Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#32
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#33
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#34
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#35
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#36
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#37
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#38
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#39
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#40
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|