Page 106 of 143 FirstFirst ... 65696101102103104105106107108109110111116 ... LastLast
Results 2,101 to 2,120 of 2855
  1. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #2101  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Comical....I actual get word from General Patton's relative, the person in the family that keeps such data and yet the doctor is correct.
    Your Jefferson quote is from one Gerald R. Ford. The language you ascribe to Jefferson is laughable on its face.

    If you are so certain you are correct, Patton's family should have absolutely no problem going through proper channels to have the quote confirmed formally. It's not rocket science.
  2. #2102  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Your Jefferson quote is from one Gerald R. Ford. The language you ascribe to Jefferson is laughable on its face.

    If you are so certain you are correct, Patton's family should have absolutely no problem going through proper channels to have the quote confirmed formally. It's not rocket science.
    Now he's an expert on Ford and Jefferson. Are there no limits to the knowledge?
    Folks I think we should consider ourselves fortunate that this intellect has graced us with his presence.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  3. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2103  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Here's the problem: I do believe there is a huge difference between "uninsured" and "cannot get insurance" and "uninsurable". Your initial post blasted me for my inability to see that the President was speaking about the "uninsurable" when he started the new "over 30 million" line. But nowhere in the OBM director's explanation did he mention "uninsurable". He stated that the numbers were reduced because the original 47 million number included non-American citizens ir legal residents as well as those who are eligible for government programs but, for whatever reason, to do not have insurance.

    So, your original premise, that the new "over 30 million" number is not new and only refers to uninsurable as defined by industry standards of uninsurable, is not supported by the very people the President relies upon to verify those numbers.

    Why is all this important? Because it proves that the 47 million uninsured number includes those who average Americans would never think should be included. It was being used in a very dishonest manner and I'm glad the President saw fit to bring his number a little closer to the truth. Personally, I don't think he's there yet.
    factcheck.org weighs in on this and confirms that the original number included illegal immigrants.

    The official Census figure for 2007 was actually 45.7 million persons in the U.S., but that figure includes an estimated 10 million who are not U.S. citizens, including 5.6 million who are here illegally, according to the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation.
    Nope, still nothing about being "uninsurable".
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2104  
    Hello Everyone,

    Has anyone considered that its illegal to be here for some people but they still are? Its illegal to be working here, but they still are. So, why should we expect that illegal immigrants won't also be able to get healthcare when they are not allowed--assuming that President Obama's promise makes it into the final bills.

    Laws are really effective...if enforced. This isn't a criticism of prediction of how the Obama Administration or any subsequent ones will behave, but given our track record and failure at enforcing our immigration laws, illegal workers, etc...I wouldn't expect too much here either.

    KAM
  5. #2105  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello Everyone,

    Has anyone considered that its illegal to be here for some people but they still are? Its illegal to be working here, but they still are. So, why should we expect that illegal immigrants won't also be able to get healthcare when they are not allowed--assuming that President Obama's promise makes it into the final bills.

    Laws are really effective...if enforced. This isn't a criticism of prediction of how the Obama Administration or any subsequent ones will behave, but given our track record and failure at enforcing our immigration laws, illegal workers, etc...I wouldn't expect too much here either.

    KAM
    Guess what? I heard Glenn Beck talking to small business owners the other day on TV. He wants to bring more "legal" immigrants into the US because American workers expect everything handed to them on a platter. (I think he talking about you and me) That was his statement.

    So what the difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal one? Don't they both pay taxes, or are there a whole lot of businesses in the US hiring illegal immigrants for cash?
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2106  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    Guess what? I heard Glenn Beck talking to small business owners the other day on TV. He wants to bring more "legal" immigrants into the US because American workers expect everything handed to them on a platter. (I think he talking about you and me) That was his statement.

    So what the difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal one? Don't they both pay taxes, or are there a whole lot of businesses in the US hiring illegal immigrants for cash?
    You Glenn Beck listening radical!

    What's the difference between a legal and illegal immigrant? Well, one breaks the law to be here and the other doesn't. That's sort of inherent to the terms.

    Well, how exactly does an illegal immigrant worker pay taxes? How does a business legally hire an illegal worker? I don't really know, but I suspect the answer is A) they do hire them under the table, or B) they are using stolen credentials.

    I'm pretty sure that employees are required to provide a Social Security number if you do things legally, and unless we are giving legal identification to illegal aliens, they would have to obtain it illegally.

    But perhaps you are right--without enforcement, what is the real difference?

    KAM
  7. #2107  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    snip

    So what the difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal one? Don't they both pay taxes, or are there a whole lot of businesses in the US hiring illegal immigrants for cash?
    The fact that you re asking this question is scary.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  8. #2108  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    The fact that you re asking this question is scary.
    You're right, that wasn't worded well.

    I keep reading estimates that there are 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants in the US. How is that possible and where are they working?
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  9. #2109  
    It is very possible with an open border. Where are they working? Probably right next to you. If they are illegal, then they do not pay taxes. Palandri, have you been listening to Glenn Beck for very long, say like at least 2 weeks?
  10. #2110  
    Sixty-three percent of doctors favor a public option.

    Medical News

    "Support of the public and private options was consistent across a wide range of physicians, including those from the traditionally conservative southern regions of the United States, those with a financial stake in their practice, and members of the AMA, despite that group's history of opposition to reform efforts" the article's authors concluded.

    The AMA -- which has fought past reform efforts, including the creation of another public program, Medicare -- has offered its support for legislation in the House, which would create a public option. The data from the new survey suggest that view is consistent with individual AMA member views.

    The plan outlined by the Senate Finance Committee does not contain a public insurance option. It would set up state-by-state cooperatives, which would allow patients to pool together to purchase insurance, and to have an ownership stake in their insurance plan.

    There are no plans in Congress that would establish a single-payer system.
    From a different study quoted in the article, from the Mayo Clinic:

    For that survey, researchers led by Ryan Anteil of the Mayo Medical School mailed an eight-page questionnaire about moral and ethical beliefs in medical practice. Physicians were asked to respond to how much they agreed with the following statements:

    •"Addressing societal health policy issues, as important as that may be, falls outside the scope of my professional obligation as a physician."
    •"Every physician is professionally obligated to care for the uninsured and the underinsured."
    •"I would favor limiting reimbursement for expensive drugs and procedures that would help expand access to basic healthcare for those currently lacking such care."

    The survey also asked for physicians' moral perceptions on using cost-effectiveness data to determine which treatments are offered to patients.

    Of the 991 returned surveys (a response rate of 51%), 78% of respondents said that addressing societal health policy issues is in the scope of professional obligation of a physician.

    About 73% said physicians are obligated to care for the uninsured and underinsured.

    Most respondents (67%) said they would favor limiting reimbursements for expensive treatments to expand access. Not surprisingly, surgeons and sub-specialists were more likely to oppose cutting payment for pricey procedures than were primary care doctors.
    Both articles were published in this week's New England Journal of Medicine.
  11. #2111  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    It is very possible with an open border. Where are they working? Probably right next to you. If they are illegal, then they do not pay taxes. Palandri, have you been listening to Glenn Beck for very long, say like at least 2 weeks?
    Not that I claim to know much about this, and it's way off-topic for this thread, but what makes you think they don't pay taxes? They do pay sales tax and property tax in many states. And some pay a lot more.....

    The fact that illegal immigrants pay taxes at all will come as news to many Americans. A stunning two-thirds of illegal immigrants pay Medicare, Social Security and personal income taxes. Yet, nativists like Congressman Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., have popularized the notion that illegal aliens are a colossal drain on the nation's hospitals, schools and welfare programs — consuming services that they don't pay for....

    But, immigrants aren't flocking to the United States to mooch off the government. According to a study by the Urban Institute, the 1996 welfare reform effort dramatically reduced the use of welfare by undocumented immigrant households, exactly as intended. And another vital thing happened in 1996: the Internal Revenue Service began issuing identification numbers to enable illegal immigrants who don't have Social Security numbers to file taxes.

    One might have imagined that those fearing deportation or confronting the prospect of paying for their safety net through their own meager wages would take a pass on the IRS' scheme. Not so. Close to 8 million of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the country today file personal income taxes using these numbers, contributing billions to federal coffers. No doubt they hope that this will one day help them acquire legal status — a plaintive expression of their desire to play by the rules and come out of the shadows.

    What's more, aliens who are not self-employed have Social Security and Medicare taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks. Since undocumented workers have only fake numbers, they'll never be able to collect the benefits these taxes are meant to pay for. Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers — that the Social Security administration stashes in the "earnings suspense file" — added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus. The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year.

    Beyond federal taxes, all illegals automatically pay state sales taxes that contribute toward the upkeep of public facilities such as roads that they use, and property taxes through their rent that contribute toward the schooling of their children. The non-partisan National Research Council found that when the taxes paid by the children of low-skilled immigrant families � most of whom are illegal — are factored in, they contribute on average $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume.


    Tax-paying illegals
  12. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #2112  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Sixty-three percent of doctors favor a public option.

    Both articles were published in this week's New England Journal of Medicine.
    In these study articles, I read with great interest about morality being a primary cornerstone of physicians' belief systems where care for the uninsured and under-insured are concerned. Even among those defining themselves as "conservative", there is the clear indication of consensus that it is morally objectionable to allow the existing system to remain as is. This might fly in the face of some of the bravado I see on a day to day basis, but it certainly affirms what healthcare is and was intended to be.

    I'm even further glad to see that of the obvious choices available regarding an overhaul of the system, that the same mix of public and private coverage plans that the president has outlined are clearly what physicians support.

    Thanks very much for the articles!
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2113  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Not that I claim to know much about this, and it's way off-topic for this thread, but what makes you think they don't pay taxes? They do pay sales tax and property tax in many states. And some pay a lot more.....

    Tax-paying illegals
    Sales tax--certainly. Property tax? Possible I'm sure with lax or no enforcement, but there is generally all sorts of paperwork associated with owning property let's say.

    So, the government is aware that they are collecting money linked to improper or fake social security numbers, and aren't bothering to check that out?

    I'm referring to this line: Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers — that the Social Security administration stashes in the "earnings suspense file" — added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus.

    In other words--there is a paper trail pointing directly to employers who have employees with false social security numbers (a likely indication they not legal workers, although it could be an error), and are doing nothing about it.

    That's interesting.

    I followed your link and noticed another article by that same author--in regards to the health care issue.
    Opening Paragraph: For several months now, the American people--as if exhorted by the ghost of William F. Buckley (no particular hero of mine)--have been standing athwart the Democratic agenda of socialized medicine, yelling, "Stop!" But President Barack Obama showed them the policy equivalent of the middle finger Wednesday night.

    http://reason.org/news/show/presiden...-will-con.html

    And the final Paragraph: Obama lambasted the critics who claim his reform plan amounts to a government takeover of the health care system. But the plan he laid out Wednesday night will control every aspect of the medical transaction. It will tell patients when, what and how much coverage they must buy; it will tell sellers when, what and how much coverage they must sell. This is not a government takeover of health care? Then Tony Soprano is just a decent, hard-working businessman.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 09/15/2009 at 09:23 AM. Reason: Additional points
  14. #2114  
    If nothing else, it demonstrates that the author wasn't blowing smoke in the article about MD support, since she appears to be on the negative side toward the White House's reform program. I have to admit that I didn't get that "total control" message from what I heard from Obama...and she never really clarifies that. But as you have pointed out, there have to be some requirements for coverage to keep people from gaming the system. Right?
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2115  
    Hello Everyone,

    Wow, that Reason.org website has all sorts of interesting articles. Here another regarding the health care debate.

    Opening Paragraph:
    Those who claim that President Barack Obama's speech on health care this week wasn't a glorious success are fooling themselves. A Washington takeover of health care never sounded so enticing or fun.

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/136032.html

    Last Paragraph: Because when the president tells us that this is "the season for action" and that we no longer can waste time debating, he means that legislation won't be initiated until 2013, that this is all about politics and his very own entrenched ideology—not yours.

    Naturally, all credit for this content is to the original Authors.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 09/15/2009 at 09:52 AM. Reason: Blown tag
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2116  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    If nothing else, it demonstrates that the author wasn't blowing smoke in the article about MD support, since she appears to be on the negative side toward the White House's reform program. I have to admit that I didn't get that "total control" message from what I heard from Obama...and she never really clarifies that. But as you have pointed out, there have to be some requirements for coverage to keep people from gaming the system. Right?
    Did I make a point regarding requirements for coverage? I'm not sure what statement of mine you might be referring to (not denying it, but I don't recall that specifically). In general, I would agree that allowing people to "game the system" is a bad idea.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 09/15/2009 at 09:56 AM. Reason: Clarification
  17. #2117  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Did I make a point regarding requirements for coverage? I'm not sure what statement of mine you might be referring to (not denying it, but I don't recall that specifically). In general, I would agree that allowing people to "game the system" is a bad idea.

    KAM
    Might not have been you, but it has been frequently pointed out that if left to their own devices, some might not choose to sign up...until they needed to. As Obama stated, that isn't fair to everyone else, especially when those folks get sick without coverage.
  18. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #2118  
    If it weren't so sad, it would be downright side-splitting laughable that the same who are so vehemently Tea-bagging against healthcare reform stood by as silent sheep (really? where were the protesters and presidential hecklers then?) when the banking and auto industry were bailed out under the previous administration. And those were industries that we couldn't afford to allow fail??

    online.wsj.com/article/SB122969367595121563.html

    boston.com/business/markets/articles/2008/09/25/bush_urges_bailout_unity/
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2119  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Might not have been you, but it has been frequently pointed out that if left to their own devices, some might not choose to sign up...until they needed to. As Obama stated, that isn't fair to everyone else, especially when those folks get sick without coverage.
    Some people have mentioned (not sure it if was here or in some article) that eliminating pre-existing condition requirements would enable people to simply sign up when they find out something is wrong with them, get treatment paid for, and then drop off again.

    Requiring everyone to carry insurance would eliminate that possibility, but I'm not too keen on government telling me how I have to spend my own money (outside of them doing what they want with tax money I pay).

    As you may recall, my concept for dealing with pre-existing conditions was to eliminate barriers to getting insurance due to a pre-existing condition, but applying a narrow (only to the specific pre-existing condition) additional co-pay (it has to be reasonable and fair to both sides) for subsequent treatment of that condition--if it ever comes up. That's just one idea of course, but the goal I had in mind was to alleviate the customer from the burden of higher premiums--forever, because of something that may or may not ever happen again. It would also eliminate the problem of disqualifying someone just because they've had a medical problem at some point in their life.

    KAM
  20. #2120  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    If it weren't so sad, it would be downright side-splitting laughable that the same who are so vehemently Tea-bagging against healthcare reform stood by as silent sheep (really? where were the protesters and presidential hecklers then?) when the banking and auto industry were bailed out under the previous administration. And those were industries that we couldn't afford to allow fail??

    online.wsj.com/article/SB122969367595121563.html

    boston.com/business/markets/articles/2008/09/25/bush_urges_bailout_unity/
    You mean these spelling-bee winners?

Posting Permissions