Obama supporters. I have one question

stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
On a random side note.
I don't think there is much argument that Europe's economic and tax policies are similar to the platform of the democrat party.
I just got a bls report in my inbox with the unemployment rates of individual states. And the highest state is Michigan at 7.1% But you know what is quite interesting. The unemployment rate for Europe is around 8.6%...
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2516526
And the highest state is Michigan at 7.1% But you know what is quite interesting. The unemployment rate for Europe is around 8.6%...
Do they use use the exact compilicated math (as you descibed earlier) and requirements for their numbers as we do? To be sure we have an apples to apples comparison. What specifically constitutes unemployment in the numbers? Maybe they are more or less realistic than we are in our numbers?
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2516331
According to the GAO, by 2040, we will only be able to pay interest only payments on the national debt.
Now, you want to spend 100billion more/year?
What's 100 billion between citizens? - We just gave the bankster gangsters 200 billion a few days ago to run up our debt.
I now believe this is a supply and demand issue here, we should go back to the days of my great grandfather and just die in our beds at home and let only the rich have doctors. The doctors can go back to making house calls. Rather than the huge herd processing centers we have to day. There would be fewer doctors and maybe the hospitals can go back to being a charity organization. Also, we should go back to snake oil remidies.. This will cure the Medicare issue...
Side note:
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Malpractice or Malpractice Trial Attorneys?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2516545
Do they use use the exact compilicated math (as you descibed earlier) and requirements for their numbers as we do? To be sure we have an apples to apples comparison. What specifically constitutes unemployment in the numbers? Maybe they are more or less realistic than we are in our numbers?
It is apples to apples.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2516562
What's 100 billion between citizens? - We just gave the bankster gangsters 200 billion a few days ago to run up our debt.
yeah, that was pretty screwed up little deal. They were adding solvency to those federally guaranteed loans that they give. Because those government programs were projected to crash. Just goes to show how the government needs to stay out of our lives or then end up in our pocket book.
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2516575
yeah, that was pretty screwed up little deal. They were adding solvency to those federally guaranteed loans that they give. Because those government programs were projected to crash. Just goes to show how the government needs to stay out of our lives or then end up in our pocket book.
I agree the depression was better? The bankster gangsters took everyone out then without the government. The government shouldn't guarantee loans. They should regulate the industry better so they can't take us all down and out again, instead of using debt dollars to back it.
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2516601
If you don't get into debt over your head the banks can't take anything from ya...
Then explain the losses of the depression. There is a reason for the old line -hiding your money under the mattress. Now we have FDIC to back bankers free market practices. Stop FDIC and regulate the industry better since it obviously can't regulate itself.
 
suzy

suzy

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2516191
Suzy, what do you think Universal Health Care is? It is each of us paying for everyone else, through a government run uber-MediCare system.
It is not. We already have Universal HC. Everyone in America gets HC. Anyone inc non citizens can go to any ER and get HC. There are 3 types of patients:
Medicare, private insurance and uninsured. WE ALL PAY FOR ALL THREE. We pay taxes for medicare, we pay our premiums and we pay for the cost of those who don't want to buy insurance with higher taxes and higher premiums. We keep going over this point. Why not even attempt to find a way to lower the costs that all Americans pay?
Can someone help me explain this so it makes sense?
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2516191
My mom worked for 10 years just to provide my parents both with health insurance while my dad worked to build up their retirement. Part of their budgeting for retirement was to make sure they would have health coverage. Just as they budgeted or food, shelter, electricity, etc.
They did not use Medicare? I am curious what insurance company covered them and what their premiums were? End of life care is very expensive. I want the insurance they had!
 
suzy

suzy

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2515441
Again, Suzy. MediCare is going bankrupt. How is that a lower operating cost?
Good thought but Medicare will not go bankrupt. The cost of caring for our elderly population will increase to incredibly proportions of our GNP, but we will not let a program die that people have contributed to their whole lives. We will have to kick it up and pay for it. It is not an option to file bankruptcy here.
Medicare has no million dollar CEO's, no million dollar CMs while private insurance companies have hundreds.
I've answered your question 3x's now. You answer me: How is private insurance cheaper to ALL Americans, because as I tried to tell you, we all pay for all Americans. Private insurance might be able to cover it's healthy population cheaper but can they also provide care to the less healthy among us? The old and dying? The 70 yos who are consuming most of our resources 'cause they don't want to die?
 
suzy

suzy

Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2515454
If only it was solvent

.
Ok, right now, we have split our population into 2 groups: Those under 65, those over 65. Can we agree that the over 65 group will have higher health care costs? If we have one group paying for it's care, would it be cheaper for one group over the other?
It seems to obvious to me that it will cost more to pay for our elderly, but I do suck at explaining things.
 
suzy

suzy

Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2516232
in 2004 the GOA estimated that fraud for just durable medical equipment was 900 million dollars alone.
Are you the guy who called me Hitler? I can't remember if I'm not speaking to you or not.
DME is sold by stores in the mall, by TV commercials and a few shisters. Home 02 is a huge business, and one of my favorite pulmonologists told me his specialty is now feeling we've been over prescribing it. But, to put MDS, nurses and hospitals in that group is odd to me.
I ain't going with AARP. I'm still mad when they sold out seniors with the Medicare D bill fiasco....
 
suzy

suzy

Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2516261
As far a illegal immigrants I say make the hospitals report anyone without identification to immigration. I don't particularly care if that means they wont seek out healthcare. .
I do not think that is how it works. Reporting them won't make them not come to the ER when their kid is throwing up blood or they fractured an arm. They will still come and we will still pay for them.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2516653
Good thought but Medicare will not go bankrupt. The cost of caring for our elderly population will increase to incredibly proportions of our GNP, but we will not let a program die that people have contributed to their whole lives. We will have to kick it up and pay for it. It is not an option to file bankruptcy here.
Medicare has no million dollar CEO's, no million dollar CMs while private insurance companies have hundreds.
I've answered your question 3x's now. You answer me: How is private insurance cheaper to ALL Americans, because as I tried to tell you, we all pay for all Americans. Private insurance might be able to cover it's healthy population cheaper but can they also provide care to the less healthy among us? The old and dying? The 70 yos who are consuming most of our resources 'cause they don't want to die?
Suzy,
Once congress opened up the Medicare lock box, and made Medicare part of the general fund, you and I were hosed. FDR's original plan was actually pretty good. A voluntary system up to 1% max your yearly wage, and the money you put in was your money. Not the Gov't, and not the collective whole. It was not intended for one generation to pay for another, it was to allow you to save. It was also based on a life expectancy of 65-67 years, not the life expectancy we have today.
 
suzy

suzy

Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2516331
According to the GAO, by 2040, we will only be able to pay interest only payments on the national debt.
Now, you want to spend 100billion more/year?
I read on that site by 2014 20% of our GNP will go to Medicare? Are you saying we can do nothing now and it will all go away and be hunky dory?
C'mon. Doc. You know we have to do something. I think we both know we can't ever get rid of private pay insurance companies or HMOs. Their lobbyists are too strong. (Hey, add the cost of lobbyists to the operating costs of private insurance co). Doesn't it bug you that so many people use the ER for their PCP? What about the repeat overdoses without insurance who come back over and over that we have to intubate and keep in ICU for 3 days? Why should we have to keep paying for others that could pay something?
 
suzy

suzy

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2516350
Private companies are providing policies cheaper because of competition in a free market. That's the very soul of capitalism.
Medicare Will Go Broke By 2018, Trustees Report
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050101448.html
Well, we might be getting on the same page here! You can see the problem ahead, right? But, it is not cheaper for private cos to provide care because of competition. It is because they don't have to cover the over 65 population. If they did cover the elderly, their costs would skyrocket.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2514430
I completely disagree... this thing with McCain was his only serious media attack.. Clinton hasn't had any serious attacks that I can think of... She should be being attacked about her past financial deals and her income taxes, which she has failed to produce...
Obama- questioned about
Farrakhan
His race
His background
Is he a muslim
Picture of him in Africa
Rezko
His church
Pledge of Alliegence
Lack of a flag pin
His name
Speeches
Wife
Drugs or he was "dealer"
What else am I missing.... these are all things outside of politics and his campaign.. I am sure he would welcome questions about Iraq... atleast these are sustanitive issues that affect America. If you don't see this than you are blind! Obama hasn't attacked other candidates as he has been attacked.
If you can find a list as long as this about issues, outside of the real issues than I will denounce and reject my position on this.

What about Romney? He was attacked for being a Mormon, and you cannot even say Obama's middle name without shouts of "racist". You's guys aren't playing on a level field here.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2516688
Well, we might be getting on the same page here! You can see the problem ahead, right? But, it is not cheaper for private cos to provide care because of competition. It is because they don't have to cover the over 65 population. If they did cover the elderly, their costs would skyrocket.

Suzy,
Some insurance companies do care for the 65+ crowd. Changes in the medicare laws are shifting the risk to these companies, and may drive some out of business. You can thank LBJ and a democrtat congress:
"President Johnson and the Democratic Congress' largely forgotten 1968 agreement to add the then secure Social Security Trust Fund to the General Fund in order to float cash for the Vietnam War and a bevy of domestic programs-a decision that helped secure our current trajectory towards Social Security's insolvency"
So, would you say that if you are 70 and develope renal failure, then tough luck, no hemodialysis for you?
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2516686
I read on that site by 2014 20% of our GNP will go to Medicare? Are you saying we can do nothing now and it will all go away and be hunky dory?
C'mon. Doc. You know we have to do something. I think we both know we can't ever get rid of private pay insurance companies or HMOs. Their lobbyists are too strong. (Hey, add the cost of lobbyists to the operating costs of private insurance co). Doesn't it bug you that so many people use the ER for their PCP? What about the repeat overdoses without insurance who come back over and over that we have to intubate and keep in ICU for 3 days? Why should we have to keep paying for others that could pay something?
What do we do?
Ration care?
Definte what specialties new residents study ( a plank in Hillarycare to control what care is given)?
Increase the age of benefits to 75-78?
Totally remove doctors from medicolegal risk unless malice was intended?
Govenment take-over of the pharmaceutical industry? That would be a nightmare.
So under your plan, a government intended to only "promote the general welfare" is actually providing for and controlling welfare? Obama wants to spend more on social programs and less on defense. That is the opposite of the role as defined by the Constitution. Remember it says "provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top