Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II  
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11416 posts, RR: 59
Posted (4 years 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 2162 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Continuation of part I, which become too long:

Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress (by UAL747 Sep 9 2009 in Non Aviation)


New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 2140 times:

A friend of mine, just got out of the hospital, self employed. 3 days for a stomach infection, treated with Antibiotics only, no surgery. Tests etc, plus room etc. 17 thousand some odd dollars, he just told me today, local county hospital. How can this continue? I would say, something has to be done. Who says we do not need reform? In the paper today in R.I. Visit to ER, timed by family, from the time the Doctor looked at the patient, prescibed the medicine and discharged him they figured $ 22 a second by the amount on bill. $1320 an hour at $22 per second.


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineAsuflyer05 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2371 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 2135 times:

I spent less than 24 hours in the hospital last year for some lower abdomen pain. 2 cat scans, anti-biotics, a surgical consult and a night in the hospital rang up $8,500.

User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 2132 times:



Quoting Asuflyer05 (Reply 2):
I spent less than 24 hours in the hospital last year for some lower abdomen pain. 2 cat scans, anti-biotics, a surgical consult and a night in the hospital rang up $8,500.

Staggering amount. Based on 24 hours = $354 Per Hour = $5.90 per second, or close to it.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2129 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 2131 times:

There was a news report about a woman from San Francisco who discovered she was bleeding from her breast nipple, and her shirt was soaked with blood. So her husband took her to an emergency room.

The insurance company (Blue Shield of California) refused to pay the ER bills, saying that the patient ought to have known that her symptoms were not an emergency situation.

Only after a TV station (KPIX) did a story exposing this, did the insurance company agree to pay.

Sad, really sad.

On a positive note, while the doctors at the ER initially thought it was cancer a later a biopsy revealed the good news that it was not



The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
User currently offlineAustinAirport From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 643 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 2127 times:



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 1):
$1320 an hour at $22 per second.

And the sad thing is, Republican senators have been quoted telling people to pretty much just suck it up, and deal with it.
Sad time for America.
I don't see how anyone can justify being on the Republican side of this debate. I mean honestly folks, lets grow up a little.

I love the Right-wing commercial that suggest that the left is totally wrong and the we should reform healthcare the "Right" way.
So that means we do nothing at all? LOL.
That's all I get out of that commercial.



Whoever said you can do anything you set your mind to has obviously never tried to slam a revolving door!!!
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 2124 times:



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 1):
Tests etc



Quoting Asuflyer05 (Reply 2):
2 cat scans, a surgical consult

How many of these tests were CYA tests to keep from getting sued I wonder?

Quoting WestWing (Reply 4):
The insurance company (Blue Shield of California) refused to pay the ER bills, saying that the patient ought to have known that her symptoms were not an emergency situation.

She probably should have. How much blood was she losing? She actually did not realize she was bleeding until her shirt was soaked? No one else noticed her shirt becoming stained? I find this story a little incredulous. How about a link?

Quoting AustinAirport (Reply 5):

And the sad thing is, Republican senators have been quoted telling people to pretty much just suck it up, and deal with it.

How about a link to those quotes?

Quoting AustinAirport (Reply 5):
I don't see how anyone can justify being on the Republican side of this debate. I mean honestly folks, lets grow up a little.

I don't see how anyone can be on the democratic side of this debate given the fact that medicare is going broke. Yet somehow if we give the government even more of a strangle hold over us somehow things will get even better?

Quoting AustinAirport (Reply 5):
So that means we do nothing at all?

Nope, the GOP has had several good reform ideas not only this year but in years past. Unfortunately since there was no President of the same party in office the past 3 years there was not impetus to do anything since they wouldn't get credit. Before that no matter what the President suggested it wasn't enough or the democrats said "no".

The funny part, well not so funny for you, is that you are on the leading edge of the age group that is going to start bearing an ever larger tax burden to support those baby boomers as they hit the real retirement years starting next year when those born in 1945 hit 65. My tax burden at your age 10 years from now was nothing compared to what yours will be.

From the previous thread:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 351):
And increase the costs for all taxpayers? Sure, why not?

It looks like you're supporting increased spending for seniors (thank you very much!) and I would assume that would include even if your taxes go up to pay for it.

I won't post individual replies as that would take too much time. Anything extra above and beyond 75% of the benchmark price has to be returned to the beneficiaries as extra service or in the form of cash rebates. Simply put, your claim, and the Presidents, that the insurance companies are just raking in the profits is now debunked. According to the CBO even if the extra money that it takes to run medicare advantage were eliminated and returned to medicare all it would do is reduce the amount of services now offered to seniors and extend the day that medicare itself goes bankrupt. Aside from that, since the government already has to add to medicare every year you're not really saving anything, just reducing the amount the government has to borrow to keep the whole house of cards upright.

If you would care to show some responsible numbers to refute that be my guest. It's high time emotion was taken out of the argument and when you do that the math that the President, and by extension you, have been putting forth just doesn't add up. Reform health insurance responsibly by using the existing system. Fix it for the actual 5-8% of citizens that don't have insurance because they can't afford it. Institute tort reform so the examples that are posted above above are reduced. Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase competiton which always lowers price. Eliminate pre-conditions as a right of refusal but do expect those with them to pay something more than a person in good health. Raise the financial floor for medicaid and give tax credits to families just above that floor to a to be determined level, so they can afford to buy health insurance. That's the place to start. Drop the ridiculous stories of people bleeding from their nipples and such. There aren't that many of them and all they do is insert emotion where it is not needed. That includes the President with his sob story of the day eveytime he speaks.


User currently offlineWestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2129 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2112 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
How much blood was she losing? She actually did not realize she was bleeding until her shirt was soaked? No one else noticed her shirt becoming stained? I find this story a little incredulous. How about a link?

Here is the link to the story: http://cbs5.com/investigates/insurance.claim.denied.2.1207332.html

(If I had a loved one - wife, sister, daughter - bleeding profusely from her nipple, I would take her to the emergency room without hesitation. Perhaps you would have acted differently).



The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2103 times:



Quoting WestWing (Reply 7):
(If I had a loved one - wife, sister, daughter - bleeding profusely from her nipple, I would take her to the emergency room without hesitation. Perhaps you would have acted differently).

Profusely? Where does it say that? If it had been dripping blood all night the same effect could have been achieved. Secondly, did she feel faint when she stood up? What was the rate of flow of blood? I smell a panic attack. I've had bloody noses during the night that made the pillow look like an axe murder was committed nearby and yet have not run to the emergency room. I think the insurance company is paying off just to brush off the media attention. I absolutely think they were right to question the nature of the "emergency". If we practice what the attorney is preaching, that if "you" think it is an emergency it is, then emergency rooms will be full of non-emergency cases of people with insurance that could afford to choose a different option.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2101 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
It's high time emotion was taken out of the argument and when you do that the math that the President, and by extension you, have been putting forth just doesn't add up.

Right about the math, wrong about taking emotion out of it. When it comes to people's relatives, children, parents, etc - the very awareness of mortality and natural fear of health-related matters most rational people still have - it's damn-near impossible to take emotion out of it. There has to be some room for it in a healthcare discussion - physicians don't take all the emotion out of their jobs either even though they see this stuff 24/7.

Quoting DXing (Reply 8):
I smell a panic attack. I've had bloody noses during the night that made the pillow look like an axe murder was committed nearby and yet have not run to the emergency room. I think the insurance company is paying off just to brush off the media attention. I absolutely think they were right to question the nature of the "emergency".

It's a ridiculous denial whether it was a panic attack or not. Speaking thereof, millions of Americans suffer from panic and/or anxiety disorders. Stress from these conditions manifests in all kinds of ways, including chest pain and heart arrythmias that can closely mimic serious cardiac disease. Should these people, knowing they've already been diagnosed with panic attacks, stop running off to the ER every time they think they have a heart attack?? A little empathy, please.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2098 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 9):
wrong about taking emotion out of it.

If we can't seperate emotion from the math then we might as well pass a bill that gives everyone everything for nothing. There are a lot of things I'd like to have just based on emotion, how they will make me feel, but I'm smart enough to know that to do so will permanently damage my financial position. The political leaders have to look at it that way else we will all be in the same boat.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 9):
A little empathy, please.

I have empathy for people who have a legitimate reason for it. Unless the blood was flowing quite freely "emergency" seems a little over the top in this case. Nothing described in the story screamed, "she's bleeding to death". As I noted I've had bloody noses while I slept that made the pillow look like hell. Was that an emergency? I hate to bring up personal responsibility since so many here think so little of it but that is case here. Perhaps they could have made a phone call or two before jumping in the car?


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2093 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 10):
I hate to bring up personal responsibility since so many here think so little of it but that is case here. Perhaps they could have made a phone call or two before jumping in the car?

Fair enough with the phone calls but no two people can be expected to react to a situation involving their health the same way. Some people are very blase about their bodies and others are moderate to severe hypochondriacs. I refuse to judge those people on the basis of some standard of acceptable reaction.

Quoting DXing (Reply 10):
As I noted I've had bloody noses while I slept that made the pillow look like hell.

No doubt your reaction was reasonable and appropriate. I guarantee you that if you were stricken with panic disorder or something of that nature you'd be compelled beyond logic and reason to get to the nearest doctor as if all life depended on it.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2092 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 11):
I refuse to judge those people on the basis of some standard of acceptable reaction.

Unfortunately there has to be some standard applied.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 11):
I guarantee you that if you were stricken with panic disorder or something of that nature you'd be compelled beyond logic and reason to get to the nearest doctor as if all life depended on it.

Agreed, but the reference to a panic attack was used more semantically than actual. There is no reference to either having that disorder.

Life is nothing if not a continual learing process. This couple learned a lesson and until the TV station intervened on their behalf it was going to cost them. Now, I have a feeling they've learned nothing other than if you squeal loudly enough there's a better than even chance your mistake will be covered.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8184 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2092 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
I don't see how anyone can be on the democratic side of this debate given the fact that medicare is going broke. Yet somehow if we give the government even more of a strangle hold over us somehow things will get even better?

Maybe we need to look at the whole picture and go from there.

The country has a deficit, yet we continue to spend money on capital military equipment. The USAF wants a new tanker and not the cheapest option that meets standards. Cound save money upgrading existing planes?

We need to make decisions based on what is best for the country - which in itself can generate debate. On the tanker side, I'll probably be happy with either option as both can do the job.

On the health side I believe that the health insurance company has sufficiently established that they are not going to take care of certain parts of this population. Nor would they want to face new legislation that would require them to act in a manner that a reasonable person would consider acceptable.

That means there needs to be an affordable option for those that are not within the insurance companies desired pool. We started that with Medicare years ago, Do you really believe that insurance companies want to return to providing coverage for the older population?

With seniors covered with Medicare it is time for those with existing (or emerging) conditions to have affordable coverage that will allow for responsible care. Since you are so supportive of Medicare Advantage maybe we can use that program.

Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
s and extend the day that medicare itself goes bankrupt.

Doesn't that mean "push back the date"? Or keep Medicare financed longer without raising taxes?

Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
If you would care to show some responsible numbers to refute that be my guest.

The number I put up was $113 Billion. The number you mentioned was $100 Billion. Over a 10 year period I would doubt we are that far apart.

Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
Reform health insurance responsibly by using the existing system.

Unless you fix a lot of the broken parts of the existing system you are not going to get reform. Pre-existing conditions, multiple prices for the same coverage, denial of payment for treatments that medical professionals consider necessary. Lots of reform that impacts your premiums and corporate profits.

I simply don't believe that the insurance companies are going to be willing to go for that.

Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase competiton which always lowers price.

I have State Farm for my Medicare Gap coverage. That's a national company IIFC.

Large companies that use State Farm, Aetna, BC/BS seem to have their employees covered in all states.

I think the important issue might be that there are minimum state standards that some companies want to avoid.

Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
Eliminate pre-conditions as a right of refusal but do expect those with them to pay something more than a person in good health.

In other words, keep shrinking the "cheapest pool" and hope you get to stay in it.

The larger the pool you establish - including those with existing problems - the better the opportunity you have to be successful with reform of existing approaches. That would increase everyone's premiums, but I doubt if anyone knows how much.

The other option is to use a "public option" like Medicare for those with conditions that make them undesirable for insurance companies. We're the rejects or undesirables - what ever you want to call us. As soon as an insurance company sends the reject document automatically enroll the family in this option.

That keeps the private insurance premiums as cheap as they can be. Just as important to some of us is that it would set the same level of importance for patients as it does for profits.

Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
Drop the ridiculous stories of people bleeding from their nipples and such.

While the situation may sound unique, the efforts of insurance companies to deny ER trips isn't that unique. Why wouldn't they? They boost their profits when they deny.

Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
There aren't that many of them and all they do is insert emotion where it is not needed.

Some conditions are sufficiently unique that a doctor may only see 1 or 2 cases in a career - or none. Easy to see why infrequent situations are denied insurance coverage, especially if it "sounds strange".

Regardless of how frequent or strange a condition may be, lots of emotions are generally what is needed to get the insurance company to do what they should have done in the first place. It's a shame that it takes public embarrassment to get a normal coverage. Maybe that's why some people want to keep


User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2068 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Maybe we need to look at the whole picture and go from there.

The country has a deficit, yet we continue to spend money on capital military equipment.

Because the Constitution mandates that the federal government is responsible for defense. It says absolutely nothing about being responsible for individual health care, education, or a whole host of other items. You can cry about the general welfare all you wish but that is all you are doing since it is not written. I find it interesting when I bring up selling insurance across state lines you claim States rights yet once again the interstate commerce claus is clearly written in the Constitution. It's interesting that the left can only use the Constitution to promote their causes if you are willing to believe that what is not there actually is and what is there is of no importance.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
On the health side I believe that the health insurance company has sufficiently established that they are not going to take care of certain parts of this population. Nor would they want to face new legislation that would require them to act in a manner that a reasonable person would consider acceptable.

And I think you're wrong. Given the right incentives, cross state line selling, and tort reform chief among them they would be willing to take on those with pre-existing conditions since their liability would be limited.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
We started that with Medicare years ago,

Medicare was started as a political ploy to get voters. A democratic party President with a democratic party Congress. I have no choice but to pay into the plan. A plan that I highly doubt will still be solvent without massive tax increases by the time I reach 65 or whose benefits will be highly diluted. Medicare is going broke. The government has no one to blame but themselves for it happening as they do not pay 1-1 to the providers and as such encourage ever higher prices. Yet somehow I am expected to believe that my taxes won't go up, as they have already several times in my working career, to pay for what some want me to beleive will be the governments first ever social program that is managed correctly and doesn't cost far more and deliver far less than orginally envisioned. Sorry, I don't believe a bit of it and thank goodness the majority of Americans don't either.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Do you really believe that insurance companies want to return to providing coverage for the older population?

I think at some point they will have to because the government run program is going broke.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
With seniors covered with Medicare it is time for those with existing (or emerging) conditions to have affordable coverage that will allow for responsible care. Since you are so supportive of Medicare Advantage maybe we can use that program.

I used Medicare Advantage to show the fallacy of your ideas, not that I support it. Your position, and the Presidents, that there are huge savings to be made with Medicare Advanatage and the only thing impacted will be the insurance companies profits has been shown to be completely false. Seniors enrolled in that program will lose benefits and the entire medicare program will still be on track to go broke, only just a little slower. On top of all that, if these saving are there to be had why, in the past 8 months he's been in office, has the Presidnet not been able to identify specific savings to be had from medicare instead of the ever present "we can achieve" line. Let's see the savings (even if only paper) now if they are there to be had.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Doesn't that mean "push back the date"? Or keep Medicare financed longer without raising taxes?

Unless taxes are raised medicare will go broke under the weight of the baby boomers of which I'm at the very tail end. Unless there is a massive tax increase there is absolutely no way you can enroll even 30 million more people let alone 46 million (which number is it this week?) without one.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Unless you fix a lot of the broken parts of the existing system you are not going to get reform.

I'd rather fix the broken parts than trash the entire system since once that is done we will have a hard time going back too since the government rarely admits failure, just pours more money down a hole.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
I simply don't believe that the insurance companies are going to be willing to go for that.

As discussed, if the proper incentives and safeguards are there they will.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
I have State Farm for my Medicare Gap coverage. That's a national company IIFC.

How many times to we have to cover the same ground? Regular health insurance is regulated by the States. Medicare supplement insurance or Medigap insurance has to fit a federal standardized formula. Even with that there are three States in which special policies must be written. As such, the individual companies that umbrella under one name, such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield will offer medigap insurance but they are still individual companies licensed within a particular State. So if you buy health insurance in Texas, you can't take it with you into Arizona. That is part of the problem with the cost of insurance and something, if fixed, would help to lower costs.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Large companies that use State Farm, Aetna, BC/BS seem to have their employees covered in all states.

Yes, but the individual polices are written by the individual companies and then combined into one over all policy.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
I think the important issue might be that there are minimum state standards that some companies want to avoid.

Which if eliminated in favor of federal ones would open up markets.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
While the situation may sound unique, the efforts of insurance companies to deny ER trips isn't that unique. Why wouldn't they? They boost their profits when they deny

Or the person who panicked and went to the emergency room should be made to find out that not every thing is an emergency and some personal responsibility is expected. Just like the driver who keeps hitting things because of inanttention will quickly find out that most insurance companies don't want their business.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Regardless of how frequent or strange a condition may be, lots of emotions are generally what is needed to get the insurance company to do what they should have done in the first place. It's a shame that it takes public embarrassment to get a normal coverage.

With that attitude, multiplied enough times, our country is bankrupt. Why buy one twizzler at the check out counter when the whole box is there for the taking.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8184 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2058 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 14):
Because the Constitution mandates that the federal government is responsible for defense.

The Constitution doesn't say what percentage of the GNP should be used to finance the DoD, does it?

There is no new money for the USAF in the Constitution for those tankers. Actually there is no USAF noted or included in the constitution.

And what does the Constitution say about the federal government spending all that money to distribute the Salk vaccine to everyone in the country back in the 50s to rid us of polio?

Or the money being spend today on vaccines for the swine flu?

Quoting DXing (Reply 14):
bring up selling insurance across state lines you claim States rights

I simply find it ironic that conservatives can be so strongly in favor or state rights when it suits them, yet turn their backs on them when they are inconvenient.

I think state rights can be good in some cases, as long as it doesn't infringe on national standards and protections. Segregation was a classic example of state rights gone nuts and needing federal override. California auto emissions is a classic example of a state determining when more intensive local control is necessary.

On other topics I like the idea of federal requirements. One such area would be electronic toll stickers we have in our car. If federal dollars paid for part of a toll road then I believe that a national toll sticker should be recognized by the readers. It's not that difficult to mandate national standards. Actually, its rather stupid not to mandate them. I have two - one for Oklahoma and one for Houston. Why can the same sticker work everywhere?

Quoting DXing (Reply 14):
Given the right incentives, cross state line selling, and tort reform chief among them they would be willing to take on those with pre-existing conditions since their liability would be limited.

Some pre-existing conditions can get rather expensive. Some are basically cleared up before being reviewed for a policy - never to return. A woman who finds breast cancer early and gets fast treatment may well live a long, happy life with no future medical bills related to the cancer. Other's like my wife can get hit with something far more severe. For my wife, it was acute leukemia - not cheap, that one.

Insurance companies don't really know what the future is holding so they are most unlikely to happily take on this population without some very think strings attached. "Reform" for them is a means of *expanding profitability*, not for taking better care of the people in this country. That is one of the basic conflicts that has caused our problems in the first place.

I'm quite happy with State Farm selling health insurance in multiple states (which they do already), but strongly believe that we do not need to shift to the lowest standards in the country when that happens. Maybe we pick the best standards in the country.  Smile

Quoting DXing (Reply 14):
Seniors enrolled in that program will lose benefits and the entire medicare program will still be on track to go broke, only just a little slower.

So you would rather keep a minority getting more expensive versions of Medicare, even if it causes the system to go broke faster?

If these seniors are getting benefits in excess of standard Medicare participants then they should be the ones putting in the additional costs. Just like I do with my Medicare Gap insurance. No way should the program "go broke" or require you pay additional taxes so these folks can enjoy there ride.

Before praising the plan, however, you should check to see if there are restrictions on where you may go for care and is there an HMO factor to it. Fastest way to loose freedoms you can find.


User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2052 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
The Constitution doesn't say what percentage of the GNP should be used to finance the DoD, does it?

Deflection.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
There is no new money for the USAF in the Constitution for those tankers. Actually there is no USAF noted or included in the constitution.

The USAF is part of providing for the common defense. Arguing that it isn't is naive.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
And what does the Constitution say about the federal government spending all that money to distribute the Salk vaccine to everyone in the country back in the 50s to rid us of polio?

Nothing. But like a war, it is a one time expense, not an ongoing program that will drain more and more resources.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
Or the money being spend today on vaccines for the swine flu?

Most doctors will say that the swine flu is being over-hyped at this point. It's a waste of money.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
I simply find it ironic that conservatives can be so strongly in favor or state rights when it suits them, yet turn their backs on them when they are inconvenient.

Here we go again, covering the same ground over and over.

Quoting DXing (Reply 14):
It says absolutely nothing about being responsible for individual health care, education, or a whole host of other items. You can cry about the general welfare all you wish but that is all you are doing since it is not written. I find it interesting when I bring up selling insurance across state lines you claim States rights yet once again the interstate commerce claus is clearly written in the Constitution. It's interesting that the left can only use the Constitution to promote their causes if you are willing to believe that what is not there actually is and what is there is of no importance.

I also find it humorous that you write:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
Some pre-existing conditions can get rather expensive. Some are basically cleared up before being reviewed for a policy - never to return.

But then say that the insurance companies don't know what the future holds.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
Insurance companies don't really know what the future is holding so they are most unlikely to happily take on this population without some very think strings attached

and yet are supposed to take on higher risk persons, since they don't know what the future holds either, without any kind of premium protection built in. I suppose you expect the taxpayer to take the same risk. Why take one twizzler when the whole box is there for the same price right?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
So you would rather keep a minority getting more expensive versions of Medicare, even if it causes the system to go broke faster?

My point was and remains that it doesn't make any difference, the program is going broke one way or the other. My point was that yours, and the Presidents, claim of the insurance companies just raking in profit is false. It also completely debunks any notion that the government can manage an even larger scale health program without resorting to either higher taxes or lowered services, or both since they can't manage medicare.

Reform the existing system. Polls out today show that only 41% want the Presidents plan and 56% oppose it. Here's some change we can all believe in, that the politicians in Washington actually listen to their constituents.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8184 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2045 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 16):
My point was that yours, and the Presidents, claim of the insurance companies just raking in profit is false.

So who pays out the $113 Billion? Taxpayers?

And if the Medicare Advantage program wasn't profitable do you really believe that the insurance companies would be in that business? Or be spending money to avoid it being cut?

Quoting DXing (Reply 16):
It also completely debunks any notion that the government can manage an even larger scale health program without resorting to either higher taxes or lowered services, or both since they can't manage medicare.

Would my services be lowered if Medicare Advantage was eliminated? Nope.

And what services are you talking about?

Let's look at a non-liberal newspaper article - the Dallas Morning News:

"Up to one-third of Dallas-area residents don't have health insurance, and the number is rising. Everybody in North Texas pays the cost, through taxes and higher insurance costs – as much as an estimated $1,800 per family."

""The cost is borne by those of us who have insurance to perhaps a greater extent than people recognize," said Eduardo Sanchez, vice president and chief medical officer of BlueCross BlueShield of Texas, the state's largest health insurer. "It's borne by all of us as taxpayers at local, state and federal levels."

Sanchez, a former state health commissioner, said people insured through their jobs pay for the uninsured again in the workplace, through higher premiums and eroding benefits – particularly if they're employed by small businesses.

A "vicious circle" of higher hospital prices, generated by costly emergency room care of the uninsured, drives up insurance premiums for employers, he said. Every year, that causes a few more bosses to drop coverage of their workers, he added.

"Now you have a higher number and percentage of uninsured," Sanchez said, and the downward cycle begins anew."

"The Texas "cost shift" represents about 13 percent of all private premiums paid, far more than the national average of slightly more than 8 percent.

The average annual family policy premium, shared by employer and employee, is $13,500 in Texas, the center found. For individuals insured through jobs at private companies, the average is $4,800."

As for Texan's believing that everyone who truly health care and can't afford it will be covered:

"Joel Allison, chief executive of Baylor Health Care System, and other health care providers said a restrictive state Medicaid program helps swell the ranks of Texas' uninsured.

Though the federal government puts up most of the money for Medicaid, an insurance program for the poor, states set the rules. Texas rules bar coverage for an able-bodied adult who makes more than $188 a month and is not pregnant."

OK, so they will be treated and personal & business insurance premiums will go up. Big surprise.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont.../092009dnbusuninsured.21f0d1c.html

The costs I was seeing in the article pretty well demonstrates that there are no big cuts in the cost of care when tort reform is put into effect. Texas has tort reform and costs are pretty well in line with what I was paying.

Maybe others on the board can compare the Texas rates to theirs and let us know how much tort reform appears to be saving Texans.

I guess $188 a month is big money in Texas. Reminds me of when I was in the military in the 60s.


User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2041 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
So who pays out the $113 Billion? Taxpayers?

Any of the $113 billion that is above the federally set benchmark must be returned to the beneficiary in the form of addtional service or cash rebates, that is the law.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
And if the Medicare Advantage program wasn't profitable do you really believe that the insurance companies would be in that business? Or be spending money to avoid it being cut?

Hold it, before you, and the President, were insinuating that the insurance companies were just raking in that $113 billion as pure profit for no extra service. I've shown where that is a completely false assumption, using the law itself. Now you want to change your tune and suggest that the insurance companies should be doing this as a non-profit? That is not the way the program is set up and not the way the President has suggested it ought to be. Of course the companies involved are going to make a profit, that is what they are in business to do no matter how much you think they should be operating as charities. And as has been shown they are are not making any undue profit either based on the volume of business they are doing. You can try and spin your way out if you wish but the fact is that the Medicare advantage program is not the insurance boondoggle that you and the President make it out to be.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
Would my services be lowered if Medicare Advantage was eliminated? Nope.

No because you are on basic medicare, but those that are enrolled in Medicare Advantage, approximately 19% of all those on medicare, will see a decrease in their benefits.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
And what services are you talking about?

In many cases dental and vision insurance are offered in lieu of cash rebates. In other cases catastrophic care insurnace. It depends on what policy you sign up for.

It sure would help if you provided the source for the quote.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
as much as an estimated $1,800 per family

The paper does not really identify where this number comes from.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
A "vicious circle" of higher hospital prices, generated by costly emergency room care of the uninsured, drives up insurance premiums for employers, he said. Every year, that causes a few more bosses to drop coverage of their workers, he added.

Yet farther below, from a Baylor official:

Officials at Baylor Health Care System in Dallas said they charge insured patients 150 percent of actual costs to cover charity care of the uninsured and underpayment by Medicare, the federal program for seniors and the disabled. Gary Brock, Baylor's chief operating officer, said that's standard in the hospital industry.

So Medicare if at least partially at fault for underpaying and helping to drive up cost. Yet somehow if we give the government even more power they are going to better manage the system? How stupid do you have to be to believe that?

Ah...here's where the paper gets their $1800 figure:

Across Texas, private sector workers this year paid $1,800 more in premiums per family policy, and $630 more per individual plan, to help pay for care of the uninsured, according to the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning Washington think tank, updating an earlier study by Democratic health care economist Kenneth Thorpe.

Of course they wouldn't be too biased would they?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
The costs I was seeing in the article pretty well demonstrates that there are no big cuts in the cost of care when tort reform is put into effect. Texas has tort reform and costs are pretty well in line with what I was paying.

Then you would have to explain if there are no benefits why Texas has such a big influx of doctors from other states? As I have stated, time and time again since you like to cover old ground over and over again in the hopes of salvaging a losing argument, everything takes time. Part of the ongoing problem is the surrounding states. Since they don't have tort reform their prices are still high. Since doctors don't operate on a charity base of pricing, anymore than insurance companies, what is the incentive to reduce their costs even if their medical malpractice insurance cost has fallen? That is something that tort reform, nationwide, can factor in. It is not a reason to scrap the existing system in favor of a system in which you would have less avenues of redress than you do now.

Reform the existing system.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8184 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2033 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
Any of the $113 billion that is above the federally set benchmark must be returned to the beneficiary in the form of addtional service or cash rebates, that is the law.

What about changing the law to require the government be refunded the money, rather than spend it on Medicare Advantage customers? If there are funds in excess of the benchmark then the rest of the taxpayers in the country don't need to be paying more for it than is necessary.

Basically there is a sucker born every minute. If Medicare Advantage cannot do the job cheaper then they aren't needed. There certainly should be no additional costs - like the $113 Billion - paid for by the taxpayers.

Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
So Medicare if at least partially at fault for underpaying and helping to drive up cost.

Yep. Medicare pays for the treatment costs, not excess charges to cover the uninsured. You pay a higher premium than I do because of the need to cover unpaid care. But you don't mind as it keeps the government out of the business of taking care of those costs.

Your contribution is made every month there is a premium made in your name. It's going to keep increasing if no reform is made to change it. It's going to minimize the number of people a company can employee, and how much employees can be paid in wages and salaries.

But think of the "freedom" it brings to those who are stuck in a "medical network" system.

Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
No because you are on basic medicare, but those that are enrolled in Medicare Advantage, approximately 19% of all those on medicare, will see a decrease in their benefits.

Tax dollars don't need to be spent on excess from private plans, which is what Medicare Advantage is.

If a health insurance provider can provide the same benefits (without network restrictions) at the same cost as normal Medicare policy holders AND make a profit then I have no problem. If the costs to taxpayers increases, reducing the care that can be provided to others, then I don't see any reason to fund it. Your charity is impressive.

Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
In many cases dental and vision insurance are offered in lieu of cash rebates. In other cases catastrophic care insurnace. It depends on what policy you sign up for.

If it is the taxpayer's dollars that are funding Medicare Advantage why give the "excess funds" to anyone but the source of those funds? Medicare alone costs enough, no need to spend an extra $113 Billion on a select few. If people want more they can buy Medicare Gap, or any other type of plan that does not rely on taxpayer dollars.

Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
The paper does not really identify where this number comes from.

Does it matter? Probably a lot of various numbers within a statistically relevant range available from multiple sources. I chose that one as it is from Dallas - not a hard core liberal enclave.

Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
Of course they wouldn't be too biased would they?

Probably less biased than Fox.


But here is a quote from a conservative in the same article:

"Steven Camarota, research director at the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative group that supports stronger immigration enforcement, said that if immigrants and their U.S.-born children aren't counted, only New Mexico tops Texas in percentage of residents without health insurance – and by less than 1 percentage point."

Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
Then you would have to explain if there are no benefits why Texas has such a big influx of doctors from other states?

Doctors are heading there because they know that they do not have to reduce their prices, even with tort reform.

Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
everything takes time.

Sure it does. LMAO

Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
That is something that tort reform, nationwide, can factor in.

Just like it has in Texas?

The Dallas article points out some issues that cost employers and employees unnecessary money. You can talk all you want about conservative ideals, but this conservative newspaper article makes it pretty clear that you are paying a heavy price for your position.

And you make it clear that you are willing to pay any price (especially if you boss picks up the tab) in order to keep the status quo.


User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2029 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
What about changing the law to require the government be refunded the money, rather than spend it on Medicare Advantage customers? If there are funds in excess of the benchmark then the rest of the taxpayers in the country don't need to be paying more for it than is necessary.

To which it doesn't make any difference. Medicare is still going to go broke. You just don't seem to want to understand that nor admit insurance companies aren't making out hand over fist as you and the President insinuate.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
Basically there is a sucker born every minute. If Medicare Advantage cannot do the job cheaper then they aren't needed. There certainly should be no additional costs - like the $113 Billion - paid for by the taxpayers.

There sure is, it's someone who thinks the government can manage anything properly and keep it's promise of containing cost and delivering what it promises.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
Yep. Medicare pays for the treatment costs

No it does not. It pays 70-80% of treatment costs. I get stuck for the rest which is on top of the taxes I already pay. So when you go see the doctor, I get to pay twice.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
You pay a higher premium than I do because of the need to cover unpaid care.

Which includes medicare patients. Why do you think fewer and fewer MD's are taking on new medicare patients? They know there is no money in it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
But you don't mind as it keeps the government out of the business of taking care of those costs.

I don't mind since seeing the abysmal failure that the government has made of just about everything outside of the military it touches what I have is worth the price versus the mess I would have if the government were in charge.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
If people want more they can buy Medicare Gap, or any other type of plan that does not rely on taxpayer dollars.

So now who's rationing? And now you are promoting private insurance.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
Probably less biased than Fox.

Fox isn't even quoted in the story!!!

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
"Steven Camarota, research director at the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative group that supports stronger immigration enforcement, said that if immigrants and their U.S.-born children aren't counted, only New Mexico tops Texas in percentage of residents without health insurance – and by less than 1 percentage point."

Yep, there is a huge part of the Hispanic population on medicaid. No doubt about that and they would not be counted as having health insurance. So the safety net works.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
Doctors are heading there because they know that they do not have to reduce their prices, even with tort reform.

Which is why I pointed out that tort reform needs to be enacted nationwide with that issue being addressed specifically.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
You can talk all you want about conservative ideals, but this conservative newspaper article makes it pretty clear that you are paying a heavy price for your position.

Which is all the more reason to enact the reforms that conservatives were calling for during the Bush administration but that the democratic party members blocked since they would not get credit for it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
And you make it clear that you are willing to pay any price (especially if you boss picks up the tab) in order to keep the status quo.

I've been clear in calling for reforming the existing system which is not maintaining the status quo. We've covered the same ground 3 or more times now. The Presidents plan, and thus Congresses, has less and less support every week when new polls are released. Rather than rush something through in October perhaps for once the leaders will wake up and see what they are talking about is not what their constituents want, scap what they have, and start over. This time rather than depending on imaginary savings from a program that is already forecast to go bankrupt in a few years they will take a hard look at reforming the system that is in place and works just fine for a majority of people in this country.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8184 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2021 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
Medicare is still going to go broke.

Unless changes are made to the revenues going to it.

If funding can be improved when I was young and paying, funding can be improved today,

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
You just don't seem to want to understand that nor admit insurance companies aren't making out hand over fist as you and the President insinuate.

Oh, I understand.

I understand that if the money wasn't there then the insurance companies would be there either.

I'm just not as willing as you are to let the insurance companies have a good ride while denying payment of care (which is added to your premiums, by the way) to those without insurance.

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
There sure is, it's someone who thinks the government can manage anything properly and keep it's promise of containing cost and delivering what it promises.

And there are those of us who has seen the insurance companies screw up our care more than the government ever has. And there are those of us who can compare the care under Medicare + Gap with what we used to have.

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
It pays 70-80% of treatment costs.

And a part of those treatment costs goes to investments in the future, like a new MRI system. Medicare doesn't pay that part of the charge so you get to.

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
I get stuck for the rest which is on top of the taxes I already pay.

And add to that the costs of the uninsured, which is shifting more and more costs onto your back until there is a public option.

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
So when you go see the doctor, I get to pay twice.

And I went to the doctor 2 weeks ago.  old 

Thank you for that.

And I'm thinking about another sleep study.

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
I don't mind

Wow! Thank you! I will get that sleep study!  yes 

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
Yep, there is a huge part of the Hispanic population on medicaid.

Recheck the article - a person in Texas can't make over $188 a month ($188 a month!) in order to qualify.

You get the shaft on care for the uninsured, not Medicaid. Dramatically cut the uninsured population dramatically with public options and maybe a penny in sales taxes and that cost can be reduced.

Stay with your hard right position and these costs are going to continue to increase. But, as you said above, you're happy with those increases.

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
So now who's rationing? And now you are promoting private insurance.

Not rationing, just not throwing in the extras when others can't get the core care.

And I've never been against insurance companies - I just don't go for the fluff they are putting out.  fluffy 

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
Which is why I pointed out that tort reform needs to be enacted nationwide with that issue being addressed specifically.

And the failure of tort return to reduce prices in Texas is probably why you dropped the "lower cost" position.

Check the polls again.

When asked if they want their own health care screwed up then 65% to 75% will say No.

When asked if a public option like Medicare should be available to others 65% are now saying Yes.

Maybe we need a poll that asks

Should we have a public option with affordable rates for those who have been refused coverage or care because of an existing condition?

How do you think that one would go?

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
The Presidents plan, and thus Congresses, has less and less support every week when new polls are released.



User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2019 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
Recheck the article - a person in Texas can't make over $188 a month ($188 a month!) in order to qualify.

That is either a typo or completely in error. Medicaid is a federal program administered by the States. The federal government sets the poverty line that the States have to abide by. $188 a month is only $2,256 a year. The federal guidline for a single person to be in poverty for 2008 is $10,400 a year or $200 dollars a week gross. Figure taxes and you're looking at $188 a week.

http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/medicaid...orts/PB7/BookFiles/Chapter%202.pdf
page 3.

Feel free to post where State law in Texas says $188 a month.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2017 times:

http://www.projo.com/opinion/contrib..._09-28-09_F0FM1CK_v12.3f8ccc0.html

I think this covers in very well in my opinion. The man speaks the truth.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8184 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2006 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 22):
Feel free to post where State law in Texas says $188 a month.

I already did- it's in my original link to the Dallas Morning News.

"Though the federal government puts up most of the money for Medicaid, an insurance program for the poor, states set the rules. Texas rules bar coverage for an able-bodied adult who makes more than $188 a month and is not pregnant.

"Medicaid in Texas is very limited," Allison said."


Maybe you need to note the "able-bodied adult" part - looks like it makes a good out for the state, but adds to your costs.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 23):
I think this covers in very well in my opinion.

Good article, but conservatives probably don't trust their doctors. It's much more exciting to talk about "death panels" and more people will believe you if you do.


25 WarRI1 : Yes, I agree. the good Professor covered that with the term "Public Howling" no question, a good choice of words on his part.
26 DXing : And of that I said: Because the amount of income for a disabled person would be even lower. Nowhere can I find any statute in the Texas Medicaid prog
27 Ken777 : Let's assume you're right - a single person living on $200 a week: How far does that go, assuming they try to pay rent, utilities & cheap food? Look
28 DXing : Which proves my point about the government being unable to deliver what it promises. Not once but twice it has had to come back and redo the way the
29 Ken777 : Do you always assume the worst in people? I didn't say anything about an addict or criminal. Or maybe it relates to the fact that there have been cha
30 DXing : You mean like the changes made in 1997 that were to cut waste and fraud in the system and have been waived every year by Congress since then? That is
31 AustinAirport : Rachel Maddow Show. So, if you have Dish channel 209. LOL. Everything is about numbers to Republicans. I'm much less worried about the cost. I'm worr
32 Ken777 : Try appearance, or being over 40 for some companies. ANd maybe the employer knows with that leg amputated there will probably be more medical bills.
33 DXing : Gosh, does that mean I can start quoting Sean Hannity without fear of a backlash? You won't be when you get your first real job and realize what kind
34 Aaron747 : LOL no. Hannity and Maddow are opposite branches of the same tree. There's just nothing to be taken seriously there. This is why there is no public c
35 Ken777 : I had my own business and loved it. I understand, however, that not everyone can handle that. With 100 being the AVERAGE IQ it's logical that about h
36 DXing : Makes no difference. Whenever the question contains an option run by the government support goes down the drain and quickly. That's a nice emotional
37 Ken777 : Start with reforming insurance companies? If you give them the authority to deny payment on treatment then give them the responsibility for any damag
38 Post contains links DXing : Been discussed. Sorry, but there has to be equity as those types will more than likely be using the system more. That would fall pretty much in line
39 Ken777 : I think we both know you are against taking care of those who can't pay high costs of health insurance plus deductables, co-pays, etc. Let's just agr
40 Post contains links DXing : No, let's not agree on that. I'm all for them having insurance, but they have to pay what is fair, just like those evil rich people whom you want pay
41 Ken777 : My situation when we were in our 40s was very much like most people's - probably even yours. Our most unfortunate situation has been the private insu
42 DXing : Of course there is only one insurance company in the country and they should all be judged by the way you were treated. You would hope so but in orde
43 Post contains links Ken777 : And if they can't afford the price? Gonna let kids go uncovered, are you? Or, say, people who develop MS or MD later on in life? Of course, you'll ne
44 Post contains links DXing : The safety nets are there and still will be. I keep telling you that as long as you leave emotion in the equation your posts will always come up shor
45 Ken777 : Let me give you some bad news. If, say, you hit a problem like my wife did - acute leukemia. Get a diagnosis and head straight to the hospital for a
46 Post contains links Ken777 : Socialist Alert! Socialist Alert! Radical Left Wing Publication Praises Government Medicine: "Vets Loving Socialized Medicine Show Government Offers S
47 Post contains links WarRI1 : http://www.projo.com/opinion/editori..._10-02-09_ROFTB7D_v47.3f8a72a.html Here is a good realistic summary of it all. I do not think it is off topic.
48 Post contains links Ken777 : Not too bad at all, and pretty well on topic. There is a lot of money in playing games with policy holders' health and insurance companies sure don't
49 Post contains links Ken777 : "Bill Frist on Health Bill: I'd Vote For It" http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009...ist-on-health-bill-id-vote-for-it/ Remember Bill? He used to be th
50 WarRI1 : " target=_blank>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A39I...JF5Q0 Right from the horses mouth. He should know. Blasphemy! We cannot have that, why that mi
51 WarRI1 : Imagine that! Doctor first and a Republican second, how can this be?
52 DXing : Correct. I have both short and long term disability insurance. Which is why you buy disablility insurance and why the government ought to offer catas
53 WarRI1 : I think it is a stretch to equate the buying of influence through political donations with speech, political or free from anyone, Republican or Democ
54 Ken777 : Nope - they can BS all they want. I just don't think a tax deduction i appropriate. Since the game is to get more profits let them pay out of after t
55 DXing : The Constitution disagrees with you. The Supreme Court only partially agrees with you. And if you are serious then person, groups, or corporations th
56 WarRI1 : I do agree, no donations for anyone, or by anyone, and that would let the lawmakers, make laws for the common good, not special interests. I do not c
57 DXing : If it is Olberman or Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, or Maddow that first appears then it stops right there as well. None of them would know an unbiased com
58 Ken777 : You still missed commenting on what was actually said. Wonder why.
59 DXing : Because as I said: Anything that any of them present is biased and not worth wasting time on, period.
60 Post contains links Ken777 : Oooos! Ran into this article covering the "special features" of Medicare Advantage that you love so much: "At the other end of the age spectrum, ads f
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Obama's NAACP Speech posted Fri Jul 17 2009 22:21:29 by UAL777
JibJib: Barack Obama, He's Come To Save The Day posted Sat Jun 20 2009 07:35:27 by D L X
Vaunted "tax Cut" Obama Campaigned On To Disappear posted Sat May 2 2009 10:51:51 by FreequentFlier
Obama Ponders Outreach To Elements Of The Taliban posted Sat Mar 7 2009 20:26:25 by Mortyman
Obama's Address To Congress posted Tue Feb 24 2009 18:38:36 by StasisLAX
Obama - His Plans To Deal With Economic Problems posted Wed Sep 10 2008 18:12:05 by Tugger
Sarah Palin McCains VP Pick Part II posted Mon Sep 1 2008 08:58:55 by WILCO737
Funny Names, Part II posted Wed Feb 27 2008 11:03:24 by IFEMaster
Roger Clemens Testimony To Congress (live). posted Wed Feb 13 2008 08:31:00 by FXramper
The Ultimate Chicago Thread Part II posted Thu Jan 24 2008 22:50:48 by Chi-town