states suing over a bill they get money for
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They have nearly everything now, banking and financial industry, healthcare, education, transportation, and they are working hard on communications (ie internet).
Don't get me wrong, I'm a small-government kind of guy. But we do have a serious problem with our health care delivery. I'm a diabetic and a heart patient, so I know a little about that. But we won't have ideas without discussion. And stuff like this forum is a good place for a lot of us to get together and raise a little hell and toss ideas back and forth. I don't subscribe to your dark conspiracy stuff, but I do recognize that the country has drifted too far to the left. This nonsense of gov't health care in America is a symptom of that leftward drift. If the rest of the world wants it, that's their business. It has no place here.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
Alan Burkhart wrote:
But we do have a serious problem with our health care delivery.
That is due to all of the government regulations. You really should check out this documentary by Milton Friedman called Free to Choose. Here is a post I made with a description and set of links for that documentary.[^]
Alan Burkhart wrote:
I don't subscribe to your dark conspiracy stuff
I don't know what you mean. Are you denying that the government wants more control and is in the (mostly successful) process of seizing control over major economic and societal infrastructure? Do you deny that the government (and those involved with the government such as the UN) want to disarm the public? Are you denying that our fundamental rights are being eroded such as the right to privacy, and property rights, and our right to choose what kind of healthcare is best for us as an individual? Your right to choose what kind of education your children receive? Hmm?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I am happy to sponsor your membership.
Sounds good. Thanks. :)
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
...As opposed to "You can do anything as long as you don't do A, B, or C."
Exactly. You said it better than I did. And that comes back to my original point a fews screens back: The whole issue boils down to whether the fed has the right under the Constitution (via the commerce clause) to force people into a private sector purchase. I do not believe gov't has this power, as such things have always been the purview of the states. And if may get mildly pissy for a moment, I am sick and tired of the damn government meddling in my life. Every time I read the news, there's some new thing the gov't plans to inflict upon the people. Enough already!!! (ok, got that off my chest :laugh:)
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
Yeah, I think that's at least a gray area, if not a bit over the line. The trouble is... what's the solution? It's a clash between economics and morals, really. The root of the problem is that, as an example, John Doe can crawl into the ER with a gunshot wound, and even though he has no money and no insurance, the hospital has to save his life. That treatment costs money, and that means the rest of us are paying for it. Now, unless you want to change that policy, and have the hospital ask for an insurance card before they even put you on the gurney (Morally questionable at best), this means that lower-income people/families have an incentive NOT to get insurance. Why bother? If the hospital tries to bill them, they can just declare bankruptcy... Their credit rating sucks anyway. More importantly, since they don't have insurance, it costs them a non-trivial amount of money to get a regular checkup, which they might well decide they can't afford. I think it's pretty well-proven that preventative care is, in the long run and in aggregate, cheaper than emergency room care. In other words, getting those people to go in for regular checkups, even if we're paying for them, is cheaper than the emergency care they'll need later. Just like requiring a yearly car inspection is cheaper than cleaning up the mess when your brakes fail. So given those assumptions (Correct me if I'm wrong on any of them), what's the best solution to minimize those expenses?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Not how it works in my neck of the woods (NYC), at least I don't think so... But yeah, I remember back when I lived in the suburbs, we had a volunteer fire department. Not sure how much of the money came from the government and how much from elsewhere. Still, I don't think a fire department would function, in most places, without some government funding. The hardware they use isn't cheap.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)One of my best friends is a volunteer fireman in Mendenhall, MS. Just his fire suit costs several thousand dollars. They get donations from individuals, businesses and charitable orgs. Their gov't money comes in the form of grants from the county. Pretty funny how people who would NEVER think about donating suddenly empty their wallets once good old Station 7 saves their house. Station 7[^]
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Click the link I gave, apply, your application is awaited by the moderator as I write ...
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Click the link I gave, apply, your application is awaited by the moderator as I write ...
Clicked the Apply button, and the next page said "JoinGroup" was successful. Couldn't access the homepage just yet.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Click the link I gave, apply, your application is awaited by the moderator as I write ...
Clicked the Apply button, and the next page said "JoinGroup" was successful. Couldn't access the homepage just yet.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Yeah, I think that's at least a gray area, if not a bit over the line. The trouble is... what's the solution? It's a clash between economics and morals, really. The root of the problem is that, as an example, John Doe can crawl into the ER with a gunshot wound, and even though he has no money and no insurance, the hospital has to save his life. That treatment costs money, and that means the rest of us are paying for it. Now, unless you want to change that policy, and have the hospital ask for an insurance card before they even put you on the gurney (Morally questionable at best), this means that lower-income people/families have an incentive NOT to get insurance. Why bother? If the hospital tries to bill them, they can just declare bankruptcy... Their credit rating sucks anyway. More importantly, since they don't have insurance, it costs them a non-trivial amount of money to get a regular checkup, which they might well decide they can't afford. I think it's pretty well-proven that preventative care is, in the long run and in aggregate, cheaper than emergency room care. In other words, getting those people to go in for regular checkups, even if we're paying for them, is cheaper than the emergency care they'll need later. Just like requiring a yearly car inspection is cheaper than cleaning up the mess when your brakes fail. So given those assumptions (Correct me if I'm wrong on any of them), what's the best solution to minimize those expenses?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
So given those assumptions (Correct me if I'm wrong on any of them), what's the best solution to minimize those expenses?
There's no easy answer. Allow me to share a couple of things here: Like most people I've had to visit the ER a few times over the years. I broke my right ankle and fibula(sp?) last February. Hurt like crazy. I drove myself to the ER and they met me outside with a wheel chair. Service was courteous but lukewarm until I laid the Blue Cross card on the admissions counter. Then I was suddenly the most important guy in the world. It was MY hospital. I swear, it was almost like a hotel. Two yrs ago I had a mild heart attack (even the mild ones don't feel mild) and ended up getting a stent. The day after the surgery I was lying in bed and a nurse walked in and casually inquired as to how I felt. I told her I had a slight headache and requested a Tylenol. Mind you, not a severe headache. Just mildly worrisome. Moments later they were poking my head into this monster machine for a scan. I was in a rage, and pointedly asking them if they'd be doing this if I did not have insurance. Blue Cross was equally furious and refused to pay for the scan, as did I. I never did get my Tylenol. My point is this: Hospitals are painfully expensive to operate. And with so many people not paying their bills, they end up gouging other patients and insurance companies to take up the slack. This is wrong of course, but if they didn't do it they might end up O-O-B and then there wouldn't be a hospital. This practice also has the effect of driving up premiums for you and me. This increases the likelihood of people dropping their coverage, which just continues to feed the vicious cycle. Several west coast hospitals have CLOSED their ERs because they just plain ran out of money. The problem? People (mostly illegal immigrants in this case) using the ERs for "free" primary care. They'd just come in with a sniffle, get treated and leave. No intention of ever paying the bill. As to a solution, I am unsure. If I had one I'd shout it from the rooftops. I believe that a system in which gov't subsidizes catastrophic illness and injury and leaves private sector insurance to handle the rest might be an option. That should help keep premiums cheaper, allowing more people to voluntarily buy insurance. The Democrats' current plan (which I've studied quite a bit) is sure to drive costs upward and degrade the quality of care. They're just taking on t
-
I'll look forward to it. Awaiting approval at the moment.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So given those assumptions (Correct me if I'm wrong on any of them), what's the best solution to minimize those expenses?
There's no easy answer. Allow me to share a couple of things here: Like most people I've had to visit the ER a few times over the years. I broke my right ankle and fibula(sp?) last February. Hurt like crazy. I drove myself to the ER and they met me outside with a wheel chair. Service was courteous but lukewarm until I laid the Blue Cross card on the admissions counter. Then I was suddenly the most important guy in the world. It was MY hospital. I swear, it was almost like a hotel. Two yrs ago I had a mild heart attack (even the mild ones don't feel mild) and ended up getting a stent. The day after the surgery I was lying in bed and a nurse walked in and casually inquired as to how I felt. I told her I had a slight headache and requested a Tylenol. Mind you, not a severe headache. Just mildly worrisome. Moments later they were poking my head into this monster machine for a scan. I was in a rage, and pointedly asking them if they'd be doing this if I did not have insurance. Blue Cross was equally furious and refused to pay for the scan, as did I. I never did get my Tylenol. My point is this: Hospitals are painfully expensive to operate. And with so many people not paying their bills, they end up gouging other patients and insurance companies to take up the slack. This is wrong of course, but if they didn't do it they might end up O-O-B and then there wouldn't be a hospital. This practice also has the effect of driving up premiums for you and me. This increases the likelihood of people dropping their coverage, which just continues to feed the vicious cycle. Several west coast hospitals have CLOSED their ERs because they just plain ran out of money. The problem? People (mostly illegal immigrants in this case) using the ERs for "free" primary care. They'd just come in with a sniffle, get treated and leave. No intention of ever paying the bill. As to a solution, I am unsure. If I had one I'd shout it from the rooftops. I believe that a system in which gov't subsidizes catastrophic illness and injury and leaves private sector insurance to handle the rest might be an option. That should help keep premiums cheaper, allowing more people to voluntarily buy insurance. The Democrats' current plan (which I've studied quite a bit) is sure to drive costs upward and degrade the quality of care. They're just taking on t
Alan Burkhart wrote:
There's no easy answer.
From an American point of view, I would probably agree. But from a country that has a public funded (from taxation) National Health Service, the size of your bank balance or the colour/style/name of any card you might be carrying is wholly irrelevant. If you need A&E treatment, then it is ALWAYS free at the point of delivery. A millionaire will be treated no differently from a pauper. Don't matter what ails you - broken bone(s), coronary heart disease, kidney problems, motor vehicle accident - the cost to the patient is £NIL. As you suggest, it is expensive, as are the drugs budget within a hospital environment. But, within the UK there also exists privatized care where you can purchase BUPA insurance and have your hip replacement a little quicker than through public funded NHS hospitals. And arrangements exist where NHS patients can be treated by private care at public expense. In terms of "preventative" measures, in many cases that exercise is wasteful in terms of time (yours and their's) and money, yet other measures such as eye tests can highlight a problem before it becomes a proper problem.
-
You say "Rush Limbaugh" like it's a bad thing. He's a tad obnoxious, but he's dead-on accurate about 95% of the time.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Tim Craig wrote:
If he ask you politely, you can politely say no. Get over it.
I never said I wouldn't be polite. Where'd that come from? :confused:
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Thank you Alan. A most interesting discussion :) Should you be so interested, this private members forum exists http://www.codeproject.com/Members/Soap-Box-1-0[^]. I am happy to sponsor your membership.
-
I do because he is. He's a bloated, obnoxious loudmouth who's caused more harm to the country than all the things he rails against put together.
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
Tim Craig wrote:
He's a bloated, obnoxious loudmouth who's caused more harm to the country than all the things he rails against put together.
Rush Hudson Limbaugh has done more good for this country than any other talking head on radio or TV. So rather than engaging in mindless juvenile name-calling, why don't you focus on exactly what it is you believe he's done to cause so much damage. Please tell me if you can, specifically what harm he's caused. Take your time.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Probably the "as long as it doesn't happen to you" part.
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
Tim Craig wrote:
Probably the "as long as it doesn't happen to you" part.
Oh. So while gays can sue people to the poor house if they feel they've been offended, I don't have the right to be offended by them? Hm... Tim, the last time I checked I had all the same rights as a straight person that gays have (except "hate crimes" laws of course). Let's look at it another way. If a gay just asks me if I'd like to go have a fling, I will respond with a firm but polite "no." If he presses the matter... if he should touch me... then yeah he'll be picking himself up from the ground and I suppose I'll go to jail for a hate crime. But by the same token, if I ask a lady out and she simply says "no," then no harm is done if I leave it at that. But what if I push the matter? What if I try to reach out and take her arm against her will? If she smacks me in the head (which I'd richly deserve), has she committed a crime? No. She properly defended herself. And likely I'd still go to jail. Now... please explain to me the difference between the two scenarios above. Since in the 21st century we're not supposed to engage in sexual or gender bias, how is it that straight men are the only ones who cannot retaliate against unwanted sexual advances? Please explain.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
modified on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 9:24 PM
-
Tim Craig wrote:
He's a bloated, obnoxious loudmouth who's caused more harm to the country than all the things he rails against put together.
Rush Hudson Limbaugh has done more good for this country than any other talking head on radio or TV. So rather than engaging in mindless juvenile name-calling, why don't you focus on exactly what it is you believe he's done to cause so much damage. Please tell me if you can, specifically what harm he's caused. Take your time.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
Because he's simply that. A talking head who found a formula for doubling his audience. You become so divicive that you attract the fringe who agree with you and also get their polar opposites to listen simply so they can scream at the radio what an ass he is. Rather than engaging in dialogue, he's the one who'd taken to childish name calling and is a stumbling block to any sort of discussing that might get something done in this country.
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Probably the "as long as it doesn't happen to you" part.
Oh. So while gays can sue people to the poor house if they feel they've been offended, I don't have the right to be offended by them? Hm... Tim, the last time I checked I had all the same rights as a straight person that gays have (except "hate crimes" laws of course). Let's look at it another way. If a gay just asks me if I'd like to go have a fling, I will respond with a firm but polite "no." If he presses the matter... if he should touch me... then yeah he'll be picking himself up from the ground and I suppose I'll go to jail for a hate crime. But by the same token, if I ask a lady out and she simply says "no," then no harm is done if I leave it at that. But what if I push the matter? What if I try to reach out and take her arm against her will? If she smacks me in the head (which I'd richly deserve), has she committed a crime? No. She properly defended herself. And likely I'd still go to jail. Now... please explain to me the difference between the two scenarios above. Since in the 21st century we're not supposed to engage in sexual or gender bias, how is it that straight men are the only ones who cannot retaliate against unwanted sexual advances? Please explain.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
modified on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 9:24 PM
You didn't qualify your original statement. You left it hanging like the first thing that would happen would be you'd take a poke at him. Like what he does is ok as long as he never comes near you. Do you have a big "I love Rush" tattoo on your forehead to warn gays and every to the left of Rush away? I didn't say anything about you have to take him pressing it. I simply said if he asks politely, you can politely decline. Exactly like you expect the scenario to play out between you and said woman.
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
-
Because he's simply that. A talking head who found a formula for doubling his audience. You become so divicive that you attract the fringe who agree with you and also get their polar opposites to listen simply so they can scream at the radio what an ass he is. Rather than engaging in dialogue, he's the one who'd taken to childish name calling and is a stumbling block to any sort of discussing that might get something done in this country.
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
I'll address both your replies here: Regarding Limbaugh - his "formula" is that he holds the same views of a majority of proper-thinking Americans. The man started a media revolution because suddenly conservatives realized we didn't have to sift through the BS in the left-wing media to get the facts. We came to realize that we have just as much right to have our views voiced as the left. The reason lefties scream at him is because he does such a good job of outing them. Liberals only believe in free speech when it's liberal speech. They are consumed with the same mindless prejudice of which they accuse conservatives. Pure hypocrisy. Regarding gays - I didn't misspeak at all. I said that I don't care what gays do as long as they don't approach me. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't like being approached by gays because I find it revolting when that happens (not so often as I get older :laugh:). I described the 2 scenarios in an attempt to better explain my position. Perhaps I didn't do a good job. If so then I apologize for the bad job, but not for how I feel.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
I'll address both your replies here: Regarding Limbaugh - his "formula" is that he holds the same views of a majority of proper-thinking Americans. The man started a media revolution because suddenly conservatives realized we didn't have to sift through the BS in the left-wing media to get the facts. We came to realize that we have just as much right to have our views voiced as the left. The reason lefties scream at him is because he does such a good job of outing them. Liberals only believe in free speech when it's liberal speech. They are consumed with the same mindless prejudice of which they accuse conservatives. Pure hypocrisy. Regarding gays - I didn't misspeak at all. I said that I don't care what gays do as long as they don't approach me. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't like being approached by gays because I find it revolting when that happens (not so often as I get older :laugh:). I described the 2 scenarios in an attempt to better explain my position. Perhaps I didn't do a good job. If so then I apologize for the bad job, but not for how I feel.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
Alan Burkhart wrote:
his "formula" is that he holds the same views of a majority of proper-thinking Americans.
Hmmm, that sounds suspiciously like anyone who disgrees with him isn't a "proper thinking" American. Clearly, he doesn't represent a majority of Americans or have no Democratic elected officials and I seem to remember one in the White House and a majority in both houses of Congress. And you're perfectly free not to want to associate with gays. But I think it's unreasonable to expect them to hide just to please you. Their orientation isn't a choice, after all.
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
his "formula" is that he holds the same views of a majority of proper-thinking Americans.
Hmmm, that sounds suspiciously like anyone who disgrees with him isn't a "proper thinking" American. Clearly, he doesn't represent a majority of Americans or have no Democratic elected officials and I seem to remember one in the White House and a majority in both houses of Congress. And you're perfectly free not to want to associate with gays. But I think it's unreasonable to expect them to hide just to please you. Their orientation isn't a choice, after all.
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
Limbaugh... Watch the carnage in November. The last couple of elections were the result of PO'd conservatives staying home because of the leftward ways of the current crop of Repubs. That's about to change, in case you haven't been watching. Trust me on this one. The Repubs will make significant gains in November, and Obama is a one-term president. Gays... When did I say I wanted them to hide? I neither said or implied it. What I said was that I personally find overtly gay behavior to be repulsive. There is no law that protects me from being offended, nor should there be. We all have to learn to be tolerant. Now if I find openly gay people repulsive, but do my best to just ignore them (which I do), am I not being tolerant? It sounds to me like you're just nit-picking. As to orientation, I know it's nearly always genetic rather than a "choice." Let's think about that. I am straight due to my genetics. Most straight people find homosexual behavior repulsive and that's genetic, too. It's all nature. Don't try getting into my jeans, and I won't judge you according to your genes. Jeez, that last line was lame. Oh well, too late now. I'm shutting down the laptop in favor of a bowl of Special K and a Preston-Child novel [^]. G'nite mate. :)
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_playing_both_sides;_ylt=AqbJWwIa50GLBz15eNdY7nCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQwOHFzMG4xBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwODMxL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9wbGF5aW5nX2JvdGhfc2lkZXMEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM2BHBvcwMzBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDc29tZXN0YXRlc3N1[^] To understand this article, states are suing the federal government over the health care law that they are using to pay for health care costs. When they loose or drop the cases after making political hay people will quietly forget about the stink and what actually took place. All that will be left in people's memories will be that they were against it, not that they took the money they cursed. That is an amazing amount hypocrisy.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_