicare. Why doesn't government
fix that first?
Government does what it does and it's always going to be flawed, no
matter what the program is. The best it can hope to do is minimize
the flaws. Obama sees a global picture of how to get it done, but
then that's the problem because most people can't see globally. Most
people fail to make all the connections to see why A into B won't lead
into C but will go straight to E and then backtrack to D after which
it will skip to M and go backwards to J and so on and so on. That's
the way the system is being run now. Obama gets it and what he wants
to do is try to get more linearity out of the process, as in A, B, C,
D, E, F, maybe skip to H, then back to G, then resume with I, J, K, L,
M and skip again to O, back to N and onto P, Q, R, so on. It's all
about ironing out the big wrinkles.
Translation: the government can't fix Medicare, but it will try to
fix the whole ball of wax. What Obama wants is immaterial. He doesn't
even know what's in the Congressional proposals. Obama said reform
will be deficit neutral but the CBO says differently.

Obama wanted to iron out all the wrinkles by the time Congress went on
their August vacation. He wants to sign a bill by the end of Summer.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Your 50 million figure is so wrong.
Well, it was 47 million a couple of years ago according to the Census
Bureau, it's almost 50 million now for sure, especially with the
current recession and nearly 10% unemployment rate.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=628
Post by Bugsy Siegel
It doesn't take into account a good percentage make over $75,000 and
could afford to buy their own.
So you're only talking about one-quarter of U.S. earners. That kind
of leaves a couple of hundred million Americans out of the picture
then.
How do you get a couple hundred million out 47 million. I was talking
about those without health insurance who can afford to get it on their
own.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Many, through their work, are offered health in insurance but opt out
of their employer's program.
Part of the 50 million are legal and illegal immigrants. They still
have emergency care at their disposal.
Many qualify for government programs such as Medicaid or SCHIP.
When you break it down up 14 million need health insurance.
You'll have to cite all that because it don't square with the Census
Bureau.
Let's try logic.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51443


This Census report says that within the borders of the United States
as of 2007 there were 45.65 people without health insurance. But this
number, according to the Census Bureau, included 9.73 million
foreigners, leaving only 35.92 Americans who were uninsured.

The Census Bureau also said that the number of uninsured people was
declining.
“Both the percentage and number of people without health insurance
decreased in 2007,” said the Census Bureau report.

Among the uninsured in the United States, the Census Bureau said,
there were also 9.1 million people making more than $75,000 per year
who did not choose to purchase health insurance.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are saying to those who choose to go without health insurance,
"You vill take the government option or suffer the consequences."
Which one is supposed to be "suffering the consequences"? The one who
has coverage of some kind or the one who has coverage of no kind?
Anyone ever tell you that you've got a bit of a warped way of looking
at reality?
Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage
Health overhaul in Senate bill imposes penalty on those refusing
affordable medical coverage
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press Writer
On Thursday July 2, 2009, 10:02 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical
coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health
care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking
to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around
$36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be
modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a
fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage.
Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties
than individuals.



-

U.S. Internal Revenue Service:
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-07-27 03:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by e***@netpath.net
Only lying is being done by House Democrats trying to block House
Republicans from mailing constituents the Obamacare Flow Chart.  But
you can get that flow chart here:http://www.gop.com/pdf/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
- and see what liberals don't want you to see.
Did you even bother to read the source of that chart?  No, of course
Source: Joint Economic Committee, Republican Staff
Congressman Kevin Brady, Ranking House Republican Member
Get back to me with a chart that's produced by an independent body.
No wonder it looks like something out of science-fiction.
Congress and Obama wants to pass their health care plans without
granting the public enough time to have experts translate the legalese
of their 1000 page bill.
Like that's done for any bill.  Remember the bailout?  I don't recall
any "granting the public enough time to have experts translate the
legalese" of that bill, not to mention that its cost to the taxpayer
makes the health bill look like a spit in the bucket.
The question is do you remember the bailout bill? It was passed by a
Democratic controlled Congress. 172 Democrats voted in favor of the
bill while 62 opposed it; and 91 Republicans voted for it and 108
voted against it. So that throws your argument down the crapper. Want
to try something else?
The question is, so to speak, that it doesn't matter who's running the
show, you just ain't ever gonna get your "granting the public enough
time to have experts translate the legalese" of any bill ever - Ever.
Which is what you were trying to say as some sort of lame attempt at
suggesting a democratization of the process.  America is not a
democracy, it's a republic, in case you had forgotten.
The point is, the Dummycrats can pass bills at will. They have a
filibuster proof majority.  Again you're making a poor argument why
the Dummycrats won't pass a bill without GOP obstruction. The Dummies
never cease to remind Republicans they control all three branches of
government.
Yeah, and where were you complaining about it when the Republicans had
total control during the Bush years, specificlaly 2000-06? Can anyone
here spell hypocrisy?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So what if the  Republicans came up with the chart? Why do Democrat
leaders want to stifle the chart? Is because they refuse to debate the
issue? What are the Democrats hiding?
The chart is actually irrelevant.  Reps and Dems can come up with the
same kind of chart for how just about any department in the government
is mind-boggingly interrelated.  The Homeland Security chart probably
looks like a real doozy.
You sure are weak when it comes to making an argument. You did not
answer any of my questions or even try to spin it.
If you had intelligent questions based on actual relevant facts, I
would've answered them precisely.  But in the absence of intelligent
questions based on relevant facts, I can only do my best.  And if it's
not satisfactory, then you need to go back and tweak your questions
with some real stuff.  You only get what you give.
I guess they were too complicated for you since you couldn't come up
with a simpleminded answer.
I thought what I gave *was* simple-minded answers because I found the
questions to be too simple-minded to be credible as anything factual-
based.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
In regards to Canada, private health clinics are sprouting up
throughout the country because those clinics have a lower doctor to
patient ratio and lower wait times.
And they only appeal to those who have money to shell out for the
privilege, meaning it's often just for the privileged.  The Canadian
system is actually a pretty good one despite the Republican propaganda
you hear, especially when you take into account that it covers
everyone.  It's also a system that's lasted for nearly half-a-century
now, costs far less per capita to run than the U.S. system, and you
also can't really complain about getting a broken leg repaired free of
charge with it, whereas in the U.S. you'd be lucky to get it done for
10 grand - and that's only if your specific HMO plan will cover the
full cost of it.  That's the problem with HMOs, you can never be sure
what'll you need to be covered for because you never know what'll hit
you.  In a single-payer user system, it doesn't matter what hits you,
you're covered, and you won't go bankrupt and lose your home over it,
either.  Not too many Canadians would want to give up on it because
they realize how ultimately valuable it is to them, even if they
sometimes might have to wait a bit longer to get care, but the real
emergencies are always handled promptly because they are, after all,
real emergencies.
I'm not talking about emergencies. No emergency clinic in this country
can turn away a patient. It's the law.
It's not only emergencies.  You live under some grand delusion that
the U.S. has the best system in the world.  Here, educate yourself
with these extracts from a recent article, the entirety of which you
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:stbQpcw9HqsJ:www.straightgoods.c...
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737
New reports from EUROCARE suggest that cancer care in Europe is
improving and that the gaps between countries are narrowing. However,
comparisons with US statistics suggest that cancer survival in Europe
is still lagging behind the United States.
What it fails to note is that the comparison is between one country
and a group of countries, which makes the comparison unfair because
some of those European countries may actually have better stats
against the States than other countries. A fairer comparison, of
course, is single country vs. single country, not group of countries,
but that would seem to be too fair a comparison to make for
conservatives.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp
Of the top 1000 hospitals in the world, the top 24 are in the United
States.
That means the rest of the world has 976 top hospitals. Your point
being?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Canada first gets on the list at 43. England enters the list at 56.
43 is not bad for a country that has only a tenth of the population of
the U.S. England, with a fifth of the U.S. population and twice
Canada's, probably could do better - I guess they just need to get rid
of all those free cab rides home from the hospital as part of their
universal health coverage.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The USA has 536 hospitals in the top 1000.
I thought you said it was only 24. Make up your conservative mind.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Canada
Post by wy
...
In his talk, Troy Brennan conceded that "the (US) healthcare system is
not timely." He cited "recent statistics from the Institution of
Healthcare Improvement — that people are waiting an average of about
70 days to try to see a provider. And in many circumstances people
initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is
intolerable," Brennan said.
With my insurance, I can see my primary provider within 2 business
days. A specialist within two-three weeks.
All depends where you live and how much premiums you pay for what
coverage you have. It's not the same across the board, each state is
different, each county is different.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
That stat is wrong.
Maybe only for you, not for the general population. The figures
reflect the general experience, not just Bugsy Siegel's experience.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
When I had to rely on Medicaid for six months several years ago. I saw
a primary within a week and specialist within two months.
Good for you. How much do you pay for your coverage? I'll tell you
if it's less or more than what a typical Canadian pays for universal
coverage. Don't be surprised if yours is more for less because it's
unlikely you have universal coverage. Can anyone here spell ripped
off?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Brennan also recalled that he had formerly spent much of his time as
an administrator and head of a physicians' organization trying "to
find appointments for people with doctors."
While Brennan's comments went unreported by the media, his data
matches several studies and a report in a June 22 Business Week
article which opened by citing the case of a New York woman who had to
fight for a timely second exam following suspicious results from a
first mammogram and then still had to wait a full month.
...
A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the
US, and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany,
Australia, New Zealand and Canada, found waiting times were worse in
the US than in all the other countries except Canada.
And, most of the Canadian data so widely reported by the US media is
out of date, and misleading, according to PNHP and CNA/NNOC.
In Canada, there are no waits for emergency surgeries, and the median
time for non-emergency elective surgery has been dropping as a result
of public pressure and increased funding so that it is now equal to or
better than the US in most areas, the organizations say.
Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for
elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks.
"There are significant differences between the US and Canada, too,"
said Burger. "In Canada, no one is denied care because of cost,
because their treatment or test was not 'pre-approved' or because they
have a pre-existing condition."
"Furthermore, when a service problem emerges in Canada, prompt
analysis and resource deployment is mobilized to resolve the problem,"
noted PNHP's Young. "In the US, the situation only worsens each year,
hence we are presently in an enormous crisis. That's why we a need a
single payer system, such as HR 676 which is now before Congress, that
can respond to new demands."
Furthermore, US statistics fail to account for the even longer waits
for the nation's 44 million uninsured and tens of millions of insured
Americans who put off needed medical care due to their high co-pays or
deductibles, CNA/NNOC and PNHP noted.
Canada also surpasses the US in a broad array of health barometers,
including life expectancy, infant mortality rates, adult mortality
rates, deaths due to HIV/AIDS, mortality rates for cardiovascular
diseases, and years of life lost to injuries and communicable
diseases, according to data from the World Health Organization and the
Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development.
"As nurses, we never worry about costs, billing, whether a procedure
will be covered or anything like that. I never have to worry about
whether one of my patients will get the treatment or care they need,",
Bev Dick, RN, vice president of the United Nurses of Alberta wrote in
a Portsmouth (NH) Herald commentary July 1. "That's the reason nurses
are so supportive of our public system. And we have fought to protect
it."
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.medbroadcast.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=1...
The link is incomplete, it doesn’t work.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-h...
Well, let's understand that FOX news is not a news network, it's a
frat boy network of frustrated conservative pundits who are more
interested in kicking mud around than providing real solid
information.
You can't dispute the story.
Well, I would if your link would work. Your links never work. Got
something to hide?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
H.R. 676; Section 102 states the coverage of the government plan,
Section 104; states that it is "unlawful for a private health insurer
to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits
provided under this act. That eliminates private health insurers.
Destroys the health insurance industry. Only one provider ""the
government ObamaHealthPlan"".
Which is how most of the rest of the world operates and does so at far
less cost to everyone.  For a country as rich as the U.S., it really
has the unhealthiest population and the most ripped-off in terms of
costs, and when any of the nearly 50 million that aren't insured end
up in hospital, who do you think ends up paying the tab for that?  The
government, thanks to your paid taxes.  So private insurance saves you
nothing, it's only there for corporate greed.
The US system allows us to have the latest and best medical technology
has to offer.
Only if you can afford to pay the HMO premiums that would allow you
acces to it all.  HMOs decide what treatment you'll get, not you or
your doctor.  If you've got maximum coverage, you probably have little
to worry about; if not, then whatever new and best technology you
might need for whatever rare disease you might get will mean nothing
to you.  Next time you get meds from a doc, ask if they're the real
deal or generics.  Don't be surprised if you get generics or even
second-best to the real deal if your coverage is "incomplete".
Nothing wrong with generics, but I'd worry a smidgen if you got second
best.
I was able to get an MRI last year for a $50 co-pay with a referral
from my primary care physician with one week wait.
Canada beats you. Free MRIs. Depending on the case, the wait can be
days to months - the more serious, the less waiting time, which is
fair and reasonable enough. And actually, the system works pretty
well that way because it's not hogged by people with less serious
problems that can adversely affect the ones with more serious problems
needing it first. If you went for an MRI because of an ingrown toe
nail, well, hell, you just might've gotten ahead in line of the person
who's got some treatable form of cancer if caught early. Is that
efficient?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
We also have lower doctor-to-patient ratios.
Government has enough trouble running Medicare. Why doesn't government
fix that first?
Government does what it does and it's always going to be flawed, no
matter what the program is.  The best it can hope to do is minimize
the flaws.  Obama sees a global picture of how to get it done, but
then that's the problem because most people can't see globally.  Most
people fail to make all the connections to see why A into B won't lead
into C but will go straight to E and then backtrack to D after which
it will skip to M and go backwards to J and so on and so on.  That's
the way the system is being run now.  Obama gets it and what he wants
to do is try to get more linearity out of the process, as in A, B, C,
D, E, F, maybe skip to H, then back to G, then resume with I, J, K, L,
M and skip again to O, back to N and onto P, Q, R, so on.  It's all
about ironing out the big wrinkles.
Translation: the  government can't fix Medicare, but it will try to
fix the whole ball of wax. What Obama wants is immaterial. He doesn't
even know what's in the Congressional proposals. Obama said reform
will be deficit neutral but the CBO says differently.
The only way it can be deficit neutral is through a single-payer
system, whether you like it or not. Obama would prefer that but he
also recognizes the reality that, due to the weird American mindset
which prefers to make things more difficult and complicated for
themselves, it won't ever fly, which is why he's looking to a bill
that would include a hybrid of government coverage and private
coverage with the aim of ensuring that everyone gets covered.
Personally, I don't see the hybrid way making much of a dent in
savings so the U.S. will be doomed to uncontrolled mushrooming costs
at your expense - yes, that means taxes and premiums will go up at a
far more alarming rate the more Baby Boomers enter the last years on
Earth - and there's tons more of those Baby Boomers yet to come,
straight up till 2029 for the last of the 65-year-olds to make it,
after which the 2030s will be absolutely brutal on your pocket book.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Obama wanted to iron out all the wrinkles by the time Congress went on
their August vacation.  He wants to sign a bill by the end of Summer.
He'll be lucky to get something he'll think might be satisfying enough
to sign by Christmas.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Your 50 million figure is so wrong.
Well, it was 47 million a couple of years ago according to the Census
Bureau, it's almost 50 million now for sure, especially with the
current recession and nearly 10% unemployment rate.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=628
Post by Bugsy Siegel
It doesn't take into account a good percentage make over $75,000 and
could afford to buy their own.
So you're only talking about one-quarter of U.S. earners.  That kind
of leaves a couple of hundred million Americans out of the picture
then.
How do you get a couple hundred million out 47 million. I was talking
about those without health insurance who can afford to get it on their
own.
That's what I was talking about, too. Only a quarter of wage earners
make over $75,000, meaning three-quarters don't. That three-quarters
adds up to a couple of hundred million people affected, wage earners
and their families included. Did you flunk math?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Many, through their work, are offered health in insurance but opt out
of their employer's program.
Part of the 50 million are legal and illegal immigrants. They still
have emergency care at their disposal.
Many qualify for government programs such as Medicaid or SCHIP.
When you break it down up 14 million need health insurance.
You'll have to cite all that because it don't square with the Census
Bureau.
Let's try logic.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51443
This Census report says that within the borders of the United States
as of 2007 there were 45.65 people without health insurance. But this
number, according to the Census Bureau, included 9.73 million
foreigners, leaving only 35.92 Americans who were uninsured.
Never mind using logic. Why not use real facts?

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/health_nutrition/health_insurance.html

...and click on the Excel file for 148 - People Without Health
Insurance for the Entire Year by Selected Characteristics. You'll
note that it's the Census 2009 Statistical Abstract for which there
are no reports for 2007, as alluded to in the above, only for 2005 and
2006. Meaning 2007 hasn't been published yet. Meaning also that the
numbers for uninsured are CLIMBING.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The Census Bureau also said that the number of uninsured people was
declining.
No, they're CLIMBING. Read the real source, not some puny website
with an agenda that's willing to misinterpret figures to accomodate
that agenda.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
“Both the percentage and number of people without health insurance
decreased in 2007,” said the Census Bureau report.
No, INCREASED. Conservatives always love to look at things
backwards. Where are they from, the planet Bizarro?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Among the uninsured in the United States, the Census Bureau said,
there were also 9.1 million people making more than $75,000 per year
who did not choose to purchase health insurance.
They'll be sorrrryyyyy.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are saying to those who choose to go without health insurance,
"You vill take the government option or suffer the consequences."
Which one is supposed to be "suffering the consequences"?  The one who
has coverage of some kind or the one who has coverage of no kind?
Anyone ever tell you that you've got a bit of a warped way of looking
at reality?
Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage
Health overhaul in Senate bill imposes penalty on those refusing
affordable medical coverage
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press Writer
On Thursday July 2, 2009, 10:02 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical
coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health
care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking
to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around
$36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be
modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a
fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage.
Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties
than individuals.
And the problem here is what? Let me get this straight: are you
advocating that it's every person's right to be not covered by any
health plan should they so decide? Meaning that if they ever end up
with some rare deadly disease that'll end up costing the government $2
million to treat because some shnook thought it was best not to have
coverage, then that's perfectly fine by you if it comes out of your
taxes because the other guy was exercising his right not to have
coverage multiplied by millions like him. Du-uhhh???
Bugsy Siegel
2009-07-27 22:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by e***@netpath.net
Only lying is being done by House Democrats trying to block House
Republicans from mailing constituents the Obamacare Flow Chart.  But
you can get that flow chart here:http://www.gop.com/pdf/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
- and see what liberals don't want you to see.
Did you even bother to read the source of that chart?  No, of course
Source: Joint Economic Committee, Republican Staff
Congressman Kevin Brady, Ranking House Republican Member
Get back to me with a chart that's produced by an independent body.
No wonder it looks like something out of science-fiction.
Congress and Obama wants to pass their health care plans without
granting the public enough time to have experts translate the legalese
of their 1000 page bill.
Like that's done for any bill.  Remember the bailout?  I don't recall
any "granting the public enough time to have experts translate the
legalese" of that bill, not to mention that its cost to the taxpayer
makes the health bill look like a spit in the bucket.
The question is do you remember the bailout bill? It was passed by a
Democratic controlled Congress. 172 Democrats voted in favor of the
bill while 62 opposed it; and 91 Republicans voted for it and 108
voted against it. So that throws your argument down the crapper. Want
to try something else?
The question is, so to speak, that it doesn't matter who's running the
show, you just ain't ever gonna get your "granting the public enough
time to have experts translate the legalese" of any bill ever - Ever.
Which is what you were trying to say as some sort of lame attempt at
suggesting a democratization of the process.  America is not a
democracy, it's a republic, in case you had forgotten.
The point is, the Dummycrats can pass bills at will. They have a
filibuster proof majority.  Again you're making a poor argument why
the Dummycrats won't pass a bill without GOP obstruction. The Dummies
never cease to remind Republicans they control all three branches of
government.
Yeah, and where were you complaining about it when the Republicans had
total control during the Bush years, specificlaly 2000-06? Can anyone
here spell hypocrisy?
You can't. Just because the Republican did not pass a Marxist health
care reform bill doesn't make them hypocrites.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So what if the  Republicans came up with the chart? Why do Democrat
leaders want to stifle the chart? Is because they refuse to debate the
issue? What are the Democrats hiding?
The chart is actually irrelevant.  Reps and Dems can come up with the
same kind of chart for how just about any department in the government
is mind-boggingly interrelated.  The Homeland Security chart probably
looks like a real doozy.
You sure are weak when it comes to making an argument. You did not
answer any of my questions or even try to spin it.
If you had intelligent questions based on actual relevant facts, I
would've answered them precisely.  But in the absence of intelligent
questions based on relevant facts, I can only do my best.  And if it's
not satisfactory, then you need to go back and tweak your questions
with some real stuff.  You only get what you give.
I guess they were too complicated for you since you couldn't come up
with a simpleminded answer.
I thought what I gave *was* simple-minded answers because I found the
questions to be too simple-minded to be credible as anything factual-
based.
As I have said, you can't even debates the points related to the
questions.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
In regards to Canada, private health clinics are sprouting up
throughout the country because those clinics have a lower doctor to
patient ratio and lower wait times.
And they only appeal to those who have money to shell out for the
privilege, meaning it's often just for the privileged.  The Canadian
system is actually a pretty good one despite the Republican propaganda
you hear, especially when you take into account that it covers
everyone.  It's also a system that's lasted for nearly half-a-century
now, costs far less per capita to run than the U.S. system, and you
also can't really complain about getting a broken leg repaired free of
charge with it, whereas in the U.S. you'd be lucky to get it done for
10 grand - and that's only if your specific HMO plan will cover the
full cost of it.  That's the problem with HMOs, you can never be sure
what'll you need to be covered for because you never know what'll hit
you.  In a single-payer user system, it doesn't matter what hits you,
you're covered, and you won't go bankrupt and lose your home over it,
either.  Not too many Canadians would want to give up on it because
they realize how ultimately valuable it is to them, even if they
sometimes might have to wait a bit longer to get care, but the real
emergencies are always handled promptly because they are, after all,
real emergencies.
I'm not talking about emergencies. No emergency clinic in this country
can turn away a patient. It's the law.
It's not only emergencies.  You live under some grand delusion that
the U.S. has the best system in the world.  Here, educate yourself
with these extracts from a recent article, the entirety of which you
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:stbQpcw9HqsJ:www.straightgoods.c...
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737
New reports from EUROCARE suggest that cancer care in Europe is
improving and that the gaps between countries are narrowing. However,
comparisons with US statistics suggest that cancer survival in Europe
is still lagging behind the United States.
What it fails to note is that the comparison is between one country
and a group of countries, which makes the comparison unfair because
some of those European countries may actually have better stats
against the States than other countries. A fairer comparison, of
course, is single country vs. single country, not group of countries,
but that would seem to be too fair a comparison to make for
conservatives.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp
Of the top 1000 hospitals in the world, the top 24 are in the United
States.
That means the rest of the world has 976 top hospitals. Your point
being?
That one flew over your head. US hospitals are rated better than the
rest of the world.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Canada first gets on the list at 43. England enters the list at 56.
43 is not bad for a country that has only a tenth of the population of
the U.S. England, with a fifth of the U.S. population and twice
Canada's, probably could do better - I guess they just need to get rid
of all those free cab rides home from the hospital as part of their
universal health coverage.
That means there are 42 hospitals in the world better than Canada.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The USA has 536 hospitals in the top 1000.
I thought you said it was only 24. Make up your conservative mind.
You need to practice how read with comprehension. 24 US hospitals are
at the top of the list of 1000 best rated hospitals. Do you need an
illustration with stick figures?
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Canada
Post by wy
...
In his talk, Troy Brennan conceded that "the (US) healthcare system is
not timely." He cited "recent statistics from the Institution of
Healthcare Improvement — that people are waiting an average of about
70 days to try to see a provider. And in many circumstances people
initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is
intolerable," Brennan said.
With my insurance, I can see my primary provider within 2 business
days. A specialist within two-three weeks.
All depends where you live and how much premiums you pay for what
coverage you have. It's not the same across the board, each state is
different, each county is different.
With two different jobs, I had two different insurance carriers and
their premiums never exceeded $100 a month.

When I did not have insurance and had an emergency, all I had to do
was check the Yellow Pages and was able to see a private practioner
the same day and had a wait time of less than two hours. If I went to
a county clinic, wait time would have been hours. That is in Los
Angeles where most of the county trauma centers had to close.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
That stat is wrong.
Maybe only for you, not for the general population. The figures
reflect the general experience, not just Bugsy Siegel's experience.
It sucks not want to do the work for oneself and rely on government
for everything.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
When I had to rely on Medicaid for six months several years ago. I saw
a primary within a week and specialist within two months.
Good for you. How much do you pay for your coverage? I'll tell you
if it's less or more than what a typical Canadian pays for universal
coverage. Don't be surprised if yours is more for less because it's
unlikely you have universal coverage. Can anyone here spell ripped
off?
It took a $10 co-pay to see a doctor for any reason and nothing for an
$800 prescription. The downside was hte wait times. That was in Clark
County, Nevada, a state that comes at the bottom for state social
services. You just have to know how to play the system to get what you
need. The county did offer free services for wellness consultation.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Brennan also recalled that he had formerly spent much of his time as
an administrator and head of a physicians' organization trying "to
find appointments for people with doctors."
While Brennan's comments went unreported by the media, his data
matches several studies and a report in a June 22 Business Week
article which opened by citing the case of a New York woman who had to
fight for a timely second exam following suspicious results from a
first mammogram and then still had to wait a full month.
...
A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the
US, and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany,
Australia, New Zealand and Canada, found waiting times were worse in
the US than in all the other countries except Canada.
And, most of the Canadian data so widely reported by the US media is
out of date, and misleading, according to PNHP and CNA/NNOC.
In Canada, there are no waits for emergency surgeries, and the median
time for non-emergency elective surgery has been dropping as a result
of public pressure and increased funding so that it is now equal to or
better than the US in most areas, the organizations say.
Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for
elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks.
"There are significant differences between the US and Canada, too,"
said Burger. "In Canada, no one is denied care because of cost,
because their treatment or test was not 'pre-approved' or because they
have a pre-existing condition."
"Furthermore, when a service problem emerges in Canada, prompt
analysis and resource deployment is mobilized to resolve the problem,"
noted PNHP's Young. "In the US, the situation only worsens each year,
hence we are presently in an enormous crisis. That's why we a need a
single payer system, such as HR 676 which is now before Congress, that
can respond to new demands."
Furthermore, US statistics fail to account for the even longer waits
for the nation's 44 million uninsured and tens of millions of insured
Americans who put off needed medical care due to their high co-pays or
deductibles, CNA/NNOC and PNHP noted.
Canada also surpasses the US in a broad array of health barometers,
including life expectancy, infant mortality rates, adult mortality
rates, deaths due to HIV/AIDS, mortality rates for cardiovascular
diseases, and years of life lost to injuries and communicable
diseases, according to data from the World Health Organization and the
Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development.
"As nurses, we never worry about costs, billing, whether a procedure
will be covered or anything like that. I never have to worry about
whether one of my patients will get the treatment or care they need,",
Bev Dick, RN, vice president of the United Nurses of Alberta wrote in
a Portsmouth (NH) Herald commentary July 1. "That's the reason nurses
are so supportive of our public system. And we have fought to protect
it."
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.medbroadcast.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=1...
The link is incomplete, it doesn’t work.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-h...
Well, let's understand that FOX news is not a news network, it's a
frat boy network of frustrated conservative pundits who are more
interested in kicking mud around than providing real solid
information.
You can't dispute the story.
Well, I would if your link would work. Your links never work. Got
something to hide?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
H.R. 676; Section 102 states the coverage of the government plan,
Section 104; states that it is "unlawful for a private health insurer
to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits
provided under this act. That eliminates private health insurers.
Destroys the health insurance industry. Only one provider ""the
government ObamaHealthPlan"".
Which is how most of the rest of the world operates and does so at far
less cost to everyone.  For a country as rich as the U.S., it really
has the unhealthiest population and the most ripped-off in terms of
costs, and when any of the nearly 50 million that aren't insured end
up in hospital, who do you think ends up paying the tab for that?  The
government, thanks to your paid taxes.  So private insurance saves you
nothing, it's only there for corporate greed.
The US system allows us to have the latest and best medical technology
has to offer.
Only if you can afford to pay the HMO premiums that would allow you
acces to it all.  HMOs decide what treatment you'll get, not you or
your doctor.  If you've got maximum coverage, you probably have little
to worry about; if not, then whatever new and best technology you
might need for whatever rare disease you might get will mean nothing
to you.  Next time you get meds from a doc, ask if they're the real
deal or generics.  Don't be surprised if you get generics or even
second-best to the real deal if your coverage is "incomplete".
Nothing wrong with generics, but I'd worry a smidgen if you got second
best.
I was able to get an MRI last year for a $50 co-pay with a referral
from my primary care physician with one week wait.
Canada beats you. Free MRIs. Depending on the case, the wait can be
days to months - the more serious, the less waiting time, which is
fair and reasonable enough. And actually, the system works pretty
well that way because it's not hogged by people with less serious
problems that can adversely affect the ones with more serious problems
needing it first. If you went for an MRI because of an ingrown toe
nail, well, hell, you just might've gotten ahead in line of the person
who's got some treatable form of cancer if caught early. Is that
efficient?
The advantage the US has over Canada is that the USA has more MRI
machines than Canada that makes wait times negligible especially in as
emergency situation where it only takes same day to get an MRI.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
We also have lower doctor-to-patient ratios.
Government has enough trouble running Medicare. Why doesn't government
fix that first?
Government does what it does and it's always going to be flawed, no
matter what the program is.  The best it can hope to do is minimize
the flaws.  Obama sees a global picture of how to get it done, but
then that's the problem because most people can't see globally.  Most
people fail to make all the connections to see why A into B won't lead
into C but will go straight to E and then backtrack to D after which
it will skip to M and go backwards to J and so on and so on.  That's
the way the system is being run now.  Obama gets it and what he wants
to do is try to get more linearity out of the process, as in A, B, C,
D, E, F, maybe skip to H, then back to G, then resume with I, J, K, L,
M and skip again to O, back to N and onto P, Q, R, so on.  It's all
about ironing out the big wrinkles.
Translation: the  government can't fix Medicare, but it will try to
fix the whole ball of wax. What Obama wants is immaterial. He doesn't
even know what's in the Congressional proposals. Obama said reform
will be deficit neutral but the CBO says differently.
The only way it can be deficit neutral is through a single-payer
system, whether you like it or not. Obama would prefer that but he
also recognizes the reality that, due to the weird American mindset
which prefers to make things more difficult and complicated for
themselves, it won't ever fly, which is why he's looking to a bill
that would include a hybrid of government coverage and private
coverage with the aim of ensuring that everyone gets covered.
Personally, I don't see the hybrid way making much of a dent in
savings so the U.S. will be doomed to uncontrolled mushrooming costs
at your expense - yes, that means taxes and premiums will go up at a
far more alarming rate the more Baby Boomers enter the last years on
Earth - and there's tons more of those Baby Boomers yet to come,
straight up till 2029 for the last of the 65-year-olds to make it,
after which the 2030s will be absolutely brutal on your pocket book.
The CBO says otherwise. Obama saying it is deficit neutral is lying
through his teeth.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Obama wanted to iron out all the wrinkles by the time Congress went on
their August vacation.  He wants to sign a bill by the end of Summer.
He'll be lucky to get something he'll think might be satisfying enough
to sign by Christmas.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Your 50 million figure is so wrong.
Well, it was 47 million a couple of years ago according to the Census
Bureau, it's almost 50 million now for sure, especially with the
current recession and nearly 10% unemployment rate.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=628
Post by Bugsy Siegel
It doesn't take into account a good percentage make over $75,000 and
could afford to buy their own.
So you're only talking about one-quarter of U.S. earners.  That kind
of leaves a couple of hundred million Americans out of the picture
then.
How do you get a couple hundred million out 47 million. I was talking
about those without health insurance who can afford to get it on their
own.
That's what I was talking about, too. Only a quarter of wage earners
make over $75,000, meaning three-quarters don't. That three-quarters
adds up to a couple of hundred million people affected, wage earners
and their families included. Did you flunk math?
Again, you have this comprehension issue. Where do you think 47
million came from?
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Many, through their work, are offered health in insurance but opt out
of their employer's program.
Part of the 50 million are legal and illegal immigrants. They still
have emergency care at their disposal.
Many qualify for government programs such as Medicaid or SCHIP.
When you break it down up 14 million need health insurance.
You'll have to cite all that because it don't square with the Census
Bureau.
Let's try logic.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51443
This Census report says that within the borders of the United States
as of 2007 there were 45.65 people without health insurance. But this
number, according to the Census Bureau, included 9.73 million
foreigners, leaving only 35.92 Americans who were uninsured.
Never mind using logic. Why not use real facts?
The facts are broken down in the link and references the Census
Bureau. At their site you have to peruse all their data to get what
you want. That's why Obama and Liberals cite the Census Bureau
because they are banking on the fact that many will not search for the
details.
Post by wy
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/health_nutrition/health_insurance.html
...and click on the Excel file for 148 - People Without Health
Insurance for the Entire Year by Selected Characteristics. You'll
note that it's the Census 2009 Statistical Abstract for which there
are no reports for 2007, as alluded to in the above, only for 2005 and
2006. Meaning 2007 hasn't been published yet. Meaning also that the
numbers for uninsured are CLIMBING.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The Census Bureau also said that the number of uninsured people was
declining.
No, they're CLIMBING. Read the real source, not some puny website
with an agenda that's willing to misinterpret figures to accomodate
that agenda.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
“Both the percentage and number of people without health insurance
decreased in 2007,” said the Census Bureau report.
No, INCREASED. Conservatives always love to look at things
backwards. Where are they from, the planet Bizarro?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Among the uninsured in the United States, the Census Bureau said,
there were also 9.1 million people making more than $75,000 per year
who did not choose to purchase health insurance.
They'll be sorrrryyyyy.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are saying to those who choose to go without health insurance,
"You vill take the government option or suffer the consequences."
Which one is supposed to be "suffering the consequences"?  The one who
has coverage of some kind or the one who has coverage of no kind?
Anyone ever tell you that you've got a bit of a warped way of looking
at reality?
Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage
Health overhaul in Senate bill imposes penalty on those refusing
affordable medical coverage
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press Writer
On Thursday July 2, 2009, 10:02 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical
coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health
care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking
to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around
$36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be
modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a
fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage.
Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties
than individuals.
And the problem here is what? Let me get this straight: are you
advocating that it's every person's right to be not covered by any
health plan should they so decide? Meaning that if they ever end up
with some rare deadly disease that'll end up costing the government $2
million to treat because some shnook thought it was best not to have
coverage, then that's perfectly fine by you if it comes out of your
taxes because the other guy was exercising his right not to have
coverage multiplied by millions like him. Du-uhhh???
Bottom line: Heath care is not a right.


-

U.S. Internal Revenue Service:
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-07-28 04:12:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by e***@netpath.net
Only lying is being done by House Democrats trying to block House
Republicans from mailing constituents the Obamacare Flow Chart.  But
you can get that flow chart here:http://www.gop.com/pdf/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
- and see what liberals don't want you to see.
Did you even bother to read the source of that chart?  No, of course
Source: Joint Economic Committee, Republican Staff
Congressman Kevin Brady, Ranking House Republican Member
Get back to me with a chart that's produced by an independent body.
No wonder it looks like something out of science-fiction.
Congress and Obama wants to pass their health care plans without
granting the public enough time to have experts translate the legalese
of their 1000 page bill.
Like that's done for any bill.  Remember the bailout?  I don't recall
any "granting the public enough time to have experts translate the
legalese" of that bill, not to mention that its cost to the taxpayer
makes the health bill look like a spit in the bucket.
The question is do you remember the bailout bill? It was passed by a
Democratic controlled Congress. 172 Democrats voted in favor of the
bill while 62 opposed it; and 91 Republicans voted for it and 108
voted against it. So that throws your argument down the crapper. Want
to try something else?
The question is, so to speak, that it doesn't matter who's running the
show, you just ain't ever gonna get your "granting the public enough
time to have experts translate the legalese" of any bill ever - Ever.
Which is what you were trying to say as some sort of lame attempt at
suggesting a democratization of the process.  America is not a
democracy, it's a republic, in case you had forgotten.
The point is, the Dummycrats can pass bills at will. They have a
filibuster proof majority.  Again you're making a poor argument why
the Dummycrats won't pass a bill without GOP obstruction. The Dummies
never cease to remind Republicans they control all three branches of
government.
Yeah, and where were you complaining about it when the Republicans had
total control during the Bush years, specificlaly 2000-06?  Can anyone
here spell hypocrisy?
You can't. Just because the Republican did not pass a Marxist health
care reform bill doesn't make them hypocrites.
Why not answer this question for yourself: How come the Republicans
are always so intent on denying disadvantaged people their health care
when it'll only end up costing everyone who has coverage they paid for
anyway when those people end up in a doctor's office or hospital? So
not only are you covering yourself, you're also covering, through your
Medicare deduction, all those with no coverage - in other words, it's
a double-payer system. There's no getting away from the cost, so
there should be no real reason to deny anyone coverage.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So what if the  Republicans came up with the chart? Why do Democrat
leaders want to stifle the chart? Is because they refuse to debate the
issue? What are the Democrats hiding?
The chart is actually irrelevant.  Reps and Dems can come up with the
same kind of chart for how just about any department in the government
is mind-boggingly interrelated.  The Homeland Security chart probably
looks like a real doozy.
You sure are weak when it comes to making an argument. You did not
answer any of my questions or even try to spin it.
If you had intelligent questions based on actual relevant facts, I
would've answered them precisely.  But in the absence of intelligent
questions based on relevant facts, I can only do my best.  And if it's
not satisfactory, then you need to go back and tweak your questions
with some real stuff.  You only get what you give.
I guess they were too complicated for you since you couldn't come up
with a simpleminded answer.
I thought what I gave *was* simple-minded answers because I found the
questions to be too simple-minded to be credible as anything factual-
based.
As I have said, you can't even debates the points related to the
questions.
I can too "debates the points". What were the questions anyway? I
forgot already.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
In regards to Canada, private health clinics are sprouting up
throughout the country because those clinics have a lower doctor to
patient ratio and lower wait times.
And they only appeal to those who have money to shell out for the
privilege, meaning it's often just for the privileged.  The Canadian
system is actually a pretty good one despite the Republican propaganda
you hear, especially when you take into account that it covers
everyone.  It's also a system that's lasted for nearly half-a-century
now, costs far less per capita to run than the U.S. system, and you
also can't really complain about getting a broken leg repaired free of
charge with it, whereas in the U.S. you'd be lucky to get it done for
10 grand - and that's only if your specific HMO plan will cover the
full cost of it.  That's the problem with HMOs, you can never be sure
what'll you need to be covered for because you never know what'll hit
you.  In a single-payer user system, it doesn't matter what hits you,
you're covered, and you won't go bankrupt and lose your home over it,
either.  Not too many Canadians would want to give up on it because
they realize how ultimately valuable it is to them, even if they
sometimes might have to wait a bit longer to get care, but the real
emergencies are always handled promptly because they are, after all,
real emergencies.
I'm not talking about emergencies. No emergency clinic in this country
can turn away a patient. It's the law.
It's not only emergencies.  You live under some grand delusion that
the U.S. has the best system in the world.  Here, educate yourself
with these extracts from a recent article, the entirety of which you
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:stbQpcw9HqsJ:www.straightgoods.c...
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737
New reports from EUROCARE suggest that cancer care in Europe is
improving and that the gaps between countries are narrowing. However,
comparisons with US statistics suggest that cancer survival in Europe
is still lagging behind the United States.
What it fails to note is that the comparison is between one country
and a group of countries, which makes the comparison unfair because
some of those European countries may actually have better stats
against the States than other countries.  A fairer comparison, of
course, is single country vs. single country, not group of countries,
but that would seem to be too fair a comparison to make for
conservatives.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp
Of the top 1000 hospitals in the world, the top 24 are in the United
States.
That means the rest of the world has 976 top hospitals.  Your point
being?
That one flew over your head. US hospitals are rated better than the
rest of the world.
Rated better in what sense? For all I know, since you haven't given
me any context, they could be tops in trash disposal.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Canada first gets on the list at 43. England enters the list at 56.
43 is not bad for a country that has only a tenth of the population of
the U.S.  England, with a fifth of the U.S. population and twice
Canada's, probably could do better - I guess they just need to get rid
of all those free cab rides home from the hospital as part of their
universal health coverage.
That means there are 42 hospitals  in the world better than Canada.
Better in what sense again?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The USA has 536 hospitals in the top 1000.
I thought you said it was only 24.  Make up your conservative mind.
You need to practice how read with comprehension. 24  US hospitals are
at the top of the list of 1000 best rated hospitals. Do you need an
illustration with stick figures?
It might help, considering how you "need to practice how write with
comprehension". There's a missing "to" in your sentence, in case you
didn't get my mocking of it.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Canada
Post by wy
...
In his talk, Troy Brennan conceded that "the (US) healthcare system is
not timely." He cited "recent statistics from the Institution of
Healthcare Improvement — that people are waiting an average of about
70 days to try to see a provider. And in many circumstances people
initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is
intolerable," Brennan said.
With my insurance, I can see my primary provider within 2 business
days. A specialist within two-three weeks.
All depends where you live and how much premiums you pay for what
coverage you have.  It's not the same across the board, each state is
different, each county is different.
With two different jobs, I had two different insurance carriers and
their premiums never exceeded $100 a month.
Sounds to me like bargain basement premiums for bargain basement
coverage.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
When I did not have insurance and had an emergency, all I had to do
was check the Yellow Pages and was able to see a private practioner
the same day and had a wait time of less than two hours. If I went to
a county clinic, wait time would have been hours. That is in Los
Angeles where most of the county trauma centers had to close.
Now I know it's bargain basement premiums with bargain basement
coverage. California's average is about $500 per month now, meaning
that pretty well is middling coverage, not extensive or all-inclusive,
and often doctor visits fees aren't covered. It was $342 back in 2005
and $231 in 2002, so even by 2002 standards, you've got virtually no
real coverage at all.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
That stat is wrong.
Maybe only for you, not for the general population.  The figures
reflect the general experience, not just Bugsy Siegel's experience.
It sucks not want to do the work for oneself and rely on government
for everything.
Oh, you don't know what you're missing. Like free doctor visits, free
hospital stays, free surgeries, free meds - free, free, free! Well,
actually not that free. On average, Medicare deduction from one's
paycheck amounts to about 15%, so that on a small salary of $20 grand
a year, your contribution to Medicare would be about $3 grand, or
about $60 per week or $240 a month. $240 a month!? Hey, isn't that
just a few dollars more per month that a typical Canadian pays for
UNIVERSAL coverage now than a typical Californian paid for limited
basic coverage 7 years ago? Again now, can anyone spell ripped off?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
When I had to rely on Medicaid for six months several years ago. I saw
a primary within a week and specialist within two months.
Good for you.  How much do you pay for your coverage?  I'll tell you
if it's less or more than what a typical Canadian pays for universal
coverage.  Don't be surprised if yours is more for less because it's
unlikely you have universal coverage.  Can anyone here spell ripped
off?
It took a $10 co-pay to see a doctor for any reason and nothing for an
$800 prescription. The downside was hte wait times. That was in Clark
County, Nevada, a state that comes at the bottom for state social
services. You just have to know how to play the system to get what you
need.  The county did offer free services for wellness consultation.
Play the system. You spend so much energy and time playing the
system. Canadians don't have to play the system, they just get into
the system and the job gets done and nobody goes home bankrupt.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Brennan also recalled that he had formerly spent much of his time as
an administrator and head of a physicians' organization trying "to
find appointments for people with doctors."
While Brennan's comments went unreported by the media, his data
matches several studies and a report in a June 22 Business Week
article which opened by citing the case of a New York woman who had to
fight for a timely second exam following suspicious results from a
first mammogram and then still had to wait a full month.
...
A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the
US, and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany,
Australia, New Zealand and Canada, found waiting times were worse in
the US than in all the other countries except Canada.
And, most of the Canadian data so widely reported by the US media is
out of date, and misleading, according to PNHP and CNA/NNOC.
In Canada, there are no waits for emergency surgeries, and the median
time for non-emergency elective surgery has been dropping as a result
of public pressure and increased funding so that it is now equal to or
better than the US in most areas, the organizations say.
Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for
elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks.
"There are significant differences between the US and Canada, too,"
said Burger. "In Canada, no one is denied care because of cost,
because their treatment or test was not 'pre-approved' or because they
have a pre-existing condition."
"Furthermore, when a service problem emerges in Canada, prompt
analysis and resource deployment is mobilized to resolve the problem,"
noted PNHP's Young. "In the US, the situation only worsens each year,
hence we are presently in an enormous crisis. That's why we a need a
single payer system, such as HR 676 which is now before Congress, that
can respond to new demands."
Furthermore, US statistics fail to account for the even longer waits
for the nation's 44 million uninsured and tens of millions of insured
Americans who put off needed medical care due to their high co-pays or
deductibles, CNA/NNOC and PNHP noted.
Canada also surpasses the US in a broad array of health barometers,
including life expectancy, infant mortality rates, adult mortality
rates, deaths due to HIV/AIDS, mortality rates for cardiovascular
diseases, and years of life lost to injuries and communicable
diseases, according to data from the World Health Organization and the
Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development.
"As nurses, we never worry about costs, billing, whether a procedure
will be covered or anything like that. I never have to worry about
whether one of my patients will get the treatment or care they need,",
Bev Dick, RN, vice president of the United Nurses of Alberta wrote in
a Portsmouth (NH) Herald commentary July 1. "That's the reason nurses
are so supportive of our public system. And we have fought to protect
it."
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.medbroadcast.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=1...
The link is incomplete, it doesn’t work.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-h...
Well, let's understand that FOX news is not a news network, it's a
frat boy network of frustrated conservative pundits who are more
interested in kicking mud around than providing real solid
information.
You can't dispute the story.
Well, I would if your link would work.  Your links never work.  Got
something to hide?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
H.R. 676; Section 102 states the coverage of the government plan,
Section 104; states that it is "unlawful for a private health insurer
to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits
provided under this act. That eliminates private health insurers.
Destroys the health insurance industry. Only one provider ""the
government ObamaHealthPlan"".
Which is how most of the rest of the world operates and does so at far
less cost to everyone.  For a country as rich as the U.S., it really
has the unhealthiest population and the most ripped-off in terms of
costs, and when any of the nearly 50 million that aren't insured end
up in hospital, who do you think ends up paying the tab for that?  The
government, thanks to your paid taxes.  So private insurance saves you
nothing, it's only there for corporate greed.
The US system allows us to have the latest and best medical technology
has to offer.
Only if you can afford to pay the HMO premiums that would allow you
acces to it all.  HMOs decide what treatment you'll get, not you or
your doctor.  If you've got maximum coverage, you probably have little
to worry about; if not, then whatever new and best technology you
might need for whatever rare disease you might get will mean nothing
to you.  Next time you get meds from a doc, ask if they're the real
deal or generics.  Don't be surprised if you get generics or even
second-best to the real deal if your coverage is "incomplete".
Nothing wrong with generics, but I'd worry a smidgen if you got second
best.
I was able to get an MRI last year for a $50 co-pay with a referral
from my primary care physician with one week wait.
Canada beats you.  Free MRIs.  Depending on the case, the wait can be
days to months - the more serious, the less waiting time, which is
fair and reasonable enough.  And actually, the system works pretty
well that way because it's not hogged by people with less serious
problems that can adversely affect the ones with more serious problems
needing it first.  If you went for an MRI because of an ingrown toe
nail, well, hell, you just might've gotten ahead in line of the person
who's got some treatable form of cancer if caught early. Is that
efficient?
The advantage the US has over Canada is that the USA has more MRI
machines than Canada that makes wait times negligible especially in as
emergency situation where it only takes same day to get an MRI.
Well, I'd grant you that. But that's probably an advantage the U.S.
has over any country, so I don't think Canada feels that left out in
the cold by it.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
We also have lower doctor-to-patient ratios.
Government has enough trouble running Medicare. Why doesn't government
fix that first?
Government does what it does and it's always going to be flawed, no
matter what the program is.  The best it can hope to do is minimize
the flaws.  Obama sees a global picture of how to get it done, but
then that's the problem because most people can't see globally.  Most
people fail to make all the connections to see why A into B won't lead
into C but will go straight to E and then backtrack to D after which
it will skip to M and go backwards to J and so on and so on.  That's
the way the system is being run now.  Obama gets it and what he wants
to do is try to get more linearity out of the process, as in A, B, C,
D, E, F, maybe skip to H, then back to G, then resume with I, J, K, L,
M and skip again to O, back to N and onto P, Q, R, so on.  It's all
about ironing out the big wrinkles.
Translation: the  government can't fix Medicare, but it will try to
fix the whole ball of wax. What Obama wants is immaterial. He doesn't
even know what's in the Congressional proposals. Obama said reform
will be deficit neutral but the CBO says differently.
The only way it can be deficit neutral is through a single-payer
system, whether you like it or not.  Obama would prefer that but he
also recognizes the reality that, due to the weird American mindset
which prefers to make things more difficult and complicated for
themselves, it won't ever fly, which is why he's looking to a bill
that would include a hybrid of government coverage and private
coverage with the aim of ensuring that everyone gets covered.
Personally, I don't see the hybrid way making much of a dent in
savings so the U.S. will be doomed to uncontrolled mushrooming costs
at your expense - yes, that means taxes and premiums will go up at a
far more alarming rate the more Baby Boomers enter the last years on
Earth - and there's tons more of those Baby Boomers yet to come,
straight up till 2029 for the last of the 65-year-olds to make it,
after which the 2030s will be absolutely brutal on your pocket book.
The CBO says otherwise. Obama saying it is deficit neutral is lying
through his teeth.
I already told you that it won't be deficit neutral unless you have a
single-payer system. Hybrid systems or the HMO system as it is now
will never be deficit neutral. In fact, just look at how costs began
to really spike upwards since the HMOs came into being back in 1973:

Loading Image...
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Obama wanted to iron out all the wrinkles by the time Congress went on
their August vacation.  He wants to sign a bill by the end of Summer.
He'll be lucky to get something he'll think might be satisfying enough
to sign by Christmas.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Your 50 million figure is so wrong.
Well, it was 47 million a couple of years ago according to the Census
Bureau, it's almost 50 million now for sure, especially with the
current recession and nearly 10% unemployment rate.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=628
Post by Bugsy Siegel
It doesn't take into account a good percentage make over $75,000 and
could afford to buy their own.
So you're only talking about one-quarter of U.S. earners.  That kind
of leaves a couple of hundred million Americans out of the picture
then.
How do you get a couple hundred million out 47 million. I was talking
about those without health insurance who can afford to get it on their
own.
That's what I was talking about, too.  Only a quarter of wage earners
make over $75,000, meaning three-quarters don't.  That three-quarters
adds up to a couple of hundred million people affected, wage earners
and their families included.  Did you flunk math?
Again, you have this comprehension issue. Where do you think 47
million came from?
Who cares where they came from? They're there and you have to deal
with them. And soon there'll be 57 million and 67 million and 107
million... Can anyone spell single-payer system?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Many, through their work, are offered health in insurance but opt out
of their employer's program.
Part of the 50 million are legal and illegal immigrants. They still
have emergency care at their disposal.
Many qualify for government programs such as Medicaid or SCHIP.
When you break it down up 14 million need health insurance.
You'll have to cite all that because it don't square with the Census
Bureau.
Let's try logic.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51443
This Census report says that within the borders of the United States
as of 2007 there were 45.65 people without health insurance. But this
number, according to the Census Bureau, included 9.73 million
foreigners, leaving only 35.92 Americans who were uninsured.
Never mind using logic.  Why not use real facts?
The facts are broken down in the link and references the Census
Bureau. At their site you have to peruse all their data to get what
you want.  That's why Obama and Liberals cite the Census Bureau
because they are banking on the fact that many will not search for the
details.
Post by wy
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/health_nutrition/health_i...
...and click on the Excel file for 148 - People Without Health
Insurance for the Entire Year by Selected Characteristics.  You'll
note that it's the Census 2009 Statistical Abstract for which there
are no reports for 2007, as alluded to in the above, only for 2005 and
2006.  Meaning 2007 hasn't been published yet.  Meaning also that the
numbers for uninsured are CLIMBING.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The Census Bureau also said that the number of uninsured people was
declining.
No, they're CLIMBING.  Read the real source, not some puny website
with an agenda that's willing to misinterpret figures to accomodate
that agenda.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
“Both the percentage and number of people without health insurance
decreased in 2007,” said the Census Bureau report.
No, INCREASED.  Conservatives always love to look at things
backwards.  Where are they from, the planet Bizarro?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Among the uninsured in the United States, the Census Bureau said,
there were also 9.1 million people making more than $75,000 per year
who did not choose to purchase health insurance.
They'll be sorrrryyyyy.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are saying to those who choose to go without health insurance,
"You vill take the government option or suffer the consequences."
Which one is supposed to be "suffering the consequences"?  The one who
has coverage of some kind or the one who has coverage of no kind?
Anyone ever tell you that you've got a bit of a warped way of looking
at reality?
Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage
Health overhaul in Senate bill imposes penalty on those refusing
affordable medical coverage
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press Writer
On Thursday July 2, 2009, 10:02 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical
coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health
care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking
to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around
$36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be
modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a
fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage.
Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties
than individuals.
And the problem here is what?  Let me get this straight: are you
advocating that it's every person's right to be not covered by any
health plan should they so decide?  Meaning that if they ever end up
with some rare deadly disease that'll end up costing the government $2
million to treat because some shnook thought it was best not to have
coverage, then that's perfectly fine by you if it comes out of your
taxes because the other guy was exercising his right not to have
coverage multiplied by millions like him.  Du-uhhh???
Bottom line: Heath care is not a right.
Then life is not a right so you might as well abort every baby from
now on if you want to cut costs for yourself and everybody who's
around today because otherwise that $100 plan you've got would be
better off giving you heat on a cold day when you burn it in a few
years.
Bugsy Siegel
2009-07-29 00:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by e***@netpath.net
Only lying is being done by House Democrats trying to block House
Republicans from mailing constituents the Obamacare Flow Chart.  But
you can get that flow chart here:http://www.gop.com/pdf/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
- and see what liberals don't want you to see.
Did you even bother to read the source of that chart?  No, of course
Source: Joint Economic Committee, Republican Staff
Congressman Kevin Brady, Ranking House Republican Member
Get back to me with a chart that's produced by an independent body.
No wonder it looks like something out of science-fiction.
Congress and Obama wants to pass their health care plans without
granting the public enough time to have experts translate the legalese
of their 1000 page bill.
Like that's done for any bill.  Remember the bailout?  I don't recall
any "granting the public enough time to have experts translate the
legalese" of that bill, not to mention that its cost to the taxpayer
makes the health bill look like a spit in the bucket.
The question is do you remember the bailout bill? It was passed by a
Democratic controlled Congress. 172 Democrats voted in favor of the
bill while 62 opposed it; and 91 Republicans voted for it and 108
voted against it. So that throws your argument down the crapper. Want
to try something else?
The question is, so to speak, that it doesn't matter who's running the
show, you just ain't ever gonna get your "granting the public enough
time to have experts translate the legalese" of any bill ever - Ever.
Which is what you were trying to say as some sort of lame attempt at
suggesting a democratization of the process.  America is not a
democracy, it's a republic, in case you had forgotten.
The point is, the Dummycrats can pass bills at will. They have a
filibuster proof majority.  Again you're making a poor argument why
the Dummycrats won't pass a bill without GOP obstruction. The Dummies
never cease to remind Republicans they control all three branches of
government.
Yeah, and where were you complaining about it when the Republicans had
total control during the Bush years, specificlaly 2000-06?  Can anyone
here spell hypocrisy?
You can't. Just because the Republican did not pass a Marxist health
care reform bill doesn't make them hypocrites.
Why not answer this question for yourself: How come the Republicans
are always so intent on denying disadvantaged people their health care
when it'll only end up costing everyone who has coverage they paid for
anyway when those people end up in a doctor's office or hospital? So
not only are you covering yourself, you're also covering, through your
Medicare deduction, all those with no coverage - in other words, it's
a double-payer system. There's no getting away from the cost, so
there should be no real reason to deny anyone coverage.
No one is denying the poor health care, but the Marxists are asking
the wage earners through taxation to pay for their insurance premiums.
How is that fair?
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So what if the  Republicans came up with the chart? Why do Democrat
leaders want to stifle the chart? Is because they refuse to debate the
issue? What are the Democrats hiding?
The chart is actually irrelevant.  Reps and Dems can come up with the
same kind of chart for how just about any department in the government
is mind-boggingly interrelated.  The Homeland Security chart probably
looks like a real doozy.
You sure are weak when it comes to making an argument. You did not
answer any of my questions or even try to spin it.
If you had intelligent questions based on actual relevant facts, I
would've answered them precisely.  But in the absence of intelligent
questions based on relevant facts, I can only do my best.  And if it's
not satisfactory, then you need to go back and tweak your questions
with some real stuff.  You only get what you give.
I guess they were too complicated for you since you couldn't come up
with a simpleminded answer.
I thought what I gave *was* simple-minded answers because I found the
questions to be too simple-minded to be credible as anything factual-
based.
As I have said, you can't even debates the points related to the
questions.
I can too "debates the points". What were the questions anyway? I
forgot already.
Dementia will do it for you. You sound like a prime candidate for
Obama's euthanasia reform.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
In regards to Canada, private health clinics are sprouting up
throughout the country because those clinics have a lower doctor to
patient ratio and lower wait times.
And they only appeal to those who have money to shell out for the
privilege, meaning it's often just for the privileged.  The Canadian
system is actually a pretty good one despite the Republican propaganda
you hear, especially when you take into account that it covers
everyone.  It's also a system that's lasted for nearly half-a-century
now, costs far less per capita to run than the U.S. system, and you
also can't really complain about getting a broken leg repaired free of
charge with it, whereas in the U.S. you'd be lucky to get it done for
10 grand - and that's only if your specific HMO plan will cover the
full cost of it.  That's the problem with HMOs, you can never be sure
what'll you need to be covered for because you never know what'll hit
you.  In a single-payer user system, it doesn't matter what hits you,
you're covered, and you won't go bankrupt and lose your home over it,
either.  Not too many Canadians would want to give up on it because
they realize how ultimately valuable it is to them, even if they
sometimes might have to wait a bit longer to get care, but the real
emergencies are always handled promptly because they are, after all,
real emergencies.
I'm not talking about emergencies. No emergency clinic in this country
can turn away a patient. It's the law.
It's not only emergencies.  You live under some grand delusion that
the U.S. has the best system in the world.  Here, educate yourself
with these extracts from a recent article, the entirety of which you
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:stbQpcw9HqsJ:www.straightgoods.c...
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737
New reports from EUROCARE suggest that cancer care in Europe is
improving and that the gaps between countries are narrowing. However,
comparisons with US statistics suggest that cancer survival in Europe
is still lagging behind the United States.
What it fails to note is that the comparison is between one country
and a group of countries, which makes the comparison unfair because
some of those European countries may actually have better stats
against the States than other countries.  A fairer comparison, of
course, is single country vs. single country, not group of countries,
but that would seem to be too fair a comparison to make for
conservatives.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp
Of the top 1000 hospitals in the world, the top 24 are in the United
States.
That means the rest of the world has 976 top hospitals.  Your point
being?
That one flew over your head. US hospitals are rated better than the
rest of the world.
Rated better in what sense? For all I know, since you haven't given
me any context, they could be tops in trash disposal.
I gave you a link. Read the web site. If you can't, get your caretaker
to do it for you.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Canada first gets on the list at 43. England enters the list at 56.
43 is not bad for a country that has only a tenth of the population of
the U.S.  England, with a fifth of the U.S. population and twice
Canada's, probably could do better - I guess they just need to get rid
of all those free cab rides home from the hospital as part of their
universal health coverage.
That means there are 42 hospitals  in the world better than Canada.
Better in what sense again?
I'll type slower so you can follow. It's in the link I provided.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The USA has 536 hospitals in the top 1000.
I thought you said it was only 24.  Make up your conservative mind.
You need to practice how read with comprehension. 24  US hospitals are
at the top of the list of 1000 best rated hospitals. Do you need an
illustration with stick figures?
It might help, considering how you "need to practice how write with
comprehension". There's a missing "to" in your sentence, in case you
didn't get my mocking of it.
You're only emulating the ultimate government dependent.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Canada
Post by wy
...
In his talk, Troy Brennan conceded that "the (US) healthcare system is
not timely." He cited "recent statistics from the Institution of
Healthcare Improvement — that people are waiting an average of about
70 days to try to see a provider. And in many circumstances people
initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is
intolerable," Brennan said.
With my insurance, I can see my primary provider within 2 business
days. A specialist within two-three weeks.
All depends where you live and how much premiums you pay for what
coverage you have.  It's not the same across the board, each state is
different, each county is different.
With two different jobs, I had two different insurance carriers and
their premiums never exceeded $100 a month.
Sounds to me like bargain basement premiums for bargain basement
coverage.
The coverage was pretty good since I had the misfortune to use for one
week which gave me $25,000 in medical services in that short week. I
was shocked, no deductible.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
When I did not have insurance and had an emergency, all I had to do
was check the Yellow Pages and was able to see a private practioner
the same day and had a wait time of less than two hours. If I went to
a county clinic, wait time would have been hours. That is in Los
Angeles where most of the county trauma centers had to close.
Now I know it's bargain basement premiums with bargain basement
coverage. California's average is about $500 per month now, meaning
that pretty well is middling coverage, not extensive or all-inclusive,
and often doctor visits fees aren't covered. It was $342 back in 2005
and $231 in 2002, so even by 2002 standards, you've got virtually no
real coverage at all
It helps when I had an employer who was generous with benefits. My
employer paid for most of my premium and all that was asked from was a
small token amount. The Senate Bill wants to tax my insurance which
means I would have to pay a lot more than necessary so the government
leeches can have their free health care.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
That stat is wrong.
Maybe only for you, not for the general population.  The figures
reflect the general experience, not just Bugsy Siegel's experience.
It sucks not want to do the work for oneself and rely on government
for everything.
Oh, you don't know what you're missing. Like free doctor visits, free
hospital stays, free surgeries, free meds - free, free, free! Well,
actually not that free. On average, Medicare deduction from one's
paycheck amounts to about 15%, so that on a small salary of $20 grand
a year, your contribution to Medicare would be about $3 grand, or
about $60 per week or $240 a month. $240 a month!? Hey, isn't that
just a few dollars more per month that a typical Canadian pays for
UNIVERSAL coverage now than a typical Californian paid for limited
basic coverage 7 years ago? Again now, can anyone spell ripped off?
Medicare contributions from recipients come about $75 a month.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
When I had to rely on Medicaid for six months several years ago. I saw
a primary within a week and specialist within two months.
Good for you.  How much do you pay for your coverage?  I'll tell you
if it's less or more than what a typical Canadian pays for universal
coverage.  Don't be surprised if yours is more for less because it's
unlikely you have universal coverage.  Can anyone here spell ripped
off?
It took a $10 co-pay to see a doctor for any reason and nothing for an
$800 prescription. The downside was hte wait times. That was in Clark
County, Nevada, a state that comes at the bottom for state social
services. You just have to know how to play the system to get what you
need.  The county did offer free services for wellness consultation.
Play the system. You spend so much energy and time playing the
system. Canadians don't have to play the system, they just get into
the system and the job gets done and nobody goes home bankrupt.
In order to play, you have to use a little elbow grease to get what
you want. That's cruel for the government leech. I got off public
assistance ASAP. Leeches make a career of it.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Brennan also recalled that he had formerly spent much of his time as
an administrator and head of a physicians' organization trying "to
find appointments for people with doctors."
While Brennan's comments went unreported by the media, his data
matches several studies and a report in a June 22 Business Week
article which opened by citing the case of a New York woman who had to
fight for a timely second exam following suspicious results from a
first mammogram and then still had to wait a full month.
...
A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the
US, and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany,
Australia, New Zealand and Canada, found waiting times were worse in
the US than in all the other countries except Canada.
And, most of the Canadian data so widely reported by the US media is
out of date, and misleading, according to PNHP and CNA/NNOC.
In Canada, there are no waits for emergency surgeries, and the median
time for non-emergency elective surgery has been dropping as a result
of public pressure and increased funding so that it is now equal to or
better than the US in most areas, the organizations say.
Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for
elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks.
"There are significant differences between the US and Canada, too,"
said Burger. "In Canada, no one is denied care because of cost,
because their treatment or test was not 'pre-approved' or because they
have a pre-existing condition."
"Furthermore, when a service problem emerges in Canada, prompt
analysis and resource deployment is mobilized to resolve the problem,"
noted PNHP's Young. "In the US, the situation only worsens each year,
hence we are presently in an enormous crisis. That's why we a need a
single payer system, such as HR 676 which is now before Congress, that
can respond to new demands."
Furthermore, US statistics fail to account for the even longer waits
for the nation's 44 million uninsured and tens of millions of insured
Americans who put off needed medical care due to their high co-pays or
deductibles, CNA/NNOC and PNHP noted.
Canada also surpasses the US in a broad array of health barometers,
including life expectancy, infant mortality rates, adult mortality
rates, deaths due to HIV/AIDS, mortality rates for cardiovascular
diseases, and years of life lost to injuries and communicable
diseases, according to data from the World Health Organization and the
Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development.
"As nurses, we never worry about costs, billing, whether a procedure
will be covered or anything like that. I never have to worry about
whether one of my patients will get the treatment or care they need,",
Bev Dick, RN, vice president of the United Nurses of Alberta wrote in
a Portsmouth (NH) Herald commentary July 1. "That's the reason nurses
are so supportive of our public system. And we have fought to protect
it."
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.medbroadcast.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=1...
The link is incomplete, it doesn’t work.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-h...
Well, let's understand that FOX news is not a news network, it's a
frat boy network of frustrated conservative pundits who are more
interested in kicking mud around than providing real solid
information.
You can't dispute the story.
Well, I would if your link would work.  Your links never work.  Got
something to hide?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
H.R. 676; Section 102 states the coverage of the government plan,
Section 104; states that it is "unlawful for a private health insurer
to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits
provided under this act. That eliminates private health insurers.
Destroys the health insurance industry. Only one provider ""the
government ObamaHealthPlan"".
Which is how most of the rest of the world operates and does so at far
less cost to everyone.  For a country as rich as the U.S., it really
has the unhealthiest population and the most ripped-off in terms of
costs, and when any of the nearly 50 million that aren't insured end
up in hospital, who do you think ends up paying the tab for that?  The
government, thanks to your paid taxes.  So private insurance saves you
nothing, it's only there for corporate greed.
The US system allows us to have the latest and best medical technology
has to offer.
Only if you can afford to pay the HMO premiums that would allow you
acces to it all.  HMOs decide what treatment you'll get, not you or
your doctor.  If you've got maximum coverage, you probably have little
to worry about; if not, then whatever new and best technology you
might need for whatever rare disease you might get will mean nothing
to you.  Next time you get meds from a doc, ask if they're the real
deal or generics.  Don't be surprised if you get generics or even
second-best to the real deal if your coverage is "incomplete".
Nothing wrong with generics, but I'd worry a smidgen if you got second
best.
I was able to get an MRI last year for a $50 co-pay with a referral
from my primary care physician with one week wait.
Canada beats you.  Free MRIs.  Depending on the case, the wait can be
days to months - the more serious, the less waiting time, which is
fair and reasonable enough.  And actually, the system works pretty
well that way because it's not hogged by people with less serious
problems that can adversely affect the ones with more serious problems
needing it first.  If you went for an MRI because of an ingrown toe
nail, well, hell, you just might've gotten ahead in line of the person
who's got some treatable form of cancer if caught early. Is that
efficient?
The advantage the US has over Canada is that the USA has more MRI
machines than Canada that makes wait times negligible especially in as
emergency situation where it only takes same day to get an MRI.
Well, I'd grant you that. But that's probably an advantage the U.S.
has over any country, so I don't think Canada feels that left out in
the cold by it.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/10/surgery-wait-times-in-canada-hit-record.html

The above link summarizes Socialized medicine does not work.

Since you don't know what links are, I'll print out the article for
your benefit.

Surgery Wait Times in Canada Hit Record High
Canadians waited longer than ever before (18.3 weeks) for
non-emergency surgery in 2007, despite a multi-billion-dollar effort
by government to speed up medical care, according to a report released
yesterday by Canada's Fraser Institute. Highlights of the report
include:

1. A typical Canadian seeking surgery had to wait 18.3 weeks in 2007
between referral from a general practitioner and treatment (averaged
across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed), reaching an
all-time record high, up from 17.8 weeks in 2006.

2. Ontario recorded the shortest waiting time overall at 15 weeks and
Nova Scotia recorded the longest waits in Canada at almost 25 weeks.

3. The waiting time between referral by a GP and consultation with a
specialist rose to 9.2 weeks from the 8.8 weeks recorded in 2006. The
shortest waits for specialist consultations were in Ontario (7.6
weeks) and the longest waits for consultation with a specialist were
recorded in Prince Edward Island (12.7 weeks).

4. The waiting time between specialist consultation and treatment—the
second stage of waiting—increased to 9.1 weeks from 9 weeks in 2006.
The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits were found in Ontario (7.3
weeks), while the longest waits were in Manitoba (12.0 weeks).

5. Between 2006 and 2007, large increases occurred in the waits for
internal medicine (additional 4.9 weeks), gynecology (additional 2.1
weeks), urology (additional 1.9 weeks), and otolaryngology (additional
1.8 weeks).

6. The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.8 weeks. British
Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia had the
shortest wait for CT scans (4 weeks), while the longest wait occurred
in Manitoba (8 weeks).

7. The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks (in other
words, early 2008 if you call tomorrow). Patients in Ontario
experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while
Newfoundland residents waited longest (20 weeks - in other words March
5, 2008 if you schedule tomorrow).

8. The median wait for ultrasound was 3.9 weeks across Canada. Alberta
and Ontario displayed the shortest wait for ultrasound (2 weeks),
while Prince Edward Island and Manitoba exhibited the longest
ultrasound waiting time (10 weeks).

The Fraser Institute concludes that “The promise of the Canadian
health care system is not being realized. The only way to solve the
system’s most curable disease – lengthy wait times that are
consistently and significantly longer than physicians feel is
clinically reasonable – is for substantial reform of the Canadian
health care system.”

MP: The disparity in wait times for surgery and other procedures like
MRIs among Canadian provinces seems somewhat puzzling - isn't
socialized medicine supposed to provide "free" and uniform medical
care to all Canadians, regardless of which province they live in?
Perhaps the significant geographical disparity in Canadian health care
is because market prices and profits are suppressed under socialized
medicine, resulting in an inefficient and uneven allocation of scarce
medical resources?
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
We also have lower doctor-to-patient ratios.
Government has enough trouble running Medicare. Why doesn't government
fix that first?
Government does what it does and it's always going to be flawed, no
matter what the program is.  The best it can hope to do is minimize
the flaws.  Obama sees a global picture of how to get it done, but
then that's the problem because most people can't see globally.  Most
people fail to make all the connections to see why A into B won't lead
into C but will go straight to E and then backtrack to D after which
it will skip to M and go backwards to J and so on and so on.  That's
the way the system is being run now.  Obama gets it and what he wants
to do is try to get more linearity out of the process, as in A, B, C,
D, E, F, maybe skip to H, then back to G, then resume with I, J, K, L,
M and skip again to O, back to N and onto P, Q, R, so on.  It's all
about ironing out the big wrinkles.
Translation: the  government can't fix Medicare, but it will try to
fix the whole ball of wax. What Obama wants is immaterial. He doesn't
even know what's in the Congressional proposals. Obama said reform
will be deficit neutral but the CBO says differently.
The only way it can be deficit neutral is through a single-payer
system, whether you like it or not.  Obama would prefer that but he
also recognizes the reality that, due to the weird American mindset
which prefers to make things more difficult and complicated for
themselves, it won't ever fly, which is why he's looking to a bill
that would include a hybrid of government coverage and private
coverage with the aim of ensuring that everyone gets covered.
Personally, I don't see the hybrid way making much of a dent in
savings so the U.S. will be doomed to uncontrolled mushrooming costs
at your expense - yes, that means taxes and premiums will go up at a
far more alarming rate the more Baby Boomers enter the last years on
Earth - and there's tons more of those Baby Boomers yet to come,
straight up till 2029 for the last of the 65-year-olds to make it,
after which the 2030s will be absolutely brutal on your pocket book.
The CBO says otherwise. Obama saying it is deficit neutral is lying
through his teeth.
I already told you that it won't be deficit neutral unless you have a
single-payer system. Hybrid systems or the HMO system as it is now
will never be deficit neutral. In fact, just look at how costs began
http://freedomkeys.com/medigraph3.jpg
A single payer system is total government control of health care. To
give government that amount of control of our lives is rather
chilling. I takes the free market out of the equation. That's why
Marxists love government health care. It appeals to their Fascist
side.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Obama wanted to iron out all the wrinkles by the time Congress went on
their August vacation.  He wants to sign a bill by the end of Summer.
He'll be lucky to get something he'll think might be satisfying enough
to sign by Christmas.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Your 50 million figure is so wrong.
Well, it was 47 million a couple of years ago according to the Census
Bureau, it's almost 50 million now for sure, especially with the
current recession and nearly 10% unemployment rate.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=628
Post by Bugsy Siegel
It doesn't take into account a good percentage make over $75,000 and
could afford to buy their own.
So you're only talking about one-quarter of U.S. earners.  That kind
of leaves a couple of hundred million Americans out of the picture
then.
How do you get a couple hundred million out 47 million. I was talking
about those without health insurance who can afford to get it on their
own.
That's what I was talking about, too.  Only a quarter of wage earners
make over $75,000, meaning three-quarters don't.  That three-quarters
adds up to a couple of hundred million people affected, wage earners
and their families included.  Did you flunk math?
Again, you have this comprehension issue. Where do you think 47
million came from?
Who cares where they came from? They're there and you have to deal
with them. And soon there'll be 57 million and 67 million and 107
million... Can anyone spell single-payer system?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Many, through their work, are offered health in insurance but opt out
of their employer's program.
Part of the 50 million are legal and illegal immigrants. They still
have emergency care at their disposal.
Many qualify for government programs such as Medicaid or SCHIP.
When you break it down up 14 million need health insurance.
You'll have to cite all that because it don't square with the Census
Bureau.
Let's try logic.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51443
This Census report says that within the borders of the United States
as of 2007 there were 45.65 people without health insurance. But this
number, according to the Census Bureau, included 9.73 million
foreigners, leaving only 35.92 Americans who were uninsured.
Never mind using logic.  Why not use real facts?
The facts are broken down in the link and references the Census
Bureau. At their site you have to peruse all their data to get what
you want.  That's why Obama and Liberals cite the Census Bureau
because they are banking on the fact that many will not search for the
details.
Post by wy
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/health_nutrition/health_i...
...and click on the Excel file for 148 - People Without Health
Insurance for the Entire Year by Selected Characteristics.  You'll
note that it's the Census 2009 Statistical Abstract for which there
are no reports for 2007, as alluded to in the above, only for 2005 and
2006.  Meaning 2007 hasn't been published yet.  Meaning also that the
numbers for uninsured are CLIMBING.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The Census Bureau also said that the number of uninsured people was
declining.
No, they're CLIMBING.  Read the real source, not some puny website
with an agenda that's willing to misinterpret figures to accomodate
that agenda.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
“Both the percentage and number of people without health insurance
decreased in 2007,” said the Census Bureau report.
No, INCREASED.  Conservatives always love to look at things
backwards.  Where are they from, the planet Bizarro?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Among the uninsured in the United States, the Census Bureau said,
there were also 9.1 million people making more than $75,000 per year
who did not choose to purchase health insurance.
They'll be sorrrryyyyy.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are saying to those who choose to go without health insurance,
"You vill take the government option or suffer the consequences."
Which one is supposed to be "suffering the consequences"?  The one who
has coverage of some kind or the one who has coverage of no kind?
Anyone ever tell you that you've got a bit of a warped way of looking
at reality?
Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage
Health overhaul in Senate bill imposes penalty on those refusing
affordable medical coverage
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press Writer
On Thursday July 2, 2009, 10:02 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical
coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health
care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking
to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around
$36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be
modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a
fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage.
Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties
than individuals.
And the problem here is what?  Let me get this straight: are you
advocating that it's every person's right to be not covered by any
health plan should they so decide?  Meaning that if they ever end up
with some rare deadly disease that'll end up costing the government $2
million to treat because some shnook thought it was best not to have
coverage, then that's perfectly fine by you if it comes out of your
taxes because the other guy was exercising his right not to have
coverage multiplied by millions like him.  Du-uhhh???
Bottom line: Heath care is not a right.
Then life is not a right so you might as well abort every baby from
now on if you want to cut costs for yourself and everybody who's
around today because otherwise that $100 plan you've got would be
better off giving you heat on a cold day when you burn it in a few
years.
Murder is a crime, so that takes away your abortion article.

You have conceded that health care, let alone health insurance, is not
a right. Marxists hate that damn thing called the Constitution.


-

U.S. Internal Revenue Service:
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-07-29 03:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by e***@netpath.net
Only lying is being done by House Democrats trying to block House
Republicans from mailing constituents the Obamacare Flow Chart.  But
you can get that flow chart here:http://www.gop.com/pdf/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
- and see what liberals don't want you to see.
Did you even bother to read the source of that chart?  No, of course
Source: Joint Economic Committee, Republican Staff
Congressman Kevin Brady, Ranking House Republican Member
Get back to me with a chart that's produced by an independent body.
No wonder it looks like something out of science-fiction.
Congress and Obama wants to pass their health care plans without
granting the public enough time to have experts translate the legalese
of their 1000 page bill.
Like that's done for any bill.  Remember the bailout?  I don't recall
any "granting the public enough time to have experts translate the
legalese" of that bill, not to mention that its cost to the taxpayer
makes the health bill look like a spit in the bucket.
The question is do you remember the bailout bill? It was passed by a
Democratic controlled Congress. 172 Democrats voted in favor of the
bill while 62 opposed it; and 91 Republicans voted for it and 108
voted against it. So that throws your argument down the crapper. Want
to try something else?
The question is, so to speak, that it doesn't matter who's running the
show, you just ain't ever gonna get your "granting the public enough
time to have experts translate the legalese" of any bill ever - Ever.
Which is what you were trying to say as some sort of lame attempt at
suggesting a democratization of the process.  America is not a
democracy, it's a republic, in case you had forgotten.
The point is, the Dummycrats can pass bills at will. They have a
filibuster proof majority.  Again you're making a poor argument why
the Dummycrats won't pass a bill without GOP obstruction. The Dummies
never cease to remind Republicans they control all three branches of
government.
Yeah, and where were you complaining about it when the Republicans had
total control during the Bush years, specificlaly 2000-06?  Can anyone
here spell hypocrisy?
You can't. Just because the Republican did not pass a Marxist health
care reform bill doesn't make them hypocrites.
Why not answer this question for yourself: How come the Republicans
are always so intent on denying disadvantaged people their health care
when it'll only end up costing everyone who has coverage they paid for
anyway when those people end up in a doctor's office or hospital?  So
not only are you covering yourself, you're also covering, through your
Medicare deduction, all those with no coverage - in other words, it's
a double-payer system.  There's no getting away from the cost, so
there should be no real reason to deny anyone coverage.
No one is denying the poor health care,  but the Marxists are asking
the wage earners through taxation to pay for their insurance premiums.
How is that fair?
Your taxes go to pay for tons of things with which you may or may not
agree that you may or, more likely, may not know about, so why should
health care, which is probably more important to everyone's lives -
yes, and that includes you - than maybe 100% of other things the
government funds, be any different?
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So what if the  Republicans came up with the chart? Why do Democrat
leaders want to stifle the chart? Is because they refuse to debate the
issue? What are the Democrats hiding?
The chart is actually irrelevant.  Reps and Dems can come up with the
same kind of chart for how just about any department in the government
is mind-boggingly interrelated.  The Homeland Security chart probably
looks like a real doozy.
You sure are weak when it comes to making an argument. You did not
answer any of my questions or even try to spin it.
If you had intelligent questions based on actual relevant facts, I
would've answered them precisely.  But in the absence of intelligent
questions based on relevant facts, I can only do my best.  And if it's
not satisfactory, then you need to go back and tweak your questions
with some real stuff.  You only get what you give.
I guess they were too complicated for you since you couldn't come up
with a simpleminded answer.
I thought what I gave *was* simple-minded answers because I found the
questions to be too simple-minded to be credible as anything factual-
based.
As I have said, you can't even debates the points related to the
questions.
I can too "debates the points".  What were the questions anyway?  I
forgot already.
Dementia will do it for you. You sound like a prime candidate for
Obama's euthanasia reform.
I don't see you recalling what those questions were, either.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
In regards to Canada, private health clinics are sprouting up
throughout the country because those clinics have a lower doctor to
patient ratio and lower wait times.
And they only appeal to those who have money to shell out for the
privilege, meaning it's often just for the privileged.  The Canadian
system is actually a pretty good one despite the Republican propaganda
you hear, especially when you take into account that it covers
everyone.  It's also a system that's lasted for nearly half-a-century
now, costs far less per capita to run than the U.S. system, and you
also can't really complain about getting a broken leg repaired free of
charge with it, whereas in the U.S. you'd be lucky to get it done for
10 grand - and that's only if your specific HMO plan will cover the
full cost of it.  That's the problem with HMOs, you can never be sure
what'll you need to be covered for because you never know what'll hit
you.  In a single-payer user system, it doesn't matter what hits you,
you're covered, and you won't go bankrupt and lose your home over it,
either.  Not too many Canadians would want to give up on it because
they realize how ultimately valuable it is to them, even if they
sometimes might have to wait a bit longer to get care, but the real
emergencies are always handled promptly because they are, after all,
real emergencies.
I'm not talking about emergencies. No emergency clinic in this country
can turn away a patient. It's the law.
It's not only emergencies.  You live under some grand delusion that
the U.S. has the best system in the world.  Here, educate yourself
with these extracts from a recent article, the entirety of which you
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:stbQpcw9HqsJ:www.straightgoods.c...
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737
New reports from EUROCARE suggest that cancer care in Europe is
improving and that the gaps between countries are narrowing. However,
comparisons with US statistics suggest that cancer survival in Europe
is still lagging behind the United States.
What it fails to note is that the comparison is between one country
and a group of countries, which makes the comparison unfair because
some of those European countries may actually have better stats
against the States than other countries.  A fairer comparison, of
course, is single country vs. single country, not group of countries,
but that would seem to be too fair a comparison to make for
conservatives.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp
Of the top 1000 hospitals in the world, the top 24 are in the United
States.
That means the rest of the world has 976 top hospitals.  Your point
being?
That one flew over your head. US hospitals are rated better than the
rest of the world.
Rated better in what sense?  For all I know, since you haven't given
me any context, they could be tops in trash disposal.
I gave you a link. Read the web site. If you can't, get your caretaker
to do it for you.
I told you, the link is incomplete, it doesn't work.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Canada first gets on the list at 43. England enters the list at 56.
43 is not bad for a country that has only a tenth of the population of
the U.S.  England, with a fifth of the U.S. population and twice
Canada's, probably could do better - I guess they just need to get rid
of all those free cab rides home from the hospital as part of their
universal health coverage.
That means there are 42 hospitals  in the world better than Canada.
Better in what sense again?
I'll type slower so you can follow. It's in the link I provided.
Provide a link that's complete. Try to figure out how to do that, it
really is a no-brainer, you know.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The USA has 536 hospitals in the top 1000.
I thought you said it was only 24.  Make up your conservative mind.
You need to practice how read with comprehension. 24  US hospitals are
at the top of the list of 1000 best rated hospitals. Do you need an
illustration with stick figures?
It might help, considering how you "need to practice how write with
comprehension".  There's a missing "to" in your sentence, in case you
didn't get my mocking of it.
You're only emulating the ultimate government dependent.
You?
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Canada
Post by wy
...
In his talk, Troy Brennan conceded that "the (US) healthcare system is
not timely." He cited "recent statistics from the Institution of
Healthcare Improvement — that people are waiting an average of about
70 days to try to see a provider. And in many circumstances people
initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is
intolerable," Brennan said.
With my insurance, I can see my primary provider within 2 business
days. A specialist within two-three weeks.
All depends where you live and how much premiums you pay for what
coverage you have.  It's not the same across the board, each state is
different, each county is different.
With two different jobs, I had two different insurance carriers and
their premiums never exceeded $100 a month.
Sounds to me like bargain basement premiums for bargain basement
coverage.
The coverage was pretty good since I had the misfortune to use for one
week which gave me $25,000 in medical services in that short week. I
was shocked, no deductible.
Name the provider and what you needed it for and I'll tell you if
you're telling the truth.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
When I did not have insurance and had an emergency, all I had to do
was check the Yellow Pages and was able to see a private practioner
the same day and had a wait time of less than two hours. If I went to
a county clinic, wait time would have been hours. That is in Los
Angeles where most of the county trauma centers had to close.
Now I know it's bargain basement premiums with bargain basement
coverage.  California's average is about $500 per month now, meaning
that pretty well is middling coverage, not extensive or all-inclusive,
and often doctor visits fees aren't covered.  It was $342 back in 2005
and $231 in 2002, so even by 2002 standards, you've got virtually no
real coverage at all
It helps when I had an employer who was generous with benefits. My
employer paid for most of my premium and all that was asked from was a
small token amount. The Senate Bill wants to tax my insurance which
means I would have to pay a lot more than necessary so the government
leeches can have their free health care.
Now I know this is a fantasy of yours because it simply does not
reflect probably 90% of other people's own health benefits packages
and premiums.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
That stat is wrong.
Maybe only for you, not for the general population.  The figures
reflect the general experience, not just Bugsy Siegel's experience.
It sucks not want to do the work for oneself and rely on government
for everything.
Oh, you don't know what you're missing.  Like free doctor visits, free
hospital stays, free surgeries, free meds - free, free, free!  Well,
actually not that free.  On average, Medicare deduction from one's
paycheck amounts to about 15%, so that on a small salary of $20 grand
a year, your contribution to Medicare would be about $3 grand, or
about $60 per week or $240 a month.  $240 a month!?  Hey, isn't that
just a few dollars more per month that a typical Canadian pays for
UNIVERSAL coverage now than a typical Californian paid for limited
basic coverage 7 years ago?  Again now, can anyone spell ripped off?
Medicare contributions from recipients come about $75 a month.
Wait a minute, first you tell me you payt $100 a month, now you say
medicare contributions from recipients come about $75 a month. What
are you really saying here?
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
When I had to rely on Medicaid for six months several years ago. I saw
a primary within a week and specialist within two months.
Good for you.  How much do you pay for your coverage?  I'll tell you
if it's less or more than what a typical Canadian pays for universal
coverage.  Don't be surprised if yours is more for less because it's
unlikely you have universal coverage.  Can anyone here spell ripped
off?
It took a $10 co-pay to see a doctor for any reason and nothing for an
$800 prescription. The downside was hte wait times. That was in Clark
County, Nevada, a state that comes at the bottom for state social
services. You just have to know how to play the system to get what you
need.  The county did offer free services for wellness consultation.
Play the system.  You spend so much energy and time playing the
system.  Canadians don't have to play the system, they just get into
the system and the job gets done and nobody goes home bankrupt.
In order to play, you have to use a little elbow grease to get what
you want.  That's cruel for the government leech. I got off public
assistance ASAP. Leeches make a career of it.
Tell the 90% of Canadians who work every day that they're leeches for
accepting something the government provides, thanks to those workers
making weekly contributions to the very thing they're accepting.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Brennan also recalled that he had formerly spent much of his time as
an administrator and head of a physicians' organization trying "to
find appointments for people with doctors."
While Brennan's comments went unreported by the media, his data
matches several studies and a report in a June 22 Business Week
article which opened by citing the case of a New York woman who had to
fight for a timely second exam following suspicious results from a
first mammogram and then still had to wait a full month.
...
A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the
US, and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany,
Australia, New Zealand and Canada, found waiting times were worse in
the US than in all the other countries except Canada.
And, most of the Canadian data so widely reported by the US media is
out of date, and misleading, according to PNHP and CNA/NNOC.
In Canada, there are no waits for emergency surgeries, and the median
time for non-emergency elective surgery has been dropping as a result
of public pressure and increased funding so that it is now equal to or
better than the US in most areas, the organizations say.
Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for
elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks.
"There are significant differences between the US and Canada, too,"
said Burger. "In Canada, no one is denied care because of cost,
because their treatment or test was not 'pre-approved' or because they
have a pre-existing condition."
"Furthermore, when a service problem emerges in Canada, prompt
analysis and resource deployment is mobilized to resolve the problem,"
noted PNHP's Young. "In the US, the situation only worsens each year,
hence we are presently in an enormous crisis. That's why we a need a
single payer system, such as HR 676 which is now before Congress, that
can respond to new demands."
Furthermore, US statistics fail to account for the even longer waits
for the nation's 44 million uninsured and tens of millions of insured
Americans who put off needed medical care due to their high co-pays or
deductibles, CNA/NNOC and PNHP noted.
Canada also surpasses the US in a broad array of health barometers,
including life expectancy, infant mortality rates, adult mortality
rates, deaths due to HIV/AIDS, mortality rates for cardiovascular
diseases, and years of life lost to injuries and communicable
diseases, according to data from the World Health Organization and the
Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development.
"As nurses, we never worry about costs, billing, whether a procedure
will be covered or anything like that. I never have to worry about
whether one of my patients will get the treatment or care they need,",
Bev Dick, RN, vice president of the United Nurses of Alberta wrote in
a Portsmouth (NH) Herald commentary July 1. "That's the reason nurses
are so supportive of our public system. And we have fought to protect
it."
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.medbroadcast.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=1...
The link is incomplete, it doesn’t work.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-h...
Well, let's understand that FOX news is not a news network, it's a
frat boy network of frustrated conservative pundits who are more
interested in kicking mud around than providing real solid
information.
You can't dispute the story.
Well, I would if your link would work.  Your links never work.  Got
something to hide?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
H.R. 676; Section 102 states the coverage of the government plan,
Section 104; states that it is "unlawful for a private health insurer
to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits
provided under this act. That eliminates private health insurers.
Destroys the health insurance industry. Only one provider ""the
government ObamaHealthPlan"".
Which is how most of the rest of the world operates and does so at far
less cost to everyone.  For a country as rich as the U.S., it really
has the unhealthiest population and the most ripped-off in terms of
costs, and when any of the nearly 50 million that aren't insured end
up in hospital, who do you think ends up paying the tab for that?  The
government, thanks to your paid taxes.  So private insurance saves you
nothing, it's only there for corporate greed.
The US system allows us to have the latest and best medical technology
has to offer.
Only if you can afford to pay the HMO premiums that would allow you
acces to it all.  HMOs decide what treatment you'll get, not you or
your doctor.  If you've got maximum coverage, you probably have little
to worry about; if not, then whatever new and best technology you
might need for whatever rare disease you might get will mean nothing
to you.  Next time you get meds from a doc, ask if they're the real
deal or generics.  Don't be surprised if you get generics or even
second-best to the real deal if your coverage is "incomplete".
Nothing wrong with generics, but I'd worry a smidgen if you got second
best.
I was able to get an MRI last year for a $50 co-pay with a referral
from my primary care physician with one week wait.
Canada beats you.  Free MRIs.  Depending on the case, the wait can be
days to months - the more serious, the less waiting time, which is
fair and reasonable enough.  And actually, the system works pretty
well that way because it's not hogged by people with less serious
problems that can adversely affect the ones with more serious problems
needing it first.  If you went for an MRI because of an ingrown toe
nail, well, hell, you just might've gotten ahead in line of the person
who's got some treatable form of cancer if caught early. Is that
efficient?
The advantage the US has over Canada is that the USA has more MRI
machines than Canada that makes wait times negligible especially in as
emergency situation where it only takes same day to get an MRI.
Well, I'd grant you that.  But that's probably an advantage the U.S.
has over any country, so I don't think Canada feels that left out in
the cold by it.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/10/surgery-wait-times-in-canada-hit-...
The above link summarizes Socialized medicine does not work.
Yeah, but funny how it's lasted for nearly half a century in Canada
and just about nobody would want to give it up for any American style
system, otherwise it would've been done by now - no? And try to pick
a better and more credible source than some blog written by a nobody
economist.
Since you don't know what links are, I'll print out the article for
your benefit.
MP: The disparity in wait times for surgery and other procedures like
MRIs among Canadian provinces seems somewhat puzzling - isn't
socialized medicine supposed to provide "free" and uniform medical
care to all Canadians, regardless of which province they live in?
Perhaps the significant geographical disparity in Canadian health care
is because market prices and profits are suppressed under socialized
medicine, resulting in an inefficient and uneven allocation of scarce
medical resources?
Each province in Canada runs its own operation with its own rules for
which the Canadian government provides them the funds to do it with,
so there will be disparity among all those provinces, just as there
are disparities among all 50 states in the U.S. So his real argument
is what, then? Let's face it, you won't find one of those top 24
hospitals in the world anywhere along the Blue Ridge Mountains of
Kentucky, so of course you can't have things uniform anywhere, not
just in Canada, but in the U.S. also.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
We also have lower doctor-to-patient ratios.
Government has enough trouble running Medicare. Why doesn't government
fix that first?
Government does what it does and it's always going to be flawed, no
matter what the program is.  The best it can hope to do is minimize
the flaws.  Obama sees a global picture of how to get it done, but
then that's the problem because most people can't see globally.  Most
people fail to make all the connections to see why A into B won't lead
into C but will go straight to E and then backtrack to D after which
it will skip to M and go backwards to J and so on and so on.  That's
the way the system is being run now.  Obama gets it and what he wants
to do is try to get more linearity out of the process, as in A, B, C,
D, E, F, maybe skip to H, then back to G, then resume with I, J, K, L,
M and skip again to O, back to N and onto P, Q, R, so on.  It's all
about ironing out the big wrinkles.
Translation: the  government can't fix Medicare, but it will try to
fix the whole ball of wax. What Obama wants is immaterial. He doesn't
even know what's in the Congressional proposals. Obama said reform
will be deficit neutral but the CBO says differently.
The only way it can be deficit neutral is through a single-payer
system, whether you like it or not.  Obama would prefer that but he
also recognizes the reality that, due to the weird American mindset
which prefers to make things more difficult and complicated for
themselves, it won't ever fly, which is why he's looking to a bill
that would include a hybrid of government coverage and private
coverage with the aim of ensuring that everyone gets covered.
Personally, I don't see the hybrid way making much of a dent in
savings so the U.S. will be doomed to uncontrolled mushrooming costs
at your expense - yes, that means taxes and premiums will go up at a
far more alarming rate the more Baby Boomers enter the last years on
Earth - and there's tons more of those Baby Boomers yet to come,
straight up till 2029 for the last of the 65-year-olds to make it,
after which the 2030s will be absolutely brutal on your pocket book.
The CBO says otherwise. Obama saying it is deficit neutral is lying
through his teeth.
I already told you that it won't be deficit neutral unless you have a
single-payer system.  Hybrid systems or the HMO system as it is now
will never be deficit neutral.  In fact, just look at how costs began
http://freedomkeys.com/medigraph3.jpg
A single payer system is total government control of health care. To
give government that amount of control of our lives is rather
chilling. I takes the free market out of the equation. That's why
Marxists love government health care. It appeals to their Fascist
side.
Man, who knows where you get this fantasy from. Oh, right, I know,
Republican wingnuts. Canadians are free to choose their own doctors,
the doctors are free to decide the best treatment for what ails them,
and the government merely pays the bills. If there are exceptions to
the rule, those exceptions are extremely infrequent and some of those
would be the ones to be used as examples by conservative nut cases on
a rampage in some lame attempt to show how bad things are in a public
system. All you need to do is ask yourself why you don't hear
thousands of medical horror stories every day coming out of Canada?
After all, there are over 33 million Canadians and if things were that
bad, thousands of horror stories is what you would see and hear each
and every day, even just hundreds. But what do you get? Scour the
papers, the news stations, the web sites, note the dates of those
stories, and you'll come across maybe one a week. One a week. That's
52 horror stories a year. Out of 33 million people. What do you
fear? A 99.9999999999% success rating?
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Obama wanted to iron out all the wrinkles by the time Congress went on
their August vacation.  He wants to sign a bill by the end of Summer.
He'll be lucky to get something he'll think might be satisfying enough
to sign by Christmas.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Your 50 million figure is so wrong.
Well, it was 47 million a couple of years ago according to the Census
Bureau, it's almost 50 million now for sure, especially with the
current recession and nearly 10% unemployment rate.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=628
Post by Bugsy Siegel
It doesn't take into account a good percentage make over $75,000 and
could afford to buy their own.
So you're only talking about one-quarter of U.S. earners.  That kind
of leaves a couple of hundred million Americans out of the picture
then.
How do you get a couple hundred million out 47 million. I was talking
about those without health insurance who can afford to get it on their
own.
That's what I was talking about, too.  Only a quarter of wage earners
make over $75,000, meaning three-quarters don't.  That three-quarters
adds up to a couple of hundred million people affected, wage earners
and their families included.  Did you flunk math?
Again, you have this comprehension issue. Where do you think 47
million came from?
Who cares where they came from?  They're there and you have to deal
with them.  And soon there'll be 57 million and 67 million and 107
million...  Can anyone spell single-payer system?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Many, through their work, are offered health in insurance but opt out
of their employer's program.
Part of the 50 million are legal and illegal immigrants. They still
have emergency care at their disposal.
Many qualify for government programs such as Medicaid or SCHIP.
When you break it down up 14 million need health insurance.
You'll have to cite all that because it don't square with the Census
Bureau.
Let's try logic.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51443
This Census report says that within the borders of the United States
as of 2007 there were 45.65 people without health insurance. But this
number, according to the Census Bureau, included 9.73 million
foreigners, leaving only 35.92 Americans who were uninsured.
Never mind using logic.  Why not use real facts?
The facts are broken down in the link and references the Census
Bureau. At their site you have to peruse all their data to get what
you want.  That's why Obama and Liberals cite the Census Bureau
because they are banking on the fact that many will not search for the
details.
Post by wy
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/health_nutrition/health_i...
...and click on the Excel file for 148 - People Without Health
Insurance for the Entire Year by Selected Characteristics.  You'll
note that it's the Census 2009 Statistical Abstract for which there
are no reports for 2007, as alluded to in the above, only for 2005 and
2006.  Meaning 2007 hasn't been published yet.  Meaning also that the
numbers for uninsured are CLIMBING.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The Census Bureau also said that the number of uninsured people was
declining.
No, they're CLIMBING.  Read the real source, not some puny website
with an agenda that's willing to misinterpret figures to accomodate
that agenda.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
“Both the percentage and number of people without health insurance
decreased in 2007,” said the Census Bureau report.
No, INCREASED.  Conservatives always love to look at things
backwards.  Where are they from, the planet Bizarro?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Among the uninsured in the United States, the Census Bureau said,
there were also 9.1 million people making more than $75,000 per year
who did not choose to purchase health insurance.
They'll be sorrrryyyyy.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are saying to those who choose to go without health insurance,
"You vill take the government option or suffer the consequences."
Which one is supposed to be "suffering the consequences"?  The one who
has coverage of some kind or the one who has coverage of no kind?
Anyone ever tell you that you've got a bit of a warped way of looking
at reality?
Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage
Health overhaul in Senate bill imposes penalty on those refusing
affordable medical coverage
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press Writer
On Thursday July 2, 2009, 10:02 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical
coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health
care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking
to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around
$36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be
modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a
fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage.
Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties
than individuals.
And the problem here is what?  Let me get this straight: are you
advocating that it's every person's right to be not covered by any
health plan should they so decide?  Meaning that if they ever end up
with some rare deadly disease that'll end up costing the government $2
million to treat because some shnook thought it was best not to have
coverage, then that's perfectly fine by you if it comes out of your
taxes because the other guy was exercising his right not to have
coverage multiplied by millions like him.  Du-uhhh???
Bottom line: Heath care is not a right.
Then life is not a right so you might as well abort every baby from
now on if you want to cut costs for yourself and everybody who's
around today because otherwise that $100 plan you've got would be
better off giving you heat on a cold day when you burn it in a few
years.
Murder is a crime, so that takes away your abortion article.
Then suffer the consequences of the impending doom and gloom of aging
Baby Boomers sapping the life out of your wallet for the next 30 or
more years while you're trying to ensure the health of all those
growing new babies at the same time as they themselves age into their
30s and 40s. Something's gotta give, and the way things have been
going, it looks like it'll continue to be your wallet.
You have conceded that health care, let alone health insurance, is not
a right. Marxists hate that damn thing called the Constitution.
All I know is there's something fundamentally sick about a
constitution that would give a right to bear arms to kill people but
not give a right to health care to save their lives. Yeah, yeah, I
know, you'll come up with some dumb thing about guns being about self-
defense and not killing, but then, health care is a form of self-
defense too - from death in a lot of cases.
Steve
2009-07-29 09:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
All I know is there's something fundamentally sick about a
constitution that would give a right to bear arms to kill people but
not give a right to health care to save their lives. Yeah, yeah, I
know, you'll come up with some dumb thing about guns being about self-
defense and not killing, but then, health care is a form of self-
defense too - from death in a lot of cases.
Actually, there's something sick about a moron who tries to equate a
right to do something (bear arms) with a supposed right to have the
government take money out of other people people's pocket for your own
personal use.
wy
2009-07-29 14:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve
Post by wy
All I know is there's something fundamentally sick about a
constitution that would give a right to bear arms to kill people but
not give a right to health care to save their  lives.  Yeah, yeah, I
know, you'll come up with some dumb thing about guns being about self-
defense and not killing, but then, health care is a form of self-
defense too - from death in a lot of cases.
Actually, there's something sick about a moron who tries to equate a
right to do something (bear arms) with a supposed right to have the
government take money out of other people people's pocket for your own
personal use.
Explain social security, then.
Steve
2009-07-29 22:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
All I know is there's something fundamentally sick about a
constitution that would give a right to bear arms to kill people but
not give a right to health care to save their  lives.  Yeah, yeah, I
know, you'll come up with some dumb thing about guns being about self-
defense and not killing, but then, health care is a form of self-
defense too - from death in a lot of cases.
Actually, there's something sick about a moron who tries to equate a
right to do something (bear arms) with a supposed right to have the
government take money out of other people people's pocket for your own
personal use.
Explain social security, then.
Go here...

http://www.ssa.gov/

--
Lost your job?

Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
wy
2009-07-30 00:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
All I know is there's something fundamentally sick about a
constitution that would give a right to bear arms to kill people but
not give a right to health care to save their  lives.  Yeah, yeah, I
know, you'll come up with some dumb thing about guns being about self-
defense and not killing, but then, health care is a form of self-
defense too - from death in a lot of cases.
Actually, there's something sick about a moron who tries to equate a
right to do something (bear arms) with a supposed right to have the
government take money out of other people people's pocket for your own
personal use.
Explain social security, then.
 Go here...
http://www.ssa.gov/
--
Lost your job?  
Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
Still can't explain social security or even medicare for that matter,
can you? You do realize your hard-earned money is taken out of your
pocket for other people's own personal use with social security and
medicare, don't you? And it doesn't matter if you voted Republican or
not, it's still being done, but I don't hear you squealing like a
pricked pig over SS and MC, so why the big stink over the health
plan? It's all the same thing: your rmoney for other people's use,
which incidentally could include you as one of those other people.
And if that really bothers you, then don't cash in on your social
security and medicare when it's time, because you'll only be using
other people's money for your own personal use. Republican wingnut
hypocrite.
Steve
2009-07-30 09:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
All I know is there's something fundamentally sick about a
constitution that would give a right to bear arms to kill people but
not give a right to health care to save their  lives.  Yeah, yeah, I
know, you'll come up with some dumb thing about guns being about self-
defense and not killing, but then, health care is a form of self-
defense too - from death in a lot of cases.
Actually, there's something sick about a moron who tries to equate a
right to do something (bear arms) with a supposed right to have the
government take money out of other people people's pocket for your own
personal use.
Explain social security, then.
 Go here...
http://www.ssa.gov/
--
Lost your job?  
Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
Still can't explain social security or even medicare for that matter,
can you? You do realize your hard-earned money is taken out of your
pocket for other people's own personal use with social security and
medicare, don't you?
Actually, the people that "use" the money also paid into the system
and the benefit is generally proportional to the amount paid in...
Post by wy
And it doesn't matter if you voted Republican or
not, it's still being done, but I don't hear you squealing like a
pricked pig over SS and MC, so why the big stink over the health
plan? It's all the same thing: your rmoney for other people's use,
IBTW, I'd vote to do away with social security and medicare in a
flash..... for the same reason I don't like government health care,
even though your comparing it to SS is quite really stupid...
Post by wy
which incidentally could include you as one of those other people.
And if that really bothers you, then don't cash in on your social
security and medicare when it's time, because you'll only be using
other people's money for your own personal use. Republican wingnut
hypocrite.
<LOL> Here's Some facts. For a long time I paid the maximum
contribution to SS which earned me my benefits since I could have
invested that money myself and had even more "benefit" from it.....
and then about three years ago I turned sixty two years old and
started receiving those benefits..... So.... I started
dividing the money three ways and sending it to my kids.... to
offset their contribution.... since the roughly $1600 was something
I didn't need anyway....

....and BTW, Social Security and Medicare are very good examples of
how bad the government can screw things up.

.

--
Lost your job?

Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
wy
2009-07-30 14:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
All I know is there's something fundamentally sick about a
constitution that would give a right to bear arms to kill people but
not give a right to health care to save their  lives.  Yeah, yeah, I
know, you'll come up with some dumb thing about guns being about self-
defense and not killing, but then, health care is a form of self-
defense too - from death in a lot of cases.
Actually, there's something sick about a moron who tries to equate a
right to do something (bear arms) with a supposed right to have the
government take money out of other people people's pocket for your own
personal use.
Explain social security, then.
 Go here...
http://www.ssa.gov/
--
Lost your job?  
Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
Still can't explain social security or even medicare for that matter,
can you?  You do realize your hard-earned money is taken out of your
pocket for other people's own  personal use with social security and
medicare, don't you?
Actually, the people that "use" the money also paid into the system
and the benefit is generally proportional to the amount paid in...
Actually, since you so clearly failed math in every grade you had to
repeat, it explains why you fail to realize that what you put into
social security and medicare over the course of your lifetime is less
than what you'll ever get out of it, especially if you live into your
70s. So who's money will you be getting then? Certianly not yours.
Not to mention that when SS and MC got started and people began
getting their checks, nobody was putting any money into the system
before that because SS and MC didn't even exist to put money into. So
originally that money had to come from everybody else through other
means in order to begin issuing checks to people when SS and MC
began. There's no getting around it, it's ALL people's money that the
government simply redistributes to wherever it needs to go, whether
you agree with any of that redistribution or not. You have NO money
of your own that is yours and only yours for yourself to speak of when
it comes to the government's handling of "your" money and what it
wants to do with it so that everyone can benefit.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
And it doesn't matter if you voted Republican or
not, it's still being done, but I don't hear you squealing like a
pricked pig over SS and MC, so why the big stink over the health
plan?  It's all the same thing: your rmoney for other people's use,
IBTW, I'd vote to do away with social security and medicare in a
flash.....  for the same reason I don't like government health care,
even though your comparing it to SS is quite really stupid...
What makes it stupid? It's all the same thing. Using everybody's
money to support everybody else. You even failed the math you took at
summer school every year.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
which incidentally could include you as one of those other people.
And if that really bothers you, then don't cash in on your social
security and medicare when it's time, because you'll only be using
other people's money for your own personal use.  Republican wingnut
hypocrite.
<LOL>    Here's Some facts.   For a long time I paid the maximum
contribution to SS which earned me my benefits since I could have
invested that money myself and had even more "benefit" from it.....
Yeah, until the stock market would've made you lose 40% of it last
winter and get you back to square one. Smart move from someone who
failed math.
Post by Steve
and then about three years ago I turned sixty two years old and
started receiving those benefits.....       So....   I started
dividing the money three ways and sending it to my kids....   to
offset their contribution....   since the roughly $1600 was something
I didn't need anyway....
You'll be sorry when the day comes that you'll be hit with some major
health issue, which is inevitable at your age, that will necessitate
your having to use that extra money, especially for all those things
your medical check won't cover. Hopefully you've got your mortgage
all paid up, because you might need to rely on selling the house and
getting as much money as you can from it in order to hang on a few
more years.
Post by Steve
....and BTW, Social Security and Medicare are very good examples of
how bad the government can screw things up.  
What's getting screwed up? Your getting your checks, and more than
what you claim to need for yourself (I'll believe that once I see
photocopies of those checks posted somewhere), so stop complaining for
no rreason whatsoever other than being a malcontent conservative who
probably still mourns the loss of George Bush.
Bugsy Siegel
2009-07-30 18:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
All I know is there's something fundamentally sick about a
constitution that would give a right to bear arms to kill people but
not give a right to health care to save their  lives.  Yeah, yeah, I
know, you'll come up with some dumb thing about guns being about self-
defense and not killing, but then, health care is a form of self-
defense too - from death in a lot of cases.
Actually, there's something sick about a moron who tries to equate a
right to do something (bear arms) with a supposed right to have the
government take money out of other people people's pocket for your own
personal use.
Explain social security, then.
 Go here...
http://www.ssa.gov/
--
Lost your job?  
Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
Still can't explain social security or even medicare for that matter,
can you?  You do realize your hard-earned money is taken out of your
pocket for other people's own  personal use with social security and
medicare, don't you?
Actually, the people that "use" the money also paid into the system
and the benefit is generally proportional to the amount paid in...
Actually, since you so clearly failed math in every grade you had to
repeat, it explains why you fail to realize that what you put into
social security and medicare over the course of your lifetime is less
than what you'll ever get out of it, especially if you live into your
70s. So who's money will you be getting then? Certianly not yours.
Not to mention that when SS and MC got started and people began
getting their checks, nobody was putting any money into the system
before that because SS and MC didn't even exist to put money into. So
originally that money had to come from everybody else through other
means in order to begin issuing checks to people when SS and MC
began. There's no getting around it, it's ALL people's money that the
government simply redistributes to wherever it needs to go, whether
you agree with any of that redistribution or not. You have NO money
of your own that is yours and only yours for yourself to speak of when
it comes to the government's handling of "your" money and what it
wants to do with it so that everyone can benefit.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
And it doesn't matter if you voted Republican or
not, it's still being done, but I don't hear you squealing like a
pricked pig over SS and MC, so why the big stink over the health
plan?  It's all the same thing: your rmoney for other people's use,
IBTW, I'd vote to do away with social security and medicare in a
flash.....  for the same reason I don't like government health care,
even though your comparing it to SS is quite really stupid...
What makes it stupid? It's all the same thing. Using everybody's
money to support everybody else. You even failed the math you took at
summer school every year.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
which incidentally could include you as one of those other people.
And if that really bothers you, then don't cash in on your social
security and medicare when it's time, because you'll only be using
other people's money for your own personal use.  Republican wingnut
hypocrite.
<LOL>    Here's Some facts.   For a long time I paid the maximum
contribution to SS which earned me my benefits since I could have
invested that money myself and had even more "benefit" from it.....
Yeah, until the stock market would've made you lose 40% of it last
winter and get you back to square one. Smart move from someone who
failed math.
Post by Steve
and then about three years ago I turned sixty two years old and
started receiving those benefits.....       So....   I started
dividing the money three ways and sending it to my kids....   to
offset their contribution....   since the roughly $1600 was something
I didn't need anyway....
You'll be sorry when the day comes that you'll be hit with some major
health issue, which is inevitable at your age, that will necessitate
your having to use that extra money, especially for all those things
your medical check won't cover. Hopefully you've got your mortgage
all paid up, because you might need to rely on selling the house and
getting as much money as you can from it in order to hang on a few
more years.
Post by Steve
....and BTW, Social Security and Medicare are very good examples of
how bad the government can screw things up.  
What's getting screwed up? Your getting your checks, and more than
what you claim to need for yourself (I'll believe that once I see
photocopies of those checks posted somewhere), so stop complaining for
no rreason whatsoever other than being a malcontent conservative who
probably still mourns the loss of George Bush.
You make the argument the Congress should fix Medicare and Social
Security before trying to fix a system that the majority of Americans
are satisfied with.

Bank bailouts, auto bailouts, Cap-and-Trade and health care reform is
all about government control nothing else.


-

U.S. Internal Revenue Service:
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-07-30 19:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
All I know is there's something fundamentally sick about a
constitution that would give a right to bear arms to kill people but
not give a right to health care to save their  lives.  Yeah, yeah, I
know, you'll come up with some dumb thing about guns being about self-
defense and not killing, but then, health care is a form of self-
defense too - from death in a lot of cases.
Actually, there's something sick about a moron who tries to equate a
right to do something (bear arms) with a supposed right to have the
government take money out of other people people's pocket for your own
personal use.
Explain social security, then.
 Go here...
http://www.ssa.gov/
--
Lost your job?  
Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
Still can't explain social security or even medicare for that matter,
can you?  You do realize your hard-earned money is taken out of your
pocket for other people's own  personal use with social security and
medicare, don't you?
Actually, the people that "use" the money also paid into the system
and the benefit is generally proportional to the amount paid in...
Actually, since you so clearly failed math in every grade you had to
repeat, it explains why you fail to realize that what you put into
social security and medicare over the course of your lifetime is less
than what you'll ever get out of it, especially if you live into your
70s.  So who's money will you be getting then?  Certianly not yours.
Not to mention that when SS and MC got started and people began
getting their checks, nobody was putting any money into the system
before that because SS and MC didn't even exist to put money into.  So
originally that money had to come from everybody else through other
means in order to begin issuing checks to people when SS and MC
began.  There's no getting around it, it's ALL people's money that the
government simply redistributes to wherever it needs to go, whether
you agree with any of that redistribution or not.  You have NO money
of your own that is yours and only yours for yourself to speak of when
it comes to the government's handling of "your" money and what it
wants to do with it so that everyone can benefit.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
And it doesn't matter if you voted Republican or
not, it's still being done, but I don't hear you squealing like a
pricked pig over SS and MC, so why the big stink over the health
plan?  It's all the same thing: your rmoney for other people's use,
IBTW, I'd vote to do away with social security and medicare in a
flash.....  for the same reason I don't like government health care,
even though your comparing it to SS is quite really stupid...
What makes it stupid?  It's all the same thing.  Using everybody's
money to support everybody else.  You even failed the math you took at
summer school every year.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
which incidentally could include you as one of those other people.
And if that really bothers you, then don't cash in on your social
security and medicare when it's time, because you'll only be using
other people's money for your own personal use.  Republican wingnut
hypocrite.
<LOL>    Here's Some facts.   For a long time I paid the maximum
contribution to SS which earned me my benefits since I could have
invested that money myself and had even more "benefit" from it.....
Yeah, until the stock market would've made you lose 40% of it last
winter and get you back to square one.  Smart move from someone who
failed math.
Post by Steve
and then about three years ago I turned sixty two years old and
started receiving those benefits.....       So....   I started
dividing the money three ways and sending it to my kids....   to
offset their contribution....   since the roughly $1600 was something
I didn't need anyway....
You'll be sorry when the day comes that you'll be hit with some major
health issue, which is inevitable at your age, that will necessitate
your having to use that extra money, especially for all those things
your medical check won't cover.  Hopefully you've got your mortgage
all paid up, because you might need to rely on selling the house and
getting as much money as you can from it in order to hang on a few
more years.
Post by Steve
....and BTW, Social Security and Medicare are very good examples of
how bad the government can screw things up.  
What's getting screwed up?  Your getting your checks, and more than
what you claim to need for yourself (I'll believe that once I see
photocopies of those checks posted somewhere), so stop complaining for
no rreason whatsoever other than being a malcontent conservative who
probably still mourns the loss of George Bush.
You make the argument the Congress should fix Medicare and Social
Security before trying to fix a system that the majority of Americans
are satisfied with.
Bank bailouts, auto bailouts, Cap-and-Trade and health care reform is
all about government control nothing else.
No, it's about government trying to fix what free enterprise screwed
up. And it was free enterprise that convinced the government to
loosen the regulations that would've prevented what screwed up.
There's your capitalism - riding on the back of your wallet.
Bugsy Siegel
2009-08-01 04:57:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
All I know is there's something fundamentally sick about a
constitution that would give a right to bear arms to kill people but
not give a right to health care to save their  lives.  Yeah, yeah, I
know, you'll come up with some dumb thing about guns being about self-
defense and not killing, but then, health care is a form of self-
defense too - from death in a lot of cases.
Actually, there's something sick about a moron who tries to equate a
right to do something (bear arms) with a supposed right to have the
government take money out of other people people's pocket for your own
personal use.
Explain social security, then.
 Go here...
http://www.ssa.gov/
--
Lost your job?  
Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
Still can't explain social security or even medicare for that matter,
can you?  You do realize your hard-earned money is taken out of your
pocket for other people's own  personal use with social security and
medicare, don't you?
Actually, the people that "use" the money also paid into the system
and the benefit is generally proportional to the amount paid in...
Actually, since you so clearly failed math in every grade you had to
repeat, it explains why you fail to realize that what you put into
social security and medicare over the course of your lifetime is less
than what you'll ever get out of it, especially if you live into your
70s.  So who's money will you be getting then?  Certianly not yours.
Not to mention that when SS and MC got started and people began
getting their checks, nobody was putting any money into the system
before that because SS and MC didn't even exist to put money into.  So
originally that money had to come from everybody else through other
means in order to begin issuing checks to people when SS and MC
began.  There's no getting around it, it's ALL people's money that the
government simply redistributes to wherever it needs to go, whether
you agree with any of that redistribution or not.  You have NO money
of your own that is yours and only yours for yourself to speak of when
it comes to the government's handling of "your" money and what it
wants to do with it so that everyone can benefit.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
And it doesn't matter if you voted Republican or
not, it's still being done, but I don't hear you squealing like a
pricked pig over SS and MC, so why the big stink over the health
plan?  It's all the same thing: your rmoney for other people's use,
IBTW, I'd vote to do away with social security and medicare in a
flash.....  for the same reason I don't like government health care,
even though your comparing it to SS is quite really stupid...
What makes it stupid?  It's all the same thing.  Using everybody's
money to support everybody else.  You even failed the math you took at
summer school every year.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
which incidentally could include you as one of those other people.
And if that really bothers you, then don't cash in on your social
security and medicare when it's time, because you'll only be using
other people's money for your own personal use.  Republican wingnut
hypocrite.
<LOL>    Here's Some facts.   For a long time I paid the maximum
contribution to SS which earned me my benefits since I could have
invested that money myself and had even more "benefit" from it.....
Yeah, until the stock market would've made you lose 40% of it last
winter and get you back to square one.  Smart move from someone who
failed math.
Post by Steve
and then about three years ago I turned sixty two years old and
started receiving those benefits.....       So....   I started
dividing the money three ways and sending it to my kids....   to
offset their contribution....   since the roughly $1600 was something
I didn't need anyway....
You'll be sorry when the day comes that you'll be hit with some major
health issue, which is inevitable at your age, that will necessitate
your having to use that extra money, especially for all those things
your medical check won't cover.  Hopefully you've got your mortgage
all paid up, because you might need to rely on selling the house and
getting as much money as you can from it in order to hang on a few
more years.
Post by Steve
....and BTW, Social Security and Medicare are very good examples of
how bad the government can screw things up.  
What's getting screwed up?  Your getting your checks, and more than
what you claim to need for yourself (I'll believe that once I see
photocopies of those checks posted somewhere), so stop complaining for
no rreason whatsoever other than being a malcontent conservative who
probably still mourns the loss of George Bush.
You make the argument the Congress should fix Medicare and Social
Security before trying to fix a system that the majority of Americans
are satisfied with.
Bank bailouts, auto bailouts, Cap-and-Trade and health care reform is
all about government control nothing else.
No, it's about government trying to fix what free enterprise screwed
up. And it was free enterprise that convinced the government to
loosen the regulations that would've prevented what screwed up.
There's your capitalism - riding on the back of your wallet.
Capitalism fills all our wallets. Free enterprise didn't screw up.
Over regulated screws up the works. The ones scared of real health
care reform are the trial lawyers. Medical care is rising in costs
because doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine. Malpractice
insurance rates go up because even frivolous lawsuits cost money.
General practioners find it too expensive to maintain their practice.
Ob/gyns insurance rates have gone through the roof.

Medicare fraud is due to poor oversight by Congress. Medicare
bureaucracy makes it impossible for doctors to give patients the best
care.

According to the survey conducted by the Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons, 66.2 percent of doctors say that they will
"retire from active patient care at a younger age than they would have
considered five years ago" not for financial reasons, but because of
"increased government interference in the practice of medicine."

Decreased fees were cited by 56 percent of participants as a reason
for considering early retirement from medicine.

Sixty-four percent cited "decreased control" over medical practices,
while another 64 percent said increased bureaucracy from Medicare as
the reason.

Perhaps most telling, analysts said, was that 61 percent of those
surveyed said they were experiencing an increased fear of federal
prosecution or unwarranted investigation as the reason they were
considering early retirement.

Government can't do health care or managed efficiently.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/barack-obama/health-insurance-company-turned-profit-not-rec/

Health insurance companies are "making record profits, right now."

Barack Obama on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 in a press conference.

The link proves Obama's statement as being false.

Believe it or not, insurance companies are businesses. Businesses
stay in business if they make a profit.

The fact of the matter is that health plan profits represent only
three cents of the premium dollar.

Approximately 86 cents out of every premium dollar goes directly
towards paying for medical services such as hospital care, physician
care, medical devices and prescription drugs.

Of the remaining costs, five cents goes to other consumer services,
provider support, and marketing (including prevention, disease
management, care coordination, investments in health information
technology and health support).

Costs associated with government payments, regulation and other costs
associated with administration (e.g., claims administration) comprise
an estimated six cents.

You should tell us how Congress' health plan is good and leave out the
Marxist slogans to make your case.


-

U.S. Internal Revenue Service:
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-08-01 06:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
All I know is there's something fundamentally sick about a
constitution that would give a right to bear arms to kill people but
not give a right to health care to save their  lives.  Yeah, yeah, I
know, you'll come up with some dumb thing about guns being about self-
defense and not killing, but then, health care is a form of self-
defense too - from death in a lot of cases.
Actually, there's something sick about a moron who tries to equate a
right to do something (bear arms) with a supposed right to have the
government take money out of other people people's pocket for your own
personal use.
Explain social security, then.
 Go here...
http://www.ssa.gov/
--
Lost your job?  
Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
Still can't explain social security or even medicare for that matter,
can you?  You do realize your hard-earned money is taken out of your
pocket for other people's own  personal use with social security and
medicare, don't you?
Actually, the people that "use" the money also paid into the system
and the benefit is generally proportional to the amount paid in...
Actually, since you so clearly failed math in every grade you had to
repeat, it explains why you fail to realize that what you put into
social security and medicare over the course of your lifetime is less
than what you'll ever get out of it, especially if you live into your
70s.  So who's money will you be getting then?  Certianly not yours.
Not to mention that when SS and MC got started and people began
getting their checks, nobody was putting any money into the system
before that because SS and MC didn't even exist to put money into.  So
originally that money had to come from everybody else through other
means in order to begin issuing checks to people when SS and MC
began.  There's no getting around it, it's ALL people's money that the
government simply redistributes to wherever it needs to go, whether
you agree with any of that redistribution or not.  You have NO money
of your own that is yours and only yours for yourself to speak of when
it comes to the government's handling of "your" money and what it
wants to do with it so that everyone can benefit.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
And it doesn't matter if you voted Republican or
not, it's still being done, but I don't hear you squealing like a
pricked pig over SS and MC, so why the big stink over the health
plan?  It's all the same thing: your rmoney for other people's use,
IBTW, I'd vote to do away with social security and medicare in a
flash.....  for the same reason I don't like government health care,
even though your comparing it to SS is quite really stupid...
What makes it stupid?  It's all the same thing.  Using everybody's
money to support everybody else.  You even failed the math you took at
summer school every year.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
which incidentally could include you as one of those other people.
And if that really bothers you, then don't cash in on your social
security and medicare when it's time, because you'll only be using
other people's money for your own personal use.  Republican wingnut
hypocrite.
<LOL>    Here's Some facts.   For a long time I paid the maximum
contribution to SS which earned me my benefits since I could have
invested that money myself and had even more "benefit" from it.....
Yeah, until the stock market would've made you lose 40% of it last
winter and get you back to square one.  Smart move from someone who
failed math.
Post by Steve
and then about three years ago I turned sixty two years old and
started receiving those benefits.....       So....   I started
dividing the money three ways and sending it to my kids....   to
offset their contribution....   since the roughly $1600 was something
I didn't need anyway....
You'll be sorry when the day comes that you'll be hit with some major
health issue, which is inevitable at your age, that will necessitate
your having to use that extra money, especially for all those things
your medical check won't cover.  Hopefully you've got your mortgage
all paid up, because you might need to rely on selling the house and
getting as much money as you can from it in order to hang on a few
more years.
Post by Steve
....and BTW, Social Security and Medicare are very good examples of
how bad the government can screw things up.  
What's getting screwed up?  Your getting your checks, and more than
what you claim to need for yourself (I'll believe that once I see
photocopies of those checks posted somewhere), so stop complaining for
no rreason whatsoever other than being a malcontent conservative who
probably still mourns the loss of George Bush.
You make the argument the Congress should fix Medicare and Social
Security before trying to fix a system that the majority of Americans
are satisfied with.
Bank bailouts, auto bailouts, Cap-and-Trade and health care reform is
all about government control nothing else.
No, it's about government trying to fix what free enterprise screwed
up.  And it was free enterprise that convinced the government to
loosen the regulations that would've prevented what screwed up.
There's your capitalism - riding on the back of your wallet.
Capitalism fills all our wallets.
If it fills everyone's wallets, then how come 20% of Americans are
under the poverty line?

http://www.census.gov/macro/032008/rdcall/2_001.htm

Someone ain't fillin' their wallets even with government help. Here's
the thing about capitalism, and it's a rule: capitalism needs poverty
for capitalism to work, especially for the wealthy, otherwise
capitalism is not possible. Think about it, there is no one
capitalist country in the world that has ever succeeded in eliminating
poverty, nor will there ever be, because it's not in the nature of
capitalism to eradicate poverty - that would be like committing
suicide. So much for filling everyone's wallets.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Free enterprise didn't screw up.
Over regulated screws up the works.
Have you been cruising outside of this solar system for a while? It
was *deregulation* that contributed to the meltdown last fall. You
know, thanks to the bill Phil Gramm crafted and pushed through into
law back in '99. Now there was a nice piece of conservative work
ready to create maximum damage. Read all about how sneaky the little
creep was:

http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and-phil-gramm-an-experiment-in-deregulation.aspx
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The ones scared of real health
care reform are the trial lawyers.
No, the ones who are scared are the ones who are totally clueless and
oblivious and feel perfectly comfortable to remain absolutely ignorant
of how a single-payer system works more efficiently while saving tons
of money.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medical care is rising in costs
because doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine. Malpractice
insurance rates go up because even frivolous lawsuits cost money.
General practioners find it too expensive to maintain their practice.
Ob/gyns insurance rates have gone through the roof.
Yeah, right. According to a recent report (McKinsey Global Institute:
Accounting for the Cost in the United States. January 2007), the
United States has $480 billion in excess spending each year in
comparison to Western European nations that have universal health
insurance coverage. The costs are mainly associated with excess
administrative costs and poorer quality of care.

Read a ton of more facts, why don't you?

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medicare fraud is due to poor oversight by Congress. Medicare
bureaucracy makes it impossible for doctors to give patients the best
care.
Medical bureaucracy as in HMOs? Because that's who doctors are mostly
dealing with now, not the government.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
According to the survey conducted by the Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons, 66.2 percent of doctors say that they will
"retire from active patient care at a younger age than they would have
considered five years ago" not for financial reasons, but because of
"increased government interference in the practice of medicine."
Yeah, and that's why there are absolutely no doctors and surgeons left
in Canada and Europe and everywhere else with universal coverage,
because they couldn't handle the "government interference," and why as
a result everyone outside of the U.S. will be dead by tomorrow. Uh-
huh.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Decreased fees were cited by 56 percent of participants as a reason
for considering early retirement from medicine.
Who needs those doctors who are only in it for the money anyway? At
least this'll weed out the riff-raff.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Sixty-four percent cited "decreased control" over medical practices,
while another 64 percent said increased bureaucracy from Medicare as
the reason.
Hasn't stopped them from practicing when dealing with the monstrous
bureaucracy of HMOs.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Perhaps most telling, analysts said, was that 61 percent of those
surveyed said they were experiencing an increased fear of federal
prosecution or unwarranted investigation as the reason they were
considering early retirement.
Well, if they botch up their treatments and surgeries, they should be
investigated and prosecuted. That's what they're doing now with that
Dr. Murray guy in the Michael Jackson case. You're point is? Let
them get away with murder?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Government can't do health care or managed efficiently.
Well, if the government simplified it into being a single payer
system, they wouldn't have to do health care, and their managing of it
would simply be a matter of handing over the dough needed by all 50
states to oversee its distribution equitably. Like they do in Canada
and other countries with single payer systems. Like I told you
before, it won't work if the government ends up with a hybrid system.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/barack...
Health insurance companies are "making record profits, right now."
Which is criminal because it's bloating the cost of health care in
general and is the very reason why the government feels it must step
in before it all crashes. Remember how the banks were making record
profits only a year ago, and what happened? The government had to
step in before everything crashed.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Barack Obama on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 in a press conference.
The link proves Obama's statement as being false.
Believe it or not, insurance companies are  businesses. Businesses
stay in business if they make a profit.
The fact of the matter is that health plan profits represent only
three cents of the premium dollar.
And 3%, which sounds really puny, of the $2.5 trillion now spent on
health care adds up to - woah! - $75 billion! That's sure counting
one's pennies. Couldn't they accept just a penny on the dollar as
profit and be happy with $25 billion and spend the other $50 billion
on covering the nearly 50 million uninsured?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Approximately 86 cents out of every premium dollar goes directly
towards paying for medical services such as hospital care, physician
care, medical devices and prescription drugs.
Of the remaining costs, five cents goes to other consumer services,
provider support, and marketing (including prevention, disease
management, care coordination, investments in health information
technology and health support).
Costs associated with government payments, regulation and other costs
associated with administration (e.g., claims administration) comprise
an estimated six cents.
You should tell us how Congress' health plan is good and leave out the
Marxist slogans to make your case.
I never said it was good. I said as a hybrid it won't save anybody
that much money because it's not a single payer system. If you're
going to do the job, do it right, otherwise the government should stop
wasting its time and energy.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
-
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
Bugsy Siegel
2009-08-01 17:48:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
All I know is there's something fundamentally sick about a
constitution that would give a right to bear arms to kill people but
not give a right to health care to save their  lives.  Yeah, yeah, I
know, you'll come up with some dumb thing about guns being about self-
defense and not killing, but then, health care is a form of self-
defense too - from death in a lot of cases.
Actually, there's something sick about a moron who tries to equate a
right to do something (bear arms) with a supposed right to have the
government take money out of other people people's pocket for your own
personal use.
Explain social security, then.
 Go here...
http://www.ssa.gov/
--
Lost your job?  
Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
Still can't explain social security or even medicare for that matter,
can you?  You do realize your hard-earned money is taken out of your
pocket for other people's own  personal use with social security and
medicare, don't you?
Actually, the people that "use" the money also paid into the system
and the benefit is generally proportional to the amount paid in...
Actually, since you so clearly failed math in every grade you had to
repeat, it explains why you fail to realize that what you put into
social security and medicare over the course of your lifetime is less
than what you'll ever get out of it, especially if you live into your
70s.  So who's money will you be getting then?  Certianly not yours.
Not to mention that when SS and MC got started and people began
getting their checks, nobody was putting any money into the system
before that because SS and MC didn't even exist to put money into.  So
originally that money had to come from everybody else through other
means in order to begin issuing checks to people when SS and MC
began.  There's no getting around it, it's ALL people's money that the
government simply redistributes to wherever it needs to go, whether
you agree with any of that redistribution or not.  You have NO money
of your own that is yours and only yours for yourself to speak of when
it comes to the government's handling of "your" money and what it
wants to do with it so that everyone can benefit.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
And it doesn't matter if you voted Republican or
not, it's still being done, but I don't hear you squealing like a
pricked pig over SS and MC, so why the big stink over the health
plan?  It's all the same thing: your rmoney for other people's use,
IBTW, I'd vote to do away with social security and medicare in a
flash.....  for the same reason I don't like government health care,
even though your comparing it to SS is quite really stupid...
What makes it stupid?  It's all the same thing.  Using everybody's
money to support everybody else.  You even failed the math you took at
summer school every year.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
which incidentally could include you as one of those other people.
And if that really bothers you, then don't cash in on your social
security and medicare when it's time, because you'll only be using
other people's money for your own personal use.  Republican wingnut
hypocrite.
<LOL>    Here's Some facts.   For a long time I paid the maximum
contribution to SS which earned me my benefits since I could have
invested that money myself and had even more "benefit" from it.....
Yeah, until the stock market would've made you lose 40% of it last
winter and get you back to square one.  Smart move from someone who
failed math.
Post by Steve
and then about three years ago I turned sixty two years old and
started receiving those benefits.....       So....   I started
dividing the money three ways and sending it to my kids....   to
offset their contribution....   since the roughly $1600 was something
I didn't need anyway....
You'll be sorry when the day comes that you'll be hit with some major
health issue, which is inevitable at your age, that will necessitate
your having to use that extra money, especially for all those things
your medical check won't cover.  Hopefully you've got your mortgage
all paid up, because you might need to rely on selling the house and
getting as much money as you can from it in order to hang on a few
more years.
Post by Steve
....and BTW, Social Security and Medicare are very good examples of
how bad the government can screw things up.  
What's getting screwed up?  Your getting your checks, and more than
what you claim to need for yourself (I'll believe that once I see
photocopies of those checks posted somewhere), so stop complaining for
no rreason whatsoever other than being a malcontent conservative who
probably still mourns the loss of George Bush.
You make the argument the Congress should fix Medicare and Social
Security before trying to fix a system that the majority of Americans
are satisfied with.
Bank bailouts, auto bailouts, Cap-and-Trade and health care reform is
all about government control nothing else.
No, it's about government trying to fix what free enterprise screwed
up.  And it was free enterprise that convinced the government to
loosen the regulations that would've prevented what screwed up.
There's your capitalism - riding on the back of your wallet.
Capitalism fills all our wallets.
If it fills everyone's wallets, then how come 20% of Americans are
under the poverty line?
It's not because of free enterprise. We all live by our choices. If
government makes all our choices, we are no longer free.
Post by wy
http://www.census.gov/macro/032008/rdcall/2_001.htm
Someone ain't fillin' their wallets even with government help. Here's
the thing about capitalism, and it's a rule: capitalism needs poverty
for capitalism to work, especially for the wealthy, otherwise
capitalism is not possible. Think about it, there is no one
capitalist country in the world that has ever succeeded in eliminating
poverty, nor will there ever be, because it's not in the nature of
capitalism to eradicate poverty - that would be like committing
suicide. So much for filling everyone's wallets.
Freebies from government always invite abuse.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Free enterprise didn't screw up.
Over regulated screws up the works.
Have you been cruising outside of this solar system for a while? It
was *deregulation* that contributed to the meltdown last fall. You
know, thanks to the bill Phil Gramm crafted and pushed through into
law back in '99. Now there was a nice piece of conservative work
ready to create maximum damage. Read all about how sneaky the little
http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and-phil-gramm-an-experiment-in-deregulation.aspx
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The ones scared of real health
care reform are the trial lawyers.
No, the ones who are scared are the ones who are totally clueless and
oblivious and feel perfectly comfortable to remain absolutely ignorant
of how a single-payer system works more efficiently while saving tons
of money.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medical care is rising in costs
because doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine. Malpractice
insurance rates go up because even frivolous lawsuits cost money.
General practioners find it too expensive to maintain their practice.
Ob/gyns insurance rates have gone through the roof.
Accounting for the Cost in the United States. January 2007), the
United States has $480 billion in excess spending each year in
comparison to Western European nations that have universal health
insurance coverage. The costs are mainly associated with excess
administrative costs and poorer quality of care.
And government won't add to those administrative costs. Wake up,
Dorothy.
Post by wy
Read a ton of more facts, why don't you?
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medicare fraud is due to poor oversight by Congress. Medicare
bureaucracy makes it impossible for doctors to give patients the best
care.
Medical bureaucracy as in HMOs? Because that's who doctors are mostly
dealing with now, not the government.
Government will add more layers of bureaucracy.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
According to the survey conducted by the Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons, 66.2 percent of doctors say that they will
"retire from active patient care at a younger age than they would have
considered five years ago" not for financial reasons, but because of
"increased government interference in the practice of medicine."
Yeah, and that's why there are absolutely no doctors and surgeons left
in Canada and Europe and everywhere else with universal coverage,
because they couldn't handle the "government interference," and why as
a result everyone outside of the U.S. will be dead by tomorrow. Uh-
huh.
Government has no experience in medicine. I give a link to the
arguments against a single payer systems (government controlled health
care).
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Decreased fees were cited by 56 percent of participants as a reason
for considering early retirement from medicine.
Who needs those doctors who are only in it for the money anyway? At
least this'll weed out the riff-raff.
Medicare only pays doctors a few cents on the dollar. That is poor way
to do business, but who would expect a Socialist to know that.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Sixty-four percent cited "decreased control" over medical practices,
while another 64 percent said increased bureaucracy from Medicare as
the reason.
Hasn't stopped them from practicing when dealing with the monstrous
bureaucracy of HMOs.
Government will only add to the bureaucratic nightmare.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Perhaps most telling, analysts said, was that 61 percent of those
surveyed said they were experiencing an increased fear of federal
prosecution or unwarranted investigation as the reason they were
considering early retirement.
Well, if they botch up their treatments and surgeries, they should be
investigated and prosecuted. That's what they're doing now with that
Dr. Murray guy in the Michael Jackson case. You're point is? Let
them get away with murder?
It means the fed's attempt to control an industry they have no
knowledge of hampers the way doctors do the business of medical care.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Government can't do health care or managed efficiently.
Well, if the government simplified it into being a single payer
system, they wouldn't have to do health care, and their managing of it
would simply be a matter of handing over the dough needed by all 50
states to oversee its distribution equitably. Like they do in Canada
and other countries with single payer systems. Like I told you
before, it won't work if the government ends up with a hybrid system.
In a single payer system, government runs the whole shebang. Free
health insurance guarantees abuse and the taxpayer gets stuck with the
bill. Governments in a single-payer system ration care using waiting
lists for surgery and diagnostic procedures and by canceling
surgeries.

A study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that 50
people died while on a wait list for cardiac catheterization in
Ontario. A study of Swedish patients on a wait list for heart surgery
found that the "risk of death increases significantly with waiting
time." In a 2000 article in the journal Clinical Oncology, British
researchers studying 29 lung cancer patients waiting for treatment
further found that about 20 percent "of potentially curable patients
became incurable on the waiting list."

"Americans who seek to use Canada as model for reforming their health
care system need to be aware that a single-payer health care system
like Canada's results in unacceptably long waits for medical
procedures," said Nadeem Esmail, Fraser Institute director of health
system performance studies and co-author of the 18th annual edition of
Waiting Your Turn: Hospital...

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/The-Fraser-Institute-907284.html

The link is a reality check for the proponents of a single payer
systems around the world.

http://debate-central.ncpa.org/topics/2002/book2.pdf
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/barack...
Health insurance companies are "making record profits, right now."
Which is criminal because it's bloating the cost of health care in
general and is the very reason why the government feels it must step
in before it all crashes. Remember how the banks were making record
profits only a year ago, and what happened? The government had to
step in before everything crashed.
You did not read the whole article. It shows that Barack Obama is
lying when he says insurance companies are the reason for high health
care costs. That's the typical Marxist mantra. Play loose with the
facts to gain control.

Don't you realize government is crashing? It's has a $10 trillion debt
and the interest rate on that debt takes up a good portion of the
annual budget. Any business in the private sector could not sustain
such a debt. They would either close up shop or go bankrupt. That what
happened when lending came to a halt. The government keeps on
borrowing to pay their bills and expenses and the lenders are
beginning to throw caution into the wind.

You think this current economic crisis is bad, just wait until the
world's largest economy cannot borrow any more. Will one of the US's
creditors say the United States is too big to fail? Not if the US
dollar is no longer the currency of choice. There is talk the Euro can
take the place of the US Dollar. Guess who is betting that will
happen? George Soros.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Barack Obama on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 in a press conference.
The link proves Obama's statement as being false.
Believe it or not, insurance companies are  businesses. Businesses
stay in business if they make a profit.
The fact of the matter is that health plan profits represent only
three cents of the premium dollar.
And 3%, which sounds really puny, of the $2.5 trillion now spent on
health care adds up to - woah! - $75 billion! That's sure counting
one's pennies. Couldn't they accept just a penny on the dollar as
profit and be happy with $25 billion and spend the other $50 billion
on covering the nearly 50 million uninsured?
3% is puny when you compare it to other industries and when you look
at it, it will be the taxpayer that will sustain the cost, not a
bright thing to do during a recession and high unemployment. I have
already proved that your 50 million uninsured figure is a distortion.
You totally ignore the fact that part of that 50 million consists of
illegal and legal immigrants, those who can afford their own health
insurance and the ones who do not know about existing government
programs.

Medicare and Medicaid, which is government health care, costs the
taxpayer (state and federal) about $600 billion annually and costs are
rising higher than the rate of inflation. Those programs are becoming
insolvent. Government will have to spend more money to keep those
programs alive and add another 10% to the deficit.

Will reform has to done to those programs before government adds any
new entitlements and bureaucracies and there is no doubt they will
cost the taxpayer more as the years go on.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Approximately 86 cents out of every premium dollar goes directly
towards paying for medical services such as hospital care, physician
care, medical devices and prescription drugs.
Of the remaining costs, five cents goes to other consumer services,
provider support, and marketing (including prevention, disease
management, care coordination, investments in health information
technology and health support).
Costs associated with government payments, regulation and other costs
associated with administration (e.g., claims administration) comprise
an estimated six cents.
You should tell us how Congress' health plan is good and leave out the
Marxist slogans to make your case.
I never said it was good. I said as a hybrid it won't save anybody
that much money because it's not a single payer system. If you're
going to do the job, do it right, otherwise the government should stop
wasting its time and energy.
That's the problem, government is rushing through this legislation.
That is not doing it right. That is the main contention of
Conservatives and we have Congressmen (Democrats) giving the
impression it is not necessary to read the whole bill before they pass
it. Your thread says Conservatives distort facts at the same time you
support Liberals hiding and ignoring the facts.

Wouldn't you be suspicious of a contract that has too much fine print,
addendums and a salesman who tells you have to sign it before it's too
late?

Bottom line: You will make a good Communist.


-

U.S. Internal Revenue Service:
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-08-01 20:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
All I know is there's something fundamentally sick about a
constitution that would give a right to bear arms to kill people but
not give a right to health care to save their  lives.  Yeah, yeah, I
know, you'll come up with some dumb thing about guns being about self-
defense and not killing, but then, health care is a form of self-
defense too - from death in a lot of cases.
Actually, there's something sick about a moron who tries to equate a
right to do something (bear arms) with a supposed right to have the
government take money out of other people people's pocket for your own
personal use.
Explain social security, then.
 Go here...
http://www.ssa.gov/
--
Lost your job?  
Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
Still can't explain social security or even medicare for that matter,
can you?  You do realize your hard-earned money is taken out of your
pocket for other people's own  personal use with social security and
medicare, don't you?
Actually, the people that "use" the money also paid into the system
and the benefit is generally proportional to the amount paid in...
Actually, since you so clearly failed math in every grade you had to
repeat, it explains why you fail to realize that what you put into
social security and medicare over the course of your lifetime is less
than what you'll ever get out of it, especially if you live into your
70s.  So who's money will you be getting then?  Certianly not yours.
Not to mention that when SS and MC got started and people began
getting their checks, nobody was putting any money into the system
before that because SS and MC didn't even exist to put money into.  So
originally that money had to come from everybody else through other
means in order to begin issuing checks to people when SS and MC
began.  There's no getting around it, it's ALL people's money that the
government simply redistributes to wherever it needs to go, whether
you agree with any of that redistribution or not.  You have NO money
of your own that is yours and only yours for yourself to speak of when
it comes to the government's handling of "your" money and what it
wants to do with it so that everyone can benefit.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
And it doesn't matter if you voted Republican or
not, it's still being done, but I don't hear you squealing like a
pricked pig over SS and MC, so why the big stink over the health
plan?  It's all the same thing: your rmoney for other people's use,
IBTW, I'd vote to do away with social security and medicare in a
flash.....  for the same reason I don't like government health care,
even though your comparing it to SS is quite really stupid...
What makes it stupid?  It's all the same thing.  Using everybody's
money to support everybody else.  You even failed the math you took at
summer school every year.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
which incidentally could include you as one of those other people.
And if that really bothers you, then don't cash in on your social
security and medicare when it's time, because you'll only be using
other people's money for your own personal use.  Republican wingnut
hypocrite.
<LOL>    Here's Some facts.   For a long time I paid the maximum
contribution to SS which earned me my benefits since I could have
invested that money myself and had even more "benefit" from it.....
Yeah, until the stock market would've made you lose 40% of it last
winter and get you back to square one.  Smart move from someone who
failed math.
Post by Steve
and then about three years ago I turned sixty two years old and
started receiving those benefits.....       So....   I started
dividing the money three ways and sending it to my kids....   to
offset their contribution....   since the roughly $1600 was something
I didn't need anyway....
You'll be sorry when the day comes that you'll be hit with some major
health issue, which is inevitable at your age, that will necessitate
your having to use that extra money, especially for all those things
your medical check won't cover.  Hopefully you've got your mortgage
all paid up, because you might need to rely on selling the house and
getting as much money as you can from it in order to hang on a few
more years.
Post by Steve
....and BTW, Social Security and Medicare are very good examples of
how bad the government can screw things up.  
What's getting screwed up?  Your getting your checks, and more than
what you claim to need for yourself (I'll believe that once I see
photocopies of those checks posted somewhere), so stop complaining for
no rreason whatsoever other than being a malcontent conservative who
probably still mourns the loss of George Bush.
You make the argument the Congress should fix Medicare and Social
Security before trying to fix a system that the majority of Americans
are satisfied with.
Bank bailouts, auto bailouts, Cap-and-Trade and health care reform is
all about government control nothing else.
No, it's about government trying to fix what free enterprise screwed
up.  And it was free enterprise that convinced the government to
loosen the regulations that would've prevented what screwed up.
There's your capitalism - riding on the back of your wallet.
Capitalism fills all our wallets.
If it fills everyone's wallets, then how come 20% of Americans are
under the poverty line?
It's not because of free enterprise. We all live by our choices. If
government makes all our choices, we are no longer free.
What kind of illusionary world are you inhabiting? Don't you know
that government has always made all kinds of choices for you? They've
decided you need licences for this and permits for that, that you can
only have this and not that, that you can only do this and not that,
say this and not that, that you have to pay this amount or be
penalized, and so on. You're so-called freedom is limited by the
choices that government has imposed on you, meaning all you're really
left with is a token freedom as defined by the government's choices.
You're nowhere near as free as you think you are, yours is a deftly-
crafted controlled, regulated and restricted freedom that lulls you
into deluding yourself into believing that you're really free to make
your own choices. Every choice you make is a restricted choice by
what the government has chosen as being allowed. If you really want
to be free, live in a tent on the moon.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
http://www.census.gov/macro/032008/rdcall/2_001.htm
Someone ain't fillin' their wallets even with government help.  Here's
the thing about capitalism, and it's a rule: capitalism needs poverty
for capitalism to work, especially for the wealthy, otherwise
capitalism is not possible.  Think about it, there is no one
capitalist country in the world that has ever succeeded in eliminating
poverty, nor will there ever be, because it's not in the nature of
capitalism to eradicate poverty - that would be like committing
suicide.  So much for filling everyone's wallets.
Freebies from government always invite abuse.
Everything invites abuse. Cars invite abuse, guns invite abuse, even
the internet invites abuse. Anything that exists invites abuse,
especially humans. So you're real point is?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Free enterprise didn't screw up.
Over regulated screws up the works.
Have you been cruising outside of this solar system for a while?  It
was *deregulation* that contributed to the meltdown last fall.  You
know, thanks to the bill Phil Gramm crafted and pushed through into
law back in '99.  Now there was a nice piece of conservative work
ready to create maximum damage.  Read all about how sneaky the little
http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and...
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The ones scared of real health
care reform are the trial lawyers.
No, the ones who are scared are the ones who are totally clueless and
oblivious and feel perfectly comfortable to remain absolutely ignorant
of how a single-payer system works more efficiently while saving tons
of money.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medical care is rising in costs
because doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine. Malpractice
insurance rates go up because even frivolous lawsuits cost money.
General practioners find it too expensive to maintain their practice.
Ob/gyns insurance rates have gone through the roof.
Accounting for the Cost in the United States. January 2007), the
United States has $480 billion in excess spending each year in
comparison to Western European nations that have universal health
insurance coverage. The costs are mainly associated with excess
administrative costs and poorer quality of care.
And government won't add to those administrative costs. Wake up,
Dorothy.
You're at the losing end of an argument, you know. No matter what the
government does, whether if it's for your benefit or not, costs will
always be incurred. The whole point is to minimize the accelartion of
the costs because the acceleration itself can't be avoided - ever -
and, along the way, maybe hopefully make things run a bit more
efficiently as a result.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Read a ton of more facts, why don't you?
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medicare fraud is due to poor oversight by Congress. Medicare
bureaucracy makes it impossible for doctors to give patients the best
care.
Medical bureaucracy as in HMOs?  Because that's who doctors are mostly
dealing with now, not the government.
Government will add more layers of bureaucracy.
Yeah, you're point being? At least people are added to the payroll,
which in turn means more people with spending power, which means the
economy can improve in some small way from that alone. You prefer
they were on the streets collecting welfare instead?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
According to the survey conducted by the Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons, 66.2 percent of doctors say that they will
"retire from active patient care at a younger age than they would have
considered five years ago" not for financial reasons, but because of
"increased government interference in the practice of medicine."
Yeah, and that's why there are absolutely no doctors and surgeons left
in Canada and Europe and everywhere else with universal coverage,
because they couldn't handle the "government interference," and why as
a result everyone outside of the U.S. will be dead by tomorrow.  Uh-
huh.
Government has no experience in medicine. I give a link to the
arguments against a single payer systems (government controlled health
care).
In a single payer systyem the government is not involved in medicine,
it's just the sugar daddy that spreads the money around to those who
are involved in medicine who in turn decide how it will be allocated.
Are you not getting something clear out of that braindead equation?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Decreased fees were cited by 56 percent of participants as a reason
for considering early retirement from medicine.
Who needs those doctors who are only in it for the money anyway?  At
least this'll weed out the riff-raff.
Medicare only pays doctors a few cents on the dollar. That is poor way
to do business, but who would expect a Socialist to know that.
Gee, then that must come as some shock to all those Canadian doctors
making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. U.S. doctors may gross
more, but they actually net less. See the charts:

http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2006/10_15-30/3_PM_your_practice01_16.html
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Sixty-four percent cited "decreased control" over medical practices,
while another 64 percent said increased bureaucracy from Medicare as
the reason.
Hasn't stopped them from practicing when dealing with the monstrous
bureaucracy of HMOs.
Government will only add to the bureaucratic nightmare.
How can it be any different than the nightmare it is now? It's
meaningless to think that it will be.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Perhaps most telling, analysts said, was that 61 percent of those
surveyed said they were experiencing an increased fear of federal
prosecution or unwarranted investigation as the reason they were
considering early retirement.
Well, if they botch up their treatments and surgeries, they should be
investigated and prosecuted.  That's what they're doing now with that
Dr. Murray guy in the Michael Jackson case.  You're point is?  Let
them get away with murder?
It means the fed's attempt to control an industry they have no
knowledge of hampers the way doctors do the business of medical care.
One more time: Feds = sugar daddy. HMOs = controllers. Feds don't
need to do it for profit, HMOs do, so who do you think is really more
interested in controlling? Wake up out of your Neverland dream.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Government can't do health care or managed efficiently.
Well, if the government simplified it into being a single payer
system, they wouldn't have to do health care, and their managing of it
would simply be a matter of handing over the dough needed by all 50
states to oversee its distribution equitably.  Like they do in Canada
and other countries with single payer systems.  Like I told you
before, it won't work if the government ends up with a hybrid system.
In a single payer system, government runs the whole shebang. Free
health insurance guarantees abuse and the taxpayer gets stuck with the
bill. Governments in a single-payer system ration care using waiting
lists for surgery and diagnostic procedures and by canceling
surgeries.
Yeah, and that's why everybody has universal coverage, nobody is
complaining, except one person a week, doctors in Canada net more than
those in the U.S. and overall costs are half that of the U.S. Sure
sounds like a travesty to me.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
A study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that 50
people died while on a wait list for cardiac catheterization in
Ontario.
Another meaningless statement. Over what period of time? And was
there even any chance for them to survive the operation due to
whatever condition they were in to begin with? Meanwhile, "...
researchers analyzed data on nearly 55,000 patients over age 60 that
were placed on the U.S. waiting list for a kidney transplant from 1995
to 2007. Projections suggested that 46 percent of patients wait-listed
in 2006-07 would die before receiving a deceased-donor transplant."
In simple math, it breaks down to 4,583.3 people per year, and 46% of
that average for the final year amounts to 2,108 who died waiting for
a kidney transplant. Hmm, 2,108 people died in the U.S. waiting for
something while only 50 died in Canada (assuming that 50 was over the
course of a year)? Even if you look at it proportionately according
to total population, Canada should have had 210 people die, since it
has 1/10th of the U.S.'s total population, so it should be 1/10th of
the U.S.'s death rate too. But it isn't. Wow, imagine that. Get a
peep of this:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154577.php
Post by Bugsy Siegel
A study of Swedish patients on a wait list for heart surgery
found that the "risk of death increases significantly with waiting
time." In a 2000 article in the journal Clinical Oncology, British
researchers studying 29 lung cancer patients waiting for treatment
further found that about 20 percent "of potentially curable patients
became incurable on the waiting list."
Meanwhile 46% waiting for a kidney die in the U.S. Lesson to learn in
The Medical Zone: You can't save everybody - people will die,
regardless of the system.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
"Americans who seek to use Canada as model for reforming their health
care system need to be aware that a single-payer health care system
like Canada's results in unacceptably long waits for medical
procedures," said Nadeem Esmail, Fraser Institute director of health
system performance studies and co-author of the 18th annual edition of
Waiting Your Turn: Hospital...
You should stop reading anything put out by the Frasier Institute,
it's a right-wing conservative think tank with nothing intelligent to
contribute. Nobody takes them seriously.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/The-Fraser-Institute-907284.html
The link is a reality check for the proponents of a single payer
systems around the world.
http://debate-central.ncpa.org/topics/2002/book2.pdf
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/barack...
Health insurance companies are "making record profits, right now."
Which is criminal because it's bloating the cost of health care in
general and is the very reason why the government feels it must step
in before it all crashes.  Remember how the banks were making record
profits only a year ago, and what happened?  The government had to
step in before everything crashed.
You did not read the whole article. It shows that Barack Obama is
lying when he says insurance companies are the reason for high health
care costs. That's the typical Marxist mantra. Play loose with the
facts to gain control.  
It's more than just insurance companies, there's a whole slew of
reasons, everything from aging baby boomers to rapidly multiplying
morbidly obese fat people seeking stomach staple surgery, and
everything in between. It all adds up, and it doesn't help when HMOs
refuse to insure the 50 million uninsured because it then falls on
your wallet, even after you've made your contribution to your HMO for
your own coverage, because the government has to pick up the tab for
all those uninsured. What's not absorbing for you here? The point
is: the health care system as it is right now is up poop's creek, and
soon it'll all end up in a poop's quagmire, taking everything down
with it.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Don't you realize government is crashing? It's has a $10 trillion debt
and the interest rate on that debt takes up a good portion of the
annual budget. Any business in the private sector could not sustain
such a debt. They would either close up shop or go bankrupt. That what
happened when lending came to a halt. The government keeps on
borrowing to pay their bills and expenses and the lenders are
beginning to throw caution into the wind.
The government crashed the day George Bush put the country's finances
into deficit mode in 2002. It's been all downhill since then -
wheeeeeeee!
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You think this current economic crisis is bad, just wait until the
world's largest economy cannot borrow any more. Will one of the US's
creditors say the United States is too big to fail? Not if the US
dollar is no longer the currency of choice. There is talk the Euro can
take the place of the US Dollar. Guess who is betting that will
happen? George Soros.
I don't doubt it. In the meantime, Obama has the goodwill of the
world on his side, which you should be grateful for because if it had
still been Bush, then boy, talking about Armaggedon. But since the
world's politicians love Obamase, they're all more than willing to wai
and see how his agenda will pan out, otherwise China could've killed
the U.S. by now considering how much money the U.S. owes China (hey,
and that's your money that goes to China, too). If Obama manages to
pull it off somehow, he'll be a miracle worker and the greenback will
be safe for a while longer. If not, it certainly won't have been for
not doing his best to steer the country away from a looming iceberg,
and then all failure would have to fall directly and squarely on the
Bush administration for sabotaging the country because the roots of it
all and it's beginning took place under his watch. Meanwhile, you
might want to hedge your bets by collecting some Euros and Chinese
Yuans just to be on the safe side, you can always convert them back to
the dollar if it gets to be all clear.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Barack Obama on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 in a press conference.
The link proves Obama's statement as being false.
Believe it or not, insurance companies are  businesses. Businesses
stay in business if they make a profit.
The fact of the matter is that health plan profits represent only
three cents of the premium dollar.
And 3%, which sounds really puny, of the $2.5 trillion now spent on
health care adds up to - woah! - $75 billion!  That's sure counting
one's pennies.  Couldn't they accept just a penny on the dollar as
profit and be happy with $25 billion and spend the other $50 billion
on covering the nearly 50 million uninsured?
3% is puny when you compare it to other industries and when you look
at  it, it will be the taxpayer that will sustain the cost, not a
bright thing to do during  a recession and high unemployment. I have
already proved that your 50 million uninsured figure is a distortion.
You totally ignore the fact that part of that 50 million consists of
illegal and legal immigrants, those who can afford their own health
insurance and the ones who do not know about existing government
programs.
Illegal and legal immigrants are irrelevant, they've always been
around, ever since 1492. Christopher Columbus was an illegal
immigrant to what was the Indians' land. Your ancestors were illegal,
if not legal, immigrants. They've been here, they're here now,
they'll always be here, that's the way it is, and if they get sick,
the government has to deal with them, period. Nothing is going to
change about that.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medicare and Medicaid, which is government health care,  costs the
taxpayer (state and federal) about $600 billion annually and costs are
rising higher than the rate of inflation. Those programs are becoming
insolvent. Government will have to spend more money to keep those
programs alive and add another 10% to the deficit.
Will reform has to done to those programs before government adds any
new entitlements and bureaucracies and there is no doubt they will
cost the taxpayer more as the years go on.
Let's face it, like I told you before, so long as there are more and
more people to take care of, then unless you kill half of them off
right now, it's just going to keep getting worse. The best that can
be done is to minimize the acceleration of the expenses. Can anyone
say single-payer system?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Approximately 86 cents out of every premium dollar goes directly
towards paying for medical services such as hospital care, physician
care, medical devices and prescription drugs.
Of the remaining costs, five cents goes to other consumer services,
provider support, and marketing (including prevention, disease
management, care coordination, investments in health information
technology and health support).
Costs associated with government payments, regulation and other costs
associated with administration (e.g., claims administration) comprise
an estimated six cents.
You should tell us how Congress' health plan is good and leave out the
Marxist slogans to make your case.
I never said it was good.  I said as a hybrid it won't save anybody
that much money because it's not a single payer system.  If you're
going to do the job, do it right, otherwise the government should stop
wasting its time and energy.
That's the problem, government is rushing through this legislation.
That is not doing it right. That is the main contention of
Conservatives and we have  Congressmen (Democrats) giving the
impression it is not necessary to read the whole bill before they pass
it. Your thread says Conservatives distort facts at the same time you
support Liberals hiding and ignoring the facts.
Well, if it'll make you any happier, it doesn't look like they'll be
rushing fast enough because the vote may just be delayed now until the
fall some time. But will every representative and senator read the
entire bill cover to cover in the meantime? I highly doubt it, but I
wouldn't be surprised if Obama actually will once the final version is
dumped on his table.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Wouldn't you be suspicious of a contract that has too much fine print,
addendums and a salesman who tells you have to sign it before it's too
late?
You keep asking such dumb questions. Every contract has too much fine
print, so what are you trying to prove?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Bottom line: You will make a good Communist.
Oh, that's what. Well, sorry, it failed the proof test.
Bugsy Siegel
2009-08-03 00:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
All I know is there's something fundamentally sick about a
constitution that would give a right to bear arms to kill people but
not give a right to health care to save their  lives.  Yeah, yeah, I
know, you'll come up with some dumb thing about guns being about self-
defense and not killing, but then, health care is a form of self-
defense too - from death in a lot of cases.
Actually, there's something sick about a moron who tries to equate a
right to do something (bear arms) with a supposed right to have the
government take money out of other people people's pocket for your own
personal use.
Explain social security, then.
 Go here...
http://www.ssa.gov/
--
Lost your job?  
Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
Still can't explain social security or even medicare for that matter,
can you?  You do realize your hard-earned money is taken out of your
pocket for other people's own  personal use with social security and
medicare, don't you?
Actually, the people that "use" the money also paid into the system
and the benefit is generally proportional to the amount paid in...
Actually, since you so clearly failed math in every grade you had to
repeat, it explains why you fail to realize that what you put into
social security and medicare over the course of your lifetime is less
than what you'll ever get out of it, especially if you live into your
70s.  So who's money will you be getting then?  Certianly not yours.
Not to mention that when SS and MC got started and people began
getting their checks, nobody was putting any money into the system
before that because SS and MC didn't even exist to put money into.  So
originally that money had to come from everybody else through other
means in order to begin issuing checks to people when SS and MC
began.  There's no getting around it, it's ALL people's money that the
government simply redistributes to wherever it needs to go, whether
you agree with any of that redistribution or not.  You have NO money
of your own that is yours and only yours for yourself to speak of when
it comes to the government's handling of "your" money and what it
wants to do with it so that everyone can benefit.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
And it doesn't matter if you voted Republican or
not, it's still being done, but I don't hear you squealing like a
pricked pig over SS and MC, so why the big stink over the health
plan?  It's all the same thing: your rmoney for other people's use,
IBTW, I'd vote to do away with social security and medicare in a
flash.....  for the same reason I don't like government health care,
even though your comparing it to SS is quite really stupid...
What makes it stupid?  It's all the same thing.  Using everybody's
money to support everybody else.  You even failed the math you took at
summer school every year.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
which incidentally could include you as one of those other people.
And if that really bothers you, then don't cash in on your social
security and medicare when it's time, because you'll only be using
other people's money for your own personal use.  Republican wingnut
hypocrite.
<LOL>    Here's Some facts.   For a long time I paid the maximum
contribution to SS which earned me my benefits since I could have
invested that money myself and had even more "benefit" from it.....
Yeah, until the stock market would've made you lose 40% of it last
winter and get you back to square one.  Smart move from someone who
failed math.
Post by Steve
and then about three years ago I turned sixty two years old and
started receiving those benefits.....       So....   I started
dividing the money three ways and sending it to my kids....   to
offset their contribution....   since the roughly $1600 was something
I didn't need anyway....
You'll be sorry when the day comes that you'll be hit with some major
health issue, which is inevitable at your age, that will necessitate
your having to use that extra money, especially for all those things
your medical check won't cover.  Hopefully you've got your mortgage
all paid up, because you might need to rely on selling the house and
getting as much money as you can from it in order to hang on a few
more years.
Post by Steve
....and BTW, Social Security and Medicare are very good examples of
how bad the government can screw things up.  
What's getting screwed up?  Your getting your checks, and more than
what you claim to need for yourself (I'll believe that once I see
photocopies of those checks posted somewhere), so stop complaining for
no rreason whatsoever other than being a malcontent conservative who
probably still mourns the loss of George Bush.
You make the argument the Congress should fix Medicare and Social
Security before trying to fix a system that the majority of Americans
are satisfied with.
Bank bailouts, auto bailouts, Cap-and-Trade and health care reform is
all about government control nothing else.
No, it's about government trying to fix what free enterprise screwed
up.  And it was free enterprise that convinced the government to
loosen the regulations that would've prevented what screwed up.
There's your capitalism - riding on the back of your wallet.
Capitalism fills all our wallets.
If it fills everyone's wallets, then how come 20% of Americans are
under the poverty line?
It's not because of free enterprise. We all live by our choices. If
government makes all our choices, we are no longer free.
What kind of illusionary world are you inhabiting? Don't you know
that government has always made all kinds of choices for you? They've
decided you need licences for this and permits for that, that you can
only have this and not that, that you can only do this and not that,
say this and not that, that you have to pay this amount or be
penalized, and so on. You're so-called freedom is limited by the
choices that government has imposed on you, meaning all you're really
left with is a token freedom as defined by the government's choices.
You're nowhere near as free as you think you are, yours is a deftly-
crafted controlled, regulated and restricted freedom that lulls you
into deluding yourself into believing that you're really free to make
your own choices. Every choice you make is a restricted choice by
what the government has chosen as being allowed. If you really want
to be free, live in a tent on the moon.
So your saying government is responsible for poverty. I knew you'd
come around. With government health care, government wants to make
sure more will go under the poverty line. As I have said, its all
about control.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
http://www.census.gov/macro/032008/rdcall/2_001.htm
Someone ain't fillin' their wallets even with government help.  Here's
the thing about capitalism, and it's a rule: capitalism needs poverty
for capitalism to work, especially for the wealthy, otherwise
capitalism is not possible.  Think about it, there is no one
capitalist country in the world that has ever succeeded in eliminating
poverty, nor will there ever be, because it's not in the nature of
capitalism to eradicate poverty - that would be like committing
suicide.  So much for filling everyone's wallets.
Freebies from government always invite abuse.
Everything invites abuse. Cars invite abuse, guns invite abuse, even
the internet invites abuse. Anything that exists invites abuse,
especially humans. So you're real point is?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Free enterprise didn't screw up.
Over regulated screws up the works.
Have you been cruising outside of this solar system for a while?  It
was *deregulation* that contributed to the meltdown last fall.  You
know, thanks to the bill Phil Gramm crafted and pushed through into
law back in '99.  Now there was a nice piece of conservative work
ready to create maximum damage.  Read all about how sneaky the little
http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and...
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The ones scared of real health
care reform are the trial lawyers.
No, the ones who are scared are the ones who are totally clueless and
oblivious and feel perfectly comfortable to remain absolutely ignorant
of how a single-payer system works more efficiently while saving tons
of money.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medical care is rising in costs
because doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine. Malpractice
insurance rates go up because even frivolous lawsuits cost money.
General practioners find it too expensive to maintain their practice.
Ob/gyns insurance rates have gone through the roof.
Accounting for the Cost in the United States. January 2007), the
United States has $480 billion in excess spending each year in
comparison to Western European nations that have universal health
insurance coverage. The costs are mainly associated with excess
administrative costs and poorer quality of care.
And government won't add to those administrative costs. Wake up,
Dorothy.
You're at the losing end of an argument, you know. No matter what the
government does, whether if it's for your benefit or not, costs will
always be incurred. The whole point is to minimize the accelartion of
the costs because the acceleration itself can't be avoided - ever -
and, along the way, maybe hopefully make things run a bit more
efficiently as a result.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Read a ton of more facts, why don't you?
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medicare fraud is due to poor oversight by Congress. Medicare
bureaucracy makes it impossible for doctors to give patients the best
care.
Medical bureaucracy as in HMOs?  Because that's who doctors are mostly
dealing with now, not the government.
Government will add more layers of bureaucracy.
Yeah, you're point being? At least people are added to the payroll,
which in turn means more people with spending power, which means the
economy can improve in some small way from that alone. You prefer
they were on the streets collecting welfare instead?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
According to the survey conducted by the Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons, 66.2 percent of doctors say that they will
"retire from active patient care at a younger age than they would have
considered five years ago" not for financial reasons, but because of
"increased government interference in the practice of medicine."
Yeah, and that's why there are absolutely no doctors and surgeons left
in Canada and Europe and everywhere else with universal coverage,
because they couldn't handle the "government interference," and why as
a result everyone outside of the U.S. will be dead by tomorrow.  Uh-
huh.
Government has no experience in medicine. I give a link to the
arguments against a single payer systems (government controlled health
care).
In a single payer systyem the government is not involved in medicine,
it's just the sugar daddy that spreads the money around to those who
are involved in medicine who in turn decide how it will be allocated.
Are you not getting something clear out of that braindead equation?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Decreased fees were cited by 56 percent of participants as a reason
for considering early retirement from medicine.
Who needs those doctors who are only in it for the money anyway?  At
least this'll weed out the riff-raff.
Medicare only pays doctors a few cents on the dollar. That is poor way
to do business, but who would expect a Socialist to know that.
Gee, then that must come as some shock to all those Canadian doctors
making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. U.S. doctors may gross
http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2006/10_15-30/3_PM_your_practice01_16.html
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Sixty-four percent cited "decreased control" over medical practices,
while another 64 percent said increased bureaucracy from Medicare as
the reason.
Hasn't stopped them from practicing when dealing with the monstrous
bureaucracy of HMOs.
Government will only add to the bureaucratic nightmare.
How can it be any different than the nightmare it is now? It's
meaningless to think that it will be.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Perhaps most telling, analysts said, was that 61 percent of those
surveyed said they were experiencing an increased fear of federal
prosecution or unwarranted investigation as the reason they were
considering early retirement.
Well, if they botch up their treatments and surgeries, they should be
investigated and prosecuted.  That's what they're doing now with that
Dr. Murray guy in the Michael Jackson case.  You're point is?  Let
them get away with murder?
It means the fed's attempt to control an industry they have no
knowledge of hampers the way doctors do the business of medical care.
One more time: Feds = sugar daddy. HMOs = controllers. Feds don't
need to do it for profit, HMOs do, so who do you think is really more
interested in controlling? Wake up out of your Neverland dream.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Government can't do health care or managed efficiently.
Well, if the government simplified it into being a single payer
system, they wouldn't have to do health care, and their managing of it
would simply be a matter of handing over the dough needed by all 50
states to oversee its distribution equitably.  Like they do in Canada
and other countries with single payer systems.  Like I told you
before, it won't work if the government ends up with a hybrid system.
In a single payer system, government runs the whole shebang. Free
health insurance guarantees abuse and the taxpayer gets stuck with the
bill. Governments in a single-payer system ration care using waiting
lists for surgery and diagnostic procedures and by canceling
surgeries.
Yeah, and that's why everybody has universal coverage, nobody is
complaining, except one person a week, doctors in Canada net more than
those in the U.S. and overall costs are half that of the U.S. Sure
sounds like a travesty to me.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
A study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that 50
people died while on a wait list for cardiac catheterization in
Ontario.
Another meaningless statement. Over what period of time? And was
there even any chance for them to survive the operation due to
whatever condition they were in to begin with? Meanwhile, "...
researchers analyzed data on nearly 55,000 patients over age 60 that
were placed on the U.S. waiting list for a kidney transplant from 1995
to 2007. Projections suggested that 46 percent of patients wait-listed
in 2006-07 would die before receiving a deceased-donor transplant."
In simple math, it breaks down to 4,583.3 people per year, and 46% of
that average for the final year amounts to 2,108 who died waiting for
a kidney transplant. Hmm, 2,108 people died in the U.S. waiting for
something while only 50 died in Canada (assuming that 50 was over the
course of a year)? Even if you look at it proportionately according
to total population, Canada should have had 210 people die, since it
has 1/10th of the U.S.'s total population, so it should be 1/10th of
the U.S.'s death rate too. But it isn't. Wow, imagine that. Get a
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154577.php
Post by Bugsy Siegel
A study of Swedish patients on a wait list for heart surgery
found that the "risk of death increases significantly with waiting
time." In a 2000 article in the journal Clinical Oncology, British
researchers studying 29 lung cancer patients waiting for treatment
further found that about 20 percent "of potentially curable patients
became incurable on the waiting list."
Meanwhile 46% waiting for a kidney die in the U.S. Lesson to learn in
The Medical Zone: You can't save everybody - people will die,
regardless of the system.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
"Americans who seek to use Canada as model for reforming their health
care system need to be aware that a single-payer health care system
like Canada's results in unacceptably long waits for medical
procedures," said Nadeem Esmail, Fraser Institute director of health
system performance studies and co-author of the 18th annual edition of
Waiting Your Turn: Hospital...
You should stop reading anything put out by the Frasier Institute,
it's a right-wing conservative think tank with nothing intelligent to
contribute. Nobody takes them seriously.
Dispute their findings. I, for one, don't take you seriously. You're
nothing but a Marxist clown. Here's a new pseudonym for you Mickey
Marx.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/The-Fraser-Institute-907284.html
The link is a reality check for the proponents of a single payer
systems around the world.
http://debate-central.ncpa.org/topics/2002/book2.pdf
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/barack...
Health insurance companies are "making record profits, right now."
Which is criminal because it's bloating the cost of health care in
general and is the very reason why the government feels it must step
in before it all crashes.  Remember how the banks were making record
profits only a year ago, and what happened?  The government had to
step in before everything crashed.
You did not read the whole article. It shows that Barack Obama is
lying when he says insurance companies are the reason for high health
care costs. That's the typical Marxist mantra. Play loose with the
facts to gain control.  
It's more than just insurance companies, there's a whole slew of
reasons, everything from aging baby boomers to rapidly multiplying
morbidly obese fat people seeking stomach staple surgery, and
everything in between. It all adds up, and it doesn't help when HMOs
refuse to insure the 50 million uninsured because it then falls on
your wallet, even after you've made your contribution to your HMO for
your own coverage, because the government has to pick up the tab for
all those uninsured. What's not absorbing for you here? The point
is: the health care system as it is right now is up poop's creek, and
soon it'll all end up in a poop's quagmire, taking everything down
with it.
HMO's refusing 50 million. Learn how to tell the truth when you make
an argument.

Government is going to pick up the tab anyway. $1 trillion dollars is
far from being chump change.

Besides, why are health insurance companies are being blamed for not
insuring people with pre-existing conditions?

Will an auto insurance company insure a person with handful of DUI's,
speeding tickets and red light violations with a car with dings and
dents from the hood to the trunk?

I know Marxists won't understand that because Marxists don't do
business for profit.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Don't you realize government is crashing? It's has a $10 trillion debt
and the interest rate on that debt takes up a good portion of the
annual budget. Any business in the private sector could not sustain
such a debt. They would either close up shop or go bankrupt. That what
happened when lending came to a halt. The government keeps on
borrowing to pay their bills and expenses and the lenders are
beginning to throw caution into the wind.
The government crashed the day George Bush put the country's finances
into deficit mode in 2002. It's been all downhill since then -
wheeeeeeee!
The country tanked because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pulled an Enron
and Bernie Madoff tag team on the United States with the support of
Democratic Congressmen.

Bush spent a lot, but it wasn't the spending that got the country into
this economic mess. It was a meltdown of financial markets.

The federal government over the last 20 years pushed the mortgage
industry so hard to get minority homeownership up, that it undermined
the country's financial foundation to achieve its goal.

An article in the Los Angeles Times from the late '90s praised the
sudden surge in homeownership among minorities, calling it "one of the
hidden success stories of the Clinton era."
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807

The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston produced a manual in the early '90s
that warned mortgage lenders to no longer deny urban and lower-income
minority applicants on such "outdated" criteria as credit history,
down payment or employment income.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged and praised lenders – like
Countrywide and Bear Stearns – for adopting the slackened policies
toward minority applicants.

A New York Times article from Sept. 1999 states that Fannie Mae had
been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to
expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people and that
the corporation loosened its lending requirements to comply.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt

Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee,
rejected a Bush administration and Congressional Republican plan for
regulating the mortgage industry in 2003, saying, "These two entities
– Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial
crisis." According to a New York Times article, Frank added, "The more
people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these
companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You think this current economic crisis is bad, just wait until the
world's largest economy cannot borrow any more. Will one of the US's
creditors say the United States is too big to fail? Not if the US
dollar is no longer the currency of choice. There is talk the Euro can
take the place of the US Dollar. Guess who is betting that will
happen? George Soros.
I don't doubt it. In the meantime, Obama has the goodwill of the
world on his side, which you should be grateful for because if it had
still been Bush, then boy, talking about Armaggedon. But since the
world's politicians love Obamase, they're all more than willing to wai
and see how his agenda will pan out, otherwise China could've killed
the U.S. by now considering how much money the U.S. owes China (hey,
and that's your money that goes to China, too). If Obama manages to
pull it off somehow, he'll be a miracle worker and the greenback will
be safe for a while longer. If not, it certainly won't have been for
not doing his best to steer the country away from a looming iceberg,
and then all failure would have to fall directly and squarely on the
Bush administration for sabotaging the country because the roots of it
all and it's beginning took place under his watch. Meanwhile, you
might want to hedge your bets by collecting some Euros and Chinese
Yuans just to be on the safe side, you can always convert them back to
the dollar if it gets to be all clear.
Obama is the new clown on the block. He did not accomplish anything
during his visits to Europe, Middle East and Russian.

Obama's spending sprees have given creditor countries pause
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Barack Obama on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 in a press conference.
The link proves Obama's statement as being false.
Believe it or not, insurance companies are  businesses. Businesses
stay in business if they make a profit.
The fact of the matter is that health plan profits represent only
three cents of the premium dollar.
And 3%, which sounds really puny, of the $2.5 trillion now spent on
health care adds up to - woah! - $75 billion!  That's sure counting
one's pennies.  Couldn't they accept just a penny on the dollar as
profit and be happy with $25 billion and spend the other $50 billion
on covering the nearly 50 million uninsured?
3% is puny when you compare it to other industries and when you look
at  it, it will be the taxpayer that will sustain the cost, not a
bright thing to do during  a recession and high unemployment. I have
already proved that your 50 million uninsured figure is a distortion.
You totally ignore the fact that part of that 50 million consists of
illegal and legal immigrants, those who can afford their own health
insurance and the ones who do not know about existing government
programs.
Illegal and legal immigrants are irrelevant, they've always been
around, ever since 1492. Christopher Columbus was an illegal
immigrant to what was the Indians' land.
I see you still can't dispute the thrashing of your 50 million
uninsured argument.

Also, I see you can't understand the free enterprise system and why
businesses (even insurance companies) expect to make a profit.
What an idiot. There were no immigration laws at Plymouth Rock.
Post by wy
Your ancestors were illegal,
if not legal, immigrants.
I am a first generation American. My family came here LEGALLY after
their homeland was liberated by the United States from the Japs.
Post by wy
They've been here, they're here now,
they'll always be here, that's the way it is, and if they get sick,
the government has to deal with them, period. Nothing is going to
change about that.
They have had insurance from their employer for a long time.

You got to find yourself another argument.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medicare and Medicaid, which is government health care,  costs the
taxpayer (state and federal) about $600 billion annually and costs are
rising higher than the rate of inflation. Those programs are becoming
insolvent. Government will have to spend more money to keep those
programs alive and add another 10% to the deficit.
Will reform has to done to those programs before government adds any
new entitlements and bureaucracies and there is no doubt they will
cost the taxpayer more as the years go on.
Let's face it, like I told you before, so long as there are more and
more people to take care of, then unless you kill half of them off
right now, it's just going to keep getting worse. The best that can
be done is to minimize the acceleration of the expenses. Can anyone
say single-payer system?
Single payer system means government control. Minimizing expenses
through a single payer system means government price controls. Say
good bye to the free market hello to the Communist States of America.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Approximately 86 cents out of every premium dollar goes directly
towards paying for medical services such as hospital care, physician
care, medical devices and prescription drugs.
Of the remaining costs, five cents goes to other consumer services,
provider support, and marketing (including prevention, disease
management, care coordination, investments in health information
technology and health support).
Costs associated with government payments, regulation and other costs
associated with administration (e.g., claims administration) comprise
an estimated six cents.
You should tell us how Congress' health plan is good and leave out the
Marxist slogans to make your case.
I never said it was good.  I said as a hybrid it won't save anybody
that much money because it's not a single payer system.  If you're
going to do the job, do it right, otherwise the government should stop
wasting its time and energy.
That's the problem, government is rushing through this legislation.
That is not doing it right. That is the main contention of
Conservatives and we have  Congressmen (Democrats) giving the
impression it is not necessary to read the whole bill before they pass
it. Your thread says Conservatives distort facts at the same time you
support Liberals hiding and ignoring the facts.
Well, if it'll make you any happier, it doesn't look like they'll be
rushing fast enough because the vote may just be delayed now until the
fall some time. But will every representative and senator read the
entire bill cover to cover in the meantime? I highly doubt it, but I
wouldn't be surprised if Obama actually will once the final version is
dumped on his table.
Don't you remember that idiot John Conyers saying "Read the bill!"
What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't
have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you've
read the bill?"?

Obama will cream his pants if Congress gives him a bill to sign. He
won't read the bill cover to cover.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Wouldn't you be suspicious of a contract that has too much fine print,
addendums and a salesman who tells you have to sign it before it's too
late?
You keep asking such dumb questions. Every contract has too much fine
print, so what are you trying to prove?
Are you that dense? It's obvious what my question asked. Do you have
Kool Aid Dementia? Liberals want Congress to pass their health bill
as soon as possible without reading the bill. They did it with the
Stimulus Bill. I guess contracts are above your pay grade. You'll just
sign on the dotted line if it sounds good. That's is real idiotic.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Bottom line: You will make a good Communist.
Oh, that's what. Well, sorry, it failed the proof test.
Republicans is the party of the rich. It stands to reason they want to
increase their base by having more rich people. Democrats are the
party of the poor. They want to increase their base by making more
poor people.


-

U.S. Internal Revenue Service:
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-08-03 04:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
All I know is there's something fundamentally sick about a
constitution that would give a right to bear arms to kill people but
not give a right to health care to save their  lives.  Yeah, yeah, I
know, you'll come up with some dumb thing about guns being about self-
defense and not killing, but then, health care is a form of self-
defense too - from death in a lot of cases.
Actually, there's something sick about a moron who tries to equate a
right to do something (bear arms) with a supposed right to have the
government take money out of other people people's pocket for your own
personal use.
Explain social security, then.
 Go here...
http://www.ssa.gov/
--
Lost your job?  
Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
Still can't explain social security or even medicare for that matter,
can you?  You do realize your hard-earned money is taken out of your
pocket for other people's own  personal use with social security and
medicare, don't you?
Actually, the people that "use" the money also paid into the system
and the benefit is generally proportional to the amount paid in...
Actually, since you so clearly failed math in every grade you had to
repeat, it explains why you fail to realize that what you put into
social security and medicare over the course of your lifetime is less
than what you'll ever get out of it, especially if you live into your
70s.  So who's money will you be getting then?  Certianly not yours.
Not to mention that when SS and MC got started and people began
getting their checks, nobody was putting any money into the system
before that because SS and MC didn't even exist to put money into.  So
originally that money had to come from everybody else through other
means in order to begin issuing checks to people when SS and MC
began.  There's no getting around it, it's ALL people's money that the
government simply redistributes to wherever it needs to go, whether
you agree with any of that redistribution or not.  You have NO money
of your own that is yours and only yours for yourself to speak of when
it comes to the government's handling of "your" money and what it
wants to do with it so that everyone can benefit.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
And it doesn't matter if you voted Republican or
not, it's still being done, but I don't hear you squealing like a
pricked pig over SS and MC, so why the big stink over the health
plan?  It's all the same thing: your rmoney for other people's use,
IBTW, I'd vote to do away with social security and medicare in a
flash.....  for the same reason I don't like government health care,
even though your comparing it to SS is quite really stupid...
What makes it stupid?  It's all the same thing.  Using everybody's
money to support everybody else.  You even failed the math you took at
summer school every year.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
which incidentally could include you as one of those other people.
And if that really bothers you, then don't cash in on your social
security and medicare when it's time, because you'll only be using
other people's money for your own personal use.  Republican wingnut
hypocrite.
<LOL>    Here's Some facts.   For a long time I paid the maximum
contribution to SS which earned me my benefits since I could have
invested that money myself and had even more "benefit" from it.....
Yeah, until the stock market would've made you lose 40% of it last
winter and get you back to square one.  Smart move from someone who
failed math.
Post by Steve
and then about three years ago I turned sixty two years old and
started receiving those benefits.....       So....   I started
dividing the money three ways and sending it to my kids....   to
offset their contribution....   since the roughly $1600 was something
I didn't need anyway....
You'll be sorry when the day comes that you'll be hit with some major
health issue, which is inevitable at your age, that will necessitate
your having to use that extra money, especially for all those things
your medical check won't cover.  Hopefully you've got your mortgage
all paid up, because you might need to rely on selling the house and
getting as much money as you can from it in order to hang on a few
more years.
Post by Steve
....and BTW, Social Security and Medicare are very good examples of
how bad the government can screw things up.  
What's getting screwed up?  Your getting your checks, and more than
what you claim to need for yourself (I'll believe that once I see
photocopies of those checks posted somewhere), so stop complaining for
no rreason whatsoever other than being a malcontent conservative who
probably still mourns the loss of George Bush.
You make the argument the Congress should fix Medicare and Social
Security before trying to fix a system that the majority of Americans
are satisfied with.
Bank bailouts, auto bailouts, Cap-and-Trade and health care reform is
all about government control nothing else.
No, it's about government trying to fix what free enterprise screwed
up.  And it was free enterprise that convinced the government to
loosen the regulations that would've prevented what screwed up.
There's your capitalism - riding on the back of your wallet.
Capitalism fills all our wallets.
If it fills everyone's wallets, then how come 20% of Americans are
under the poverty line?
It's not because of free enterprise. We all live by our choices. If
government makes all our choices, we are no longer free.
What kind of illusionary world are you inhabiting?  Don't you know
that government has always made all kinds of choices for you?  They've
decided you need licences for this and permits for that, that you can
only have this and not that, that you can only do this and not that,
say this and not that, that you have to pay this amount or be
penalized, and so on.  You're so-called freedom is limited by the
choices that government has imposed on you, meaning all you're really
left with is a token freedom as defined by the government's choices.
You're nowhere near as free as you think you are, yours is a deftly-
crafted controlled, regulated and restricted freedom that lulls you
into deluding yourself into believing that you're really free to make
your own choices.  Every choice you make is a restricted choice by
what the government has chosen as being allowed.  If you really want
to be free, live in a tent on the moon.
So your saying government is responsible for poverty. I knew you'd
come around. With government health care, government wants to make
sure more  will go under the poverty line. As I have said, its all
about control.
As I've told you before, capitalism is responsible for poverty. It
can't exist without poverty being present. And capitalism has the
power to ensure that it stays that way by convincing the government to
keep it that way, so the government chooses how capitalism should be
run at the expense of the poor. But then, in order to allow
capitalism to be the brute that it is, the government has to help the
poor out in some way or other just to make sure they don't turn into
rabble rousers and mess up the capitalists' way of stepping on
everybody. In other words, give the poor just barely enough to shut
up while the rich go on about their business. It's a delicate
balance.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
http://www.census.gov/macro/032008/rdcall/2_001.htm
Someone ain't fillin' their wallets even with government help.  Here's
the thing about capitalism, and it's a rule: capitalism needs poverty
for capitalism to work, especially for the wealthy, otherwise
capitalism is not possible.  Think about it, there is no one
capitalist country in the world that has ever succeeded in eliminating
poverty, nor will there ever be, because it's not in the nature of
capitalism to eradicate poverty - that would be like committing
suicide.  So much for filling everyone's wallets.
Freebies from government always invite abuse.
Everything invites abuse.  Cars invite abuse, guns invite abuse, even
the internet invites abuse.  Anything that exists invites abuse,
especially humans.  So you're real point is?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Free enterprise didn't screw up.
Over regulated screws up the works.
Have you been cruising outside of this solar system for a while?  It
was *deregulation* that contributed to the meltdown last fall.  You
know, thanks to the bill Phil Gramm crafted and pushed through into
law back in '99.  Now there was a nice piece of conservative work
ready to create maximum damage.  Read all about how sneaky the little
http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and...
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The ones scared of real health
care reform are the trial lawyers.
No, the ones who are scared are the ones who are totally clueless and
oblivious and feel perfectly comfortable to remain absolutely ignorant
of how a single-payer system works more efficiently while saving tons
of money.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medical care is rising in costs
because doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine. Malpractice
insurance rates go up because even frivolous lawsuits cost money.
General practioners find it too expensive to maintain their practice.
Ob/gyns insurance rates have gone through the roof.
Accounting for the Cost in the United States. January 2007), the
United States has $480 billion in excess spending each year in
comparison to Western European nations that have universal health
insurance coverage. The costs are mainly associated with excess
administrative costs and poorer quality of care.
And government won't add to those administrative costs. Wake up,
Dorothy.
You're at the losing end of an argument, you know.  No matter what the
government does, whether if it's for your benefit or not, costs will
always be incurred.  The whole point is to minimize the accelartion of
the costs because the acceleration itself can't be avoided - ever -
and, along the way, maybe hopefully make things run a bit more
efficiently as a result.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Read a ton of more facts, why don't you?
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medicare fraud is due to poor oversight by Congress. Medicare
bureaucracy makes it impossible for doctors to give patients the best
care.
Medical bureaucracy as in HMOs?  Because that's who doctors are mostly
dealing with now, not the government.
Government will add more layers of bureaucracy.
Yeah, you're point being?  At least people are added to the payroll,
which in turn means more people with spending power, which means the
economy can improve in some small way from that alone.  You prefer
they were on the streets collecting welfare instead?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
According to the survey conducted by the Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons, 66.2 percent of doctors say that they will
"retire from active patient care at a younger age than they would have
considered five years ago" not for financial reasons, but because of
"increased government interference in the practice of medicine."
Yeah, and that's why there are absolutely no doctors and surgeons left
in Canada and Europe and everywhere else with universal coverage,
because they couldn't handle the "government interference," and why as
a result everyone outside of the U.S. will be dead by tomorrow.  Uh-
huh.
Government has no experience in medicine. I give a link to the
arguments against a single payer systems (government controlled health
care).
In a single payer systyem the government is not involved in medicine,
it's just the sugar daddy that spreads the money around to those who
are involved in medicine who in turn decide how it will be allocated.
Are you not getting something clear out of that braindead equation?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Decreased fees were cited by 56 percent of participants as a reason
for considering early retirement from medicine.
Who needs those doctors who are only in it for the money anyway?  At
least this'll weed out the riff-raff.
Medicare only pays doctors a few cents on the dollar. That is poor way
to do business, but who would expect a Socialist to know that.
Gee, then that must come as some shock to all those Canadian doctors
making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. U.S. doctors may gross
http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2006/10_15-30/3_PM_your...
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Sixty-four percent cited "decreased control" over medical practices,
while another 64 percent said increased bureaucracy from Medicare as
the reason.
Hasn't stopped them from practicing when dealing with the monstrous
bureaucracy of HMOs.
Government will only add to the bureaucratic nightmare.
How can it be any different than the nightmare it is now?  It's
meaningless to think that it will be.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Perhaps most telling, analysts said, was that 61 percent of those
surveyed said they were experiencing an increased fear of federal
prosecution or unwarranted investigation as the reason they were
considering early retirement.
Well, if they botch up their treatments and surgeries, they should be
investigated and prosecuted.  That's what they're doing now with that
Dr. Murray guy in the Michael Jackson case.  You're point is?  Let
them get away with murder?
It means the fed's attempt to control an industry they have no
knowledge of hampers the way doctors do the business of medical care.
One more time:  Feds = sugar daddy.  HMOs = controllers.  Feds don't
need to do it for profit, HMOs do, so who do you think is really more
interested in controlling?  Wake up out of your Neverland dream.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Government can't do health care or managed efficiently.
Well, if the government simplified it into being a single payer
system, they wouldn't have to do health care, and their managing of it
would simply be a matter of handing over the dough needed by all 50
states to oversee its distribution equitably.  Like they do in Canada
and other countries with single payer systems.  Like I told you
before, it won't work if the government ends up with a hybrid system.
In a single payer system, government runs the whole shebang. Free
health insurance guarantees abuse and the taxpayer gets stuck with the
bill. Governments in a single-payer system ration care using waiting
lists for surgery and diagnostic procedures and by canceling
surgeries.
Yeah, and that's why everybody has universal coverage, nobody is
complaining, except one person a week, doctors in Canada net more than
those in the U.S. and overall costs are half that of the U.S.  Sure
sounds like a travesty to me.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
A study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that 50
people died while on a wait list for cardiac catheterization in
Ontario.
Another meaningless statement.  Over what period of time?  And was
there even any chance for them to survive the operation due to
whatever condition they were in to begin with?  Meanwhile, "...
researchers analyzed data on nearly 55,000 patients over age 60 that
were placed on the U.S. waiting list for a kidney transplant from 1995
to 2007. Projections suggested that 46 percent of patients wait-listed
in 2006-07 would die before receiving a deceased-donor transplant."
In simple math, it breaks down to 4,583.3 people per year, and 46% of
that average for the final year amounts to 2,108 who died waiting for
a kidney transplant.  Hmm, 2,108 people died in the U.S. waiting for
something while only 50 died in Canada (assuming that 50 was over the
course of a year)?   Even if you look at it proportionately according
to total population, Canada should have had 210 people die, since it
has 1/10th of the U.S.'s total population, so it should be 1/10th of
the U.S.'s death rate too.  But it isn't.  Wow, imagine that.  Get a
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154577.php
Post by Bugsy Siegel
A study of Swedish patients on a wait list for heart surgery
found that the "risk of death increases significantly with waiting
time." In a 2000 article in the journal Clinical Oncology, British
researchers studying 29 lung cancer patients waiting for treatment
further found that about 20 percent "of potentially curable patients
became incurable on the waiting list."
Meanwhile 46% waiting for a kidney die in the U.S.  Lesson to learn in
The Medical Zone: You can't save everybody - people will die,
regardless of the system.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
"Americans who seek to use Canada as model for reforming their health
care system need to be aware that a single-payer health care system
like Canada's results in unacceptably long waits for medical
procedures," said Nadeem Esmail, Fraser Institute director of health
system performance studies and co-author of the 18th annual edition of
Waiting Your Turn: Hospital...
You should stop reading anything put out by the Frasier Institute,
it's a right-wing conservative think tank with nothing intelligent to
contribute.  Nobody takes them seriously.
Dispute their findings. I, for one, don't take you seriously. You're
nothing but a Marxist clown. Here's a new pseudonym for you Mickey
Marx.
The Frasier Institute is comprised of a bunch of old fart
conservatives who do little more than just sit around in a room and
think up of stupid things. Stuff like tobacco is good for you (so
hey, let's kill off as many people with cancer as possible and let the
health system deal with it at your expense), free trade is the best
thing ever to happen since the invention of the gun (so kick more
American workers out of their jobs that then become outsourced to
Mexico, Asia and India for a dollar a day -capitalism is good, meaning
unemployed Americans and poverty in the U.S. are perfectly
acceptable), not to mention that there shouldn't be any minimum wage
or price controls of any kind so as to keep workers as the enslaved
masses while allowing the capitalist few to get richer by charginig as
much as they want for their products. Whatever surveys they dream up
are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or any
scholarly method, so their credibilty is largely questionable, to say
the least. Besides, all they do is give opinions which have no real
effect to change anything and nobody in Canada ever pays any real
attention to them.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/The-Fraser-Institute-907284.html
The link is a reality check for the proponents of a single payer
systems around the world.
http://debate-central.ncpa.org/topics/2002/book2.pdf
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/barack...
Health insurance companies are "making record profits, right now."
Which is criminal because it's bloating the cost of health care in
general and is the very reason why the government feels it must step
in before it all crashes.  Remember how the banks were making record
profits only a year ago, and what happened?  The government had to
step in before everything crashed.
You did not read the whole article. It shows that Barack Obama is
lying when he says insurance companies are the reason for high health
care costs. That's the typical Marxist mantra. Play loose with the
facts to gain control.  
It's more than just insurance companies, there's a whole slew of
reasons, everything from aging baby boomers to rapidly multiplying
morbidly obese fat people seeking stomach staple surgery, and
everything in between.  It all adds up, and it doesn't help when HMOs
refuse to insure the 50 million uninsured because it then falls on
your wallet, even after you've made your contribution to your HMO for
your own coverage, because the government has to pick up the tab for
all those uninsured.  What's not absorbing for you here?  The point
is: the health care system as it is right now is up poop's creek, and
soon it'll all end up in a poop's quagmire, taking everything down
with it.
HMO's refusing 50 million. Learn how to tell the truth when you make
an argument.
If they're not insuring them, then they're refusing them for whatever
lame reasons they can come up with, like pre-existing condition or
inability to pay the basic minimum.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Government is going to pick up the tab anyway. $1 trillion dollars is
far from being chump change.
And it won't stop at $1 trillion either, so long as more people keep
popping up over the next several decades.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Besides, why are health insurance companies are being blamed for not
insuring people with pre-existing conditions?
Because if they knew you had a pre-existing condition, it would cut
into their profits to get you treated. Can't have that at all, no
sireee, you're better off dead to them.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Will an auto insurance company insure a person with  handful of DUI's,
speeding tickets and red light violations with a car with dings and
dents from the hood to the trunk?
Not everybody has or wants a car. Everybody does have a life, which
they kind of would like to keep healthy in order to be able to
function as normally as possible and keep contributing meaningfully to
society, otherwise they end up becoming a burden on society. Or has
that concept escaped you?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
I know Marxists won't understand that because Marxists don't do
business for profit.
I don't know, the Marx Brothers made a lot of money.

 
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Don't you realize government is crashing? It's has a $10 trillion debt
and the interest rate on that debt takes up a good portion of the
annual budget. Any business in the private sector could not sustain
such a debt. They would either close up shop or go bankrupt. That what
happened when lending came to a halt. The government keeps on
borrowing to pay their bills and expenses and the lenders are
beginning to throw caution into the wind.
The government crashed the day George Bush put the country's finances
into deficit mode in 2002.  It's been all downhill since then -
wheeeeeeee!
The country tanked because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pulled an Enron
and Bernie Madoff tag team on the United States with the support of
Democratic Congressmen.
Did you forget about Phil Gramm, a Republican, the illustrious author
of the banking deregulation bill in 1999 and underhanded manipulator
who got it through under everyone's noses, to whom all of this can
actually be traced back? You didn't read the link before, did you?

http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and-phil-gramm-an-experiment-in-deregulation.aspx
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Bush spent a lot, but it wasn't the spending that got the country into
this economic mess. It was a meltdown of financial markets.
He started spending tons in 2002 even before the Iraq War started the
next year, and literally overnight he got the country into a deficit
when it had already been deficit free, and that was six years before
the meltdown. It's amazing how conservatives conveniently forget what
really happened.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The federal government over the last 20 years pushed the mortgage
industry so hard to get minority homeownership up, that it undermined
the country's financial foundation to achieve its goal.
And who was in power for twelve of those twenty years?
Conservatives. They had also been the majority in Congress and the
Senate for twelve of those twenty years, especially through six of
Bill Clinton's eight years, so who do you think rammed it through?
Conservatives.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
An article in the Los Angeles Times from the late '90s praised the
sudden surge in homeownership among minorities, calling it "one of the
hidden success stories of the Clinton era."http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807
A Clinton era that was run by conservatives.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston produced a manual in the early '90s
that warned mortgage lenders to no longer deny urban and lower-income
minority applicants on such "outdated" criteria as credit history,
down payment or employment income.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged and praised lenders – like
Countrywide and Bear Stearns – for adopting the slackened policies
toward minority applicants.
A New York Times article from Sept. 1999 states that Fannie Mae had
been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to
expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people and that
the corporation loosened its lending requirements to comply.http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575A...
Well, first of all, Clinton was a conservative Democrat, never a
liberal one, which explains why he did what he did. If there was any
loosening going on under his watch, it was with the Glass-Steagall Act
still in place to prevent the kind of abuse that ultimately occurred.
It was only when the conniving Republican Phil Gramm came up with his
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act in 1999, which
was designed to obliterate the Glass-Steagall Act and all its
defenses, did it all become possible for real damage in the subprime
loans to happen. A nice history lesson on it all is here:

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1229
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee,
rejected a Bush administration and Congressional Republican plan for
regulating the mortgage industry in 2003, saying, "These two entities
– Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial
crisis." According to a New York Times article, Frank added, "The more
people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these
companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You think this current economic crisis is bad, just wait until the
world's largest economy cannot borrow any more. Will one of the US's
creditors say the United States is too big to fail? Not if the US
dollar is no longer the currency of choice. There is talk the Euro can
take the place of the US Dollar. Guess who is betting that will
happen? George Soros.
I don't doubt it.  In the meantime, Obama has the goodwill of the
world on his side, which you should be grateful for because if it had
still been Bush, then boy, talking about Armaggedon.   But since the
world's politicians love Obamase, they're all more than willing to wai
and see how his agenda will pan out, otherwise China could've killed
the U.S. by now considering how much money the U.S. owes China (hey,
and that's your money that goes to China, too).  If Obama manages to
pull it off somehow, he'll be a miracle worker and the greenback will
be safe for a while longer.  If not, it certainly won't have been for
not doing his best to steer the country away from a looming iceberg,
and then all failure would have to fall directly and squarely on the
Bush administration for sabotaging the country because the roots of it
all and it's beginning took place under his watch.  Meanwhile, you
might want to hedge your bets by collecting some Euros and Chinese
Yuans just to be on the safe side, you can always convert them back to
the dollar if it gets to be all clear.
Obama is the new clown on the block. He did not accomplish anything
during his visits to Europe, Middle East and Russian.
How do you know? Were you at all the meetings? Often leaders don't
disclose everything they talk about, only the simple stuff that's
easily unuderstood by a mass audience.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Obama's spending sprees have given creditor countries  pause
Yeah, they're waiting to see if he actually pulls it off or not.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Barack Obama on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 in a press conference.
The link proves Obama's statement as being false.
Believe it or not, insurance companies are  businesses. Businesses
stay in business if they make a profit.
The fact of the matter is that health plan profits represent only
three cents of the premium dollar.
And 3%, which sounds really puny, of the $2.5 trillion now spent on
health care adds up to - woah! - $75 billion!  That's sure counting
one's pennies.  Couldn't they accept just a penny on the dollar as
profit and be happy with $25 billion and spend the other $50 billion
on covering the nearly 50 million uninsured?
3% is puny when you compare it to other industries and when you look
at  it, it will be the taxpayer that will sustain the cost, not a
bright thing to do during  a recession and high unemployment. I have
already proved that your 50 million uninsured figure is a distortion.
You totally ignore the fact that part of that 50 million consists of
illegal and legal immigrants, those who can afford their own health
insurance and the ones who do not know about existing government
programs.
Illegal and legal immigrants are irrelevant, they've always been
around, ever since 1492.  Christopher Columbus was an illegal
immigrant to what was the Indians' land.
I see you still can't dispute the thrashing of your 50 million
uninsured argument.
Also, I see you can't understand the free enterprise system and why
businesses (even insurance companies) expect to make a profit.
What an idiot. There were no immigration laws at Plymouth Rock.
But there were still immigrants, who I might add weren't invited by
the natives.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Your ancestors were illegal,
if not legal, immigrants.  
I am a first generation American. My family came here LEGALLY after
their homeland was liberated by the United States from the Japs.
Well, there you go, like I said, they were immigrants. It's good they
were legal, though.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
They've been here, they're here now,
they'll always be here, that's the way it is, and if they get sick,
the government has to deal with them, period.  Nothing is going to
change about that.
They have had insurance from their employer for a long time.
Hopefully their employer will keep employing them, otherwise, uh-oh,
start thinking single-payer system or money is going be sucked out of
you left, right and center as you try to keep them healthy and popping
pills.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You got to find yourself another argument.
Sarah Palin isn't as dumb as she looks. She's dumber. Somebody give
her speech rhythm lessons, please.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medicare and Medicaid, which is government health care,  costs the
taxpayer (state and federal) about $600 billion annually and costs are
rising higher than the rate of inflation. Those programs are becoming
insolvent. Government will have to spend more money to keep those
programs alive and add another 10% to the deficit.
Will reform has to done to those programs before government adds any
new entitlements and bureaucracies and there is no doubt they will
cost the taxpayer more as the years go on.
Let's face it, like I told you before, so long as there are more and
more people to take care of, then unless you kill half of them off
right now, it's just going to keep getting worse.  The best that can
be done is to minimize the acceleration of the expenses.  Can anyone
say single-payer system?
Single payer system means government control. Minimizing expenses
through a single payer system means government price controls. Say
good bye to the free market hello to the Communist States of America.
By that definition then, practically every country with universal
health coverage is a communist country, which is practically the whole
world. No wonder you live in a mental state of paranoia and fear.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Approximately 86 cents out of every premium dollar goes directly
towards paying for medical services such as hospital care, physician
care, medical devices and prescription drugs.
Of the remaining costs, five cents goes to other consumer services,
provider support, and marketing (including prevention, disease
management, care coordination, investments in health information
technology and health support).
Costs associated with government payments, regulation and other costs
associated with administration (e.g., claims administration) comprise
an estimated six cents.
You should tell us how Congress' health plan is good and leave out the
Marxist slogans to make your case.
I never said it was good.  I said as a hybrid it won't save anybody
that much money because it's not a single payer system.  If you're
going to do the job, do it right, otherwise the government should stop
wasting its time and energy.
That's the problem, government is rushing through this legislation.
That is not doing it right. That is the main contention of
Conservatives and we have  Congressmen (Democrats) giving the
impression it is not necessary to read the whole bill before they pass
it. Your thread says Conservatives distort facts at the same time you
support Liberals hiding and ignoring the facts.
Well, if it'll make you any happier, it doesn't look like they'll be
rushing fast enough because the vote may just be delayed now until the
fall some time.  But will every representative and senator read the
entire bill cover to cover in the meantime?  I highly doubt it, but I
wouldn't be surprised if Obama actually will once the final version is
dumped on his table.
Don't you remember that idiot John Conyers saying "Read the bill!"
What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't
have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you've
read the bill?"?
Nobody is going to read the bill. They never do. Whether it goes
through or not will all depend on which lobbyists win. That's how any
bill more than 50 pages gets through. Wake up!
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Obama will cream his pants if Congress gives him a bill to  sign. He
won't read the bill cover to cover.
Bet you he will. Unlike George Bush, Obama can read - a lot of
practice from his teleprompter use, no doubt.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Wouldn't you be suspicious of a contract that has too much fine print,
addendums and a salesman who tells you have to sign it before it's too
late?
You keep asking such dumb questions.  Every contract has too much fine
print, so what are you trying to prove?
Are you that dense? It's obvious what my question asked. Do you have
Kool Aid Dementia?  Liberals want Congress to pass their health bill
as soon as possible without reading the bill. They did it with the
Stimulus Bill. I guess contracts are above your pay grade. You'll just
sign on the dotted line if it sounds good.  That's is real idiotic.
You're asking for the impossible. Neither the Democrats or the
Republicans ever read bills, it's all about lobbyists and who exerts
the most influence on House members that decides whether a bill lands
on the president's desk or not. But if you have a smart enough
president, as Obama clearly is, he'd actually read the bill, unlike
Bush, because he's already stated what he wants to see in it and if
certain things are not in it, he's going to have to weigh the pros and
cons of what is in it and if it's worth having the cons to get the
pros. You can't decide that if you don't read the whole bill first
before you sign something you can live with, and Obama will be the
only one who'll read the whole bill.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Bottom line: You will make a good Communist.
Oh, that's what.  Well, sorry, it failed the proof test.
Republicans is the party of the rich. It stands to reason they want to
increase their base by having more rich people. Democrats are the
party of the poor. They want to increase their base by making more
poor people.
That's capitalism for ya.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
-
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
Bugsy Siegel
2009-08-04 00:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
All I know is there's something fundamentally sick about a
constitution that would give a right to bear arms to kill people but
not give a right to health care to save their  lives.  Yeah, yeah, I
know, you'll come up with some dumb thing about guns being about self-
defense and not killing, but then, health care is a form of self-
defense too - from death in a lot of cases.
Actually, there's something sick about a moron who tries to equate a
right to do something (bear arms) with a supposed right to have the
government take money out of other people people's pocket for your own
personal use.
Explain social security, then.
 Go here...
http://www.ssa.gov/
--
Lost your job?  
Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
Still can't explain social security or even medicare for that matter,
can you?  You do realize your hard-earned money is taken out of your
pocket for other people's own  personal use with social security and
medicare, don't you?
Actually, the people that "use" the money also paid into the system
and the benefit is generally proportional to the amount paid in...
Actually, since you so clearly failed math in every grade you had to
repeat, it explains why you fail to realize that what you put into
social security and medicare over the course of your lifetime is less
than what you'll ever get out of it, especially if you live into your
70s.  So who's money will you be getting then?  Certianly not yours.
Not to mention that when SS and MC got started and people began
getting their checks, nobody was putting any money into the system
before that because SS and MC didn't even exist to put money into.  So
originally that money had to come from everybody else through other
means in order to begin issuing checks to people when SS and MC
began.  There's no getting around it, it's ALL people's money that the
government simply redistributes to wherever it needs to go, whether
you agree with any of that redistribution or not.  You have NO money
of your own that is yours and only yours for yourself to speak of when
it comes to the government's handling of "your" money and what it
wants to do with it so that everyone can benefit.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
And it doesn't matter if you voted Republican or
not, it's still being done, but I don't hear you squealing like a
pricked pig over SS and MC, so why the big stink over the health
plan?  It's all the same thing: your rmoney for other people's use,
IBTW, I'd vote to do away with social security and medicare in a
flash.....  for the same reason I don't like government health care,
even though your comparing it to SS is quite really stupid...
What makes it stupid?  It's all the same thing.  Using everybody's
money to support everybody else.  You even failed the math you took at
summer school every year.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
which incidentally could include you as one of those other people.
And if that really bothers you, then don't cash in on your social
security and medicare when it's time, because you'll only be using
other people's money for your own personal use.  Republican wingnut
hypocrite.
<LOL>    Here's Some facts.   For a long time I paid the maximum
contribution to SS which earned me my benefits since I could have
invested that money myself and had even more "benefit" from it.....
Yeah, until the stock market would've made you lose 40% of it last
winter and get you back to square one.  Smart move from someone who
failed math.
Post by Steve
and then about three years ago I turned sixty two years old and
started receiving those benefits.....       So....   I started
dividing the money three ways and sending it to my kids....   to
offset their contribution....   since the roughly $1600 was something
I didn't need anyway....
You'll be sorry when the day comes that you'll be hit with some major
health issue, which is inevitable at your age, that will necessitate
your having to use that extra money, especially for all those things
your medical check won't cover.  Hopefully you've got your mortgage
all paid up, because you might need to rely on selling the house and
getting as much money as you can from it in order to hang on a few
more years.
Post by Steve
....and BTW, Social Security and Medicare are very good examples of
how bad the government can screw things up.  
What's getting screwed up?  Your getting your checks, and more than
what you claim to need for yourself (I'll believe that once I see
photocopies of those checks posted somewhere), so stop complaining for
no rreason whatsoever other than being a malcontent conservative who
probably still mourns the loss of George Bush.
You make the argument the Congress should fix Medicare and Social
Security before trying to fix a system that the majority of Americans
are satisfied with.
Bank bailouts, auto bailouts, Cap-and-Trade and health care reform is
all about government control nothing else.
No, it's about government trying to fix what free enterprise screwed
up.  And it was free enterprise that convinced the government to
loosen the regulations that would've prevented what screwed up.
There's your capitalism - riding on the back of your wallet.
Capitalism fills all our wallets.
If it fills everyone's wallets, then how come 20% of Americans are
under the poverty line?
It's not because of free enterprise. We all live by our choices. If
government makes all our choices, we are no longer free.
What kind of illusionary world are you inhabiting?  Don't you know
that government has always made all kinds of choices for you?  They've
decided you need licences for this and permits for that, that you can
only have this and not that, that you can only do this and not that,
say this and not that, that you have to pay this amount or be
penalized, and so on.  You're so-called freedom is limited by the
choices that government has imposed on you, meaning all you're really
left with is a token freedom as defined by the government's choices.
You're nowhere near as free as you think you are, yours is a deftly-
crafted controlled, regulated and restricted freedom that lulls you
into deluding yourself into believing that you're really free to make
your own choices.  Every choice you make is a restricted choice by
what the government has chosen as being allowed.  If you really want
to be free, live in a tent on the moon.
So your saying government is responsible for poverty. I knew you'd
come around. With government health care, government wants to make
sure more  will go under the poverty line. As I have said, its all
about control.
As I've told you before, capitalism is responsible for poverty. It
can't exist without poverty being present. And capitalism has the
power to ensure that it stays that way by convincing the government to
keep it that way, so the government chooses how capitalism should be
run at the expense of the poor. But then, in order to allow
capitalism to be the brute that it is, the government has to help the
poor out in some way or other just to make sure they don't turn into
rabble rousers and mess up the capitalists' way of stepping on
everybody. In other words, give the poor just barely enough to shut
up while the rich go on about their business. It's a delicate
balance.
Capitalism is freedom. Commies hate the thought of freedom because
those who are successful do it without the help of government. That's
why Democrats love poor people. They would like nothing else other
than having a poor person reach their hand out and ask for
government's help cradle to grave. By doing supplying a person with
all the necessities of life from the cradle to the grave, they have a
blind follower for life.

You're a Commie-in-training. You are scared to take a chance at
success because you are under the illusion that success is achieved by
making someone poor.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
http://www.census.gov/macro/032008/rdcall/2_001.htm
Someone ain't fillin' their wallets even with government help.  Here's
the thing about capitalism, and it's a rule: capitalism needs poverty
for capitalism to work, especially for the wealthy, otherwise
capitalism is not possible.  Think about it, there is no one
capitalist country in the world that has ever succeeded in eliminating
poverty, nor will there ever be, because it's not in the nature of
capitalism to eradicate poverty - that would be like committing
suicide.  So much for filling everyone's wallets.
Freebies from government always invite abuse.
Everything invites abuse.  Cars invite abuse, guns invite abuse, even
the internet invites abuse.  Anything that exists invites abuse,
especially humans.  So you're real point is?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Free enterprise didn't screw up.
Over regulated screws up the works.
Have you been cruising outside of this solar system for a while?  It
was *deregulation* that contributed to the meltdown last fall.  You
know, thanks to the bill Phil Gramm crafted and pushed through into
law back in '99.  Now there was a nice piece of conservative work
ready to create maximum damage.  Read all about how sneaky the little
http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and...
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The ones scared of real health
care reform are the trial lawyers.
No, the ones who are scared are the ones who are totally clueless and
oblivious and feel perfectly comfortable to remain absolutely ignorant
of how a single-payer system works more efficiently while saving tons
of money.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medical care is rising in costs
because doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine. Malpractice
insurance rates go up because even frivolous lawsuits cost money.
General practioners find it too expensive to maintain their practice.
Ob/gyns insurance rates have gone through the roof.
Accounting for the Cost in the United States. January 2007), the
United States has $480 billion in excess spending each year in
comparison to Western European nations that have universal health
insurance coverage. The costs are mainly associated with excess
administrative costs and poorer quality of care.
And government won't add to those administrative costs. Wake up,
Dorothy.
You're at the losing end of an argument, you know.  No matter what the
government does, whether if it's for your benefit or not, costs will
always be incurred.  The whole point is to minimize the accelartion of
the costs because the acceleration itself can't be avoided - ever -
and, along the way, maybe hopefully make things run a bit more
efficiently as a result.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Read a ton of more facts, why don't you?
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medicare fraud is due to poor oversight by Congress. Medicare
bureaucracy makes it impossible for doctors to give patients the best
care.
Medical bureaucracy as in HMOs?  Because that's who doctors are mostly
dealing with now, not the government.
Government will add more layers of bureaucracy.
Yeah, you're point being?  At least people are added to the payroll,
which in turn means more people with spending power, which means the
economy can improve in some small way from that alone.  You prefer
they were on the streets collecting welfare instead?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
According to the survey conducted by the Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons, 66.2 percent of doctors say that they will
"retire from active patient care at a younger age than they would have
considered five years ago" not for financial reasons, but because of
"increased government interference in the practice of medicine."
Yeah, and that's why there are absolutely no doctors and surgeons left
in Canada and Europe and everywhere else with universal coverage,
because they couldn't handle the "government interference," and why as
a result everyone outside of the U.S. will be dead by tomorrow.  Uh-
huh.
Government has no experience in medicine. I give a link to the
arguments against a single payer systems (government controlled health
care).
In a single payer systyem the government is not involved in medicine,
it's just the sugar daddy that spreads the money around to those who
are involved in medicine who in turn decide how it will be allocated.
Are you not getting something clear out of that braindead equation?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Decreased fees were cited by 56 percent of participants as a reason
for considering early retirement from medicine.
Who needs those doctors who are only in it for the money anyway?  At
least this'll weed out the riff-raff.
Medicare only pays doctors a few cents on the dollar. That is poor way
to do business, but who would expect a Socialist to know that.
Gee, then that must come as some shock to all those Canadian doctors
making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. U.S. doctors may gross
http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2006/10_15-30/3_PM_your...
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Sixty-four percent cited "decreased control" over medical practices,
while another 64 percent said increased bureaucracy from Medicare as
the reason.
Hasn't stopped them from practicing when dealing with the monstrous
bureaucracy of HMOs.
Government will only add to the bureaucratic nightmare.
How can it be any different than the nightmare it is now?  It's
meaningless to think that it will be.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Perhaps most telling, analysts said, was that 61 percent of those
surveyed said they were experiencing an increased fear of federal
prosecution or unwarranted investigation as the reason they were
considering early retirement.
Well, if they botch up their treatments and surgeries, they should be
investigated and prosecuted.  That's what they're doing now with that
Dr. Murray guy in the Michael Jackson case.  You're point is?  Let
them get away with murder?
It means the fed's attempt to control an industry they have no
knowledge of hampers the way doctors do the business of medical care.
One more time:  Feds = sugar daddy.  HMOs = controllers.  Feds don't
need to do it for profit, HMOs do, so who do you think is really more
interested in controlling?  Wake up out of your Neverland dream.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Government can't do health care or managed efficiently.
Well, if the government simplified it into being a single payer
system, they wouldn't have to do health care, and their managing of it
would simply be a matter of handing over the dough needed by all 50
states to oversee its distribution equitably.  Like they do in Canada
and other countries with single payer systems.  Like I told you
before, it won't work if the government ends up with a hybrid system.
In a single payer system, government runs the whole shebang. Free
health insurance guarantees abuse and the taxpayer gets stuck with the
bill. Governments in a single-payer system ration care using waiting
lists for surgery and diagnostic procedures and by canceling
surgeries.
Yeah, and that's why everybody has universal coverage, nobody is
complaining, except one person a week, doctors in Canada net more than
those in the U.S. and overall costs are half that of the U.S.  Sure
sounds like a travesty to me.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
A study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that 50
people died while on a wait list for cardiac catheterization in
Ontario.
Another meaningless statement.  Over what period of time?  And was
there even any chance for them to survive the operation due to
whatever condition they were in to begin with?  Meanwhile, "...
researchers analyzed data on nearly 55,000 patients over age 60 that
were placed on the U.S. waiting list for a kidney transplant from 1995
to 2007. Projections suggested that 46 percent of patients wait-listed
in 2006-07 would die before receiving a deceased-donor transplant."
In simple math, it breaks down to 4,583.3 people per year, and 46% of
that average for the final year amounts to 2,108 who died waiting for
a kidney transplant.  Hmm, 2,108 people died in the U.S. waiting for
something while only 50 died in Canada (assuming that 50 was over the
course of a year)?   Even if you look at it proportionately according
to total population, Canada should have had 210 people die, since it
has 1/10th of the U.S.'s total population, so it should be 1/10th of
the U.S.'s death rate too.  But it isn't.  Wow, imagine that.  Get a
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154577.php
Post by Bugsy Siegel
A study of Swedish patients on a wait list for heart surgery
found that the "risk of death increases significantly with waiting
time." In a 2000 article in the journal Clinical Oncology, British
researchers studying 29 lung cancer patients waiting for treatment
further found that about 20 percent "of potentially curable patients
became incurable on the waiting list."
Meanwhile 46% waiting for a kidney die in the U.S.  Lesson to learn in
The Medical Zone: You can't save everybody - people will die,
regardless of the system.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
"Americans who seek to use Canada as model for reforming their health
care system need to be aware that a single-payer health care system
like Canada's results in unacceptably long waits for medical
procedures," said Nadeem Esmail, Fraser Institute director of health
system performance studies and co-author of the 18th annual edition of
Waiting Your Turn: Hospital...
You should stop reading anything put out by the Frasier Institute,
it's a right-wing conservative think tank with nothing intelligent to
contribute.  Nobody takes them seriously.
Dispute their findings. I, for one, don't take you seriously. You're
nothing but a Marxist clown. Here's a new pseudonym for you Mickey
Marx.
The Frasier Institute is comprised of a bunch of old fart
conservatives who do little more than just sit around in a room and
think up of stupid things. Stuff like tobacco is good for you (so
hey, let's kill off as many people with cancer as possible and let the
health system deal with it at your expense), free trade is the best
thing ever to happen since the invention of the gun (so kick more
American workers out of their jobs that then become outsourced to
Mexico, Asia and India for a dollar a day -capitalism is good, meaning
unemployed Americans and poverty in the U.S. are perfectly
acceptable), not to mention that there shouldn't be any minimum wage
or price controls of any kind so as to keep workers as the enslaved
masses while allowing the capitalist few to get richer by charginig as
much as they want for their products. Whatever surveys they dream up
are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or any
scholarly method, so their credibilty is largely questionable, to say
the least. Besides, all they do is give opinions which have no real
effect to change anything and nobody in Canada ever pays any real
attention to them.
Looks like you sit around waiting for government to give you your next
handout.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/The-Fraser-Institute-907284.html
The link is a reality check for the proponents of a single payer
systems around the world.
http://debate-central.ncpa.org/topics/2002/book2.pdf
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/barack...
Health insurance companies are "making record profits, right now."
Which is criminal because it's bloating the cost of health care in
general and is the very reason why the government feels it must step
in before it all crashes.  Remember how the banks were making record
profits only a year ago, and what happened?  The government had to
step in before everything crashed.
You did not read the whole article. It shows that Barack Obama is
lying when he says insurance companies are the reason for high health
care costs. That's the typical Marxist mantra. Play loose with the
facts to gain control.  
It's more than just insurance companies, there's a whole slew of
reasons, everything from aging baby boomers to rapidly multiplying
morbidly obese fat people seeking stomach staple surgery, and
everything in between.  It all adds up, and it doesn't help when HMOs
refuse to insure the 50 million uninsured because it then falls on
your wallet, even after you've made your contribution to your HMO for
your own coverage, because the government has to pick up the tab for
all those uninsured.  What's not absorbing for you here?  The point
is: the health care system as it is right now is up poop's creek, and
soon it'll all end up in a poop's quagmire, taking everything down
with it.
HMO's refusing 50 million. Learn how to tell the truth when you make
an argument.
If they're not insuring them, then they're refusing them for whatever
lame reasons they can come up with, like pre-existing condition or
inability to pay the basic minimum.
Will your auto insurance company take on a new client if the client
has a handful of speeding tickets, dui's and a few accidents on his
record? I hate to be the one to let you know but an insurance company
is a business not a branch of government social services.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Government is going to pick up the tab anyway. $1 trillion dollars is
far from being chump change.
And it won't stop at $1 trillion either, so long as more people keep
popping up over the next several decades.
And at that rate, the US dollar won't be worth more than the paper you
wipe your ass with.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Besides, why are health insurance companies are being blamed for not
insuring people with pre-existing conditions?
Because if they knew you had a pre-existing condition, it would cut
into their profits to get you treated. Can't have that at all, no
sireee, you're better off dead to them.
That's business, Commie. Businesses are in business for a profit.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Will an auto insurance company insure a person with  handful of DUI's,
speeding tickets and red light violations with a car with dings and
dents from the hood to the trunk?
Not everybody has or wants a car. Everybody does have a life, which
they kind of would like to keep healthy in order to be able to
function as normally as possible and keep contributing meaningfully to
society, otherwise they end up becoming a burden on society. Or has
that concept escaped you?
Answer the question. Or are you afraid it defeats your argument.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
I know Marxists won't understand that because Marxists don't do
business for profit.
I don't know, the Marx Brothers made a lot of money.
Yup you are Marxist. With that kind of humor you'd never make a
living at comedy.
Post by wy
 
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Don't you realize government is crashing? It's has a $10 trillion debt
and the interest rate on that debt takes up a good portion of the
annual budget. Any business in the private sector could not sustain
such a debt. They would either close up shop or go bankrupt. That what
happened when lending came to a halt. The government keeps on
borrowing to pay their bills and expenses and the lenders are
beginning to throw caution into the wind.
The government crashed the day George Bush put the country's finances
into deficit mode in 2002.  It's been all downhill since then -
wheeeeeeee!
The country tanked because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pulled an Enron
and Bernie Madoff tag team on the United States with the support of
Democratic Congressmen.
Did you forget about Phil Gramm, a Republican, the illustrious author
of the banking deregulation bill in 1999 and underhanded manipulator
who got it through under everyone's noses, to whom all of this can
actually be traced back? You didn't read the link before, did you?
Tell me about the bill. Did it encourage high risk lending? In 1999,
Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Clinton signed it into
law.

In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services
Modernization Act," which repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act,
which prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment,
commercial banking, and insurance services. The bill was killed in
1998 because Senator Phil Gramm wanted the bill to expand the number
of banks which no longer would be covered by the CRA. He also demanded
full disclosure of any financial deals which community groups had with
banks, accusing such groups of "extortion." In 1999 Senators
Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer broke another deadlock by
forcing a compromise between Gramm and the Clinton administration
which wanted to prevent banks from expanding into insurance or
securities unless they were compliant with the CRA. In the final
compromise, the CRA would cover bank expansions into new lines of
business, community groups would have to disclose certain kinds of
financial deals with banks, and smaller banks would be reviewed less
frequently for CRA compliance. On signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,
President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as
we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the
[Community Reinvestment] Act".
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Bush spent a lot, but it wasn't the spending that got the country into
this economic mess. It was a meltdown of financial markets.
He started spending tons in 2002 even before the Iraq War started the
next year, and literally overnight he got the country into a deficit
when it had already been deficit free, and that was six years before
the meltdown. It's amazing how conservatives conveniently forget what
really happened.
Spending was not the issue in the financial crisis.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The federal government over the last 20 years pushed the mortgage
industry so hard to get minority homeownership up, that it undermined
the country's financial foundation to achieve its goal.
And who was in power for twelve of those twenty years?
Conservatives. They had also been the majority in Congress and the
Senate for twelve of those twenty years, especially through six of
Bill Clinton's eight years, so who do you think rammed it through?
Conservatives.
The Republicans did not have super majority. Serious legislation to
put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in tighter regulations didn't pass
because Democrats defeated bills to do it in committee.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and
Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd,
have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over
the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000
in campaign contributions from employees and political action
committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the
Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and
employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two
enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back
to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A
look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping
in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator
John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that
would have averted this mess.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
An article in the Los Angeles Times from the late '90s praised the
sudden surge in homeownership among minorities, calling it "one of the
hidden success stories of the Clinton era."http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807
A Clinton era that was run by conservatives.
That's why Clinton had a surplus.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston produced a manual in the early '90s
that warned mortgage lenders to no longer deny urban and lower-income
minority applicants on such "outdated" criteria as credit history,
down payment or employment income.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged and praised lenders – like
Countrywide and Bear Stearns – for adopting the slackened policies
toward minority applicants.
A New York Times article from Sept. 1999 states that Fannie Mae had
been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to
expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people and that
the corporation loosened its lending requirements to comply.http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575A...
Well, first of all, Clinton was a conservative Democrat, never a
liberal one, which explains why he did what he did. If there was any
loosening going on under his watch, it was with the Glass-Steagall Act
still in place to prevent the kind of abuse that ultimately occurred.
It was only when the conniving Republican Phil Gramm came up with his
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act in 1999, which
was designed to obliterate the Glass-Steagall Act and all its
defenses, did it all become possible for real damage in the subprime
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1229
In order for the GOP to get it passed it had to make a deal with Chris
Dodd to strengthen the CRA.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee,
rejected a Bush administration and Congressional Republican plan for
regulating the mortgage industry in 2003, saying, "These two entities
– Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial
crisis." According to a New York Times article, Frank added, "The more
people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these
companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You think this current economic crisis is bad, just wait until the
world's largest economy cannot borrow any more. Will one of the US's
creditors say the United States is too big to fail? Not if the US
dollar is no longer the currency of choice. There is talk the Euro can
take the place of the US Dollar. Guess who is betting that will
happen? George Soros.
I don't doubt it.  In the meantime, Obama has the goodwill of the
world on his side, which you should be grateful for because if it had
still been Bush, then boy, talking about Armaggedon.   But since the
world's politicians love Obamase, they're all more than willing to wai
and see how his agenda will pan out, otherwise China could've killed
the U.S. by now considering how much money the U.S. owes China (hey,
and that's your money that goes to China, too).  If Obama manages to
pull it off somehow, he'll be a miracle worker and the greenback will
be safe for a while longer.  If not, it certainly won't have been for
not doing his best to steer the country away from a looming iceberg,
and then all failure would have to fall directly and squarely on the
Bush administration for sabotaging the country because the roots of it
all and it's beginning took place under his watch.  Meanwhile, you
might want to hedge your bets by collecting some Euros and Chinese
Yuans just to be on the safe side, you can always convert them back to
the dollar if it gets to be all clear.
Obama is the new clown on the block. He did not accomplish anything
during his visits to Europe, Middle East and Russian.
How do you know? Were you at all the meetings? Often leaders don't
disclose everything they talk about, only the simple stuff that's
easily unuderstood by a mass audience.
All he did during his overseas trips was to apologize for the USA. He
slammed the USA so the foreigners would like him. It's all about
Obama.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Obama's spending sprees have given creditor countries  pause
Yeah, they're waiting to see if he actually pulls it off or not.
That's why they are considering to use the Euro as the main trading
currency.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Barack Obama on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 in a press conference.
The link proves Obama's statement as being false.
Believe it or not, insurance companies are  businesses. Businesses
stay in business if they make a profit.
The fact of the matter is that health plan profits represent only
three cents of the premium dollar.
And 3%, which sounds really puny, of the $2.5 trillion now spent on
health care adds up to - woah! - $75 billion!  That's sure counting
one's pennies.  Couldn't they accept just a penny on the dollar as
profit and be happy with $25 billion and spend the other $50 billion
on covering the nearly 50 million uninsured?
3% is puny when you compare it to other industries and when you look
at  it, it will be the taxpayer that will sustain the cost, not a
bright thing to do during  a recession and high unemployment. I have
already proved that your 50 million uninsured figure is a distortion.
You totally ignore the fact that part of that 50 million consists of
illegal and legal immigrants, those who can afford their own health
insurance and the ones who do not know about existing government
programs.
Illegal and legal immigrants are irrelevant, they've always been
around, ever since 1492.  Christopher Columbus was an illegal
immigrant to what was the Indians' land.
I see you still can't dispute the thrashing of your 50 million
uninsured argument.
Also, I see you can't understand the free enterprise system and why
businesses (even insurance companies) expect to make a profit.
What an idiot. There were no immigration laws at Plymouth Rock.
But there were still immigrants, who I might add weren't invited by
the natives.
There was no organized government body to issue an invitation. No
laws, no immigration policy, no trade agreements. The native tribes
did not get along with each other. The could not represent the
continent.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Your ancestors were illegal,
if not legal, immigrants.  
I am a first generation American. My family came here LEGALLY after
their homeland was liberated by the United States from the Japs.
Well, there you go, like I said, they were immigrants. It's good they
were legal, though.
Legal is a key word.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
They've been here, they're here now,
they'll always be here, that's the way it is, and if they get sick,
the government has to deal with them, period.  Nothing is going to
change about that.
They have had insurance from their employer for a long time.
Hopefully their employer will keep employing them, otherwise, uh-oh,
start thinking single-payer system or money is going be sucked out of
you left, right and center as you try to keep them healthy and popping
pills.
We'll have a single payer system when Fascism takes over the USA.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You got to find yourself another argument.
Sarah Palin isn't as dumb as she looks. She's dumber. Somebody give
her speech rhythm lessons, please.
The only reason why Obama is a good orator is because he reads a mean
teleprompter.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medicare and Medicaid, which is government health care,  costs the
taxpayer (state and federal) about $600 billion annually and costs are
rising higher than the rate of inflation. Those programs are becoming
insolvent. Government will have to spend more money to keep those
programs alive and add another 10% to the deficit.
Will reform has to done to those programs before government adds any
new entitlements and bureaucracies and there is no doubt they will
cost the taxpayer more as the years go on.
Let's face it, like I told you before, so long as there are more and
more people to take care of, then unless you kill half of them off
right now, it's just going to keep getting worse.  The best that can
be done is to minimize the acceleration of the expenses.  Can anyone
say single-payer system?
Single payer system means government control. Minimizing expenses
through a single payer system means government price controls. Say
good bye to the free market hello to the Communist States of America.
By that definition then, practically every country with universal
health coverage is a communist country, which is practically the whole
world. No wonder you live in a mental state of paranoia and fear.
Getting touchy being labled a Communist. A single payer system
government control. It takes away competition which means it decimates
the free market system.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Approximately 86 cents out of every premium dollar goes directly
towards paying for medical services such as hospital care, physician
care, medical devices and prescription drugs.
Of the remaining costs, five cents goes to other consumer services,
provider support, and marketing (including prevention, disease
management, care coordination, investments in health information
technology and health support).
Costs associated with government payments, regulation and other costs
associated with administration (e.g., claims administration) comprise
an estimated six cents.
You should tell us how Congress' health plan is good and leave out the
Marxist slogans to make your case.
I never said it was good.  I said as a hybrid it won't save anybody
that much money because it's not a single payer system.  If you're
going to do the job, do it right, otherwise the government should stop
wasting its time and energy.
That's the problem, government is rushing through this legislation.
That is not doing it right. That is the main contention of
Conservatives and we have  Congressmen (Democrats) giving the
impression it is not necessary to read the whole bill before they pass
it. Your thread says Conservatives distort facts at the same time you
support Liberals hiding and ignoring the facts.
Well, if it'll make you any happier, it doesn't look like they'll be
rushing fast enough because the vote may just be delayed now until the
fall some time.  But will every representative and senator read the
entire bill cover to cover in the meantime?  I highly doubt it, but I
wouldn't be surprised if Obama actually will once the final version is
dumped on his table.
Don't you remember that idiot John Conyers saying "Read the bill!"
What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't
have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you've
read the bill?"?
Nobody is going to read the bill. They never do. Whether it goes
through or not will all depend on which lobbyists win. That's how any
bill more than 50 pages gets through. Wake up!
Perhaps it time our lawmakers read the bills they write.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Obama will cream his pants if Congress gives him a bill to  sign. He
won't read the bill cover to cover.
Bet you he will. Unlike George Bush, Obama can read - a lot of
practice from his teleprompter use, no doubt.
Obama doesn't care just as long he is supreme leader. We should call
him Ayatollah Obama.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Wouldn't you be suspicious of a contract that has too much fine print,
addendums and a salesman who tells you have to sign it before it's too
late?
You keep asking such dumb questions.  Every contract has too much fine
print, so what are you trying to prove?
Are you that dense? It's obvious what my question asked. Do you have
Kool Aid Dementia?  Liberals want Congress to pass their health bill
as soon as possible without reading the bill. They did it with the
Stimulus Bill. I guess contracts are above your pay grade. You'll just
sign on the dotted line if it sounds good.  That's is real idiotic.
You're asking for the impossible. Neither the Democrats or the
Republicans ever read bills, it's all about lobbyists and who exerts
the most influence on House members that decides whether a bill lands
on the president's desk or not. But if you have a smart enough
president, as Obama clearly is, he'd actually read the bill, unlike
Bush, because he's already stated what he wants to see in it and if
certain things are not in it, he's going to have to weigh the pros and
cons of what is in it and if it's worth having the cons to get the
pros. You can't decide that if you don't read the whole bill first
before you sign something you can live with, and Obama will be the
only one who'll read the whole bill.
There's no evidence he will read the whole bill. He promotes Congress'
bill and doesn't even know what's in it.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Bottom line: You will make a good Communist.
Oh, that's what.  Well, sorry, it failed the proof test.
Republicans is the party of the rich. It stands to reason they want to
increase their base by having more rich people. Democrats are the
party of the poor. They want to increase their base by making more
poor people.
That's capitalism for ya.
You betcha.


-

U.S. Internal Revenue Service:
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-08-04 07:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
All I know is there's something fundamentally sick about a
constitution that would give a right to bear arms to kill people but
not give a right to health care to save their  lives.  Yeah, yeah, I
know, you'll come up with some dumb thing about guns being about self-
defense and not killing, but then, health care is a form of self-
defense too - from death in a lot of cases.
Actually, there's something sick about a moron who tries to equate a
right to do something (bear arms) with a supposed right to have the
government take money out of other people people's pocket for your own
personal use.
Explain social security, then.
 Go here...
http://www.ssa.gov/
--
Lost your job?  
Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
Still can't explain social security or even medicare for that matter,
can you?  You do realize your hard-earned money is taken out of your
pocket for other people's own  personal use with social security and
medicare, don't you?
Actually, the people that "use" the money also paid into the system
and the benefit is generally proportional to the amount paid in...
Actually, since you so clearly failed math in every grade you had to
repeat, it explains why you fail to realize that what you put into
social security and medicare over the course of your lifetime is less
than what you'll ever get out of it, especially if you live into your
70s.  So who's money will you be getting then?  Certianly not yours.
Not to mention that when SS and MC got started and people began
getting their checks, nobody was putting any money into the system
before that because SS and MC didn't even exist to put money into.  So
originally that money had to come from everybody else through other
means in order to begin issuing checks to people when SS and MC
began.  There's no getting around it, it's ALL people's money that the
government simply redistributes to wherever it needs to go, whether
you agree with any of that redistribution or not.  You have NO money
of your own that is yours and only yours for yourself to speak of when
it comes to the government's handling of "your" money and what it
wants to do with it so that everyone can benefit.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
And it doesn't matter if you voted Republican or
not, it's still being done, but I don't hear you squealing like a
pricked pig over SS and MC, so why the big stink over the health
plan?  It's all the same thing: your rmoney for other people's use,
IBTW, I'd vote to do away with social security and medicare in a
flash.....  for the same reason I don't like government health care,
even though your comparing it to SS is quite really stupid...
What makes it stupid?  It's all the same thing.  Using everybody's
money to support everybody else.  You even failed the math you took at
summer school every year.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
which incidentally could include you as one of those other people.
And if that really bothers you, then don't cash in on your social
security and medicare when it's time, because you'll only be using
other people's money for your own personal use.  Republican wingnut
hypocrite.
<LOL>    Here's Some facts.   For a long time I paid the maximum
contribution to SS which earned me my benefits since I could have
invested that money myself and had even more "benefit" from it.....
Yeah, until the stock market would've made you lose 40% of it last
winter and get you back to square one.  Smart move from someone who
failed math.
Post by Steve
and then about three years ago I turned sixty two years old and
started receiving those benefits.....       So....   I started
dividing the money three ways and sending it to my kids....   to
offset their contribution....   since the roughly $1600 was something
I didn't need anyway....
You'll be sorry when the day comes that you'll be hit with some major
health issue, which is inevitable at your age, that will necessitate
your having to use that extra money, especially for all those things
your medical check won't cover.  Hopefully you've got your mortgage
all paid up, because you might need to rely on selling the house and
getting as much money as you can from it in order to hang on a few
more years.
Post by Steve
....and BTW, Social Security and Medicare are very good examples of
how bad the government can screw things up.  
What's getting screwed up?  Your getting your checks, and more than
what you claim to need for yourself (I'll believe that once I see
photocopies of those checks posted somewhere), so stop complaining for
no rreason whatsoever other than being a malcontent conservative who
probably still mourns the loss of George Bush.
You make the argument the Congress should fix Medicare and Social
Security before trying to fix a system that the majority of Americans
are satisfied with.
Bank bailouts, auto bailouts, Cap-and-Trade and health care reform is
all about government control nothing else.
No, it's about government trying to fix what free enterprise screwed
up.  And it was free enterprise that convinced the government to
loosen the regulations that would've prevented what screwed up.
There's your capitalism - riding on the back of your wallet.
Capitalism fills all our wallets.
If it fills everyone's wallets, then how come 20% of Americans are
under the poverty line?
It's not because of free enterprise. We all live by our choices. If
government makes all our choices, we are no longer free.
What kind of illusionary world are you inhabiting?  Don't you know
that government has always made all kinds of choices for you?  They've
decided you need licences for this and permits for that, that you can
only have this and not that, that you can only do this and not that,
say this and not that, that you have to pay this amount or be
penalized, and so on.  You're so-called freedom is limited by the
choices that government has imposed on you, meaning all you're really
left with is a token freedom as defined by the government's choices.
You're nowhere near as free as you think you are, yours is a deftly-
crafted controlled, regulated and restricted freedom that lulls you
into deluding yourself into believing that you're really free to make
your own choices.  Every choice you make is a restricted choice by
what the government has chosen as being allowed.  If you really want
to be free, live in a tent on the moon.
So your saying government is responsible for poverty. I knew you'd
come around. With government health care, government wants to make
sure more  will go under the poverty line. As I have said, its all
about control.
As I've told you before, capitalism is responsible for poverty.  It
can't exist without poverty being present.  And capitalism has the
power to ensure that it stays that way by convincing the government to
keep it that way, so the government chooses how capitalism should be
run at the expense of the poor.  But then, in order to allow
capitalism to be the brute that it is, the government has to help the
poor out in some way or other just to make sure they don't turn into
rabble rousers and mess up the capitalists' way of stepping on
everybody.  In other words, give the poor just barely enough to shut
up while the rich go on about their business.  It's a delicate
balance.
Capitalism is freedom. Commies hate the thought of freedom because
those who are successful do it without the help of government. That's
why Democrats love poor people. They would like nothing else other
than having a poor person reach their hand out and ask for
government's help cradle to grave. By doing supplying a person with
all the necessities of life from the cradle to the grave, they have a
blind follower for life.
Capitalism is freedom alright - for the rich. Find out how free the
ordinary Joe Blow is when he's $20 grand in debt because he doesn't
earn enough money from a job that his capitalist bosses want to pay
him only slave wages for and if he doesn't like it then they'll just
fire him and everyone like him and move their operations to India
where labor is practically free by comparison and the fat cat bosses
can still make tons of money and go sailing around the Bahamas every
month while Joe Blow ends up living on the streets of America the
Beautiiful.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You're a Commie-in-training. You are scared to take a chance at
success because you are under the illusion that success is achieved by
making someone poor.
No, success is achieved when everyone becomes successful, not just a
handful of capitalists who hold the purse strings and call all the
shots. Clearly, you have a warped, brainwashed view of what the
definition of success is - I see the capitalists have certainly worked
their spin magic on your feeble intellect.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
http://www.census.gov/macro/032008/rdcall/2_001.htm
Someone ain't fillin' their wallets even with government help.  Here's
the thing about capitalism, and it's a rule: capitalism needs poverty
for capitalism to work, especially for the wealthy, otherwise
capitalism is not possible.  Think about it, there is no one
capitalist country in the world that has ever succeeded in eliminating
poverty, nor will there ever be, because it's not in the nature of
capitalism to eradicate poverty - that would be like committing
suicide.  So much for filling everyone's wallets.
Freebies from government always invite abuse.
Everything invites abuse.  Cars invite abuse, guns invite abuse, even
the internet invites abuse.  Anything that exists invites abuse,
especially humans.  So you're real point is?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Free enterprise didn't screw up.
Over regulated screws up the works.
Have you been cruising outside of this solar system for a while?  It
was *deregulation* that contributed to the meltdown last fall.  You
know, thanks to the bill Phil Gramm crafted and pushed through into
law back in '99.  Now there was a nice piece of conservative work
ready to create maximum damage.  Read all about how sneaky the little
http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and...
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The ones scared of real health
care reform are the trial lawyers.
No, the ones who are scared are the ones who are totally clueless and
oblivious and feel perfectly comfortable to remain absolutely ignorant
of how a single-payer system works more efficiently while saving tons
of money.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medical care is rising in costs
because doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine. Malpractice
insurance rates go up because even frivolous lawsuits cost money.
General practioners find it too expensive to maintain their practice.
Ob/gyns insurance rates have gone through the roof.
Accounting for the Cost in the United States. January 2007), the
United States has $480 billion in excess spending each year in
comparison to Western European nations that have universal health
insurance coverage. The costs are mainly associated with excess
administrative costs and poorer quality of care.
And government won't add to those administrative costs. Wake up,
Dorothy.
You're at the losing end of an argument, you know.  No matter what the
government does, whether if it's for your benefit or not, costs will
always be incurred.  The whole point is to minimize the accelartion of
the costs because the acceleration itself can't be avoided - ever -
and, along the way, maybe hopefully make things run a bit more
efficiently as a result.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Read a ton of more facts, why don't you?
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medicare fraud is due to poor oversight by Congress. Medicare
bureaucracy makes it impossible for doctors to give patients the best
care.
Medical bureaucracy as in HMOs?  Because that's who doctors are mostly
dealing with now, not the government.
Government will add more layers of bureaucracy.
Yeah, you're point being?  At least people are added to the payroll,
which in turn means more people with spending power, which means the
economy can improve in some small way from that alone.  You prefer
they were on the streets collecting welfare instead?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
According to the survey conducted by the Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons, 66.2 percent of doctors say that they will
"retire from active patient care at a younger age than they would have
considered five years ago" not for financial reasons, but because of
"increased government interference in the practice of medicine."
Yeah, and that's why there are absolutely no doctors and surgeons left
in Canada and Europe and everywhere else with universal coverage,
because they couldn't handle the "government interference," and why as
a result everyone outside of the U.S. will be dead by tomorrow.  Uh-
huh.
Government has no experience in medicine. I give a link to the
arguments against a single payer systems (government controlled health
care).
In a single payer systyem the government is not involved in medicine,
it's just the sugar daddy that spreads the money around to those who
are involved in medicine who in turn decide how it will be allocated.
Are you not getting something clear out of that braindead equation?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Decreased fees were cited by 56 percent of participants as a reason
for considering early retirement from medicine.
Who needs those doctors who are only in it for the money anyway?  At
least this'll weed out the riff-raff.
Medicare only pays doctors a few cents on the dollar. That is poor way
to do business, but who would expect a Socialist to know that.
Gee, then that must come as some shock to all those Canadian doctors
making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. U.S. doctors may gross
http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2006/10_15-30/3_PM_your...
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Sixty-four percent cited "decreased control" over medical practices,
while another 64 percent said increased bureaucracy from Medicare as
the reason.
Hasn't stopped them from practicing when dealing with the monstrous
bureaucracy of HMOs.
Government will only add to the bureaucratic nightmare.
How can it be any different than the nightmare it is now?  It's
meaningless to think that it will be.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Perhaps most telling, analysts said, was that 61 percent of those
surveyed said they were experiencing an increased fear of federal
prosecution or unwarranted investigation as the reason they were
considering early retirement.
Well, if they botch up their treatments and surgeries, they should be
investigated and prosecuted.  That's what they're doing now with that
Dr. Murray guy in the Michael Jackson case.  You're point is?  Let
them get away with murder?
It means the fed's attempt to control an industry they have no
knowledge of hampers the way doctors do the business of medical care.
One more time:  Feds = sugar daddy.  HMOs = controllers.  Feds don't
need to do it for profit, HMOs do, so who do you think is really more
interested in controlling?  Wake up out of your Neverland dream.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Government can't do health care or managed efficiently.
Well, if the government simplified it into being a single payer
system, they wouldn't have to do health care, and their managing of it
would simply be a matter of handing over the dough needed by all 50
states to oversee its distribution equitably.  Like they do in Canada
and other countries with single payer systems.  Like I told you
before, it won't work if the government ends up with a hybrid system.
In a single payer system, government runs the whole shebang. Free
health insurance guarantees abuse and the taxpayer gets stuck with the
bill. Governments in a single-payer system ration care using waiting
lists for surgery and diagnostic procedures and by canceling
surgeries.
Yeah, and that's why everybody has universal coverage, nobody is
complaining, except one person a week, doctors in Canada net more than
those in the U.S. and overall costs are half that of the U.S.  Sure
sounds like a travesty to me.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
A study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that 50
people died while on a wait list for cardiac catheterization in
Ontario.
Another meaningless statement.  Over what period of time?  And was
there even any chance for them to survive the operation due to
whatever condition they were in to begin with?  Meanwhile, "...
researchers analyzed data on nearly 55,000 patients over age 60 that
were placed on the U.S. waiting list for a kidney transplant from 1995
to 2007. Projections suggested that 46 percent of patients wait-listed
in 2006-07 would die before receiving a deceased-donor transplant."
In simple math, it breaks down to 4,583.3 people per year, and 46% of
that average for the final year amounts to 2,108 who died waiting for
a kidney transplant.  Hmm, 2,108 people died in the U.S. waiting for
something while only 50 died in Canada (assuming that 50 was over the
course of a year)?   Even if you look at it proportionately according
to total population, Canada should have had 210 people die, since it
has 1/10th of the U.S.'s total population, so it should be 1/10th of
the U.S.'s death rate too.  But it isn't.  Wow, imagine that.  Get a
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154577.php
Post by Bugsy Siegel
A study of Swedish patients on a wait list for heart surgery
found that the "risk of death increases significantly with waiting
time." In a 2000 article in the journal Clinical Oncology, British
researchers studying 29 lung cancer patients waiting for treatment
further found that about 20 percent "of potentially curable patients
became incurable on the waiting list."
Meanwhile 46% waiting for a kidney die in the U.S.  Lesson to learn in
The Medical Zone: You can't save everybody - people will die,
regardless of the system.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
"Americans who seek to use Canada as model for reforming their health
care system need to be aware that a single-payer health care system
like Canada's results in unacceptably long waits for medical
procedures," said Nadeem Esmail, Fraser Institute director of health
system performance studies and co-author of the 18th annual edition of
Waiting Your Turn: Hospital...
You should stop reading anything put out by the Frasier Institute,
it's a right-wing conservative think tank with nothing intelligent to
contribute.  Nobody takes them seriously.
Dispute their findings. I, for one, don't take you seriously. You're
nothing but a Marxist clown. Here's a new pseudonym for you Mickey
Marx.
The Frasier Institute is comprised of a bunch of old fart
conservatives who do little more than just sit around in a room and
think up of stupid things.  Stuff like tobacco is good for you (so
hey, let's kill off as many people with cancer as possible and let the
health system deal with it at your expense), free trade is the best
thing ever to happen since the invention of the gun (so kick more
American workers out of their jobs that then become outsourced to
Mexico, Asia and India for a dollar a day -capitalism is good, meaning
unemployed Americans and poverty in the U.S. are perfectly
acceptable), not to mention that there shouldn't be any minimum wage
or price controls of any kind so as to keep workers as the enslaved
masses while allowing the capitalist few to get richer by charginig as
much as they want for their products.  Whatever surveys they dream up
are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or any
scholarly method, so their credibilty is largely questionable, to say
the least.  Besides, all they do is give opinions which have no real
effect to change anything and nobody in Canada ever pays any real
attention to them.
Looks like you sit around waiting for government to give you your next
handout.
I'm much, much luckier than that. I'd tell you how to get just as
lucky, but why should I? It's every man for himself, right?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/The-Fraser-Institute-907284.html
The link is a reality check for the proponents of a single payer
systems around the world.
http://debate-central.ncpa.org/topics/2002/book2.pdf
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/barack...
Health insurance companies are "making record profits, right now."
Which is criminal because it's bloating the cost of health care in
general and is the very reason why the government feels it must step
in before it all crashes.  Remember how the banks were making record
profits only a year ago, and what happened?  The government had to
step in before everything crashed.
You did not read the whole article. It shows that Barack Obama is
lying when he says insurance companies are the reason for high health
care costs. That's the typical Marxist mantra. Play loose with the
facts to gain control.  
It's more than just insurance companies, there's a whole slew of
reasons, everything from aging baby boomers to rapidly multiplying
morbidly obese fat people seeking stomach staple surgery, and
everything in between.  It all adds up, and it doesn't help when HMOs
refuse to insure the 50 million uninsured because it then falls on
your wallet, even after you've made your contribution to your HMO for
your own coverage, because the government has to pick up the tab for
all those uninsured.  What's not absorbing for you here?  The point
is: the health care system as it is right now is up poop's creek, and
soon it'll all end up in a poop's quagmire, taking everything down
with it.
HMO's refusing 50 million. Learn how to tell the truth when you make
an argument.
If they're not insuring them, then they're refusing them for whatever
lame reasons they can come up with, like pre-existing condition or
inability to pay the basic minimum.
Will your auto insurance company take on a new client if the client
has a handful of speeding tickets, dui's and a few accidents on his
record? I hate to be the one to let you know but an insurance company
is a business not a branch of government social services.  
What did I say before about not everyone having or wanting a car but
everyone having a life making all the difference? Go back and re-read
that to find out how much nonsense you're spewing.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Government is going to pick up the tab anyway. $1 trillion dollars is
far from being chump change.
And it won't stop at $1 trillion either, so long as more people keep
popping up over the next several decades.
And at that rate, the US dollar won't be worth more than the paper you
wipe your ass with.
It's already there, or haven't you noticed by now that the debt and
deficit will never be paid off?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Besides, why are health insurance companies are being blamed for not
insuring people with pre-existing conditions?
Because if they knew you had a pre-existing condition, it would cut
into their profits to get you treated.  Can't have that at all, no
sireee, you're better off dead to them.
That's business, Commie. Businesses are in business for a profit.
People aren't cars. You may think of yourself as being a car, though,
but that's your problem.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Will an auto insurance company insure a person with  handful of DUI's,
speeding tickets and red light violations with a car with dings and
dents from the hood to the trunk?
Not everybody has or wants a car.  Everybody does have a life, which
they kind of would like to keep healthy in order to be able to
function as normally as possible and keep contributing meaningfully to
society, otherwise they end up becoming a burden on society.  Or has
that concept escaped you?
Answer the question. Or are you afraid it defeats your argument.
Oh, there's the thing I said about not everyone having or wanting a
car but everyone having a life making all the difference. So it looks
like I did answer the question. Now it's up to you to refute the
answer, and try to refrain from coming up with another idiotic
analogy.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
I know Marxists won't understand that because Marxists don't do
business for profit.
I don't know, the Marx Brothers made a lot of money.
Yup you are  Marxist. With that kind of humor you'd never make a
living at comedy.
The Marx Brothers did.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Don't you realize government is crashing? It's has a $10 trillion debt
and the interest rate on that debt takes up a good portion of the
annual budget. Any business in the private sector could not sustain
such a debt. They would either close up shop or go bankrupt. That what
happened when lending came to a halt. The government keeps on
borrowing to pay their bills and expenses and the lenders are
beginning to throw caution into the wind.
The government crashed the day George Bush put the country's finances
into deficit mode in 2002.  It's been all downhill since then -
wheeeeeeee!
The country tanked because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pulled an Enron
and Bernie Madoff tag team on the United States with the support of
Democratic Congressmen.
Did you forget about Phil Gramm, a Republican, the illustrious author
of the banking deregulation bill in 1999 and underhanded manipulator
who got it through under everyone's noses, to whom all of this can
actually be traced back?  You didn't read the link before, did you?
Tell me about the bill. Did it encourage high risk lending? In 1999,
Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Clinton signed it into
law.
In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services
Modernization Act," which repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act,
which prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment,
commercial banking, and insurance services. The bill was killed in
1998 because Senator Phil Gramm wanted the bill to expand the number
of banks which no longer would be covered by the CRA. He also demanded
full disclosure of any financial deals which community groups had with
banks, accusing such groups of "extortion." In 1999 Senators
Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer broke another deadlock by
forcing a compromise between Gramm and the Clinton administration
which wanted to prevent banks from expanding into insurance or
securities unless they were compliant with the CRA. In the final
compromise, the CRA would cover bank expansions into new lines of
business, community groups would have to disclose certain kinds of
financial deals with banks, and smaller banks would be reviewed less
frequently for CRA compliance. On signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,
President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as
we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the
[Community Reinvestment] Act".
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Bush spent a lot, but it wasn't the spending that got the country into
this economic mess. It was a meltdown of financial markets.
He started spending tons in 2002 even before the Iraq War started the
next year, and literally overnight he got the country into a deficit
when it had already been deficit free, and that was six years before
the meltdown. It's amazing how conservatives conveniently forget what
really happened.
Spending was not the issue in the financial crisis.
When you spend away a financial safety net, then you're leaving
yourself exposed to financial catastrophes. Bush spent away the
financial safety net which is what the government could've had to rely
on to get through the meltdown instead of going begging to China and
other countries for the money, which is now only going to jack up your
taxes soon and for the long haul because somebody will have to pay
back all those loans and you're the lucky sucker, thank you, Mr.
Bush. Oh, and why did he begin spending the surplus? Because that's
when he decided - he was The Decider, you know - that everybody should
get nice, big tax breaks, especially fat capitalists. But there's no
such thing as a free lunch and the trickle down economic theory again
failed to work, and so in order to make sure that the tax breaks
wouldn't adversely affect what the government had to do so it could
continue to stay in business, it dug into the surplus. Therefore, the
wonderful misleading illusion of a tax break only created the reality
of higher taxes that you'll now have to pay in return. You're being
hit up, down, sideways and across your head with a 10 x 4 and, simply
by your ongoing pro-fat cat blabberings, you still don't even know it,
so senseless you've become by the Republican ideological battering on
your vulnerable little brain.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The federal government over the last 20 years pushed the mortgage
industry so hard to get minority homeownership up, that it undermined
the country's financial foundation to achieve its goal.
And who was in power for twelve of those twenty years?
Conservatives.  They had also been the majority in Congress and the
Senate for twelve of those twenty years, especially through six of
Bill Clinton's eight years, so who do you think rammed it through?
Conservatives.
The Republicans did not have  super majority. Serious legislation to
put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in tighter regulations didn't pass
because Democrats defeated bills to do it  in committee.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and
Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd,
have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over
the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000
in campaign contributions from employees and political action
committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the
Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and
employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two
enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back
to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A
look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping
in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator
John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that
would have averted this mess.
What does McCain know about the economy? Remember back last mid-
September when the meltdown was going into full swing and he presented
false assurances while campaigning saying that the economy was
"strong"? Well, we all know what happened then. Obama took full
reins of the issue and ran with it, and what had become a tight horse
race between McCain and Obama by that time now saw McCain steadily
losing his grip on winning the presidency. And if you want to talk
about campaign contributions, Obama's $125,000 from Fannie and Freddie
pales in comparison to the $15 million John McCain got from the top 5
investment firms in the country, you know, the ones who helped
contribute to the meltdown like Merrill Lynch, CitiGroup, Morgan
Stanley, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase. So your real point is?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
An article in the Los Angeles Times from the late '90s praised the
sudden surge in homeownership among minorities, calling it "one of the
hidden success stories of the Clinton era."http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807
A Clinton era that was run by conservatives.
That's why Clinton had a surplus.
And that's why Bush created a deficit hell. The only thing that made
it a surplus under Clinton is that he was a Democrat because otherwise
if you're logic is correct, which it isn't, then there would've been a
surplus under Bush as well right till his last lame duck days in
office. Didn't quite happen that way, did it?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston produced a manual in the early '90s
that warned mortgage lenders to no longer deny urban and lower-income
minority applicants on such "outdated" criteria as credit history,
down payment or employment income.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged and praised lenders – like
Countrywide and Bear Stearns – for adopting the slackened policies
toward minority applicants.
A New York Times article from Sept. 1999 states that Fannie Mae had
been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to
expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people and that
the corporation loosened its lending requirements to comply.http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575A...
Well, first of all, Clinton was a conservative Democrat, never a
liberal one, which explains why he did what he did.  If there was any
loosening going on under his watch, it was with the Glass-Steagall Act
still in place to prevent the kind of abuse that ultimately occurred.
It was only when the conniving Republican Phil Gramm came up with his
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act in 1999, which
was designed to obliterate the Glass-Steagall Act and all its
defenses, did it all become possible for real damage in the subprime
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1229
In order for the GOP to get it passed it had to make a deal with Chris
Dodd to strengthen the CRA.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee,
rejected a Bush administration and Congressional Republican plan for
regulating the mortgage industry in 2003, saying, "These two entities
– Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial
crisis." According to a New York Times article, Frank added, "The more
people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these
companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You think this current economic crisis is bad, just wait until the
world's largest economy cannot borrow any more. Will one of the US's
creditors say the United States is too big to fail? Not if the US
dollar is no longer the currency of choice. There is talk the Euro can
take the place of the US Dollar. Guess who is betting that will
happen? George Soros.
I don't doubt it.  In the meantime, Obama has the goodwill of the
world on his side, which you should be grateful for because if it had
still been Bush, then boy, talking about Armaggedon.   But since the
world's politicians love Obamase, they're all more than willing to wai
and see how his agenda will pan out, otherwise China could've killed
the U.S. by now considering how much money the U.S. owes China (hey,
and that's your money that goes to China, too).  If Obama manages to
pull it off somehow, he'll be a miracle worker and the greenback will
be safe for a while longer.  If not, it certainly won't have been for
not doing his best to steer the country away from a looming iceberg,
and then all failure would have to fall directly and squarely on the
Bush administration for sabotaging the country because the roots of it
all and it's beginning took place under his watch.  Meanwhile, you
might want to hedge your bets by collecting some Euros and Chinese
Yuans just to be on the safe side, you can always convert them back to
the dollar if it gets to be all clear.
Obama is the new clown on the block. He did not accomplish anything
during his visits to Europe, Middle East and Russian.
How do you know?  Were you at all the meetings?  Often leaders don't
disclose everything they talk about, only the simple stuff that's
easily unuderstood by a mass audience.
All he did during his overseas trips was to apologize for the USA. He
slammed the USA so the foreigners would like him. It's all about
Obama.
How do you know? Were you at all the meetings?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Obama's spending sprees have given creditor countries  pause
Yeah, they're waiting to see if he actually pulls it off or not.
That's why they are considering to use the Euro as the main trading
currency.
Well, something has to take over if the U.S. doesn't get its act
together and pronto. The Roman Empire didn't last either.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Barack Obama on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 in a press conference.
The link proves Obama's statement as being false.
Believe it or not, insurance companies are  businesses. Businesses
stay in business if they make a profit.
The fact of the matter is that health plan profits represent only
three cents of the premium dollar.
And 3%, which sounds really puny, of the $2.5 trillion now spent on
health care adds up to - woah! - $75 billion!  That's sure counting
one's pennies.  Couldn't they accept just a penny on the dollar as
profit and be happy with $25 billion and spend the other $50 billion
on covering the nearly 50 million uninsured?
3% is puny when you compare it to other industries and when you look
at  it, it will be the taxpayer that will sustain the cost, not a
bright thing to do during  a recession and high unemployment. I have
already proved that your 50 million uninsured figure is a distortion.
You totally ignore the fact that part of that 50 million consists of
illegal and legal immigrants, those who can afford their own health
insurance and the ones who do not know about existing government
programs.
Illegal and legal immigrants are irrelevant, they've always been
around, ever since 1492.  Christopher Columbus was an illegal
immigrant to what was the Indians' land.
I see you still can't dispute the thrashing of your 50 million
uninsured argument.
Also, I see you can't understand the free enterprise system and why
businesses (even insurance companies) expect to make a profit.
What an idiot. There were no immigration laws at Plymouth Rock.
But there were still immigrants, who I might add weren't invited by
the natives.
There was no organized government  body to issue an invitation. No
laws, no immigration policy, no trade agreements. The native tribes
did not get along with each other. The could not represent the
continent.
Excuses, excuses.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Your ancestors were illegal,
if not legal, immigrants.  
I am a first generation American. My family came here LEGALLY after
their homeland was liberated by the United States from the Japs.
Well, there you go, like I said, they were immigrants.  It's good they
were legal, though.
Legal is a key word.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
They've been here, they're here now,
they'll always be here, that's the way it is, and if they get sick,
the government has to deal with them, period.  Nothing is going to
change about that.
They have had insurance from their employer for a long time.
Hopefully their employer will keep employing them, otherwise, uh-oh,
start thinking single-payer system or money is going be sucked out of
you left, right and center as you try to keep them healthy and popping
pills.
We'll have a single payer system when Fascism takes over the USA.
Communism, fascism, make up your mind. Meanwhile, everybody else in
the world is going about their lives every day without worrying much
about how their health care would be covered and if they'll lose their
homes if they end up deathly ill - except in America, the land of the
free to be poor and die.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You got to find yourself another argument.
Sarah Palin isn't as dumb as she looks.  She's dumber. Somebody give
her speech rhythm lessons, please.
The only reason why Obama is a good orator is because he reads a mean
teleprompter.
He's also managed quite nicely without it, you just gotta catch him on
those rare days.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Medicare and Medicaid, which is government health care,  costs the
taxpayer (state and federal) about $600 billion annually and costs are
rising higher than the rate of inflation. Those programs are becoming
insolvent. Government will have to spend more money to keep those
programs alive and add another 10% to the deficit.
Will reform has to done to those programs before government adds any
new entitlements and bureaucracies and there is no doubt they will
cost the taxpayer more as the years go on.
Let's face it, like I told you before, so long as there are more and
more people to take care of, then unless you kill half of them off
right now, it's just going to keep getting worse.  The best that can
be done is to minimize the acceleration of the expenses.  Can anyone
say single-payer system?
Single payer system means government control. Minimizing expenses
through a single payer system means government price controls. Say
good bye to the free market hello to the Communist States of America.
By that definition then, practically every country with universal
health coverage is a communist country, which is practically the whole
world.  No wonder you live in a mental state of paranoia and fear.
Getting touchy being labled a Communist. A single payer system
government control. It takes away competition which means it decimates
the free market system.
Apparently you haven't learned a single thing about how the system
works and still don't get it that if it was that bad, then the rest of
the world would be in a state of upheaval, massive amounts of people
would be dying on the streets, governments would fall, and then surely
communism, fascism or some form of dictatorship would take over to
create order. Buit it kind of hasn't happened yet, has it? After
half-a-century, more with some countries like Britain, it's still
around and things still seem to be quite fine, and ask anybody in any
of those countries which they would prefer, their system or America's,
hands down practically all of them would say theirs. Why? Because
it's basically worry-free for them, something the typical American
will never understand.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Approximately 86 cents out of every premium dollar goes directly
towards paying for medical services such as hospital care, physician
care, medical devices and prescription drugs.
Of the remaining costs, five cents goes to other consumer services,
provider support, and marketing (including prevention, disease
management, care coordination, investments in health information
technology and health support).
Costs associated with government payments, regulation and other costs
associated with administration (e.g., claims administration) comprise
an estimated six cents.
You should tell us how Congress' health plan is good and leave out the
Marxist slogans to make your case.
I never said it was good.  I said as a hybrid it won't save anybody
that much money because it's not a single payer system.  If you're
going to do the job, do it right, otherwise the government should stop
wasting its time and energy.
That's the problem, government is rushing through this legislation.
That is not doing it right. That is the main contention of
Conservatives and we have  Congressmen (Democrats) giving the
impression it is not necessary to read the whole bill before they pass
it. Your thread says Conservatives distort facts at the same time you
support Liberals hiding and ignoring the facts.
Well, if it'll make you any happier, it doesn't look like they'll be
rushing fast enough because the vote may just be delayed now until the
fall some time.  But will every representative and senator read the
entire bill cover to cover in the meantime?  I highly doubt it, but I
wouldn't be surprised if Obama actually will once the final version is
dumped on his table.
Don't you remember that idiot John Conyers saying "Read the bill!"
What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't
have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you've
read the bill?"?
Nobody is going to read the bill.  They never do.  Whether it goes
through or not will all depend on which lobbyists win.  That's how any
bill more than 50 pages gets through.  Wake up!
Perhaps it time our lawmakers read the bills they write.
Dream on, as you seem to with just about everything else you say.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Obama will cream his pants if Congress gives him a bill to  sign. He
won't read the bill cover to cover.
Bet you he will.  Unlike George Bush, Obama can read - a lot of
practice from his teleprompter use, no doubt.
Obama doesn't care just as long he is supreme leader. We should call
him Ayatollah Obama.
I think you're actually referring to George W. Bush. There was a
classic case of a sociopath if I had ever seen one.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Wouldn't you be suspicious of a contract that has too much fine print,
addendums and a salesman who tells you have to sign it before it's too
late?
You keep asking such dumb questions.  Every contract has too much fine
print, so what are you trying to prove?
Are you that dense? It's obvious what my question asked. Do you have
Kool Aid Dementia?  Liberals want Congress to pass their health bill
as soon as possible without reading the bill. They did it with the
Stimulus Bill. I guess contracts are above your pay grade. You'll just
sign on the dotted line if it sounds good.  That's is real idiotic.
You're asking for the impossible.  Neither the Democrats or the
Republicans ever read bills, it's all about lobbyists and who exerts
the most influence on House members that decides whether a bill lands
on the president's desk or not.  But if you have a smart enough
president, as Obama clearly is, he'd actually read the bill, unlike
Bush, because he's already stated what he wants to see in it and if
certain things are not in it, he's going to have to weigh the pros and
cons of what is in it and if it's worth having the cons to get the
pros.  You can't decide that if you don't read the whole bill first
before you sign something you can live with, and Obama will be the
only one who'll read the whole bill.
There's no evidence he will read the whole bill. He promotes Congress'
bill and doesn't even know what's in it.
Nobody knows what'll be in it until it's in its final form. Until
then, it's all only speculation.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Bottom line: You will make a good Communist.
Oh, that's what.  Well, sorry, it failed the proof test.
Republicans is the party of the rich. It stands to reason they want to
increase their base by having more rich people. Democrats are the
party of the poor. They want to increase their base by making more
poor people.
That's capitalism for ya.
You betcha.
Don't be too proud when you say that. You're increased taxes will be
going into paying for all those poor people, and just when you thought
you could get away with it. No such luck.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
-
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
Bugsy Siegel
2009-08-04 03:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
That's capitalism for ya.
Spoken like a true Marxist.

You want a single payer health plan.
You hate free enterprise.
You are envious of rich people.

That is all you have said the last several posts.

You and Michael Moore ought to move to Havana where you will get primo
health care courtesy of your ideology of choice Communism.


-

U.S. Internal Revenue Service:
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-08-04 07:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
That's capitalism for ya.
Spoken like a true Marxist.
You want a single payer health plan.
Yeah!
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You hate free enterprise.
Only when they screw you every which way with a smile.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are envious of rich people.
I'm halfway there to being one myself, so why should I be envious of
rich people?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
That is all you have said the last several posts.
And you have absorbed absolutely nothing of what I said.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You and Michael Moore ought to move to Havana where you will get primo
health care courtesy of your ideology of choice Communism.
Don't need to. I already get it in a good old-fashioned capitalist
country like Canada. There's a kick in the head for you.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
-
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
Bugsy Siegel
2009-08-05 03:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
That's capitalism for ya.
Spoken like a true Marxist.
You want a single payer health plan.
Yeah!
Of course you. You believe in government control in all aspects of
your life. You must be looking for a commission in Obama's Domestic SS
Corps.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You hate free enterprise.
Only when they screw you every which way with a smile.
You can't compete in a free enterprise. That's why you blame the free
market for you pathetic lot in life.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are envious of rich people.
I'm halfway there to being one myself, so why should I be envious of
rich people?
Because that's Marxist ideology. Poor people want to lower the playing
field so everyone will be equal. They'd never want poor people to
become rich. Because wealth gives one more freedom. Marxists can't
have that.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
That is all you have said the last several posts.
And you have absorbed absolutely nothing of what I said.
There's a good reason. I am not a Marxist.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You and Michael Moore ought to move to Havana where you will get primo
health care courtesy of your ideology of choice Communism.
Don't need to. I already get it in a good old-fashioned capitalist
country like Canada. There's a kick in the head for you.
Here's a kick in the butt. The American public does not want Congress'
health care reform.

First of all. Health Care is low on the list of priorities for
Americans. Their number one concern is the economy and Congress'
health care reform bill promises to be a $1 trillion sieve.

Gallup Poll. July 26, 2009

"Would you say that members of Congress, themselves, have a good
understanding of the issues involved in the current debate over
national health care reform, or not?"

A Good Understanding 27%
Not a Good Understanding 66%
Unsure 7%

That says it all.

National Public Radio Poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies (R)
and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (D). July 22-26, 2009

"As you may have heard, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress
are preparing a plan to change the health care system. From what you
have heard about this plan, do you favor or oppose Obama and the
Democrats' health care proposal?"

Favor 42%
Oppose 47%
Unsure 11%

I'd say that's a big no confidence poll.

So keep your Cannuckistani opinions to yourself.


-

U.S. Internal Revenue Service:
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-08-05 05:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
That's capitalism for ya.
Spoken like a true Marxist.
You want a single payer health plan.
Yeah!
Of course you. You believe in government control in all aspects of
your life. You must be looking for a commission in Obama's Domestic SS
Corps.
You're so naive. You're already living under, and always have been,
government control over just about every aspect of your life. If not
direct control, then indirect control, if not overt control, then
surreptitious control. There's nothing you can say or do that won't
bump into any of those controls, with those controls being all the
rules, regulations and laws government has imposed on you to abide by
or else. You're not as free as you delude yourself into believing you
are, and yet, you still spew the same brainwashed "America - Live Free
or Die" malarky.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You hate free enterprise.
Only when they screw you every which way with a smile.
You can't compete in a free enterprise. That's why you blame the free
market for you pathetic lot in life.
I've already competed in free enterprise and reaped nice rewards from
it, thank you, and I didn't have to go bankrupt or lose my home in the
process while taking care of my and my family's health either, thank
you single-payer system. Something you can't say the same with any
peace of mind.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are envious of rich people.
I'm halfway there to being one myself, so why should I be envious of
rich people?
Because that's Marxist ideology. Poor people want to lower the playing
field so everyone will be equal. They'd never want poor people to
become rich. Because wealth gives one more freedom. Marxists can't
have that.
You keep hurling Marxist like you knew something about it, but clearly
you've just expressed your total ignorance of it. Marxist ideology is
something an activist pseudo-intellectual elite imposed on the poor,
not what the poor actually craved for themselves as an ideology to
live by. In fact, what Marxists did in the Soviet Union is very much
similar to how Republicans treat the poor in the U.S. - dismissively,
and only reached out to whenever it becomes in their political
interest to do so before the poor are dismissed again after
politicians get what they want from them, like winning elections on
false and misleading promises, after which it's back to the poor house
for the poor so the fat cats can continue to suck money into their
pockets at an obscene rate with Republicans' full permission,
especially when they become the administration. That's very Marxist
by Republicans who cleverly do it under the guise of good ol' American
know-how. Just like the Hitlerian tactic they use of repeating a lie
often enough that it then becomes a truth. Only for the
intellectually fragile, that is - like you.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
That is all you have said the last several posts.
And you have absorbed absolutely nothing of what I said.
There's a good reason. I am not a Marxist.
You're not even minimally bright, either.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You and Michael Moore ought to move to Havana where you will get primo
health care courtesy of your ideology of choice Communism.
Don't need to.  I already get it in a good old-fashioned capitalist
country like Canada.  There's a kick in the head for you.
Here's a kick in the butt. The American public does not want Congress'
health care reform.
First of all. Health Care is low on the list of priorities for
Americans. Their number one concern is the economy and Congress'
health care reform bill promises to be a $1 trillion sieve.
It'll be $2 trillion easily if nothing is done about it over the next
few years, everyone agrees on that, including the Republicans. Looks
like you're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Gallup Poll. July 26, 2009
"Would you say that members of Congress, themselves, have a good
understanding of the issues involved in the current debate over
national health care reform, or not?"
A Good Understanding   27%
Not a Good Understanding   66%  
Unsure    7%
That says it all.
National Public Radio Poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies (R)
and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (D). July 22-26, 2009
"As you may have heard, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress
are preparing a plan to change the health care system. From what you
have heard about this plan, do you favor or oppose Obama and the
Democrats' health care proposal?"
Favor  42%
Oppose   47%
Unsure    11%
I'd say that's a big no confidence poll.
Yeah, but it's interesting how those people who favor it by 42%
outnumbers the politicians' understanding of it at 27%, and that only
47% of people oppose it while 66% of politicians don't understand it.
There's a clear correlation there between politicians' understanding
and people favoring it and politicians' not understanding it and
people opposing it. Seems to me that compared to the politicians, the
public has a better grasp and understanding of a plan that they too
haven't read.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So keep your Cannuckistani opinions to yourself.
No. Trying to exert "government control" on me, Mr. Thinks He's As
Free As a Bird in the Land of Plenty for the Greedy?
Bugsy Siegel
2009-08-05 17:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
That's capitalism for ya.
Spoken like a true Marxist.
You want a single payer health plan.
Yeah!
Of course you. You believe in government control in all aspects of
your life. You must be looking for a commission in Obama's Domestic SS
Corps.
You're so naive. You're already living under, and always have been,
government control over just about every aspect of your life. If not
direct control, then indirect control, if not overt control, then
surreptitious control. There's nothing you can say or do that won't
bump into any of those controls, with those controls being all the
rules, regulations and laws government has imposed on you to abide by
or else. You're not as free as you delude yourself into believing you
are, and yet, you still spew the same brainwashed "America - Live Free
or Die" malarky.
You're not only a Marxist, you're also a Fascist since you are easy to
jump hoops for a controlling government. So many Russian miss the old
USSR because they want government to be their sole provider and old
school Communists, like Putin, miss the old USSR because they miss the
control aspects.

I remember Obama talking about a civilian corps that will be funded
equal to the military. That's so KGB.

Why do you hate freedom so much?
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You hate free enterprise.
Only when they screw you every which way with a smile.
You can't compete in a free enterprise. That's why you blame the free
market for you pathetic lot in life.
I've already competed in free enterprise and reaped nice rewards from
it, thank you, and I didn't have to go bankrupt or lose my home in the
process while taking care of my and my family's health either, thank
you single-payer system. Something you can't say the same with any
peace of mind.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are envious of rich people.
I'm halfway there to being one myself, so why should I be envious of
rich people?
Because that's Marxist ideology. Poor people want to lower the playing
field so everyone will be equal. They'd never want poor people to
become rich. Because wealth gives one more freedom. Marxists can't
have that.
You keep hurling Marxist like you knew something about it, but clearly
you've just expressed your total ignorance of it. Marxist ideology is
something an activist pseudo-intellectual elite imposed on the poor,
not what the poor actually craved for themselves as an ideology to
live by. In fact, what Marxists did in the Soviet Union is very much
similar to how Republicans treat the poor in the U.S. - dismissively,
and only reached out to whenever it becomes in their political
interest to do so before the poor are dismissed again after
politicians get what they want from them, like winning elections on
false and misleading promises, after which it's back to the poor house
for the poor so the fat cats can continue to suck money into their
pockets at an obscene rate with Republicans' full permission,
especially when they become the administration. That's very Marxist
by Republicans who cleverly do it under the guise of good ol' American
know-how. Just like the Hitlerian tactic they use of repeating a lie
often enough that it then becomes a truth. Only for the
intellectually fragile, that is - like you.
Why do you think Communism is so attractive. It appeals to the have
nots. Communism gets its strength by promising the poor government
will provide for everything. You knowing of Marx and his ideological
followers. Obama went to a church for 20 years that was founded on
liberation theology. Liberation theology has Marxist roots. Ignorance
of the facts is blinded by your loyalty to Marxism.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
That is all you have said the last several posts.
And you have absorbed absolutely nothing of what I said.
There's a good reason. I am not a Marxist.
You're not even minimally bright, either.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You and Michael Moore ought to move to Havana where you will get primo
health care courtesy of your ideology of choice Communism.
Don't need to.  I already get it in a good old-fashioned capitalist
country like Canada.  There's a kick in the head for you.
Here's a kick in the butt. The American public does not want Congress'
health care reform.
First of all. Health Care is low on the list of priorities for
Americans. Their number one concern is the economy and Congress'
health care reform bill promises to be a $1 trillion sieve.
It'll be $2 trillion easily if nothing is done about it over the next
few years, everyone agrees on that, including the Republicans. Looks
like you're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Show me your math.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Gallup Poll. July 26, 2009
"Would you say that members of Congress, themselves, have a good
understanding of the issues involved in the current debate over
national health care reform, or not?"
A Good Understanding   27%
Not a Good Understanding   66%  
Unsure    7%
That says it all.
National Public Radio Poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies (R)
and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (D). July 22-26, 2009
"As you may have heard, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress
are preparing a plan to change the health care system. From what you
have heard about this plan, do you favor or oppose Obama and the
Democrats' health care proposal?"
Favor  42%
Oppose   47%
Unsure    11%
I'd say that's a big no confidence poll.
Yeah, but it's interesting how those people who favor it by 42%
outnumbers the politicians' understanding of it at 27%, and that only
47% of people oppose it while 66% of politicians don't understand it.
There's a clear correlation there between politicians' understanding
and people favoring it and politicians' not understanding it and
people opposing it. Seems to me that compared to the politicians, the
public has a better grasp and understanding of a plan that they too
haven't read.
Why are you so intent on giving politicians pass in reading the bill?
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So keep your Cannuckistani opinions to yourself.
No. Trying to exert "government control" on me, Mr. Thinks He's As
Free As a Bird in the Land of Plenty for the Greedy?
You're such a government dependent and a jealous ne'er-do-well.


-

U.S. Internal Revenue Service:
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-08-05 23:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
That's capitalism for ya.
Spoken like a true Marxist.
You want a single payer health plan.
Yeah!
Of course you. You believe in government control in all aspects of
your life. You must be looking for a commission in Obama's Domestic SS
Corps.
You're so naive.  You're already living under, and always have been,
government control over just about every aspect of your life.  If not
direct control, then indirect control, if not overt control, then
surreptitious control.  There's nothing you can say or do that won't
bump into any of those controls, with those controls being all the
rules, regulations and laws government has imposed on you to abide by
or else.  You're not as free as you delude yourself into believing you
are, and yet, you still spew the same brainwashed "America - Live Free
or Die" malarky.
You're not only a Marxist, you're also a Fascist since you are easy to
jump hoops for a controlling government.  So many Russian miss the old
USSR because they want government to be their sole provider and old
school Communists, like Putin, miss the old USSR because they miss the
control aspects.
Well, first of all, there is no real democracy in the USSR, so it's
not because people are disenchanted with it because they really don't
have it yet. The country is mostly in a state of corruption, so yeah,
maybe the communist way of doing things was better, especially for the
disadvantaged, and that's why they'd like to return to it. Give them,
or anyone else for that matter, true democracy as democracy is meant
to be run (and not any kind of so-called democracy modelled after that
of the U.S. way of doing things) and then you'd have very few
complaints, as you probably would in the U.S. itself.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
I remember Obama talking about a civilian corps that will be funded
equal to the military. That's so KGB.
Yeah, that's so subversive, sending off innocent young 'uns into parts
unknown to help people restructure their countries, communities and
lives so that some good could come out of it. I'm with you there all
the way, poopster.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Why do you hate freedom so much?
Why do you think you even have it?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You hate free enterprise.
Only when they screw you every which way with a smile.
You can't compete in a free enterprise. That's why you blame the free
market for you pathetic lot in life.
I've already competed in free enterprise and reaped nice rewards from
it, thank you, and I didn't have to go bankrupt or lose my home in the
process while taking care of my and my family's health either, thank
you single-payer system.  Something you can't say the same with any
peace of mind.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are envious of rich people.
I'm halfway there to being one myself, so why should I be envious of
rich people?
Because that's Marxist ideology. Poor people want to lower the playing
field so everyone will be equal. They'd never want poor people to
become rich. Because wealth gives one more freedom. Marxists can't
have that.
You keep hurling Marxist like you knew something about it, but clearly
you've just expressed your total ignorance of it.  Marxist ideology is
something an activist pseudo-intellectual elite imposed on the poor,
not what the poor actually craved for themselves as an ideology to
live by.  In fact, what Marxists did in the Soviet Union is very much
similar to how Republicans treat the poor in the U.S. - dismissively,
and only reached out to whenever it becomes in their political
interest to do so before the poor are dismissed again after
politicians get what they want from them, like winning elections on
false and misleading promises, after which it's back to the poor house
for the poor so the fat cats can continue to suck money into their
pockets at an obscene rate with Republicans' full permission,
especially when they become the administration.  That's very Marxist
by Republicans who cleverly do it under the guise of good ol' American
know-how.   Just like the Hitlerian tactic they use of repeating a lie
often enough that it then becomes a truth.  Only for the
intellectually fragile, that is - like you.
Why do you think Communism is so attractive. It appeals to the have
nots. Communism gets its strength by promising the poor government
will provide for everything. You knowing of Marx and his ideological
followers. Obama went to a church for 20 years that was founded on
liberation theology. Liberation theology has Marxist roots. Ignorance
of the facts is blinded by your loyalty to Marxism.
Hey, you've lived in a country all your life that was founded on life,
liberty and justice for all. Where's the life if you can't afford
health insurance? Where's the liberty if you can't drive a car
without a license issued by the government of all people? Where's the
justice when multi-billion dollar corporations get multi-billion
dollar bailouts and you get nothing because you have nothing? Just
because you belong to something doesn't mean its foundation is to be
believed by you.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
That is all you have said the last several posts.
And you have absorbed absolutely nothing of what I said.
There's a good reason. I am not a Marxist.
You're not even minimally bright, either.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You and Michael Moore ought to move to Havana where you will get primo
health care courtesy of your ideology of choice Communism.
Don't need to.  I already get it in a good old-fashioned capitalist
country like Canada.  There's a kick in the head for you.
Here's a kick in the butt. The American public does not want Congress'
health care reform.
First of all. Health Care is low on the list of priorities for
Americans. Their number one concern is the economy and Congress'
health care reform bill promises to be a $1 trillion sieve.
It'll be $2 trillion easily if nothing is done about it over the next
few years, everyone agrees on that, including the Republicans.  Looks
like you're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Show me your math.
Actually, it's already at $2.2 trillion or $7,471 per American, which
equals to 16% of GDP, and that's in just 2007. It's likely to be
$8,000-$9,000 per person now, if not more, so the math keeps adding
up.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/25_NHE_Fact_Sheet.asp
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Gallup Poll. July 26, 2009
"Would you say that members of Congress, themselves, have a good
understanding of the issues involved in the current debate over
national health care reform, or not?"
A Good Understanding   27%
Not a Good Understanding   66%  
Unsure    7%
That says it all.
National Public Radio Poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies (R)
and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (D). July 22-26, 2009
"As you may have heard, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress
are preparing a plan to change the health care system. From what you
have heard about this plan, do you favor or oppose Obama and the
Democrats' health care proposal?"
Favor  42%
Oppose   47%
Unsure    11%
I'd say that's a big no confidence poll.
Yeah, but it's interesting how those people who favor it by 42%
outnumbers the politicians' understanding of it at 27%, and that only
47% of people oppose it while 66% of politicians don't understand it.
There's a clear correlation there between politicians' understanding
and people favoring it and politicians' not understanding it and
people opposing it.  Seems to me that compared to the politicians, the
public has a better grasp and understanding of a plan that they too
haven't read.
Why are you so intent on giving politicians  pass in reading the bill?
Politicians don't read bills, how many times do I have to tell you
that? They only know what's in the bills by what's told to them. And
who tells them what's in the bills? Lobbyists. It's the job of
lobbyists to know the stuff inside out so as to convince politicians
to vote one way or the other. How many times have politicians
confessed in interviews that they "didn't know" that a certain
provision was in a bill and had they known, they would never have
voted for it? They didn't know because they didn't read the bill and
because the lobbyist didn't tell him it was in the bill because doing
so would've been to that lobbyist's disadvantage. That's the way it
works. Wake up!
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So keep your Cannuckistani opinions to yourself.
No.  Trying to exert "government control" on me, Mr. Thinks He's As
Free As a Bird in the Land of Plenty for the Greedy?
You're such a government dependent and a jealous ne'er-do-well.
The only thing I depend on my government to do is cover my and my
family's medical bills, for which I pay 15% of my annual earnings for
full coverage, none of this pre-existing condition excuse for them to
hide behind to not cover something. That's all. I expect nothing
else from them. So I'm going to be jealous of a U.S. system that
demands I pay out-of-pocket expenses amounting to tens of thousands of
dollars if an extended hospital stay is necessary just because some
HMO's rates are prohibitively and insanely beyond 15% of my earnings
for half or less the coverage I get in Canada? Surely, you must be
joking. You live in such an insular world of your own making that it
clearly reflects absolutely no understanding of how hassle-free a
system can really be if you just simplify it - meaning, take the
profit equation out of the picture. And why would you even defend an
HMO to make a profit on you, anyway? It's not like you're making any
money off them in return, so what do you care about them making money
at your expense?
Bugsy Siegel
2009-08-06 03:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
That's capitalism for ya.
Spoken like a true Marxist.
You want a single payer health plan.
Yeah!
Of course you. You believe in government control in all aspects of
your life. You must be looking for a commission in Obama's Domestic SS
Corps.
You're so naive.  You're already living under, and always have been,
government control over just about every aspect of your life.  If not
direct control, then indirect control, if not overt control, then
surreptitious control.  There's nothing you can say or do that won't
bump into any of those controls, with those controls being all the
rules, regulations and laws government has imposed on you to abide by
or else.  You're not as free as you delude yourself into believing you
are, and yet, you still spew the same brainwashed "America - Live Free
or Die" malarky.
You're not only a Marxist, you're also a Fascist since you are easy to
jump hoops for a controlling government.  So many Russian miss the old
USSR because they want government to be their sole provider and old
school Communists, like Putin, miss the old USSR because they miss the
control aspects.
Well, first of all, there is no real democracy in the USSR, so it's
not because people are disenchanted with it because they really don't
have it yet. The country is mostly in a state of corruption, so yeah,
maybe the communist way of doing things was better, especially for the
disadvantaged, and that's why they'd like to return to it. Give them,
or anyone else for that matter, true democracy as democracy is meant
to be run (and not any kind of so-called democracy modelled after that
of the U.S. way of doing things) and then you'd have very few
complaints, as you probably would in the U.S. itself.
The mere fact you blame wealthy people for poor people makes you a
Marxist.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
I remember Obama talking about a civilian corps that will be funded
equal to the military. That's so KGB.
Yeah, that's so subversive, sending off innocent young 'uns into parts
unknown to help people restructure their countries, communities and
lives so that some good could come out of it. I'm with you there all
the way, poopster.
Your ignorance is showing again.

Last year during a campaign stop Obama said “We cannot continue to
rely on our military in order to achieve the national security
objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security
force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

You tie that in with the appointment Jabba the Napolitano for the DHS.
Janet Napolitano, The Secretary of Homeland Security presented an
intelligence report stating that Military Veterans are characterized
as right-wing extremists. She backed it up with ties to the economy
and Barrack Obama being the first African American president, and with
Military Veterans and the training that they hold, they could be a
real threat to society.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Why do you hate freedom so much?
Why do you think you even have it?
I do as I please. You, on the other hand, want government to control
your life.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You hate free enterprise.
Only when they screw you every which way with a smile.
You can't compete in a free enterprise. That's why you blame the free
market for you pathetic lot in life.
I've already competed in free enterprise and reaped nice rewards from
it, thank you, and I didn't have to go bankrupt or lose my home in the
process while taking care of my and my family's health either, thank
you single-payer system.  Something you can't say the same with any
peace of mind.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are envious of rich people.
I'm halfway there to being one myself, so why should I be envious of
rich people?
Because that's Marxist ideology. Poor people want to lower the playing
field so everyone will be equal. They'd never want poor people to
become rich. Because wealth gives one more freedom. Marxists can't
have that.
You keep hurling Marxist like you knew something about it, but clearly
you've just expressed your total ignorance of it.  Marxist ideology is
something an activist pseudo-intellectual elite imposed on the poor,
not what the poor actually craved for themselves as an ideology to
live by.  In fact, what Marxists did in the Soviet Union is very much
similar to how Republicans treat the poor in the U.S. - dismissively,
and only reached out to whenever it becomes in their political
interest to do so before the poor are dismissed again after
politicians get what they want from them, like winning elections on
false and misleading promises, after which it's back to the poor house
for the poor so the fat cats can continue to suck money into their
pockets at an obscene rate with Republicans' full permission,
especially when they become the administration.  That's very Marxist
by Republicans who cleverly do it under the guise of good ol' American
know-how.   Just like the Hitlerian tactic they use of repeating a lie
often enough that it then becomes a truth.  Only for the
intellectually fragile, that is - like you.
Why do you think Communism is so attractive. It appeals to the have
nots. Communism gets its strength by promising the poor government
will provide for everything. You knowing of Marx and his ideological
followers. Obama went to a church for 20 years that was founded on
liberation theology. Liberation theology has Marxist roots. Ignorance
of the facts is blinded by your loyalty to Marxism.
Hey, you've lived in a country all your life that was founded on life,
liberty and justice for all. Where's the life if you can't afford
health insurance? Where's the liberty if you can't drive a car
without a license issued by the government of all people? Where's the
justice when multi-billion dollar corporations get multi-billion
dollar bailouts and you get nothing because you have nothing? Just
because you belong to something doesn't mean its foundation is to be
believed by you.
Where's the life when Liberals, such as Barack Obama, support late
term abortions? "life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness was
written in the Declaration of Independence. Health insurance was not
even offered to people until 1929. Health insurance is not a right.
You have the liberty to ride a bicycle or walk. A drivers' license is
just a certificate verifying a person has taken a test on the rules of
the road and knows how to operate a car. You want chaos. That's not
liberty. You want anarchy. That not an attribute of a sane person.
Corporations were given a bailout because it was sanctioned by our
Constitutionally elected officials. The Legislative branch of
government (as prescribed in the Constitution) white the laws of the
land.

You are in dire need of a civics lesson.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
That is all you have said the last several posts.
And you have absorbed absolutely nothing of what I said.
There's a good reason. I am not a Marxist.
You're not even minimally bright, either.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You and Michael Moore ought to move to Havana where you will get primo
health care courtesy of your ideology of choice Communism.
Don't need to.  I already get it in a good old-fashioned capitalist
country like Canada.  There's a kick in the head for you.
Here's a kick in the butt. The American public does not want Congress'
health care reform.
First of all. Health Care is low on the list of priorities for
Americans. Their number one concern is the economy and Congress'
health care reform bill promises to be a $1 trillion sieve.
It'll be $2 trillion easily if nothing is done about it over the next
few years, everyone agrees on that, including the Republicans.  Looks
like you're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Show me your math.
Actually, it's already at $2.2 trillion or $7,471 per American, which
equals to 16% of GDP, and that's in just 2007. It's likely to be
$8,000-$9,000 per person now, if not more, so the math keeps adding
up.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/25_NHE_Fact_Sheet.asp
You don't know squat about American government, but you can do simple
arithmetic.

Previously, you said, "Looks like you're kind of stuck between a rock
and a hard place."

You are stuck on stupid because your post is about whining about
opposition to Dummycratic health reform.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Gallup Poll. July 26, 2009
"Would you say that members of Congress, themselves, have a good
understanding of the issues involved in the current debate over
national health care reform, or not?"
A Good Understanding   27%
Not a Good Understanding   66%  
Unsure    7%
That says it all.
National Public Radio Poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies (R)
and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (D). July 22-26, 2009
"As you may have heard, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress
are preparing a plan to change the health care system. From what you
have heard about this plan, do you favor or oppose Obama and the
Democrats' health care proposal?"
Favor  42%
Oppose   47%
Unsure    11%
I'd say that's a big no confidence poll.
Yeah, but it's interesting how those people who favor it by 42%
outnumbers the politicians' understanding of it at 27%, and that only
47% of people oppose it while 66% of politicians don't understand it.
There's a clear correlation there between politicians' understanding
and people favoring it and politicians' not understanding it and
people opposing it.  Seems to me that compared to the politicians, the
public has a better grasp and understanding of a plan that they too
haven't read.
Why are you so intent on giving politicians  pass in reading the bill?
Politicians don't read bills, how many times do I have to tell you
that? They only know what's in the bills by what's told to them. And
who tells them what's in the bills? Lobbyists. It's the job of
lobbyists to know the stuff inside out so as to convince politicians
to vote one way or the other. How many times have politicians
confessed in interviews that they "didn't know" that a certain
provision was in a bill and had they known, they would never have
voted for it? They didn't know because they didn't read the bill and
because the lobbyist didn't tell him it was in the bill because doing
so would've been to that lobbyist's disadvantage. That's the way it
works. Wake up!
As a voter, we have the right to tell Congress to read the bill. Stop
making excuses for Congress. You're as pathetic as Congress.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So keep your Cannuckistani opinions to yourself.
No.  Trying to exert "government control" on me, Mr. Thinks He's As
Free As a Bird in the Land of Plenty for the Greedy?
You're such a government dependent and a jealous ne'er-do-well.
The only thing I depend on my government to do is cover my and my
family's medical bills, for which I pay 15% of my annual earnings for
full coverage, none of this pre-existing condition excuse for them to
hide behind to not cover something. That's all. I expect nothing
else from them. So I'm going to be jealous of a U.S. system that
demands I pay out-of-pocket expenses amounting to tens of thousands of
dollars if an extended hospital stay is necessary just because some
HMO's rates are prohibitively and insanely beyond 15% of my earnings
for half or less the coverage I get in Canada? Surely, you must be
joking. You live in such an insular world of your own making that it
clearly reflects absolutely no understanding of how hassle-free a
system can really be if you just simplify it - meaning, take the
profit equation out of the picture. And why would you even defend an
HMO to make a profit on you, anyway? It's not like you're making any
money off them in return, so what do you care about them making money
at your expense?
Profit is what freedom is all about. We have a free market system in
the United States. 5.5% of the population in the US does not have
health insurance. 80% of those with health insurance are satisfied
with the coverage they have.

The health reform bill Congress is writing is far from making health
insurance simple. The bureaucracies needed to implement the bill is
costly and reeks of inefficiencies.


The health care reform plan proposed by House Democrats would create
at least a dozen new federal programs, boards and task forces,
contributing to the proposal's hefty price tag.

The health care reform bill, which is expected to cost roughly $1
trillion over 10 years, would create a public health insurance plan
and a health insurance "exchange," a clearinghouse where consumers
will be able to shop for public or private coverage. The programs will
require a massive undertaking by the federal government that analysts
say likely will take years to fully implement.

Tracking $1 trillion will done by Congressional Committees. Tracking
the profit margin of an insurance company will be much easier since
they already have the infrastructure to do quarterly financial
statements.



-

U.S. Internal Revenue Service:
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-08-06 05:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
That's capitalism for ya.
Spoken like a true Marxist.
You want a single payer health plan.
Yeah!
Of course you. You believe in government control in all aspects of
your life. You must be looking for a commission in Obama's Domestic SS
Corps.
You're so naive.  You're already living under, and always have been,
government control over just about every aspect of your life.  If not
direct control, then indirect control, if not overt control, then
surreptitious control.  There's nothing you can say or do that won't
bump into any of those controls, with those controls being all the
rules, regulations and laws government has imposed on you to abide by
or else.  You're not as free as you delude yourself into believing you
are, and yet, you still spew the same brainwashed "America - Live Free
or Die" malarky.
You're not only a Marxist, you're also a Fascist since you are easy to
jump hoops for a controlling government.  So many Russian miss the old
USSR because they want government to be their sole provider and old
school Communists, like Putin, miss the old USSR because they miss the
control aspects.
Well, first of all, there is no real democracy in the USSR, so it's
not because people are disenchanted with it because they really don't
have it yet.  The country is mostly in a state of corruption, so yeah,
maybe the communist way of doing things was better, especially for the
disadvantaged, and that's why they'd like to return to it.  Give them,
or anyone else for that matter, true democracy as democracy is meant
to be run (and not any kind of so-called democracy modelled after that
of the U.S. way of doing things) and then you'd have very few
complaints, as you probably would in the U.S. itself.
The mere fact you blame wealthy people for poor people makes you a
Marxist.
No, it makes me sympathetic to people who have nothing and not very
sympathetic to people who have everything at the expense of those who
have nothing. You know, sort of the opposite of how you feel.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
I remember Obama talking about a civilian corps that will be funded
equal to the military. That's so KGB.
Yeah, that's so subversive, sending off innocent young 'uns into parts
unknown to help people restructure their countries, communities and
lives so that some good could come out of it.  I'm with you there all
the way, poopster.
Your ignorance is showing again.
No, that was my sense of humor. And if you had one yourself, you
would've gotten a snicker out of it.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Last year during a campaign stop Obama said “We cannot continue to
rely on our military in order to achieve the national security
objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security
force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
You tie that in with the appointment Jabba the Napolitano for the DHS.
Janet Napolitano, The Secretary of Homeland Security presented an
intelligence report stating that Military Veterans are characterized
as right-wing extremists. She backed it up with ties to the economy
and Barrack Obama being the first African American president, and with
Military Veterans and the training that they hold, they could be a
real threat to society.
Ain't gonna happen. Obama's got much bigger fish to fry right now, so
don't worry your little head now into a paranoid frenzy for nothing.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Why do you hate freedom so much?
Why do you think you even have it?
I do as I please. You, on the other hand, want government to control
your life.
You only do what the government allows you to do.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You hate free enterprise.
Only when they screw you every which way with a smile.
You can't compete in a free enterprise. That's why you blame the free
market for you pathetic lot in life.
I've already competed in free enterprise and reaped nice rewards from
it, thank you, and I didn't have to go bankrupt or lose my home in the
process while taking care of my and my family's health either, thank
you single-payer system.  Something you can't say the same with any
peace of mind.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are envious of rich people.
I'm halfway there to being one myself, so why should I be envious of
rich people?
Because that's Marxist ideology. Poor people want to lower the playing
field so everyone will be equal. They'd never want poor people to
become rich. Because wealth gives one more freedom. Marxists can't
have that.
You keep hurling Marxist like you knew something about it, but clearly
you've just expressed your total ignorance of it.  Marxist ideology is
something an activist pseudo-intellectual elite imposed on the poor,
not what the poor actually craved for themselves as an ideology to
live by.  In fact, what Marxists did in the Soviet Union is very much
similar to how Republicans treat the poor in the U.S. - dismissively,
and only reached out to whenever it becomes in their political
interest to do so before the poor are dismissed again after
politicians get what they want from them, like winning elections on
false and misleading promises, after which it's back to the poor house
for the poor so the fat cats can continue to suck money into their
pockets at an obscene rate with Republicans' full permission,
especially when they become the administration.  That's very Marxist
by Republicans who cleverly do it under the guise of good ol' American
know-how.   Just like the Hitlerian tactic they use of repeating a lie
often enough that it then becomes a truth.  Only for the
intellectually fragile, that is - like you.
Why do you think Communism is so attractive. It appeals to the have
nots. Communism gets its strength by promising the poor government
will provide for everything. You knowing of Marx and his ideological
followers. Obama went to a church for 20 years that was founded on
liberation theology. Liberation theology has Marxist roots. Ignorance
of the facts is blinded by your loyalty to Marxism.
Hey, you've lived in a country all your life that was founded on life,
liberty and justice for all.  Where's the life if you can't afford
health insurance?  Where's the liberty if you can't drive a car
without a license issued by the government of all people?  Where's the
justice when multi-billion dollar corporations get multi-billion
dollar bailouts and you get nothing because you have nothing?  Just
because you belong to something doesn't mean its foundation is to be
believed by you.
Where's the life when Liberals, such as Barack Obama, support late
term abortions?
He can support anything he likes, it's a free country - right?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
"life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness was
written in the Declaration of Independence. Health insurance was not
even offered to people until 1929.  Health insurance is not a right.
Women voting wasn't a right either, but they got it. Blacks sitting
in the front of the bus down in the South wasn't a right either, but
they got it. Just because it's not a right doesn't mean it can't be
gotten. The smarter and more aware people become, the more rights are
established. Only those not very smart and not very aware would argue
against more rights, which actually means being against more freedom.
Freedom - isn't that something you're trying to poorly convince me
that you actually have? Oh, I see it's good for you but not for
others. You see how you can't even think straight about what freedom
really means and why I can't take you seriously?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You have the liberty to ride a bicycle or walk.
That's all? Can't you name anything more important than that as a
liberty? Looks like you're perfectly happy to be "free" to just walk
and ride a bike.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
A drivers' license is
just a certificate verifying a person has taken a test on the rules of
the road
Rules! There, you see? If you want to be free to drive, you
shouldn't have any rules at all. Forget speed limits, don't bother me
with safety belts, I want to drive drunk if I feel like it. But
noooooo, government has to control the way you should drive, and don't
you just hate that, Mr. Freedom Man?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
and knows how to operate a car. You want chaos. That's not
liberty. You want anarchy. That not an attribute of a sane person.
Anarchy? You're against anarchy? But that's true freedom. To
control anarchy is to be Marxist and fascist, exerting restrictions on
people to prevent them from doing "what they please". You know, like
what you said above: "I do what I please." What an anarchist you are!
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Corporations were given a bailout because it was sanctioned by our
Constitutionally elected officials. The Legislative branch of
government (as prescribed in the Constitution) white the laws of the
land.
And George Bush happily signed the first bailout bill during his lame
duck days in office. Remember, he was still The Decider when it all
came crashing down.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are in dire need of a civics lesson.
And you need to see a shrink to help you make sense of yourself
because you don't know what Marxism is, you don't know what capitalism
is, you don't even know what freedom and rights are, and you think
that wealthy people deserve what they get at the expense of poor
people, and yet, you still have the gall and nerve to complain about
the rich getting a corporate bailout. You see how you just don't make
any sense?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
That is all you have said the last several posts.
And you have absorbed absolutely nothing of what I said.
There's a good reason. I am not a Marxist.
You're not even minimally bright, either.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You and Michael Moore ought to move to Havana where you will get primo
health care courtesy of your ideology of choice Communism.
Don't need to.  I already get it in a good old-fashioned capitalist
country like Canada.  There's a kick in the head for you.
Here's a kick in the butt. The American public does not want Congress'
health care reform.
First of all. Health Care is low on the list of priorities for
Americans. Their number one concern is the economy and Congress'
health care reform bill promises to be a $1 trillion sieve.
It'll be $2 trillion easily if nothing is done about it over the next
few years, everyone agrees on that, including the Republicans.  Looks
like you're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Show me your math.
Actually, it's already at $2.2 trillion or $7,471 per American, which
equals to 16% of GDP, and that's in just 2007.  It's likely to be
$8,000-$9,000 per person now, if not more, so the math keeps adding
up.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/25_NHE_Fact_Sheet.asp
You don't know squat about American government, but you can do simple
arithmetic.
Previously, you said, "Looks like you're kind of stuck between a rock
and a hard place."
You are stuck on stupid because your post is about whining about
opposition to Dummycratic health reform.
And your point is?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Gallup Poll. July 26, 2009
"Would you say that members of Congress, themselves, have a good
understanding of the issues involved in the current debate over
national health care reform, or not?"
A Good Understanding   27%
Not a Good Understanding   66%  
Unsure    7%
That says it all.
National Public Radio Poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies (R)
and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (D). July 22-26, 2009
"As you may have heard, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress
are preparing a plan to change the health care system. From what you
have heard about this plan, do you favor or oppose Obama and the
Democrats' health care proposal?"
Favor  42%
Oppose   47%
Unsure    11%
I'd say that's a big no confidence poll.
Yeah, but it's interesting how those people who favor it by 42%
outnumbers the politicians' understanding of it at 27%, and that only
47% of people oppose it while 66% of politicians don't understand it.
There's a clear correlation there between politicians' understanding
and people favoring it and politicians' not understanding it and
people opposing it.  Seems to me that compared to the politicians, the
public has a better grasp and understanding of a plan that they too
haven't read.
Why are you so intent on giving politicians  pass in reading the bill?
Politicians don't read bills, how many times do I have to tell you
that?  They only know what's in the bills by what's told to them.  And
who tells them what's in the bills?  Lobbyists.  It's the job of
lobbyists to know the stuff inside out so as to convince politicians
to vote one way or the other.  How many times have politicians
confessed in interviews that they "didn't know" that a certain
provision was in a bill and had they known, they would never have
voted for it?   They didn't know because they didn't read the bill and
because the lobbyist didn't tell him it was in the bill because doing
so would've been to that lobbyist's disadvantage.  That's the way it
works.  Wake up!
As a voter, we have the right to tell Congress to read the bill. Stop
making excuses for Congress. You're as pathetic as Congress.
Yeah, okay, then stop wasting your time in this newsgroup posting
stupid, meaningless messages and go over to Congress and tell them
exactly what you think they should be doing. We'll see how far past
the guards you'll get - so much for your imagined "right" to tell them
off.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So keep your Cannuckistani opinions to yourself.
No.  Trying to exert "government control" on me, Mr. Thinks He's As
Free As a Bird in the Land of Plenty for the Greedy?
You're such a government dependent and a jealous ne'er-do-well.
The only thing I depend on my government to do is cover my and my
family's medical bills, for which I pay 15% of my annual earnings for
full coverage, none of this pre-existing condition excuse for them to
hide behind to not cover something.  That's all.  I expect nothing
else from them.  So I'm going to be jealous of a U.S. system that
demands I pay out-of-pocket expenses amounting to tens of thousands of
dollars if an extended hospital stay is necessary just because some
HMO's rates are prohibitively and insanely beyond 15% of my earnings
for half or less the coverage I get in Canada?  Surely, you must be
joking.  You live in such an insular world of your own making that it
clearly reflects absolutely no understanding of how hassle-free a
system can really be if you just simplify it - meaning, take the
profit equation out of the picture.  And why would you even defend an
HMO to make a profit on you, anyway?  It's not like you're making any
money off them in return, so what do you care about them making money
at your expense?
Profit is what freedom is all about. We have a free market system in
the United States. 5.5% of the population in the US  does not have
health insurance. 80% of those with health insurance are satisfied
with the coverage   they have.
Profit is for the rich few, debt is for everyone else. And since the
average American man, woman and child is $30,400, or $60,100 per head
of the U.S. working population, in debt (as of February 2008, so it's
even more now), then how free do you think the average American really
is with that much debt and no spare change for out-of-pocket expenses
for any extended hospital stay due to an accident or illness and a
constant threat of defaulting on a mortage? Not quite the American
dream that you like to keep hallucinating for yourself, is it? Here,
read up on the debt and look at all the pretty charts, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The health reform bill Congress is writing is far from making health
insurance simple. The bureaucracies needed to implement the bill is
costly and reeks of inefficiencies.
Only because the Republicans, and probably even some of the more
conservative Democrats, refuse go along with a single payer system,
and that's why you're doomed.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The health care reform plan proposed by House Democrats would create
at least a dozen new federal programs, boards and task forces,
contributing to the proposal's hefty price tag.
Yeah, just like Homeland Security added dozens of new layers of
bureacracies and just about everything else the government got off the
ground as well. So what's new? It's the way America does business.
Don't like it, move to a socialist or communist state.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The health care reform bill, which is expected to cost roughly $1
trillion over 10 years, would create a public health insurance plan
and a health insurance "exchange," a clearinghouse where consumers
will be able to shop for public or private coverage. The programs will
require a massive undertaking by the federal government that analysts
say likely will take years to fully implement.
Didn't take Canada that long to do it when it started its single payer
system. It was all fully in place within a year. Gee, I wonder how
that was possible? Like, where there's a will, there's a way, maybe?
Can't be that simple, can it?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Tracking $1 trillion will done by Congressional Committees.  Tracking
the profit margin of an insurance company will be much easier since
they already have the infrastructure to do quarterly financial
statements.
But you're forgetting that there isn't just one insurance company in
the country. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of them. Sounds
just as bad as having a couple of dozen new government bureaucracies
now, doesn't it?
Bugsy Siegel
2009-08-07 00:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
That's capitalism for ya.
Spoken like a true Marxist.
You want a single payer health plan.
Yeah!
Of course you. You believe in government control in all aspects of
your life. You must be looking for a commission in Obama's Domestic SS
Corps.
You're so naive.  You're already living under, and always have been,
government control over just about every aspect of your life.  If not
direct control, then indirect control, if not overt control, then
surreptitious control.  There's nothing you can say or do that won't
bump into any of those controls, with those controls being all the
rules, regulations and laws government has imposed on you to abide by
or else.  You're not as free as you delude yourself into believing you
are, and yet, you still spew the same brainwashed "America - Live Free
or Die" malarky.
You're not only a Marxist, you're also a Fascist since you are easy to
jump hoops for a controlling government.  So many Russian miss the old
USSR because they want government to be their sole provider and old
school Communists, like Putin, miss the old USSR because they miss the
control aspects.
Well, first of all, there is no real democracy in the USSR, so it's
not because people are disenchanted with it because they really don't
have it yet.  The country is mostly in a state of corruption, so yeah,
maybe the communist way of doing things was better, especially for the
disadvantaged, and that's why they'd like to return to it.  Give them,
or anyone else for that matter, true democracy as democracy is meant
to be run (and not any kind of so-called democracy modelled after that
of the U.S. way of doing things) and then you'd have very few
complaints, as you probably would in the U.S. itself.
The mere fact you blame wealthy people for poor people makes you a
Marxist.
No, it makes me sympathetic to people who have nothing and not very
sympathetic to people who have everything at the expense of those who
have nothing. You know, sort of the opposite of how you feel.
There you go again, blaming the wealthy for making people poor. I've
got to hand it to you, you have the Marxist rhetoric down pat.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
I remember Obama talking about a civilian corps that will be funded
equal to the military. That's so KGB.
Yeah, that's so subversive, sending off innocent young 'uns into parts
unknown to help people restructure their countries, communities and
lives so that some good could come out of it.  I'm with you there all
the way, poopster.
Your ignorance is showing again.
No, that was my sense of humor. And if you had one yourself, you
would've gotten a snicker out of it.
It's humorous to other Commie Clowns, but it doesn't work for me.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Last year during a campaign stop Obama said “We cannot continue to
rely on our military in order to achieve the national security
objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security
force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
You tie that in with the appointment Jabba the Napolitano for the DHS.
Janet Napolitano, The Secretary of Homeland Security presented an
intelligence report stating that Military Veterans are characterized
as right-wing extremists. She backed it up with ties to the economy
and Barrack Obama being the first African American president, and with
Military Veterans and the training that they hold, they could be a
real threat to society.
Ain't gonna happen. Obama's got much bigger fish to fry right now, so
don't worry your little head now into a paranoid frenzy for nothing.
He sure fried a big whopper with his beerfest for his racist buddy
Skip Gates. The fish he got was easy to get. All he needed to use was
mass quantities of stink bait.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Why do you hate freedom so much?
Why do you think you even have it?
I do as I please. You, on the other hand, want government to control
your life.
You only do what the government allows you to do.
Only a control freak would accept rights given by government.

You referred to our Constitution in regards to life and liberty. You
mentioned it out of context.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness."

You have a difficult time in grasping the concept of laws in a civil
society.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You hate free enterprise.
Only when they screw you every which way with a smile.
You can't compete in a free enterprise. That's why you blame the free
market for you pathetic lot in life.
I've already competed in free enterprise and reaped nice rewards from
it, thank you, and I didn't have to go bankrupt or lose my home in the
process while taking care of my and my family's health either, thank
you single-payer system.  Something you can't say the same with any
peace of mind.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are envious of rich people.
I'm halfway there to being one myself, so why should I be envious of
rich people?
Because that's Marxist ideology. Poor people want to lower the playing
field so everyone will be equal. They'd never want poor people to
become rich. Because wealth gives one more freedom. Marxists can't
have that.
You keep hurling Marxist like you knew something about it, but clearly
you've just expressed your total ignorance of it.  Marxist ideology is
something an activist pseudo-intellectual elite imposed on the poor,
not what the poor actually craved for themselves as an ideology to
live by.  In fact, what Marxists did in the Soviet Union is very much
similar to how Republicans treat the poor in the U.S. - dismissively,
and only reached out to whenever it becomes in their political
interest to do so before the poor are dismissed again after
politicians get what they want from them, like winning elections on
false and misleading promises, after which it's back to the poor house
for the poor so the fat cats can continue to suck money into their
pockets at an obscene rate with Republicans' full permission,
especially when they become the administration.  That's very Marxist
by Republicans who cleverly do it under the guise of good ol' American
know-how.   Just like the Hitlerian tactic they use of repeating a lie
often enough that it then becomes a truth.  Only for the
intellectually fragile, that is - like you.
Why do you think Communism is so attractive. It appeals to the have
nots. Communism gets its strength by promising the poor government
will provide for everything. You knowing of Marx and his ideological
followers. Obama went to a church for 20 years that was founded on
liberation theology. Liberation theology has Marxist roots. Ignorance
of the facts is blinded by your loyalty to Marxism.
Hey, you've lived in a country all your life that was founded on life,
liberty and justice for all.  Where's the life if you can't afford
health insurance?  Where's the liberty if you can't drive a car
without a license issued by the government of all people?  Where's the
justice when multi-billion dollar corporations get multi-billion
dollar bailouts and you get nothing because you have nothing?  Just
because you belong to something doesn't mean its foundation is to be
believed by you.
Where's the life when Liberals, such as Barack Obama, support late
term abortions?
He can support anything he likes, it's a free country - right?
So you interpret the "life" clause in the DOI as meaning the right to
take life at one's leisure.

You haven't a clue what the passage "We hold these Truths to be
self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." means.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
"life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness was
written in the Declaration of Independence. Health insurance was not
even offered to people until 1929.  Health insurance is not a right.
Women voting wasn't a right either, but they got it. Blacks sitting
in the front of the bus down in the South wasn't a right either, but
they got it. Just because it's not a right doesn't mean it can't be
gotten. The smarter and more aware people become, the more rights are
established. Only those not very smart and not very aware would argue
against more rights, which actually means being against more freedom.
Freedom - isn't that something you're trying to poorly convince me
that you actually have? Oh, I see it's good for you but not for
others. You see how you can't even think straight about what freedom
really means and why I can't take you seriously?
You have no concept of freedom since you have devoted yourself to be
subservient to government.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You have the liberty to ride a bicycle or walk.
That's all? Can't you name anything more important than that as a
liberty? Looks like you're perfectly happy to be "free" to just walk
and ride a bike.
You're a government lackey. You're hopeless. You want to give rights
where such rights don't exist or even implied in historical documents.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
A drivers' license is
just a certificate verifying a person has taken a test on the rules of
the road
Rules! There, you see? If you want to be free to drive, you
shouldn't have any rules at all. Forget speed limits, don't bother me
with safety belts, I want to drive drunk if I feel like it. But
noooooo, government has to control the way you should drive, and don't
you just hate that, Mr. Freedom Man?
Rules give order to a society. Without rules, anarchy would reign.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
and knows how to operate a car. You want chaos. That's not
liberty. You want anarchy. That not an attribute of a sane person.
Anarchy? You're against anarchy? But that's true freedom. To
control anarchy is to be Marxist and fascist, exerting restrictions on
people to prevent them from doing "what they please". You know, like
what you said above: "I do what I please." What an anarchist you are!
Like there isn't true democracy, there's isn't a true freedom. One
man's freedom may encroach on another man freedom. Society makes rules
to avoid that. I am free but realize I have to live within a certain
structure so others may enjoy the freedom I have.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Corporations were given a bailout because it was sanctioned by our
Constitutionally elected officials. The Legislative branch of
government (as prescribed in the Constitution) white the laws of the
land.
And George Bush happily signed the first bailout bill during his lame
duck days in office. Remember, he was still The Decider when it all
came crashing down.
You need to be reminded Congress makes the laws and that first bailout
was during the Donkey Party's term.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are in dire need of a civics lesson.
And you need to see a shrink to help you make sense of yourself
because you don't know what Marxism is, you don't know what capitalism
is, you don't even know what freedom and rights are, and you think
that wealthy people deserve what they get at the expense of poor
people, and yet, you still have the gall and nerve to complain about
the rich getting a corporate bailout. You see how you just don't make
any sense?
Marxism centers around Karl Marx's most famous quotes.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs."

But it is this quote that fits you more better.
"Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking
living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks."

Marxism pits the worker against management.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
That is all you have said the last several posts.
And you have absorbed absolutely nothing of what I said.
There's a good reason. I am not a Marxist.
You're not even minimally bright, either.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You and Michael Moore ought to move to Havana where you will get primo
health care courtesy of your ideology of choice Communism.
Don't need to.  I already get it in a good old-fashioned capitalist
country like Canada.  There's a kick in the head for you.
Here's a kick in the butt. The American public does not want Congress'
health care reform.
First of all. Health Care is low on the list of priorities for
Americans. Their number one concern is the economy and Congress'
health care reform bill promises to be a $1 trillion sieve.
It'll be $2 trillion easily if nothing is done about it over the next
few years, everyone agrees on that, including the Republicans.  Looks
like you're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Show me your math.
Actually, it's already at $2.2 trillion or $7,471 per American, which
equals to 16% of GDP, and that's in just 2007.  It's likely to be
$8,000-$9,000 per person now, if not more, so the math keeps adding
up.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/25_NHE_Fact_Sheet.asp
You don't know squat about American government, but you can do simple
arithmetic.
Previously, you said, "Looks like you're kind of stuck between a rock
and a hard place."
You are stuck on stupid because your post is about whining about
opposition to Dummycratic health reform.
And your point is?
The Dummycrats and Obama are scared the public is given the time to
put their health bill under a microscope because they wanted to ram it
through the public.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Gallup Poll. July 26, 2009
"Would you say that members of Congress, themselves, have a good
understanding of the issues involved in the current debate over
national health care reform, or not?"
A Good Understanding   27%
Not a Good Understanding   66%  
Unsure    7%
That says it all.
National Public Radio Poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies (R)
and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (D). July 22-26, 2009
"As you may have heard, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress
are preparing a plan to change the health care system. From what you
have heard about this plan, do you favor or oppose Obama and the
Democrats' health care proposal?"
Favor  42%
Oppose   47%
Unsure    11%
I'd say that's a big no confidence poll.
Yeah, but it's interesting how those people who favor it by 42%
outnumbers the politicians' understanding of it at 27%, and that only
47% of people oppose it while 66% of politicians don't understand it.
There's a clear correlation there between politicians' understanding
and people favoring it and politicians' not understanding it and
people opposing it.  Seems to me that compared to the politicians, the
public has a better grasp and understanding of a plan that they too
haven't read.
Why are you so intent on giving politicians  pass in reading the bill?
Politicians don't read bills, how many times do I have to tell you
that?  They only know what's in the bills by what's told to them.  And
who tells them what's in the bills?  Lobbyists.  It's the job of
lobbyists to know the stuff inside out so as to convince politicians
to vote one way or the other.  How many times have politicians
confessed in interviews that they "didn't know" that a certain
provision was in a bill and had they known, they would never have
voted for it?   They didn't know because they didn't read the bill and
because the lobbyist didn't tell him it was in the bill because doing
so would've been to that lobbyist's disadvantage.  That's the way it
works.  Wake up!
As a voter, we have the right to tell Congress to read the bill. Stop
making excuses for Congress. You're as pathetic as Congress.
Yeah, okay, then stop wasting your time in this newsgroup posting
stupid, meaningless messages and go over to Congress and tell them
exactly what you think they should be doing. We'll see how far past
the guards you'll get - so much for your imagined "right" to tell them
off.
Your comic relief. That's why I stay in this thread. You remind me of
a character played by John Candy in the movie "Volunteers." In the
film he played a Commie Convert. Candy was funny.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So keep your Cannuckistani opinions to yourself.
No.  Trying to exert "government control" on me, Mr. Thinks He's As
Free As a Bird in the Land of Plenty for the Greedy?
You're such a government dependent and a jealous ne'er-do-well.
The only thing I depend on my government to do is cover my and my
family's medical bills, for which I pay 15% of my annual earnings for
full coverage, none of this pre-existing condition excuse for them to
hide behind to not cover something.  That's all.  I expect nothing
else from them.  So I'm going to be jealous of a U.S. system that
demands I pay out-of-pocket expenses amounting to tens of thousands of
dollars if an extended hospital stay is necessary just because some
HMO's rates are prohibitively and insanely beyond 15% of my earnings
for half or less the coverage I get in Canada?  Surely, you must be
joking.  You live in such an insular world of your own making that it
clearly reflects absolutely no understanding of how hassle-free a
system can really be if you just simplify it - meaning, take the
profit equation out of the picture.  And why would you even defend an
HMO to make a profit on you, anyway?  It's not like you're making any
money off them in return, so what do you care about them making money
at your expense?
Profit is what freedom is all about. We have a free market system in
the United States. 5.5% of the population in the US  does not have
health insurance. 80% of those with health insurance are satisfied
with the coverage   they have.
Profit is for the rich few, debt is for everyone else. And since the
average American man, woman and child is $30,400, or $60,100 per head
of the U.S. working population, in debt (as of February 2008, so it's
even more now), then how free do you think the average American really
is with that much debt and no spare change for out-of-pocket expenses
for any extended hospital stay due to an accident or illness and a
constant threat of defaulting on a mortage? Not quite the American
dream that you like to keep hallucinating for yourself, is it? Here,
That's why ambition it is good. You appear to be satisfied to be
stuck in your situation. It is futile for you to better yourself.
Post by wy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The health reform bill Congress is writing is far from making health
insurance simple. The bureaucracies needed to implement the bill is
costly and reeks of inefficiencies.
Only because the Republicans, and probably even some of the more
conservative Democrats, refuse go along with a single payer system,
and that's why you're doomed.
That's a moronic excuse to explain away the bill's inadequacies.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The health care reform plan proposed by House Democrats would create
at least a dozen new federal programs, boards and task forces,
contributing to the proposal's hefty price tag.
Yeah, just like Homeland Security added dozens of new layers of
bureacracies and just about everything else the government got off the
ground as well. So what's new? It's the way America does business.
Don't like it, move to a socialist or communist state.
You don't make a new bureaucratic nightmare by blaming another
bureaucracy. That's like a child saying "well, Timmy did it ." We can
make the excuse more suited to adults. "I committed mass murder
because Charlie Manson's followers did."
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The health care reform bill, which is expected to cost roughly $1
trillion over 10 years, would create a public health insurance plan
and a health insurance "exchange," a clearinghouse where consumers
will be able to shop for public or private coverage. The programs will
require a massive undertaking by the federal government that analysts
say likely will take years to fully implement.
Didn't take Canada that long to do it when it started its single payer
system. It was all fully in place within a year. Gee, I wonder how
that was possible? Like, where there's a will, there's a way, maybe?
Can't be that simple, can it?
Congress has the worst track record in providing services to the
public.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Tracking $1 trillion will done by Congressional Committees.  Tracking
the profit margin of an insurance company will be much easier since
they already have the infrastructure to do quarterly financial
statements.
But you're forgetting that there isn't just one insurance company in
the country. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of them. Sounds
just as bad as having a couple of dozen new government bureaucracies
now, doesn't it?
Companies act independently of each other.


-

U.S. Internal Revenue Service:
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-08-07 04:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
That's capitalism for ya.
Spoken like a true Marxist.
You want a single payer health plan.
Yeah!
Of course you. You believe in government control in all aspects of
your life. You must be looking for a commission in Obama's Domestic SS
Corps.
You're so naive.  You're already living under, and always have been,
government control over just about every aspect of your life.  If not
direct control, then indirect control, if not overt control, then
surreptitious control.  There's nothing you can say or do that won't
bump into any of those controls, with those controls being all the
rules, regulations and laws government has imposed on you to abide by
or else.  You're not as free as you delude yourself into believing you
are, and yet, you still spew the same brainwashed "America - Live Free
or Die" malarky.
You're not only a Marxist, you're also a Fascist since you are easy to
jump hoops for a controlling government.  So many Russian miss the old
USSR because they want government to be their sole provider and old
school Communists, like Putin, miss the old USSR because they miss the
control aspects.
Well, first of all, there is no real democracy in the USSR, so it's
not because people are disenchanted with it because they really don't
have it yet.  The country is mostly in a state of corruption, so yeah,
maybe the communist way of doing things was better, especially for the
disadvantaged, and that's why they'd like to return to it.  Give them,
or anyone else for that matter, true democracy as democracy is meant
to be run (and not any kind of so-called democracy modelled after that
of the U.S. way of doing things) and then you'd have very few
complaints, as you probably would in the U.S. itself.
The mere fact you blame wealthy people for poor people makes you a
Marxist.
No, it makes me sympathetic to people who have nothing and not very
sympathetic to people who have everything at the expense of those who
have nothing.  You know, sort of the opposite of how you feel.
There you go again, blaming the wealthy for making people poor. I've
got to hand it to you, you have the Marxist rhetoric down pat.
It's been proven that the trickle-down economic theory has never
worked, otherwise there'd be no poor people now. So if the wealth is
not trickling down from those who have it, then yeah, the wealthy are
blamed for making people poor. Nothing Marxist about it, just
everything capitalist about it - capitalism needs to create poverty in
order to exist.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
I remember Obama talking about a civilian corps that will be funded
equal to the military. That's so KGB.
Yeah, that's so subversive, sending off innocent young 'uns into parts
unknown to help people restructure their countries, communities and
lives so that some good could come out of it.  I'm with you there all
the way, poopster.
Your ignorance is showing again.
No, that was my sense of humor.  And if you had one yourself, you
would've gotten a snicker out of it.
It's humorous to other Commie Clowns, but it doesn't work for me.
I guess your sense of humor has been lobotomized, along with your
sense of logic.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Last year during a campaign stop Obama said “We cannot continue to
rely on our military in order to achieve the national security
objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security
force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
You tie that in with the appointment Jabba the Napolitano for the DHS.
Janet Napolitano, The Secretary of Homeland Security presented an
intelligence report stating that Military Veterans are characterized
as right-wing extremists. She backed it up with ties to the economy
and Barrack Obama being the first African American president, and with
Military Veterans and the training that they hold, they could be a
real threat to society.
Ain't gonna happen.  Obama's got much bigger fish to fry right now, so
don't worry your little head now into a paranoid frenzy for nothing.
He sure fried a big whopper with his  beerfest for his racist buddy
Skip Gates. The fish he got was easy to get. All he needed to use was
mass quantities of stink bait.
Okay, now we know what we're dealing with: you're sort of like the
thing I accidentally step on that was left behind by a dog on the
pavement.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Why do you hate freedom so much?
Why do you think you even have it?
I do as I please. You, on the other hand, want government to control
your life.
You only do what the government allows you to do.
Only a control freak would accept rights given by government.
And yet, you freely accept your right to free speech and to bear arms
- given by the government. You're such a control freak.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You referred to our Constitution in regards to life and liberty. You
mentioned it out of context.
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness."
All men are not created equal, some are born blind, some are born
albino, some are born as Siamese twins (where's the equal in that?),
and what about women? There'd be no men if there were no women, so
already the constitution is grossly flawed. And what's that nonsense
about "endowed by their Creator with certian unalienable Rights"? You
ever figure out what that really means? What Creator, how do you know
there is a Creator, how do you know what certain unalienable Rights
that Creator was thinking about, to whom did this Creator relay his
message to and why don't we have it in the Creator's handwriting, how
can we be absolutely certian that the Creator meant that some of those
rights included life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What if
the pursuit of happiness is the liberty to take someone's life? Does
the constitution still apply in that case? You're such a baboon who
buys so easily into words just because they're words and fails to
understand how to read between the lines of those words and whether
they actually make sense or not.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You have a difficult time in grasping the concept of laws in a civil
society.
You have a difficult time grasping the meaning of words.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You hate free enterprise.
Only when they screw you every which way with a smile.
You can't compete in a free enterprise. That's why you blame the free
market for you pathetic lot in life.
I've already competed in free enterprise and reaped nice rewards from
it, thank you, and I didn't have to go bankrupt or lose my home in the
process while taking care of my and my family's health either, thank
you single-payer system.  Something you can't say the same with any
peace of mind.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are envious of rich people.
I'm halfway there to being one myself, so why should I be envious of
rich people?
Because that's Marxist ideology. Poor people want to lower the playing
field so everyone will be equal. They'd never want poor people to
become rich. Because wealth gives one more freedom. Marxists can't
have that.
You keep hurling Marxist like you knew something about it, but clearly
you've just expressed your total ignorance of it.  Marxist ideology is
something an activist pseudo-intellectual elite imposed on the poor,
not what the poor actually craved for themselves as an ideology to
live by.  In fact, what Marxists did in the Soviet Union is very much
similar to how Republicans treat the poor in the U.S. - dismissively,
and only reached out to whenever it becomes in their political
interest to do so before the poor are dismissed again after
politicians get what they want from them, like winning elections on
false and misleading promises, after which it's back to the poor house
for the poor so the fat cats can continue to suck money into their
pockets at an obscene rate with Republicans' full permission,
especially when they become the administration.  That's very Marxist
by Republicans who cleverly do it under the guise of good ol' American
know-how.   Just like the Hitlerian tactic they use of repeating a lie
often enough that it then becomes a truth.  Only for the
intellectually fragile, that is - like you.
Why do you think Communism is so attractive. It appeals to the have
nots. Communism gets its strength by promising the poor government
will provide for everything. You knowing of Marx and his ideological
followers. Obama went to a church for 20 years that was founded on
liberation theology. Liberation theology has Marxist roots. Ignorance
of the facts is blinded by your loyalty to Marxism.
Hey, you've lived in a country all your life that was founded on life,
liberty and justice for all.  Where's the life if you can't afford
health insurance?  Where's the liberty if you can't drive a car
without a license issued by the government of all people?  Where's the
justice when multi-billion dollar corporations get multi-billion
dollar bailouts and you get nothing because you have nothing?  Just
because you belong to something doesn't mean its foundation is to be
believed by you.
Where's the life when Liberals, such as Barack Obama, support late
term abortions?
He can support anything he likes, it's a free country - right?
So you interpret the "life" clause in the DOI as meaning the right to
take life at one's leisure.
You know, you're such a joke. Your kind cries and bellows about
protecting life on the one hand but then think nothing of the hundreds
of thousands of lives that were expunged during the Bush Iraq war for
no good reason whatsoever. Hypocrisy is something I have the hardest
time stomaching.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You haven't a clue what the passage "We hold these Truths to be
self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." means.
I just told you what it means: it doesn't mean anything that can be
supported by anything. Show me this Creator, define what life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness really means if I can't have the
liberty to pursue my happiness to take someone's life.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
"life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness was
written in the Declaration of Independence. Health insurance was not
even offered to people until 1929.  Health insurance is not a right.
Women voting wasn't a right either, but they got it.  Blacks sitting
in the front of the bus down in the South wasn't a right either, but
they got it.  Just because it's not a right doesn't mean it can't be
gotten.  The smarter and more aware people become, the more rights are
established.  Only those not very smart and not very aware would argue
against more rights, which actually means being against more freedom.
Freedom - isn't that something you're trying to poorly convince me
that you actually have?  Oh, I see it's good for you but not for
others.  You see how you can't even think straight about what freedom
really means and why I can't take you seriously?
You have no concept of freedom since you have devoted yourself to be
subservient to government.
Yeah, I'd like to see you get away with setting off fires in apartment
buildings. You can bet you'll be very subservient to the government
when you end up in prison. The fact that you don't do it (at least I
think you don't) proves you're also being subservient to the
government by behaving within government laws. You see, you can't win
either way. You're such a slave to Uncle Sam and you don't even know
it.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You have the liberty to ride a bicycle or walk.
That's all?  Can't you name anything more important than that as a
liberty?  Looks like you're perfectly happy to be "free" to just walk
and ride a bike.
You're a government lackey. You're hopeless. You want to give rights
where such rights don't exist or even implied in historical documents.
So you can't name anything more important than riding a bike or taking
a walk as a definition of liberty. I thought it'd be a strain on your
brain.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
A drivers' license is
just a certificate verifying a person has taken a test on the rules of
the road
Rules!  There, you see?  If you want to be free to drive, you
shouldn't have any rules at all.  Forget speed limits, don't bother me
with safety belts, I want to drive drunk if I feel like it.  But
noooooo, government has to control the way you should drive, and don't
you just hate that, Mr. Freedom Man?
Rules give order to a society. Without rules, anarchy would reign.
Government control, government control, government control! Only a
control freak would go for that! Sound familiar?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
and knows how to operate a car. You want chaos. That's not
liberty. You want anarchy. That not an attribute of a sane person.
Anarchy?  You're against anarchy?  But that's true freedom.  To
control anarchy is to be Marxist and fascist, exerting restrictions on
people to prevent them from doing "what they please".  You know, like
what you said above: "I do what I please."  What an anarchist you are!
Like there isn't true democracy, there's isn't a true freedom. One
man's freedom may encroach on another man freedom. Society makes rules
to avoid that. I am free but realize I have to live within a certain
structure so others may enjoy the freedom I have.
Government control again! Control freak. And you call me subservient
to government. Your hypocrisy is simply boundless.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Corporations were given a bailout because it was sanctioned by our
Constitutionally elected officials. The Legislative branch of
government (as prescribed in the Constitution) white the laws of the
land.
And George Bush happily signed the first bailout bill during his lame
duck days in office.  Remember, he was still The Decider when it all
came crashing down.
You need to be reminded Congress makes the laws and that first bailout
was during the  Donkey Party's term.
The first bailout for banks was pushed through in the fall during the
Bush reign. The Obama reign only began in late January, after which
the auto industry bailouts happened. There's a reminder for you.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You are in dire need of a civics lesson.
And you need to see a shrink to help you make sense of yourself
because you don't know what Marxism is, you don't know what capitalism
is, you don't even know what freedom and rights are, and you think
that wealthy people deserve what they get at the expense of poor
people, and yet, you still have the gall and nerve to complain about
the rich getting a corporate bailout.  You see how you just don't make
any sense?
Marxism centers around Karl Marx's most famous quotes.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs."
But it is this quote that fits you more better.
"Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking
living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks."
Yeah, and your point is?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Marxism pits the worker against management.
Well, when things are run as badly as they have been the last couple
of years, there's a good reason why workers should be against
management, especially when workers see their tax money going into
supporting management with bailouts while management at the same time
lays people off. Good old capitalism hard at work at the expense of
Joe Blow as usual. What about that don't you get?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
That is all you have said the last several posts.
And you have absorbed absolutely nothing of what I said.
There's a good reason. I am not a Marxist.
You're not even minimally bright, either.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
You and Michael Moore ought to move to Havana where you will get primo
health care courtesy of your ideology of choice Communism.
Don't need to.  I already get it in a good old-fashioned capitalist
country like Canada.  There's a kick in the head for you.
Here's a kick in the butt. The American public does not want Congress'
health care reform.
First of all. Health Care is low on the list of priorities for
Americans. Their number one concern is the economy and Congress'
health care reform bill promises to be a $1 trillion sieve.
It'll be $2 trillion easily if nothing is done about it over the next
few years, everyone agrees on that, including the Republicans.  Looks
like you're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Show me your math.
Actually, it's already at $2.2 trillion or $7,471 per American, which
equals to 16% of GDP, and that's in just 2007.  It's likely to be
$8,000-$9,000 per person now, if not more, so the math keeps adding
up.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/25_NHE_Fact_Sheet.asp
You don't know squat about American government, but you can do simple
arithmetic.
Previously, you said, "Looks like you're kind of stuck between a rock
and a hard place."
You are stuck on stupid because your post is about whining about
opposition to Dummycratic health reform.
And your point is?
The Dummycrats and Obama are scared the public is given the time to
put their health bill under a microscope because they wanted to ram it
through the public.
Maybe. But it doesn't matter because whatever they come up with, if
it's not single payer system, it'll still be a losing proposition for
everyone.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Gallup Poll. July 26, 2009
"Would you say that members of Congress, themselves, have a good
understanding of the issues involved in the current debate over
national health care reform, or not?"
A Good Understanding   27%
Not a Good Understanding   66%  
Unsure    7%
That says it all.
National Public Radio Poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies (R)
and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (D). July 22-26, 2009
"As you may have heard, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress
are preparing a plan to change the health care system. From what you
have heard about this plan, do you favor or oppose Obama and the
Democrats' health care proposal?"
Favor  42%
Oppose   47%
Unsure    11%
I'd say that's a big no confidence poll.
Yeah, but it's interesting how those people who favor it by 42%
outnumbers the politicians' understanding of it at 27%, and that only
47% of people oppose it while 66% of politicians don't understand it.
There's a clear correlation there between politicians' understanding
and people favoring it and politicians' not understanding it and
people opposing it.  Seems to me that compared to the politicians, the
public has a better grasp and understanding of a plan that they too
haven't read.
Why are you so intent on giving politicians  pass in reading the bill?
Politicians don't read bills, how many times do I have to tell you
that?  They only know what's in the bills by what's told to them.  And
who tells them what's in the bills?  Lobbyists.  It's the job of
lobbyists to know the stuff inside out so as to convince politicians
to vote one way or the other.  How many times have politicians
confessed in interviews that they "didn't know" that a certain
provision was in a bill and had they known, they would never have
voted for it?   They didn't know because they didn't read the bill and
because the lobbyist didn't tell him it was in the bill because doing
so would've been to that lobbyist's disadvantage.  That's the way it
works.  Wake up!
As a voter, we have the right to tell Congress to read the bill. Stop
making excuses for Congress. You're as pathetic as Congress.
Yeah, okay, then stop wasting your time in this newsgroup posting
stupid, meaningless messages and go over to Congress and tell them
exactly what you think they should be doing.  We'll see how far past
the guards you'll get - so much for your imagined "right" to tell them
off.
Your comic relief. That's why I stay in this thread. You remind me of
a character played by John Candy in the movie "Volunteers." In the
film he played a Commie Convert. Candy was funny.
That's why you stay in this thread^ So much for your civic duty to
your country, right? And you say I need a civics lesson. Can anyone
say hypocrite?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
So keep your Cannuckistani opinions to yourself.
No.  Trying to exert "government control" on me, Mr. Thinks He's As
Free As a Bird in the Land of Plenty for the Greedy?
You're such a government dependent and a jealous ne'er-do-well.
The only thing I depend on my government to do is cover my and my
family's medical bills, for which I pay 15% of my annual earnings for
full coverage, none of this pre-existing condition excuse for them to
hide behind to not cover something.  That's all.  I expect nothing
else from them.  So I'm going to be jealous of a U.S. system that
demands I pay out-of-pocket expenses amounting to tens of thousands of
dollars if an extended hospital stay is necessary just because some
HMO's rates are prohibitively and insanely beyond 15% of my earnings
for half or less the coverage I get in Canada?  Surely, you must be
joking.  You live in such an insular world of your own making that it
clearly reflects absolutely no understanding of how hassle-free a
system can really be if you just simplify it - meaning, take the
profit equation out of the picture.  And why would you even defend an
HMO to make a profit on you, anyway?  It's not like you're making any
money off them in return, so what do you care about them making money
at your expense?
Profit is what freedom is all about. We have a free market system in
the United States. 5.5% of the population in the US  does not have
health insurance. 80% of those with health insurance are satisfied
with the coverage   they have.
Profit is for the rich few, debt is for everyone else.  And since the
average American man, woman and child is $30,400, or $60,100 per head
of the U.S. working population, in debt  (as of February 2008, so it's
even more now), then how free do you think the average American really
is with that much debt and no spare change for out-of-pocket expenses
for any extended hospital stay due to an accident or illness and a
constant threat of defaulting on a mortage?  Not quite the American
dream that you like to keep hallucinating for yourself, is it?  Here,
That's why  ambition it is good. You appear to be satisfied to be
stuck in your situation. It is futile for you to better yourself.
Well, speak for yourself because I'm sure just like that Steve guy in
this thread, you"re probably living with your 80-year-old mom staring
out at the garden all day every day and then come in to post to a
newsgroup just to break the monotony of your life.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The health reform bill Congress is writing is far from making health
insurance simple. The bureaucracies needed to implement the bill is
costly and reeks of inefficiencies.
Only because the Republicans, and probably even some of the more
conservative Democrats, refuse go along with a single payer system,
and that's why you're doomed.
That's a moronic excuse to explain away the bill's inadequacies.
I give you something to do and I tell you the 50 things you have to do
to get it done in a day, or I tell you 3 things you can do to get the
same thing done in half-a-day. There's the difference between a non-
single payer system and a single payer system. If you prefer to waste
your time doing 17 times the work, fine by me, you're the one paying
the wasted bills and taxes.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The health care reform plan proposed by House Democrats would create
at least a dozen new federal programs, boards and task forces,
contributing to the proposal's hefty price tag.
Yeah, just like Homeland Security added dozens of new layers of
bureacracies and just about everything else the government got off the
ground as well.  So what's new?  It's the way America does business.
Don't like it, move to a socialist or communist state.
You don't make a new bureaucratic nightmare by blaming another
bureaucracy. That's like a child saying "well, Timmy did it ." We can
make the excuse more suited to adults. "I committed mass murder
because   Charlie Manson's followers did."
Then explain why America keeps repeating the same mistake.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
The health care reform bill, which is expected to cost roughly $1
trillion over 10 years, would create a public health insurance plan
and a health insurance "exchange," a clearinghouse where consumers
will be able to shop for public or private coverage. The programs will
require a massive undertaking by the federal government that analysts
say likely will take years to fully implement.
Didn't take Canada that long to do it when it started its single payer
system.  It was all fully in place within a year.  Gee, I wonder how
that was possible?  Like, where there's a will, there's a way, maybe?
Can't be that simple, can it?
Congress has the worst track record in providing services to the
public.
Congress provides no services, it's the bureacracies created by
congress. I thought you'd know that by now.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Tracking $1 trillion will done by Congressional Committees.  Tracking
the profit margin of an insurance company will be much easier since
they already have the infrastructure to do quarterly financial
statements.
But you're forgetting that there isn't just one insurance company in
the country.  There are hundreds, if not thousands, of them.  Sounds
just as bad as having a couple of dozen new government bureaucracies
now, doesn't it?
Companies act independently of each other.
Yeah, so? The services they provide are still a rip-off to the
public, costing Americans twice as much for half coverage as Canadians
pay for full coverage. Your point is?
Bugsy Siegel
2009-08-08 03:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
It's been proven that the trickle-down economic theory has never
worked, otherwise there'd be no poor people now. So if the wealth is
not trickling down from those who have it, then yeah, the wealthy are
blamed for making people poor. Nothing Marxist about it, just
everything capitalist about it - capitalism needs to create poverty in
order to exist.
That's so Marxist of you.

Reagan used 4 principles to his economy:

1. Reductions in tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth.
This consisted of, first, a reduction in the top income tax rate of
70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across the board reduction in income
tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates
further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%. Reagan also cut
corporate income tax rates and capital gains tax rates

2. Spending Reductions. The reductions included a $31 billion cut in
spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the
equivalent of about $150 billion in spending cuts for the year in
2008. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined
by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover,
in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never
returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! By
1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in
constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense buildup, total federal
spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988
and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government
relative to the economy of 10%

3. Anti-inflation monetary policy to restrain money supply growth.

4. Deregulation. Reagan’s deregulation plan has now saved consumers an
estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first
executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural
gas. Production soared, and the price of oil declined by over 50%.”

The results gave the US a 25-year economic boom creating more wealth
than any other time in our nation’s history.

Obama wants to use trickle up economics. With that in mind , who would
ask for a job? A wealthy person or a poor person.



-

U.S. Internal Revenue Service:
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-08-08 05:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
It's been proven that the trickle-down economic theory has never
worked, otherwise there'd be no poor people now.  So if the wealth is
not trickling down from those who have it, then yeah, the wealthy are
blamed for making people poor.  Nothing Marxist about it, just
everything capitalist about it - capitalism needs to create poverty in
order to exist.
That's so Marxist of you.
1. Reductions in tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth.
This consisted of, first, a reduction in the top income tax rate of
70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across the board reduction in income
tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates
further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%. Reagan also cut
corporate income tax rates and capital gains tax rates
2. Spending Reductions. The reductions included a $31 billion cut in
spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the
equivalent of about $150 billion in spending cuts for the year in
2008. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined
by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover,
in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never
returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! By
1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in
constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense buildup, total federal
spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988
and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government
relative to the economy of 10%
3. Anti-inflation monetary policy to restrain money supply growth.
4. Deregulation. Reagan’s deregulation plan has now saved consumers an
estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first
executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural
gas. Production soared, and the price of oil declined by over 50%.”
The results gave the US a 25-year economic boom creating more wealth
than any other time in our nation’s history.
Of course, it did no such thing at all. You conveniently forget - as
you often conveniently forget so as to suit your consistently flawed
counter-arguments - the Wall St. crash of 1987, which effectively put
a halt to the "success" of Reaganomics, followed by the recession
years of 1990 and 1991. You also conveniently forget that according
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, twice as many people found jobs
under the single term of Jimmy Carter, 10 million, than under two
terms of Ronald Reagan, 5 million. Where was trickle down working
under Reagan when it could only come up with just 5 million new jobs?
And sure, Reagan cut taxes, but you again conveniently forgot that the
tax cuts were for the wealthy, while he actually increased taxes on
the middle class in a lame attempt to make up the difference in the
government budget, which he had to do in order to keep the government
functioning and not go into deficit. But oops, too late, he went into
deficit, the wealthy lost their money in the Wall St. crash, and only
half the people found new jobs from trickle-down economics than in the
good old days of Jimmy Carter when the wealthy had reins put on their
reckless madness from getting out of hand. The numbers alone should
tell you something: 10 million new jobs in 4 years without trickle-
down, only 5 million in 8 years with trickle-down.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Obama wants to use trickle up economics. With that in mind , who would
ask for a job? A wealthy person or a poor person.
The more you express your opinions, the more embarassing you sound.
This is how trickle up economics works. You hire someone and pay him
a decent wage so that he can actually have solid purchasing power, one
that won't send him into debt. He buys, companies make money off him
and everybody is happy. Now this is how trickle down economics
works. You hire someone but pay him minimum wage so that you can make
more money at his expense. Of course, if he's making minimum wage, he
can't buy much and he often goes into debt, which really restricts him
from buying much. And then the wealthy themselves end up going to
debt because not as many people are buying as much as they should to
keep things moving nicely. But the difference is, as you should've
very well learned by now but still seem to be quite dense about it, is
that as the poor shnook of a minimum wage worker finds himself in debt
with no relief in sight, he also now has to support the wealthy to
stay afloat with bailout money coming out of his own taxes, both
present and future taxes. And so you support unbridled greed
because....?
Bugsy Siegel
2009-08-08 15:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
It's been proven that the trickle-down economic theory has never
worked, otherwise there'd be no poor people now.  So if the wealth is
not trickling down from those who have it, then yeah, the wealthy are
blamed for making people poor.  Nothing Marxist about it, just
everything capitalist about it - capitalism needs to create poverty in
order to exist.
That's so Marxist of you.
1. Reductions in tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth.
This consisted of, first, a reduction in the top income tax rate of
70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across the board reduction in income
tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates
further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%. Reagan also cut
corporate income tax rates and capital gains tax rates
2. Spending Reductions. The reductions included a $31 billion cut in
spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the
equivalent of about $150 billion in spending cuts for the year in
2008. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined
by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover,
in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never
returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! By
1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in
constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense buildup, total federal
spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988
and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government
relative to the economy of 10%
3. Anti-inflation monetary policy to restrain money supply growth.
4. Deregulation. Reagan’s deregulation plan has now saved consumers an
estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first
executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural
gas. Production soared, and the price of oil declined by over 50%.”
The results gave the US a 25-year economic boom creating more wealth
than any other time in our nation’s history.
Of course, it did no such thing at all. You conveniently forget - as
you often conveniently forget so as to suit your consistently flawed
counter-arguments - the Wall St. crash of 1987, which effectively put
a halt to the "success" of Reaganomics, followed by the recession
years of 1990 and 1991. You also conveniently forget that according
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, twice as many people found jobs
under the single term of Jimmy Carter, 10 million, than under two
terms of Ronald Reagan, 5 million. Where was trickle down working
under Reagan when it could only come up with just 5 million new jobs?
And sure, Reagan cut taxes, but you again conveniently forgot that the
tax cuts were for the wealthy, while he actually increased taxes on
the middle class in a lame attempt to make up the difference in the
government budget, which he had to do in order to keep the government
functioning and not go into deficit. But oops, too late, he went into
deficit, the wealthy lost their money in the Wall St. crash, and only
half the people found new jobs from trickle-down economics than in the
good old days of Jimmy Carter when the wealthy had reins put on their
reckless madness from getting out of hand. The numbers alone should
tell you something: 10 million new jobs in 4 years without trickle-
down, only 5 million in 8 years with trickle-down.
Reagan's policies helped spur the 1990s boom and were integral to the
high-tech revolution. Despite the deficits, however, even the most
jaded observers generally agree that Reagan's push for business
deregulation, tax reform (lower rates and fewer loopholes), and market
forces helped pave a path toward higher productivity growth.
Ironically, productivity growth surged after Reagan's presidency ended
and his successors started reducing the budget deficit.
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Obama wants to use trickle up economics. With that in mind , who would
ask for a job? A wealthy person or a poor person.
The more you express your opinions, the more embarassing you sound.
This is how trickle up economics works. You hire someone and pay him
a decent wage so that he can actually have solid purchasing power, one
that won't send him into debt. He buys, companies make money off him
and everybody is happy. Now this is how trickle down economics
works. You hire someone but pay him minimum wage so that you can make
more money at his expense. Of course, if he's making minimum wage, he
can't buy much and he often goes into debt, which really restricts him
from buying much. And then the wealthy themselves end up going to
debt because not as many people are buying as much as they should to
keep things moving nicely. But the difference is, as you should've
very well learned by now but still seem to be quite dense about it, is
that as the poor shnook of a minimum wage worker finds himself in debt
with no relief in sight, he also now has to support the wealthy to
stay afloat with bailout money coming out of his own taxes, both
present and future taxes. And so you support unbridled greed
because....?
You have so much whine in you, it would make Napa Valley jealous.

From whom where that person will get a job? Will that person get a
decent wage from an employer who has a good bottom line or from an
employer who is on the brink of bankruptcy?

Nobody forces a person to take a minimum wage job.

Bottom line: You are a Marxist, an envious one at that.


-

U.S. Internal Revenue Service:
an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts
of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.
wy
2009-08-08 16:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
It's been proven that the trickle-down economic theory has never
worked, otherwise there'd be no poor people now.  So if the wealth is
not trickling down from those who have it, then yeah, the wealthy are
blamed for making people poor.  Nothing Marxist about it, just
everything capitalist about it - capitalism needs to create poverty in
order to exist.
That's so Marxist of you.
1. Reductions in tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth.
This consisted of, first, a reduction in the top income tax rate of
70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across the board reduction in income
tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates
further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%. Reagan also cut
corporate income tax rates and capital gains tax rates
2. Spending Reductions. The reductions included a $31 billion cut in
spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the
equivalent of about $150 billion in spending cuts for the year in
2008. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined
by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover,
in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never
returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! By
1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in
constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense buildup, total federal
spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988
and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government
relative to the economy of 10%
3. Anti-inflation monetary policy to restrain money supply growth.
4. Deregulation. Reagan’s deregulation plan has now saved consumers an
estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first
executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural
gas. Production soared, and the price of oil declined by over 50%.”
The results gave the US a 25-year economic boom creating more wealth
than any other time in our nation’s history.
Of course, it did no such thing at all.  You conveniently forget - as
you often conveniently forget so as to suit your consistently flawed
counter-arguments - the Wall St. crash of 1987, which effectively put
a halt to the "success" of Reaganomics, followed by the recession
years of 1990 and 1991.  You also conveniently forget that according
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, twice as many people found jobs
under the single term of Jimmy Carter, 10 million, than under two
terms of Ronald Reagan, 5 million.  Where was trickle down working
under Reagan when it could only come up with just 5 million new jobs?
And sure, Reagan cut taxes, but you again conveniently forgot that the
tax cuts were for the wealthy, while he actually increased taxes on
the middle class in a lame attempt to make up the difference in the
government budget, which he had to do in order to keep the government
functioning and not go into deficit.  But oops, too late, he went into
deficit, the wealthy lost their money in the Wall St. crash, and only
half the people found new jobs from trickle-down economics than in the
good old days of Jimmy Carter when the wealthy had reins put on their
reckless madness from getting out of hand.  The numbers alone should
tell you something: 10 million new jobs in 4 years without trickle-
down, only 5 million in 8 years with trickle-down.
Reagan's policies helped spur the 1990s boom and were integral to the
high-tech revolution. Despite the deficits, however, even the most
jaded observers generally agree that Reagan's push for business
deregulation, tax reform (lower rates and fewer loopholes), and market
forces helped pave a path toward higher productivity growth.
Ironically, productivity growth surged after Reagan's presidency ended
and his successors started reducing the budget deficit.
And it's funny how Reaganomics still underperformed that of the
relatively high stability of productivity growth throughout the 1960s
and first half of the 1970s *without* Reaganomics and *with*
regulation. See the pretty chart:

Loading Image...

Average out the growth rates among the periods and Reaganomics is a
bit of a bust.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Obama wants to use trickle up economics. With that in mind , who would
ask for a job? A wealthy person or a poor person.
The more you express your opinions, the more embarassing you sound.
This is how trickle up economics works.  You hire someone and pay him
a decent wage so that he can actually have solid purchasing power, one
that won't send him into debt.  He buys, companies make money off him
and everybody is happy.  Now this is how trickle down economics
works.  You hire someone but pay him minimum wage so that you can make
more money at his expense.  Of course, if he's making minimum wage, he
can't buy much and he often goes into debt, which really restricts him
from buying much.  And then the wealthy themselves end up going to
debt because not as many people are buying as much as they should to
keep things moving nicely.  But the difference is, as you should've
very well learned by now but still seem to be quite dense about it, is
that as the poor shnook of a minimum wage worker finds himself in debt
with no relief in sight, he also now has to support the wealthy to
stay afloat with bailout money coming out of his own taxes, both
present and future taxes.  And so you support unbridled greed
because....?
You have so much whine in you, it would make Napa Valley jealous.
Yeah. Funny. Try to be a bit more original. But then, that's asking
for a bit much from a conservative.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
From whom where that person will get a job? Will that person get a
decent wage from an employer who has a good bottom line or from an
employer who is on the brink of bankruptcy?
What a buffoon you continue to make yourself out to be. People get
jobs where they can find them according to their capabilities and
experience, and how much they get paid depends on how much the company
earns which, in turn, depends on its sales, which, in turn, depends on
how wealthy consumers are, which, in turn, depends on how well they
get paid in order to spend in a way so as not to get into debt and be
unable to spend as much, which, in turn, would weaken company sales,
which, in turn, would reduce the salaries of people looking for work
or, more likely, result in people not getting work at all. How much
simpler does it have to get before you can understand it?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Nobody forces a person to take a minimum wage job.
Except his starving family, especially if there's nothing else he's
able to get. You don't have a family, do you? Explains why you just
don't get it.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Bottom line: You are a Marxist, an envious one at that.
Bottom line: I'm a practicalist, something *you* should be envious of.
Steve
2009-08-08 21:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
It's been proven that the trickle-down economic theory has never
worked, otherwise there'd be no poor people now.  So if the wealth is
not trickling down from those who have it, then yeah, the wealthy are
blamed for making people poor.  Nothing Marxist about it, just
everything capitalist about it - capitalism needs to create poverty in
order to exist.
That's so Marxist of you.
1. Reductions in tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth.
This consisted of, first, a reduction in the top income tax rate of
70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across the board reduction in income
tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates
further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%. Reagan also cut
corporate income tax rates and capital gains tax rates
2. Spending Reductions. The reductions included a $31 billion cut in
spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the
equivalent of about $150 billion in spending cuts for the year in
2008. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined
by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover,
in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never
returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! By
1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in
constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense buildup, total federal
spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988
and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government
relative to the economy of 10%
3. Anti-inflation monetary policy to restrain money supply growth.
4. Deregulation. Reagan’s deregulation plan has now saved consumers an
estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first
executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural
gas. Production soared, and the price of oil declined by over 50%.”
The results gave the US a 25-year economic boom creating more wealth
than any other time in our nation’s history.
Of course, it did no such thing at all.  You conveniently forget - as
you often conveniently forget so as to suit your consistently flawed
counter-arguments - the Wall St. crash of 1987, which effectively put
a halt to the "success" of Reaganomics, followed by the recession
years of 1990 and 1991.  You also conveniently forget that according
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, twice as many people found jobs
under the single term of Jimmy Carter, 10 million, than under two
terms of Ronald Reagan, 5 million.  Where was trickle down working
under Reagan when it could only come up with just 5 million new jobs?
And sure, Reagan cut taxes, but you again conveniently forgot that the
tax cuts were for the wealthy, while he actually increased taxes on
the middle class in a lame attempt to make up the difference in the
government budget, which he had to do in order to keep the government
functioning and not go into deficit.  But oops, too late, he went into
deficit, the wealthy lost their money in the Wall St. crash, and only
half the people found new jobs from trickle-down economics than in the
good old days of Jimmy Carter when the wealthy had reins put on their
reckless madness from getting out of hand.  The numbers alone should
tell you something: 10 million new jobs in 4 years without trickle-
down, only 5 million in 8 years with trickle-down.
Reagan's policies helped spur the 1990s boom and were integral to the
high-tech revolution. Despite the deficits, however, even the most
jaded observers generally agree that Reagan's push for business
deregulation, tax reform (lower rates and fewer loopholes), and market
forces helped pave a path toward higher productivity growth.
Ironically, productivity growth surged after Reagan's presidency ended
and his successors started reducing the budget deficit.
And it's funny how Reaganomics still underperformed that of the
relatively high stability of productivity growth throughout the 1960s
and first half of the 1970s *without* Reaganomics and *with*
http://64.78.48.77/_unpec.GIF
Average out the growth rates among the periods and Reaganomics is a
bit of a bust.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Obama wants to use trickle up economics. With that in mind , who would
ask for a job? A wealthy person or a poor person.
The more you express your opinions, the more embarassing you sound.
This is how trickle up economics works.  You hire someone and pay him
a decent wage so that he can actually have solid purchasing power, one
that won't send him into debt.  He buys, companies make money off him
and everybody is happy.  Now this is how trickle down economics
works.  You hire someone but pay him minimum wage so that you can make
more money at his expense.  Of course, if he's making minimum wage, he
can't buy much and he often goes into debt, which really restricts him
from buying much.  And then the wealthy themselves end up going to
debt because not as many people are buying as much as they should to
keep things moving nicely.  But the difference is, as you should've
very well learned by now but still seem to be quite dense about it, is
that as the poor shnook of a minimum wage worker finds himself in debt
with no relief in sight, he also now has to support the wealthy to
stay afloat with bailout money coming out of his own taxes, both
present and future taxes.  And so you support unbridled greed
because....?
You have so much whine in you, it would make Napa Valley jealous.
Yeah. Funny. Try to be a bit more original. But then, that's asking
for a bit much from a conservative.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
From whom where that person will get a job? Will that person get a
decent wage from an employer who has a good bottom line or from an
employer who is on the brink of bankruptcy?
What a buffoon you continue to make yourself out to be. People get
jobs where they can find them according to their capabilities and
experience, and how much they get paid depends on how much the company
earns which, in turn, depends on its sales, which, in turn, depends on
how wealthy consumers are, which, in turn, depends on how well they
get paid in order to spend in a way so as not to get into debt and be
unable to spend as much, which, in turn, would weaken company sales,
which, in turn, would reduce the salaries of people looking for work
or, more likely, result in people not getting work at all. How much
simpler does it have to get before you can understand it?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Nobody forces a person to take a minimum wage job.
Except his starving family, especially if there's nothing else he's
able to get. You don't have a family, do you? Explains why you just
don't get it.
Anybody in the USA, and I mean anybody that's reasonably healthy and
isn't a total moron, that can only get a minimum age job to support a
family has nobody to blame but him/herself. Whether he/she pissed
away his education possibilities or got into trouble, or produced a
family before he/she was able to support it.

--
Lost your job?

Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
wy
2009-08-08 22:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
It's been proven that the trickle-down economic theory has never
worked, otherwise there'd be no poor people now.  So if the wealth is
not trickling down from those who have it, then yeah, the wealthy are
blamed for making people poor.  Nothing Marxist about it, just
everything capitalist about it - capitalism needs to create poverty in
order to exist.
That's so Marxist of you.
1. Reductions in tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth.
This consisted of, first, a reduction in the top income tax rate of
70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across the board reduction in income
tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates
further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%. Reagan also cut
corporate income tax rates and capital gains tax rates
2. Spending Reductions. The reductions included a $31 billion cut in
spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the
equivalent of about $150 billion in spending cuts for the year in
2008. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined
by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover,
in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never
returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! By
1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in
constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense buildup, total federal
spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988
and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government
relative to the economy of 10%
3. Anti-inflation monetary policy to restrain money supply growth.
4. Deregulation. Reagan’s deregulation plan has now saved consumers an
estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first
executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural
gas. Production soared, and the price of oil declined by over 50%.”
The results gave the US a 25-year economic boom creating more wealth
than any other time in our nation’s history.
Of course, it did no such thing at all.  You conveniently forget - as
you often conveniently forget so as to suit your consistently flawed
counter-arguments - the Wall St. crash of 1987, which effectively put
a halt to the "success" of Reaganomics, followed by the recession
years of 1990 and 1991.  You also conveniently forget that according
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, twice as many people found jobs
under the single term of Jimmy Carter, 10 million, than under two
terms of Ronald Reagan, 5 million.  Where was trickle down working
under Reagan when it could only come up with just 5 million new jobs?
And sure, Reagan cut taxes, but you again conveniently forgot that the
tax cuts were for the wealthy, while he actually increased taxes on
the middle class in a lame attempt to make up the difference in the
government budget, which he had to do in order to keep the government
functioning and not go into deficit.  But oops, too late, he went into
deficit, the wealthy lost their money in the Wall St. crash, and only
half the people found new jobs from trickle-down economics than in the
good old days of Jimmy Carter when the wealthy had reins put on their
reckless madness from getting out of hand.  The numbers alone should
tell you something: 10 million new jobs in 4 years without trickle-
down, only 5 million in 8 years with trickle-down.
Reagan's policies helped spur the 1990s boom and were integral to the
high-tech revolution. Despite the deficits, however, even the most
jaded observers generally agree that Reagan's push for business
deregulation, tax reform (lower rates and fewer loopholes), and market
forces helped pave a path toward higher productivity growth.
Ironically, productivity growth surged after Reagan's presidency ended
and his successors started reducing the budget deficit.
And it's funny how Reaganomics still underperformed that of the
relatively high stability of productivity growth throughout the 1960s
and first half of the 1970s *without* Reaganomics and *with*
http://64.78.48.77/_unpec.GIF
Average out the growth rates among the periods and Reaganomics is a
bit of a bust.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Obama wants to use trickle up economics. With that in mind , who would
ask for a job? A wealthy person or a poor person.
The more you express your opinions, the more embarassing you sound.
This is how trickle up economics works.  You hire someone and pay him
a decent wage so that he can actually have solid purchasing power, one
that won't send him into debt.  He buys, companies make money off him
and everybody is happy.  Now this is how trickle down economics
works.  You hire someone but pay him minimum wage so that you can make
more money at his expense.  Of course, if he's making minimum wage, he
can't buy much and he often goes into debt, which really restricts him
from buying much.  And then the wealthy themselves end up going to
debt because not as many people are buying as much as they should to
keep things moving nicely.  But the difference is, as you should've
very well learned by now but still seem to be quite dense about it, is
that as the poor shnook of a minimum wage worker finds himself in debt
with no relief in sight, he also now has to support the wealthy to
stay afloat with bailout money coming out of his own taxes, both
present and future taxes.  And so you support unbridled greed
because....?
You have so much whine in you, it would make Napa Valley jealous.
Yeah. Funny. Try to be a bit more original.  But then, that's asking
for a bit much from a conservative.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
From whom where that person will get a job? Will that person get a
decent wage from an employer who has a good bottom line or from an
employer who is on the brink of bankruptcy?
What a buffoon you continue to make yourself out to be.  People get
jobs where they can find them according to their capabilities and
experience, and how much they get paid depends on how much the company
earns which, in turn, depends on its sales, which, in turn, depends on
how wealthy consumers are, which, in turn, depends on how well they
get paid in order to spend in a way so as not to get into debt and be
unable to spend as much, which, in turn, would weaken company sales,
which, in turn, would reduce the salaries of people looking for work
or, more likely, result in people not getting work at all.  How much
simpler does it have to get before you can understand it?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Nobody forces a person to take a minimum wage job.
Except his starving family, especially if there's nothing else he's
able to get.  You don't have a family, do you?  Explains why you just
don't get it.
Anybody in the USA, and I mean anybody that's reasonably healthy and
isn't a total moron, that can only get a minimum age job to support a
family has nobody to blame but him/herself.  Whether he/she pissed
away his education possibilities or got into trouble, or produced a
family before he/she was able to support it.      
Oh, look who's back: bored-by-it-all Steve. Get exicted by something,
did you? Of course, true to form, you have to come back with another
stupid commentary that once again highlights your sheer ignorance of
reality. Maybe the guy who has to take that minimum wage job did have
a university education and once had a great job but because he lives
in a small town and the company packed up and moved to India for
cheaper labor, and with no other high-end jobs available in that town,
that's why he has to settle for minimum wage because he can't afford
to move due to having to take personal care of his dad with Lou
Gehrig's disease, especially since he also can't afford health
coverage for him. Or maybe that guy was black or Puerto Rican or
Mexican or Asian or Indian and also had a university education, but
still managed to hit walls in the job market due to good old lingering
racism ingrained in the white boy American psyche in certain
"nameless" sectors of the country. Or maybe he is a moron because he
was born with Down's Syndrome and so who's going to hire him, right?
The true moron is the guy who flaunts his overly-bloated arrogance
while failing to understand that there are 300 million very different
stories in America, all under very different circumstances, and not
the same story that should be played out in the same way with every
one of them as some sort of irrational perfect braindead vision of
yours as to how things should be. What may work for you won't
necessarily work for someone else, and vice versa.

Clearly, the density in your brain is working overtime to ensure that
it becomes nothing but rock-solid matter.
Steve
2009-08-09 01:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by wy
It's been proven that the trickle-down economic theory has never
worked, otherwise there'd be no poor people now.  So if the wealth is
not trickling down from those who have it, then yeah, the wealthy are
blamed for making people poor.  Nothing Marxist about it, just
everything capitalist about it - capitalism needs to create poverty in
order to exist.
That's so Marxist of you.
1. Reductions in tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth.
This consisted of, first, a reduction in the top income tax rate of
70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across the board reduction in income
tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates
further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%. Reagan also cut
corporate income tax rates and capital gains tax rates
2. Spending Reductions. The reductions included a $31 billion cut in
spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the
equivalent of about $150 billion in spending cuts for the year in
2008. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined
by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover,
in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never
returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! By
1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in
constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense buildup, total federal
spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988
and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government
relative to the economy of 10%
3. Anti-inflation monetary policy to restrain money supply growth.
4. Deregulation. Reagan’s deregulation plan has now saved consumers an
estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first
executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural
gas. Production soared, and the price of oil declined by over 50%.”
The results gave the US a 25-year economic boom creating more wealth
than any other time in our nation’s history.
Of course, it did no such thing at all.  You conveniently forget - as
you often conveniently forget so as to suit your consistently flawed
counter-arguments - the Wall St. crash of 1987, which effectively put
a halt to the "success" of Reaganomics, followed by the recession
years of 1990 and 1991.  You also conveniently forget that according
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, twice as many people found jobs
under the single term of Jimmy Carter, 10 million, than under two
terms of Ronald Reagan, 5 million.  Where was trickle down working
under Reagan when it could only come up with just 5 million new jobs?
And sure, Reagan cut taxes, but you again conveniently forgot that the
tax cuts were for the wealthy, while he actually increased taxes on
the middle class in a lame attempt to make up the difference in the
government budget, which he had to do in order to keep the government
functioning and not go into deficit.  But oops, too late, he went into
deficit, the wealthy lost their money in the Wall St. crash, and only
half the people found new jobs from trickle-down economics than in the
good old days of Jimmy Carter when the wealthy had reins put on their
reckless madness from getting out of hand.  The numbers alone should
tell you something: 10 million new jobs in 4 years without trickle-
down, only 5 million in 8 years with trickle-down.
Reagan's policies helped spur the 1990s boom and were integral to the
high-tech revolution. Despite the deficits, however, even the most
jaded observers generally agree that Reagan's push for business
deregulation, tax reform (lower rates and fewer loopholes), and market
forces helped pave a path toward higher productivity growth.
Ironically, productivity growth surged after Reagan's presidency ended
and his successors started reducing the budget deficit.
And it's funny how Reaganomics still underperformed that of the
relatively high stability of productivity growth throughout the 1960s
and first half of the 1970s *without* Reaganomics and *with*
http://64.78.48.77/_unpec.GIF
Average out the growth rates among the periods and Reaganomics is a
bit of a bust.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Obama wants to use trickle up economics. With that in mind , who would
ask for a job? A wealthy person or a poor person.
The more you express your opinions, the more embarassing you sound.
This is how trickle up economics works.  You hire someone and pay him
a decent wage so that he can actually have solid purchasing power, one
that won't send him into debt.  He buys, companies make money off him
and everybody is happy.  Now this is how trickle down economics
works.  You hire someone but pay him minimum wage so that you can make
more money at his expense.  Of course, if he's making minimum wage, he
can't buy much and he often goes into debt, which really restricts him
from buying much.  And then the wealthy themselves end up going to
debt because not as many people are buying as much as they should to
keep things moving nicely.  But the difference is, as you should've
very well learned by now but still seem to be quite dense about it, is
that as the poor shnook of a minimum wage worker finds himself in debt
with no relief in sight, he also now has to support the wealthy to
stay afloat with bailout money coming out of his own taxes, both
present and future taxes.  And so you support unbridled greed
because....?
You have so much whine in you, it would make Napa Valley jealous.
Yeah. Funny. Try to be a bit more original.  But then, that's asking
for a bit much from a conservative.
Post by Bugsy Siegel
From whom where that person will get a job? Will that person get a
decent wage from an employer who has a good bottom line or from an
employer who is on the brink of bankruptcy?
What a buffoon you continue to make yourself out to be.  People get
jobs where they can find them according to their capabilities and
experience, and how much they get paid depends on how much the company
earns which, in turn, depends on its sales, which, in turn, depends on
how wealthy consumers are, which, in turn, depends on how well they
get paid in order to spend in a way so as not to get into debt and be
unable to spend as much, which, in turn, would weaken company sales,
which, in turn, would reduce the salaries of people looking for work
or, more likely, result in people not getting work at all.  How much
simpler does it have to get before you can understand it?
Post by Bugsy Siegel
Nobody forces a person to take a minimum wage job.
Except his starving family, especially if there's nothing else he's
able to get.  You don't have a family, do you?  Explains why you just
don't get it.
Anybody in the USA, and I mean anybody that's reasonably healthy and
isn't a total moron, that can only get a minimum age job to support a
family has nobody to blame but him/herself.  Whether he/she pissed
away his education possibilities or got into trouble, or produced a
family before he/she was able to s