congratulation Liberals you just put a burden on the grandkid's back
sr
Ga...@comcast.net
for standing in the way of progress,
hey shithead, if you want to live in the 1800's why not move to south
america
"sr" <sol...@uninets.net> wrote in message
news:85140$4af64659$ccb58402$28...@ispn.net...
El Castor
>Healthcare bill passed, Burden to those not yet born
>
Don't give up so easily. The Senate has a bill of it's own to vote on,
and the two bills will have to be reconciled in committee. "There's
many a slip between cup and lip".
Ga...@comcast.net
"El Castor" <No_...@Here.Com> wrote in message
news:4qlcf552lpj4e3rta...@4ax.com...
right gomer, clutch at those straws, that's all you losers,failures, and
other assorted, anachronistic, afraid of change and progress, fat ass, sofa
sitting losers and nascar watching Looney failures have left
Matthew Scott
There may be "many a slip", but there's little to no doubt that the Senate and the reconciliation committee are going to agree on SOMETHING this year or early next year. Aside from the acknowledged inability to pay for it, the fear, uncertainty, and doubt raised by the lib rush to judgment is palpable. Given the fiscal track record of government entitlement programs (particularly Social Security and Medicare) the budgetary future is looking very grim.
mg
wrote:
> El Castor wrote:
Social Security and Medicare are popular programs which are supported
by about 75% of the public. When George Bush left office, he left,
with an approval rating of 22% and he left the American public holding
the bag for a debt of about $11 trillion (plus interest). Social
Security has been so successful that Bush borrowed money from the
program to fund his preemptive/WMD wars.
Rumpelstiltskin
>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 04:35:58 -0800 (PST), mg <mgke...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>I have been spending some time off and on with Google reviewing the
>legislative histories of the Social Security Act and Medicare. They
>have gone through countless revisions and tweaks over the decades.
>
>I would be interested to know any Republicans who today would
>toss out either one of these programs.
>
>It does not worry me that the first health care bill that will be
>passed will not contain everything I would like it to. Like the
>two programs above there will be changes and eventually most
>Americans will wonder what we ever did without this.
>
>Old people are taken care of through Social Security and Medicare.
>It is now time for the others to have health care.
>
>Reading this legislative history I realize how time consuming and
>difficult it is to craft and pass this kind of legislation. And to
>fix the glitches that pop up. There have been few legislative
>sessions that didn't see some changes in both of these
>entitlement programs.
>
>So if I become impatient with the finagling going on today, I
>will remember that.
Getting this bill passed in the house was a superhuman
effort on the part of Nancy Pelosi, who deserves no end
of praise for it IMV. Now we have to deal with another
set of obstructionists in the Senate.
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
>On Nov 8, 12:57�am, Matthew Scott <sco...@interstateawnings.com>
Of course, since then the Republican powers that be
have been saying that surplus borrowed from SS by the
general government was just "lost" and the government
has no obligation to repay it to SS.
I haven't heard that argument lately though. Maybe the
Republican powers have decided that argument (rightly)
makes the people who paid into SS so angry that it just
won't work for the Republican party, no matter how it's
presented. The people who paid into SS are of course
mostly the middle class. They're not so much the poor
who are subsidized by SS. They're certainly not the
wealthy who paid almost nothing into SS and who
would therefore benefit tremendously financially if the
government confiscated SS surpluses payments rather
than using general taxation to pay for its wars and
deficit spending. It often seems that con-artists can
swindle the middle class again and again without
consequence, but sometimes people do show an
unexpected albeit belated glimmer of understanding
of their own welfare as paid for by their own efforts.
normak
"El Castor" <No_...@Here.Com> wrote in message
news:4qlcf552lpj4e3rta...@4ax.com...
Or maybe a drop of the cup to the lap. This is hardly a victory. The
Centrists are really the folks who are going to be instrumental in the final
result.
People are so blatant in the criticism about those on the tight, and totally
underestimate those from the left who have slid to the middle and those who
have been there all along.
This is merely a beginning of "something" that has the left overly hopeful.
This has just begun as a process, and the Republicans have to do what they
do before any resolution will happen--"if" it does in a timely manner.
Norma
High Miles
Screw the unborn.
Save those struggling today !
Hal Hanig
"normak" <njk...@qREMOVETHIS.com> wrote in message
news:j7ydnWvUV_2kV2vX...@giganews.com...
Your concern over the burden placed on your grandkid's back is ever so
slighly misplaced when you sat there.....deaf, dumb and tongue-tied while
your hero, former President George W. Bush, fought an eight year and still
ongoing war with trillions of dollars of borrowed money. It doesn't matter
that that money will one day have to be repaid by those grandkids any more
than it matters that he passed the fiscal buck on to his Democratic
successor......he's still the one who chose to dig that hole and you didn't
have enough concern about it to say "boo" by way of protest.
More hypocrisy from the Party of No and those who make excuses for them.
Hal
>
>
High Miles
the boys who pump big bucks into their pockets and campaign chests to
guarantee that the people get screwed and they remain profitable.
High Miles
normak
"Hal Hanig" <halh...@charter.net.TRIM> wrote in message
news:ibidnXRJDfThTWvX...@giganews.com...
Sorry to disappoint you. I never voted for either Bush and I am not a
Republican. Make your assumptions, but I do know about health care and how
much we can stretch things now, without the "real" needed changes. There
needs to be more people to "do" the care and more "space" in which to do it.
If you really think a government like we have now can decide what modalities
are needed for the sick, what is needed to keep people healthy, or how to
maintain costs, then you are misguided. What we need is less government
interference, and more support for those who can even begin to approach a
useable plan to get to it.
We aren't ready to implement what you so desperately want.
I happen to be one of those who were left and have moved into the middle
where people can think for themselves and not have to be a groupie.
Sometimes it is just too soon to get to the ultimate end, but you don't want
to recognize that. Good luck though.
Norma
freeisbest
> "Hal Hanig" <halha...@charter.net.TRIM> wrote in message
>
> news:ibidnXRJDfThTWvX...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "normak" <njk...@qREMOVETHIS.com> wrote in message
> >news:j7ydnWvUV_2kV2vX...@giganews.com...
>
> >> "El Castor" <No_...@Here.Com> wrote in message
> >>news:4qlcf552lpj4e3rta...@4ax.com...
--------------------------------------------
You have an interesting way of thinking about your former
political opinions. But I have a different take, which is that one is
not acting like a herd animal when an individual comes to believe that
the solution solution to a social or economic problem the same way
that a large number of other people have. This is no more group think
than it is when you solve a complicated arithmetic problem
correctly. Of course you will be part of a "group" - the group of
those who did it right. Imho this really doesn't show that those who
get a right answer were motivated by a need to huddle together.
Numbers are numbers. Facts are facts. The real world yields only so
many possibilities.
Similarly, the vast majority of the choices facing the nation can
be solved in ways that call for investment in the people of the
nation, or those choices can be diverrted into private and corporate
profit. Republicans have historically chosen personal and corporate
profit over any other consideration. That is the absolute base of the
gigantic problems the Obama administration must deal with - wrestling
the government away from those who want to persuade the rest of us
that only _they_ have to right to every dollar, every resources, and
every bit of power the nation owns.
El Castor
Time to start investing internationally in unhedged ETFs?
Islander
> legislative histories of the Social Security Act and Medicare. They
> have gone through countless revisions and tweaks over the decades.
>
> I would be interested to know any Republicans who today would
> toss out either one of these programs.
>
> It does not worry me that the first health care bill that will be
> passed will not contain everything I would like it to. Like the
> two programs above there will be changes and eventually most
> Americans will wonder what we ever did without this.
>
> Old people are taken care of through Social Security and Medicare.
> It is now time for the others to have health care.
>
> Reading this legislative history I realize how time consuming and
> difficult it is to craft and pass this kind of legislation. And to
> fix the glitches that pop up. There have been few legislative
> sessions that didn't see some changes in both of these
> entitlement programs.
>
> So if I become impatient with the finagling going on today, I
> will remember that.
Yes, but don't forget that that can go both ways. How much of the
financial difficulty that Medicare is in is due to the intentional move
of parts of it into the private sector? Medicare C and D have been a
much bigger drain on the budget than Medicare A which establishes a
baseline level of coverage. I don't particularly have a problem with
Medicare B which allows people to purchase additional coverage from the
private sector if they want it.
I have yet to find a good side-by-side analysis of the four Medicare
programs. In particular, I would like to see how much money is being
bled off Medicare A to support C and D. How much of the Medicare
projected deficit is due to C and D? If you find one, please post it.
Rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
>What the republicans will do, is anything to stop changes that might affect
>the boys who pump big bucks into their pockets and campaign chests to
>guarantee that the people get screwed and they remain profitable.
And a lot of the suckers can be sucked in to work against
their own interests just by inviting them to a tea party.
Rumpelstiltskin
I guess the Catholic church's ban on contraception
imposes a "burden to those not yet conceived"?
Rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
>Sorry to disappoint you. I never voted for either Bush and I am not a
>Republican. Make your assumptions, but I do know about health care and how
>much we can stretch things now, without the "real" needed changes. There
>needs to be more people to "do" the care and more "space" in which to do it.
>If you really think a government like we have now can decide what modalities
>are needed for the sick, what is needed to keep people healthy, or how to
>maintain costs, then you are misguided. What we need is less government
>interference, and more support for those who can even begin to approach a
>useable plan to get to it.
When people who say "I'm not a Republican", I've noticed that
it usually means they're something even worse!
:-)
freeisbest
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:56:45 -0600, High Miles
> <2blues1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Matthew Scott wrote:
> >> El Castor wrote:
>
> >>>> Healthcare bill passed, Burden to those not yet born
>
> >>> Don't give up so easily. The Senate has a bill of it's own to vote on,
> >>> and the two bills will have to be reconciled in committee. "There's
> >>> many a slip between cup and lip".
>
> >>Given the fiscal track record of government entitlement
> >> programs (particularly Social Security and Medicare)
> >> the budgetary future is looking very grim.
>
> >Screw the unborn.
> >Save those struggling today !
>
> I guess the Catholic church's ban on contraception
> imposes a "burden to those not yet conceived"?
Nice! Now that you've brought it up, I'll expect to see a long
youtube expose of how the rights of the never-to-be-born have been
abrogated - and Repubs intend to sue for financial damages.
High Miles
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:36:48 -0500, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:12:58 -0800, Rita <Ri...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> sperm get wasted -- what happens to the little buggers that don't
>>> hit their target and fertilize the egg? Sperm are like capitalists --
>>> they fight to the finish but the fastest and the strongest makes
>>> sure its competitors will die off eventually. Although DNA has
>>> proved that they don't die a quick death -- they linger sometimes
>>> for years in a sort of limbo. Never baptized and it is so sad.
>>>
>>> You see there are so many lessons to be learned I'll bet most
>>> people never thought of.
>> That's basically why some men I know get so upset over the idea of
>> abortion. I don't think they give a damn about the fetus (have you
>> seen them get upset over a one year old starving child ?) or even the
>> egg. What disturbs them is the idea that a woman is killing THEIR
>> sperm. If a fertilized egg is human, why is not an unfertilized
>> human ? It's the same little pre-tyke. If they really thought
>> that, they'd get upset every time a woman had a menstrual period.
>> But no ! Only if the little bugger has a male sperm in it -- do men
>> get upset. .
>>
>> Makes one wonder. How many defenseless eggs are killed by a vicious
>> attack of sperm ? We need a law that says if an egg is passed
>> within one week after "intimacy" -- that is ip-so facto proof the
>> man's sperm killed it. And the man is therefore placed on trial for
>> murder.
>
> I heartily agree the male role has not been given enough scrutiny.
> It is men who use condoms and then what do they do with them?
> They toss them in the trash or flush them down the john. So
> disrespectful they are of their own god given sperm.
>
> The Bible, after all, said Onan spilled his seed on the ground
> and God killed him.
>
> According to the text, after God had killed Onan's older brother Er,
> Judah asked Onan to have sex with Tamar, Er's widow, so that the
> offspring could be declared Er's heir Onan had sex with Tamar, but
> performed coitus interruptus each time, spilling his "seed" (semen) on
> the ground, so that there would not be any offspring which he could
> not claim as his own. The passage states that this displeased God, who
> killed him.
Now THAT's a loving deity.
Evelyn
"Rita" <Ri...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:negef5tfve0a1feln...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:36:48 -0500, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:12:58 -0800, Rita <Ri...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:56:15 -0800 (PST), freeisbest
>>><demeter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
Notice the silence when someone posts biblical truths which are
inconvenient, not popular, outlandish in fact, by modern standards? That
silence is called hypocrisy...... the fundies go silent when this stuff
comes up.
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
mg
> legislative histories of the Social Security Act and Medicare. They
> have gone through countless revisions and tweaks over the decades.
>
-> would toss out either one of these programs.
The truth is old people don't want their children to have to take care
of them when they get old and the children don't want that either. No
one has time for that now days anyway with both husbands and wives
working and nobody likes to carry bed pans, whether they are
Republicans or Democrats.
Islander
>
>
> The government is overpaying private insurance companies. Part of the
> recent rise in Medicare costs � and in premiums for seniors � stems
> from extra subsidies to private insurance companies. Medicare
> Advantage is part of the Medicare program that allows beneficiaries to
> receive services via private plans. Policy changes, particularly in
> 2003, ratcheted up payment levels to private plans. The federal
> government pays private insurance companies on average 14 percent more
> for providing coverage to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries than it
> would pay for the same beneficiary in the traditional Medicare
> program. This overpayment is as high as 20 percent in certain parts of
> the country.1
> The overpayments do not ........................improve quality. There
> is no evidence that this extra payment leads to better quality for
> Medicare beneficiaries.2 Insurers, not seniors or the Medicare
> program, determine how these overpayments are used � and this includes
> marketing, profits, andother administraive costs.3 This means that
> seniors do not always get the full overpayments back in theform of
> extra benefits or improved quality care. In fact, because Medicare
> Advantage plans have flexibility to determine their own cost-sharing
> arrangements, seniors can end up spending more out-of-pocket under a
> Medicare Advantage plan, not less
>
> All seniors in Medicare subsidize private insurance companies.
> Overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans are a burden for all of
> America�s seniors. All Medicare beneficiaries pay the price of these
> excessive overpayments through higher premiums � even the 78 percent
> of seniors who are not enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan.7 In
> fact, these subsidies will add $3.60 per month to premiums for all
> Medicare beneficiaries in 2010.8 This means that a typical couple in
> traditional Medicare will pay on average nearly $90 more next year to
> subsidize private insurance companies that do not provide their
> Medicare benefits.
>
> The overpayments will make Medicare go bankrupt sooner. The Centers
> for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) estimates that Medicare
> Advantage overpayments will push the Medicare Trust Fund into
> bankruptcy 17 months earlier than if the overpayments did not exist.
>
> http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/medicare/medicare.pdf
Thanks. It seems to me that the costs of Medicare Advantage are
understated in this report. A subsidy of $3.60 per month is not
consistent with a 14% overall increase in cost for MA. Supposedly, MA
now accounts for 22% of all Medicare recipients. Not taking into
account Part D, Medicare costs are now about $9K per year per patient.
That would indicate that MA is quite a lot more expensive than $3.60 per
month or $90 per year! It looks to me like the subsidy is closer to $1K
per year per patient.
JC
"sr" <sol...@uninets.net> wrote in message
news:85140$4af64659$ccb58402$28...@ispn.net...
> Healthcare bill passed, Burden to those not yet born
>
I just love it! The beauty of retirement and being self suficient and
having taught your children how to avoid paying taxes (as my dear old
dad said, "son don't worry about a college education, just learn the
IRS code") is seeing all the idiots spend themselves into oblivion
either on their own or by hiring a bunch of theiving politicians to do
it for them. I can't begin to tell you how ecstatic I am over this
because I think it just speeds up the train all those fools climbed
aboard.
--
When you keep giving away other people's
hard earned money, pretty soon they will
just stop earning it for you.
JC
Evelyn
"Gary" <n...@none.com> wrote in message
news:7blef5tai5ql3i6mo...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:18:07 -0800, Rita <Ri...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:36:48 -0500, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:12:58 -0800, Rita <Ri...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:56:15 -0800 (PST), freeisbest
>>>><demeter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
> the face of the Earth" themselves. The disastrous thing is when they
> give the "gift of life" unto the possession of a woman -- to love and
> protect -- and then find out that SHE dumped the treasure down the
> drain. THAT is when the stuff hits the fan. It doesn't matter that
> her egg is mixed in there with it. To the average conservative
> male, it shows a basic lack of respect for his seed. And he
> figures that if she doesn't respect his seed, what else is there to
> respect ? Next thing you know, she'll want to be on top.
>
>>The Bible, after all, said Onan spilled his seed on the ground
>>and God killed him.
>
> "he-ing and he-ing". But he most clearly hates "you-ing and
> you-ing".
>
>>According to the text, after God had killed Onan's older brother Er,
>>Judah asked Onan to have sex with Tamar, Er's widow, so that the
>>offspring could be declared Er's heir Onan had sex with Tamar, but
>>performed coitus interruptus each time, spilling his "seed" (semen) on
>>the ground, so that there would not be any offspring which he could
>>not claim as his own. The passage states that this displeased God, who
>>killed him.
>
> could understand why the big guy is so hung up on sex.
I never could either, excepting that no religious type wants others to be
happy or enjoy themselves.
Evelyn
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 15:16:57 -0800 (PST), mg <mgke...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip
>>The truth is old people don't want their children to have to take care
>>of them when they get old and the children don't want that either. No
>>one has time for that now days anyway with both husbands and wives
>>working and nobody likes to carry bed pans, whether they are
>>Republicans or Democrats.
>
> old folks don't have enough stashed away, I guess they would not
> feel any obligation to take on their medical bills.
>
> Actually I don't think many of them would give up Medicare -- they
> just balk when it comes to providing a similar program to folks
> under age 65.
Some friends of ours are adamant republicans. They are always screaming
about Obamacare and socialism, and all the usual Fox buzzwords. These
folks live on social security and medicare! Two totally socialized
programs. I don't see them giving either of them up, and thus their
complaints are hypocritical.
Evelyn
"JC" <jc4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:m96dnaNHN7VWyGrX...@giganews.com...
>
> "sr" <sol...@uninets.net> wrote in message
> news:85140$4af64659$ccb58402$28...@ispn.net...
>> Healthcare bill passed, Burden to those not yet born
>>
>
> I just love it! The beauty of retirement and being self suficient and
> having taught your children how to avoid paying taxes (as my dear old dad
> said, "son don't worry about a college education, just learn the IRS
> code") is seeing all the idiots spend themselves into oblivion either on
> their own or by hiring a bunch of theiving politicians to do it for them.
> I can't begin to tell you how ecstatic I am over this because I think it
> just speeds up the train all those fools climbed aboard.
>
You are like a man who takes poison and waits for the other guy to die.
YOU ARE on the same train. Have you forgotten this? Don't hope and wish
for it to fail, since it will harm you and yours too.
Islander
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:22:31 -0800, Islander <nos...@privacy.net>
> all Medicare recipients regardless of whether they are in an Advantage
> plan or not.. It is not the entire amount that is given to the
> Advantage plans by Medicare.
Sure, but I think that the number is too small by about an order of
magnitude.
If $9K is the average cost per patient for all Medicare patients
including MA, and 22% of all Medicare patients (MA) cost 14% more than
the rest, then .78*M + .22*(1+.14)*M = $9,000 where M is the average
cost for Medicare exclusive of MA. M = $8,731 and MA cost is $9,953.
That means that $1,222 per year has to be made up from somewhere for
every MA patient.
MA beneficiaries would have to pay nearly $100 per month in *additional*
premiums out of their SS checks for the number cited in the report to be
correct. With about 10M MA subscribers, that is more than $10B per
year! The total premiums collected from MA subscribers in 2008 was only
$92M. While some MA subscribers pay an additional fee to their
provider, don't most MA subscribers pay very little to the government
out of their SS?
Lots of approximations here, but I'm pretty sure that the subsidy is a
lot bigger than the article states.
Islander
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:18:07 -0800, Rita <Ri...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:36:48 -0500, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:12:58 -0800, Rita <Ri...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:56:15 -0800 (PST), freeisbest
>>>> <demeter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
It is not the big guy. It is those who believe in the fantasy. Sex is
an important part of all belief systems. What is more magical-seeming
than the sex act, at least for most men?
Olly Mensch
stop changes that might affec the boys who pump big bucks into heir
pockets and campaign chests, to guarantee that the people get screwed
and they remain profitable."
That sounds like the rhetoric of a High School Junior!!
Olly
Olly Mensch
reason: I could not convince myself to vote for Al Gore. I regretted my
vote when, after a while, (and I stress "after a while") I realized what
was going on with Iraq -and the flawed thinking of Bush - who claimed he
was rescuing the Iraqis for democracy!!! How ridiculous!! and those
tragic casualties of our boys - for what???
I have always been an Independent - still am - but - so far - am
unhappy with Obama, an d,obviously, NOT becuase he is black.
Olly
Glenn
"Islander" <nos...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:_9KdnTDkEt6s4GrX...@rockisland.com...
Perhaps your misunderstanding comes from not having advantage plans
available to you. Their purpose is to charge fairly, not to benefit
the deadbeats and the responsible equally. Get this through your
liberal indoctrination, we can't afford to treat everyone equally.
If you require air ambulance for every case of the flu, don't expect
to be insured at the same rate as those that live a few blocks from
Mayo. If you walk by drug store after drug store that exists only
to defraud Medicare, don't expect to be insured at the same rate as
those who live among honest people. My local, Minnesota and North
Dakota advantage plan is free, eat your heart out, but don't take it
away because you can't compete.
--
Glenn
Olly Mensch
sex"
= =to which
Evelyn replied:" I never could either, except that no religious type
wants others to be happy or enjoy themselves."
you are not religious (neither am I) should not mean you can accuse
others who are, in a very false and unfair manner.
Olly
Islander
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:23:47 -0800, Islander <nos...@privacy.net>
> SS checks as those in regular Medicare. At present I pay no monthly
> premium to my Advantage plan, but I got notice that next year there
> will be a premium of $25 per month. These montly premiums vary
> considerably between plans.
>
> Here is an url to an article in the Washington Post -- I'll only quote
> a small pertinent part of it here:
>
> The government pays an average of $849.90 in monthly subsidies to
> insurance companies for a person on Medicare Advantage, according to
> the Kaiser Family Foundation. That is about 14 percent more than the
> government spends on people with standard Medicare, according to the
> nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
>
> "The promise of Medicare Advantage and Medicare HMOs was to save the
> government money, to save consumers money, all the while providing
> additional benefits and coordinating care," said Joseph Baker,
> president of the Medicare Rights Center. "That promise has been
> unfulfilled overall because the plans are overpaid by the federal
> government at this point."
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/14/AR2009101403953.html
OK, that is not far off my "back of the envelope" figures.
Curious that the HealthReform.gov site understated the figure so badly.
Evelyn
"Olly Mensch" <liese...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11948-4AF...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
Olly take note that so many religions have tremendous restrictions on sexual
activity, some even punishable by death. I consider that extreme and
unreasonable. Therefore I stand by my comment. Then consider the Mormon
bunch in Texas and Arizona, the FLDS who married off young girls to older
men against their will, and the Muslims who kill people for having sex, yet
are perfectly fine about rape, allowing the woman no voice in defending
herself.... and yet again the Catholics who always told little boys it was a
sin to masturbate, creating terrible guilt in those children. Religions
in general have a VERY bad record with regard to sexual matters. Religion
and sex are extremely at odds with one another. I could go on and on
endlessly as there are plenty of examples of religious oppression of sexual
activity.. Please rethink your opposition to my comment. It has nothing
to do with whether or not you or I are religious, it has to do with honesty.
Evelyn
"Olly Mensch" <liese...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11948-4AF...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
Be so kind as to explain exactly why you are unhappy with Obama?
normak
"Evelyn" <evely...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hd8v9r$eou$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Olly Mensch" <liese...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:11948-4AF...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
>> Norma - Alas - I did vote for Bush - contrary to what you did. The
>> reason: I could not convince myself to vote for Al Gore. I regretted my
>> vote when, after a while, (and I stress "after a while") I realized what
>> was going on with Iraq -and the flawed thinking of Bush - who claimed he
>> was rescuing the Iraqis for democracy!!! How ridiculous!! and those
>> tragic casualties of our boys - for what???
>> I have always been an Independent - still am - but - so far - am
>> unhappy with Obama, an d,obviously, NOT becuase he is black.
>> Olly
>
>
> Be so kind as to explain exactly why you are unhappy with Obama?
Let me assist her with a thumbnail sketch of some reasons--- in light of all
the failures and manipulation that have taken place since he took office,
and how parnaoid he is to the media (not of his choice, etc, etc,
etc,)--what more do you need? None of his "dreams" have become reality and
it looks like the future of health care, the economy, employment, fairness
and consideration of human rights of segments of the population (like the
military) should give you a clue about our future as long as he stays in
office.
Our status in the world is slipping exponentially. We just returned from a
3 week trip out of the country, and he when he was "given" the Nobel Peace
prize, the locals were shocked and enangered. They see that he is all talk
and no action, why can't you?
Olly can add her reason to mine, but you appear to be one of the hanger-on
far left supporters who will have to discover all this for yourself, when
something important enough to you falls flat. It takes some longer than
other to catch on, I guess. The rose colored glasses will eventually come
off, I suppose.
Norma
Hal Hanig
"normak" <njk...@qREMOVETHIS.com> wrote in message
news:BKadnd37UPmqnGrX...@giganews.com...
>
> "Hal Hanig" <halh...@charter.net.TRIM> wrote in message
> news:ibidnXRJDfThTWvX...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "normak" <njk...@qREMOVETHIS.com> wrote in message
>> news:j7ydnWvUV_2kV2vX...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "El Castor" <No_...@Here.Com> wrote in message
>>> news:4qlcf552lpj4e3rta...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 23:17:14 -0500, "sr" <sol...@uninets.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Healthcare bill passed, Burden to those not yet born
>>>>>
>>>> Don't give up so easily. The Senate has a bill of it's own to vote on,
>>>> and the two bills will have to be reconciled in committee. "There's
>>>> many a slip between cup and lip".
>>>
>>> Centrists are really the folks who are going to be instrumental in the
>>> final result.
>>>
>>> People are so blatant in the criticism about those on the tight, and
>>> totally underestimate those from the left who have slid to the middle
>>> and those who have been there all along.
>>>
>>> This is merely a beginning of "something" that has the left overly
>>> hopeful. This has just begun as a process, and the Republicans have to
>>> do what they do before any resolution will happen--"if" it does in a
>>> timely manner.
>>>
>>> Norma
>>
>> Your concern over the burden placed on your grandkid's back is ever so
>> slighly misplaced when you sat there.....deaf, dumb and tongue-tied
>> while your hero, former President George W. Bush, fought an eight year
>> and still ongoing war with trillions of dollars of borrowed money. It
>> doesn't matter that that money will one day have to be repaid by those
>> grandkids any more than it matters that he passed the fiscal buck on to
>> his Democratic successor......he's still the one who chose to dig that
>> hole and you didn't have enough concern about it to say "boo" by way of
>> protest.
>>
>> More hypocrisy from the Party of No and those who make excuses for them.
>>
>> Hal
>
> Sorry to disappoint you. I never voted for either Bush and I am not a
> Republican. Make your assumptions, but I do know about health care and
> how much we can stretch things now, without the "real" needed changes.
> There needs to be more people to "do" the care and more "space" in which
> to do it. If you really think a government like we have now can decide
> what modalities are needed for the sick, what is needed to keep people
> healthy, or how to maintain costs, then you are misguided. What we need
> is less government interference, and more support for those who can even
> begin to approach a useable plan to get to it.
>
> We aren't ready to implement what you so desperately want.
>
> I happen to be one of those who were left and have moved into the middle
> where people can think for themselves and not have to be a groupie.
>
> Sometimes it is just too soon to get to the ultimate end, but you don't
> want to recognize that. Good luck though.
You can disavow all you want and claim ephemeral and unproven expertise
wherever you want, but the process of paying for things that somebody
thought were indispensable to us never offended you in the past. Now that
you're trying to convince us that you've suddenly found the true way and the
light, your apparent arrogance in concluding that you know more about what's
good for the nation's health, how best to provide for those who are and
have been on the short end of the health-care receiving stick for the past
half century, and how to pay for it than do such organizations as the
American Medical Association (AMA) or the American Association of Retired
Persons (AARP), among others, can only be described as mind-boggling.
Hal
>
>
Glenn
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:23:47 -0800, Islander <nos...@privacy.net>
>>>>> from extra subsidies to private insurance companies. Medicare
>>>>> Advantage is part of the Medicare program that allows
>>>>> beneficiaries to
>>>>> receive services via private plans. Policy changes,
>>>>> particularly in
>>>>> 2003, ratcheted up payment levels to private plans. The
>>>>> federal
>>>>> government pays private insurance companies on average 14
>>>>> percent more
>>>>> for providing coverage to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries
>>>>> than it
>>>>> would pay for the same beneficiary in the traditional Medicare
>>>>> program. This overpayment is as high as 20 percent in certain
>>>>> parts of
>>>>> the country.1
>>>>> The overpayments do not ........................improve
>>>>> quality. There
>>>>> is no evidence that this extra payment leads to better quality
>>>>> for
>>>>> Medicare beneficiaries.2 Insurers, not seniors or the Medicare
>>>>> marketing, profits, andother administraive costs.3 This means
>>>>> that
>>>>> seniors do not always get the full overpayments back in
>>>>> theform of
>>>>> extra benefits or improved quality care. In fact, because
>>>>> Medicare
>>>>> Advantage plans have flexibility to determine their own
>>>>> cost-sharing
>>>>> arrangements, seniors can end up spending more out-of-pocket
>>>>> under a
>>>>> Medicare Advantage plan, not less
>>>>>
>>>>> All seniors in Medicare subsidize private insurance companies.
>>>>> Overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans are a burden for all
>>>>> of
>>>>> these
>>>>> excessive overpayments through higher premiums - even the 78
Thank you, that was the number I was looking for. The government
pays the advantage funds an average of one hundred dollars a month
over Medicare (I assume this includes plan D). The standard with
drugs advantage plans available to me vary in cost from zero
(Medica) to 124.70 (North Star) with Humana at 58. It would appear
that the plans are working as designed because competition, that's
missing from Madigap plans, is now saving the consumer more than the
governments subsidy. If our government is for the people, by the
people and of the people, it would be criminal to force the
advantage plans out of business. If one believes otherwise, then it
would be wrong to have a government plan option for the new health
care plans. Folks, promoting competition is the American way.
--
Glenn
Evelyn
"normak" <njk...@qREMOVETHIS.com> wrote in message
Norma,
My only real complaint thus far has been his failure to get us out of both
wars, and in fact he is now escalating the war in Afghanistan, which the
military folks have been pushing for him to do. Not for nothing is that
country often referred to as "the graveyard of empires". It is a country
so steeped in corruption and drug money, and complicated by the religious
fundamental elements, that I cannot see what value there is to us in
continuing. Several countries have gone broke trying. There is no value
in pursuing it, and a great deal to be said for leaving.
That said, I approve of his efforts to improve the world view of the US, and
I think he has actually achieved that. I like that he has utilized Hillary
Clinton and even Bill Clinton towards that aim. My friends in other
countries think quite highly of him. We are much more well thought of in
the world now, than for many years previous.
He himself said he was unworthy of the Nobel prize, and he is giving the
prize money to charity. I took no issue with them giving it to him since
he said he wanted to end the wars. Now I am not so sure, since Afghanistan
is again getting more troops, not less.
As for Obama's accomplishments, I think he MAY be guilty of trying to do too
much at once, but he also promised that was what he would do if he got
elected. Instead of focusing on one thing at a time, he has had to
scatter his energies, due to necessity. I can't really fault him there.
I think he handled the economic crisis so far reasonably well. He
brainstormed with the best financial minds in the country to try and avert a
depression, and he actually seems to have turned it around. However, I
would like to see the banks brought back into line by reinstating the Glass
Steagall (sp?) laws which were repealed, bringing about the financial crisis
that Obama inherited. I think that particular agenda, if pursued
immediately upon his election, would have inspired more confidence from the
American people, that our money is safe. The crisis happened on Bush's
watch, but it continues today.
Instead, the health care issue has taken a front seat, and the financial
crisis is still somewhat on the back burner. I would have liked to see
those priorities reversed. I would have liked to see Obama really go after
the financial issues first and foremost and with both barrels blazing and
then, once really stabilized and set for the future, work on the health care
reform. Instead we hear about the big multi million dollar bonuses being
given out by the banks we bailed out with taxpayer money...... and here it
is a year later. People are outraged by their pensions being lost, their
investments looted, and fat cat bankers laughing behind their backs as they
continue their same evil ways.
Other than that, I have to honestly admit that since he has chosen to
address health care first, I would like to see him take a more active role
in it. It is a small complaint because of a few reasons. Firstly,
because I think he might fear stretching the boundaries of the presidency by
pushing it too hard, (which may be why he hasn't done so). Secondly
because he is bucking a massive and wealthy industry which is pouring
millions daily into political campaigns, advertising, and whatever else they
need to do in order to turn people against it, even though it is in the best
interest of 90% of the people in this country.
There are too many other issues on his plate to do proper justice to it at
this time. I cannot understand the opposition of those who stand to
benefit from it. I shake my head in astonishment when I see people who are
on social security and medicare, carrying on at town hall meetings and
attending tea parties. Apparently they don't see how hypocritical that is.
This is the kind of honest discussion I would like to see more of here.
Unfortunately there is just too much partisanship for honesty. It is all
hate-hate. That is something that started a few years ago and has not
stopped. People who otherwise could have civilized discussion about
politics or anything else, become so vicious, so adamant, that they end up
screaming at one another (figuratively, since this is a written forum).
There is no reason to get all hateful and nasty with people whom we disagree
with, and every reason to try and sensibly discuss the differences. Then
if no accord can be reached, agree to disagree if that is all that can be
done. Too much intense partisanship, and "party of NO" tactics are NOT
helpful.
I have fallen into it occasionally myself, but mostly because I am caught up
in the kind of mindset of this group. There are too few who keep a cool
head, and too many who just shout their own stuff at others rather than
discuss.
Evelyn
> (Christian) denominations that I have met. That is --- you can do
> anything you want to do as long as you accept their savior. If you
> don't accept him -- you can't do "anything" right. And anything
> that you do of a sexual nature -- is not only awful..... it's illegal
> and immoral.
The same is true of the republicans.
Jean Smith
High Miles <2blue...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:21:33 -0800, Rita <Ri...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > Getting this bill passed in the house was a superhuman
> > effort on the part of Nancy Pelosi, who deserves no end
> > of praise for it IMV. Now we have to deal with another
> > set of obstructionists in the Senate.
> >
> >
> Wish we could shoot the lot and start over.
I think HR 676 is still in the hopper gathering cobwebs. When people tire of
rewarding the guilty they can go for Medicare for Everyone.
--
http://northalabamahealthcareforall.org http://healthcareforamericanow.org/
http://aarp.convio.net/site/PageNavigator/Myths_vs_Facts http://snopes.com
Check http://politifact.com http://healthcarefactcheck.com/
http://www.healthactionnow.org/?s_src=20090622_US_E_HAN_LaunchAT
JC
"Jean Smith" <gote...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gotermite-181C9...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <8iAJm.10608$6c2....@newsfe03.iad>,
> High Miles <2blue...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:21:33 -0800, Rita <Ri...@nowhere.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Getting this bill passed in the house was a superhuman
>> > effort on the part of Nancy Pelosi, who deserves no end
>> > of praise for it IMV. Now we have to deal with another
>> > set of obstructionists in the Senate.
>> >
>> >
>> Wish we could shoot the lot and start over.
>
> I think HR 676 is still in the hopper gathering cobwebs. When people
> tire of
> rewarding the guilty they can go for Medicare for Everyone.
>
> --
over a T R I L L I O N dollars in debt? Have you any idea what the
true cost of Medicare is? Do you know how much you would have to pay
if the government ever discovers that YOU are going to have to start
paying the real cost because China says they won't loan YOU any more
money? I bet you think all this money comes from a tree somewhere.
High Miles
> In article <8iAJm.10608$6c2....@newsfe03.iad>,
> High Miles <2blue...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:21:33 -0800, Rita <Ri...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Getting this bill passed in the house was a superhuman
>>> effort on the part of Nancy Pelosi, who deserves no end
>>> of praise for it IMV. Now we have to deal with another
>>> set of obstructionists in the Senate.
>>>
>>>
>> Wish we could shoot the lot and start over.
>
> I think HR 676 is still in the hopper gathering cobwebs. When people tire of
> rewarding the guilty they can go for Medicare for Everyone.
>
in our government will have to die off first.
Evelyn
"High Miles" <2blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:W3hKm.23004$W77....@newsfe11.iad...
There will be new money grubbing skunks to step up into their places as soon
as the old ones die off. Human greed is always with us.
Glenn
>
> "High Miles" <2blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:W3hKm.23004$W77....@newsfe11.iad...
>> Jean Smith wrote:
>>> In article <8iAJm.10608$6c2....@newsfe03.iad>,
>>> High Miles <2blue...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:21:33 -0800, Rita <Ri...@nowhere.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Getting this bill passed in the house was a superhuman
>>>>> effort on the part of Nancy Pelosi, who deserves no end
>>>>> of praise for it IMV. Now we have to deal with another set of
>>>>> obstructionists in the Senate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Wish we could shoot the lot and start over.
>>>
>>> I think HR 676 is still in the hopper gathering cobwebs. When
>>> people tire of rewarding the guilty they can go for Medicare for
>>> Everyone.
>>>
>> Wish I could live to see that day, but a lot of the money
>> grabbing skunks
>> in our government will have to die off first.
>
>
> There will be new money grubbing skunks to step up into their
> places as soon as the old ones die off. Human greed is always
> with us.
> --
>
> Evelyn
It's simple enough, the safeguards built into our system no longer
are effective because we have outgrown the concepts of the 18th
century. The solution, and the only solution I can find, is to
treat the country like a business and break up the trusts. Easy
enough, let one segment go and the rest will follow. The southeast
can, as they did in 1861, lead the way. The federal institutions
can find other work.
--
Glenn