PDA

View Full Version : Government run health care



Pages : [1] 2

Marigold2
08-16-2009, 10:14 AM
I think the government is doing a great job with Medicare. Seniors have great benefits and only a small deductable every year, I think it's $125.00.
Medicaid, Wellcare and CareSource are overrun by people abusing the system. Having multiple children that the government has to pay for is not what the system was designed for. If you are on welfare you should not be having children. Being on welfare means you have declared that you cannot take care of yourself either physically or mentally and now you are asking the governement to pay your bills.
These programs should be for the sick, old, the poor and the vets. Poor because of something that happened to make your life difficult, not having seven kids with five different men.
I think that Obama's health care reform is moving in the right direction. I like the fact that the elderly will be able to have someone to talk to about end of life issues.
Weather hospice, a living will, DNR, nursing home, private nurses, wills all these things will be discussed while the patient still has their senses about them. No one is trying to pull the plug on grandma.
How does everyone feel about living wills?
Do you want to be kept alive by machines? If so how long?

blue
08-17-2009, 01:58 AM
How does Obama's health care reform address the moms with seven kids from 5 different fathers?

Medusa
08-17-2009, 05:22 AM
Being on welfare means you have declared that you cannot take care of yourself either physically or mentally and now you are asking the governement to pay your bills.


That just is not the case. We pay into the system so that if, God forbid, something should happen that we come into dire straits, welfare is there to get us over the hump until we can get back on our feet again. To be sure, there are those who abuse the system and there are people who are born into welfare and never get off. I daresay, though, that many people who are receiving welfare don't really want it but are in a position where they feel they must take it until they can support themselves. Your statement above is unfair, untrue and lacking compassion.

pomtzu
08-17-2009, 01:14 PM
You're badly mistaken if you think seniors have it so great on Medicare. A one time deductible of $125??? - oh please - I wish!!!! You need to do your homework.
Haven't you ever seen the ads on t.v. for supplemental insurance to Medicare that is offered by places like AARP. If I was only paying a one time deductible, then I wouldn't need a supplement, would I??? With Medicare there are still deductibles and co-pays that can run into thousands and thousands out of pocket, and that's where the supplemental insurance comes in - to cover what Medicare doesn't. And a good supplemental insurance isn't exactly cheap either!! And prescription coverage under Medicare Part D - very expensive and not just thrown in at no charge. I don't even carry it since it would cost me more than I pay thru Sam's or Canadian pharmacies!
So out of my Social Security check, I have to pay my Medicare and my supplemental insurance. Thanks Uncle Sam for the wonderful benefits! :rolleyes:

And I felt your statement about people on Welfare declaring that they are physically and mentally unable to care for themselves, was one of the most insulting statements I have seen here in a very long time. Granted, there are people that abuse the Welfare System, but I don't believe the majority do. Hopefully, you will never be in a position where you may have to ask for some temporary help! :mad:


And I don't need anyone to talk to about end of life decisions. I have a living will with a DNR order, and orders for no heroic efforts to sustain my life artificially. It's a person's responsibility to take care of these issues and make decisions while they are still healty, and not wait till they are at death's door.

Marigold2
08-17-2009, 06:29 PM
If you are on welfare be it a week or a year or 10 years it is because for whatever reason you cannot take care of yourself finanically. Welfare helps that is what it is there for. People on welfare declare themselves unable to support themselves. Is that not correct? What other reason is there to be on welfare? You can't support yourself and you go and apply for help in food stamps and housing etc..
As for Medicare the deductable every year is $125.00 and Medicare pays for 80% of most medical bills. I am not talking about the meds just the procedures.
Private insurance can have a deductable of $5000.00 per year. Most people have $1500 or $2000.00.
I think Medicare does a great job. They pay very well, I have never met any Dr who does not take it, I am not even sure they can refuse Medicare. Drs however can refuse to take Medicaid, Wellcare, Caresource and many do. Why, because they pay so little.
Caresource might only pay $20.00 for an office visit. Medicare will pay over $100.00 for the same visit. A Dr. cannot survive, a practice cannot stay open if most of your patients are Caresource or Wellcare. He cannot afford the rent, electric, malpractice, staff and a hundred other expenses.
People who are on these insurances drain the system and are responsible for hospitals closing in many cases. Urban hospitals with mostly Medicaid patients cannot generate the income from this insurance to pay staff, equipment and all the rest.
We need to make people more responsible for themselves, educate them so they can work and make a decent living. If we can cut the number of people on government assitance this country and all of us might have a chance. After all we are all paying for this with our tax dollars.
As for a living will yes I think everyone should have one made, but many elderly don't. They are afraid to talk about it. Then when they do die their children are left to sort out the mess. I think everyone should be encouraged to speak to a lawyer who specializes in end of life issues, it would make those that are left behind rest easier.

Lady's Human
08-17-2009, 09:57 PM
If you are on welfare be it a week or a year or 10 years it is because for whatever reason you cannot take care of yourself finanically. Welfare helps that is what it is there for. People on welfare declare themselves unable to support themselves. Is that not correct? What other reason is there to be on welfare? You can't support yourself and you go and apply for help in food stamps and housing etc..

So, someone who loses their job through a plant closing or another reason that is beyond their control, you're saying they are incompetent?

You've made some fairly insensitive posts before, but this one pretty much tops them all.

Medusa
08-18-2009, 06:42 AM
If you are on welfare be it a week or a year or 10 years it is because for whatever reason you cannot take care of yourself finanically. Welfare helps that is what it is there for. People on welfare declare themselves unable to support themselves. Is that not correct? What other reason is there to be on welfare? You can't support yourself and you go and apply for help in food stamps and housing etc..


I believe that many people who are on welfare don't want to be. I've watched women in the grocery store in line ahead of me break down and cry when they handed the checkout person their food stamps because they're embarrassed. I would be embarrassed, too, but I would NOT be ashamed. We've paid into the system and it's our money to be used until we can get on our feet again. So what is a person supposed to do if s/he loses a job and can't find another one, starve? Let the kids go hungry? Become homeless? I think I might understand what you're saying, though, Monica: that people aren't incapable of supporting themselves, just that they're unable to at the present time. If that's what you meant, then I don't disagree w/you in theory but surely you can understand why your words come across as insensitive! To say that they're also mentally unable to support themselves is judgmental and cruel.

I've heard people comment on how they've seen welfare recipients wearing nice jewelry, etc. but that tells me that they may have had that jewelry before they went on welfare. That check only goes so far; it isn't much money from what I understand. I marvel at the people who point a finger at those on welfare as if they're living the good life and wonder, if it's so good, if they would trade places w/them.

pomtzu
08-18-2009, 07:32 AM
Again - I will say that Medicare for seniors isn't as wonderful as you think it is. Perhaps you should send for the government guide that is published - it's available to anyone and not just seniors. Then you might see how limited the coverage is and why you need supplemental insurance to survive. What's covered - what's not - how often you can have certain diagnostic tests - how long you can be hospitalized - and on and on and on. It's not just a matter of paying a deductible and then full free reign after that. Far from it!!!
Here's an example for you. My primary care doc charges me $122 just to walk in the door - that's no tests - no nothing!!! And what does Medicare pay of that???? - $71. A cash paying patient gets the same care from the same doctor for $50. Why such a difference??? - because that's what's allowable by law - believe me - I have questioned it. So as long as the government lets doctors inflate their charges under Medicare, then we seniors aren't on easy street as some of you think!!!

Doctors can and do refuse Medicare patients, and my brother will be one to testify to that. When he moved to a different state last year he was told by several that he would have to pay the charges up front and file with Medicare on his own. They weren't refusing to take him as a patient, only refusing to file with Medicare. It still boils down to refusing a Medicare patient, since I doubt that many people would care to go thru the hassle of filing their own claims.

I also see no need for anyone to have to speak to a lawyer regarding end of life issues. I made my decisions on my own - my family has a copy - and I carry a copy in my wallet. The forms were filled out and witnessed and notarized several weeks prior to a surgical procedure - simple as that. It's my life and my choice to leave it the way I see fit, and I sure don't need a lawyer "advising" me on what I should do and how I should leave, or if I should stay around and possibly be a vegetable and drain my family physically, emotionally, and financially! When I can no longer do for myself, then why should I be here???

Marigold2
08-18-2009, 07:40 AM
When I refer to people mentally unable to support themselves I speak of people who are depressed, bi-polar, vets with PTSD, people with all types of mental disorders are on welfare. Many homeless people also have mental disorders and are not on meds, even when help is available. Having a mental disorder is nothing to be ashamed of, welfare is there to help. People unable to hold jobs, cope with life because of mental illness are on welfare and yes that is what it is there for. People who suffer from depression are in deep pain and deserve help.
I am talking about those that abuse the system not those that deserve our help. I never mentioned people who lost their job. The only slackers I mentioned are those that have numorous kids with different fathers who will not or cannot support themselves. No where in my post did I bash anyone who is hardworking. I am talking about the Jerry Springer/Maury Povich crowd. And don't kid yourself they make up a huge amount of welfare people and take huge amounts of money. In these difficult times anyone of us can lose our home, or job. We are hard working, honest and deserve help.

Lady's Human
08-18-2009, 07:52 AM
When you find yourself in a hole, the first step to getting out is putting down the shovel.

Medusa
08-18-2009, 08:28 AM
You're back pedaling and you know it. The tenor of your first post differs from what you just posted and now you're trying to CYA. If I were you, I'd stick to the principle of "least said, easiest mended" and let it go at that.

Marigold2
08-18-2009, 08:04 PM
I am sticking to my guns and no I am not back peddling. My first post talks about people who have multilple children with multiple partners. No where does it mention anyone else.
And if you are on welfare it does mean that you are either mentally unable to take care of yourself or physically not, able or both. What other option is there? I am not going to apologize to complaining about the Jerry Springer group and if anyone reads it differently that is how they read between the lines, my post was clear. People with multiple children and multiple partners. I am standing my ground.
As for being in the hole I don't think so. I am doing ok thank you very much.

Medusa
08-18-2009, 08:45 PM
Saying that there may be some people w/mental disorders who are on welfare is not the same thing as saying "Being on welfare means you have declared that you cannot take care of yourself either physically or mentally and now you are asking the governement to pay your bills." It isn't imperative that you agree w/me but I would like to think that you can understand how your comments come across as insensitive and uncompassionate and that your opinion about Medicare is just that, opinion, and not fact based. Try not to discount what pomtzu has posted. She has experienced it first hand. I'm thinking that you haven't because you're not old enough yet. I think I'll shut up now because I have a feeling that my words are falling on deaf ears.

pomtzu
08-19-2009, 11:30 AM
And if you are on welfare it does mean that you are either mentally unable to take care of yourself or physically not, able or both. What other option is there?

Maybe I should do what Mary said - just shut up because this will fall on deaf ears - but what the heck..............:rolleyes:

I fail to see where someone who has lost their job because of the economy and needs help, falls into this category, as do a lot of other scenarios.........

Mentally unable??? - that's someone who doesn't have their wits about them, perhaps "slow", perhaps suffering in a depressive state, etc.

Physically unable??? - broken bones, auto accident, etc.


The person who lost their job and may need some assistance, is most likely very lucid and in good health. So how do figure that they are declaring themselves physically and mentally unable to care for themselves??? :confused: What puts them in that category???
Sorry - but I still say that is a very insulting and degrading and uninformed statement to make! :(

Miss Z
08-19-2009, 11:39 AM
Purely on a point of interest (and I say that as I've often been told to keep my big English nose out of American politics on this site before :D)...

I recently read an article in the Times about how the Republican National Committee is fearful that Obama is aiming to recreate an American version of the National Health Service that we have over here in Great Britain. According to some members of this committee, our free, government-run healthcare is 'evil' and 'socialist'.

However, with this thread speaking specifically about those on benefits and welfare and the likes, would this sort of health care not be hugely beneficial for people in those situations?

pomtzu
08-19-2009, 12:30 PM
However, with this thread speaking specifically about those on benefits and welfare and the likes, would this sort of health care not be hugely beneficial for people in those situations?

There already is health care available to these people. The point is the people who are on assistance to start with. The OP was making reference to them being on Welfare to start with, and how people abuse the system and some make that their way of life, instead of getting out and doing for themselves.

Maybe you have to be American to get the total picture???...........:confused::D

Miss Z
08-19-2009, 12:43 PM
I don't think I was totally clear in what I meant, sorry. What I was trying to get across is that with a system like our NHS, perhaps there would be less 'abuse of the system', as there would be no need to make claims for a new child , or whatever else. It would be less of a strain on the taxpayer (as I also read in this article that the doctor can pass on bills of those on Medicare/Medicaid to the taxpayer, whether this is correct or not, I don't know, please correct me if this is not the case).

I also read that about 47 million Americans fear becoming ill as they know they cannot pay the doctor's fees. To me, at least, that's quite frightening.

Daisy and Delilah
08-19-2009, 12:47 PM
Ellie, I consider you one of the most up to date, educated, members of this board. I am listening to everything you've said. My mother has Medicare and another insurance. If she didn't have the other insurance, she would be paying out the yazoo for everything. There are many Americans that are unable to work that aren't able to secure other private healthcare because of the cost. Medicare isn't covering all their expenses so who is? They are. I see some of these older people in the pharmacies paying $300-$500 for their monthly rx's because they're not listed on the $4 list. Believe me, no one is taking care of these people but their less than adequate SS checks.

This thread takes me back to the Appalachian thread we had many months ago. It's the same thing, different topic.

Marigold: I think you made some blanket statements in the beginning of your post that weren't entirely true. However, I do see that the welfare system is possibly overrun with people misusing the system. I believe the arguments that have arisen here are because you are, once again(Re: Appalachian thread), listing apples and oranges.

pomtzu
08-19-2009, 01:20 PM
Thanks Terry, but I only speak from experience. I know that some people figure seniors "have it made" with Medicare, but nothing could be further from the truth. Yes - it does provide some coverage which of course is better than nothing, but we also pay for it each month after paying for it all our working lives too! That amounts to pretty high premiums if you look at it that way.
I consider myself fortunate that I am able to afford a supplemental policy and I don't know how I could possibly pay my medical bills without it. Even a relatively minor illness or procedure could end up costing thousands out of pocket before all was said or done. Quite a sobering thought, but look at the millions of folks that don't have additional insurance because they can't afford it. :(

Daisy and Delilah
08-19-2009, 01:40 PM
I just corrected my post to read a little better.:) I originally said she would be in trouble without Medicare. I meant the other insurance. I am the person that takes her to the doctor, deals with her medical issues, makes all her phone calls, etc. Her supplemental is paying for the bulk of her expenses. Even with both, she still has two rx's that she pays almost $100 monthly to get filled. Those are the non generic ones.

My mother is fortunate that she worked until she was almost 80. This is how she keeps her little supplemental policy. She was able to take it with her when she retired. Even working until she was 80, she still gets little or no help from the government.

Zara: What you heard about all the Americans unable to afford care is absolutely right. We have no hope. Our government only helps those under certain circumstances. Many of us are praying we don't have a catastrophic illness for more reasons than one.:(

pomtzu
08-19-2009, 01:46 PM
I just corrected my post to read a little better.:) I originally said she would be in trouble without Medicare. I meant the other insurance. I am the person that takes her to the doctor, deals with her medical issues, makes all her phone calls, etc. Her supplemental is paying for the bulk of her expenses. Even with both, she still has two rx's that she pays almost $100 monthly to get filled. Those are the non generic ones.

My mother is fortunate that she worked until she was almost 80. This is how she keeps her little supplemental policy. She was able to take it with her when she retired. Even working until she was 80, she still gets little or no help from the government.

Zara: What you heard about all the Americans unable to afford care is absolutely right. We have no hope. Our government only helps those under certain circumstances. Many of us are praying we don't have a catastrophic illness for more reasons than one.:(

I knew what you meant............;)

And BIG kudos to your Mom! That's one long stint in the work force.

Miss Z
08-19-2009, 02:00 PM
Zara: What you heard about all the Americans unable to afford care is absolutely right. We have no hope. Our government only helps those under certain circumstances. Many of us are praying we don't have a catastrophic illness for more reasons than one.:(

You see, to me that just seems so sad. :( Private doctors are so expensive here too, and if the NHS were not here, so many British people would be the same. What struck me most about the article is that committees refuse to give the idea a second thought because it is different, and therefore 'bad', even though it seems it could benefit so many people who have a right to be cared for, should they become ill.

Daisy and Delilah
08-19-2009, 02:16 PM
You see, to me that just seems so sad. :( Private doctors are so expensive here too, and if the NHS were not here, so many British people would be the same. What struck me most about the article is that committees refuse to give the idea a second thought because it is different, and therefore 'bad', even though it seems it could benefit so many people who have a right to be cared for, should they become ill.

It is very sad. I think we probably have no idea how bad it really is in this country.

I think many people are picking apart our president and the healthcare reform issue. I know that all people won't agree with everything he wants to do.
Some Americans are in such dire straits with lack of healthcare, almost any relief is better than what they already have, or don't have.

I want to give him a chance to see what he comes up with and not listen to all I hear every day from his critics. I truly hope we can see some help coming soon. :(

Lady's Human
08-19-2009, 02:53 PM
If the plan being discussed in the hallowed halls of Congress was merely meant to assist people who need help, I doubt many would have any issues with it.

The monstrosity being considered, however, is not assistance to those who need it. It is a complete takeover of health care by the government.

pomtzu
08-19-2009, 03:06 PM
It is very sad. I think we probably have no idea how bad it really is in this country.

I think many people are picking apart our president and the healthcare reform issue. I know that all people won't agree with everything he wants to do.
Some Americans are in such dire straits with lack of healthcare, almost any relief is better than what they already have, or don't have.

I want to give him a chance to see what he comes up with and not listen to all I hear every day from his critics. I truly hope we can see some help coming soon. :(

Terry - I'm with you 100% with everything you said here.

Don't get me wrong - I love this country and would never want to live anywhere else - but we need some serious changes to come about. For too long, too many issues have been swept under the rug, and now they need to be not only addressed, but resolved. I really don't expect to see any major, sweeping changes in what's left of my lifetime, but for the sake of my kids, grandkids, and beyond, I certainly hope that they can look to a more promising future.

Politics is not my forte and I don't claim to even have a clue how this will come to be, or even what most of the issues are (other than healthcare of course), but I do know that the problems are many. There are just too many good people in this land of plenty, who are forced to make do with next to nothing. It just shouldn't be that way in the most powerful and prosperous country on Earth. :mad:

Miss Z
08-19-2009, 03:10 PM
The monstrosity being considered, however, is not assistance to those who need it. It is a complete takeover of health care by the government.

Could you tell me why this would be a monstrosity?

Lady's Human
08-19-2009, 03:14 PM
No, quite honestly, because at 1300 pages and climbing, most of the representatives can't even explain what's in the bill.

To paraphrase one of the legislators who will vote on the proposals if and when they ever come out of committee, it would take too much time to read, so why bother?

pomtzu
08-19-2009, 03:33 PM
No, quite honestly, because at 1300 pages and climbing, most of the representatives can't even explain what's in the bill.

To paraphrase one of the legislators who will vote on the proposals if and when they ever come out of committee, it would take too much time to read, so why bother?

Pretty darn sad state of affairs - don't ya' think?? :confused:

They finally pull out one of the issues that has been swept under the rug with the hopes of some kind of resolution finally being addressed, and the powers that be that might be able to get the ball rolling, all stick their heads in the sand........... :(

Daisy and Delilah
08-19-2009, 03:37 PM
Terry - I'm with you 100% with everything you said here.

Don't get me wrong - I love this country and would never want to live anywhere else - but we need some serious changes to come about. For too long, too many issues have been swept under the rug, and now they need to be not only addressed, but resolved. I really don't expect to see any major, sweeping changes in what's left of my lifetime, but for the sake of my kids, grandkids, and beyond, I certainly hope that they can look to a more promising future.

Politics is not my forte and I don't claim to even have a clue how this will come to be, or even what most of the issues are (other than healthcare of course), but I do know that the problems are many. There are just too many good people in this land of plenty, who are forced to make do with next to nothing. It just shouldn't be that way in the most powerful and prosperous country on Earth. :mad:

Well said, Ellie. I agree.

I think it's a monstrosity because it has been swept under the rug for so long. What a shame. It's not an easy undertaking.
I'm with Ellie. I don't have a clue how to fix it but I wish we could get it fixed asap.
I still have to keep some faith that something good might happen eventually but I don't think I'll ever see a good solution in my lifetime. It's become way to big to change all that's been created over all these years.

lizbud
08-19-2009, 04:49 PM
The monstrosity being considered, however, is not assistance to those who need it. It is a complete takeover of health care by the government.



The change proposed is not a takeover, it's a makeover. Big difference.

I have heard about the changes that brought about Social Security and
Medicare were resisted by many people initially. The world did not stop
turning & we progressed as a society.

Lady's Human
08-19-2009, 05:23 PM
The change proposed is not a takeover, it's a makeover. Big difference.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

lizbud
08-19-2009, 06:36 PM
We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one.


Okey, dokey.:)

Puckstop31
08-19-2009, 08:49 PM
The change proposed is not a takeover, it's a makeover. Big difference.

I have heard about the changes that brought about Social Security and
Medicare were resisted by many people initially. The world did not stop
turning & we progressed as a society.

SS and Medicare/Medicade are BROKE. I contracted to the IT em that supported PA Medicade. Oy.....

Social Security... Ask anybody who is on it how good it is.


"Progress". Huh. Wait till YOU are on it I reckon. I will NEVER be.

pomtzu
08-20-2009, 07:13 AM
Social Security... Ask anybody who is on it how good it is.




You mean you can't figure out how I feel, based on what I had to say about Medicare????? :rolleyes: :eek: :D

lizbud
08-20-2009, 08:59 AM
SS and Medicare/Medicade are BROKE. I contracted to the IT em that supported PA Medicade. Oy.....

Social Security... Ask anybody who is on it how good it is.


"Progress". Huh. Wait till YOU are on it I reckon. I will NEVER be.


No SS for you huh? Did you accept to stimulus money given out last spring?
Just curious.

Edwina's Secretary
08-20-2009, 11:27 AM
One of the best chuckles in this was Obama having to assure veterans that they will not lose their government run healthcare!

Again I say...good enough for the military ought to be good enough for the rest of us!

pomtzu
08-20-2009, 11:30 AM
No SS for you huh? Did you accept to stimulus money given out last spring?
Just curious.

The government got the money from "somewhere" to send out stimulus checks. By the time Puck is ready to collect his SS checks


there won't be any money left to collect

SS will have filed for bankruptcy


:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

lizbud
08-20-2009, 04:40 PM
You mean you can't figure out how I feel, based on what I had to say about Medicare????? :rolleyes: :eek: :D


From one Medicare "customer" to another, what don't you like about it?

momoffuzzyfaces
08-20-2009, 04:56 PM
If you all are only paying $125 a year for Medicare deductable I WANT A REFUND!!! I paid $235 or over this year. :(

Also, in our state, a person who has no children can not get Welfare. We can get public assistance for a time. Back in the 90s it was about $125 a month. (try living on THAT!!!!!) I had to go on it until my Social Security Disabiliy kicked in. After my Social Security started, I paid every dime of the public assistance money back!!! By the way, I did not delare myself unable to work, my doctor did. :p

How good is Social Security? Well, it's a darn sight better than being homeless!!!
We had a surplus in SS until they borrowed it after 9/11.

Grace
08-20-2009, 05:45 PM
From one Medicare "customer" to another, what don't you like about it?

I have no problems with some of the features; and big complaints about others.

For starters, I, too, would like to know how to get a $125 per year deductible. Every single month last year, $96.40 was deducted from my SS check. That added up to $1156.80 for the year. I understand that there will not be an increase this year because there will be no increase in Soc. Sec. amounts.

I'm fortunate - I don't have to use the Medicare drug program. Both of us have excellent retiree prescription plans.

My main thing about Medicare - I think there should be more emphasis placed on preventive care. It's a whole lot cheaper to pay for prevention than for a disease.

Example: I'm a Type 2 Diabetic. Medicare says that any diabetic who does not use insulin should only test their blood glucose once a day. They will only pay for one strip/day. That's insane. Only by testing will a diabetic know how well, or how poorly, they are doing from day to day, week to week. If, out of nowhere, my glucose starts becoming higher, how will I know if I'm not testing?

Then there is that shingles vaccine. I know 'they' say you should get it once you're 60, and that would be before you went on Medicare. However, in the case of some of us, we hit 65 before the vaccine came out. So Medicare would rather chance that we get shingles, then pay a one time fee for the vaccine?

Edwina's Secretary
08-20-2009, 07:33 PM
I have no problems with some of the features; and big complaints about others.

For starters, I, too, would like to know how to get a $125 per year deductible. Every single month last year, $96.40 was deducted from my SS check. That added up to $1156.80 for the year.

Sometimes the insurance "lingo" can be confusing.

Normally - deductible refers to the amount you pay before the insurance begins paying. Just as with your car - you may pay the first $500 or whatever - then the insurance kicks in. It is possible that you have a co-pay to see the doctor or for drugs but there is a deductible for hospital, tests, etc.

Co-pay is the amount you pay to see the doctor - or for a prescription. The insurance pays the balance. Often the insurer has negoitated a rate less than that someone would pay who does not have insurance.

Co-insurance is the amount you contribute toward the cost of the insurance. Often it is 25/75 or perhaps 100% employee coverage paid by the employer and the employee pays for any dependent coverage.

These are the terms as they are used in private insurance - probably the same for Medicare.

Puckstop31
08-20-2009, 09:28 PM
No SS for you huh? Did you accept to stimulus money given out last spring?
Just curious.


NO. NEVER.

I never got a check and I did not ask where it was.

I realize the strings attached. "Stimulus" money is OTHER peoples money. Its not mine to "take".

My business was offered some "opportunities". HAH.



N.E.V.E.R.


I make enough on my own. I reckon I am one of those "evil" folks who are self sufficient, as is my business. We make a "evil" PROFIT. (Read: I pay for YOU. )

I worked about 65 hours this week.... Earning my company about $37,000. Am I evil? Should I give some of that money to lazy people?

Puckstop31
08-20-2009, 09:34 PM
How good is Social Security? Well, it's a darn sight better than being homeless!!!
We had a surplus in SS until they borrowed it after 9/11.

LOL.


Where did you see that lie? Its been broke for WAY longer than that.

My company has a clilent who provides low income housing. When visiting these properties to provide support... it never ceases to amaze me the old people bitching about how little SS provides them... As they smoke cigarettes, in their SS provided motorized wheelchairs, in their government provided housing.... With their government provided housing, that sucks. That is hard to collect OUR bills from....


I love my country. I HATE my government. (Be sure to quote that one ES.)

Puckstop31
08-20-2009, 09:42 PM
The government got the money from "somewhere" to send out stimulus checks. By the time Puck is ready to collect his SS checks


there won't be any money left to collect

SS will have filed for bankruptcy


:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


I am not counting on it. Never had, never will.

But being the evil business man i've saved and invested. Even given recent downturns, I have a comfortable 6 figure account to draw on when the time comes.

Money I EARNED.

Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. :)

pomtzu
08-21-2009, 07:53 AM
Co-pay is the amount you pay to see the doctor - or for a prescription. The insurance pays the balance. Often the insurer has negoitated a rate less than that someone would pay who does not have insurance.



Silly girl, ES! Didn't you read my previous post about what my primary care doc charges me, a Medicare patient, and what he charges a cash paying patient?

He charges me $122 and Medicare pays $71 of that - which leaves me holding the bag for $51. The cash paying patient pays $50 for the same thing - so I'm paying $1 more than Mr Cash-In-Hand. What's wrong with that picture? Uncle Sam is generously handing over $71 to doc - and for what - submitting a claim???

So in order for me to be able to afford to go to the doctor, I have to pay out another monthly premium for a supplemental policy which will pay that $51 I still owe, which in turn allows me to eat and pay the other bills. And that's just one small example - multiply that for other doctors, x-rays, lab work, procedures, hospitals, etc, etc, etc. Like I said before, a relatively minor illness or procedure has the potential to wipe you out. The majority of folks don't have a 6-figure nest egg to draw from! Lucky Pucky!!! :p



OK Lizbud - what don't I like??? The above says it to some degree. Add what Grace said about the $96.40 that comes out of every SS check before you even see it, in spite of the fact that we've already paid during our time in the workforce, the fact that I have to pay out another $120 each month in premiums for my supplemental policy so that I can survive and know that I can get medical care when I need it, unlike many others who can't afford to do so if they only have Medicare. Oh - I could get out the Medicare publication and list plenty of other things that I don't like - but why beat a dead horse?


Will it ever get better? Maybe someday, but I know I'll never be around to talk about it. :(

Edwina's Secretary
08-21-2009, 10:31 AM
Silly girl, ES! Didn't you read my previous post about what my primary care doc charges me, a Medicare patient, and what he charges a cash paying patient?


I am not exactly what was silly. I was defining the terms. What you describe is the co-pay. What you pay each month for the coverage is the co-insurance.

For example - yesterday I attended a meeting of a volunteer group to which I belong. The woman next to me - retired after 32 years of teaching - is not yet eligible for medicare - nor is her husband who also retired from teaching. They are in good health - she had just completed a 110 mile bicycle trip.

Medical insurance is available to her as a retiree. The co-insurance (what she must pay each month to continue the insurance ) is $2,200 each month.

Not surprisingly - she cannot afford $26,400 a year just to have insurance. I did not ask her what her co-pays would be or her deductible. I would assume fairly good coverage for that price.

So she and her husband - I would guess age 60 or so...have no medical insurance. And it is all she can think about and worries constantly.

But back to your statement. Every medical bill I have ever received shows the "rack rate" the lower rate my insurer has negoitated and my deductible and co-pay. I am not on medicare so I do not know how it operates but I do know how many private insurers operate.

By "cash in hand" do you mean the uninsured or those on private insurance?

One other myth is that those who do not have insurance and pay off their medical bills over time are "paying their own way." What malarkey! The hospital must pay their employees and vendors when due. They cannot tell their employees (nor can the vendors tell their employees) "I will pay you when Johnny pays his bills." So who covers the cost of the money the hospital must have ....yup...those who are insured.

You would think they would at least thank us!

lizbud
08-21-2009, 11:03 AM
NO. NEVER.

I never got a check and I did not ask where it was.




Both those statements could be true and you still would have "accepted"
the money. Mine was auto deposited into my checking account. I didn't
"see the check" either.

pomtzu
08-21-2009, 11:26 AM
ES - I know the difference between a deductible and a co-pay. Unfortunately, I have had to deal with medical insurance claims and issues, way too much in my lifetime! :( And when I say "cash-in-hand", I'm referring to the uninsured, whether it be by choice or circumstance.

My beef comes with the government - and what they "allow" providers to charge. That $71 dollars that is given to my doctor because he's "allowed" to charge me what he does, could well be giving folks like you mentioned, some kind of medical assistance. Instead it's paying for that big fancy suite of offices doc just built, with a beautiful, huge salt water aquarium on one whole wall, fancy furniture in reception and a monstrous flat panel t.v. screen on another wall that would rival the downtown cinema! Does that make him a better doctor than old doc who rents a small house in a residential part of town, and has been there for 30 or 40 years, with the worn furniture and cluttered atmosphere, and magazines on the table that seem like they have been there as long as he's been in practice??? I don't think so, and judging from the amount of cars always parked by his office, not many of his patients think so either.

So as long as Uncle Sam keeps lining the pockets of these providers, the system will never be fair or equitable, and there will be people like me who complain about it, but have to take what gets dished out, and other who are deserving of assistance, but just don't "qualify".

Edwina's Secretary
08-21-2009, 11:49 AM
I agree with you Pomtzu...I stopped going to a dentist because I resented paying for the granite countertops, flat screen tv and all the other fancy stuff. And I felt I was being "marketed to" every time I went there.

Puckstop31
08-21-2009, 12:34 PM
Both those statements could be true and you still would have "accepted"
the money. Mine was auto deposited into my checking account. I didn't
"see the check" either.

Never had it Direct Deposited either Liz.

We pay attention to these things. I work closely with my accountant come tax time to be sure we pay what is owed and use only normal deductions.

We don't need or want other peoples money. We make enough of our own.

I don't blame you if you do not believe me. People often don't believe that I turn down "free money".

cassiesmom
08-22-2009, 07:28 PM
I agree with you Pomtzu...I stopped going to a dentist because I resented paying for the granite countertops, flat screen tv and all the other fancy stuff. And I felt I was being "marketed to" every time I went there.

I went to one of those! I found his name on a sedation dentistry Web site. I didn't get the work I needed - instead, I got a major marketing pitch for a fortune's worth of cosmetic work, and a sales pitch for nutraceuticals to give me a healthier mouth. It's going to take a heck of a lot more than nutraceuticals to make my mouth healthy again, because I avoided the dentist for a lot of years. Boo on the flat-screen with direct TV.


Yesterday I attended a meeting of a volunteer group to which I belong. The woman next to me - retired after 32 years of teaching - is not yet eligible for medicare - nor is her husband who also retired from teaching. They are in good health - she had just completed a 110 mile bicycle trip. Medical insurance is available to her as a retiree. The co-insurance (what she must pay each month to continue the insurance) is $2,200 each month.
This makes me steaming mad. That is not right. There has to be a better way for people to get the health insurance they need.

momoffuzzyfaces
08-24-2009, 08:38 AM
To make things even more fun, we on Social Security won't be getting even a tiny cost of living raise for the next two years, but we have the honor :rolleyes: of paying higher Medicare premiums.

What really makes me mad is Congress will get their big fat yearly raise, they can spend billions for the banks, auto industry, and big businesses AND probably mess all our lives up with the new health care they will force us to have. But give us a teeeny raise? no way! :p


And if that wasn't bad enough, they want to tax junk food, one of our only remaining affordable comforts. Who will determine what is a junk food? Will we have a junk food tzar? If they tax cookies will they also tax the flour, sugar, and other ingredients so we can't even make them ourselves? Inquiring mind needs to know. I need a cookie!

pomtzu
08-24-2009, 08:44 AM
To make things even more fun, we on Social Security won't be getting even a tiny cost of living raise for the next two years, but we have the honor :rolleyes: of paying higher Medicare premiums.



I heard that there will be no increase in Medicare premiums in 2010 since there will be no cost of living raise for SS. :( Where did you hear that there will be an increase? Geeze - I certainly hope not! :mad:

momoffuzzyfaces
08-24-2009, 09:56 AM
I heard that there will be no increase in Medicare premiums in 2010 since there will be no cost of living raise for SS. :( Where did you hear that there will be an increase? Geeze - I certainly hope not! :mad:

It's been on several of the news channels last night and this morning. Local channels as well as Fox and CNN. :(

It was also on Yahoo yesterday. The ones of us who pay Medicare premiums will actually have a smaller check because of the increase in premiums.

Grace
08-24-2009, 11:26 AM
The rise in Medicare premiums will NOT affect everyone. In an article from the Dallas Morning News, there is this -


Three in four Medicare beneficiaries are protected by a "hold-harmless" provision in the law that ensures that their Medicare premiums won't go up any more than their Social Security benefits, said Kaiser policy analyst Juliette Cubanski.

So next year, if they get the same amount from Social Security, they'll pay Medicare the same $96.40 per month they do today.

That won't be true, however, for the remaining 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries, Cubanski said. They include:

•Higher-income beneficiaries whose modified adjusted gross income exceeds $85,000 for individuals and $170,000 for couples in 2009.

•New enrollees who didn't collect Social Security benefits or weren't covered under Part B a year earlier.

•Low-income individuals whose Medicare Part B premiums are paid by Medicaid.


Source (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/personalfinance/stories/DN-medicare_24bus.State.Edition1.da0513.html)

pomtzu
08-24-2009, 12:46 PM
The rise in Medicare premiums will NOT affect everyone. In an article from the Dallas Morning News, there is this -




Source (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/personalfinance/stories/DN-medicare_24bus.State.Edition1.da0513.html)


I'm safe!! Thanks Gretchen. :)

Edwina's Secretary
08-24-2009, 06:19 PM
If it makes you feel any better (it won’t) it is not just retirees getting the squeeze.

I am beginning the insurance renewal for one of my clients. Right now we are looking at a 12% increase in medical premiums.

Employees share the cost of the premiums.

The current economy has been rough on manufacturing companies and with 0% rise in CPI – 0% will probably be what the raises are this year (as in 60% of companies.)

With the help of our broker we may get the increase down to 9% (I hope.) That will include carve outs – insurance speak for reducing benefits.

So people making $9 - $12/hour will pay more for less coverage.

And the company will either have to lay off more people or if possible, pass the increase along to the customer who pass it along until eventually the consumer – you and me – will pay for it.

We pay for each other's medical care one way or the other. Medicare, private insurance, veterans or the uninsured. There are just a whole lot more hands taking something off the top with our current system.

lizbud
08-24-2009, 06:27 PM
The rise in Medicare premiums will NOT affect everyone. In an article from the Dallas Morning News, there is this -

Source (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/personalfinance/stories/DN-medicare_24bus.State.Edition1.da0513.html)


So, am I right in thinking only those with Medicare part D will be affected?
Only those who signed up for the Medicare Drug coverage?

Grace
08-24-2009, 07:37 PM
So, am I right in thinking only those with Medicare part D will be affected?
Only those who signed up for the Medicare Drug coverage?

That's the way it sounds to me. But it doesn't definitively say that all will be affected. Guess we need to do more investigating.



One final note for the majority of beneficiaries who may think they've dodged the bullet: The hold-harmless provision doesn't apply to Medicare's prescription drug coverage. So some seniors may still get a smaller Social Security payment next year if their drug premiums increase.

sasvermont
08-25-2009, 08:09 AM
What Drop In Benefits?
The Phony Flap Over Social Security COLAs


By Chuck Blahous
Tuesday, August 25, 2009

"Millions of people face shrinking Social Security checks next year," The Post reported Monday, "as officials project that benefits will stay flat for the first time in a generation." The New York Times reported earlier this year that the lack of a Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in 2010 "will be a shock to older Americans" and quoted an AARP official lamenting that "Most seniors have never been through a year in which there was no Social Security COLA."

But this controversy is more smoke than fire.

Like other Americans, seniors are suffering through the economic downturn. Unlike other Americans, however, most seniors are benefiting from multiple technical quirks of law that protect their income stream.

First, there is the current Social Security COLA. Automatic COLA increases were established in 1975 in an effort to protect seniors' purchasing power. In January, Social Security began paying its largest COLA since 1982, 5.8 percent. But this adjustment has since surpassed national measures of the cost of living.

The 5.8 percent boost was based on the high price increases of last year, especially in food and fuel. Since then, prices have subsided. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Consumer Price Index subsequently declined by 4 percent. By law, COLAs can never be negative. So benefit payments are exceeding inflation, and seniors will simply pocket this 4 percent increase in real purchasing power for the indefinite future, until prices once again exceed their 2008 levels and further COLAs resume.

Meanwhile, most seniors stand to benefit from a provision in the Medicare Part B premium formula. Under normal circumstances, the Part B premium is indexed so that one-fourth of program cost increases are passed on to beneficiaries, three-fourths to taxpayers. Part B also has an "income-relating" feature, which requires higher-income seniors to pay more for their benefits.



A "hold harmless" provision, however, ensures that for most beneficiaries (those not subject to income-relating), the dollar amount of their Social Security check (minus the Part B premiums) will not diminish from one year to the next. In a year without a COLA, therefore, the majority of seniors will receive Medicare Part B coverage of increased value, with the larger bill passed on entirely to others.

Third, the February stimulus legislation provided $250 checks to most Social Security recipients. Though some working seniors will need to return these checks because of their interaction with the "Making Work Pay" tax credit, non-working seniors will keep them.

Taken together, these features of law mean that taxpayers are providing substantial additional income protections for most seniors, well beyond inflation.

If our policies for seniors existed in an ideal world, benefits would be adjusted upward when prices go up and downward when prices go down. The intended burden-sharing of Medicare Part B premiums would not shift with price swings in the general economy. Alternatively, the nation's most powerful organization for the elderly would responsibly explain to its members that the deviations from these ideals are largely working in their favor.

But this isn't an ideal world. Accordingly, Congress is being pressured to "do something" about the COLA issue, which would translate into further costs facing taxpayers and increased payments to the seniors benefiting from these technical quirks.

There is nevertheless a potential problem in all of this. Medicare law provides for the premium relief provided to those "held harmless" to be made up by those not so protected. This could result in large unintended premium increases for a minority of seniors, and in more costs shifted to taxpayers through Medicaid.

The Obama administration entered office talking about tough choices and fiscal responsibility. These issues shouldn't be particularly tough. Helping Congress defuse this unnecessary political problem would be a modest threshold test of such responsibility.

The administration should either publicly push back on the misrepresentation of the situation or propose an alternative revenue-neutral distribution of beneficiary premium burdens. Providing this cover -- instead of shifting further costs to taxpayers -- would send a positive signal to lawmakers looking for administration seriousness on bigger fiscal issues, such as the unsustainable growth of entitlement spending generally.

Seniors, like all Americans, are feeling the pain of our economic difficulties. If, after due deliberation, Congress and the administration decide that taxpayers should shoulder still more burdens and seniors less, then so be it. But let's not dress that decision up in the guise of correcting a nonexistent inequity.

Chuck Blahous, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, served as deputy director of the National Economic Council from 2007-09 and executive director of the President's Social Security Commission in 2001. His book "Social Security: The Unfinished Work" is due to be published next year.

lizbud
08-25-2009, 04:50 PM
That's the way it sounds to me. But it doesn't definitively say that all will be affected. Guess we need to do more investigating.



Well, I did read that private insurance costs will go up & employers
will past that along to their employees.Some say could be as much as
20% increase. Some employers might decide to drop insurance altogether.

Edwina's Secretary
08-25-2009, 05:16 PM
Liz...See my post above about one of my clients.

Medical up 12% and Worker's Comp medical - even though they have lower experience this year - up 25%

lizbud
08-25-2009, 05:24 PM
If it makes you feel any better (it won’t) it is not just retirees getting the squeeze.

I am beginning the insurance renewal for one of my clients. Right now we are looking at a 12% increase in medical premiums.

Employees share the cost of the premiums.

The current economy has been rough on manufacturing companies and with 0% rise in CPI – 0% will probably be what the raises are this year (as in 60% of companies.)

With the help of our broker we may get the increase down to 9% (I hope.) That will include carve outs – insurance speak for reducing benefits.

So people making $9 - $12/hour will pay more for less coverage.

And the company will either have to lay off more people or if possible, pass the increase along to the customer who pass it along until eventually the consumer – you and me – will pay for it.

We pay for each other's medical care one way or the other. Medicare, private insurance, veterans or the uninsured. There are just a whole lot more hands taking something off the top with our current system.



Sorry, I missed this earlier.:o Costs go up & up for everybody.

Grace
08-27-2009, 09:25 PM
Wonder who put these sections in the bill, and how many in Congress are aware of them?




Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.

Source (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry5268079.shtml?tag=pop)

blue
08-27-2009, 11:28 PM
Wonder who put these sections in the bill, and how many in Congress are aware of them?



Source (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry5268079.shtml?tag=pop)

They dont care, their healh care isnt affected by this bill.

lizbud
08-28-2009, 01:50 PM
Wonder who put these sections in the bill, and how many in Congress are aware of them?



Source (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry5268079.shtml?tag=pop)


I don't like the sound of that. I'm going to check around a bit. Grace, if
you spot any more info on this, will you post it here? Thanks.

lizbud
08-28-2009, 06:13 PM
The comments on this guy's blog entry( CBS Blog Article) are very
interesting.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-504383_162-5268079.html?assetTypeId=41&tag=contentMain;contentBody

RICHARD
08-29-2009, 02:59 PM
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/8/28/128959441900173444.jpg

momoffuzzyfaces
08-29-2009, 03:20 PM
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/8/28/128959441900173444.jpg

That looks more like the stuff the Home shopping network would sell not QVC. ;) :D

lizbud
08-31-2009, 01:13 PM
Article by Erica Jong, "Don't let the crazy people win this time".


The crazy person always makes the decision, says my husband the divorce lawyer. "If you have two partners--and one is sane and the other crazy--guess who always wins?"

"The one who screams the loudest?" I ask, knowing this because I come from a family of crazy people.

"You betcha."

There are things sane people don't do--like lie, like drag the children into the dispute, like leave for New Zealand with the kids, like rob the joint bank accounts. But the crazy person will do it--and the sane partner is usually left holding the bag. Oh you can sue and sue and sue--but in the end, the kids are wetting their beds, the bank account is gone and the sane partner is on welfare.

That's what I think about the health care ruckus. The Republicans will say just about anything to derail progress. The Democrats are too reticent. Not that they don't have corrupt Blue Dogs with their hands in the pockets of the health care profiteers. They do. But all their talk--and the president's--of compromise is like arguing with a crazy person who will say anything. Forget reasoning. Just push he damn thing through.

OK, I'm not a diplomat or a politician. I haven't got the patience. But it's clear to me that our country's lack of a public option is bankrupting businesses and families. Not only does our tiny one-writer, one-lawyer business pay fortunes for health care for our assistants, housekeeper and ourselves, but any time the health care company makes a mistake, we pay anyway for fear of being cancelled.

Just pay, our broker says--if you hold back your check, they'll cancel you. So for six months last year, I paid full coverage for a fired assistant--though the broker gave me erroneous information.

Companies with 25 employees, not one, are responsible for paying health insurance for a worker who's been fired after six months. The broker was wrong. Blue Cross or Aetna or Oxford--I forget which--held our money for six months and then refused to refund the correct amount. I'm still asking for it. This is what monopolies do.

I'm a lucky cuss--good earning power and a spouse with good earning power--but the health care giants answer to no one. Why should they? They have cornered the market. Unless there is a competing option, they will continue to act like the eight hundred pound gorilla who sits wherever he wants.

This is common sense, not rocket science. If there were no competition in the clothing business, we'd all have to pay $300 for jeans--not just fashionistas. Competition is vital. Especially when life and death are at stake.

So come on Dems, get with the program. We need a public option--or we're gonna have to start a new political party with guts. We could call it the Healthy Party. Or we could move to Canada--or Ireland or Italy or France. We could move almost anywhere and get health care without breaking the bank. What's wrong with the US? The crazy people make the decisions--on health, on guns, on wildlife, on the environment. What stupidity. There's a helluva good universe next door--let's go. (With apologies to ee cummings, who knew insanity when he saw it).

Medusa
08-31-2009, 01:55 PM
What Jong, Mahr and those of that ilk refuse to recognize is that the attempt to "push the damn thing through" is what is making people so angry. Then to add insult to injury she calls those who disagree crazy. I've never seen name calling win an argument or enhance a discussion yet. It only serves to fan the flames of an already heated debate. Forget reasoning? Just push it through? Tactics of a bully.

RICHARD
08-31-2009, 02:14 PM
Article by Erica Jong, "Don't let the crazy people win this time".



That's what I think about the health care ruckus. The Republicans will say just about anything to derail progress. The Democrats are too reticent. Not that they don't have corrupt Blue Dogs with their hands in the pockets of the health care profiteers. They do. But all their talk--and the president's--of compromise is like arguing with a crazy person who will say anything. Forget reasoning. Just push he damn thing through.



I wonder if the esteemed writer would care to push 1100 pages of paper where the sun don't shine.

Adult, please.

Here is a "writer" who knows the value of reading a tome that has a beginning, middle and end, but has no idea as to how disjointed the HCR/HCI reads.

What an insult to all the 'crazy people' who are questioning a bill that will eff the whole country once and for all.

It's quite all right when morons like Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan get up and start yelling during a hearing-where they were not invited to speak, but when people are invited to speak at a hearing and are properly pi$$ed off about a bunch of 'fools on the Hill' they are labeled as the crazy ones?

She is right about the Dem party being reticent. They are the 'sheeple' that just want to go ahead with any stupidity with no forethought or fight.

Just push he damn thing through.

LOL, that is as stupid a thought as a man in a Labor and Delivery room whispering into his wife's ear telling her the same sentence.

And years later the kid turns out to be another Jeffrey Dahmer.

The man don't give a flying shiat because it's not his pelvis getting the ligaments pulled out of shape.

Jong is another idiot that never showed up on my radar screen-Fear of Flying?

No, just way too stupid to get on the plane.:rolleyes:

Puckstop31
08-31-2009, 04:04 PM
Forget reasoning? Just push it through? Tactics of a bully.

Its how the President and those people he chooses to surround himself with do business. Its how he and Rahm Immanuel always have done business. "Chicago Style"


It is sad for our country to have to go through this, but it is slightly entertaining to listen to our "leaders" starting to come apart at the seams. "The Peasants" are not supposed to speak up and cause this much ruckus. More people are speaking up everyday. So the more talking heads who insult people for speaking up... Its a win for the people.

There is a reason our country is different from most of the rest of the world. We are starting to see why again.

lizbud
08-31-2009, 06:45 PM
Elections have consequences. The Democratic Party ran on this issue,
among others & they should just admit that Repubs refuse to make any
effort to be bipartisan in finding a answer to any of the many problems
we should be working to solve. They are not called the party of NO for
nothing.

I believe the Dems should remember who elected them & why. Get a grip
and pass the D*** Health Bill.

RICHARD
08-31-2009, 10:23 PM
Elections have consequences. The Democratic Party ran on this issue,
among others & they should just admit that Repubs refuse to make any
effort to be bipartisan in finding a answer to any of the many problems
we should be working to solve. They are not called the party of NO for
nothing.

I believe the Dems should remember who elected them & why. Get a grip
and pass the D*** Health Bill.

The dems made promises and they were going to get anything they wanted because they control the house. Go ahead, do what YOU want and pray that people are too stupid to put up a protest.

I am against 'secret ballots'. I think that people who vote either way should be tattooed an shown the proper amount of scorn for their choices.;)

Then try to make excuses.:eek::confused::D

RICHARD
09-02-2009, 10:42 PM
I just did surgery on myself with a pair of river sandals.

I've had a problem with a splinter in my foot for about a year.


LOL, no co pay, no unnecessary tests or paperwork.


I ROCK!:rolleyes:

Marigold2
09-03-2009, 09:10 AM
I agree, all those who voted for Bush should be tattooed so they can never forget what they did.
The dems made promises and they were going to get anything they wanted because they control the house. Go ahead, do what YOU want and pray that people are too stupid to put up a protest.

I am against 'secret ballots'. I think that people who vote either way should be tattooed an shown the proper amount of scorn for their choices.;)

Then try to make excuses.:eek::confused::D

Marigold2
09-03-2009, 09:13 AM
And on a lighter note because if there is one thing I have is a great sense of humor, I can laugh at myself and my party without taking offense.
THE TOP TEN SIGNS THAT YOUR EMPLOYER HAS CHANGED TO OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PLAN:


(10) Your annual breast exam is done at Hooters.

(9) Directions to your doctor's office include "Take a left when you
enter the trailer park."

(8) The tongue depressors taste faintly of Fudgesicles.

(7) The only proctologist in the plan is "Gus" from Roto-Rooter.

(6) The only item listed under Preventative Care Coverage is "an apple
a day."

(5) Your Primary Care Physician is wearing the pants you gave to
Goodwill last month.

(4) "The patient is responsible for 200% of out-of-network charges," is
not a typographical error.

(3) The only expense covered at 100% is "embalming."

(2) Your Prozac comes in different colors with little M's on them.

AND THE NUMBER ONE SIGN YOU'VE JOINED OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PLAN:

(1) You ask for Viagra, and they give you a Popsicle stick and duct tape.

Lady's Human
09-03-2009, 10:17 AM
I've been staying out of political threads lately, and these posts are why.

No one should be tattooed, marked, signed, or anything else because of how they voted, and anyone suggesting it is an absolute ass.

Anyone who hasn't been paying attention lately as to whats happened in Iran should realize why.

Godwin's law rides again.

:mad:

RICHARD
09-03-2009, 10:22 AM
I've been staying out of political threads lately, and these posts are why.

No one should be tattooed, marked, signed, or anything else because of how they voted, and anyone suggesting it is an absolute ass.



Uh.........My stupid brother used to tell me "not to be an AH all my life."

So, I chose to be a part time AH.;):eek::o

Marigold2
09-03-2009, 11:13 AM
LOL what was I thinking. :rolleyes::rolleyes: We don't need a tattoo to easily identify those who voted for Bush, we just have to wait till they quote Bushisms.
They misunderestimated me." --Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000


Do you have blacks, too?" --to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001

"I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." --talking to key Republicans about Iraq, as quoted by Bob Woodward

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." --discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson in 2003, as quoted by Robertson

Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004

This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite -- I call you my base." --at the 2000 Al Smith dinner.

Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." --in parting words to world leaders at his final G-8 Summit, punching the air and grinning widely as those present looked on in shock, Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008


"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." --Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

"Can we win? I don't think you can win it." --after being asked whether the war on terror was winnable, "Today" show interview, Aug. 30, 2004

"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." --Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008



"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on --shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." --to FEMA director Michael Brown, who resigned 10 days later amid criticism over his handling of the Hurricane Katrina debacle, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005




I've been staying out of political threads lately, and these posts are why.

No one should be tattooed, marked, signed, or anything else because of how they voted, and anyone suggesting it is an absolute ass.

Anyone who hasn't been paying attention lately as to whats happened in Iran should realize why.

Godwin's law rides again.

:mad:

Medusa
09-03-2009, 11:34 AM
I've been staying out of political threads lately, and these posts are why.

No one should be tattooed, marked, signed, or anything else because of how they voted, and anyone suggesting it is an absolute ass.

Anyone who hasn't been paying attention lately as to whats happened in Iran should realize why.

Godwin's law rides again.

:mad:

I took Richard's comment as a joke because he mentioned those who voted either way and he finished w/a wink smiley. Marigold, on the other hand, specifically pointed to people who voted for Bush and her comment was mean spirited and there was no icon of any kind to indicate whether or not she was joking as well. Your point is well taken LH, however, don't expect things to change any time soon. This forum should be renamed the Snake Pit because there's an awful lot of venom spewed here every day, lots of spitting and striking and biting and then slinking back down into their holes when there is an outcry. If only they would stay there and not come out until they have something constructive to say.

Lady's Human
09-03-2009, 12:15 PM
I took Richard's as a joke.

However, there are some who post nothing but spite and vitriol in political threads.

I was specifically referring to Marigold's post, I should have clarified.

Marigold2
09-03-2009, 01:15 PM
What no mention of my funny Obama post? :eek::eek: I am a big fan of his yet I can find the humor and not get mad.
I laugh at both sides and I never take offense at what people say.:p
As for making fun of Bush, he said those things, they weren't made up. He really is that dubm, dmub, dbum.
The Obama ones were funny and so were the Bush ones.
If a person voted for Bush they must have found him intelligent which to me is confusing, but that is what makes a horse race.
But to get upset, life is too short and if you let a post make you mad you are missing the point, which is to hear other opinions and to learn weather, you agree or not.
This is funny regardless of how you vote.

1) You ask for Viagra, and they give you a Popsicle stick and duct tape.

Medusa
09-03-2009, 01:25 PM
What no mention of my funny Obama post? :eek::eek: I am a big fan of his yet I can find the humor and not get mad.
I laugh at both sides and I never take offense at what people say.:p
As for making fun of Bush, he said those things, they weren't made up. He really is that dubm, dmub, dbum.
The Obama ones were funny and so were the Bush ones.
If a person voted for Bush they must have found him intelligent which to me is confusing, but that is what makes a horse race.
But to get upset, life is too short and if you let a post make you mad you are missing the point, which is to hear other opinions and to learn weather, you agree or not.


If you had merely offered an opinion, it's doubtful that anyone would have objected. No one even mentioned your post that made fun of Bush perhaps because no one was offended, including me. What is offensive is your post about tattooing those who voted for Bush so that they would never forget "what they did". Y'know, there are actual people on the other end of your posts. We have feelings, feelings can be hurt, people can get offended. I'm not a hot house flower who is too precious to live. I can take criticism and read posts that disagree w/my views as well as the next person. However, when a specific person or a group of people are singled out as a target of vitriol, people are going to get upset and offended, Monica! Surely you can see that. Then to add insult to injury we're told that we need to have a sense of humor when we object to being insulted. Here's a thought: don't insult people to begin with. Remind yourself that there are real live people who read these posts, not just faceless screen ID's w/no feelings. I'm sometimes shocked at what people say in the Dog House and wonder if they would dare say those things to a person's face. Maybe they would, who knows, and that makes it all the sadder.

RICHARD
09-03-2009, 01:34 PM
Does this mean my part time job is over?:eek::o:(;)

----------

Going back to the Health Care topic.
I really had a bad time with this foot splinter.

No X-ray found it and an 'exploratory surgery' wasn't a guarantee to fix the problem. I forgot about it and this past year it started to bother me as a sharp pain in my foot.

My toe went numb and I had pain all the way up my leg to my hip. When I was asleep I would stretch my legs until I got cramps and had to elevate both legs to get comfortable. I'd press the sole of my foot on the wall so it would not hurt.

Because a doc had seen the wound and done the x-ray and dressing on it I didn't think it was the splinter.

I got a callus on top of the callus and the skin on the bottom of my foot began to swell, then cracked. I was trying to see what was bugging me and ended up taking a piece of wood that was probably 1/8 of an inch out of the split in the skin.

I probably could have kept going back to the doctor over and over again. But if he didn't find anything the first time out with an X-ray, what good would a surgery done?

Was it wise to go thru the pain? Nope.

Could I have kept bugging the doc to do something about it?
Probably.

The fact that I have seen countless people who go into the doc's office for no reason at all really galls me.

-------------------------

I have sat in the ER rooms when I had the flu and thought I was going to die.

Then some kid would come into the room with a sucking chest wound and head trauma.

It was then I learned I wasn't going to die.

While the topic of HCR is pretty timely, we all have to also look at the way we use the system and who really needs the care provided.

Edwina's Secretary
09-03-2009, 01:49 PM
My husband came home last night having heard some of these pernicious lies at work yesterday. Makes you wonder what it will take before people stop spreading them!

Myths about healthcare (http://mobile.newsweek.com/detail.jsp?key=56078&rc=camp2008&p=0&all=1)

pomtzu
09-03-2009, 02:33 PM
And if you are on welfare it does mean that you are either mentally unable to take care of yourself or physically not, able or both. What other option is there?

In post 14 I asked for an answer/explanation to/of this statement, and I'm still waiting. You dropped out of sight in your own thread and left it for others to give it a new life and direction.
Out of sight - out of mind????? I'm not that easily distracted.

RICHARD
09-03-2009, 03:03 PM
Out of sight - out of mind????? I'm not that easily distracted.

But can you be easily amused?:D

pomtzu
09-03-2009, 03:08 PM
But can you be easily amused?:D

But of course! I keep coming here, don't I??? There's never a lack of laughable posts.........:rolleyes:

Edwina's Secretary
09-03-2009, 03:19 PM
In post 14 I asked for an answer/explanation to/of this statement, and I'm still waiting.

Don't feel bad. I often don't get answers either!:)

pomtzu
09-03-2009, 03:26 PM
Don't feel bad. I often don't get answers either!:)

I guess it's easier to just back off when you're cornered. :eek: :D

Puckstop31
09-03-2009, 07:37 PM
I guess it's easier to just back off when you're cornered. :eek: :D



Awwww..... You beat me to it.


<golf clap>


:)

Marigold2
09-04-2009, 06:21 AM
I am sorry I didn't realize you were waiting for an answer, I only come on about once a week and this Sat my son is getting married so I have been so busy, but in a great way.
Plus I work full-time so I am limited to how much time I have for PT, judging from everyones posts I guess that is a good thing. LOL
Got to run but I will get back to you next week.

In post 14 I asked for an answer/explanation to/of this statement, and I'm still waiting. You dropped out of sight in your own thread and left it for others to give it a new life and direction.
Out of sight - out of mind????? I'm not that easily distracted.

pomtzu
09-04-2009, 07:09 AM
I am sorry I didn't realize you were waiting for an answer, I only come on about once a week and this Sat my son is getting married so I have been so busy, but in a great way.
Plus I work full-time so I am limited to how much time I have for PT, judging from everyones posts I guess that is a good thing. LOL
Got to run but I will get back to you next week.

I'll check back for an answer in about a month.....:eek::rolleyes:

And I wouldn't have asked the question if I wasn't expecting to receive an answer.

Edwina's Secretary
09-04-2009, 11:43 AM
I'll check back for an answer in about a month.....:eek::rolleyes:

And I wouldn't have asked the question if I wasn't expecting to receive an answer.

Should we have a pool...whether she answers your question first or he answers mine?:D

pomtzu
09-04-2009, 11:52 AM
Should we have a pool...whether she answers your question first or he answers mine?:D

I'm not a betting woman. Besides, I wouldn't want to start a competition between the parties involved..........:rolleyes: There might be an off forum pool somewhere. :eek:

RICHARD
09-05-2009, 11:54 PM
http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Graphic/2009/09/02/0902lkcropped__1251903911_2614.jpg

Funny.

blue
09-06-2009, 12:02 AM
http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Graphic/2009/09/02/0902lkcropped__1251903911_2614.jpg

Funny.

Yes.

Edwina's Secretary
09-06-2009, 12:09 PM
Is Universal Healthcare constitutional????


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


If healthcare isn't the general Welfare I don't know what is!

Grace
09-06-2009, 12:27 PM
Is Universal Healthcare constitutional????

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If healthcare isn't the general Welfare I don't know what is!

Your quote is from the Preamble; there is another place in the Constitution where the phrase General Welfare is mentioned.

Article 1, Section 8 states:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I know the meaning of words can change over time. So maybe what they meant back then is different from the way we understand the meaning now :confused:

Edwina's Secretary
09-06-2009, 01:34 PM
I agree word usage changes over time. So many things have.

Medical care at the time the constitution was written was something you hoped to survive rather than something to help you survive. It consisted mostly of cupping, bleeding, some leaches now and then.

That is why I believe we need to look at the constitution not as a static thing but as something that has different meanings in different times just as words do.

When the constitution was written the men writing it had a distrust of the "rabble." Their intent was to keep control within the group of land owning white men. Senators were elected by the state politicians. Only the house of representatives were elected directly - by those who had the vote.

This did not include women, blacks - free or slaves, Native Americans or white men who did not own property.

That would not be acceptable today. The meaning of "we the people" has grown and changed with our country. And thankful, the constitution was written so it can grow and change as well.

And that includes the rather broad phrase - general welfare.

RICHARD
09-06-2009, 01:37 PM
I know the meaning of words can change over time. So maybe what they meant back then is different from the way we understand the meaning now :confused:

It's the way they appear on an LCD monitor as opposed to a sheet of handmade paper?:confused:

Grace
09-06-2009, 01:51 PM
If you google general welfare constitution, you will be presented with close to 2 million hits.

I'm guessing there would be at least one hit to back up many differing opinions.

Edwina's Secretary
09-06-2009, 02:13 PM
I teach a class on the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. It is the federal law that established how employees are paid, minimum wage, child labor, etc.

It says hours of work are "all time the employer requires, suffers or permits...etc" Participants are always confused by the word "suffer". It is not used today the same ways it was used in 1938.

The law also establishes how non-exempt employees are paid for out of town travel - based on train or automobile. Air travel was not contemplated.

So we have to think and apply our interpretation of the law. That is what employers/lawyers do and the courts decide if they do it right.

We spend lots of time in the class talking about what the law was written to accomplish and how that is accomplished today.

Any law is open to many, many interpretation. Who is right and who is wrong?

That depends I suppose!

Puckstop31
09-06-2009, 03:25 PM
The Preamble says "promote then general welfare". Article 1, sec 8 says "provide".

Like I said to LH in one of the other threads... Promote is VERY different than provide.

Would a national, forced, healthcare plan work in the United States? I have not heard anybody come up with anything that would. Why not leave it to the states to decide? Our republic is kinda cool like that.

As usual, my issue with the whole healthcare thing is this... My government would FORCE me to surrender the fruits of my labor to support people who did not earn it, more than they do already. Government is force, there are no two ways about it. This country was founded on the concept of individual liberty and that government, especially on the federal level, was a necessary evil. So....


Why in world would we want to surrender something as personal and intimate as our health care to the federal government? Do we REALLY think it would get BETTER? Further, how do we pay for it? Knowing that government programs almost never come in at or under budget.

Its the highest level of insanity. We would, with the stroke of a pen, damn our posterity to effectual slavery to the government that is supposed to ensure our liberty.

Edwina's Secretary
09-06-2009, 04:35 PM
I continue to be puzzled why people are quite comfortable having a for profit insurance company dictating their medical coverage. Deciding what drugs they can take, what surgery or treatment they can have...based on profits.

I am not. How could government sponsored medical care be any worse?

I am an optimist. I believe the United States is as good as Canada, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, UK, etc.. etc. and we could come up with a workable plan for universal health care that is less expensive and more effective than the not so good system we have now.

Cataholic
09-06-2009, 05:19 PM
I continue to be puzzled why people are quite comfortable having a for profit insurance company dictating their medical coverage. Deciding what drugs they can take, what surgery or treatment they can have...based on profits.

I am not. How could government sponsored medical care be any worse?

I am an optimist. I believe the United States is as good as Canada, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, UK, etc.. etc. and we could come up with a workable plan for universal health care that is less expensive and more effective than the not so good system we have now.

I could not agree with you more. There HAS to be a better system then some claims adjuster (without any medical training whatsoever) determining benefits.

lizbud
09-06-2009, 05:58 PM
I agree word usage changes over time. So many things have.

Medical care at the time the constitution was written was something you hoped to survive rather than something to help you survive. It consisted mostly of cupping, bleeding, some leaches now and then.

That is why I believe we need to look at the constitution not as a static thing but as something that has different meanings in different times just as words do.

When the constitution was written the men writing it had a distrust of the "rabble." Their intent was to keep control within the group of land owning white men. Senators were elected by the state politicians. Only the house of representatives were elected directly - by those who had the vote.

This did not include women, blacks - free or slaves, Native Americans or white men who did not own property.

That would not be acceptable today. The meaning of "we the people" has grown and changed with our country. And thankful, the constitution was written so it can grow and change as well.

And that includes the rather broad phrase - general welfare.



Well said. This description of the era when the Constitution was
written should be kept in mind when talking about what was the original
intent of the framers.

Lady's Human
09-06-2009, 06:14 PM
blacks - free or slaves

Wrong. If you are going to make a comment about the history of the constitution, please, please fact check before you do.

Free blacks had the vote in many of the original states, including 2 slave states (Md and NC):

In 1790, free black men could vote on equal terms with whites in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina. Free black men were enfranchised in the new states of Kentucky in 1792 and Tennessee in 1796, although the right was removed in Kentucky in 1798 and in Tennessee in 1834.

The difference between enfranchising various groups over time is that it has been done within the frame of the constitution through the amendment process.

If you want to add to the powers and responsibilities of the federal government, do it through the proper means, the amendment process.

RICHARD
09-06-2009, 06:21 PM
It's leeches, with a "C".

And check out the use of cautery.


Taking a saw, cutting of the offending limb, then taking a heated rod and burning shut the part that bled.


No deductibles or insurance worries!:rolleyes:

Edwina's Secretary
09-06-2009, 06:27 PM
It's leeches, with a "C".

And check out the use of cautery.


Taking a saw, cutting of the offending limb, then taking a heated rod and burning shut the part that bled.


No deductibles or insurance worries!:rolleyes:

You are going to be in trouble! Correcting my spelling. I will await your chastisement...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Edwina's Secretary
09-06-2009, 07:10 PM
Wrong. If you are going to make a comment about the history of the constitution, please, please fact check before you do.

Free blacks had the vote in many of the original states, including 2 slave states (Md and NC):

In 1790, free black men could vote on equal terms with whites in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina. Free black men were enfranchised in the new states of Kentucky in 1792 and Tennessee in 1796, although the right was removed in Kentucky in 1798 and in Tennessee in 1834.

The difference between enfranchising various groups over time is that it has been done within the frame of the constitution through the amendment process.

If you want to add to the powers and responsibilities of the federal government, do it through the proper means, the amendment process.


Okee dokee...I read it in a book the other day...about how Andrew Jackson in 1828 gave white men without property to ability to vote. Are you right and I wrong. Okay...how about the rest of it? Some of the disenfranchising came from things like poll taxes ,etc. Some Native Americans did not get the right to vote until the 1960's...unless again...evrything in the book was wrong.

I am not interested in adding the the powers etc. of the federal government. I am not sure what that is in reference to...

Lady's Human
09-06-2009, 07:25 PM
As usual, Sara, I corrected one piece of your post (referring to black men voting) and you go all over the map, covering everything BUT what I was referring to.

RICHARD
09-06-2009, 07:32 PM
As usual, Sara, I corrected one piece of your post (referring to black men voting) and you go all over the map, covering everything BUT what I was referring to.

See, that's what happens when you are too focused on the topic at hand.

You aren't easily distracted.:confused:

Edwina's Secretary
09-06-2009, 07:47 PM
As usual, Sara, I corrected one piece of your post (referring to black men voting) and you go all over the map, covering everything BUT what I was referring to.

You know...I have great respect and admiration for your constitutional knowledge. You and Grace. I may not agree with your application but I repect your knowledge.

Not sure why you are wanting a fight. You corrected me. I asked if the rest of what I wrote was wrong.


You must have missed where I wrote that I accept you are right and I wrong.???


I guess you don't want to discuss. That's okay too.

Lady's Human
09-06-2009, 08:19 PM
Mea Culpa. That I misread.


The voting rights in this country have expanded in fits and starts over the centuries, and occasionally contracted, but the general progression has been liberalization.

It wasn't just a bunch of dead white guys voting from the onset.

Guys, yes. White, not necessarily.

(though, last time I checked, it was still illegal for a Native American to enter the City of Boston.....so much for the liberal, enlightened Commonwealth of Massachusetts....so how in heck are they supposed to vote?) :D

RICHARD
09-06-2009, 08:34 PM
Mea Culpa. That I misread.


The voting rights in this country have expanded in fits and starts over the centuries, and occasionally contracted, but the general progression has been liberalization.

It wasn't just a bunch of dead white guys voting from the onset.

Guys, yes. White, not necessarily.

(though, last time I checked, it was still illegal for a Native American to enter the City of Boston.....so much for the liberal, enlightened Commonwealth of Massachusetts....so how in heck are they supposed to vote?) :D

So, Bo gets two votes?

So, What happens when Cleveland is on the schedule?

blue
09-06-2009, 09:11 PM
If you want to add to the powers and responsibilities of the federal government, do it through the proper means, the amendment process.

This would be the proper way to address the issue of HCR.

Otherwise, lets have Health Insurance Reform. Health Care proffesionals are doing a good job. Rein in the HI co's, impliment tort reform, and most of the problems go away.

Puckstop31
09-07-2009, 06:53 AM
I continue to be puzzled why people are quite comfortable having a for profit insurance company dictating their medical coverage. Deciding what drugs they can take, what surgery or treatment they can have...based on profits.

I am not. How could government sponsored medical care be any worse?

I am an optimist. I believe the United States is as good as Canada, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, UK, etc.. etc. and we could come up with a workable plan for universal health care that is less expensive and more effective than the not so good system we have now.


So a underpaid and overworked government employee is better than what we have now? You really don't think cost will be a factor in decisions made by a government run plan?

A government run plan can be a LOT worse. But, as a compromise I, for example, think it would be interesting to let the states decide for themselves what to do. Let the results of a few states trying it decide. Just not PA please. LOL I worked for 2 years as a contractor to the PA State Medicade system. Specifically in the claims processing department. I had the "pleasure" of being able to kibbutz in on some phone calls. :rolleyes:

Government should lay the groundwork/rules and then let the private economy actually do the work. Why not start with eliminating the "pre-existing condition" rules.... Tort reform.... If fedzilla gets a hold of something as huge as our healthcare... When it starts to suck, where do you turn?

I wish I could be an optimist when it comes to my government. But I form my opinions based on RESULTS and not "good intentions". Government is not very efficient or cost effective at what it does now... I cannot understand why anyone would want to entrust their health care to them.

Grace
09-07-2009, 10:37 AM
An attempt to inject a bit of levity into this topic.

From my mailbox -


Government Health Plan


The American Medical Association has weighed in on National Health Insurance. The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves. The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception. Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted. Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, 'Oh, Grow up!' The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it.

Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing. The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter." The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea. The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington.

pomtzu
09-07-2009, 10:42 AM
An attempt to inject a bit of levity into this topic.

From my mailbox -

ROFLMAO

Thanks for posting that. Love it-love it-love it..........:D

Lady's Human
09-07-2009, 01:43 PM
LMAO @ the email....

To get this slightly back on track, don't get me wrong. I'm in complete agreement with most of the country that SOMETHING has to be done with the morass of crap called health insurance.

As I explained to someone privately, I'm one of the people who has been bitten repeatedly by the morass of red tape created by the insurance industry. (and I have what most people would consider very good insurance) However, a bill attempted to be rushed through the legislative process by an artificial deadline with little debate and damned near no reps reading the bill isn't the way to go.

SOMETHING needs to be done, but given the scope of the industry and the effects any changes to the current law would have on people and the economy, there needs to be a long, open discussion about fixing the system, rather than trying to ramrod something through before Congress goes on vacation. IIRC, someone mentioned earlier that Medicare took 18 months of debate. This deserves no less, and probably needs more.

Miss Z
09-07-2009, 01:56 PM
I found the article from the Times that I was referring to earlier in this thread, and thought it would be worth including here.

Now, I don't overly agree with the tone of this report, but it does raise a few points that I found interesting, and shocking.

I've highlighted the bits that stood out to me.



America has no right to speak ill of our NHS

Free healthcare is the mark of a civilised society. It is the one principle that unites British politicians across the spectrum

Janice Turner

Dear America, for some time now we’ve realised that far from being your special pal, you’re not that into us. We know the love — like the extradition treaty between us — flows mostly one way. For his military loyalty, our previous Prime Minister got yo-Blaired. For his exquisite hand-wrought presidential gifts, our present PM got White House gift shop tat. America, we sucked it up.

You can diss our food, recoil at our personal hygiene, cast our RSC grandees as 2D villains, send Gwynnie and Madonna to patronise us, fingerprint us like criminals at your airports, mow down our sons in “friendly fire”. But as the rage over President Obama’s healthcare reforms descends into attack ads and town-hall gunfire, don’t you dare speak ill of our NHS.

It is the one thing, in our digital, atomised, privatised, multi-ethnic age, that unites us; our irreducible essence, the very best of us. Healthcare free at the point of delivery is the principle upon which every politician across our spectrum — marginal self-publicists such as Daniel Hannan aside — now agrees. The NHS ministered to David Cameron’s brain-damaged son as tenderly as to Gordon Brown’s fatally ill infant girl. It shows that decency, fairness and compassion, the national traits we fear died with nobler generations, live on. That America does not have universal health-care, that 47 million of your citizens live in fear of getting ill, appals and, frankly, baffles us.

The Republican National Committee can condemn the NHS as Orwellian or evil or “socialised”, but what it is, at root, is Christian.

Perhaps not the kind of noisy, nosy, puffed-up Christianity that Senator Chuck Grassley, of Iowa, or Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia are most familiar with, one that applies its energies chiefly to shutting abortion clinics and preventing gay couples from sanctifying their love. It is the simple, quiet, industrious Christianity of chapel and kirk that, woven into the Labour movement, strived to do God’s work on Earth. I’m no Bible-basher, but I’m struggling to recall the verses in which the Good Samaritan asks for insurance details or Jesus bills Lazarus for “co-payments”.

I happened to read Senator Grassley’s statement that in Britain the 77-year-old Ted Kennedy would not have received treatment for his brain tumour, at the bedside of my 86-year-old father. Mr Grassley’s view that “when you get to be 77, your life is considered less valuable under these [NHS] systems” seemed rather surreal, as my old pa, who collapsed at home, was brain- scanned until it was discovered that he had suffered a minor stroke. As a consultant attended him, physios assessed him and he was found a place in a rehabilitation unit, where he will spend a month recovering, I thought how the life of this elderly man — no high-born statesman but a person of modest means — was treated as immensely precious.

Throughout this difficult week, in which I was plunged abruptly into the dark labyrinth that is geriatric care, I gave thanks that the least of my worries — and more importantly my father’s — was money.

To be old, sick and poor is a ghastly fate, and worst among the Republicans’ disgraces is the alarm caused among America’s elderly, that Mr Obama will slash the Medicare system, which is their saviour. It is, as David Frum pointed out in these pages yesterday, a misconception that America has no state provision for its poor and elderly. Indeed, Medicare and Medicaid (for the poor) is so expensive that it is bankrupting your nation, America.

But unlike the lean NHS, there’s a spare tyre of fat on the system and any Briton who has been treated in America can tell you where it lies: around the bellies of physicians grown corpulent on prescribing unnecessary treatment.

To us it is unimaginable that a doctor would order a scan, pills, an invasive test, an operation even, not based on whether it will make us well but on how much he can charge. (We are revolted too by the drug company adverts nagging the sick to “ask your doctor to prescribe” some profitable new gimmick.) And if you are covered by Medicare or Medicaid, the doctor can pass this egregious fee on not to the insurance company but the taxpayer. Some even demand kickbacks from hospitals for referring patients. The scandal of unscrupulous US doctors milking state medicine makes our MPs’ expenses debacle seem like a minor dishonour. Yet why the uproar, the shots fired, when President Obama seeks to redirect tax dollars from doctors’ condos in Palm Beach to sick children?

As with so many facets of US life, healthcare seems a mix of wasteful overconsumption and appalling need. In America a doctor delivers a baby with a battery of beeping machines and a bill that goes “ker-ching!”. Here a regular birth is attended only by a midwife. Once home, a British mother is visited for the first ten days by the same midwife, and a health visitor, has a free weekly drop-in clinic to answer her questions: a new American mom must muddle along alone. Which system works best? US infant mortality is a dreadful 6.3 per 1,000 births, Britain’s 4.8.

When a British friend living in Los Angeles watched his wife give birth he prayed that she wouldn’t need a Caesarean section: they had funds only for a normal delivery. That your citizens are born into this unneeded stress ill befits the richest country in the world. My friend’s health insurance for a family of four costs £800 ($1,300) a month. Yet when his elder daughter had a developmental disorder requiring tests and therapy, the insurers balked. Every clinic visit was followed by a call haggling about what percentage they would cover. It is, he says, like arguing over your sick child’s body with a firm of car clampers. He and his wife paid $50,000, their entire life savings — 70 per cent of bankruptcies in America are caused by medical bills.

In Britain the bureaucracy you fight is the hospital, in America it is in the insurance companies. Dealing with the NHS is like wrestling a Leviathan. The system is trying, rigid, oblique: the endless wait to see a doctor if there is no emergency, the senseless way everything stops at weekends, the noise in the wards, the defining mode of grace under pressure.

But the NHS has one thing about it that is perfect — its underlying principle. Only when you can say that about your own health system, when no American suffers through lack of funds, will we permit you to point a damning finger at ours.

Daisy and Delilah
09-07-2009, 02:00 PM
That is hilarious, Gretchen!!!!! lol lol lol

Edwina's Secretary
09-07-2009, 02:49 PM
Grace's post gave me giggles and Miss Z's gave me goosebumps!

Many emotions on this issue...

RICHARD
09-07-2009, 03:14 PM
But unlike the lean NHS, there’s a spare tyre of fat on the system and any Briton who has been treated in America can tell you where it lies: around the bellies of physicians grown corpulent on prescribing unnecessary treatment.

To us it is unimaginable that a doctor would order a scan, pills, an invasive test, an operation even, not based on whether it will make us well but on how much he can charge.

I have to laugh at this comment and question the person who wrote it.
It show imagination and a facinating amount of stupidity.


MOST docs here in the U.S. do not have the equipment or facilities to perform half the tests they want to do.

They have to send people or blood, urine or biopsys off site to a lab. THe lab charges them to process the specimens.

If a MD does not do a test, order a scan or exam and the patient goes for a second opinion and is found to be negligent, he is in for a lawsuit.

There are only a few that would think about prescribing tests/exams to make money, Oh, you do have the doc that had to pay for the new x-ray machine he bought. But those AHs are few and far between.

I worked for an HMO who was trying to cut costs by telling the doctors NOT to ask for 'unnecessary' tests or exams.

The 'word' and emails ended up being made public-I think there were doctors who felt that they were put in very hard place as far as the care they were dispensing.


What do you tell a patient that has XXXXXXXX and you were unable to help them because you were asked not to test them for it?

------------------

Here's a dirty little secret about sutures, the pharm companies and implant devices.


The companies who make them are vicious sellers of their components -
Don't blame the doctors for prescribing pills - there are only so many meds made that can be given for illnesses.

Same with stents, pacemakers, bone and other vessel replacement parts.

Sutures?

They come in so many versions it's like buying cigarettes.

Dissolveable and non, thin and thick thread, needle size and shape, materials

Our facility had entered into an agreement where the sales rep would come in and stock the shelves. The rep would bring in tons of sutures then charge the company, If suture was not used, it was taken off the shelves and replaced with suture that WAS used. The company was given credit for the unused suture and re-billed for the suture that was used.

At a higher price.
-----------------------

Blaming the MD for the high price of HC is a crock of crap, a lie and shows how a 'journalist' can slant a topic to make anyone look bad.


The idiot who wrote that article needs a proctoscopic exam to have her brain examined.:rolleyes:

Edwina's Secretary
09-07-2009, 04:16 PM
My doctor sent me to a specialist for a sore on my ear. I waited one hour to see the specialist. He looked at my ear - wrote a prescription. I was there less than five minutes.

His writing was so sloppy the drug store wrote - "put on right leg twice a day."

I went back as instructed after two weeks. First appointment of the day. Waited an hour again.

He looked at my ear. Said the cream didn't work. Less than five minutes again.

So I still have the sore on my ear.

AFTER my insurance paid that total of less than ten minutes cost me over $300.00.

There is a guy who goes to my gym. He is a dermalogist. He drives a Bentley.

I am not saying doctors are the whole problem. But then again neither did the author of the article Miss Z posted.

sasvermont
09-07-2009, 09:14 PM
With the exception of one GP, every doctor I have been to has had some form of testing capabilities in his office or is affiliated (group practice) with a business within the practices.

Example: over 20 years ago, I went through chemotherapy. The doctor treating me did all the testing in his office. All of the administration was done in his office. The surgery and radiation, however, was not done in his office but in the hospital. That was in the city of Philadelphia.

Example: just days ago, I visited a surgeon who did my xrays in his office. Two years ago, a different surgeon, different practice, did my xrays in his office. My GP does all his blood work, in his office. He has a bone density scanner in his office. And these last examples are in a rather small city in Vermont!

I don't have any figures to support it, but my experience is that doctors caught on a long time ago, many of them in group practices that is, and they knew that there is money in having your own labs etc.

Doctors are part of the problem with the sky high medical expenses, along with insurance companies, lawyers, misuse, and abuse! I haven't met a poor doctor yet, have you? Well, maybe the poor sucker who administered Michael Jackson that lethal dose.

Richard, you make your statements to sound as though you have all the answers and you are RIGHT. I don't claim to have the answers by a long shot, but my experiences have NOT been what you claim doctors are about.....

Sorry, I don't agree with your thinking.

P. S. Oh, ES, did that thing on your right leg ever clear up? :)

Edwina's Secretary
09-07-2009, 10:02 PM
P. S. Oh, ES, did that thing on your right leg ever clear up? :)

Right leg looks great...my right ear however is another matter :rolleyes::rolleyes:

lizbud
09-08-2009, 04:58 PM
Right leg looks great...my right ear however is another matter :rolleyes::rolleyes:


It could have been worse. It could have been pre-surgery instructions.:D

Edwina's Secretary
09-08-2009, 05:23 PM
It could have been worse. It could have been pre-surgery instructions.:D

Wouldn't that have been a mess! Cut off my right leg instead of my right ear...:D:D

Miss Z
09-08-2009, 05:38 PM
If a MD does not do a test, order a scan or exam and the patient goes for a second opinion and is found to be negligent, he is in for a lawsuit.

What do you tell a patient that has XXXXXXXX and you were unable to help them because you were asked not to test them for it?

------------------


That's not the point. It's not that patients aren't tested for something which is suspected, i.e. the symptoms are enough evidence to point towards a decent probability of one particular condition. It's when doctors start saying 'Well, it could be X, Y or Z, so therefore we'll give you treatment for all three, just in case.' That's what the article is getting at.

Still, if doctors are under so much pressure from looming lawsuits should they practice under correct regulations (it is practically and morally wrong to oversubscribe drugs, as it promotes natural selection of pathogens), then I can understand why they would want to throw medication at you to keep you quiet.

On the point that I highlighted about TV adverts pushing prescription drugs - I remember seeing a few such advertisements when I was over in the USA and finding them bizarre.

From what I keep reading about this topic, both here and elsewhere, it seems that a lot of US citizens feel that an NHS system has the President/Prime Minister/whatever pushing all the buttons. That's incorrect. Our NHS is government controlled, but it is not party controlled. There's a massive difference.

RICHARD
09-08-2009, 05:59 PM
With the exception of one GP, every doctor I have been to has had some form of testing capabilities in his office or is affiliated (group practice) with a business within the practices.

Example: over 20 years ago, I went through chemotherapy. The doctor treating me did all the testing in his office. All of the administration was done in his office. The surgery and radiation, however, was not done in his office but in the hospital. That was in the city of Philadelphia.


And then?

Read what I said VERY CAREFULLY.

MOST docs here in the U.S. do not have the equipment or facilities to perform half the tests they want to do.

I will say that I stated an incomplete thought here.......I should have added "on the premises".

My mistake and I will and do take the 'thump' for that.

Go back to your physician (GP) with some kind of funky arsed skin, bone, hearing or sight problems and see how fast he passes you off to a specialist.

A urinalysis, CBC, blood sugar and all the simple shiat can be done in a 'office lab". That is like going to a garage on the corner and having him check for a discharged battery. He can tell you THAT much, but you will have to go to the dealer so he can hook up the computer and tell you if it's an alternator, generator, comp chip, short or you left the key in the on position.

In case you didn't pay attention to the sign on the Dr's. door?
GP and Surgeon are two different animals. Get a Surgeon who specializes and that is another animal from the same family.

LOL,
You have such wonderful words for the doctor's you have seen for your health problems, yet you slam them for the money they make?

Next time, find a nice herbal store or holistic healer for a health problem.
Cheaper and they don't have to charge their patients for mal pract ins.
If you have the time, check out how doctors bill the gov't. and how long they wait to get paid for YOUR visit.
YOU get immediate satisfaction for your treatment and the poor MD has to wait for money from BO and his ilk.

Next time you feel sick, shop around for a GP, Phys or Specialist for a discount rate or one that take coupons.


Here's the twist,
I do not have all the answers and if you think I do, you need to take a giant grain of salt (LOL buy a salt lick and chase that) - watch your blood pressure.


I don't know what I am talking about because I only worked for 30 years in the HC arena.......I was probably effing asleep for 29.76 of those years so I really don't know what I am talking about.:eek::rolleyes:


I am surprised that an ordinary consumer has such an inordinate, intimate knowledge of HC.

P.S. I really don't care for doctors, but some of the BS that people shout from the roof tops is total cat crap, it behooves me to let it ride. I see you do not have all the answers, so you are just as handicapped as I am.;)

RICHARD
09-08-2009, 06:03 PM
(it is practically and morally wrong to oversubscribe drugs, as it promotes natural selection of pathogens)

Please explain that sentence.

I am sitting here, stunned.

And give me an example-I'm stripping my brain thinking about this.:rolleyes::eek::confused:
--------------


A group of doctors delivered a petition to congress with the sigs of 10,000 docs who want to be included in the HCR issue.....


LOLOLOLOL,

again, having a bunch of docs chiming in to have a say in what would be good for HCR......

What experience do they have and would they sound like they have all the answers/

Probably not. they are just looking after themselves and the money they make.

Eff me to tears.

Edwina's Secretary
09-08-2009, 06:07 PM
Please explain that sentence.

I am sitting here, stunned.

And give me an example-I'm stripping my brain thinking about this.:rolleyes::eek::confused:

With all those years in healthcare? How can you not understand...:D

Doctors over prescribe things like antibiotics...creating superbugs.

Unstunned now?

And why can't you just ask her what she means? Why do you have to be so snarky? And people say I'm nasty...geez...:rolleyes:

Grace
09-08-2009, 06:16 PM
If you have the time, check out how doctors bill the gov't. and how long they wait to get paid for YOUR visit.
YOU get immediate satisfaction for your treatment and the poor MD has to wait for money from BO and his ilk.


I get these statements from Medicare - they pay first. Then I get statements from my secondary insurance. I really can't believe the amount of time that passes between visit and final payment. No wonder some doctors get fed up and don't want to deal with Medicare.

I also see what Medicare will pay for diabetic supplies. Not near enough to reimburse my supplier.

HOWEVER, Richard, the money does not come from the President, be it Obama, Bush, Clinton. All this was in place long before any of them even thought of becoming president. Remember, LBJ - back in 1965. Why I bet you were just a young whipper-snapper back then?

RICHARD
09-08-2009, 06:20 PM
I get these statements from Medicare - they pay first. Then I get statements from my secondary insurance. I really can't believe the amount of time that passes between visit and final payment. No wonder some doctors get fed up and don't want to deal with Medicare.

I also see what Medicare will pay for diabetic supplies. Not near enough to reimburse my supplier.

HOWEVER, Richard, the money does not come from the President, be it Obama, Bush, Clinton. All this was in place long before any of them even thought of becoming president. Remember, LBJ - back in 1965. Why I bet you were just a young whipper-snapper back then?

Don't you comment about my whipper snapper! LOLOLOL,
I know the money doesn't come from the Presidents.;)

I was making that statement as a slam about how slow the gov't. moves when it comes to billing. You know by now I am a little confused about how things work.

Grace
09-08-2009, 06:53 PM
Don't you comment about my whipper snapper! LOLOLOL,


I'll do my best to avoid that subject from now on http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/March16th/lol1.gif

Edwina's Secretary
09-08-2009, 07:20 PM
I recently had a phone call from a medical facility - NOT the government - a provider. Wanted to know what they should do with an overpayment my husband made....

over 12 months ago.

You should also check out how long doctors wait for payment from private insurance companies.

Had a letter recently from a provider...my insurer was taking so long to pay they wanted me to ante up. Very threatening.

Private insurers are slow pay as well.

Marigold2
09-08-2009, 10:11 PM
I have a moment so yes I will try and answer your question as best as I can.
What I meant by mental or physical is that if a person has a mental issue such as depression which can come about through a physical condition or a tramatic incident I don't feel it is a proper time to have a child until one is healed. If one is bi-polar and this disease is not stabilized on medicine it is not fair in my opinion to bring a child into this world when one is mentally stressed and having problems. The same can be said in my opinion for schizophrenia if the condition is to the point that you cannot function and take care of yourself then no I don't believe you should have a child until you are able to take care of yourself.
Also if you have a physical condition that keeps you from taking care of yourself such as cancer, heart disease or a thousand others I don't think it is fair to bring a child into this world if you probably won't be around to raise said child or be healthy enough to spend time with them.
It is not up to the grandparents to raise the child, they did their job and they are getting older and will have health issues. It is not fair for grandma who is 68 to have to raise a 14 year old with welfare money and social security.
Yes people lose their jobs, people get cancer, have car accidents, fall of the roof, lose an arm or a leg to accidents. I am not talking about those things. I am talking about people who decide to have a child when they are unable to take care of themselves and know that the chance of ever being able to take care of themselves is slim. I am talking about people who are on welfare for gererations. Welfare was designed for short term care to help people get training and get back on their feet. It should be there to help and there are many who deserve it and also deserve more money then what the government gives them so they can live a decent life and not feel deprived because they fought for our country and lost their eyesight or a limb.
And there are those that decide to have another child so they can stay on welfare longer and food stamps.
Again if one is on welfare or medicaid I think you have to look deep inside and ask yourself if having a child is the right thing to do today, tomorrrow and years from now. If the need to be with a child is so great perhaps being a foster mom or a big brother or a favorite aunt or uncle, working in a day care or reading to sick children in a hospital can be just as for forfilling in the long run.
So I hope that answers your question and if not well it's how I feel and that is that.





In post 14 I asked for an answer/explanation to/of this statement, and I'm still waiting. You dropped out of sight in your own thread and left it for others to give it a new life and direction.
Out of sight - out of mind????? I'm not that easily distracted.

Marigold2
09-08-2009, 10:21 PM
It can take over a year for private insurance companies to pay and in some cases two years. I fight with them all the time, it's part of my job. Often it is a mistake on the patients part, they didn't have the right insurance card, or the receptionist or billers fault as they didn't enter the data correct or submit correct or it could be the processing company, the electronic biller or just the insurance company having some fun with you. I send patients bills that are two years old because that is how long it took for us to get the claim paid after fighing to get the correct insurance card from said patient, submitting it once, then again and again and doing an appeal. Such fun, can't even tell you. Finally after 19 months they pay $6.53, the rest went toward your deductable and now I am sending you a bill for $235.78. If you have a question please feel free to call your insurance company, what you mean you haven't done that yet? Well...................................

I recently had a phone call from a medical facility - NOT the government - a provider. Wanted to know what they should do with an overpayment my husband made....

over 12 months ago.

You should also check out how long doctors wait for payment from private insurance companies.

Had a letter recently from a provider...my insurer was taking so long to pay they wanted me to ante up. Very threatening.

Private insurers are slow pay as well.

Edwina's Secretary
09-08-2009, 10:25 PM
I was talking with a neighbor. She worked at United for over 30 years. She did all different jobs. She was a flight attendant, worked the ticket counter - even did lost luggage.

She could tell all sorts of stories about working at United.

She didn't know so much about other airlines.

However, I would not consider her an authority on how to fix a jet engine. Or fly a plane. Or run an airlines.

Just because someone worked in or for an industry does not make them an expert on or about that industry!

Opps! Forgot the required snarky remark..."I have to laugh here!"

Marigold2
09-08-2009, 10:33 PM
You are correct, Medicare does pay fast and they pay well. Better then most insurances. That is why Dr's love it. Also on Medicare you have one year to file a claim with Anthem or Blue Cross you have 6 months, with United Health Care I believe it's 90 days.
As for those dreaded secondary insurances, someone has to send the Explaninton of Benefits from the primary usually Medicare to them on paper, sometimes if we are busy 5 or 6 months can go by before we get to some. It is not the insurance company that holds it up it is the Dr's office. The secondary sometimes only pay $5.00 or $6.00 so it isn't on the top of our list to do. We are trying to get the surgery claims out first that is where the big bucks are.
Dr's are not so fond of Medicaid or Wellcare or Caresource as they are very hard to collect form and they pay very little.
Where Medicare might pay $100.00 for an office visit, Caresource will only pay $20.00 for same visit. A Dr cannot run an office with mostly Caresource patients, he would be in the hole. No Dr will work for $20.00 an hour nor should they.

I get these statements from Medicare - they pay first. Then I get statements from my secondary insurance. I really can't believe the amount of time that passes between visit and final payment. No wonder some doctors get fed up and don't want to deal with Medicare.

I also see what Medicare will pay for diabetic supplies. Not near enough to reimburse my supplier.

HOWEVER, Richard, the money does not come from the President, be it Obama, Bush, Clinton. All this was in place long before any of them even thought of becoming president. Remember, LBJ - back in 1965. Why I bet you were just a young whipper-snapper back then?

Edwina's Secretary
09-08-2009, 10:36 PM
That would help explain it...when we first moved to California five years ago I went looking for doctors here. I could not understand why so many of them said they were only accepting new patients who were on Medicare.

It was confusing to me at the time....

Grace
09-08-2009, 10:45 PM
You are correct, Medicare does pay fast and they pay well. Better then most insurances. That is why Dr's love it. Also on Medicare you have one year to file a claim with Anthem or Blue Cross you have 6 months, with United Health Care I believe it's 90 days.
As for those dreaded secondary insurances, someone has to send the Explaninton of Benefits from the primary usually Medicare to them on paper, sometimes if we are busy 5 or 6 months can go by before we get to some. It is not the insurance company that holds it up it is the Dr's office. The secondary sometimes only pay $5.00 or $6.00 so it isn't on the top of our list to do. We are trying to get the surgery claims out first that is where the big bucks are.
Dr's are not so fond of Medicaid or Wellcare or Caresource as they are very hard to collect form and they pay very little.
Where Medicare might pay $100.00 for an office visit, Caresource will only pay $20.00 for same visit. A Dr cannot run an office with mostly Caresource patients, he would be in the hole. No Dr will work for $20.00 an hour nor should they.

I think you misread my post. I did not state that Medicare paid fast, nor do they pay well. I also stated that I now understand why some physicians will not take Medicare patients.

Medicare takes it own sweet time; then my backup takes over. My backup insurance is fantastic - it's the same thing I had when I was working.

And did you not see where I said this - I also see what Medicare will pay for diabetic supplies. Not near enough to reimburse my supplier.


Before I turned 65, my private insurance would pay pretty much all my diabetic supplies. Medicare is a disgrace as far as supplies go.

And don't even get me started on Medicare prescription drugs. We both have insurance that covers prescriptions, and both of them are far better than Medicare.

Edwina's Secretary
09-08-2009, 10:50 PM
Then why would doctors only want Medicare patients?

Sincerely asking....

Grace
09-08-2009, 11:02 PM
Then why would doctors only want Medicare patients?

Sincerely asking....

Is this addressed to me? I didn't say that all doctors take Medicare, nor do all doctors refuse Medicare patients. I have read that doctors refuse to take Medicare patients because of the time involved, and reimbursements. Why some doctors seek Medicare patients - I have no idea.

For example (and this isn't about doctors, but supplies) - I purchase strips to use with my meter, to test my blood glucose. I buy 100 strips, that cost $100. However, Medicare will only reimburse the supply company $53.94 of that $100. So who is paying balance of $46.06? My secondary pays part, but the rest is lost. So the medical supply company has to eat the loss.

Edwina's Secretary
09-08-2009, 11:12 PM
But that is true with "private" insurance as well. My Explanation of Benefits show the "full price", the discount price my carrier has negotiated, the amount they will pay and what I must pay.

The difference and there is always a difference - is "lost" as you say.

When I see my PCP doctor my copay is a percent of what the insurance covers. As the doctor does not know how much this is...I pay nothing at the time. My doctor send the bill to the insurance company - they decide what they will pay - send that back to my doctor and them he must send me a bill for my percent of the bill.

I have tried to pay something at the doctor's office but it cannot be done that way. I must wait...and so must my doctor!

Grace
09-08-2009, 11:16 PM
But that is true with "private" insurance as well. My Explanation of Benefits show the "full price", the discount price my carrier has negotiated, the amount they will pay and what I must pay.

The difference and there is always a difference - is "lost" as you say.

When I see my PCP doctor my copay is a percent of what the insurance covers. As the doctor does not know how much this is...I pay nothing at the time. My doctor send the bill to the insurance company - they decide what they will pay - send that back to my doctor and them he must send me a bill for my percent of the bill.

I have tried to pay something at the doctor's office but it cannot be done that way. I must wait...and so must my doctor!

Before I went on Medicare, my copay was always the same amount. My husband, who is not on Medicare, continues to pay the exact same amount for copay each visit. It's written into our policy.

What you describe, is the way it is for me now, with Medicare. The copay may vary from one visit to another.

Interesting.

pomtzu
09-09-2009, 06:09 AM
So I hope that answers your question and if not well it's how I feel and that is that.[/FONT]



No - it doesn't answer what I asked, but I'll not pursue it further.

Cataholic
09-09-2009, 07:17 AM
But that is true with "private" insurance as well. My Explanation of Benefits show the "full price", the discount price my carrier has negotiated, the amount they will pay and what I must pay.

The difference and there is always a difference - is "lost" as you say.

When I see my PCP doctor my copay is a percent of what the insurance covers. As the doctor does not know how much this is...I pay nothing at the time. My doctor send the bill to the insurance company - they decide what they will pay - send that back to my doctor and them he must send me a bill for my percent of the bill.

I have tried to pay something at the doctor's office but it cannot be done that way. I must wait...and so must my doctor!


We switched, once again, health plans. LOL, same deal- way less coverage for much higher premiums. They pay the first $2000, I pay the next $3000. Yeah, I was at that $3000 figure by May. May! Anyhow, I went into my doctor for what I KNEW was a sinus infection. Knew it, knew it, knew it. Of course, antibiotics were prescribed. As I left, I asked for a copy of my bill, so that I could maintain my own records at home as to the $3000 payments. The clerk said she had NO IDEA WHAT THE CHARGE WAS! I was stunned. I just had a service at an established doctor's office and they couldn't tell me what my bill was ? WTH? I stared at her, and she said just what ES said, and that I would get a bill within 8 weeks. LOLOL. CRAZY!

Edwina's Secretary
09-09-2009, 10:01 AM
Her is an example of how my employer provided - yet still expensive insurance works. We have met our deductible (we must each pay the first $500 of expenses.) This doctor submitted a charge of $104.27. Cigna discounts that to $64.97. Coverage is 80% so Cigna pays $51.98. I am responsible for $12.99.

Who pays the $39.30 between what the doctor charged and what Cigna and I paid?

Don't know. I could be cynical and say the doctor's charge was higher knowing there would be a +60% discount applied but I don't know that.

But the situation Grace described with her diabetes supplies is the standard operating procedure of PPO coverage.

sasvermont
09-09-2009, 10:20 AM
Although I have never worked in a doctor's office, my best friend manages an office of a surgeon. Yes, they (the doctorS) submit a number for reimbursement, assuming they will get a portion of the amount billed. Each insurance company has their own little payment schedule as to how much some service is worth. So, yes, the doctors pad their bills, knowing they will get less. Not much different than car dealers starting at a higher price and taking what they get in the end.

I also know that the different insurance are noted for rejecting claims by doctors... giving them a hard time....but in most cases, after contacting the company, the payment is made to the doctor. Cigna has the worst reputation for rejecting doctors' and patients' claims.

I don't think the doctors misrepresent what they have done, as much as they bill the max and hope for the best.

I also know that the doctors' medical malpractice insurance carrier audit the doctors for billings, note taking, procedures, etc. I am not sure how often Medicare/Medicaid does audits.

I would like to believe that doctors are not so guilty for padding bills - hospitals and nursing homes are another story.

All that said, I really don't have any first hand information. Just second hand.

Edwina's Secretary
09-09-2009, 10:44 AM
Cigna and Aetna are two I would rather not have. I am sure they differ across the country but they still would not be my choice.

However, I don't really get a choice. It is what my employer or my husband's employer decides to offer.

And...as Cataholic points out - that can change. I have a client that has BCBS right now. A 12% increase this year so the broker is getting quotes from other carriers. If it changes - it is possible covered employees and their families will have to change doctors as well. Especially if it is a different HMO.

Miss Z
09-09-2009, 12:10 PM
Please explain that sentence.

I am sitting here, stunned.

And give me an example-I'm stripping my brain thinking about this.:rolleyes::eek::confused:



Stunned? It's medical fact. Not like it's my opnion, or anything.

To echo ES, I don't understand how you don't know this if you indeed worked in a medical environment, but I'll explain it for you anyway.

Pathogens, bacteria in particular, undergo mutation in a number of their population. The change in their genotype may give them an immunity to the effects of a drug. Most of the time, it doesn't. But sometimes it does.

Under normal circumstances, i.e. without the presence of drugs, the typical strains and the mutated, resitant organism live alongside each other, in the ileum, for example. The strains compete with one another to survive. In these conditions, the resistant organism have no advantage over the typical strains, and it is highly likely that the resistant organism will die out. Thus, it's resistant gene is lost.

However, introduce a drug into the environment. All the typical strains are destroyed, but the resistant organism remains. It now has no competition and is able to reproduce quite happily, each of it's daughter cells carrying this saving grace gene. The drug administered is rendered useless against the pathogen. The pathogen spreads to other people and now we have nothing effective to fight it.

That is how natural selection works - a change in the environment favouring a particular genotype, causing extinction and evolution.

The more drugs that are being exposed to the pathogens, the better conditons we are providing for much more dangerous strains. Plus, many bacteria are able to exchange genetic information via plasmids, or indeed their own DNA, to other species of pathogen, so the resistance genes are not limited to only one condition.

An example? Staphylococcus aureus! S.Aureus is present in your respiratory system and on the surface of your skin right now. Occasionally, it will cause a mild throat infection. At first, we treated it with penicillin, as pencillin was the wonder, cure-all drug at that time. Before long, penicillin no longer worked. At that time, no one really knew why.

Then this condition was treated with methicillin. It was oversubscribed as people wanted to keep popping these pills everytime they felt a bit hoarse. So we get methicillin-resistant staphyloccocus aureus. The first MRSA.

So then we're in a bit of trouble, and combat MRSA with vancomycin. We can't find anything else to administer but vancomycin. The inevitable happens. Now the most dangerous form of MRSA is Multiple Resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

So, again, it is practically and morally wrong to oversubscribe drugs.

Edwina's Secretary
09-09-2009, 01:35 PM
It makes you wonder, SAS, who pays rack rate or whatever the non-discounted rate is called. The uninsured? Those with the old style indemnity plans?

I looked at a new product - high deductible - sounds like Jo has a version of this. Like the concept but couldn't get comfortable with it...will people with this type of plan pay rack rate?

And imagine a doctor's office trying to keep track of all these different plans ahd how they work and what they pay!

Must be a nightmare.

RICHARD
09-09-2009, 02:47 PM
Stunned? It's medical fact. Not like it's my opnion, or anything.

To echo ES, I don't understand how you don't know this if you indeed worked in a medical environment, but I'll explain it for you anyway.

Pathogens, bacteria in particular, undergo mutation in a number of their population. The change in their genotype may give them an immunity to the effects of a drug. Most of the time, it doesn't. But sometimes it does.

Under normal circumstances, i.e. without the presence of drugs, the typical strains and the mutated, resitant organism live alongside each other, in the ileum, for example. The strains compete with one another to survive. In these conditions, the resistant organism have no advantage over the typical strains, and it is highly likely that the resistant organism will die out. Thus, it's resistant gene is lost.

However, introduce a drug into the environment. All the typical strains are destroyed, but the resistant organism remains. It now has no competition and is able to reproduce quite happily, each of it's daughter cells carrying this saving grace gene. The drug administered is rendered useless against the pathogen. The pathogen spreads to other people and now we have nothing effective to fight it.

That is how natural selection works - a change in the environment favouring a particular genotype, causing extinction and evolution.

The more drugs that are being exposed to the pathogens, the better conditons we are providing for much more dangerous strains. Plus, many bacteria are able to exchange genetic information via plasmids, or indeed their own DNA, to other species of pathogen, so the resistance genes are not limited to only one condition.

An example? Staphylococcus aureus! S.Aureus is present in your respiratory system and on the surface of your skin right now. Occasionally, it will cause a mild throat infection. At first, we treated it with penicillin, as pencillin was the wonder, cure-all drug at that time. Before long, penicillin no longer worked. At that time, no one really knew why.

Then this condition was treated with methicillin. It was oversubscribed as people wanted to keep popping these pills everytime they felt a bit hoarse. So we get methicillin-resistant staphyloccocus aureus. The first MRSA.

So then we're in a bit of trouble, and combat MRSA with vancomycin. We can't find anything else to administer but vancomycin. The inevitable happens. Now the most dangerous form of MRSA is Multiple Resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

So, again, it is practically and morally wrong to oversubscribe drugs.

WTF, do you think that I would say I didn't understand the "natural" albeit drug "engineered", pathogens?

Duh, I could have given you the "Pathogens are for Dummies" spiel.


I was looking for YOUR spin on the morality and "practically" of over PRESCRIBING of drugs.


Do you mean it's practically immoral? :rolleyes::confused::eek:


If it's immoral and unpractical to overprescribe drugs that cause mutating pathogens, next time you go to the doctor, tell him to shove the prescription.

--------------------------

I wonder what immorality and 'practically' the physician, who gave my mom chemo therapy in a last ditch effort to keep her alive, was trying to perpetrate on her being. As our esteemed president alluded to before?
He may have wanted to keep her alive so he could make more money.


One thing that people are very shy and ignorant about is asking what meds they are give post-office visit. The physician will ask you about what you are allergic, what meds you already take and then he will prescribe you a med as he sees fit.

Yes, some doctors will prescribe front line meds because they are wont to give out the generics bcause the pharm companies have them in their pockets.

LOLOLOL,

Ask a physician/doctor/surgeon how many people do not give a flying shiat about WHAT they are given to take for their ills.

Some of them ask about the cure/meds they saw on House or Scrubs.


You say Toe may toe, I say flesh eating bacteria, "Doctor, save my life".:rolleyes:

Miss Z
09-09-2009, 03:50 PM
Oh goodness – here's the dummy back, I think you must have thrown it out your pram.

You know, RICHARD, I used to love your posts, as witty and as crazy as they were. You had such a way with words.

Now, when every other word is “shiat”, “crap”, “arsed”, “turd”, “BS” and a hundred and one other abbreviations that make trying to understand what you’re actually saying verging on the impossible, half the time I can’t be bothered to waste my energy on them.

Perhaps if you’d been clearer with your question, I could have answered it for you in the manner you desired. Evidently, I wasn’t the only one who didn’t understand what you were asking, as ES also took it to mean that you didn’t get the science behind superbugs.



Do you mean it's practically immoral? :rolleyes::confused::eek:

No, obviously, that’s why I put an ‘and’ in between.


Practically – in practice.
Morally – well, if a medic has morals, then s/he works for the prevention of suffering due to disease. That doesn’t mean they dispense everything from flucloxacillin to fairy dust just to keep the patient happy. For yes, that is immoral.

If it's immoral and unpractical to overprescribe drugs that cause mutating pathogens, next time you go to the doctor, tell him to shove the prescription.

Pfft. Get over yourself. That wasn’t what I was saying and you’re blatantly aware of that.

If you need treatment, then you need it, no two questions about it. But, if people visit the doctor and expect to be prescribed something, then THAT is where the problem lies.

Gah, I thought you said you understood this. Drugs don’t cause mutations in pathogens. They’re happening all the time, regardless of what is happening around them. Drugs provide ideal environments for mutated strains.

Well, even if you didn’t need the biology lesson, it did me good. I’m applying for Vet. Med. this winter. At least I got a revision session out of it. :D

lizbud
09-09-2009, 04:32 PM
It seems to me you won't have a bit of trouble with your future studies.:)

Edwina's Secretary
09-09-2009, 04:43 PM
You know, RICHARD, I used to love your posts, as witty and as crazy as they were. You had such a way with words.

Now, when every other word is “shiat”, “crap”, “arsed”, “turd”, “BS” and a hundred and one other abbreviations that make trying to understand what you’re actually saying verging on the impossible, half the time I can’t be bothered to waste my energy on them.


You forgot "AH" "FW" "effing" "Effs" Really likes "Eff"

and my new favorite..."POS". I had to ROLFLMAO on that one. Most people that means Point of Sale.

For the life of me I cannot figure out FW.....:D:rolleyes::D

RICHARD
09-09-2009, 05:12 PM
Oh goodness – here's the dummy back, I think you must have thrown it out your pram.

You know, RICHARD, I used to love your posts, as witty and as crazy as they were. You had such a way with words.

Now, when every other word is “shiat”, “crap”, “arsed”, “turd”, “BS” and a hundred and one other abbreviations that make trying to understand what you’re actually saying verging on the impossible, half the time I can’t be bothered to waste my energy on them.

Perhaps if you’d been clearer with your question, I could have answered it for you in the manner you desired. Evidently, I wasn’t the only one who didn’t understand what you were asking, as ES also took it to mean that you didn’t get the science behind superbugs.




No, obviously, that’s why I put an ‘and’ in between.


Practically – in practice.
Morally – well, if a medic has morals, then s/he works for the prevention of suffering due to disease. That doesn’t mean they dispense everything from flucloxacillin to fairy dust just to keep the patient happy. For yes, that is immoral.


Pfft. Get over yourself. That wasn’t what I was saying and you’re blatantly aware of that.

If you need treatment, then you need it, no two questions about it. But, if people visit the doctor and expect to be prescribed something, then THAT is where the problem lies.

Gah, I thought you said you understood this. Drugs don’t cause mutations in pathogens. They’re happening all the time, regardless of what is happening around them. Drugs provide ideal environments for mutated strains.

Well, even if you didn’t need the biology lesson, it did me good. I’m applying for Vet. Med. this winter. At least I got a revision session out of it. :D

So, you cut and pasted your answer about pathogens?

Look,

If you want to talk about bio/physio and anatomical stuff o.k.

If a medic has morals? That's pretty much a slap in the face of all docs out there. THey have to deal with morals more times than I would or could.....
Your mileage may differ.

I've had fairy dust, but the flucloxacillin I'd have to check out the PDR to see what that is-either that or pick it off of a website or school paper. Psst, do they teach pharmacology in regular school.


Drugs don't cause mutations?

Why do pathogens mutate and become resistant to the compounds in medicines?

Here's another question.

THINK about this one.

Drugs are ideal enviroments for mutated strains, but they are not the cause of mutated strains?

So, if you go into a lab with an MS and you add a drug to it, It will grow larger?

Wouldn't the strain have to mutate to feed or grow in the "ideal enviroment"?
And why would a moral physician give a compound that would help a pathogen grow in this ideal enviroment?

Dude,

I was over myself a while back, apparently you are way more mature than I am, so pardon me whilst I go back to my meager existence.
If I have get over myself, I'll lend you my high jump pole. The women's record is 6.6 meter and was set last month.

Read up on the published writings of Dr Leonard Kokintz.

Edwina's Secretary
09-09-2009, 05:15 PM
apparently you are way more mature than I am,

Finally...you post something with which I agree!

Marigold2
09-09-2009, 08:03 PM
You are correct it can be a nightmare to keep track of all the claims, rules etc. It's what I do for part of the day.
Why do Dr's in Ohio like Medicare because they pay the Dr well? They are one of the highest paying plans, and you have a year to submit claims where with United Health you have 90 days to collect your money.
Here in Ohio Medicare patients have no copay, most that I talk to love their insurance. Most here have a secondary I would say 97% do, either AARP, Medicaid, BCBS etc.
Knowing what your insurance covers is important.
I do not understand however how the office staff could not know what you were billed for, it's all coding which is universal throughout the US and. 367.1 means you are near sighted. 365.10 means gluacoma no matter what state you are in.
And yes we do have to wait for the insurance company to process the EOB, on it is the following info. Your copay, your deductable, the allowed amount, the amount to be written off, why it might have been denied and YES you should also recieve a copy from the insurance company with the same info. If you have questions, pick up the phone and call the insurance, you pay for it and it is there to protect you.
It is not the Dr's responisbiltiy to know your deductable or your benefits, it is yours. There are thousands of companys out there and each is a bit different.
However things are now changing and we will soon be able to look on-line at your info before you walk into the office. If you have not met your deductable and the office visit is $200.00 you will be expected to pay that up front or to make arrangements for a payment plan. Dr's have a hard time collecting from many people and this will change that. You cannot go into a grocery store or gas station and get the products and say bill me, soon you won't be able to do that at the Dr as well.
I hope Obama gives all Americans decent health care no matter how you slice it we all deserve that. I also hope that we take better care of ourselves if possible so that we may avoid or slow down heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and many other illness that come with a not so healthy lifestyle.

It makes you wonder, SAS, who pays rack rate or whatever the non-discounted rate is called. The uninsured? Those with the old style indemnity plans?

I looked at a new product - high deductible - sounds like Jo has a version of this. Like the concept but couldn't get comfortable with it...will people with this type of plan pay rack rate?

And imagine a doctor's office trying to keep track of all these different plans ahd how they work and what they pay!

Must be a nightmare.

Miss Z
09-10-2009, 01:13 AM
So, you cut and pasted your answer about pathogens?

Oh, how you must underestimate my intellect so! You cannot revise by cutting and pasting. Google my words, if you so desire, you will find that they are my own. :D

As for the next bit...


Psst, do they teach pharmacology in regular school.

A little. But, because I am just curious like that, I often do a little reading around the topics we're given simply to pass exams.




Drugs don't cause mutations?

Why do pathogens mutate and become resistant to the compounds in medicines?

Here's another question.

THINK about this one.

Drugs are ideal enviroments for mutated strains, but they are not the cause of mutated strains?




:confused:

You say that you could have given me a 'Pathogens for dummies', and yet you don't know how this works?

No. I have read of one obscure protozoan responding directly to drug treatment, though.

Mutations arise as a fault in copying of the DNA the vast majority of the time.

An organism cannot think 'Hang on, these conditions are kind of killing me today, better mutate fast!' It dies. IF a mutation has arisen that gives the organism an advantage, it may well survive.Again, natural selection driving extinction and evolution.

You cannot stop it happening, but you can decrease the occurences by administering less medication.

If you don't believe my biology, that's cool. All I can say is that I managed to score in the top ten points in my AS level, and I was able to get on a course, specifically on this kind of stuff, of the top twenty or so young biochemists in the country - so somewhere along the lines, I must be doing something right! :D

blue
09-10-2009, 02:08 AM
Google my words, if you so desire, you will find that they are my own. :D

Shes got ya there buddy, I only googled 3 or 4 paragraphs however.

Miss Z at least posts her own ideas.

RICHARD
09-10-2009, 01:07 PM
Shes got ya there buddy, I only googled 3 or 4 paragraphs however.

Miss Z at least posts her own ideas.

LOLOLOLOL,

Actually, I don't know how "things work" I think I have a Crick in my Watson DNA.

I had a bad amino acid trip in the 80's - I blame that on my parents-I paid for my own education and couldn't afford the good shiat.:eek::mad::(

Puckstop31
09-11-2009, 04:59 AM
I saw this in the comments section of the CNN article about the "poll" they took right after the President's speech.

"Again, I ask, under what constitutional authority do the President's propsed changes to fundamental state/individual rights fall under?

President Obama is well versed on constitutional matters but his speech so blurs and confuses the lines between state and federal responsibilities as to be mind boggling. His metaphor about auto insurance is just ridiculous. Automotive inurance is ENTIRELY a states decision whether to require and/or enforce; but, even more pressing is the difference between the "priledge" to drive and the "right" to breathe.

In all realtiy, the only way that the federal government can possibly infringe in indivual rights to the exent that the president expressed in his speech would be through a constitution convention to add amendments to our governmental contract. It is time for that call I believe."


AMEN! This President and this Congress walk and talk with a swagger that puts President Bush to shame. Well, if you are SO confident that you are doing the right thing and that America is behind you, do it the right way... The Constitutional way, Mr. President.


We are promised a unprecedented level of freedom and liberty in this country. If we as a people want to surrender more of that liberty to have a little more "safety", fine. But do it the way the Constitution provides for and not ram it up our rears in 6 weeks. Changing our healthcare system has life altering consequences for EVERYbody. Why in the world would ANYbody want to do this in such a hurry?

RICHARD
09-11-2009, 10:05 AM
In all realtiy, the only way that the federal government can possibly infringe in indivual rights to the exent that the president expressed in his speech would be through a constitution convention to add amendments to our governmental contract. It is time for that call I believe[/I]."


AMEN! This President and this Congress walk and talk with a swagger that puts President Bush to shame. Well, if you are SO confident that you are doing the right thing and that America is behind you, do it the right way... The Constitutional way, Mr. President.


We are promised a unprecedented level of freedom and liberty in this country. If we as a people want to surrender more of that liberty to have a little more "safety", fine. But do it the way the Constitution provides for and not ram it up our rears in 6 weeks. Changing our healthcare system has life altering consequences for EVERYbody. Why in the world would ANYbody want to do this in such a hurry?

It's an idea - born from the community orgainzation mentality- that "If it's good for the community, It will be good for the whole country". Who cares what history will say about GWB-The real story is the impending tragedy of health care and the current regime.

We only have ourselve-the people who elected BO to blame?

Edwina's Secretary
09-13-2009, 07:27 PM
I found the article from the Times that I was referring to earlier in this thread, and thought it would be worth including here.

Now, I don't overly agree with the tone of this report, but it does raise a few points that I found interesting, and shocking.

I've highlighted the bits that stood out to me.

Miss Z...I sent this article to my parents. They are in their late 80's and have seen and lived through many things....here is the response they emailed to me today...


Just finished reading the article you sent regarding the British NHS health system. If only that was being read by all the ignorant nuts influenced by Rumbaugh and Co.

Although I think they mean Limbaugh! Close enough! :rolleyes:;):D

pomtzu
09-14-2009, 06:06 PM
They are in their late 80's and have seen and lived through many things....here is the response they emailed to me today...



Ah-ha!!! Now it all makes sense. It's genetic and just can't be helped.
The apple didn't fall far from that tree.............:eek::D

Edwina's Secretary
09-14-2009, 06:14 PM
Ah-ha!!! Now it all makes sense. It's genetic and just can't be helped.
The apple didn't fall far from that tree.............:eek::D

That's right! Whether nature or nuture...who knows...:D:D

Edwina's Secretary
10-03-2009, 11:09 AM
How do you tell a conservative/Republican? They are the ones who really care about pregnant women!

That's a joke. :D:D:D

Jon Kyl - Republican Senator from Arizona - stated "I don't need maternity care, so requiring that it be in my insurance plan will make my policy more expensive."

While arguing against the inclusion of maternity care in the proposed healthcare reform bill.

Yet somehow I suspect he is also anti-abortion!

blue
10-03-2009, 09:51 PM
Why would a male need maternity care? That makes no sense what so ever. Thats like requiring a male to be covered for in vitro fertilization, but wait there is a state that requires a male to be covered for in vitro fertilization, Massachusetts.

My far lefty brother had this posted on his Facebook.


The Bay State's mandatory insurance law is raising costs, limiting access, and lowering care.
By Paul Hsieh

Sedalia, Colo.

In his recent speech to Congress, President Obama could have promoted healthcare reforms that tapped the power of a truly free market to lower costs and improve access. Instead, he chose to offer a national version of the failing "Massachusetts plan" based on mandatory health insurance. This is a recipe for disaster.

Three years ago, Massachusetts adopted a plan requiring all residents to purchase health insurance, with state subsidies for lower-income residents. But rather than creating a utopia of high-quality affordable healthcare, the result has been the exact opposite – skyrocketing costs, worsened access, and lower quality care.

Under any system of mandatory insurance, the government must necessarily define what constitutes acceptable insurance. In Massachusetts, this has created a giant magnet for special interest groups seeking to have their own pet benefits included in the required package. Massachusetts residents are thus forced to purchase benefits they may neither need nor want, such as in vitro fertilization, chiropractor services, and autism treatment – raising insurance costs for everyone to reward a few with sufficient political "pull."

Although similar problems exist in other states, Massachusetts' system of mandatory insurance delivers the entire state population to the special interests. Since 2006, providers have successfully lobbied to include 16 new benefits in the mandatory package (including lay midwives, orthotics, and drug-abuse treatment), and the state legislature is considering 70 more.

The Massachusetts plan thus violates the individual's right to spend his own money according to his best judgment for his own benefit. Instead, individuals are forced to choose from a limited set of insurance plans on terms set by lobbyists and bureaucrats, rather than those based on a rational assessment of individual needs.

Because the state-mandated health insurance is so expensive, the government must also subsidize the costs for lower-income residents. In response, the state government has cut payments to doctors and hospitals. With such poor reimbursements, physicians are increasingly reluctant to take on new patients.

Some patients in western Massachusetts must wait more than a year for a routine physical exam. Waiting times for specialists in Boston are longer than in comparable cities in other states and have gotten worse. Some desperate patients have even resorted to "group appointments" where the doctor sees several patients at once (without the privacy necessary to allow the physician to remove the patient's clothing and perform a proper physical exam). These patients all have "coverage," but that's not the same as actual medical care.

The Massachusetts plan is also breaking the state budget. Since 2006, health insurance costs in Massachusetts have risen nearly twice as fast as the national average. The state expects to spend $595 million more in 2009 on its health insurance program than it did in 2006, a 42 percent increase. Those higher health costs help explain why the state faced a $5 billion budget gap this summer. To help close it, lawmakers raised taxes sharply.

Costs have risen so much that a special state commission has recommended eliminating fee-for-service medicine, instead paying physicians and hospitals a single annual fee to cover all of a patient's needs for that year – in other words, rationing.

Despite raising state taxes, the Massachusetts plan is kept afloat only by hundreds of millions of dollars of financial waivers and assistance from the federal government – i.e., by the taxpayers of the other 49 states. If the Massachusetts plan were adopted at the national level, it's unlikely that China or Russia would bail out the United States.

Mr. Obama's plan is based on the faulty premise that the government should guarantee a "right" to healthcare. But healthcare is not a "right." Rights are freedoms of action (such as the right to free speech), not automatic claims on goods and services that must be produced by another. There is no such thing as a right to a car – or a tonsillectomy.

Individuals do have the right to seek healthcare and health insurance in the free market from any willing providers. The president's plan would violate this right, for example by forbidding individuals from purchasing low-cost "catastrophic" insurance that only covered unlikely-but-expensive accidents and illnesses.

In his address, Obama stressed the need for choice and competition in health insurance. But his plan would destroy such choice and competition.

Instead of mandatory health insurance, America needs free-market reforms. Some examples include eliminating mandatory insurance benefits, repealing laws that forbid purchasing health insurance across state lines, and allowing individuals to use health savings accounts for routine expenses and low cost, catastrophic-only insurance for major expenses.

Such reforms would respect individual rights, lower costs, and make health insurance available to millions who currently cannot afford it. And only such free-market reforms can provide the choice and competition that the president says he wants.

Now that would be change I could believe in.

Paul Hsieh, MD, practices in the South Denver metro area and is a cofounder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM).

Link (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0930/p09s01-coop.html).

Requiring a male to have maternity coverage is just more .gov stupidity.

Edwina's Secretary
10-03-2009, 11:26 PM
Blue...Karen brokered a deal. You and I are not to respond to each others posts.

I have, until now, kept my end of the deal.

You, on the other hand, are unable to resist me. You continue to make responses to my posts.

So here goes. This one REALLY shows your ignorance.

Insurance is not written for the individual. It is written for a class or group.

Men and women often form what is called a family and therefore, have what is called "Family coverage."

So my insurance includes - for example - prostate coverage. But I do not have a prostate. But, my husband does and would therefore be covered.

I have, in 30 years of dealing with medical insurance, never known any that was "gender specific."

I do remember when maternity was not covered, or was covered only if it was the spouse of a covered individual.

But that was back in the "dark ages" -- where apparently you still reside.

Now - you made a commitment to Karen to leave me alone.

Please do so.

blue
10-03-2009, 11:34 PM
I wasnt replying to you.

ETA: I made a truce with you not Karen.

RICHARD
10-04-2009, 12:39 AM
Tax or fine?

Is this real? I was waiting for someone to mention this.

I am stupid and not well versed in all things 'government'. But, with this lack of understanding I still know that penalizing a person for NOT being able to afford HCC is wrong.

The logic behind fining someone who CANNOT AFFORD HEALTH CARE, and then threatening them with prison time is really effing stupid? If you do not provide the GOVERNMENT/BIG BROTHER with an insurance card the effing IRS will nip your rear and keep your refund.

Please,

What's next? ACORN to help you get low cost insurance?

----------------------


Before, I was pretty amused by the stupidity of the "Sheeple of the United States of America".

What is the matter with everyone?


How far fetched is this?

A man shows up for the flu at a hospital,
Because he has no insurance he will be fined, on top of the hospital bill.

(How he is turned in to the government is still a mystery-will the Office of No Insurnace be instituted to report the scofflaws?)

When he decides to pay the hospital bill, his income tax 'break' will go to the feds to pay off the fine and should he still not be capable of purchasing insurance you are going to toss them into jail?

I am totally stunned that al the people who didn't want national I.D.s, cry about being tracked at a super market with a store discount tag and are afraid that "SOMEONE" will be reading their emails under the patriot act, have no problem with the government dictating they way you live and what you spend your money on.

It's wonderfully delicious to see just how gullible people can be.

I got my knife and fork out.;):D

Edwina's Secretary
10-04-2009, 12:47 AM
Just curious RICHARD...do you have any basic for your rambling or is it just another "Bay of Pigs"???? Exactly WHO is suggesting penalties for the non-insured???

Although it might be a good idea. I am really tired of paying for those lazy good-for-nothings who do not have insurance and therefore I HAVE TO PAY MORE.

Pay on time..oh please....all that means is I pay for the cost of borrowing the money to front the medical provider. Yah..toss them in jail!

Lazy pikers....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

blue
10-04-2009, 02:11 AM
Since somebody decided to drop a glove..

Insurance in this country, should be written for the individual, after all we arent on a caste system.

If everybody is mandated to have insurance, mandating the same insurance for men and women is financially irresponsible on a .gov level.

Family coverage would not exist under Obamacare, every citizen would have their own coverage. Family coverage and discounts wouldnt logicaly exist.

Why would you buy insurance that you cannot use? Thats about the dumbest thing Ive heard of.

Edwina's Secretary
10-04-2009, 12:51 PM
Insurance has been around since before Christ. One of those most involved in it's introduction in the US was Benjamin Franklin. It was not invented by Barak Obama or communist or marxist.

The concept of insurance is pooled risk. A group of people put money into a pot (very simplified) and it is used to cover the losses of any of those participating. Insurance companies have evolved as the ones who collect the money and decide whose losses should be paid. The amount people put into the pool - premiums - is based on the risk they represent.

Insurance policies define what is a covered loss. I can accept that coverage or choose something else that more closer meets what I want to cover. This is true with auto, homeowner, rental, life or any other type of insurance. But there is not "gender" insurance.

Even if a company thought it a good idea there are laws - Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 that preclude discrimination based on gender - specifically including pregnancy.

Jon Kyl - Republican Senator from Arizona - stated "I don't need maternity care, so requiring that it be in my insurance plan will make my policy more expensive."

While discussing the healthcare reform bill.

Either Senator Kyl does not understand insurance, does not know the law of this country or does not think care for pregnant women is important.

Or - all three.

RICHARD
10-04-2009, 01:11 PM
I don't know what I am talking anyway.



BO is the next health care scare in the country.

Imagine all the people who will show up at the doc's with Rear End problems.

All the smoke being blown up people's rears ain't gonna hurt them?

--------------------------------

LOLOLOLOL,

I looked out my "back door" expecting to see Russia and all I saw is Smoke.....and I do not mean Tony Stewart.....:eek::confused::rolleyes:

Edwina's Secretary
10-04-2009, 01:18 PM
I don't know what I am talking anyway.



BO is the next health care scare in the country.





It is good to know Senator Kyl has company....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

blue
10-04-2009, 10:49 PM
All the smoke being blown up people's rears ain't gonna hurt them?

Docs actualy used to blow smoke up peoples rears. Now our .gov is trying to do the same.

ETA: RICHARD, you "Deserve" maternity leave, and coverage for in vitro fertilization. What else do men need to have insurance for?

Let men carry abortion insurance, men cant get pregnant after all.

Marigold2
10-05-2009, 08:28 PM
Lets wait and see. Eight years ago this country was in much better shape before Bush took office. Lets wait till BO's first term is over and ask ourselves are we better or worst off then before. Change takes time, and it is hard work. We cannot all agree on what is best for the US nor can the people in charge. I don't have a degree in economics, law, science, government so I have to vote for those that do and hope that they do more good then harm. After all many of these people we voted into office with our good sense and intelligence, so who is really to blame if things go bad?:rolleyes:

RICHARD
10-08-2009, 10:51 AM
Docs actualy used to blow smoke up peoples rears. Now our .gov is trying to do the same.

ETA: RICHARD, you "Deserve" maternity leave, and coverage for in vitro fertilization. What else do men need to have insurance for?

Let men carry abortion insurance, men cant get pregnant after all.

I think that ML for men is kooky.

Give them a week and after that, make them take vacation.

Of course, they can be given more ML if the child is ill or needs care because of illness, otherwise get back to work.;)

Edwina's Secretary
10-08-2009, 12:25 PM
Men do not get maternity leave. They get paternity leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. Except in California it is unpaid.

But more to the point, maternity leave, paternity leave have nothing to do with health care or the bills being debated.

I thought you an expert on healthcare?

As for you attitude - typical of someone who has never had children. I notice you don't include if the mother needs additional care.

Edwina's Secretary
10-09-2009, 12:22 AM
Give them a week and after that, make them take vacation.


P.S. Employers can and do (even in California;)) require an employee taking leave - maternity, paternity, or for any other reason, to use up accrued paid time off - vacation, PTO, ETO during the leave.

You can read all the details on the mandatory poster in your place of employment.

Marigold2
10-11-2009, 07:23 PM
Men recieving paternity leave is just plan silly. Having a baby is a choice, it is not a disease that is thrown upon one such as cancer. One can choose to save money for three or six months to stay home with the baby. Employers should not have to pay for the man staying home. If a women wants a baby she too should plan ahead and save up vacation time and money so she can add onto her maternity leave. Small employers cannot afford to stay in business otherwise.

Edwina's Secretary
10-11-2009, 07:48 PM
Men recieving paternity leave is just plan silly. Having a baby is a choice, it is not a disease that is thrown upon one such as cancer. One can choose to save money for three or six months to stay home with the baby. Employers should not have to pay for the man staying home. If a women wants a baby she too should plan ahead and save up vacation time and money so she can add onto her maternity leave. Small employers cannot afford to stay in business otherwise.

Not to worry! Except in California both maternity and paternity is unpaid. And small employers (less than 50 people in a 75 mile area) do not have to grant maternity or paternity leave at all!

Thank goodness, right! :rolleyes:

blue
10-11-2009, 10:27 PM
If a male can be required to have insurance for in vitro fertilization, is it really hard to believe he wouldnt get paternity leave under .gov health care?

Edwina's Secretary
10-11-2009, 10:37 PM
If a male can be required to have insurance for in vitro fertilization, is it really hard to believe he wouldnt get paternity leave under .gov health care?

Yes.

Lady's Human
10-11-2009, 10:42 PM
Men aren't given insurance for IVF.

The Group Policy that the man is a part of may or may not cover IVF. For instance, the BC/BS plan for FEHB includes reproductive services in general, which, being that I'm part of the group, could be construed as my insurance plan covering IVF for men.

All depends on how you parse the words, or, in a more famous statement, it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Paternity leave is granted under FMLA, regardless of health insurance status, and as ES has stated, there is no requirement that it be paid leave.

blue
10-11-2009, 10:43 PM
Really, why?

Edit: LH, from what Ive read in Mass they do get IVF coverage.

Lady's Human
10-11-2009, 10:49 PM
Again, group plans are written to cover multiple contingencies.

They are not written for individuals, and thank god insurance plans aren't written for individuals. No one would be able to afford insurance coverage.

blue
10-11-2009, 10:56 PM
Again, group plans are written to cover multiple contingencies.

They are not written for individuals, and thank god insurance plans aren't written for individuals. No one would be able to afford insurance coverage.

:rolleyes: Thats .gov thinking.

Lady's Human
10-12-2009, 08:06 AM
That has nothing to do with .gov. It's how insurance is written, period.

Roll your eyes all you want, reality is reality.

Edwina's Secretary
10-12-2009, 10:10 AM
Give it up LH. Some people just don't want to understand reality.

After all, brain surgery will probably be covered in the plan as well and .......!:rolleyes:

Cataholic
10-12-2009, 02:49 PM
A true, but odd, insurance event.

I get an EOB for J's 5 year check up- something that should be covered without cost to me- under the 'new' plan. I see all but $70 is covered, and the whole bill is $500 something. An amount that I found outrageous, btw. We were there for 15 minutes of the doctor's time. But, I digress.

So, I called the insurer (Anthem) and asked about the $70 charge, and wondered why it wasn't 'free'. The woman (very nice) told me that only well visits are paid in full (and actually, they aren't close to being paid in full, but at a contracted for amount). I told her that I had scheduled the visit one month in advance, and that it was a well visit. She asked, seriously, "well, did you talk about anything besides well visit things?"

LOL. Well, yes, we did. J had another sinus infection, and the doctor, while performing the typical 5 year check up, checked his ears and saw fluid. And, wrote a prescription (for which I paid- out of pocket, $114 or $115 for a 20 day supply), noting in the the chart another sinus infection. And, he billed it separately.

I don't blame the doctor. He HAS to bill for every single event (like the 4 shots and the administration of the 4 shots...). But, that is crazy.

Grace
10-12-2009, 03:44 PM
So, I called the insurer (Anthem)


I saw something about Anthem insurance and the State of Maine on the news the other day. I had never heard of them prior to that.

I found this (http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/123997.html) from the Bangor Daily News.

Edwina's Secretary
10-12-2009, 06:15 PM
Anthem Blue Cross - or just Anthem is the new name of what was Blue Cross or Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

Insurance companies have been merging, buying each other and changing names.

In some states it is still simply Blue Cross/Blue Shield I believe.

Marigold2
10-12-2009, 08:53 PM
That is how everyone bills. A seperate fee for a seperate look-see.
Sorry I know that is lame. But that is the way it is done, it's legal, it's the norm.
If you go into a grocery store thinking that you will buy eggs and then pick up some bread you will be charged for both. Not just the eggs.
If you take your car in for an oil change and a tire rotation you will be charged for both.
When you go to the dr or hospital you will have indivual charges for all line items. Otherwise people would be in there for hours, can you check my ears, I have this mole, (can you remove it), my neck cracks, I have a foot fungas, my heart races, my eyes are blurry, I have the runs on other days I can't go. It goes on and on and on on.
There are some simple things we can do.
1) Use birth control. 1/3 of all births are now welfare babies. The cost is in the billions.
2) Don't smoke.
3) Watch your weight and exercise.
Just doing small things if people would take better care of themselves would ease the health care problem greatly.
When you see a crack mom giving birth to her 5th child and it to0 will have mental and physical problems you can imagine that this family alone with cost a million to support before they are 18.
Today I had an inner city man call and ask if we took Care Source I said "no I am sorry we don't" and he said F&^K you!! We all got a good laugh. What ya gonna do, either you laugh at the ignorant fool or you feel sorry for them and I have been in this business too long to feel pity for people like that.
A true, but odd, insurance event.

I get an EOB for J's 5 year check up- something that should be covered without cost to me- under the 'new' plan. I see all but $70 is covered, and the whole bill is $500 something. An amount that I found outrageous, btw. We were there for 15 minutes of the doctor's time. But, I digress.

So, I called the insurer (Anthem) and asked about the $70 charge, and wondered why it wasn't 'free'. The woman (very nice) told me that only well visits are paid in full (and actually, they aren't close to being paid in full, but at a contracted for amount). I told her that I had scheduled the visit one month in advance, and that it was a well visit. She asked, seriously, "well, did you talk about anything besides well visit things?"

LOL. Well, yes, we did. J had another sinus infection, and the doctor, while performing the typical 5 year check up, checked his ears and saw fluid. And, wrote a prescription (for which I paid- out of pocket, $114 or $115 for a 20 day supply), noting in the the chart another sinus infection. And, he billed it separately.

I don't blame the doctor. He HAS to bill for every single event (like the 4 shots and the administration of the 4 shots...). But, that is crazy.

blue
10-12-2009, 10:54 PM
That has nothing to do with .gov. It's how insurance is written, period.

Roll your eyes all you want, reality is reality.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Group policies are absolute BS, they make it cheaper for the company selling the insurance and not making the product cheaper for the consumer. .gov thinking is group policy and it will cost us more. Men in Mass dont need IVF insurance but they have to pay for it anyway, and the cost of insurance has gone Up in Mass since insurance coverage became mandatory.

Getting rid of group policies for individuals will make insurance Co's work harder, but it can make policies for individuals cheaper.

You may be willing to pay for insurance you dont need, but Im not. Oh wait, I dont have insurance, and I think .gov healthcare is a bad idea.

Lady's Human
10-12-2009, 11:03 PM
Getting rid of group policies for individuals will make insurance Co's work harder, but it can make policies for individuals cheaper.

You may be willing to pay for insurance you dont need, but Im not. Oh wait, I dont have insurance, and I think .gov healthcare is a bad idea.


Okay, let's write an individual policy......

You're a male, (cost just went up, we have a tendency to take lousy care of ourselves), some former mil experience (cost just went up again, tend to be risk takers), over 30 (Cost rises again).......ad nauseum. Exactly how does that make a policy cheaper, unless you're an 18 to 20 something male in good physical shape with no outside risk factors added in?

Group policies are written to spread the risk of the coverage over a larger group, and mitigate the risk of an individual. The bigger the group, the less impact one individual will have on the costs of the group.

Edwina's Secretary
10-12-2009, 11:04 PM
Don't forget the brain surgery....:p;)

blue
10-12-2009, 11:05 PM
Okay, let's write an individual policy......

You're a male, (cost just went up, we have a tendency to take lousy care of ourselves), some former mil experience (cost just went up again, tend to be risk takers), over 30 (Cost rises again).......ad nauseum. Exactly how does that make a policy cheaper, unless you're an 18 to 20 something male in good physical shape with no outside risk factors added in?

Group policies are written to spread the risk of the coverage over a larger group, and mitigate the risk of an individual. The bigger the group, the less impact one individual will have on the costs of the group.

You are a member of a union arent you?

Edwina's Secretary
10-12-2009, 11:10 PM
LH...the part of this that really has me chuckling is....the proposal to have "individual insurance" is closer to the communist concept of healthcare than ANYTHING that has come out of Washington.

Wouldn't that be called..."from each according to his ability - to each according to his need?"

Looks like we may have found a ....:eek::eek::eek:

blue
10-12-2009, 11:14 PM
For clarity Individual Insurance would be paid for by the Individual, not .gov.

Lady's Human
10-12-2009, 11:16 PM
You are a member of a union arent you?

And that has exactly what to do with anything?

Oh, I forgot, we're all thugs intimidating the town hall attendees.

You're an electrician, aren't you?

blue
10-12-2009, 11:24 PM
And that has exactly what to do with anything?

Group thinking, cant get a good contract or job on your own.


Oh, I forgot, we're all thugs intimidating the town hall attendees.

Where did I say all union members are thugs? Only the union members beating people up at TH meeting were the thugs. :rolleyes:


You're an electrician, aren't you?

I am a licensed electrician, and I have never been a union member. I can make my own deals for work, I dont need some union suit to do it for me.

Lady's Human
10-12-2009, 11:28 PM
Blue, I'm going to leave it at this:

You have no earthly clue who you're speaking with or what you're speaking about.

blue
10-12-2009, 11:32 PM
Blue, I'm going to leave it at this:

You have no earthly clue who you're speaking with

Well duh, Capt. Obvious.


or what you're speaking about.

Wrong.

Lady's Human
10-12-2009, 11:44 PM
And you've never recieved a dime from the US Government outside of military pay?

blue
10-12-2009, 11:53 PM
And you've never recieved a dime from the US Government outside of military pay?

Unemployment insurance, otherwise I have no idea if I have.

Lady's Human
10-12-2009, 11:56 PM
You're an electrician in Alaska.

Your entire job is based on US Government funding electric power in rural areas, funding the Alaskan Pipeline, and other pork directed to Alaska.

You don't like .gov, but .gov is the entity which created your job.

blue
10-13-2009, 12:19 AM
You're an electrician in Alaska.

Your entire job is based on US Government funding electric power in rural areas, funding the Alaskan Pipeline, and other pork directed to Alaska.

You don't like .gov, but .gov is the entity which created your job.

Im a Residential Wireman, how did the .gov create my job? Ive worked in Anchorage, Wasilla, and Palmer, none of those cities get power from the state or .gov.

The Alyeska Pipeline was privately funded, there is no Alaskan Pipeline, yet. The Alaskan Pipeline is something we will be financing because .gov wont, or hasnt guaranteed us the funds to make it happen. Besides, the construction of a NG pipeline should fall for us to fund anyway, it keeps .gov out of our profits.

Im qualified to work on houses, Ive never worked on a .gov funded housing.

Lady's Human
10-13-2009, 12:52 AM
Without the grants from the federal Rural Electrification commission, there would be no residential wiring in AK for you to work on.

Never worked on .gov funded housing? I guess no house you've ever worked on was funded by fannie mae, freddie mac, a VA loan or a rural housing loan.

Your profits? Planning on building a NG pipeline yourself?

The Aleskya pipeline may have been privately funded, but also had a large amount of federal involvement. Without federal intervention, the pipeline would have had to purchase the land the pipeline is on. Instead, they lease the land for a sum of $104,000 per year. Not a bad deal for the amount of acreage involved.

Without Federal intervention, and a special law enacted to bypass the legal challenges to the pipeline, it is doubtful that the pipeline would have ever been constructed at all.

blue
10-13-2009, 01:10 AM
Without the grants from the federal Rural Electrification commission, there would be no residential wiring in AK for you to work on.

Without people buying houses there would be no residential wiring. Anchorage, Wasilla and Palmer dont fall under FREC.


Never worked on .gov funded housing? I guess no house you've ever worked on was funded by fannie mae, freddie mac, a VA loan or a rural housing loan.

I never worked for FM, FM, the VA,or any RHL. I worked for electrical contractors.


Your profits? Planning on building a NG pipeline yourself?

All Alaskans recieve profits from the sale of our minirals, its only right that we should fund it.


The Aleskya pipeline may have been privately funded, but also had a large amount of federal involvement. Without federal intervention, the pipeline would have had to purchase the land the pipeline is on. Instead, they lease the land for a sum of $104,000 per year. Not a bad deal for the amount of acreage involved.

Without Federal intervention, and a special law enacted to bypass the legal challenges to the pipeline, it is doubtful that the pipeline would have ever been constructed at all.

:rolleyes:

If the Feds had lived up to their end of the deal during Alaska's statehood we wouldnt need any Fed or .gov intervention.

Lady's Human
10-13-2009, 01:27 AM
You worked for contractors, who were paid by....................

finance agreements.............

who were more than likely funded through the above listed alphabet soup of federal agencies who were created to fund private home ownership.

No mortgages=no houses=no jobs for residential electrical contractors.

As to funding the Alaska NG pipeline....There's almost $5 million in the current budget for personnel to oversee the project.......doens't sound much like an "Alaska Only" project. Further more, this quote from one of your Fed. Reps makes it sound like a pork project:

Rep. Jay Ramras, R-Fairbanks, heard the same message.

“My wish is that it would be turned into a giant public works project,” he said. “I’m concerned if it’s left up to the economics of the project, it is probably not going to happen. It’s quite doubtful.”


Go Alaska.............nice to see you're all so independent......oops, maybe not so much.

blue
10-13-2009, 01:41 AM
You worked for contractors, who were paid by....................

finance agreements.............

Realators, and Contractors paid my bosses. Where the homeowners got the funding is no concern of yours or mine.


who were more than likely funded through the above listed alphabet soup of federal agencies who were created to fund private home ownership.

No mortgages=no houses=no jobs for residential electrical contractors.

As to funding the Alaska NG pipeline....There's almost $5 million in the current budget for personnel to oversee the project.......doens't sound much like an "Alaska Only" project. Further more, this quote from one of your Fed. Reps makes it sound like a pork project:

Rep. Jay Ramras, R-Fairbanks, heard the same message.

“My wish is that it would be turned into a giant public works project,” he said. “I’m concerned if it’s left up to the economics of the project, it is probably not going to happen. It’s quite doubtful.”


Go Alaska.............nice to see you're all so independent......oops, maybe not so much.

Go pound sand.

If Ak was left to the original agreement, Jay Ramras would be sucking on an exaushst pipe instead of wasting his breath.

Lady's Human
10-13-2009, 02:00 AM
Realators, and Contractors paid my bosses. Where the homeowners got the funding is no concern of yours or mine.


Given that you're proclaiming how independent you are from federal funding, it is a part of the discussion. I brought this into the discussion as much of the mortgage industry and much of the construction industry is either backed or directly funded with federal money. That being the case, you are being paid with money backed by taxpayers or funded directly from tax money.

As to pounding sand, well, when the facts don't support your argument, ignore them and resort to invective.

Cataholic
10-13-2009, 11:55 AM
That is how everyone bills. A seperate fee for a seperate look-see.
Sorry I know that is lame. But that is the way it is done, it's legal, it's the norm.
If you go into a grocery store thinking that you will buy eggs and then pick up some bread you will be charged for both. Not just the eggs.
If you take your car in for an oil change and a tire rotation you will be charged for both.
When you go to the dr or hospital you will have indivual charges for all line items. Otherwise people would be in there for hours, can you check my ears, I have this mole, (can you remove it), my neck cracks, I have a foot fungas, my heart races, my eyes are blurry, I have the runs on other days I can't go. It goes on and on and on on.
There are some simple things we can do.
1) Use birth control. 1/3 of all births are now welfare babies. The cost is in the billions.
2) Don't smoke.
3) Watch your weight and exercise.
Just doing small things if people would take better care of themselves would ease the health care problem greatly.
When you see a crack mom giving birth to her 5th child and it to0 will have mental and physical problems you can imagine that this family alone with cost a million to support before they are 18.
Today I had an inner city man call and ask if we took Care Source I said "no I am sorry we don't" and he said F&^K you!! We all got a good laugh. What ya gonna do, either you laugh at the ignorant fool or you feel sorry for them and I have been in this business too long to feel pity for people like that.

Marigold, your perspective is very unique. Very. So much broadstroke action you may as well be painting a barn.

I know I have said this before but you must have had a very, very difficult childhood to sound so bitter about many things.

RICHARD
10-13-2009, 12:51 PM
Please don't worry about the government running health care..
The hospitals are doing a slam bang job of taking care of the patients....


Cedars-Sinai Hospital here in Lost Angeles had a CT scan machine that was out of whack for 18 months.

The machine irradiated patients at a rate of 8xs the normal levels due to a computer malfunction.

Some patients 'only' had hair loss as a side effect.

http://cbs2.com/health/Cedar.Sinai.Radiation.2.1244165.html

caseysmom
10-13-2009, 12:55 PM
Marigold, your perspective is very unique. Very. So much broadstroke action you may as well be painting a barn.

I know I have said this before but you must have had a very, very difficult childhood to sound so bitter about many things.

You got that right. I have never heard anyone speak with such stereotypical venom before.

lizbud
10-13-2009, 05:26 PM
Marigold, your perspective is very unique. Very. So much broadstroke action you may as well be painting a barn.

I know I have said this before but you must have had a very, very difficult childhood to sound so bitter about many things.


I don't see a need for you to use personal attacks here.

The Op was stating facts. A little bluntly maybe, but to the point.:)

Hellow
10-13-2009, 05:36 PM
My comment on Government-run healthcare, and I don't really care to read this entire thread, so bear with me if I sound like Captain Obvious:


You all do notice that the government has to get the money to pay for your healthcare from somewhere. Guess where they are going to get it from?

Taxes.
Which means taxes will go up.
With a couple million+ more people depending upon the government even more, who knows how much they will go up.
The entire thing comes back to slap us in the face in the span of a month or less.

Furthermore, you are placing your entire life in the hands of the Government, whether you like to admit it or not. So, instead of private corporations getting to decide whether you get treatment and live or not, the government is going to do it for them.


Congratulations.

Cataholic
10-13-2009, 05:41 PM
I don't see a need for you to use personal attacks here.

The Op was stating facts. A little bluntly maybe, but to the point.:)

I am sorry that you took my comment to be a personal attack upon someone. It wasn't. It was a comment, a rather polite one at that.
But, thank you for your opinion. As ironic as I might find it.

Edwina's Secretary
10-13-2009, 05:58 PM
My comment on Government-run healthcare, and I don't really care to read this entire thread, so bear with me if I sound like Captain Obvious:


Furthermore, you are placing your entire life in the hands of the Government, whether you like to admit it or not. So, instead of private corporations getting to decide whether you get treatment and live or not, the government is going to do it for them.


Congratulations.

Thank you for the congratulations! Why do you think it is better for private corporations, whose motive is profit - which they make by NOT paying claims - than the government?

And no, I am not putting my entire life in the hands of the government. What meaningless hyperbole! The government does not and will not decide what I eat, where I work, who I marry, where I live, etc. etc. etc. Poppycock statement you made.

As for my taxes paying for medical care...who on earth do you think pays for it now? The Tooth Fairy???

I and my employer pay insurance premiums. I and my employer pay taxes. The premiums paid by me and on my behalf cover my medical expenses, the medical expenses of other participants and their dependents and lazy pikers who don't bother paying premiums. The rest of the medical expenses are paid by the government - using my tax dollars.

This is one of my pet peeves in this discussion. People who don't have insurance and are proud of it.

If they need medical care they will get it. Broken bone, serious illness - they will not be turned away from the hospital.

Maybe, maybe...they will work out a payment over time. But...the hospital must pay its employees and suppliers NOW. So they must borrow money to cover those expenses while they wait for the pikers to pay.

And who pays the cost of borrowing money? And the services that don't get paid for by the recipient of the medical care?

Me. And you. If you have medical insurance. And/or pay taxes.

This debate is not about cost. It is about whether medical care for the people of this country should be determined by the profit motive of private corporations or the government that is chartered with the general welfare of its people.

Do you sound like Captain Obvious? No, you sound like Captain Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About.

lizbud
10-13-2009, 06:30 PM
I know I have said this before but you must have had a very, very difficult childhood to sound so bitter about many things.


This comment isn't personal?

lizbud
10-13-2009, 06:34 PM
Thank you for the congratulations! Why do you think it is better for private corporations, whose motive is profit - which they make by NOT paying claims - than the government?

And no, I am not putting my entire life in the hands of the government. What meaningless hyperbole! The government does not and will not decide what I eat, where I work, who I marry, where I live, etc. etc. etc. Poppycock statement you made.

As for my taxes paying for medical care...who on earth do you think pays for it now? The Tooth Fairy???

I and my employer pay insurance premiums. I and my employer pay taxes. The premiums paid by me and on my behalf cover my medical expenses, the medical expenses of other participants and their dependents and lazy pikers who don't bother paying premiums. The rest of the medical expenses are paid by the government - using my tax dollars.

This is one of my pet peeves in this discussion. People who don't have insurance and are proud of it.

If they need medical care they will get it. Broken bone, serious illness - they will not be turned away from the hospital.

Maybe, maybe...they will work out a payment over time. But...the hospital must pay its employees and suppliers NOW. So they must borrow money to cover those expenses while they wait for the pikers to pay.

And who pays the cost of borrowing money? And the services that don't get paid for by the recipient of the medical care?

Me. And you. If you have medical insurance. And/or pay taxes.

This debate is not about cost. It is about whether medical care for the people of this country should be determined by the profit motive of private corporations or the government that is chartered with the general welfare of its people.

Do you sound like Captain Obvious? No, you sound like Captain Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About.



He sounds like what he is (supposedly) A 13 yr old kid with a lot of time
on his hands.:)

caseysmom
10-13-2009, 06:47 PM
He sounds like what he is (supposedly) A 13 yr old kid with a lot of time
on his hands.:)

So its okay for you to get personal but not cataholic?

Hellow
10-13-2009, 06:53 PM
And no, I am not putting my entire life in the hands of the government. What meaningless hyperbole! The government does not and will not decide what I eat, where I work, who I marry, where I live, etc. etc. etc. Poppycock statement you made.

Uh.
The government would be deciding if you get treatment for a terminal illness that you could contract.
That is not putting your entire life into their hands.. how?


As for my taxes paying for medical care...who on earth do you think pays for it now? The Tooth Fairy???

Yes, I know that tax money - a lot of it - goes to healthcare. Imagine that, but about 5x worse and you get what I am talking about.


Do you sound like Captain Obvious? No, you sound like Captain Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About.

H
A
H

Do you honestly think that I don't keep track of these types of things? I may not know as much about them as I do about computers, but I keep track of the debate from both sides. I watch everything that happens and I hear about everything that happens within 10 minutes of it happening. I keep track of it.

Hellow
10-13-2009, 06:56 PM
He sounds like what he is (supposedly) A 13 yr old kid with a lot of time
on his hands.:)

A 14 year old high school freshman that is a official Ubuntu member, leads a Ubuntu team and is a member of ~17 others (And I have to attend the meetings for ALL OF THEM), plus real life which takes a ton of time on top.

Yeah, I totally have a lot of spare time.

Lady's Human
10-13-2009, 07:04 PM
Uh.
The government would be deciding if you get treatment for a terminal illness that you could contract.
That is not putting your entire life into their hands.. how?

As opposed to a health insurance provider? I can get on the phone and speak with a congressional staffer about an issue in a few minutes........try that with a health insurance company.

I don't trust either one, and I haven't seen a version of HCR past the committee stage which includes single payer or government run insurance as an option....as a matter of fact the version which just made it out of committee did so solely because it did not contain such a provision.




Yes, I know that tax money - a lot of it - goes to healthcare. Imagine that, but about 5x worse and you get what I am talking about

But with some type of base health insurance mandatory you could knock off about $2k/year from the premiums for those of us who already have insurance (which goes to pay for those who don't have insurance, and all the unpaid hospital bills), and make insurance more affordable. Far more than just taxes go into health insurance and medical care payment. Look beyond Drudge, CNN et. al for a moment.

Hellow
10-13-2009, 07:10 PM
As opposed to a health insurance provider? I can get on the phone and speak with a congressional staffer about an issue in a few minutes........try that with a health insurance company.

Then comes the issue of governmental corruption.

Either that or the self-reliant person in my is becoming paranoid over these things.


Far more than just taxes go into health insurance and medical care payment. Look beyond Drudge, CNN et. al for a moment.Yes, but, taxes *are* the primary source of funding for these types of things.

And, I think I read that, in one of the HCR bills going through Congress, there was going to be a tax increase. I'm not sure how far that made it.

Lady's Human
10-13-2009, 07:11 PM
Taxes are the primary funding for health care? Darnit, wait until I inform the contract negotiating team that our employer has been lying to them all these years.

Hellow
10-13-2009, 07:14 PM
Taxes are the primary funding for health care? Darnit, wait until I inform the contract negotiating team that our employer has been lying to them all these years.

Huh?

I'm severely missing something here.

Edwina's Secretary
10-13-2009, 07:19 PM
Yes, but, taxes *are* the primary source of funding for these types of things.

And, I think I read that, in one of the HCR bills going through Congress, there was going to be a tax increase. I'm not sure how far that made it.

You think you read. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

How much of the cost of healthcare in the United States is paid by taxes and how much is paid by the insurance premiums paid by individuals and corporations on behalf of individuals.

You make a rather bold statement there - taxes are the primary source of funding.

Can you back it up?

Or is it something you *think* you read?

Lady's Human
10-13-2009, 07:24 PM
Governmental corruption?


As opposed to Corporate corruption?

Governments and corporations are both made up of humans. Either type of entity is just as easily corrupted.

Edwina's Secretary
10-13-2009, 07:25 PM
Governmental corruption?


As opposed to Corporate corruption?

Governments and corporations are both made up of humans. Either type of entity is just as easily corrupted.

Let's say AIG? Just as an example...

Hellow
10-13-2009, 07:30 PM
By the way - it is not about deciding about whether you get treatment but whether whatever entity handles the money involved pays for it.

Yeah. Try getting a operation without paying for it.
Or, in this case, a liver transplant. (http://cbs2.com/local/nataline.sarkisyan.CIGNA.2.615167.html)


Important distinction. Just like the fact that a terminal illness is not anyone's entire life.No, but it will be ending their life.


But then again - I tell myself you are just a kid - and one who should spend more time studying English and less time posting about things you don't understand.Yes, just because I'm 14 I instantly don't understand the issue.

I have gotten utterly sick and tired of this kind of stereotyping of kids. I can and may understand the issue. I understand it's significance to the general public, but I feel that it's impacts on the rest of the population will outweigh its benefits and push our country into deeper poverty due to heightened taxes (which WILL happen, watch it). Although that can be countered by the burden of not having to individually pay for health insurance, for those that have it, which is not the majority.


Now, I have a meeting to plan that has to encompass half of the world's time zones. I'll be back in about two hours.

Edwina's Secretary
10-13-2009, 07:36 PM
I apologize to you Reggie. You are just a kid and...I know you think you do, but you do not understand the issues.

When you say something like this...
Although that can be countered by the burden of not having to individually pay for health insurance, for those that have it, which is not the majority.

Which is, if I can parse the sentence, incorrect. Most Americans do have medical insurance. Some paid by the individual, some by employers.

So again...sorry I went at you. But please, do your homework!

Marigold2
10-13-2009, 07:38 PM
I have no idea why you would be mean to me. What are you so angry about? I did not swear or yell at the patient, I nicely told him that we don't take Care Source we don't take it because it does not pay enough to keep an office open.
He attacked me, I laughted because it was funny. I get 100 phone calls a day and several have Care Source many people get nasty when I tell them we don't take it.
What ya gonna do? Take it personaly, NO you have to laugh about it and keep your humor and good mood. If he had not hung up on me I would have told him to call Care Source to find a provider who takes that policy. But he hung up, so he is the one who is F^%KED.
It's not my fault we don't take it. I don't make the rules, I just follow them.
My advice on lowing medicial rates was sound. Don't smoke, use birth control, watch the diet and exercise, Nothing nasty there. It would benefit all, as a country and just one on one. Diabetes is a very serious issue in this country as is being overweight. Heart disease, cancer, stroke and all be prevented or greatly reduced if we do our best to take care of ourselves.
As for 1/3 of all births being on welfare, well that is just a fact. I can't change it. I just stated the truth, it might not be pretty but it's true. We as Americans need to be more repsonsible for our bodies. We need better morals, better role models, and young women need to know that having a baby by 21 is not the be all end all. They need to educate themselves, be able to take care of themselves, travel, expolore, have fun, shop till they drop, break a heart or two, climb a mountain, backpack through Europe, go sailing, join the Peace Corps, go out west and follow the Oragan trial. So much to do and see and explore before you settle and have kids, Moms need to tell kids that, to educate them that life is a journey and it's a blast. I have taught my kids that. I am not bitter, I am very down to earth and partical. I tell the truth even if it is ugly. The only way to change and grow and make things better is to talk honestly. I do that. I didn't say anything that wasn't true.
Are you feeling guilty about something or picked on? Why? What did I say that was not true?




QUOTE=Cataholic;2197923]Marigold, your perspective is very unique. Very. So much broadstroke action you may as well be painting a barn.

I know I have said this before but you must have had a very, very difficult childhood to sound so bitter about many things.[/QUOTE]

Lady's Human
10-13-2009, 07:41 PM
For every story about an insurance company dropping the ball on something, someone can come up with an equally damning story from Canada or the UK about government run health care dropping the ball, though I'm not sure why you chose that story, as it definitely doesn't support your arguments against some sort of national health insurance.

I'm not going to discuss the age issue, though I will say some additional time in English class would assist you in making arguments. Your last paragraph is relatively incoherent.

Just a piece of advice, take it for what it's worth.........

Every time you post about how much you do and how impressive your activities are in the computer world, the rest of the forum rolls their eyes and sees the statements for what they are.........a kid trying to prove they're not a kid.

Hellow
10-13-2009, 08:16 PM
Every time you post about how much you do and how impressive your activities are in the computer world, the rest of the forum rolls their eyes and sees the statements for what they are.........a kid trying to prove they're not a kid.

You are stereotyping again.

Lady's Human
10-13-2009, 08:25 PM
No, I'm not stereotyping.

I'm using basic psych.

Stereotyping would be saying that because of your age you shouldn't be in this discussion.

Nowhere did I say that. There are teen members of this forum who would be an excellent voice in this debate, and who would be taken seriously, despite the fact that we know their age.

You, however, feel the need to broadcast your accomplishments and activities to the forum constantly, in an attempt to prove how busy and important you are. I could list my occupation(s), post about my awards from the military, my status at work, etc....but I feel no need to, as I'm well aware it adds nothing to the discussion. I've posted a few times about what I do, but never with any braggadocio. It is what it is.

As I said originally, take it or leave it, but in posting as you are, you're proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're a kid while trying to prove you're not.

Edwina's Secretary
10-13-2009, 10:35 PM
You are stereotyping again.

Stereotyping would be to say ALL 14 year olds act like this...or ALL 6' tall men do that. Or ALL blonde women are the other.

Stereotyping is to extend the characteristics of one person in a class to all people in that same class.

No one has said that.

Another example of why you should be cracking those English books!

blue
10-13-2009, 11:12 PM
Given that you're proclaiming how independent you are from federal funding, it is a part of the discussion. I brought this into the discussion as much of the mortgage industry and much of the construction industry is either backed or directly funded with federal money. That being the case, you are being paid with money backed by taxpayers or funded directly from tax money.

As to pounding sand, well, when the facts don't support your argument, ignore them and resort to invective.


Sand keep pounding it. Where the homeowners get the money isnt my concern as long as the contractor is able to pay my boss so he can pay me.

Lady's Human
10-13-2009, 11:22 PM
Sand keep pounding it. Where the homeowners get the money isnt my concern as long as the contractor is able to pay my boss so he can pay me.

Translation:

Cut federal spending, keep your hands out of my pocket.....

But, when the cuts get to your particular piece of pork....

Wait! Where'd my paycheck go?!

blue
10-13-2009, 11:32 PM
Translation:

Cut federal spending, keep your hands out of my pocket.....

Yes.


But, when the cuts get to your particular piece of pork....

Wait! Where'd my paycheck go?!

Next your going to tell me the $30k I put as a down payment on my house came from taxpayers.

Or that the people paying me for computer work got the money from tax payers. Next your going to tell me all my training, either electrical or computer, was tax payer funded.


Oh yeah its always nice to see "adults" gang up on a smart kid.

Lady's Human
10-14-2009, 12:24 AM
I have no idea where you recieved your education, so there's no way I can honestly comment on whether or not there was taxpayer money involved, and I never made any comments indicating that.

As to Reggie, who was ganging up on him?

My comments, vetted by the mayor, were strictly intended to educate him, both on basic communications and how to carry yourself if you want to be taken seriously.

If an attempt to help him improve how he's seen is "ganging up on him", then I guess I'm guilty.

Was I terse? Probably. Less than kindly? More than likely, but I've never claimed to be anything else.