What the hell were they thinking?

goofyGAguy

^^^^^^^^^

Why do you hate poor people so much?

steveinaz

Disregard...I missed the smiley. LOL. My bad.

F1nut

steveinaz wrote: »

I want the old America back. Strong, self-sufficient people who didn't spend more time and effort cheating the system, then just holding down an honest job and pulling their weight. I want respect restored from foreign countries by having a leader with a backbone, that always puts AMERICANS first. I support the NRA and the Tea Party as a means to that end. While I have compassion for those less fortunate than I (dependant on reason), I would strictly administer any government hand-out program, and have zero tolerance for abusers of such programs. All programs would have a natural progression scale built-in, so they don't become a lifestyle. What happened to Americans that didn't do for themselves prior to 1920? They starved to death. Talk about motivation to get up off your ****, huh?

This very "sink or swim" mentality is what made (note: past tense) Americans and America SO GREAT. We ALL had a built-in drive to succeed, endure, and make things happen. No other society on the face of the planet was as driven as we; it was all we knew. We were hungry.

Now, the only thing we lead the world in is lawsuits. Pityful, isn't it? I'm tired of it.

Bingo!!!

steveinaz

Prisons and welfare share a common problem; they're both better than the alternative. Solution? Make them worse than the alternative. Don't even get me started on prison reform...Sheriff Joe is cupcake compared to what I'd implement.

steveinaz

I'm trying to behave myself, so let me bow out gracefully.....

falconcry72

Rick88 wrote: »

Before the lock, I gotta chime in and say this:

TGIF!!:wink:

You the man, Rick! I'm with ya... long week, this one was.


I'm not going to comment on any of the content contained herein, but I will say this: if I thought I had as much knowledge about these issues as some of you apparently do, I'd be out trying to implement my brilliant ideas, as opposed to posting on an audio forum about them...


Over and Out. One more hour then I'm getting the frick outta here!!!:biggrin:

steveinaz

Real problem solvers don't stand a chance in today's political environment, unfortunately---but I hear you.

gwg_97

The NASDAQ is now up nearly 2.8 percent. Bad for business? Michelle Backmann is back in the news complaining about "activitst judges". Who appointed that Roberts guy anyway? I love politics! Happy Friday my friends!

steveinaz

"And if I'm elected President of the student council, I promise a free ice cream cup to all!" LOL

nooshinjohn

steveinaz wrote: »

"And if I'm elected President of the student council, I promise a free ice cream cup to all!" LOL

We need to start paying attention to every word that comes out of a politicians mouth... do we get the little wooden spoons or must I actually do something on my own here? Spoons and you get my vote. No spoon and I will find another candidate that will give me more freebies.:cheesygrin:

Sadly that is exactly the way we got in this mess.

txcoastal1

gwg_97 wrote: »

The NASDAQ is now up nearly 2.8 percent. Bad for business? Who appointed that Roberts guy anyway? I love politics! Happy Friday my friends!

Stocks are up because of another bailout---uhh Europe

At least Roberts had the nuts to call the bill what it is....A Tax

Happy Friday to ya'll too

Going to mow the lawn and pop in some new tubes in the pre-RCA VT-231

Cheers with some beers

falconcry72

steveinaz wrote: »

Real problem solvers don't stand a chance in today's political environment, unfortunately---but I hear you.

I agree. I think a lot of the time the best politicians would be people who would never run for office.

steveinaz

Exactly, what person of integrity would go thru that circus?

steveinaz

Take "flip/flopping" on issues for instance. Who among us has never changed their mind on a big topic after gaining more years of wisdom/ability to really understand the subject matter? Yet a politician gets blasted in a hot second for changing positions. Now, I can understand people not liking constant flip/flopping, or fairly recent "changes of heart" that appear politically motivated. But when the news says something like "Politician A was anti-**** when he was in college.....but now appears to be pro-****." Well, duh? How many of us (Honestly) were "pro ****" from the onset? Especially us dinosaurs from the 50's/60's? My opinons have changed greatly on that issue, not completely about every aspect, but I generally "get it." I'm mostly a live and let live kinda guy, but I have certain values and beliefs that will never change; as I'm sure everyone does.

Bottom line, the general public can't handle the truth, although they claim to want to know it.

txcoastal1

[video=youtube_share;UXoNE14U_zM]http://youtu.be/UXoNE14U_zM[/video]

Couldn't resist Steve

falconcry72

steveinaz wrote: »

Exactly, what person of integrity would go thru that circus?

Actually, I'll rephrase what I said: it's not that the best politicians would be people who wouldn't run for office, it's that the best decision makers would be terrible politicians.

tonyb

Free Ice Cream ?? Oh ,hell yeah....got my vote Steve.

See how easy that is ? Now multiply that by a hundred million or so......and thats what politics has turned into. Regardless, Roberts took the high road, plain and simple, and his verbage in his written opinion was nothing but junk. You could tell he was looking for a way out of this mess. What also got my goat was his explanation of what the Supreme courts job is, which according to him, is the opposite of what we all think it is. How can you say government can't regulate everything under the Commerce Clause, then say government can tax anything at will. Well now, color me stupid, but if they can tax anything at will, then they can regulate anything at will. Taxation is no longer a means to fund the government, but a means to dictate behavior.

How about if you don't buy a car from Government Motors, you have to pay a tax ? If you don't fall into a certain weight catagory, pay a tax. Using up too many therms ?.......pay a tax. Driving too many miles on government roads ?.....pay a tax.

Roberts just gave government card blanche to do whatever it wants to you and your wallet and put you in a fenced in pen like a bunch of sheep......and some are happy about this ? There are still over 40 regulations and rules yet to go into effect for this healthcare tax, lets see how happy some are after those go into effect.

Talking with some employees of villages in my area and all confirm villages are letting go or trying to get rid of the older guys with big benefit packages. New hires get zip, an hourly wage with no benefits. Want healthcare ? Join obamacare. Buisnesses and municipalities will force millions onto government run HC. Cheaper to just pay the fines.

One also has to remember in all of this, in order to keep costs down and cover more people, your only option is to ration the care. So the rest of us get soaked in the wallet and get reduced benefits, to cover a small percentage of those who don't have any. In any universal system around the globe, rationing care is done in all of them. In the end, what your representatives gave you was a system that will cost more, and your quality of care will go down......is that what was asked of them ? I don't recall myself asking to please lower my quality care. Now suppose, just suppose we have a majority of people on government run care and something big happens. A nasty virus, biological attack, something huge. Who controls who gets the right medicine and who doesn't ? Not you and your doctor thats for sure. If this grand idea is so good, why isn't congress, or any other government agency on this plan ? Whats good for the goose.....No ? The whole thing smells from it's conception to the courts decision.

pietro944

txcoastal1 wrote: »

Stocks are up because of another bailout---uhh Europe

At least Roberts had the nuts to call the bill what it is....A Tax

Happy Friday to ya'll too

Going to mow the lawn and pop in some new tubes in the pre-RCA VT-231

Cheers with some beers

Using the Rca v-231's in my tube buffer right now....terrific,especially the wider soundstage and bass.Check out the Rca 6sn7gtb's,also.....for about a 1/3 the cost of the v-231's,almost as good....peter

txcoastal1

Thanks peter

zane77

Just wait till the government tells you, "You can only listen to MP3's on a Bose sound system" and then you will hear people squeel!

amulford

I try not to get into political discussions. But this is just too far reaching in it's implications for me not to chime in.

I will first preface my statement with the disclosure that I have not read the Affordable Health Care Act as it is written and passed into law. I kind of doubt I could comprehend it if I did without a common man translation, just like most people here. These laws are written for legal interpretation, not for the regular joey bag o' donuts citizen. Somehow I doubt the SCOTUS actually read the entire law and was just given the Reader's Digest abridged version...

But from what I do know of what is now out there, I have mixed feelings. I have to say that I like the fact you cannot be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition or gouged on your coverage because of it. You can't be dropped when you develop a serious problem because you have "reached your lifetime limit of allowable benefits". ( how is it that your allowed 1 million dollars of coverage for medical treatment during your lifetime, but the CEO of the company is entitled to 50 million in compensation for a few years at the job???) I think you should be allowed to cover your kids when they can't buy a job after $100,000+ worth of education, without being gouged for it. I like the idea of enlarging the pool of premium paying policy holders to spread ot the costs out. I personally think employers should be required to provide medical benefits (if they want to keep higher quality qualified employees they should want to. But all that is changing to, isn't it???) All of these ideas are very noble and make sound economic sense.

But that is pretty much where it ends.

First, the very name of the law is an oxymoron. It does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to address the spiraling costs of healthcare. It does not provide absolute, dire penalties for insurance or Medicaid fraud. No repercussions for frivolous testing and unecessary wasteful procedures. Nothing to stop the ridiculous lawsuits or any attempt to cap the awards. NADA, ZIP, ZILCH, NOTHING. Wanna know why? Because John Q Public had virtually NOTHING to do with crafting it.

Let's look at this pragmatically, ok? The Hospital gets stuck with a bill for providing treatment to an uninsured individual. Granted that somebody has to pay. But can we get a little more realistic with the actual costs, for pete's sake? Do you think that a they aren't in on this too? Do I really think an aspirin costs $10. Is it absolutely necessary for a radiologist to charge me $500 to glance at my week old xrays? How about the $1500 a day for a general surgeon to drop in for 3 1/2 minutes to consult on my infection. Really? And they say it's because of the uninsured? Or is it because the for profit hospital has to show revenue growth year after year?

Now I agree the doctor's malpractice insurance is unadulterated robbery. Yes, they have gigantic education costs and tuition burdens. Yeah, they do deserve to earn a decent living. I don't begrudge them a good living. But I guess a good living is relative, right? I should be happy he's driving around in a brand new mercedes parked in the $850,000 mcmansion nestled back in the gated community where the property taxes are 4,000% of the poverty threshold. He didn't go to all that school to live in a third floor walk-up, sure. But really???

And what about all those valiant attorneys fighting for their clients rights, to the tune of 33% of the award. They wouldn't dare take a cent of money from you unless they secure compensation for your loss. Now don't get me wrong, if you can show gross negligence, then you deserve to be taken care of. But do you think that a $5,000,000 award with $25,000,000 in punitive damages is realistic? OK, how about we take those punitive damages and put them to use covering the costs of the indigent? To heck with that, he has to pay for that ferrari and $4.5M dollar estate somehow. It costs to run an office. He has to make sure everybody working for him gets medical benefits, ya know...

So now we come to the insurance industry. They are NOT in the business of making sure you can get the care you need. Quite the opposite. No, the insurance companies are basically privatized casinoes. They take your premiums and gamble on the hope you don't need the coverage. For the most part it's a safe bet, actually. Most of the time you DON'T need the service. When you do, they will try to get out of it ( I could give you at least twenty personal examples where they tried to get out of paying the bills). They set fees for services and that's it. Doctors be damned.

They are publically traded entities with the same goals as other for profit corporations. But they don't really produce anything. Basically they are big accounts payable/receivable offices with huge revenue streams that they can gamble with and face no repercussions. Like the banks, in a roundabout way.

This one would be GREAT to delve into philosophically, but I just want to ask you two questions. Why are premiums rising (according to insurers because of rising costs), yet profits are literally jumping ? How is it that companies are crying poor able to compensate their executives in the ranges of millions ( Please review this article) ? Do you think if they just administered benefits, like they should be doing, we would be in this mess? I don't.

The good points of this have merit. But the real benefactors of this weak misguided attempt are going to be the industries, not the consumer. I fail to see how this is going to make healthcare affordable. And without addressing some of the problems outlined above and making some fundamental changes to the structure and substance of the ENTIRE healthcare industry, we are going for a VERY rough ride.

The SCOTUS pretty much opened up a nasty can of worms. They basically passed the buck, and I don't blame them. IMHO, this is a fiasco. But I'm not surprised, not surprised in the least...

Your elected representatives won't have to worry about it, though. Their healthcare coverage is provided lifetime courtesy of you and me. For their great service during their term in office...

tonyb

Attny-

Great post, and really takes us back to our original complaints when this whole mess was being crafted. Still, nobody adressed the rising costs of HC, just how to keep paying it,and rationing it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see this whole piece of legislation doesn't add up to a hill of beans, yet a whole year was dedicated to it while our economy sank even further. If anything, this should give some the insight as to whats the priority.....and guess what.....it isn't you.

drumminman

amulford wrote: »

I try not to get into political discussions. But this is just too far reaching in it's implications for me not to chime in.

I will first preface my statement with the disclosure that I have not read the Affordable Health Care Act as it is written and passed into law. I kind of doubt I could comprehend it if I did without a common man translation, just like most people here. These laws are written for legal interpretation, not for the regular joey bag o' donuts citizen. Somehow I doubt the SCOTUS actually read the entire law and was just given the Reader's Digest abridged version...

But from what I do know of what is now out there, I have mixed feelings. I have to say that I like the fact you cannot be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition or gouged on your coverage because of it. You can't be dropped when you develop a serious problem because you have "reached your lifetime limit of allowable benefits". ( how is it that your allowed 1 million dollars of coverage for medical treatment during your lifetime, but the CEO of the company is entitled to 50 million in compensation for a few years at the job???) I think you should be allowed to cover your kids when they can't buy a job after $100,000+ worth of education, without being gouged for it. I like the idea of enlarging the pool of premium paying policy holders to spread ot the costs out. I personally think employers should be required to provide medical benefits (if they want to keep higher quality qualified employees they should want to. But all that is changing to, isn't it???) All of these ideas are very noble and make sound economic sense.

But that is pretty much where it ends.

First, the very name of the law is an oxymoron. It does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to address the spiraling costs of healthcare. It does not provide absolute, dire penalties for insurance or Medicaid fraud. No repercussions for frivolous testing and unecessary wasteful procedures. Nothing to stop the ridiculous lawsuits or any attempt to cap the awards. NADA, ZIP, ZILCH, NOTHING. Wanna know why? Because John Q Public had virtually NOTHING to do with crafting it.

Let's look at this pragmatically, ok? The Hospital gets stuck with a bill for providing treatment to an uninsured individual. Granted that somebody has to pay. But can we get a little more realistic with the actual costs, for pete's sake? Do you think that a they aren't in on this too? Do I really think an aspirin costs $10. Is it absolutely necessary for a radiologist to charge me $500 to glance at my week old xrays? How about the $1500 a day for a general surgeon to drop in for 3 1/2 minutes to consult on my infection. Really? And they say it's because of the uninsured? Or is it because the for profit hospital has to show revenue growth year after year?

Now I agree the doctor's malpractice insurance is unadulterated robbery. Yes, they have gigantic education costs and tuition burdens. Yeah, they do deserve to earn a decent living. I don't begrudge them a good living. But I guess a good living is relative, right? I should be happy he's driving around in a brand new mercedes parked in the $850,000 mcmansion nestled back in the gated community where the property taxes are 4,000% of the poverty threshold. He didn't go to all that school to live in a third floor walk-up, sure. But really???

And what about all those valiant attorneys fighting for their clients rights, to the tune of 33% of the award. They wouldn't dare take a cent of money from you unless they secure compensation for your loss. Now don't get me wrong, if you can show gross negligence, then you deserve to be taken care of. But do you think that a $5,000,000 award with $25,000,000 in punitive damages is realistic? OK, how about we take those punitive damages and put them to use covering the costs of the indigent? To heck with that, he has to pay for that ferrari and $4.5M dollar estate somehow. It costs to run an office. He has to make sure everybody working for him gets medical benefits, ya know...

So now we come to the insurance industry. They are NOT in the business of making sure you can get the care you need. Quite the opposite. No, the insurance companies are basically privatized casinoes. They take your premiums and gamble on the hope you don't need the coverage. For the most part it's a safe bet, actually. Most of the time you DON'T need the service. When you do, they will try to get out of it ( I could give you at least twenty personal examples where they tried to get out of paying the bills). They set fees for services and that's it. Doctors be damned.

They are publically traded entities with the same goals as other for profit corporations. But they don't really produce anything. Basically they are big accounts payable/receivable offices with huge revenue streams that they can gamble with and face no repercussions. Like the banks, in a roundabout way.

This one would be GREAT to delve into philosophically, but I just want to ask you two questions. Why are premiums rising (according to insurers because of rising costs), yet profits are literally jumping ? How is it that companies are crying poor able to compensate their executives in the ranges of millions ( Please review this article) ? Do you think if they just administered benefits, like they should be doing, we would be in this mess? I don't.

The good points of this have merit. But the real benefactors of this weak misguided attempt are going to be the industries, not the consumer. I fail to see how this is going to make healthcare affordable. And without addressing some of the problems outlined above and making some fundamental changes to the structure and substance of the ENTIRE healthcare industry, we are going for a VERY rough ride.

The SCOTUS pretty much opened up a nasty can of worms. They basically passed the buck, and I don't blame them. IMHO, this is a fiasco. But I'm not surprised, not surprised in the least...

Your elected representatives won't have to worry about it, though. Their healthcare coverage is provided lifetime courtesy of you and me. For their great service during their term in office...

Great post Amulford! I agree with many of the points you raised. One thing I would add is this is not the end of straightening out the health care mess, only the beginning (I hope). It provides something that can and should be improved over the years.

The real problem is the way we elect our government representatives. They spend as much or more time chasing campaign contributions as doing the job for which they were elected. And let's face it, lobbyists, corporations, individuals, etc. don't give money because they're nice - they expect something in return. Our present system is legalized bribery.

The Citizens United ruling is doing more to ruin this country than anything I've seen in my lifetime.

sucks2beme

Bottom line, a lot of factors have put us here. Traditionally, health insurance like any other insurance,
only works in a pool where only a portion of the covered are making claims.
The problem is, a combo of things happened.
1. Most of the covered people got old. And we are way too good at keeping people alive too long.
2. A lot of healthy young people got aids and now are long term care.
3. The big companies with health plans have bailed out of the U.S. And they are NEVER coming back.
No amount of tax breaks or corporate give-aways will ever bring them back.
4. Illegal workers with families are burdening the system. No benefits and low pay will assure this.
5. Technology costs money. And the medical field is booming
6. Got watch a pharmacy front desk. So many people are taking $$$ pills.
$10 co-pays are driving this mess. When I was young the evening new was sponsored
by beer and smokes. Now it looks like none of us can get it up with out a pill.
And what the **ll are all those other pills for?

I'm sure the 1st statement is going to get me some heat. And I'm not getting any younger.
But I have specific instructions to my kids to pull the plug when it makes sense.
I'm sure at some point the system will stop spending a million dollars to extend lives
a year or two.

txcoastal1

I have programmer friend from Belgium and UK, who are now American citizens who have lived in these types of healthcare scenarios and not a single one has a positive thing to say about this bill, because this is the direction their homeland went paying in 38-50% tax rate. This excludes the dreaded VAT taxes. Which mark my words VAT will be next. They also have high unemployment. Then you compare that to countries like Singapore with 2% unemployment and low taxes, because more people per capita are paying into the tax system.

Unemployment is a double economic negative, (1) the individuals are not paying in (2) they are also taking out

We have bigger issues that need to be resolved in the core of the healthcare system before we can start a program like this, you have to start in the middle and work your way out, not from the outside in...just saying

There was nothing tranparent about this bill. There are know caps or regulations. It only discusses premiums, not the co-pays or deductibles. There will be an increased of fraud from every side, and chasing this will be very expensive...the list goes on, fix the core then we'll talk.

Actions and bills like will further and stagnate business from hiring and new start ups will decline also, driving down salaries. We will end up being commoners with no will or means to progress, and then there will only be workers and elitists, no more middle class...just like most of the rest of the world.

markmarc

I try to look at events like the ACA with a long term view, recognizing how things change over time. First, I believe CJ Roberts took off the prism of politics and followed the rules of SCOTUS which is make judgement on whether a law is Constitutional or not, nothing more, nothing less. His majority opinion threw a big lasso around the powers of the federal gov't in his ruling They can NO LONGER force states to follow gov't mandates via financial blackmail. In addition it reaffirms for 50-100 years the limits of the commerce clause. This is a huge win for states and individuals in those two areas.

As for the ACA itself, it's a monstrous cobbled mess. I believe there should have been separate bills proposed. The first would have granted no lifetime limits and denial based of pure existing conditions in return for the ability of everyone to purchase insurance across state lines. The second would have placed limits on lawsuits including reducing the attorneys share, in return for health insurance exchanges and liability coverage for physicians while working at free clinics. Finally, direct write off in taxes for insurance premiums instead of connecting it to the standard deduction, in return seed money for starting free clinics. As you can see both sides get something via mutual compromise.

I have to wonder where all the protests were when SCOTUS gave its ruling on Citizens United, talk about an assault on the Constitution.

bmbguy

sucks2beme wrote: »

Bottom line, a lot of factors have put us here. Traditionally, health insurance like any other insurance,
only works in a pool where only a portion of the covered are making claims.

Right there you have the crux of our problem -- an over-dependence on insurance. We've moved completely 180 degrees from the days when people actually paid cash for doctor visits.

Today, everyone uses insurance for everything -- and no one ever shops around or asks what anything costs. Thus, there is no competition among providers whatsoever -- it's no wonder costs are through the roof. What other service/product does anyone purchase without asking what it costs? (Well, my wife and I DO shop around for doctors/dentists, and when we find those willing to deal in cash, we generally get a 'discount' of between 25-50%. That should tell you something right there.)

People talk about auto insurance -- and health insurance would work much better if it worked more like auto insurance. Purchase insurance for the 'wrecks' - catastrophic coverage - but have people pay cash for their 'oil changes and tires' -- routine procedures, doctor visits, etc. Then providers might be forced to advertise their prices to attract business -- just like any other business.

But none of this will work, either, unless we loosen the malpractice insurance albatross that hangs around all the doctors' necks too. We think our health insurance costs are too high -- they think their malpractice insurance costs are too high. And with the constant threat of huge litigation, they're probably right.

And of the end of all this, I know I'm dreaming. We've moved toward the 'all insurance' end of the spectrum, and that's where we'll stay. And just like in every other country that's done it, there won't be enough money to make it work. There simply can't be.

pietro944

Interesting analysis on the Blaze.......http://www.theblaze.com/stories/five-reasons-why-the-obamacare-decision-might-not-be-as-bad-as-you-think/

markmarc

pietro944 wrote: »

interesting analysis on the blaze.......http://www.theblaze.com/stories/five-reasons-why-the-obamacare-decision-might-not-be-as-bad-as-you-think/

bingo!!!!!!!

obieone

pietro944 wrote: »

Interesting analysis on the Blaze.......http://www.theblaze.com/stories/five-reasons-why-the-obamacare-decision-might-not-be-as-bad-as-you-think/

The best point made on that page, came from a poster in the comments section, regarding how the law was passed, under tax procedures, as wrong.
Now the GOP can file again for a SCOTUS ruling on the procedural error, and get it tossed that way.
They just have to do it within 25 days of the ruling