Page 10 of 71 FirstFirst ... 567891011121314152060 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 1405
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #181  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Another incorrect assumption. It simply means that, when calmly considered, the answer is perfectly clear and comes naturally.
    Well, you didn't explain your reasoning, so...your answer was in essence "no." Instead you avoid this by claiming that it is self-evident. That's nonsense. If it is simply what you believe, then why not be honest enough to say that's just what you think?
    What you've done is simply declare that your views are correct and pretending that is the same as fact. Should I just say that my conclusions are self-evident as well?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Huh?
    It's a reminder that Taxpayers are paying for all of this. Government doesn't have some source of money on its own. Businesses and individuals pay taxes to fund things like the NIH.

    "Must"? I never said that. Funny how you only think in absolutes when questioning this side of the table but get very "flexible" when agreeing with those on your own. The other poster is alluding to probabilities. So am I.[/QUOTE]

    It is a response to your statement that other examples of similar programs do not apply--an absolute declaration that you refuse to explain.

    So, now please explain how comparing a new entitlement program to a Taxpayer funded research institution is more appropriate than comparing it to other existing entitlement programs.

    In short--you are making apples to oranges comparisons and claiming that the conclusion is self-evident. You say that it is perfectly clear and self-evident. If that's the case, then please lay out the facts you calmly considered so everyone knows exactly what you are talking about. Then everyone can see how "self-evident" your conclusion is.

    KAM
  2.    #182  
    OK, you all have converted me; I’ve seen my evil ways.

    Profit is wrong.

    We should eliminate insurance companies. They are not needed and those gigantic salaries and profits can be put to better use directly to healthcare. Since people won’t have to pay those high premiums they will be able to afford to “contribute” more to the government. Those not volunteering to contribute can be forced to help “chip in” to help with their healthcare system.

    Do you know how much money is wasted on Research and Development? Scientists have worked for years and have not come up with cures for many diseases. More money spent, not needed.

    A single Government run hospital in each state (2 in heavily populated states, 0 in Alaska, the Dakotas should share 1) should be more than enough to care for its people. Why waste money on all these Private Hospitals that are also raking in profits?

    Many doctors make way too much money, and for what, to spend time on the golf course? Let’s limit the excess money they make. Why should anyone benefit because of my poor health? You say We would lose too many doctors. We could require them to be doctors. We could watch students in school, and if they show the aptitude to be a doctor…we train them and they become one.

    Since no one can doubt we are headed to big problems with the Baby Boomers getting into old age, we should counsel them about their responsibilities and the burden they will put on society. There are many alternatives that could be suggested. After all, they have enjoyed a full life and would it make any sense to spend $100,000.00 a year on dialysis. What kind of quality of life is that?

    Abortion should be made illegal. In fact, we should require everyone to have at least 4 children. We will need as many taxpayers in the future that we can get.

    Now, the cost is lower, but we will still be running a big deficit. A former Governor of Louisiana (before he was shot) had an idea: Anybody that has $1M is wealthy and there is no need to have more than that. We should tax only the TOP .01% of people, those that amassed their fortunes at the expense of others, at 100% of anything they own over $1M. I am sure polls would show that 99% of people think it would be easy to live on the $1M we will allow them to have.

    If anyone thinks this wouldn't work and wants to see how this all could work, there is a good book to read. It is small, easy to read, and written based on her true person experience. Check out “We the Living” by Ayn Rand. If you are really brave, and can handle a BIG book, read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand.

    I feel so much better now that I have seen the light! I now have HOPE!
  3. #183  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Sorry not what you said. Being the lowest common denominator I don't read minds.

    I work for a cell phone company and many doctors use our product. They may even use them in the saving of lives. Would it be ok with you if we make a profit too.
    So, since you feel it is safe to assume that I am some freedom hating socialist, just from a couple of posts I made here, I guess it is also safe for me to assume that you are some ill-informed "birth-er" from your avatar?

    What do you do for a living? Regardless of what it is why should we trust you to do it? Shouldnt your job be relegated to the govt too? I mean youre making a profit arent you? Why? is that fair? Arent you taking advantage? Is your service or product fairly priced and accessible to all?

    And please spare me the "My product isnt healthcare. Healthcare is a right" bs.
    Sorry, I don't work for some big cell phone corp. I work for a small, privately owned, metal shop. The same kind of "small business" that the conservatives claim to be looking out for. And how have they been doing that? By sticking up for the ins. companies and their interests.

    Several months before Obama took office, even before the election itself, our ins. premiums went up almost 40%. Why is that? Did inflation go up 40%? I really doubt that. Where we getting better service and lower co-pays? Nope, they all stayed the same. The 40% increase also went to my employer, an even larger portion than what we where going to pay.

    You said you and your co pay $1000 a month for your ins. Lets say that is what my co spends on me and its 20 employees. We pay a percentage of it, so say my co pays $800 a month per person. That's $16,000 a month and $192,000 a year my company pays out, just in med. ins. I know they get tax breaks for it but it does cover very much of that. Now, why couldn't we have a system, ran by doctors, that we pay via our income tax? We already pay taxes every paycheck, just add this to it. You wouldn't see much difference in your pay as you would now not have to pay premiums or co-pays. Now the small business I am sure you claim to be for, can spend that $192,000 profit for more personnel or better equipment to turn that small business into a growing business.

    Dude it was just a question. An informal poll if you will. No need to get all high and mighty.
    Really? You are just going to pass that off as a serious question? Let me ask you a question. Where was Obama born?
  4. #184  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    [...] After all, they have enjoyed a full life and would it make any sense to spend $100,000.00 a year on dialysis. What kind of quality of life is that? [...]
    I'm pretty sure I posted an article on effectiveness of dialysis a while back. It's why my wife, and her mother before her, decided that they did not/will not want dialysis when the time came/comes (assuming the technology/effectiveness hasn't drastically changed by that time in the latter case). It's also plays into why we will unlikely ever have an honest and rational discussion on fixing health care or a plethora of other issues, and where they should be addressed. Very few people want to deal with the reality and hard decisions involved. They want to make _their_ decisions easier.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. #185  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Have you heard of Social Security? Aware that every year there is a scare about it going bankrupt?
    Maybe you would like to know why....

    On October 11, the Bush administration announced that the fiscal 2006 budget deficit is $248 billion. In reality the budget deficit is much larger. Including the $186 billion borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund, it is $434 billion for fiscal 2006. That brings total federal borrowing over the past five years to $2,413 billion.

    That $2.4 trillion in borrowing means that from fiscal 2002 through fiscal 2006, a quarter of non-Social Security federal spending will be financed with borrowed money.

    In contrast, in fiscal 1999 through 2001, the federal government did not borrow a penny from the Social Security Trust Fund. Indeed, the government saved all of Social Security’s $434 billion in surpluses, and actually ran surpluses in its regular budget, too, thus paying down the national debt by $120 billion.

    The Bush administration prefers not to count the $825 billion it has raided from the Social Security Trust Fund over the past five years as part of its borrowing. Instead, it contends that “only” the $1,624 billion it has borrowed from other sources should count. In general, the media has mistakenly accepted the administration’s lower, albeit still gigantic, deficit figure.

    There is a limited utility to this lower, so-called “unified” deficit figure — specifically, it’s the right way to measure the national savings rate in a given year in the national income accounts. But it is not proper to ignore the amounts borrowed from Social Security for budgetary purposes.

    Imagine for example, that in a year, you take home $50,000 in earnings, plus another $7,000 that your employer puts in your retirement account. That retirement account money, of course, is what you’ll need to live on when you stop working. But what if you spend $67,000 in that year, financed in part by raiding the whole $7,000 from your retirement fund. You, and everyone else, knows that you’ve spent $17,000 more than your disposable income for that year. But the Bush administration would say you only spent $10,000 over your disposable income, since after all, the $7,000 you took from your retirement fund was money you “borrowed from yourself.” This ignores, of course, the fact that if you keep doing this you won’t have anything left to retire on.

    Until 1983, the Social Security Trust Fund was insignificant. Instead, Social Security was run on a pay-as-you-go system, with virtually all the money raised in payroll taxes used to pay current benefits. In 1983, however, the system was changed so that payroll taxes would substantially exceed benefit payments for a very long time. The theory was that if the rest of the government behaved itself by balancing its revenues and outlays, then the surpluses in Social Security could be used to pay down the national debt. Then, when the baby boomer generation retired, the government would be able to fulfill its obligations to retirees more easily, because it would not be paying large amounts in interest on the debt.

    Unfortunately, this promise was immediately broken. President Reagan and the first President Bush both spent every penny of the growing Social Security surpluses on tax cuts and other government programs.

    Only at the end of the 1990s, under President Clinton, did our government finally begin to save the Social Security surpluses as it had promised.

    Sadly, however, the second President Bush has reverted to the borrow-and-spend policies of his father and President Reagan.

    This is not only reckless budget policy, it’s extremely unfair tax policy. As a retirement plan, the Social Security payroll tax, despite the fact that it only applies to the first $90,000 in earnings, is easily defended, since benefits are calculated only on covered earnings (and the calculation heavily favors lower earners). But how can anyone justify using a tax that mostly exempts the richest Americans to pay for, say, defense spending to protect our lives and property? After all, the rich have the most property to defend.

    In fact, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), one of the architects of the 1983 decision to build up the Social Security Trust Fund, became so frustrated with what he saw as the immoral failure of President Reagan and the first President Bush (and the Congress) to live up to the promise to save Social Security’s surpluses for the future, that by the early 1990s he was calling for abandoning that system, cutting payroll taxes (and raising progressive income taxes to make up the shortfall), and returning Social Security to pay-as-you go.

    The bottom line is that spending, rather than saving, the Social Security surplus should be seen for what it is: borrowing from the future. The real budget deficits under President Bush so far have totaled $2.4 trillion, not a mere $1.6 trillion.
  6.    #186  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I'm pretty sure I posted an article on effectiveness of dialysis a while back. ....Very few people want to deal with the reality and hard decisions involved. They want to make _their_ decisions easier.
    My father-in-law spent 20 years on dialysis. Driving himself to the dialysis center! He kept the same shunt in his arm the whole 20 years and never went back to the hospital the whole time.

    I spoke of my mother's time in the hospital and the long time in a COMA. She had no living will. I had a nurse tell me I was being "cruel" by not pulling the plug on her respirator and letting her die. She said even if she does come to she would be brain damaged and have poor quality of life. She did eventually get better, even went back to work. Hard decisions?

    When I discussed with her about whether we made the right decision and how they told us about a poor quality of living (I didn't mention that they called me cruel for not pulling the plug). She said "Who are we to determine what quality of life God has for us and for what reason" when you die is in God's hands and no human machine can keep you alive if God's plan is otherwise.

    Yes, it is a personal decision to "no code" or not to have a surgery or treatment, but to withhold food, or to remove current treatment is killing someone.
  7. #187  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I'm pretty sure I posted an article on effectiveness of dialysis a while back. It's why my wife, and her mother before her, decided that they did not/will not want dialysis when the time came/comes (assuming the technology/effectiveness hasn't drastically changed by that time in the latter case).
    This one is a little personal for me. My father was a dialysis patient for 19 years before he passed away in 1999. The doctors originally thought he would be lucky to survive 4 years when he began treatment. His journey from that point forward was very hard for him, but I believe he thought it to be worthwhile. You see, there are other ways to judge one's quality of life: it would not have been possible for him to know his grandchildren if he had made the same decision that your wife and mother-in-law made.

    That said, your wife and mother-in-law are entitled to their opinions. However, I am forever grateful that my Dad didn't give up on us and on himself. I hope I am never forced to give up on my own life by some government mandate that doesn't allow me access to treatment that I might otherwise be able to afford.
  8. #188  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    My father-in-law spent 20 years on dialysis. Driving himself to the dialysis center! He kept the same shunt in his arm the whole 20 years and never went back to the hospital the whole time.

    I spoke of my mother's time in the hospital and the long time in a COMA. She had no living will. I had a nurse tell me I was being "cruel" by not pulling the plug on her respirator and letting her die. She said even if she does come to she would be brain damaged and have poor quality of life. She did eventually get better, even went back to work. Hard decisions?

    When I discussed with her about whether we made the right decision and how they told us about a poor quality of living (I didn't mention that they called me cruel for not pulling the plug). She said "Who are we to determine what quality of life God has for us and for what reason" when you die is in God's hands and no human machine can keep you alive if God's plan is otherwise.

    Yes, it is a personal decision to "no code" or not to have a surgery or treatment, but to withhold food, or to remove current treatment is killing someone.
    I think its not right for someone to tell me, whether I am interested or not interested in these decisions. Its a really terrible over generalization to think people are not interested. I think many people have just not thought about it before, because no one has confronted them with the need to make a decision. And to have a program that forces people to think about end of life, then thats a good thing. And this BS about death camps, its talk like that which scares people rather than encouraging them to think about these things. If a fella decides to get dialysis, keep the respirator going, then they should, but it should be that fellas decision at the time he or she can make it competent, not some emotional relatives thinking about what he might have wanted in a tragic background of an ICU room.
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #189  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Not being intimately familiar with the enormity of the scale and scope of healthcare, I can understand you feeling a little like David vs Goliath.
    That's not what I said at all, but I'll note your attempt at a backhanded insult. I'm aware of the scale of healthcare. Understanding isn't the issue--resources are.

    However, that also may be a indication that, unless you get your idea validated by those who can use it to gain progressive traction, you must be content to allow it to die on the vine right here. What happened to conviction and not taking "no" for an answer?[/QUOTE]

    I don't believe I ever said anything about not taking no for an answer, so stop putting words in my mouth. Or is that just a meaningless taunt?

    KAM
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #190  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Your original question, which brought on the answer of "self evident" was: "Can you explain why you think those concerns are unfounded?"

    That question has been answered.
    No, it has been avoided, but I've come to expect evasion and distortion from you.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    You may want to review where NIH receives its funding before getting too far down that skinny branch. Pg 12 nih.gov/about/director/crsrept.pdf Of course, the partisan in you will now go down the road of "those are our tax dollars", when actually, no, they are not. Not any longer. They are appropriations which are approved by those you elect.
    Nothing partisan about knowing that taxpayers fund the government and anything paid for with tax money...is still tax money.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    When was the last time that Medicare or Medicaid was insolvent and services were ended? When was the last time that care was rationed under either service? When was the last time a patient died due to lack of services?
    I believe I've stated many times, the governments statement--that medicare is headed to insolvency. If you don't believe them, take it up with them. You're assuming that they can just keep printing money, or taxing more.

    I do believe I've read that Medicaid is breaking various States however. That's what happens when you can't print money to pay for things that are economically unsustainable.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    I've already explained that you only talk absolutes when you differ from one on the other side of the table. I've only spoken in terms of likelihoods, but you'll believe what you choose regardless since this area of discussion is particularly partisan for you.
    I'm not even sure you know what you're talking about.

    KAM
  11. #191  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    OK, you all have converted me; I’ve seen my evil ways.

    Profit is wrong.

    We should eliminate insurance companies. They are not needed and those gigantic salaries and profits can be put to better use directly to healthcare. Since people won’t have to pay those high premiums they will be able to afford to “contribute” more to the government. Those not volunteering to contribute can be forced to help “chip in” to help with their healthcare system.

    Do you know how much money is wasted on Research and Development? Scientists have worked for years and have not come up with cures for many diseases. More money spent, not needed.

    A single Government run hospital in each state (2 in heavily populated states, 0 in Alaska, the Dakotas should share 1) should be more than enough to care for its people. Why waste money on all these Private Hospitals that are also raking in profits?

    Many doctors make way too much money, and for what, to spend time on the golf course? Let’s limit the excess money they make. Why should anyone benefit because of my poor health? You say We would lose too many doctors. We could require them to be doctors. We could watch students in school, and if they show the aptitude to be a doctor…we train them and they become one.

    Since no one can doubt we are headed to big problems with the Baby Boomers getting into old age, we should counsel them about their responsibilities and the burden they will put on society. There are many alternatives that could be suggested. After all, they have enjoyed a full life and would it make any sense to spend $100,000.00 a year on dialysis. What kind of quality of life is that?

    Abortion should be made illegal. In fact, we should require everyone to have at least 4 children. We will need as many taxpayers in the future that we can get.

    Now, the cost is lower, but we will still be running a big deficit. A former Governor of Louisiana (before he was shot) had an idea: Anybody that has $1M is wealthy and there is no need to have more than that. We should tax only the TOP .01% of people, those that amassed their fortunes at the expense of others, at 100% of anything they own over $1M. I am sure polls would show that 99% of people think it would be easy to live on the $1M we will allow them to have.

    If anyone thinks this wouldn't work and wants to see how this all could work, there is a good book to read. It is small, easy to read, and written based on her true person experience. Check out “We the Living” by Ayn Rand. If you are really brave, and can handle a BIG book, read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand.

    I feel so much better now that I have seen the light! I now have HOPE!
    I'm afraid you've missed something.....every Western country in the world provides care for it's citizens....and none of those things occur in any of those countries. France, Canada and Italy have very successful national research programs. None of them provide the kind of care you so flippantly describe. Are you saying we're too stupid to make it work, when France can? Really?

    Fearmongering manure.
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #192  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Wrong. Actually, foreign governments who control our debt fund our government, including our budgets, wars, tax breaks, and deficits.
    And who pays off these loans? Oh right, Taxpayers.

    But according to you...we aren't actually paying for anything--foreign governments are. So, then where does all that money go that gets sent to the government from my paycheck?

    You are following a totally ridiculous path here.

    KAM
  13. #193  
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    This one is a little personal for me. My father was a dialysis patient for 19 years before he passed away in 1999. The doctors originally thought he would be lucky to survive 4 years when he began treatment. His journey from that point forward was very hard for him, but I believe he thought it to be worthwhile. You see, there are other ways to judge one's quality of life: it would not have been possible for him to know his grandchildren if he had made the same decision that your wife and mother-in-law made.
    My point is that in general, outcomes are not so positive. There is a lot of money spent on renal failure patients compared to the effective positive outcomes. Here's the article again, FWIW.
    That said, your wife and mother-in-law are entitled to their opinions.
    Well gee. Thanks. My point is their opinions were/are based on available literature on general outcomes.
    However, I am forever grateful that my Dad didn't give up on us and on himself.
    My mother-in-law certainly didn't curl up and die. She spent what she thought was the most productive time she could have. She didn't wake up one morning and find out she developed kidney failure from 'nowhere'. She kinda knew it was coming and lived her life accordingly with her principals.
    I hope I am never forced to give up on my own life by some government mandate that doesn't allow me access to treatment that I might otherwise be able to afford.
    Way to drag it into the mud.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #194  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    When was the last time that occurred?

    Interest.
    Well, actually, loans are being paid off all the time. They have terms that come up with some regularity.

    Interest...on loans.

    You can't be that ignorant.

    KAM
  15. #195  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    So, since you feel it is safe to assume that I am some freedom hating socialist, just from a couple of posts I made here, I guess it is also safe for me to assume that you are some ill-informed "birth-er" from your avatar?
    There you go again reading minds, not very well. Not a birther sorry. Havent made any statements that would indicate that anywhere on this board. Avatar doesn't indicate anything about birthers either. It voices my opinion that Barry is a socialist. Don't see any better than you read minds I guess.



    Sorry, I don't work for some big cell phone corp. I work for a small, privately owned, metal shop. The same kind of "small business" that the conservatives claim to be looking out for. And how have they been doing that? By sticking up for the ins. companies and their interests.
    Funny how you didnt bother to answer my question about whether or not my company is allowed to make a profit in your scenario. Blew right past that. Was it because my question pointed out the ridiculousness of your "only doctors" statement or because you haven't decided? Let me know ok.

    Several months before Obama took office, even before the election itself, our ins. premiums went up almost 40%. Why is that? Did inflation go up 40%? I really doubt that. Where we getting better service and lower co-pays? Nope, they all stayed the same. The 40% increase also went to my employer, an even larger portion than what we where going to pay.
    Insurance premiums have been going up for years, so have many other things. Been happening for years. Life sucks.

    You said you and your co pay $1000 a month for your ins. Lets say that is what my co spends on me and its 20 employees. We pay a percentage of it, so say my co pays $800 a month per person. That's $16,000 a month and $192,000 a year my company pays out, just in med. ins. I know they get tax breaks for it but it does cover very much of that. Now, why couldn't we have a system, ran by doctors, that we pay via our income tax? We already pay taxes every paycheck, just add this to it. You wouldn't see much difference in your pay as you would now not have to pay premiums or co-pays. Now the small business I am sure you claim to be for, can spend that $192,000 profit for more personnel or better equipment to turn that small business into a growing business.
    This substantiates the comment about not seeing so well. I said no such thing. I said my PREMIUMS were about $200 a month for a family of 4 and my company pays the rest. Co-pays are what you pay when you get services, like a dr visit for example. Knowing the terminology often helps with understanding. Come back when you have it down. We'll get farther.

    Really? You are just going to pass that off as a serious question? Let me ask you a question. Where was Obama born?
    The tie your shoes question was there to make a point. That you cannot just answer a simple question. It had no veiled meaning.

    I suspect Mr. Obama was born in a hospital, but I wasn't there so I can't say for sure. He's a couple years older than me so I wasn't really in a position to pay attention or care. Don't really care now either if you must know.
    “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
  16. #196  
    How can you fix health care when there is $10,000,000,000 in there for the UAW designed to save its pension system from going under? Improper management, corruption and now we all have to pay for their retirement. What about non-union people?
  17. #197  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    My point is that in general, outcomes are not so positive. There is a lot of money spent on renal failure patients compared to the effective positive outcomes. Here's the article again, FWIW.

    Well gee. Thanks. My point is their opinions were/are based on available literature on general outcomes.

    My mother-in-law certainly didn't curl up and die. She spent what she thought was the most productive time she could have. She didn't wake up one morning and find out she developed kidney failure from 'nowhere'. She kinda knew it was coming and lived her life accordingly with her principals.

    Way to drag it into the mud.
    Based on your former comments, your wife's family has PKD. I totally agree with their ability to choose to avoid hemodialysis. The "available data", like all data, is extremely useful for policy decisions....but those decisions are individual, and there are many many people that do very well for a long time with dialysis, and many that are transplanted afterwards. I can only assume that they actually talked to a decent number of patients who made a different decision.
  18. #198  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    [...] I can only assume that they actually talked to a decent number of patients who made a different decision.
    I'm not even sure what a 'decent number of patients' would constitute. It's still only anecdotal evidence. The only anecdotal evidence that went into the decision was the outcome of my wife's grandmother. My wife was Pre-Med at one point and did quite a bit of research on it. It's quite possible she may change her mind whenever her kidney function starts to decline, but that will depend more on available information and technology at the time than anything else.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19. #199  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    There you go again reading minds, not very well. Not a birther sorry. Havent made any statements that would indicate that anywhere on this board. Avatar doesn't indicate anything about birthers either. It voices my opinion that Barry is a socialist. Don't see any better than you read minds I guess.
    Just like you figured that I do not want companies to make a profit, right? I am all for capitalism but it must be regulated so we the people don't get ripped off, like we did with the mortgage bubble popping and now with ins. premiums rising twice as fast as inflation, for no reason other than nobody is telling them they can't.

    You assumed that I don't want any body to make profits because I am against ins. companies so I assumed you were a birther because your avatar is used regularly in their propaganda. So, what are a few legitimate examples of how Obama is turning the US into a socialized nation? Was it because of the stimulus? No, that is a continuation of a Bush policy. Is it because he is trying to give us a public option in health care? Is the post office and evil socialist organization that's bankrupting UPS or FEDEX and making it impossible for them to compete?



    Funny how you didnt bother to answer my question about whether or not my company is allowed to make a profit in your scenario. Blew right past that. Was it because my question pointed out the ridiculousness of your "only doctors" statement or because you haven't decided? Let me know ok.
    Actually I did answer that question, but let me spell it out for you again. I have no problem with anyone making a profit. The only thing I have a problem with a business plan of not providing the services that we pay them for. We pay them our hard earned money yet they have the right to deny coverage? To cancel us for illegitimate reasons? Yet when they do cancel us or certain services to us, that is when they make the most profits. Yeah, I am against that.

    Insurance premiums have been going up for years, so have many other things. Been happening for years. Life sucks.
    Obama was elected by the majority of people in this nation. He will be here for at least 4 years. Life sucks. I had to deal with Bush policies for 8 years, now it is your turn. Don't like it? LIFE SUCKS!

    Yeah, premiums are going up faster than inflation and they are making record profits even during a recession. We are the most powerful nation in the world but we are ranked 37th in health, behind third world countries! You don't see that every other industrialised country has either a nationalized health system or a very heavily regulated private ins. system, and they are all living healthier and longer than we are? Do you still think deregulation works? You don't see a problem with that? You don't see a system that that does not work and needs to be fixed? "Life sucks"... brilliant answer...

    This substantiates the comment about not seeing so well. I said no such thing. I said my PREMIUMS were about $200 a month for a family of 4 and my company pays the rest. Co-pays are what you pay when you get services, like a dr visit for example. Knowing the terminology often helps with understanding. Come back when you have it down. We'll get farther.
    I meant to say:You said you and your co pay $1000 a month for your ins. Lets say that is what my company spends on me and its 20 employees. We pay a percentage of it, so say my company pays $800 a month per person.

    Sorry, my abbreviations came out a little confusing on that. But, it still remains that unnecessarily high premiums are hurting small businesses.

    The tie your shoes question was there to make a point. That you cannot just answer a simple question. It had no veiled meaning.

    I suspect Mr. Obama was born in a hospital, but I wasn't there so I can't say for sure. He's a couple years older than me so I wasn't really in a position to pay attention or care. Don't really care now either if you must know.
    The correct answer to my question would have been "Hawaii". But, you're right, I am the one who is not answering questions...
  20. #200  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    snip...



    The correct answer to my question would have been "Hawaii". But, you're right, I am the one who is not answering questions...
    Oh there was an expected answer? Perhaps if you'd been more specific.
    My answer was right tho. It was a hospital. Hawaii, Wyoming, Texas, Maryland. What difference does it make.
    “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

Posting Permissions