Frogwatch wrote:
On Aug 10, 3:40 pm, H the K wrote:


Unless your congressman who votes for Obamacare puts himself under the
same provisions of it as we are, he should be hung from a lamp post
(figuratively) when he comes home. If the refuses to come home, we'll
go to DC and find them.


Now you are threatening elected officials? You really are a Republican
asshole.

Senators and Representatives have access to the same federal health care
programs as other federal employees. There is language in several of the
proposals to bring the FEHBA program in under the new programs, but
certainly not to eliminate it or drastically alter it.

H the K wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
On 8/10/2009 1:04 PM, H the K wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Aug 10, 12:43 pm, J. Leo wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:42:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Aug 10, 11:05 am, H the K wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:22:11 -0400, H the K

wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Aug 10, 10:09 am, Frogwatch wrote:
After the recent shortages in Cuba and Venezuela, Obama has
announced
an initiative to stockpile a vital commodity so as to be
able to
send
stocks to areas experiencing shortages so as to prevent civil
unrest.
"The STPR will provide a cushion against any market bottom
and in
the
end we will all appreciate this reserve" a whitehouse
spokesman
said.
Our new Strategic Toilet Paper Reserve will be located in New
Orleans.
The point of this post is that whenever the govt tries to
run the
economy, it fails. Cuba, a country that produces vast
amounts of
sugar actually has sugar shortages. They could process all
their
sugar cane waste into pulp to make toilet paper but of course
there is
no incentive so they now have shortages. Iran, nearly
drowning in
oil
actually has gasoline shortages because the govt runs the
industry
there. The same is true of Venezuela, shortages of fuel. The
Soviets
were great at building BFR (Big Fokkin Rockets) but were
unable to
make any necesary consumer products. Government running of
large
portions of an economy has been tried many many times and has
always
been a miserable failure so we really do not need to do the
experiment
again.
Yeah. Medicare is a big failure. Right. D'oh.
Medicare is a good demonstration of how expensive government
medical
care is tho. They spend 3% of every wage earned in this country,
covering about 15-16 % of the population and they are going broke
doing it. The people covered still need supplemental private
insurance.
All you are doing here is pointing out areas where Medicare can be
improved.
Yes, Medicare is a failure with a 30% fraud rate.
And you think, that when the government nationalizes the health care
industry, the fraud rate will go down? With government health care
there will be NO oversight to prevent fraud. If you want to see
fraud
look at some of the current government programs.
With government insurance, the government will take 40% or more of
your
income to pay for it, remove your input into your medical
treatment, and
return less insurance coverage than you get now. That is if you are
considered a productive individual, otherwise you get nothing.
While I agree that that PROBABLY will happen, no one knows.
Especially
those who haven't read the bill.
Which includes any Democrat that works on the hill, right?
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.

Under Obamacare, If you have a problem getting care and you complain,
you will get put on the WhiteHouse enemies list. Now, if you complain
to the govt you have some chance of getting results.


The funny thing is that you and your braindead buddy Herring probably
believe that.

Herring, of course, is funny on his own...all that hatred for government
programs when he spent most of his working life sucking on the
government teat and depends upon that teat now for his retirement. If
memory serves, his wife also held a government job and took advantage of
government-subsidized health insurance programs.







Will the *lawmakers* be covered by the proposed plan?


Why would they be? They have health insurance,



Why can't we all get on their plan?

On Aug 10, 4:42*pm, BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
On 8/10/2009 1:04 PM, H the K wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Aug 10, 12:43 pm, J. Leo wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:42:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Aug 10, 11:05 am, H the K wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:22:11 -0400, H the K

wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Aug 10, 10:09 am, Frogwatch wrote:
After the recent shortages in Cuba and Venezuela, Obama has
announced
an initiative to stockpile a vital commodity so as to be
able to
send
stocks to areas experiencing shortages so as to prevent civil
unrest.
"The STPR will provide a cushion against any market bottom
and in
the
end we will all appreciate this reserve" a whitehouse
spokesman
said.
Our new Strategic Toilet Paper Reserve will be located in New
Orleans.
The point of this post is that whenever the govt tries to
run the
economy, it fails. Cuba, a country that produces vast
amounts of
sugar actually has sugar shortages. They could process all
their
sugar cane waste into pulp to make toilet paper but of course
there is
no incentive so they now have shortages. Iran, nearly
drowning in
oil
actually has gasoline shortages because the govt runs the
industry
there. The same is true of Venezuela, shortages of fuel. The
Soviets
were great at building BFR (Big Fokkin Rockets) but were
unable to
make any necesary consumer products. Government running of
large
portions of an economy has been tried many many times and has
always
been a miserable failure so we really do not need to do the
experiment
again.
Yeah. Medicare is a big failure. Right. D'oh.
Medicare is a good demonstration of how expensive government
medical
care is tho. They spend 3% of every wage earned in this country,
covering about 15-16 % of the population and they are going broke
doing it. The people covered still need supplemental private
insurance.
All you are doing here is pointing out areas where Medicare can be
improved.
Yes, Medicare is a failure with a 30% fraud rate.
And you think, that when the government nationalizes the health care
industry, the fraud rate will go down? With government health care
there will be NO oversight to prevent fraud. If you want to see
fraud
look at some of the current government programs.
With government insurance, the government will take 40% or more of
your
income to pay for it, remove your input into your medical
treatment, and
return less insurance coverage than you get now. That is if you are
considered a productive individual, otherwise you get nothing.
While I agree that that PROBABLY will happen, no one knows.
Especially
those who haven't read the bill.
Which includes any Democrat that works on the hill, right?
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.

Under Obamacare, If you have a problem getting care and you complain,
you will get put on the WhiteHouse enemies list. Now, if you complain
to the govt you have some chance of getting results.

The funny thing is that you and your braindead buddy Herring probably
believe that.

Herring, of course, is funny on his own...all that hatred for government
programs when he spent most of his working life sucking on the
government teat and depends upon that teat now for his retirement. If
memory serves, his wife also held a government job and took advantage of
government-subsidized health insurance programs.

Will the *lawmakers* be covered by the proposed plan?

Why would they be? They have health insurance,

Why can't we all get on their plan?

If figuratively hanging someone is a threat, then you might interpret
it as a threat. If they cannot subject themselves to the same thing
they intend to do to us they should pay.

H the K wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Aug 10, 3:40 pm, H the K wrote:


Unless your congressman who votes for Obamacare puts himself under the
same provisions of it as we are, he should be hung from a lamp post
(figuratively) when he comes home. If the refuses to come home, we'll
go to DC and find them.


Now you are threatening elected officials? You really are a Republican
asshole.

Senators and Representatives have access to the same federal health care
programs as other federal employees. There is language in several of the
proposals to bring the FEHBA program in under the new programs, but
certainly not to eliminate it or drastically alter it.

Why not let everyone have access to the FEHBA program. Just think how
low the rates would be with 300 million people in that plan. All it
takes is a simple one page bill from Congress.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:01:49 -0400, wrote:



Medicare is a good demonstration of how expensive government medical
care is tho. They spend 3% of every wage earned in this country,
covering about 15-16 % of the population and they are going broke
doing it. The people covered still need supplemental private
insurance.
As long as we understand universal medical care will end up being a
30-50% increase in our income taxes (depending of if we still need
supplemental private insurance) it is fine with me. The problem is
they are selling this as "free".

Depends who you're talking about.
That 15-16% insured by Medicare is old people 65 and up.
Non-old people who have private health insurance where my wife works
are paying less than 10% income tax, but 50% health insurance tax -
not even counting the Medicare deduction.
That's why most don't carry it and go the go to the e-room for medical
care.
Median family wages is this country is about $46k.
Probably less than 15% income tax for a couple, even less with kids.
Average health insurance family cost is about $12k.
So the median family who carries health insurance is "taxed"
26% for that. I'm counting employer costs too, as you did for
Medicare, because you just can't ignore that cost.
For the median family who carries health insurance, a 30-50% increase
in income tax while dropping 26% health care cost is a winner.
For higher income families, it's a loser.
You're right about them selling it as free, especially since Obama and
the Dems won't come out and say "higher income taxes."
The Reps have them cowed about taxes.
Besides that, the "cost savings" they are always crowing about are
hard to see if they don't do tort reform and eliminate malpractice and
defensive medicine costs. Then there's fraud, which they hardly ever
talk about.
It's a big mess, but I guarantee it will be changed one way or
another.
I'm predicting they'll end up with gov subsidies for private health
care insurance, as they're already doing with the unemployed.
IOW, you'll pay more taxes that go to private companies.
Perfect solution really. Commie private enterprise. Pretty much how
Wall Street already operates.
Taxing the folks to give to other folks is just plain commie if it's
gov run.
But if you tax the folks to give to private enterprise to dole out as
they see fit, it becomes commie private enterprise.
With "private enterprise" in there it has a better ring to it.

--Vic

On Aug 10, 5:02*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:01:49 -0400, wrote:

Medicare is a good demonstration of how expensive government medical
care is tho. They spend 3% of every wage earned in this country,
covering about 15-16 % of the population and they are going broke
doing it. The people covered still need supplemental private
insurance.
As long as we understand universal medical care will end up being a
30-50% increase in our income taxes (depending of if we still need
supplemental private insurance) it is fine with me. The problem is
they are selling this as "free".

Depends who you're talking about.
That 15-16% insured by Medicare is old people 65 and up.
Non-old people who have private health insurance where my wife works
are paying less than 10% income tax, but 50% health insurance tax -
not even counting the Medicare deduction.
That's why most don't carry it and go the go to the e-room for medical
care.
Median family wages is this country is about $46k.
Probably less than 15% income tax for a couple, even less with kids.
Average health insurance family cost is about $12k.
So the median family who carries health insurance is "taxed"
26% for that. *I'm counting employer costs too, as you did for
Medicare, because you just can't ignore that cost.
For the median family who carries health insurance, a 30-50% increase
in income tax while dropping 26% health care cost is a winner.
For higher income families, it's a loser.
You're right about them selling it as free, especially since Obama and
the Dems won't come out and say "higher income taxes."
The Reps have them cowed about taxes.
Besides that, the "cost savings" they are always crowing about are
hard to see if they don't do tort reform and eliminate malpractice and
defensive medicine costs. *Then there's fraud, which they hardly ever
talk about.
It's a big mess, but I guarantee it will be changed one way or
another.
I'm predicting they'll end up with gov subsidies for private health
care insurance, as they're already doing with the unemployed.
IOW, you'll pay more taxes that go to private companies.
Perfect solution really. *Commie private enterprise. *Pretty much how
Wall Street already operates.
Taxing the folks to give to other folks is just plain commie if it's
gov run.
But if you tax the folks to give to private enterprise to dole out as
they see fit, it becomes commie private enterprise.
With "private enterprise" in there it has a better ring to it.

--Vic

HK has made his point that he thinks our Dear Leaders in DC are worth
more than the rest of us. You are right, "All animals are equal but
some are more equal than others". Now, the question is what we do
about it.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:11:07 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:



My fishing partner was a state investigator for MediCal fraud. When they
found Federal Fraud they would turn that over to the Fed's. He said they
did nothing with the fraud. So maybe they want the excess spending to help
control the people.

Going after fraud is so obviously cost-effective I've given some
thought to it, but never came up with a good answer.
Maybe the closest I have come is by adding investigators you increase
gov payroll there, and take political heat, even though you'll save
taxpayer dollars.
Second possible reason is those in power are basically crooks and fear
having too many cops around - an investigator is essentially a cop,
and honesty is a requirement.

--Vic

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Aug 10, 3:40 pm, H the K wrote:


Unless your congressman who votes for Obamacare puts himself under the
same provisions of it as we are, he should be hung from a lamp post
(figuratively) when he comes home. If the refuses to come home, we'll
go to DC and find them.


Now you are threatening elected officials? You really are a Republican
asshole.

Senators and Representatives have access to the same federal health
care programs as other federal employees. There is language in several
of the proposals to bring the FEHBA program in under the new programs,
but certainly not to eliminate it or drastically alter it.

Why not let everyone have access to the FEHBA program. Just think how
low the rates would be with 300 million people in that plan. All it
takes is a simple one page bill from Congress.



Your side controlled government for the last eight years...why didn't
the Republicans do this?

BTW, you're not under the delusion that government employees receive the
blue chip plans that are available under FEHBA without having to pay for
a percentage of the premium, are you?

For many years, I thought it would be a good idea to extend access to
FEHBA to non-governmental employers and employees. I'm not so sure
anymore. I think the health insurance companies, the chain hospital
companies and other entities who are gouging the public and employers
need to be taken down a few notches, and simply extending a good health
insurance program won't do that.

Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:01:49 -0400, wrote:


Median family wages is this country is about $46k.
Probably less than 15% income tax for a couple, even less with kids.
Average health insurance family cost is about $12k.
So the median family who carries health insurance is "taxed"
talk about.
It's a big mess, but I guarantee it will be changed one way or
another.

As with many things that come out of the democrats, the cost of Medicare
is overrated. Many people who are eligible for Medicare participate in
what is called the advantage plan. In this plan the Medicare
contribution is given directly to the insurance company. The insurance
company then administers the Medicare plan and provides additional
benefits for those people who want to use that company for their
insurance.

Of course the "expense" of this Medicare plan is going as more and more
people opt out of the government managed insurance and go to the private
companies who participate in this plan. They get the same insurance
that the government provides plus they are treated as human not numbers
when they need assistance.

If this plan is eliminated, the cost of the government manage health
care will have to go up just to provide the additional staff to manage
the accounts now managed by the private company.


I'm predicting they'll end up with gov subsidies for private health
care insurance, as they're already doing with the unemployed

Companies pay into the the unemployment fund per the number of people
they employee. Governments subsidizes it when the government uses the
money for other purposes, or when Government policies or actions cause
high unemployment. Example: the job loss caused by congress's action at
the end of September 2008.

The unemployment agencies are a perfect example of why we don't want the
government in our health care. I was on unemployment for several
months. During that time I never was able to get a phone call through
to a real person. I tried their email address and got an automated
response telling me to call the phone number that I had been trying for
days. If you have a problem with a government agency that needs
special handling you are SOL. Why do you think that most congressmen
have a special constituent assistance tab on their web pages.

IOW, you'll pay more taxes that go to private companies.

Who will manage the plans EFFICIENTLY and supplement it with additional
benefits.

Perfect solution really. Commie private enterprise. Pretty much how
Wall Street already operates.

One of the more humorous things that obama keeps saying is that the
democrat plan will not restrict the amount of insurance a company may
provide or a person may buy. HOWEVER out of the other side of his mouth
he says the will raise some of the money for his nationalized health
care by taxing those company health plans with what the government
considers excessive benefits. That sounds like a restriction to me.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:35:06 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Just John II wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:49:28 -0400, NotNow wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:42:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Keith Nuttle wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Aug 10, 11:05 am, H the K wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:22:11 -0400, H the K
wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Aug 10, 10:09 am, Frogwatch wrote:
After the recent shortages in Cuba and Venezuela, Obama has
announced
an initiative to stockpile a vital commodity so as to be able to
send
stocks to areas experiencing shortages so as to prevent civil
unrest.
"The STPR will provide a cushion against any market bottom and in
the
end we will all appreciate this reserve" a whitehouse spokesman
said.
Our new Strategic Toilet Paper Reserve will be located in New
Orleans.
The point of this post is that whenever the govt tries to run the
economy, it fails. Cuba, a country that produces vast amounts of
sugar actually has sugar shortages. They could process all their
sugar cane waste into pulp to make toilet paper but of course
there is
no incentive so they now have shortages. Iran, nearly drowning in
oil
actually has gasoline shortages because the govt runs the industry
there. The same is true of Venezuela, shortages of fuel. The
Soviets
were great at building BFR (Big Fokkin Rockets) but were unable to
make any necesary consumer products. Government running of large
portions of an economy has been tried many many times and has always
been a miserable failure so we really do not need to do the
experiment
again.
Yeah. Medicare is a big failure. Right. D'oh.
Medicare is a good demonstration of how expensive government medical
care is tho. They spend 3% of every wage earned in this country,
covering about 15-16 % of the population and they are going broke
doing it. The people covered still need supplemental private
insurance.
All you are doing here is pointing out areas where Medicare can be
improved.
Yes, Medicare is a failure with a 30% fraud rate.
And you think, that when the government nationalizes the health care
industry, the fraud rate will go down? With government health care
there will be NO oversight to prevent fraud. If you want to see fraud
look at some of the current government programs.

With government insurance, the government will take 40% or more of your
income to pay for it, remove your input into your medical treatment, and
return less insurance coverage than you get now. That is if you are
considered a productive individual, otherwise you get nothing.
While I agree that that PROBABLY will happen, no one knows. Especially
those who haven't read the bill.
Which includes any Democrat that works on the hill, right?
--
John H

I specifically said "those who haven't read the bill".

I have yet to hear one Democrat say he has read the bill.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

Did all Republicans read (and understand) the bill?

One couldn't understand the cover page without help. Go try to read
it. It's designed not to be understood.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.