|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/08/2009 07:23:35 AM · #401 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
First of all, you will receive monthly drug tests AND birth control shots. |
Sweet!!! Eugenics for poor people! |
Ahhh, the typical, liberal scare tactic. This is not even remotely close to the idea off Eugenics. You don't have to take either the drug test OR the birth control, you would just be required to do so in order to gain government support. Is it OK to you that the money you provide as a taxpayer to 'help' the poor and underprivileged is intentionally spent to foster drug habits? If it really doesn't matter to you, how about we just tax you and all those with that sort of liberal attitude more, and I'll just keep my money. Fair? Sheesh. |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 10:03:44 AM · #402 |
| Just a quick question for the Americans...not trying to be facetious or sarcastic. How much does it cost, out of pocket, to have a baby in the States? Let's just say a normal birth with no complications. And after that, what happens to your insurance premiums? |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 10:32:47 AM · #403 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Just a quick question for the Americans...not trying to be facetious or sarcastic. How much does it cost, out of pocket, to have a baby in the States? Let's just say a normal birth with no complications. And after that, what happens to your insurance premiums? |
My youngest is 4, and it will vary from hospital to hospital from state to state, I imagine, but in Western North Carolina, 4 years ago, it was between $4000 and $6000 -- depends on hospital stay, epidural, etc. but around in there somewhere.
With my second, I didn't have insurance the last 3 months of the pregnancy or delivery (interesting story in that for another time), but for the first I did. Our premiums were not effected at all. |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 12:03:03 PM · #404 |
Originally posted by shamrock:
Um, Kelli, don't call someone else out unless you are sure of your facts.
Welfare encompasses much more than just AFDC (TANF), in my opinion, which seems to be what you are referring to. And President Clinton's overhaul restricted the eligibility to 5 years in a lifetime, not 2. Edit to add: This provision can be shortened by the state, and up to 20% of cases can be exempted from the 5 year policy as well. Which means that if 80% of the folks are using it honestly, you can still have 20% scammers milking the system.
Data found here
Now which lifetime are we referring to? Theoretically it is the adult in charge of a child - pass the child around in an extended family, and you can milk that benefit for the entire minority of the child (18 years, if that lost you).
Also, benefits vary according to the cost of living, so you can't state a set amount for a set family size. For instance, in New Mexico, a family of 3 would receive at most $389, while in Texas a family of 3 (1 adult) would be eligible for $244. With 2 adults, they would receive $267. And TANF can come with a host of other, non-cash benefits not available to a normal working family, such as subsidized housing, childcare, tuition assistance, etc.
I would also consider Food Stamps, which is independent of TANF, to be welfare. And quite a lot of Social Security, as it is paid out to folks that have never paid in, and will never pay in. Such as the 35 year old woman that lived down the street from my grandmother when i was in high school. They lived in government funded housing (yet another form of welfare). My grandmother was living on $309 a month. The woman that lived down the street, while not a genius, was certainly capable of living on her own, and of holding at the very least a simple job. But she had never worked a day in her life. And she received more than twice as much in Social Security as my grandmother, the widow of a veteran, an amputee since childhood, and who had worked most of her adult life. This other woman's child lived with her parents (as her "brother"), and i'm sure they received benefits for him as well. Welfare? Absolutely!
OR the two children of a friend of mine. Their mother (divorced from their father and with a third child still in infancy) was killed when they were both pre-teens. She had worked maybe a total of 5 years in her lifetime, and not in high paying jobs. Each of those children receive several hundred dollars a month from their mother's benefit. Do i begrudge them the money? Not really, though both fathers are very capable of supporting the kids without it. Do i consider it welfare? Absolutely. |
Oh gee, I had one thing wrong. The time limit. Still it's 5 years. Exactly the time frame he gave as being fine by him. Sorry I didn't look it up but went from memory of what I was told. And no, I don't know what the different rates are across the country, but I do know that no one could possibly believe these desperate people actually have wonderful lives in beautiful homes while living on welfare. Wake up to the real reality. I know people who have been on welfare, and they were quite desperate periods in their lives. I know that in my state you must report for work search or training usually with a week or two of signing up. If you don't go, you don't get it. I did go and look this up now and the requirement is 35 hours a week, not 40. Sorry again. I don't know anyone that stayed on welfare for longer than it took them to find a job or go to school for something and then get a job, so that's why I had the time limit screwed up. As for housing. There is no free housing here. You take your $422 and move to a hovel, because you're not touching something to rent in this state for less than $750/month for a one bedroom apartment. I don't know a single person that got help with housing beyond maybe 1 or 2 rent payments so they wouldn't be evicted. Maybe I don't know the types of people you talk about. Who knows.
As for the social security being welfare, consider it what you want. The fact is you can't get it unless you've paid in. My uncle died at the age of 52 from cancer caused by agent orange. He worked his whole life. He was a war veteran (Vietnam) who went through an agonizing death. He left a wife who depended on his income and 2 children ages 11 & 12. They got the social security death benefits. Do I consider it welfare? Absolutely NOT!
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine. But I'm so tired of the "I'm better than you" attitudes coming from those opposed to healthcare. Yeah, you hear stories that actually make you go "hmmm, maybe there is a problem", but then you turn around and say "too bad, it's not MY problem". And btw - I'm not an idiot and really feel that your line above "18 years, if that lost you" was unnecessary and ignorant.
The bottom line is the Democrats/Liberals ARE in office now, and things WILL change, like it or not. Just like they changed when Bush was in office to my detriment. The difference is what the liberals hope to do is make things better for all, not the just the rich. So the rich will need to tow the line and pay some more taxes. So what? I'm not going to boo hoo for people that can easily afford it. Now I'm done in this thread so bitch all you want, I'm tired of reading all the trash and hatred towards people that you don't even know come out of the mouths of some people. |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 01:41:33 PM · #405 |
Ok folks lets put the blame exactly where it belongs. I have health insurance, a good one. Yesterday I went to the clinic as I am suffering from a swollen uvula, thatâs the little flap of skin in the back of your mouth, and is causing difficulties swallowing. After prepaying my co-pay, I get to see Dr. Knownada, I call him that because of the following. I tell Dr. Knownada that I have a swollen uvula, first thing he does is look in my ears???, then listens to my breathing ???, thatâs when I say it makes it hard to swallow âtrying to lead himâ, then he looks at my throat. Dr. Knownada then says it looks ok, but I will prescribe a 3 day anti-inflammatory treatment. I get a prescription for Prednisone 3 pills (I read about it, but nothing on the list suggests anti-inflammatory) but what the hell. Because of good insurance I am out only $32.70 and a hour of my time for this dog and pony show. But get thisâ¦.Dr. Knownadaâs final words are âif this doesnât take care of the problem, come back and we will refer you to a specialistâ (more denaro for him, $30 more out of my pocket).
The above is the process I must follow, per my insurance companies rules to see a throat specialist. Dr. Knownada gets paid twice $60 from me plus insurance, what about $400, for 10 minutes, 3 pills, and a referral. Ding-ding round 2 next week. |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 01:48:36 PM · #406 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine. But I'm so tired of the "I'm better than you" attitudes coming from those opposed to healthcare. Yeah, you hear stories that actually make you go "hmmm, maybe there is a problem", but then you turn around and say "too bad, it's not MY problem". And btw - I'm not an idiot and really feel that your line above "18 years, if that lost you" was unnecessary and ignorant.
The bottom line is the Democrats/Liberals ARE in office now, and things WILL change, like it or not. Just like they changed when Bush was in office to my detriment. The difference is what the liberals hope to do is make things better for all, not the just the rich. So the rich will need to tow the line and pay some more taxes. So what? I'm not going to boo hoo for people that can easily afford it. Now I'm done in this thread so bitch all you want, I'm tired of reading all the trash and hatred towards people that you don't even know come out of the mouths of some people. |
LOL
When you attack someone, you need to have your facts straight, is what i'm saying. If you are going to take a holier-than-though, attacking attitude when you address someone, better know of what you speak.
BTW, i'm very much in favor of a single payer health care system in the US, and i'm far from a conservative in my political beliefs. But i despise cheaters, ignorant know-it-alls, and people who speak out their arse no matter which side of the debate they are on. And just because i believe that folks deserve a hand up, doesn't mean that i have to call it by another name just to disguise what it is.
Message edited by author 2009-08-08 13:51:21. |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 02:27:51 PM · #407 |
Originally posted by alans_world:
Ok folks lets put the blame exactly where it belongs. I have health insurance, a good one. Yesterday I went to the clinic as I am suffering from a swollen uvula, thatâs the little flap of skin in the back of your mouth, and is causing difficulties swallowing. After prepaying my co-pay, I get to see Dr. Knownada, I call him that because of the following. I tell Dr. Knownada that I have a swollen uvula, first thing he does is look in my ears???, then listens to my breathing ???, thatâs when I say it makes it hard to swallow âtrying to lead himâ, then he looks at my throat. Dr. Knownada then says it looks ok, but I will prescribe a 3 day anti-inflammatory treatment. I get a prescription for Prednisone 3 pills (I read about it, but nothing on the list suggests anti-inflammatory) but what the hell. Because of good insurance I am out only $32.70 and a hour of my time for this dog and pony show. But get thisâ¦.Dr. Knownadaâs final words are âif this doesnât take care of the problem, come back and we will refer you to a specialistâ (more denaro for him, $30 more out of my pocket).
The above is the process I must follow, per my insurance companies rules to see a throat specialist. Dr. Knownada gets paid twice $60 from me plus insurance, what about $400, for 10 minutes, 3 pills, and a referral. Ding-ding round 2 next week. |
Yup, that would be the failure of the HMO system. Ridiculous, isn't it? |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 02:54:31 PM · #408 |
Originally posted by shamrock:
Originally posted by alans_world:
Ok folks lets put the blame exactly where it belongs. I have health insurance, a good one. Yesterday I went to the clinic as I am suffering from a swollen uvula, thatâs the little flap of skin in the back of your mouth, and is causing difficulties swallowing. After prepaying my co-pay, I get to see Dr. Knownada, I call him that because of the following. I tell Dr. Knownada that I have a swollen uvula, first thing he does is look in my ears???, then listens to my breathing ???, thatâs when I say it makes it hard to swallow âtrying to lead himâ, then he looks at my throat. Dr. Knownada then says it looks ok, but I will prescribe a 3 day anti-inflammatory treatment. I get a prescription for Prednisone 3 pills (I read about it, but nothing on the list suggests anti-inflammatory) but what the hell. Because of good insurance I am out only $32.70 and a hour of my time for this dog and pony show. But get thisâ¦.Dr. Knownadaâs final words are âif this doesnât take care of the problem, come back and we will refer you to a specialistâ (more denaro for him, $30 more out of my pocket).
The above is the process I must follow, per my insurance companies rules to see a throat specialist. Dr. Knownada gets paid twice $60 from me plus insurance, what about $400, for 10 minutes, 3 pills, and a referral. Ding-ding round 2 next week. |
Yup, that would be the failure of the HMO system. Ridiculous, isn't it? |
Ridiculous it is, but not necessarily tied to HMO . I have a pretty good PPO plan, and my insurance does not require referrals, - but most specialists do! They did tell me (as recently as last week) that their policy is to get this referral before being able to schedule an appointment. So, I now have to get that appointment with knownada (great name btw) to talk him/her into referring me to a specialist I need to see. Then there is a waiting period of 2 weeks - again, office policies, nothing to do with insurance.
It is not all pink and smiley faces here, either. |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 03:45:07 PM · #409 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Sorry I didn't look it up but went from memory of what I was told. |
Exactly the largest problem most of you liberals constantly have. You take the smoke that your overspending party is blowing up your asses and run with it as if it were some sort of long lost revelation. Research this crap you are spewing and you will see, just as the congressional budget committee has seen, that this program is bad, even evil, and not even remotely sustainable.
Originally posted by Kelli:
Yeah, you hear stories that actually make you go "hmmm, maybe there is a problem", but then you turn around and say "too bad, it's not MY problem". |
It is NOT my problem, and why the hell do you think it should ever be?
Originally posted by Kelli:
The difference is what the liberals hope to do is make things better for all, not the just the rich. |
Again, I bet this is just something that you have been told.
Originally posted by Kelli:
So the rich will need to tow the line and pay some more taxes. So what? I'm not going to boo hoo for people that can easily afford it. |
As a business owner, do you think that I am just going to eat those taxes? Hell no. You will not get new equipment to make your job easier, you will not get the annual raise that you expect, you will likely be looking at a loss of benefits, I will no longer match your retirement contributions, etc, etc, etc. I promise that I will do everything to pass that tow line on down. My taxes may raise, but I will, somehow manage to make the same annual income...no matter what it may cost YOU.
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'm tired of reading all the trash and hatred towards people that you don't even know come out of the mouths of some people. |
There is no hatred, only a desire for you and all the other whining-ass liberals to stop expecting more from me and take care of your damn self. You are not my problem, my burden, even in any of my afterthoughts...so stop expecting me to pay for you to live life. I owe you nothing. |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 04:09:00 PM · #410 |
| Eric, and I do say this with complete respect for your job. But If you eliminate all the customers of your medical delivery system that canât afford it, would there be enough business for you to have a job, to pay for your insurance. I donât think so.. |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 05:08:37 PM · #411 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Exactly the largest problem most of you liberals constantly have. You take the smoke that your overspending party is blowing up your asses and run with it as if it were some sort of long lost revelation. |
And you might try examining your reactionary paranoid hallucinations about which political party has been overspending and piling up the debt.
Originally posted by ericwoo:
There is no hatred, only a desire for you and all the other whining-ass liberals to stop expecting more from me and take care of your damn self. You are not my problem, my burden, even in any of my afterthoughts...so stop expecting me to pay for you to live life. I owe you nothing. |
I haven't seen a statement in this thread from anyone that they expect anything from you. And you really need to get over yourself. You'd think you were the only person on the face of the earth who works and pays taxes. But if you want to opine on whining, go right ahead; it's obviously something you know an awful lot about. |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 06:09:48 PM · #412 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But if you want to opine on whining, go right ahead; it's obviously something you know an awful lot about. |
You're right...I deal with it everyday.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I haven't seen a statement in this thread from anyone that they expect anything from you. |
Really? Raising my taxes to make sure you have health care is expecting anything from me? Interesting... |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 06:19:02 PM · #413 |
| Donât get me wrong, I agree with Eric for the most part. I too am getting sick and tired of individuals that have fore some reason gained access to our country, yet make not even the slightest effort to speak even the most rudimentary English, purchase foods I canât afford, with funds I pay for!!! |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 06:19:19 PM · #414 |
Originally posted by alans_world:
Eric, and I do say this with complete respect for your job. But If you eliminate all the customers of your medical delivery system that canât afford it, would there be enough business for you to have a job, to pay for your insurance. I donât think so.. |
The vast majority, upwards of 75% of our patient base, cannot afford our services. We are a not-for-profit health system that relies solely on the contributions of the community, as well as the piss-poor medicaid reimbursement that we bill to beg for. The contributors to our system...yep, you guessed it...are the wealthy. You tax them more, they will give less. To think or believe anything otherwise is sheer idiocy. So, being that I work for a healthcare delivery system that relies on very little, and expects even less, on caring for customers who cannot afford it, the answer is a resounding YES. Yes, there will always be enough sick or injured children that cannot and will not afford the care we give them to keep me in business. However, if the liberal 'god' that is currently at the helm of America's government keeps trying to ram a ridiculous policy and bill down our throats without giving congress or the population time to research it, no, I will not be able to afford insurance. Why? Those you are wanting to tax will have less to give, AND will chose to give less in order to maintain their current lifestyle. If, or when that happens with this asshole in office, these kids will miss out on their helicopter rides that provide them the immediately necessary, life-sustaining critical care, they will lose the opportunity to get the organ transplants they need to continue life, they will miss out on the cancer killing drugs that gives them a shimmer of hope. If we lose donors, we lose the ability to care for children without regard to their ability to pay. Will you volunteer to be the one that tells the family that we must let your child die because it will cost far too much to help them?
ETA: I say you in the general sense of those that are supporting this plan, not necessarily YOU specifically.
Message edited by author 2009-08-08 18:20:30. |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 07:08:46 PM · #415 |
Eric, you have to agree, for 8 years Georgy boy was in office, the first 4 years with Republican control, yet this situation was not dealt with. Why, oh yea we had a war with a idiot that couldnât even hide in a 4â by 4â hole.
Yea I voted Obama, I had no choice, McCain looked sick by the end of the election, and then there was âHERâ. I for one would love to see a woman in office, but lets be real.
I have a job because of Obama, I have insurance because I have a job. |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 08:19:19 PM · #416 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But if you want to opine on whining, go right ahead; it's obviously something you know an awful lot about. |
You're right...I deal with it everyday.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I haven't seen a statement in this thread from anyone that they expect anything from you. |
Really? Raising my taxes to make sure you have health care is expecting anything from me? Interesting... |
I seem to remember you stated in a previous post that your income ALMOST qualified for the $350,000 healthcare tax level. So you're not even making enough money to be taxed under any of the proposals, yet you're insulting everyone who doesn't agree with you and moaning and whining like a child. That's idiotic and irrational. AND you can't get your facts straight with regard to federal debt and spending. That's either willful ignorance or plain ol' dishonesty. The federal debt is now about $10 trillion, a doubling over the term of the Bush administration. If you don't like it, well, suck it up buddy, you've got no one to blame but yourself for supporting the Republicans and their bankrupt policies. |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 10:10:30 PM · #417 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I seem to remember you stated in a previous post that your income ALMOST qualified for the $350,000 healthcare tax level. |
350K? The last I actually read, the level was at $250,000, now you're upping the ante another hundred thousand or so. But hey, what's another 100K between liberals looking to spend someone else's money. No, I am not at 350K, but it isn't a distant dream...especially with the business kicking ass right now. We are very, very close to that 250K that I have seen thrown about time and again. Someone else on here mentioned that the level should be closer to 300, but I haven't seen that anywhere in the Os ideas. Since I am successful and growing, by the idiocy that has been spewed time and again, I should owe more for what reason?
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
AND you can't get your facts straight with regard to federal debt and spending. That's either willful ignorance or plain ol' dishonesty. The federal debt is now about $10 trillion, a doubling over the term of the Bush administration. |
OK, Bush doubled the national debt over 8 years. That really blows. That's roughly $4 trillion dollars over 8 years. Not too bad seeing that O has already added a trillion or 2 since he took office just over 6 months ago (that's about half a year, or about 1/16th the amount of time that W added on only 2-4 times that amount depending on which figures you agree with). It doesn't seem that republican policies were that bad after all now, huh? Simple word problem...at that rate of spending, how long will it take for your godsend to at least double the current deficit? How's that for honesty? Also, Keep in my who owns the big business and makes the donations. The wealthy. Are you honestly that naive to think that you can tax them more and still expect them to spend, build business, and donate at their current level? Nothing that you can say or do will offset that obvious fact. The same will go for me at my current level of income. Let's walk through a week of my spending habits.
Sunday-Wednesday: I usually sleep Sunday, unless I am shooting a wedding, so I can ride the helicopter Sunday night. I then also ride the helicopter Monday and Tuesday nights. I stop for some fast food on the way to work each day, pay to eat in our cafeteria late night, then often have cereal for breakfast when I get home. Now, tax me more, and I cut out the fast food and cafeteria expenses. I go back to Ramen Noodles (which I do really love) and turkey sandwiches that save me more than 60% of what I spend other wise. Who suffers? Fast food companies that depend on me stopping in for a bite to eat. Keep in mind, they also have employees.
Thursday: Up early to mow the lawn so the lawn service can come by that afternoon to fertilize and treat my ridiculous amount of weeds. Then, its usually off to the local camera shop to look for new toys to benefit the business. Afterwords, I head to my favorite sushi bar to hang out with Dae and Rafael, my favorite sushi chefs in the world. Without fail, those guys always get 80% tip, sometimes more depending on the amount of Sapporo consumed. Then its off to bed. Tax me more and I will stop giving a rat's ass about the weeds in the front yard and flower beds. Add to that, Nikon will get a lot less of my annual income because the gear I 'replace' is mostly out of new toy interest. I also stop eating sushi, and Dae and Rafael, as well as the small business that is the sushi bar, lose the money I spend. That's money that they depend on each week.
Friday-Saturday: I sleep a lot. After I wake up, it is off to the Taco Mac. Man I love the Taco Mac. I usually spend about 5 hours each night up there. Taco Mac is also a fairly small, local business that employs the best bar tenders and servers that you could ever expect to run across. In 5 hours, I spend a ridiculous amount consuming new beers. These guys have 100 on draught, and a ton more in bottles. Jason and Alyssa, my two favorite bar tenders, know everything there is to know about every beer. That's why I go there. They are tipped extremely well, to the point that it is almost embarrassing to admit it. Tax me more, and the Taco Mac, as well as Jason and Alyssa, are on their own. I don't have to go there, it is simply a luxury. I also have a refrigerator in the garage that is full of amazing beer. Its a ton cheaper, and, by switching to that alone, I could keep a bunch more of the money that I put back into the free market.
Vacations: The wife and I hit Jackson Hole twice each year, as well as do some local beach and mountain weekend trips. We try to make one short cruise each year, and, if not a cruise, some little Caribbean all-inclusive. Tax me more and I will drop most of that. I enjoy my trips, but I can live without them. I will ski one year, then fish the next and all those business that depend on people that travel like we do can also do without.
Home Improvement: We do A LOT of it. We buy electronics and toys for the home as well. Tax me more and all that will stop. The house is nice the way it is, but I still want a few things changed. Again, luxuries, but I don't mind spending as long as we can afford it.
Get the idea? Do you think I am the only one that will take another look at spending habits and luxury items? Nope. Do you think that will help or hurt the economy? I'll give you a hint: it will hurt it. Do you think that will help or hurt the people that are employed by the wealthy? Another hint, I don't need an assistant for any of the shoots that I do, but it gives someone an opportunity to make some weekend money and learn something about the business of photography. When the wealthy are taxed more, they will also pull back on their philanthropy. That will also hurt me, as I work for a not-for-profit that survives only because of donations. When that system hurts, the pain is passed along to the employees. Believe me, we have really felt it this 2nd quarter of this year with all the fear circling obamanomics. Many philanthropists have already pulled out or delayed their donations because they are afraid of being hit with new taxes. Can you show me any way that what I described above can be HELPED by new taxes for the wealthy? I sure don't see it.
And don't get me wrong, W was an idiot. But what he did fairly well is place people in job positions that could save his ass on a regular basis by telling him the right way to do things.
Originally posted by alans_world:
I have a job because of Obama, I have insurance because I have a job. |
Now that's a very scary supposition. Myself, I have a job and a flourishing business, even in shit economic times, because I have worked my ass off to be in the spot that I am. No one gave me any handouts, no one granted me any wished. I looked into what made since from an educational standpoint, and I make fairly smart business and marketing decisions. It has nothing to do with O, W, or any of the letters in the current political alphabet. I made me...period. There is no way that I should be taxed extra just because of that. |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 10:21:06 PM · #418 |
A few observations:
With all the talk about "tax and spend" Democrats, it's interesting that every single Democratic president since FDR has reduced the deficit by the end of his term. Anyone complaining about overspending is faced with the inescapable fact that the bulk of our debt is courtesy of Reagan and GW Bush (and most of that money went to defense contractors and the already-wealthy). If they hadn't built a plane without landing gear, we wouldn't be spending money on a parachute.
The repeated complaint about illegal immigrants benefitting from a government healthcare plan is bogus. Find something else to gripe about.
And lastly, you have no business whining about a healthcare plan if you can't offer ANY alternative. The status quo is not a plan. "...Missouri Republican Rep. Roy Blunt was tapped to head a GOP health care task force in February, which was charged âwith crafting Republican solutions to increase Americansâ access to quality, affordable health care,â but which so far has produced no plan and seems unlikely to do so." |
|
|
|
08/08/2009 10:41:32 PM · #419 |
Originally posted by alans_world:
Ok folks lets put the blame exactly where it belongs. I have health insurance, a good one. Yesterday I went to the clinic as I am suffering from a swollen uvula, thatâs the little flap of skin in the back of your mouth, and is causing difficulties swallowing. After prepaying my co-pay, I get to see Dr. Knownada, I call him that because of the following. I tell Dr. Knownada that I have a swollen uvula, first thing he does is look in my ears???, then listens to my breathing ???, thatâs when I say it makes it hard to swallow âtrying to lead himâ, then he looks at my throat. Dr. Knownada then says it looks ok, but I will prescribe a 3 day anti-inflammatory treatment. I get a prescription for Prednisone 3 pills (I read about it, but nothing on the list suggests anti-inflammatory) but what the hell. Because of good insurance I am out only $32.70 and a hour of my time for this dog and pony show. But get thisâ¦.Dr. Knownadaâs final words are âif this doesnât take care of the problem, come back and we will refer you to a specialistâ (more denaro for him, $30 more out of my pocket).
The above is the process I must follow, per my insurance companies rules to see a throat specialist. Dr. Knownada gets paid twice $60 from me plus insurance, what about $400, for 10 minutes, 3 pills, and a referral. Ding-ding round 2 next week. |
I don't think the examination and treatment are that outrageous but I'm not a doctor. You tell him your uvula is swollen so he checks your ears and chest for other signs of infection/illness, finds nothing, and treats the only symptom you seem to have. Prednisone IS an anti-inflammatory, most definitely, but it can also have unpleasant side effects, so he doesn't want to give you more than the few necessary to tell if it'll be effective. There's no point, at this stage, of doing a bunch of expensive tests if the Prednisone works, and no reason to prescribe antibiotics when there's no clear sign of bacterial infection.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2009 12:25:42 AM · #420 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
And lastly, you have no business whining about a healthcare plan if you can't offer ANY alternative. The status quo is not a plan. "...Missouri Republican Rep. Roy Blunt was tapped to head a GOP health care task force in February, which was charged âwith crafting Republican solutions to increase Americansâ access to quality, affordable health care,â but which so far has produced no plan and seems unlikely to do so." |
Here is one republican plan //www.house.gov/ryan/issuepapers/healthcareissuepaper.html
If i spent more then 3 minutes on google I'd probably find more. |
|
|
|
08/09/2009 12:27:44 AM · #421 |
|
|
|
08/09/2009 12:33:11 AM · #422 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
A few observations:
With all the talk about "tax and spend" Democrats, it's interesting that every single Democratic president since FDR has reduced the deficit by the end of his term. Anyone complaining about overspending is faced with the inescapable fact that the bulk of our debt is courtesy of Reagan and GW Bush (and most of that money went to defense contractors and the already-wealthy). If they hadn't built a plane without landing gear, we wouldn't be spending money on a parachute.
The repeated complaint about illegal immigrants benefitting from a government healthcare plan is bogus. Find something else to gripe about.
And lastly, you have no business whining about a healthcare plan if you can't offer ANY alternative. The status quo is not a plan. "...Missouri Republican Rep. Roy Blunt was tapped to head a GOP health care task force in February, which was charged âwith crafting Republican solutions to increase Americansâ access to quality, affordable health care,â but which so far has produced no plan and seems unlikely to do so." |
Not exactly true about illegal immigrants. You are quoting a 2008 article. Below is from the Hr3200 bill. I have taken out the some of the lawyer lingo as in subsection this subsection that, refer to this-refer to that...for easier reading. But if you want to see it in the bill form to verify here is the link.
ââSubpart AâTax on Individuals Without Acceptable
Health Care Coverage
Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
ââSEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
TAX IMPOSED. âIn the case of any individual 21 who does not meet the requirements at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of the taxpayerâs modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over the amount of gross income.
LIMITATIONS. â TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM
IN GENERAL. âThe tax imposed with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.
APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM
IN GENERAL. â âapplicable national average premiumâ means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE
FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL. âIn the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of âfamily coverageâ with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, shall be applied for âself-onlyâ coverageâ.
PRORATION FOR PART YEAR FAILURES. â
The tax imposed with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of tax so imposed as the aggregate periods during such taxable year for which such individual failed to meet the requirements âorâ the entire taxable year.
EXCEPTIONS. â
DEPENDENTS. âShall not apply to any individual for any taxable year if a deduction with respect to such individual to another taxpayer for any taxable year beginning in the same calendar year as such taxable year.
NONRESIDENT ALIENS. âShall not apply to any individual who is a nonresident alien.
Message edited by author 2009-08-09 00:38:00. |
|
|
|
08/09/2009 03:20:37 AM · #423 |
Did you read this before you posted it?
Congressman Ryan suggests removing what little oversight there is on insurers limiting companies to only write insurance in states where they are licensed to sell insurance. Remember when banks were so limited, back before the liberalization of banking laws allowed multi-state banking? Then those laws were lifted and banking laws liberalized, banks underwent consolidation and profits went up for a a few years before they went into freefall, wiping out a vast amount of wealth, and we had to bail the banks out.It didn't work for the banks, but it might work better for insurance companies. Thats it though on a Federal level for his ideas. Then he has some suggestions about what states ought to do. In short, the feds should do nothing, but ask the states to deal with this issue.
Ever heard of Gresham's law? Until states can restrict who is allowed into their state (in other words the end of our federal republic)a state based solution is never going to work. Any state that undertakes to provide healthcare for all it's people would attract the uninsured in need of healthcare from the other 49 states. This has to be done on a federal level or it won't work, and those who work at a Federal level who suggest that the states handle the issue is clearly someone who doesn't want to see any change. Except maybe getting rid of federal oversight on the insurance companies. |
|
|
|
08/09/2009 04:37:07 AM · #424 |
I haven't read this thread but thought I would add this link for anyone interested in the original petition post.
//actionpack.ncpa.org/
Message edited by author 2009-08-09 04:37:23. |
|
|
|
08/09/2009 08:31:55 AM · #425 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
With all the talk about "tax and spend" Democrats, it's interesting that every single Democratic president since FDR has reduced the deficit by the end of his term. |
Funny graph. It looks like the graph was trending down or leveling out prior to the end of the preceding republican terms. Must just be coincidental, though...right? Then there's that awesome spike there at the end. Since the line isn't clearly marked, are you liberals blaming that one on W, too?
Originally posted by scalvert:
Anyone complaining about overspending is faced with the inescapable fact that the bulk of our debt is courtesy of Reagan and GW Bush (and most of that money went to defense contractors and the already-wealthy). If they hadn't built a plane without landing gear, we wouldn't be spending money on a parachute. |
I'd much rather be in debt with a safe country than pretend we give a damn about you having free healthcare. Remember the Cold War, or was that just some republican-perpetuated conspiracy like AIDS and the death of Michael Jackson? Defense spending should never falter. This world is a bad place. Without the ability to protect and defend our country, and the liberals incessant need to fight every perceived human rights violation around the globe, do you really thing we can maintain our own sovereignty?
Originally posted by scalvert:
The repeated complaint about illegal immigrants benefitting from a government healthcare plan is bogus. Find something else to gripe about. |
I'm guessing that you also believe that they add no additional stress to our educational system either, huh? Illegals will always cost the country and give nothing in return.
Originally posted by scalvert:
And lastly, you have no business whining about a healthcare plan if you can't offer ANY alternative. The status quo is not a plan. |
The status quo is working for me. Maybe you should take it upon yourself and figure out how to get the status quo to work for you. How much longer can you liberals stand to play the victim role? If YOU need something, get off of YOUR ass and take care of it YOURSELF. Stop sitting around crying about what you think the government owes you.
Message edited by author 2009-08-09 08:32:46. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 08:07:59 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 08:07:59 AM EDT.
|
