Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 In one of your emails you laid out a scenario whereby the people who make the most money would be taxed to theoretical oblivion. There is also a scenario whereby the people who make the least will cease to exist eventually because of illness or death and there will be no one to support the 5% who make the most money. Who will pick the produce, make the cars, build the roads, run the trains, lay the tracks, pick up the garbage, etc. All people need to make a decent living in order to live. All levels of society are needed for the society to continue to exist. Rome forgot that, France forgot that. That's why those societies ceased to be big powers. It's the same with the eco system. If you destroy large parts of the earth's natural recources, you will eventually destroy the earth. Roni <>Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> > > From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> > Subject: Re: Rationing > hypothyroidism > <mailto:hypothyroidism%40> > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 1:30 PM > > Roni, the Congressional Budget reported that the top 5% of earners in > the US pay 50% of all taxes. Do you not call that giving back? The > bottom 50% pay virtually no income tax. It's old data but I doubt it's > changed much: > . ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 His idea is still IMHO 100% socialism and 100% anti-free market system. Still, I don't think I could come up with a better description of the present proposal than yours: " ... bastardized, bloated, deal mongered version... " It's so damned bad they had to bribe their own Democratic party members to support it. .. .. > > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@... > <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing> > matchermaam <matchermaam> > > > Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:49 pm (PST) > > > > I am not naive . Actually, if they congress had put together a > package really based on Obamacare instead of their own bastardized, > bloated, deal mongered version, I think most of us would be a lot > happier. I blam the congress on both sides for most of this country's > ills. Remember, the President presides, he doesn't legislate. > > Roni > <>Just because something > isn't seen doesn't mean it's > not there<> > > > > From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> > Subject: Re: Rationing > hypothyroidism > <mailto:hypothyroidism%40> > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 1:33 PM > > Then it should be one h*ll of a massive red flag to anyone with that > knowledge to know that the AMA and big pharma are firmly on board > promoting Obamacare. Why do you think that is??? > > > . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Actually the seed of the present economic situation was planted, nourished and grown from the Community Reconstruction Act of 1977. That act and all of the regulation that followed from it changed the criteria bands used for deciding to whom to make a loan from being the ability and willingness to repay a mortgage to being some other irrelevant factor such as skin color. And it sure as h*ll wasn't Bush and the Republicans who pushed it through. Here's one description of it: " The *1977* *Community* *Reconstruction* *Act* threatened commercial lenders with half million dollar fines if they denied mortgages to unqualified applicants. " As for whom to blame for economic trends look at the much touted Fabulous Clinton Years. But what really happened is that Bush one turned over to Clinton an economy that had already turned around and was heading up 8 or 10 months before Clinton took office. So the credit for the turnaround that occurred in Bush one's term should properly go to him. Then what happened? The upward economic trend handed of by Bush one to Clinton continued almost throughout his terms in office... Except for one tiny fact: Clinton turned over to his successor an economy already headed for the toilet... A matter for which, of course, the democrats blame that successor instead of the president who oversaw the creation of the problem. That's a matter of the simple historical record and no number of attempts to spin it will change it in the least. My personal biggest gripe with Bush two [GW] is his lack of adherence to conservative principles. The deficit spending alone is astonishing to anyone fiscally conservative. I didn't really think that could get any worse, but Obama makes GW look good in comparison. .. .. > > Posted by: " nancie barnett " deifspirit@... > <mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing> > aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1> > > > Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:37 pm (PST) > > > > the problem with our economy has Nothing to do with the healthcare > reform bill that is still being finalized in the house. It Hasn't even > been signed into law yet. ERGO, you can't blame the economy problems > on health care reform. blame it on Bush's era since the economy tanked > in 2007 , that is when unemployment started. That was on Bush's watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 And what happened to transparency and all those promises of this debate being aired on CSPAN? Like Dr Phil says, " people who have nothing to hide, hide nothing! " CW -- Re: Rationing > hypothyroidism > <mailto:hypothyroidism%40> > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 1:33 PM > > Then it should be one h*ll of a massive red flag to anyone with that > knowledge to know that the AMA and big pharma are firmly on board > promoting Obamacare. Why do you think that is??? > > > . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Nancie, I'm afraid you've lead a somewhat sheltered life if you're so astounded that someone might have one heck of a lot more money than anyone looking at them would guess. Read THE MILLIONAIRE NEXT DOOR, for example. And here's a blog about a number of people who have been found to have somehow accumulated much more money than anyone would probably suspect: .. .. Quote: When Saving Money Goes Extreme: Serious Savers Who Died Very Wealthy by Silicon Valley Blogger on March 10, 2008 */How to become a millionaire <http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog/index.php/2007/05/31/10-steps-to-becoming-a\ -millionaire/> by saving money to the extreme./* While there are people who love to flaunt whatever they have and give the impression that they are wealthier than they truly are, there’s this subset of individuals who work in completely the opposite way: these people are the ones who are wealthier than anyone ever suspects, and are only discovered as millionaires right after they have passed away and have bequeathed their millions to others. I've always been quite inspired by such people, but also wondered about what would possess them to hoard money in this manner. More often than not, it’s an issue of control, with “pack rat like” behavior extending to money as being the object of choice to squirrel away in this extreme fashion. Saving Money Goes Extreme: Stories Of The Unexpectedly Rich These people have been called many things — from *rich paupers*, to millionaire eccentrics, to the “surprisingly rich”. Here are some accounts <http://money.cnn.com/2003/07/31/pf/millionaire/surprisinglyrich/index.htm> of people who've lived under the radar while secretly stashing away their money. They’re living a double life. I don’t know about you, but I find this somewhat cool and intriguing. *ph Leek* left nearly $1.8 million to an organization that provides guide dogs for the blind, and nobody, not even his own family, had any idea that he had that kind of money. The 90-year-old Britisher lived like a pauper. He watched television at a neighbor’s house to save on electricity, put off home repairs, and bought secondhand clothes. *Rev. Vertrue Sharp* raised hay and cattle, preached and taught, while saving every penny he made. When he died in 1999, he left an estate of $2 million to the East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, the University of Tennessee Medical Center, and other charities. *English spinster, Guthrie Essame* was a retired nurse who lived in an old n house and who clad herself in such worn clothes and old shoes that no one knew how well off she was. Neighbors were shocked to learn that her estate amounted to a whopping $10 million when she died in January 2002. (The money was left to a host of charities.) Have you heard about the elementary school teacher <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/a_Langtry> who built up almost $4 million dollars by the age of 89? There was also the 55 year old transient <http://www.topix.net/content/kri/2007/09/man-lived-in-trash-died-a-millionaire> who lived in a trash-filled hotel room who had $1.4 million in Wachovia stocks and funds because he was afraid “his health would go bad” and that he needed to ensure he’d get medical attention when the need arose. And here’s my favorite story of all: *Joe Temeczko* was a Polish immigrant and former prisoner of war who did odd jobs and handyman repair work. He had no family and lived in a modest house which he filled with stuff he scavenged from the streets. He roamed the neighborhood to find junk to fix up and sell or give away, and would get free food from local charities and read newspapers in the store so he wouldn’t have to buy them. When he passed away at the age of 86, he left behind a $1.4 million bank account which he gifted to the City of New York. In fact, he’d rewritten his will right after 9/11. Interesting Notes About The Secretly Wealthy * There are more people of this profile than you think. Don’t look now but the shabby clothed guy standing in the corner can be worth millions. * A lot of these folks become philanthropists <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_48/b3910406.htm> and leave the bulk of their money to charity. They are ordinary people who want to make a difference in society, and who’ve done it in a special way — by allowing their money to grow throughout the years, enabling them to bequeath a large gift to their causes and helping them make an impact upon death. * On the other hand, family members of the secretly wealthy have also voiced their disappointment in finding out that they’re actually richer than they thought they were. Many have lived lives of sacrifice and deprivation affected by the lack of knowledge about their true financial status. This true status is a closely guarded secret by the patron (or matron) of the family throughout their lifetime. Not surprisingly, this can trigger a backlash among the heirs, who may then proceed to spend their inheritance willy nilly. * Many of the secretly wealth are actually quite happy and content just living the way they do (as reported by those close to them), although I’m rather baffled that anyone would like to live in flea-bitten hotels, seemingly poverty-stricken, when they could afford a decent apartment. * Keeping one’s riches secret has been looked upon as a control issue, although these extreme frugalists appear to have the common desire to surprise their heirs when they die. For those who pretend to be poorer than they are, it could be due to having the baglady anxiety syndrome, <http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog/index.php/2007/03/13/help-could-i-have-bag-\ lady-syndrome/> where they feel that no matter how much they have, it can all be gone in a split second if an emergency arises. Or they may just feel more comfortable hiding their wealth so that it could grow uninterrupted, away from prying eyes and others’ involvement. * They may also enjoy and derive pleasure from the idea that they can become the “hero” once they die and leave a legacy to others. Odd behaviors aside, these stories should prove one thing: *that ordinary people CAN indeed find themselves sitting on millions by simply living frugally.* Though I can hear you all making the argument that a lot of these folks are found to be millionaires only after *many, many years* of scrimping and only upon reaching the twilight of their lives, you really can’t argue with the hard results: they still have a million dollars more than most of us have. .. .. End of quote. For other such stories just keep an eye on your local newspaper unless you live in the boonies. .. .. > > Posted by: " nancie barnett " deifspirit@... > <mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing> > aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1> > > > Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:44 pm (PST) > > > > tell me what homeless person has 200,000 in their fanny pack?? Lol > I work with the homeless crystal on a medical level and I have NEVER > met a homeless person who is carrying around 200,000.00 in a fanny > pack and who doesn't want a roof over their heads and a safe secure > place to live with food, shelter and clean clothes! > where do you get this stuff? I can't wait to tell my colleagues who > work with the homeless about this alleged person. > > From: Crystal > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 10:59 AM > hypothyroidism > <mailto:hypothyroidism%40> > Subject: Re: Re:Rationing > > It has something to do with healthcare because that homeless man with over > 200,00 in his fanny pack can absolutely afford HC, but chooses to live on > the tax payers monies. If you think beggin for money is a legit way to > make > money then you aren't realizing that they do not claim that money on their > tax returns, therefore they are not paying into a system that supports > them. > This is un American and illeagal! If they are using this man as an example > of a person without HC then how many thousands of people who can afford do > not have it simply because they don't want to not because they can't > afford? > CW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 I honeslty think this country started going down hill with the progressive republican president Teddy Rooselvelt. BTW he was McCains presidential idol I would still have preferred McCain over Obama though, but I didn't vote for him in the primaries CW -- Re: Rationing Actually the seed of the present economic situation was planted, nourished and grown from the Community Reconstruction Act of 1977. That act and all of the regulation that followed from it changed the criteria bands used for deciding to whom to make a loan from being the ability and willingness to repay a mortgage to being some other irrelevant factor such as skin color. And it sure as h*ll wasn't Bush and the Republicans who pushed it through. Here's one description of it: " The *1977* *Community* *Reconstruction* *Act* threatened commercial lenders with half million dollar fines if they denied mortgages to unqualified applicants. " As for whom to blame for economic trends look at the much touted Fabulous Clinton Years. But what really happened is that Bush one turned over to Clinton an economy that had already turned around and was heading up 8 or 10 months before Clinton took office. So the credit for the turnaround that occurred in Bush one's term should properly go to him. Then what happened? The upward economic trend handed of by Bush one to Clinton continued almost throughout his terms in office... Except for one tiny fact: Clinton turned over to his successor an economy already headed for the toilet... A matter for which, of course, the democrats blame that successor instead of the president who oversaw the creation of the problem. That's a matter of the simple historical record and no number of attempts to spin it will change it in the least. My personal biggest gripe with Bush two [GW] is his lack of adherence to conservative principles. The deficit spending alone is astonishing to anyone fiscally conservative. I didn't really think that could get any worse, but Obama makes GW look good in comparison. .. .. > > Posted by: " nancie barnett " deifspirit@... > <mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing> > aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1> > > > Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:37 pm (PST) > > > > the problem with our economy has Nothing to do with the healthcare > reform bill that is still being finalized in the house. It Hasn't even > been signed into law yet. ERGO, you can't blame the economy problems > on health care reform. blame it on Bush's era since the economy tanked > in 2007 , that is when unemployment started. That was on Bush's watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 This article recounts one of the results of the overcrowding in UK hospitals that you insist does not exist. I could give you some more but since you know they're all lying there's not much point. .. .. * > > *Overcrowded hospitals* breed MRSA > > Moving a patient * *Overcrowded hospitals* are providing a breeding > ground for the superbug MRSA, say infection experts. * > > They warn that pressure on beds must be reduced if the bug is to be > tackled successfully. > > Professor Barry Cookson, from the Health Protection Agency, said *UK* > hospitals were more crowded than anywhere else in Europe. > > As a result patients were being shunted between wards - and sometimes > hospitals - increasing risk of exposure. > > *MRSA* > # MRSA (methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus) first appeared in > the 1960s > # Some strains are resistant to almost all known antibiotics > # Cases have increased by 600% in the past decade > # Cases are expected to double again in the next six years > # Efforts to combat it cost the NHS £1bn a year > > Professor Cookson said a reduction to a bed occupancy rate of 85% > would help stop the disease spreading. > > The lack of single-bed units also made it more difficult to isolate > patients with dangerous infections, he said. > > Speaking at a briefing in London, Professor Cookson said he understood > the political pressures to treat as many patients as possible as > quickly as possible. > > But he said while efforts to combat MRSA had focused on hand washing, > overcrowding was a key issue. > > In Sweden, a problem with MRSA had begun to emerge when bed occupancy > rates rose to 100%. > > He said: " I think we should be entering a national debate. Patients > should realise that there's a certain safety level, and above that we > start having problems. " > > He also warned that increased patient choice over which hospital to > attend was likely to increase the risk of spreading MRSA. > > *Complex care* > > Professor Cookson said MRSA often infects surgical wounds, and has > been encouraged by the increasing complexity and invasiveness of > hospital treatment. > > Modern techniques meant patients could be discharged after a shorter > stay, giving them less time to pick up infections. > > " / Very determined efforts are being made to focus action on MRSA and > reduce its impact throughout the NHS. " / > * Sir Liam son * > > However, this meant there was also a higher risk that an infection > acquired in hospital would go undetected, and develop at home, posing > a risk to other patients when the host returned for a check-up. > > Dr Alison Holmes, from the Department of Infectious Diseases at > Imperial College, London, and Hammersmith Hospital, agreed that > overcrowding was a problem. > > She said it made it difficult to keep high risk patients, such as > those undergoing orthopaedic or heart surgery, away from other groups. > > " We're trying to stick as many patients in hospital as possible. This > involves a lot of juggling and leads to an increased risk of infection. " > > The government's NHS Improvement Plan, which sets targets for the next > five years, has pledged " significant reductions " in MRSA infection > rates between now and 2010. > > Sir Liam son, the Chief Medical Officer for England, said: " The > NHS does run at high occupancy because it is treating many more > patients and cutting waiting lists. > > " In these circumstances, extra efforts have to be made to reduce the > risk of infection and this is what the NHS is doing. As the > infrastructure of the NHS is built up (more beds, more staff) it will > be easier to control problems like MRSA. > > " Very determined efforts are being made to focus action on MRSA and > reduce its impact throughout the NHS. " > > Detailed guidance on infection control was issued to health chiefs by > Sir Liam last year, pointing out the need to incorporate safety > measures in bed management. > > Liberal Democrat health spokesman, Burstow MP, said: " People go > into hospital to get better. But they are getting sicker because of > government targets and because infection control is not a high enough > priority. " > * .. .. > > > Posted by: " nancie barnett " deifspirit@... > <mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing> > aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1> > > > Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:45 pm (PST) > > > > no their not. You are LYING > > From: Crystal > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 9:30 PM > hypothyroidism > <mailto:hypothyroidism%40> > Subject: Re: Re:Rationing > > That is exactly what happens in the UK.. Their hospitals are overflowing! > CW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Damn*d if I can agree with the Mc's verdict AT ALL. Anyone foolish enough to buy a cup of hot coffee in a paper cup and hold it between their legs as they drive away are as far as I'm concerned completely responsible. A burnt @$$ is nature's way of saying, " Don't do that " ; and is something anyone who has attained the age of adulthood should already know. Going against nature and rewarding fools is IMHO counterproductive for everyone except the lawyers. YMMV. .. .. > > Posted by: " Chuck B " gumboyaya@... > <mailto:gumboyaya@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing> > gumbo482001 <gumbo482001> > > > Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:18 pm (PST) > > > > Roni, > > You wrote: > > > > Chuck, I agree there are frivolous law suits, but from what I see they > > come under the heading of female customer gets huge settlement for > > spilling hot coffee on herself. > > > > Not here. We have been facing serious doctor shortages, especially in > OBGyn, and we actually have ceilings on damages. > > The real problem is with the punitive damages. I can understand a jury > giving the lady with the hot coffee, the cost of care for a second > degree burn or a new dress, but they awarded millions, simply because > they knew Mc had deep pockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 This is not about health care; it is about government control. If this was About health care, it could be written in just a few pages; maybe 20 or 30 For a politician. I totally agree with that statement! CW -- Rationing I've been watching your discourse with great interest. There are two facts that should decrease the level of disagreement: 1. Medicare has the highest rate of denial - nearly 7%. Aetna is slightly less. And the rest are in the 4% area. It doesn't matter what individual experience is; those are the facts. " According to the American Medical Association's National <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your -practice/coding-billing-insurance/heal-claims-process/national-health-insur er-report-card/2008-nhirc.shtml> Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government's health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private insurers of 3.88%. " http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459 2. No one has to go without healthcare. There are free and reduced-cost clinics all over the U.S. In or near my zip code, there are 54 http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/ The Senate bill seeks to create another 10,000 of them. That is the slippery slope toward socialized medicine. Some of you argue for government medicine by mentioning such items as pre-existing conditions. If that is a problem, why not just fix that? Why over 2,000 pages of new programs and over 100 new bureaucracies? Why the death panel? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792304574504020025055040.ht ml This is not about health care; it is about government control. If this was about health care, it could be written in just a few pages; maybe 20 or 30 for a politician. Val Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 I didn't vote for Obama in the primaries either. Looks like neither of us got who we wanted. Roni <>Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> From: Crystal <sweetnwright@...> Subject: Re: Re: Rationing hypothyroidism Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 6:38 PM I honeslty think this country started going down hill with the progressive republican president Teddy Rooselvelt. BTW he was McCains presidential idol I would still have preferred McCain over Obama though, but I didn't vote for him in the primaries CW -- Re: Rationing Actually the seed of the present economic situation was planted, nourished and grown from the Community Reconstruction Act of 1977. That act and all of the regulation that followed from it changed the criteria bands used for deciding to whom to make a loan from being the ability and willingness to repay a mortgage to being some other irrelevant factor such as skin color. And it sure as h*ll wasn't Bush and the Republicans who pushed it through. Here's one description of it: " The *1977* *Community* *Reconstruction* *Act* threatened commercial lenders with half million dollar fines if they denied mortgages to unqualified applicants. " As for whom to blame for economic trends look at the much touted Fabulous Clinton Years. But what really happened is that Bush one turned over to Clinton an economy that had already turned around and was heading up 8 or 10 months before Clinton took office. So the credit for the turnaround that occurred in Bush one's term should properly go to him. Then what happened? The upward economic trend handed of by Bush one to Clinton continued almost throughout his terms in office... Except for one tiny fact: Clinton turned over to his successor an economy already headed for the toilet... A matter for which, of course, the democrats blame that successor instead of the president who oversaw the creation of the problem. That's a matter of the simple historical record and no number of attempts to spin it will change it in the least. My personal biggest gripe with Bush two [GW] is his lack of adherence to conservative principles. The deficit spending alone is astonishing to anyone fiscally conservative. I didn't really think that could get any worse, but Obama makes GW look good in comparison. .. .. > > Posted by: " nancie barnett " deifspirit@... > <mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing> > aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1> > > > Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:37 pm (PST) > > > > the problem with our economy has Nothing to do with the healthcare > reform bill that is still being finalized in the house. It Hasn't even > been signed into law yet. ERGO, you can't blame the economy problems > on health care reform. blame it on Bush's era since the economy tanked > in 2007 , that is when unemployment started. That was on Bush's watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 I totally agree that the bills sitting at this time in each house are ridiculously bloated and full of pork that has nothing to do with healthcare. Roni <>Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> From: Valarie <val@...> Subject: Rationing hypothyroidism Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 6:41 PM I've been watching your discourse with great interest. There are two facts that should decrease the level of disagreement: 1. Medicare has the highest rate of denial - nearly 7%. Aetna is slightly less. And the rest are in the 4% area. It doesn't matter what individual experience is; those are the facts. " According to the American Medical Association's National <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your -practice/coding-billing-insurance/heal-claims-process/national-health-insur er-report-card/2008-nhirc.shtml> Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government's health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private insurers of 3.88%. " http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459 2. No one has to go without healthcare. There are free and reduced-cost clinics all over the U.S. In or near my zip code, there are 54 http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/ The Senate bill seeks to create another 10,000 of them. That is the slippery slope toward socialized medicine. Some of you argue for government medicine by mentioning such items as pre-existing conditions. If that is a problem, why not just fix that? Why over 2,000 pages of new programs and over 100 new bureaucracies? Why the death panel? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792304574504020025055040.ht ml This is not about health care; it is about government control. If this was about health care, it could be written in just a few pages; maybe 20 or 30 for a politician. Val Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010   Medicare’s Refusal of Medical Claims Continues to Outpace Private Rate By Theroux on Dec 17, 2009 in Healthcare, Insurance, free market In his speech to Congress on the need to overhaul health care, President Obama asserted: More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won’t pay the full cost of care. It happens every day. The following week, Health Care for America Now, a group supporting the Democrats’ health care reform bill, ran a television ad claiming that private health insurance companies: “Deny 1 out of 5 treatments prescribed by doctors.†When fact-checked by PolitiFact.com, it turned out the statistic had been derived by the California Nurses Association, which broadened its definition of “denial†to include such administrative non-events as a claim having been sent to the wrong insurer. Such snafus occur behind the scenes, and the patient never knows about them because his/her claim is, in fact, subsequently paid by the correct insurer. And the drumbeat goes on— Every day in cities and towns across the United States, Americans with insurance are denied medically necessary care by a for-profit insurer. A treatment, test, medication or even a surgical procedure ordered by their physician is denied, all in the name of increasing the bottom line. —surely leading inexorably to the conclusion that we must take action NOW to pass health care “reformâ€! But, when you take the “profit†out of health care, what do you find? According to the American Medical Association’s National Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government’s health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private insurers of 3.88% In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that Medicare denied only 4% of claims—a big improvement, but outpaced better still by the private insurers. The prior year’s high private denier, Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%—an astounding 75% improvement—with similar declines by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%. Maybe there’s something to be said for the need to keep your customers satisfied in order to make that profit after all. Roni <>Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> From: Valarie <val@...> Subject: Rationing hypothyroidism Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 6:41 PM I've been watching your discourse with great interest. There are two facts that should decrease the level of disagreement: 1. Medicare has the highest rate of denial - nearly 7%. Aetna is slightly less. And the rest are in the 4% area. It doesn't matter what individual experience is; those are the facts. " According to the American Medical Association's National <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your -practice/coding-billing-insurance/heal-claims-process/national-health-insur er-report-card/2008-nhirc.shtml> Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government's health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private insurers of 3.88%. "  http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459 2. No one has to go without healthcare. There are free and reduced-cost clinics all over the U.S. In or near my zip code, there are 54 http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/   The Senate bill seeks to create another 10,000 of them. That is the slippery slope toward socialized medicine. Some of you argue for government medicine by mentioning such items as pre-existing conditions. If that is a problem, why not just fix that? Why over 2,000 pages of new programs and over 100 new bureaucracies? Why the death panel? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792304574504020025055040.ht ml This is not about health care; it is about government control. If this was about health care, it could be written in just a few pages; maybe 20 or 30 for a politician. Val Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 You're agreeing with me . Careful! Roni <>Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> > > > > Chuck, I agree there are frivolous law suits, but from what I see they > > come under the heading of female customer gets huge settlement for > > spilling hot coffee on herself. > > > > Not here. We have been facing serious doctor shortages, especially in > OBGyn, and we actually have ceilings on damages. > > The real problem is with the punitive damages. I can understand a jury > giving the lady with the hot coffee, the cost of care for a second > degree burn or a new dress, but they awarded millions, simply because > they knew Mc had deep pockets. ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Insurance companies are business. If a company is to be fair [and stay in business] then the charge to provide a service or product needs to accurately reflect the cost of same. Companies that sell automobile " extended warranties " or " service contracts " are also businesses. Would you really expect a company to charge the same for a new Honda as for a 1949 Ford for a one year extended warranty? Suppose instead that both cars are two year old Hondas but one is pristine and the other looks like it's been the loser in a demolition derby and the engine is smoking and knocking and various fluids are spilling from underneath. If you were the company owner would you charge the same for the cream puff extended warranty as for the demolition derby loser? .. .. > > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@... > <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing> > matchermaam <matchermaam> > > > Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:54 pm (PST) > > > > That's the whole point of universal healthcare. The insurance > companies would have to share the whole country, and would not be able > to rip people off or deny them coverage for pre existing conditions as > they do today. > > Roni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 IIRC Rock also advised teenagers that it's okay to steal. Yeah; about as smart as a sack of mud. .. .. > > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@... > <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing> > matchermaam <matchermaam> > > > Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:57 pm (PST) > > > > I watched a tape of Rock last night and he said that guns should > not be outlawed but bullets should cost $5.000 a piece. I thought this > was pretty smart. Now all we have to figure out is how we can apply > this logic to healthcare. > > Roni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 When it ultimately comes down to voting for the lessor of two evils that lessor is almost always going to be a Republican and hopefully conservative. A few years ago we had a local politician [Republican] who adopted positions so vastly wrong in my view that I was determined to vote for his democrat opponent in the next election. But I made the mistake of reading the positions of that [liberal] opponent and I just couldn't do it. At our last election again a republican candidate was so unattractive to me that I wanted him ousted. That time I made sure to not learn _anything_ about his opponent; who incidentally won. Now I believe we have the first openly gay county commissioner in our history. .. .. > > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@... > <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing> > matchermaam <matchermaam> > > > Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:13 pm (PST) > > > > So why do you vote for them again and again? If I don't think their voting > is right, I don't vote for them. FYI, I was actually considering > voting for > McCain, but during his campaign his actions and words dissuaded me > from doing that. By the time the next election rolls around I am going to > scrutinize the congressional seats very carefully, as well as the > Executive > one. > > Roni > <>Just because something > isn't seen doesn't mean it's > not there<> > > > > From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> > Subject: Re: Rationing > hypothyroidism > <mailto:hypothyroidism%40> > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 5:00 PM > > And who is responsible for sending these crooks back to congress again > and again??? It's you and me [and a few others who have no better > sense] who are responsible. We need a rather large mirror to find the > guilty party IMHO. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 That was written by Crystal; not me. I personally know of a lot of people and types of people I think probably have about as much business with a gun as I do with a space shuttle. HOWEVER: Unlike my liberal opponents even when I personally disagree with something I still respect the constitution and the constitutional rights of those who I think shouldn't be allowed on the trigger end of any weapon. They have a second amendment right, period; and that settles it. .. .. > > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@... > <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing> > matchermaam <matchermaam> > > > Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:16 pm (PST) > > > > I'm so sorry this happened to your mother and you saw it at that > very young age. > rock was doing a comedy routine, not speaking seriously, and I > thought it was smart and cute. He was referring to crooks and > criminals, not police and good citizens. > > Roni > <>Just because something > isn't seen doesn't mean it's > not there<> > > > > From: Crystal <sweetnwright@... <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>> > Subject: Re: Re: Rationing > hypothyroidism > <mailto:hypothyroidism%40> > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 5:07 PM > > I bet you wouldn't think that was smart if an intruder broke into your > house > or the home of somebody you loved and they were not able to protect > themselves. I watched my mother get raped and almost murdered when I > was 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Your analagy does not compute. No one is saying that but you. The insurance companies rack up obscene profits, while denying customers the insurance that they have paid for. I am in a hassle right now with the Part D insurance company I have which has overcharged me for three rxs of the same generic drug for which I was supposed to pay $5 each to the tune of $218 and change. They all agree I was overcharged when I speak to them on the 'phone, but it's been months and I talk to them at least once a week and they still have not given me a check for the overcharge. Roni <>Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> From: <res075oh@...> Subject: Re: Rationing hypothyroidism Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 9:08 PM Insurance companies are business. If a company is to be fair [and stay in business] then the charge to provide a service or product needs to accurately reflect the cost of same. Companies that sell automobile " extended warranties " or " service contracts " are also businesses. Would you really expect a company to charge the same for a new Honda as for a 1949 Ford for a one year extended warranty? Suppose instead that both cars are two year old Hondas but one is pristine and the other looks like it's been the loser in a demolition derby and the engine is smoking and knocking and various fluids are spilling from underneath. If you were the company owner would you charge the same for the cream puff extended warranty as for the demolition derby loser? .. .. > > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@... > <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing> > matchermaam <matchermaam> > > > Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:54 pm (PST) > > > > That's the whole point of universal healthcare. The insurance > companies would have to share the whole country, and would not be able > to rip people off or deny them coverage for pre existing conditions as > they do today. > > Roni ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 In a venerated book a very wise man is reported to have said, " ...The poor you have with you always... " [or similar]. I think that's probably true. BUT: There's a difference between the " poor " now and 60 years ago. The poverty I lived through does not exist in the US any more; but does still in some third world countries [and even worse than my experience]. Typically the poor disappear because they move up to the middle class. That can happen in a relatively free market system and not in most others. I've read some interesting material on the numbers involved, I think by Sowell. A brilliant man; although as a youth he was a liberal. In a free market system you don't have to worry about the poor " dying out " totally. If they did start to die out then the need for someone to pick up the garbage would still be there but there would be fewer people to apply for the job. So the pay for that job would have to be increased to attract someone willing to do it. The beauty of the free market system is that it is totally self administering if totally free. There is no need for anyone at all to " administer " it or for a group of bureaucrats to regulate it. The downside is that at extremes it can be as ugly and uncaring as nature. .. .. > > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@... > <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing> > matchermaam <matchermaam> > > > Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:24 pm (PST) > > > > In one of your emails you laid out a scenario whereby the people who > make the most money would be taxed to theoretical oblivion. There is > also a scenario whereby the > people who make the least will cease to exist eventually because of > illness or death > and there will be no one to support the 5% who make the most money. > Who will pick > the produce, make the cars, build the roads, run the trains, lay the > tracks, pick up the > garbage, etc. All people need to make a decent living in order to > live. All levels of society are needed for the society to continue to > exist. Rome forgot that, France forgot that. That's why those > societies ceased to be big powers. It's the same with the eco system. > If you destroy large parts of the earth's natural recources, you will > eventually destroy the earth. > > Roni > <>Just because something > isn't seen doesn't mean it's > not there<> > > > > From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> > Subject: Re: Rationing > hypothyroidism > <mailto:hypothyroidism%40> > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 5:09 PM > > The value of a apple doesn't change because you have a million dollars > or because you have one dollar. Only your ability to buy apples > changes. In a fair system each person should pay according to what > he/she consumes. Or do you subscribe to, " ...From each according to his > abilities; to each according to his needs... " [or similar]? If income > were taxed equally then the top 5% of earners would only pay about 5% of > taxes. They're already paying a rate 1000% above average; and 10,000% > [MOL] above the bottom 50%. > > > . > . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 That is not true at all. I watched the show from beginning to end and he did the exact opposite. He came down on kids like a ton of bricks, just like Bill Cosby did. Roni <>Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> From: <res075oh@...> Subject: Re: Rationing hypothyroidism Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 9:11 PM IIRC Rock also advised teenagers that it's okay to steal. Yeah; about as smart as a sack of mud. .. .. > > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@... > <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing> > matchermaam <matchermaam> > > > Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:57 pm (PST) > > > > I watched a tape of Rock last night and he said that guns should > not be outlawed but bullets should cost $5.000 a piece. I thought this > was pretty smart. Now all we have to figure out is how we can apply > this logic to healthcare. > > Roni ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 So your point is? Roni <>Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> > > From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> > Subject: Re: Rationing > hypothyroidism > <mailto:hypothyroidism%40> > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 5:00 PM > > And who is responsible for sending these crooks back to congress again > and again??? It's you and me [and a few others who have no better > sense] who are responsible. We need a rather large mirror to find the > guilty party IMHO. > > ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Funny you mention that; the Tampa Tribune had an article about it today. Obama promised over and over that under him the democrat administration would be open and transparent. Yet we're seeing exactly the opposite. The democrats will NEVER allow the back room deals and bribes involved in the healthcare plan debate to be made public. Not only do they exclude all republicans, they even exclude the democrats who are thought to be less than 100% on board. Just more of the same political lies; some " change you can believe in " , eh? .. .. > > Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@... > <mailto:sweetnwright@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing> > sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1> > > > Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:23 pm (PST) > > > > And what happened to transparency and all those promises of this debate > being aired on CSPAN? Like Dr Phil says, " people who have nothing to hide, > hide nothing! " > CW > > -- Re: Rationing > > > His idea is still IMHO 100% socialism and 100% anti-free market system. > Still, I don't think I could come up with a better description of the > present proposal than yours: " ... bastardized, bloated, deal mongered > version... " It's so damned bad they had to bribe their own Democratic > party members to support it. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 I also feel that citizens have the right to own a gun. However, I don't see the reason for someone to own an assault rifle or a machine gun. I also believe that anyone who wants to own a gun should have to have it licensed, and should have to go through a background check, and wait a week, in case it's a person who is angry and emotional and would go buy a gun and kill someone. Nothing's perfect and we can't make it perfect, but there are rules for owning a car, and there should be rules that govern owning a weapon too. For example you can't buy a tank and drive it on the highway. Roni <>Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> > > From: Crystal <sweetnwright@... <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>> > Subject: Re: Re: Rationing > hypothyroidism > <mailto:hypothyroidism%40> > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 5:07 PM > > I bet you wouldn't think that was smart if an intruder broke into your > house > or the home of somebody you loved and they were not able to protect > themselves. I watched my mother get raped and almost murdered when I > was 3 ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 The banks failed specifically because the loans they made under the guidelines of the regulators controlling the implementation of the CRA of 1977 were not fiscally sound. That can be laid directly to the Community Reconstruction Act of 1977 and the implementation that followed and to nothing else. Everything else in the chain of sordid events spring directly from that. Yet another liberal boondoggle for which they will never take credit; or even have it pointed out by much of the liberal press. .. .. > > Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@... > <mailto:sweetnwright@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing> > sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1> > > > Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:38 pm (PST) > > > > I honeslty think this country started going down hill with the progressive > republican president Teddy Rooselvelt. BTW he was McCains presidential > idol > I would still have preferred McCain over Obama though, but I didn't vote > for him in the primaries > CW > -- Re: Rationing > > > Actually the seed of the present economic situation was planted, > nourished and grown from the Community Reconstruction Act of 1977. That > act and all of the regulation that followed from it changed the criteria > bands used for deciding to whom to make a loan from being the ability > and willingness to repay a mortgage to being some other irrelevant > factor such as skin color. And it sure as h*ll wasn't Bush and the > Republicans who pushed it through. Here's one description of it: " The > *1977* *Community* *Reconstruction* *Act* threatened commercial lenders > with half million dollar fines if they denied mortgages to unqualified > applicants. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Yes, that used to be true in the states, but that was before outsourcing took the jobs away from our people and sent them all over the world.Those jobs should be brought back to the United States. Roni <>Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> > > From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> > Subject: Re: Rationing > hypothyroidism > <mailto:hypothyroidism%40> > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 5:09 PM > > The value of a apple doesn't change because you have a million dollars > or because you have one dollar. Only your ability to buy apples > changes. In a fair system each person should pay according to what > he/she consumes. Or do you subscribe to, " ...From each according to his > abilities; to each according to his needs... " [or similar]? If income > were taxed equally then the top 5% of earners would only pay about 5% of > taxes. They're already paying a rate 1000% above average; and 10,000% > [MOL] above the bottom 50%. > > > . > . ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.