Obamacare Meltdown

[Ronbo]

Even Fido's had enough of him...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XivhwO_zWWg

[VRM]

Originally Posted by BeanCounter

VRM, excuse me but bull****. Yes I made over a $100,000 a year. But my Dad loaded 150 lb flour sacks in boxcars for General Mills and my Mom made Folgers coffee cans for the American Can company. We drove an old car and had a 850 sq ft house for the 5 of us. I got my winter coats from Goodwill. That was so my folks could save enough money to send all three of us to college. We all got our bachelors degrees and on our own got our MBA's. That's because our parents taught us right. No one helped them except us kids later on when we graduated and each of us made more than the two of them together. I live in a home that I paid off in 10 years. I could have afforded a larger one but I wanted to put money away for hard times and for retirement. I'm just about there to where I don't have much to worry about any more. I don't mind helping someone who truly needs help because they physically cannot help themselves. But when they've spurned opportunities and have taken the wrong paths in life well then............they can go screw themselves. And I don't want bleeding hearts taking what I've worked for and giving it to someone else. They can give their own money away.

Bernie,
One of the things I also said on other threads is that along with legislative change will need to be a change in the way Americans function. America is the economic powerhouse that it is today because we have had a stong consumer base to buy/sell goods. We are also in the trouble we are in because we forgot to stop spending as we kept up with the Jonses. The upside to that is that with Americans spending every penny they earn that you, me, and a bunch of other people made more money than we would have otherwise if Americans were actually doing the smart thing and saving for a rainy day.

And I think your rant is pretty funny coming from a guy who lives in a state that takes more than it gives. My state has been helping to support your state for years. Your GDP for 2005 was $216B, mine was $326B. And talk about the right choices - MA has 6.5M people, your has 5.8M (as of 2007) yet you managed to have 4% more babies. You also have a significantly higher crime rate, and managed to have only 4000 less state and local government employees than we did (318K vs 322K). And most important to this thread; you have about 17% of your state population without health coverage, we have about 10%.

You GOP types are such states rights advocates, but I see lots of so-called 'liberal' states supporting the so called 'conservative' ones. I've been sick of it for years, and now we can no longer afford it. How about you guys stop whining and get your sh!t together locally before getting involved nationally.

Steve

[VRM]

Jamo,
He probably is using a 400 year old government PC that does not have context checking. It's like the lyrics for that Hendrix song being 'Excuse me, while I kiss this guy'.

Oh wait - that is another debate.

Seriously C-B, read what you write before you hit send. Use the preview button and give it a check before you send it. The practise will do you good. It really is annoying and does nothing positive for your cause.


Steve

[Ronbo]

I can tell you one thing about COBRA...

Part of the first "stimulus bill" is a new requirement that as an employer that provides medical insurance I now have to pay 65% of your first 9 months of COBRA should you elect to keep your medical insurance.

If I didn't offer insurance I'm off the hook.

A provision of the new Public offering includes a $1000/yr penalty per employee if they opt for private insurance that I provide. (I pay, not the employee) Basically, they're trying their best to get me to drop insurance so the uninsured number goes up and they can look like heros.

Not to mention collecting their taxes for free, filing I-9's, Paying property tax (on EVERYTHING), matching SS, Unemployment tax (plus pay half your unemployment payments if you actually take it)

All these taxes and no vote for the business, sounds fair. Why do you think there is lobbying? So businesses can bribe politicians legally to keep from getting burned even worse than they are. Washington could give a s**t about my 20 person operation, yet they always promise to help out small business. Yet the tax breaks, and bailouts go to the big guys that don't answer to anyone.

You think the government is on your back? Welcome to my world.

How about this for a fix, for every $10k in taxes you pay you get 1 vote. That's taxation with representation.

[alkire248]

Margaret Thatcher quote: "The trouble with socialsim is that you eventually run out of other people's money"

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

The debates not lost, the democrats are stupid in many ways, they don't have a clue how to unite, Bush got every single thing he asked for because the Republicans do know how to unite, even if they know they are wrong. We still have the numbers on our side, the fringe that is shouting down the debate at these town hall meetings are the 35%ers, the dumber then Joe the plumbers if you will, it won't take long after the recess is over for these idiot democrats to finally decide that there's no point in even trying for by-partisan bill, they need to just shove that increasingly meaningless bigoted party of whack jobs aside and just get the job done. I know you guys are crying this is not your America, well you lost the election we own it and it's our turn to fix what you broke, and for all you poor white folks out there that can't stand the black man in the Whitehouse, a women as secretary of state and god forbid a Hispanic on the supreme court. You can't have a melting pot without the gravy getting darker! So get used to it, it's a new America

"bigoted party of whack jobs aside and just get the job done. I know you guys are crying this is not your America, well you lost the election we own it and it's our turn to fix what you broke, and for all you poor white folks out there that can't stand the black man in the Whitehouse, a women as secretary of state and god forbid a Hispanic on the supreme court. You can't have a melting pot without the gravy getting darker! So get used to it, it's a new America"

So EXPOSING yourself as a TOTAL RACIST will make us come over to your cause?

IS lying a way to get a good bill passed? Because your pres lied his ass off in Montana today. He told a story about a man came down with a serious health condition and just as treatment was about to start, his insurance canceled him because he had gall stones he never told them about YEARS AGO! And without treatment the man died! That IS AN OUTRIGHT INTENTIONAL LIE. Partly by omission and partly by commission. obummer IS a lawyer, he knows that an insurance company cannot do this. What happened is the man applied for an insurance policy LESS than 2 years before he developed his serious condition. In his application he failed to disclose that he had already been diagnosed with gall stones and needed an operation FOR THAT. He was waiting for 2 years to pass so he could DEFRAUD the insurance company. See health policies give the insurance companies 2 years to find pre-existing conditions. But it costs them money to do a total medical research on every applicant. So they very often do not check medical records unless a claim is made. Well a claim was made and they checked his medical history and found he lied on his application. Had he told the truth in the first place, the ins, co. most likely would have attached a rider to his policy not covering a gall bladder operation for 5 or 10 years. But otherwise his policy would have been IN FORCE. But his intention was to hold out the 2 years and make them pay for the gall bladder. Nature screwed him and HE SCREWED HIM. obummer KNOWS that is how insurance works and also knows that the insurance has to and did return every cent of premiums he paid. Instead he twists the story to make an insurance company the bad guy and the criminally fraudulent man the victim.

If a bill has to be sold with LIES, it cannot be a good bill.
But unlikely you will be able to see that through racist eyes.

[BeanCounter]

Steve,

First of all the problems that you cite are found predominately in the St Louis and Kansas City metropolitan areas which are predominantly Democratic. The liberal Democrats caused the problem and are the ones that are shipping the money here. How about you let us send you all those problems and their excess babies and you can keep your friggin money. The 4% more babies we have are probably due to the greater number of gay marriages you have where they flat can't have kids. Just like most liberals you cause the problem and then you ***** about it. Believe you me out here in the hinterlands we don't get any of that Commie Massachusetts money and we don't want it. We take care of ourselves. Secondly call Claire McCaskill and tell her she's a conservative.

Ronbo, you're mistaken that you are paying 65% of their first 9 months Cobra. Credits for that 65% are being given to you through your payroll taxes that you pay in. The government is footing the bill on that. I know since my daughter is on COBRA and I set up all of the reporting for Blue Cross here in Kansas City.

[Excaliber]

So the bottom line is the guy with gall stones died because he was denied treatment. An excellent example of why we need health reform. It's quite a leap to pinpoint WHAT the dead fellows "intention" was though.

Here's the bottom line:
He's gonna die if he's denied insurance, he was and he did. We need to fix that problem! Sounds to me like Obama got the story right, maybe Dan40 is the liar here? Just using the same terminology you used Dan, no offense intended.

I'm not any more comfortable calling someone a liar than I am hearing someone call our POTUS a liar. Respect goes both ways.
Perhaps the term "misrepresentation", in your opinion, would be more suitable?

[Ronbo]

Originally Posted by BeanCounter

Ronbo, you're mistaken that you are paying 65% of their first 9 months Cobra. Credits for that 65% are being given to you through your payroll taxes that you pay in. The government is footing the bill on that. I know since my daughter is on COBRA and I set up all of the reporting for Blue Cross here in Kansas City.

You are correct, I'm supposed to get the money back. But it's just more headache and expense I have to bear for supplying medical insurance to my employees. Not to mention the Insurance co. also has to deal with it to some extent which adds to the cost.

I have no doubt all this stuff over the last 20+ years (by both parties) has been leading to this end. Congress robbing SS blind (should rename it Retirement Poverty) wasn't enough now they need to steal your medical $$. Guess when they saw all the income going into 401k's they figured they left us with too much money.

Of course I haven't touched on the major screwing from workman's comp. it's so bad most insurance companies won't even write it.

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I'm not any more comfortable calling someone a liar than I am hearing someone call our POTUS a liar. Respect goes both ways.
Perhaps the term "misrepresentation", in your opinion, would be more suitable?

Excellent point. Many of us didn't like it when folks were derogatory about Bush.

[Anthony]

If many of you think obama's healthcare is for the people and not for the benefit of corporate america, you're wrong. How do you think he got the pham companies on board? By including a provision so they will still be able to make money. I'm sure there are other corporate friendly provisions as well.

Rregarding pre-existing condition issues, the only time this comes into play is when someone goes without insurance for greater than 60 days, and then the insurance company can use this "clause". And in my experience, from what I've seen, is that the waiting time period until the pre-existing condition will be covered is 1 year. If you don't have a 60 day or greater period of time without insurance, then the insurance company cannot use the pre-existing condition clause. The reason why there is this provision, is that you can't have a person go without insurance for years, until he needs an operation, and then sign up for insurance to get the operation covered, having the insurance company pay alot more than the premium the person was paying, and then the person cancels his insurance right after the expensive treatment. This law protects the insurance company from being scammed.

However, if you change insurance companies, with no time period of "no insurance", or actually less than 60 days of uncovered period, then the insurance company cannot consider any conditons pre-existing. If you lose your insurance from being layed off, etc., the smart thing to do would be to get cheap high deductable insurance, not cobra unless you have the money or a serious (expensive) illness, to bridge the time period until you get another job that has/includes/provides better insurance, at which time you could cancel the "cheaper" insurance for the better policy, even if you have to take a home equity loan to pay for the "cheaper" insurance.

The point is, to avoid the "pre-existing" clause issue, you never want to go for any time period without health insurance, no matter how good or bad that insurance is. No one tells you that, your employer, insurance companies, etc. I imagine that it's financially beneficial for an insurance company to have somebody with pre-existing conditions, yet paying tha same premium.

As far as denying care, medicare/medicaid already have many limitations already, VA hospitals deny ready access care, and BWC ( that's worker's comp - government run health insurace) is generally a nightmare for anybody that requires ongoing treatments, with BWC denying care all the time, delaying treatments for months/years at a time, or forever. You really think the government can get it right?

Let me see, the government intervened in the financial industry, influencing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae on loaning money, playing with the interest rate (causing the artifical inflation of housing prices) , and the lack of holding people responsible when the loans defaulted (homeowners, mortgage brokers, banks, mortgage insurance companies) leading to the recent financial meltdown. You really think a group of 5 lawyers and one banker can come up with a healthcare reform bill that will solve our healthcare problems?

Our healthcare is getting more expensive, because there are more and more people getting older and sicker, requiring more care. The care itself is not getting more expensive, infact Medicare and Medicaid are actually paying less money for specific services to hospitals and doctor's than 5 years ago. Medicare and Medicaid costs are going up because there are more sick people, enrollment keeps going up. It's going to cost us more money no matter what. That's the bullet we'll have to bite no matter what.

[cobra de capell]

Let's break down the 46 million 'uninsured'....

This group of nearly 46 million breaks down into five categories.

The first, consisting of about 6.5 million, actually is insured. They are enrolled in Medicaid or S-CHIP but didn't tell the census taker. This is called the "Medicaid undercount."

The second group, about 4.5 million, consists of people who are eligible for Medicaid or S-CHIP but have not enrolled. If they need care, the hospital or clinic generally enrolls them. In other words, they do not (as Obama claims) go bankrupt or without treatment. In any case, it would be ridiculous to overhaul our healthcare system to provide insurance to people who are already eligible for government assistance but have failed to avail themselves of it.

The third group, about 9.5 million, is comprised of non-citizens. People will disagree about what portion of this group should receive government subsidized health insurance. In my view, none should.

And keep in mind that being uninsured is not the same as having to pay (or pay much) for treatment. I've heard illegal immigrants say that they find ways to receive free or inexpensive treatment for themselves and their children.

The fourth group, another 10 million, earns an income more than three times the poverty line. As such, they can afford to buy medical insurance. Taxpayers should not be required to buy it for them.

This leaves about 15.5 million (one-third of Obama's 46 million) who actually are uninsured, cannot become insured simply by enrolling in a free program, are U.S. citizens, and cannot easily afford to purchase insurance. About 5 million members of this cohort are childless adults.

It is understandable that many Americans would like to see the government do something for this group, or at least those members who are not young, childless, healthy adults with decent starter salaries who simply think it makes economic sense to assume the small risk that they will incur large medical expenses. But it is also understandable that many Americans favor targeting this group through incremental measures to assist them in purchasing insurance, rather than through a radical overhaul of our healthcare system at a massive cost.

Obama knows he needs a big number of "uninsured" to even get in the vicinity of selling what he has in mind to a skeptical public. But the big number he has selected would not get him in the vicinity if the public better understood who it consists of.

“God helps those who help themselves.” Liberals help the ones who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

So the bottom line is the guy with gall stones died because he was denied treatment. An excellent example of why we need health reform. It's quite a leap to pinpoint WHAT the dead fellows "intention" was though.

1.He was not denied treatment. He could have had the treatment but HE would have had to pay for it as he LIED on his insurance application. That DOES constitute FRAUD.
2. His "intentions" aside, he completed a FALSE application. Therefore HE negated his policy.

Here's the bottom line:
He's gonna die if he's denied insurance, he was and he did. We need to fix that problem! Sounds to me like Obama got the story right, maybe Dan40 is the liar here? Just using the same terminology you used Dan, no offense intended.

The issue, once again, is not treatment, this issue is who gets the bill for the treatment. Had the patient NOT filled out a fraudulent application, he would have had coverage.. He screwed himself up. And obummer, the ultimate lying scumbag, knows the insurance law and knows they were 100% justified in canceling the policy.
Typical liberal lying twists, you now lie and accuse me of lying and all offense is 100% intended.

Your illustrious leader just got caught lying through his oversize teeth and you can't handle the FACT that he INTENTIONALLY LIED.

I'm not any more comfortable calling someone a liar than I am hearing someone call our POTUS a liar. Respect goes both ways.
Perhaps the term "misrepresentation", in your opinion, would be more suitable?

"misrepresentation" is the wussy PC way to say, lying.

mis·rep·re·sent (ms-rpr-znt)
tr.v. mis·rep·re·sent·ed, mis·rep·re·sent·ing, mis·rep·re·sents
1. To give an incorrect or misleading representation of.
2. To serve incorrectly or dishonestly as an official representative of.

a false statement
snow job- a long and elaborate misrepresentation

dissembling- pretending with intention to deceive

lying- the deliberate act of deviating from the truth



So you can feel free to call obummer a misrepresenter, or a snow job artist, or a dissembler, or a liar. And liar is the simplest word to use. The other words mean the same.
He is a liar, has been a liar, and will be a liar until we boot his lying ass out of office. And he will lie after that too. It IS what he does.

[cobra de capell]

lying- the deliberate act of deviating from the truth

Spinning the truth is also lying, but it's not necessarily considered lying.

Obama, in my view, is really not spinning, he's lying big time and over and over again.

America screwed up.

[computerworks]

Plagiarism - the use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author

...Let's break down the 46 million 'uninsured'....

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/024280.php

Just post the link when you feel compelled to share other's original thoughts, OK?

Thanks

[Doug I]

Thanks for that Ron - CdC was about to be, IMO, put straight about a few things he said. Now that I know it was a cut-n-paste I needn't be bothered.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by computerworks

Plagiarism - the use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author



http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/024280.php

Just post the link when you feel compelled to share other's original thoughts, OK?

Thanks

Is there something wrong with plagiarism, when it involves stats, on the web - I see nothing in the Club rules that forbids plagiarism - also, there has not been an original thought posted here for the past 10+ years - so, aren't all posts plagiarism to one degree or another?

Please point out the Club rule against stats plagiarism.

Also, all the jokes I post would be considered plagiarism - so, why is it that you allow joke threads with no attribution to whoever created the joke? And why is it that you have the time to search the web to find out if a post is considered plagiarism in your view? No life?

By the way, I've not seen you post an original thought since 2001. Why is that?

Once again, Please Get Off My Back.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Doug I

Thanks for that Ron - CdC was about to be, IMO, put straight about a few things he said. Now that I know it was a cut-n-paste I needn't be bothered.

And next time, don't bother also - talk to the hand after hitting the ignore button.

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

And next time, don't bother also - talk to the hand after hitting the ignore button.

I checked ...now, that was an original thought.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by computerworks

I checked ...now, that was an original thought.

See, even you can come up with a sense of humor. But, keep your day job.