Page 17 of 29 FirstFirst ... 7121314151617181920212227 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 340 of 567
  1. #321  
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  2. #322  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    It's in reference to them wearing tea bags (and I think it is used as it rolls of the tongue (no pun intended) a bit easier than tea partiers):



    Your post, though incorrect in it's definition, contained inappropriate content for this forum and was edited for that reason. So far, our society has deemed the term tea baggers appropriate enough for Jon Stewart and several news pundits to use without bleeping, probably because very few people know about the mean ing you are referring to other than mostly adolescent-minded misogynists who giggle at the phrase "dirty sanchez".
    That stash is CRAZY!
  3. #323  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    no you dont here, yes you do, you should have to have one. as to the baby.. well thats not a choice is it.

    Dude, you just crack me up! You just wait for someone to hand you a line, and then you zing the funniest replies!

    Once again, you have made my day. Keep that wit sharp. I appreciate it!
  4. #324  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    probably because very few people know about the mean ing you are referring to other than mostly adolescent-minded misogynists who giggle at the phrase "dirty sanchez".
    Hee hee.....he said "dirty".
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  5. #325  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    It's in reference to them wearing tea bags (and I think it is used as it rolls of the tongue (no pun intended) a bit easier than tea partiers):



    Your post, though incorrect in it's definition, contained inappropriate content for this forum and was edited for that reason. So far, our society has deemed the term tea baggers appropriate enough for Jon Stewart and several news pundits to use without bleeping, probably because very few people know about the mean ing you are referring to other than mostly adolescent-minded misogynists who giggle at the phrase "dirty sanchez".
    It's ok for Jon Stewart to say to say n a z i and j e w too, but not here. That's some great logical moderating.
    “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
  6. #326  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    It's ok for Jon Stewart to say to say n a z i and j e w too, but not here. That's some great logical moderating.
    Sorry to interrupt this thread, but are those words really forbidden here?
  7. #327  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    It's in reference to them wearing tea bags (and I think it is used as it rolls of the tongue (no pun intended) a bit easier than tea partiers):


    Your post, though incorrect in it's definition, contained inappropriate content for this forum and was edited for that reason. So far, our society has deemed the term tea baggers appropriate enough for Jon Stewart and several news pundits to use without bleeping, probably because very few people know about the mean ing you are referring to other than mostly adolescent-minded misogynists who giggle at the phrase "dirty sanchez".
    So if we were on the topic of say... Gay marriage, and I were to say something about "those teabagging gay guys", "carpet munchers" etc.(just an example, not insulting anyone) that would be ok and not violate TOS? I guess Dirty Sanchez is ok as well since you said it? How about everything from the Jon Stewart show?

    I mean, I don't know what was said because of the edit. Was it that bad? You can say that you don't know what "teabagging" refers to if you want, but come on? Can you please pm me to say what was said, so that I don't make the same mistake?

    These are just questions that I'm asking so please, there is no need to warn me. I'm just curious to see whats appropriate in the forum......
    Phones in Family pre> pre> pre> Centro> Rant
  8. #328  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Dude, you just crack me up! You just wait for someone to hand you a line, and then you zing the funniest replies!

    Once again, you have made my day. Keep that wit sharp. I appreciate it!
    Ummmmm i made a funny, really,
  9. #329  
    Quote Originally Posted by sir_mycroft View Post
    Except the cost of the proposed bill woefully misrepresents the actually cost, by closer to 100% of that stated.
    Prove it.
    It is bad policy because those numbers are incomplete and inacurate
    Prove it.
    But it also bad policy because it ignores the white elephant in the room, which is the already existing unfunded liabilty of the other social programs currently in existance, Medicade, medicare and Social Security, that will be over 100 trillion dollars in the next few decades.
    So they shouldn't enact this bill because other systems are broken? We'd never get anything done ever.
    This bill, which is bigger that medicare ever was, even in the light most favorable to your politics will never significantly reduce that figure, and the reality is it will simply pile on.
    Prove it against what the CBO says.
    But Governmentr has never been run efficiently. Ever. It has no incentive to be run efficiently and is actually incentivized to run inefficiently.
    You have to understand how foolish a statement like that is. I mean you do actually know that, right?
    It may not be the paragon, but it does not have to be to bemore efficient than a system that is, by design, inefficient.
    I don't even understand what that means.
    This is where you are confusing your belief system, or even that of the majority if it shared it with you, with being the only correct one.
    It's the position of reality, sometheing the waxing philosophical libertarians have trouble with.
    Simply ignoring other opposing views, or even worse, pretending they do not exist, does not make it so.
    There's a difference between believing they do not exist and they do not matter. Libertarians (sorry guys) don't matter.
    For the same reason, even though the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the constitution for decades (not centuries) after threats to their independence proposed by the crisis president of the time FDR, does not mean we should blindly continue off the cliff.
    That's absurd. The Supreme Court has been very aggressive ever since Marshall. That's hundreds of years. Libertarians would call Marshall an "activist" court and he took over 211 years ago.
    The court can reverse course on its Statist agenda and prevent a slide towards totalitarianism right now, in its peding ruling in Chicago v. McDonald by reafirming the often ignored Priveledges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    This is why people ignore libertarians. They pretend that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are islands and nothing came after so they don't bother to learn about case law after that has as much standing as the Constitution. So they whip the less informed and bemoan the fact that no one understands the Constitution and quote the 10th and 14th amendments, all the while completely ignorant to the court cases that have already settled the law they complain about.
    So where does wanting the Supreme's to return to a more literal (not strict) interpretation of the Constitution get us?
    Um, nowhere nearer to a Constitutional law book to educate ourselves?
    Closer to the orignal founding fathers intent of what a free society is, and one we have drifted from in the last few decades, precicely because many, like yourself apparantly, do not care about your own rights.
    Of course. Not only do libertarians have exclusive rights to the intent of the founding fathers, but no one else cares about their rights.
    Fortunately, we do not live in a democracy, but a representitive democracy that alows for respect of minority rights and opinions. Becuase even though many do not care about their own rights, there are still those that do, and the rest of society, however much they might want to, are not permitted to stip them of those rights and opinions.
    You wake up to the sound of an alarm that was required to meet a government specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you. You climb out of bed and jump in the shower, using water that is required to meet a government specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you. You get in your car, using a vehicle that is required to meet a government specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you, on roads that are required to meet a government specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you, using gas that is subsidized by the government. You get to your job, which you got via your state education at both primary school and college via government subsidies. You eat lunch, the contents of which is required to meet a government specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you. You use a computer or phone to read the internet, both of which are required to meet a government specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you. You drive home from work, going to a grocery store in which every single item has to meet a governmental specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you. You go home, using appliances, power, more water, lights, televisions, consoles, and toilets, surrounded by things that are required to meet a government specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you.

    And then, settled in your home for the evening, you fire up the old intertubez and shoot off a missive complaining about government interference in your life because of the 10th and/or 14th amendment and demand a conversation about natural rights.

    No thanks.


    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    ITYM 'cannot be rationally countered'.
    Grammar correction is such a tacky sport, don't you think?
    That is not a rational argument against it. "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
    Quotes are not a rational defense of anything. But I like em too.

    Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. -Thomas Jefferson
    It seems that's why the original design of the US government was not a democracy. Your straw man is showing.
    I wasn't talking about voting. I was talking about all of government, including all three branches. That *was* how the original design was intended. Your bias is showing.
    Apparently it gets you mischaracterized and insulted.
    And apparently feelings are hurt. You didn't strike me as the one that was going to feel genuine insult and hurt, but I apologize all the same.
    But is the answer static? Seems you take a luddite strict constructionist view yourself.
    Libertarians will play games with you all day if you let them. They can't talk case law because they're ignorant of our laws and/or they're too lazy to spend time learning about American government and law, so they stick to the 10th and 14th amendments because they're simple. And it's a good fit.

    It just gets old being told you don't understand original intent or natural law or the 10th or the 14th or liberty or Ayn. None of those things are an island and all are intertwined with other 'rights', but a libertarian will lose his religion if he admits as much, so around and around you go.

    Am I wrong?

    Far from advocating a "minimal state", we find it unquestionable that in an advanced society government ought to use its power of raising funds by taxation to provide a number of services which for various reasons cannot be provided or cannot be provided adequately by the market. -Hayek

    Yea. That Hayek.
    Last edited by biggyfred; 03/21/2010 at 07:35 AM.
  10. #330  
    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    Prove it.

    Prove it.

    So they shouldn't enact this bill because other systems are broken? We'd never get anything done ever.

    Prove it against what the CBO says.

    You have to understand how foolish a statement like that is. I mean you do actually know that, right?

    I don't even understand what that means.

    It's the position of reality, sometheing the waxing philosophical libertarians have trouble with.

    There's a difference between believing they do not exist and they do not matter. Libertarians (sorry guys) don't matter.

    That's absurd. The Supreme Court has been very aggressive ever since Marshall. That's hundreds of years. Libertarians would call Marshall an "activist" court and he took over 211 years ago.

    This is why people ignore libertarians. They pretend that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are islands and nothing came after so they don't bother to learn about case law after that has as much standing as the Constitution. So they whip the less informed and bemoan the fact that no one understands the Constitution and quote the 10th and 14th amendments, all the while completely ignorant to the court cases that have already settled the law they complain about.

    Um, nowhere nearer to a Constitutional law book to educate ourselves?

    Of course. Not only do libertarians have exclusive rights to the intent of the founding fathers, but no one else cares about their rights.

    You wake up to the sound of an alarm that was required to meet a government specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you. You climb out of bed and jump in the shower, using water that is required to meet a government specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you. You get in your car, using a vehicle that is required to meet a government specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you, on roads that are required to meet a government specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you, using gas that is subsidized by the government. You get to your job, which you got via your state education at both primary school and college via government subsidies. You eat lunch, the contents of which is required to meet a government specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you. You use a computer or phone to read the internet, both of which are required to meet a government specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you. You drive home from work, going to a grocery store in which every single item has to meet a governmental specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you. You go home, using appliances, power, more water, lights, televisions, consoles, and toilets, surrounded by things that are required to meet a government specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you.

    And then, settled in your home for the evening, you fire up the old intertubez and shoot off a missive complaining about government interference in your life because of the 10th and/or 14th amendment and demand a conversation about natural rights.

    No thanks.



    Grammar correction is such a tacky sport, don't you think?

    Quotes are not a rational defense of anything. But I like em too.

    Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. -Thomas Jefferson

    I wasn't talking about voting. I was talking about all of government, including all three branches. That *was* how the original design was intended. Your bias is showing.

    And apparently feelings are hurt. You didn't strike me as the one that was going to feel genuine insult and hurt, but I apologize all the same.

    Libertarians will play games with you all day if you let them. They can't talk case law because they're ignorant of our laws and/or they're too lazy to spend time learning about American government and law, so they stick to the 10th and 14th amendments because they're simple. And it's a good fit.

    It just gets old being told you don't understand original intent or natural law or the 10th or the 14th or liberty or Ayn. None of those things are an island and all are intertwined with other 'rights', but a libertarian will lose his religion if he admits as much, so around and around you go.

    Am I wrong?

    Far from advocating a "minimal state", we find it unquestionable that in an advanced society government ought to use its power of raising funds by taxation to provide a number of services which for various reasons cannot be provided or cannot be provided adequately by the market. -Hayek

    Yea. That Hayek.
    badddda bing badddaa booommmmm
  11.    #331  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    OK, whoever demanded all that rebuking, renouncing, etc. I forgot who asked. But, to use your logic, every liberal on this thread should step up and do it. Let me hear that and stop using that "I don't hear the conservatives ever denounce those people" comment to derail the debate. Cowboy up people!

    Now, for my solution. Sorry but I fell asleep last night while catching up on email I should have been working on yesterday while I was engaged in this thread, so I am just now getting back to this. Be respectful and read the whole thing before you start flaming. That way you will see those solutions you don't think I have...

    Also, remember that i'm a hard working dad, and I don't have a staff of researchers. So, you will have to cut me some slack if I'm a little off on my stats or ideas. Consider this a straw man that you could use as a starting point.

    Solutions:

    First, let's all acknowledge that we aren't actually denying healthcare to people today. They may have limited choices, but they can show up in an emergency room ad get treated. Also, I read the study someone posted. It said several interesting things. 20% of uninsured were without insurance for 3 months or less (50% for less than 1 year). That means generally they are between jobs. Let's provide some assistance through unemployment benefits (I'll discuss funding later in the post). So, let's take 20% of the "30 million" out for now. 11% are making more than 500% of the defined poverty level and it says they should be able to afford insurance. 63% are below age 35, and 45% don't have children (i.e. and the report presumes they opt for no insurance.)

    To be generous, lets add the 20% to the 11%, and the 18% that are below age 18 (they don't qualify for existing programs, or perhaps they are starving artists?)

    Assuming those stats don't overlap (because I don't have time to dig further), that means almost 50% of the "30 million" don't need assistance, can get it through something simple like unemployment ins,etc. and don't qualify for anything that would fall in to the category of "poor that need our help...)

    Now we are down to 15 million people. So, if this costs $1trillion over 10 years, we are spending $67,000 per person for the 15 million that we *must* help. And remember, they ARE getting help today, although we can all agree that emergency room visits don't qualify as "quality" or sufficient.

    Just grant that it means we are already spending something on them - and emergency room treatment costs many times standard care, so if that money was redirected to standard coverage, the hospital costs would go down... And that means we are not denying them care, it just isn't sufficient care.

    So, the average COBRA cost per person (which is generally the most expensive insurance on the planet - at least it was when I was between jobs) is $388/month/person. So grant me that we can save 10% below COBRA, and another 10% for reforms in lawsuit abuse reform (I think OMB estimated that would be more, around 25% savings because it causes the current practice of extra "defensive" treatments to cover the butts of doctors and hospitals). Again, some wonk will chime in and argue those numbers, but give me a break for now. That means we can "cut" the COBRA estimate cost by 20%, which puts it at $310/month/person. That $1trillion over ten years now becomes 17 years of COBRA for every one of those 15 million we must help.

    There is the first solution... take the TARP repayments and fund insurance for 15 million people for 20 years. Right now congress is planning to re-spend that money elsewhere... Not one single new govt job, department, tax, or cost. Given the time value of money, let's pretend I can earn interest and get that to cover 20 years - or because I should be able to get a volume discount even from those evil insurance companies... Don't want to use TARP? Use the $Trillion being proposed now, and I've shown you how to provide coverage for double the time period without creating more govt departments.

    And by the way, I haven't subtracted non-citizens yet based on how I understand the data in the posted govt report (interesting that 21% of the uninsured are "non-citizens", but that is for another thread...)

    What if we do nothing? Well, remember that uninsured still get treated. It either gets written off, govt funded, or if the person isn't poor enough, they get a bill. I have several friends that didn't have insurance and had major surgery. They had to cowboy up and make payments to the hospital until it was paid. Tough, but they made it work because they were obligated by not being poor enough. I have to respect that.

    That's important because of this: There are many hospitals that receive huge govt subsidies and they are legally required to treat poor and uninsured. I live in a top-10 city (by metro population). So that means I could look up budgets and see what they are spending on that every year. One of the largest such hospitals in the country spends about $34million per year on such services, most of which is currently funded by current programs. Lets remember that if they provided standard care instead of emergency care, their costs would go down. But just to be conservative, lets assume they save nothing on their current costs, and assume that they have a 25% increase in the subsidized services to cover those 15 million people to provide something better than just emergency care..

    Let's assume that there are 100 such hospitals in every state (fewer in Wyoming off set more in New York - please cut me some slack here). Lets be conservative and assume such hospitals in Wyoming have costs as high as the one's in large cities (so I can stick with averages...). That's $8.5m/year for 5000 hospitals. That's $42Billion/year. That $trillion coming back from TARP will cover 24 years of costs to treat that 15 million people. I'll bet we could get a volume discount and get that up to 25 years.

    Now after the first 10 years, OMB says it will cost another trillion or so to continue. Let's assume they can accurately predict out 20 years. That means that I can use money that congress already borrowed to fund 20 to 25 years - by congressional terms that is free... Or we can borrow another $2trillion and hope we can reduce costs to keep that to maybe $1.5trillion for 20 years... That's another solution for those scoring at home (as well as those that are alone). Google Stewart Scott for that reference...

    So, option A, take the TARP repayments and buy 20-year policies for everyone. Option B, send the checks to the currently subsidized hospitals and cover the next 25 years through them. Use the interest saved on not increasing the national debt to fund years 41 and beyond. I guarantee that the interest on $2trillion over those 40 years will be enough.

    Then, use our time and effort to create competition across state lines, reform lawsuit abuse, and maybe subsidize research into ways to reduce healthcare cost. Any costs for these things are funded out of the money not spent on the buildings needed to house the govt employees to be hired to administer the current plan...

    And in the process, I they haven't started taxing my health "benefits" (which is in the plan) and we haven't created another major government organization.

    Not bad for a couple of hours with a calculator rather than thousands of congressional aides and unlimited research resources...

    Now, would I turn people away at hospitals? No, and we don't do that now. Non-emergencies might get sent to a different hospital, but since they have shiny new 20-year policies, they will be going to doctors much more often...

    If they fall into that 15 million that can afford insurance, but don't have it (remember them?). They get a bill after they get treatment. If they can't pay, it goes to collection and/or gets written off. Every medical bill today has a percent in it to cover write-offs, just like bank loans, credit cards, etc. Seems to be workable.

    So, I think I've provided a method for funding with no additional spending, no new taxes or denied treatment, and no new giant govt department. Over that 20 years, I'm sure we can set enough aside to fund the next 20, and maybe drive the cost down between now and then, like it has come down for telecommunications...

    Don't want to use TARP? Use the first Trillion of the current plan, but use it my way. Or, use the Trillion we save by ending a few wars. Or use the first Trillion we save by eliminating wasteful spending or corruption. Any way you slice it, I gave you solutions that will cover at LEAST twice the time period for less than the first 10-year projection, and do so without creating new govt bloat.

    Of course, if you want to give me a few hundred staffers, access to OMB, and a few years to research it - I'll bet I can come up with better ideas. I could be wrong, of course.

    But for now, I'll sit back and wait for the flaming to commence...

    Let me make this very simple, and also respond to your request for detailed information about my personal qualifications. I'll make you a deal. I will send you under private message my CV if you will agree to address those qualifications without giving away any specifics about myself. Not surprisingly, I'd just as soon not have people rummaging around my private life/work. But I will insist that you honestly discuss whether or not you think I'm qualified to talk about the costs of healthcare. You seem trustworthy enough to take that step, and just possibly it might shut some people up. Deal?

    Second. We are in fact denying healthcare to people today. What we are not denying is access to emergency care. We are not providing primary care, preventive services, or management of non-emergent primary care illnesses. We are not providing any case management for uninsured people that can help their health status, or save costs. Those are all things that people that have their own doctor take for granted. This underlies your assumptions about costs, and I disagree with your basic assumption, which you stated twice. We DO deny care to the uninsured.

    Third, your "solution" does nothing different. You actually are saying that the 15 million who refuse to buy insurance should be treated by private hospitals and doctors who are then going to try and collect cash from them for payment. What makes you think that is anything different from what happens now, that requires hospitals to write off millions of dollars in services. And you actually said that these write-offs can be built into additional unreasonable charges to make up for it. Do you really not realize that that is one of the major causes of the upward spiral of health care costs? And your "solution" does nothing for the problem. As far as TARP, or macroeconomics of health care, it's much less important to me where the money comes from. i claim no knowledge of whether or not spending TARP money makes sense for funding health care. Likewise, I would suspect that you probably don't know either, since there are certainly alternative uses of the funds that might impact on health care as well.

    My particular favorite would be very simple. Offer Medicare to everyone who wants it, with a means related scale. As is finally being implemented, Warren Buffett probably should be paying for Medicare. If anyone wants additional, fancier boutique coverage, they can buy it, just like Medicare supplements are available right now.

    I am not a spreadsheet person. You can model whatever you want with spreadsheets. It's the underlying assumptions that determine whether or not the spreadsheet could be used successfully, or to wipe your rear end. I would suggest that neither one of us know enough about long-term health cares costs to be precise enough to know exactly what outcomes would be. That simply mirrors the state of affairs whenever legislation is passed. One would have thought that tax cuts would improve the economy. They don't, and they never have. We will never know the unintended consquences of legislation. That doesn't mean we don't do the best we can to estimate and then move forward. I hope that happens.
  12. #332  
    BIGGY??

    marshall and 211 years? Can you explain the math in that?

    maybe it's been recalculated based on daylight savings or adjuted for inflation?

    biggy, please explain that...
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 03/21/2010 at 01:20 PM.
  13. #333  
    I have to make this comment about COBRA being expensive. People often say that. Other than a 3% management fee, the amount you pay for COBRA benefits is the same premium that your employer was being charged on their bill from the insurance company. So, for example, if when you left or got fired from a job and you accepted COBRA benefits and you received a bill for $1236 for family coverage, then your employer was being billed $1200 for you on their bill from the insurance company when you were employed. The extra $36 would represent the 3% fee that the government allows. The reason people think COBRA is expensive is because your employer was likely paying, or subsidising, a portion of your premium. So, maybe you were paying $700 a month for family coverage and now it looks like COBRA raised your premium by $500 when you left. Anyway....just a little pet peeve of mine when I hear people say that COBRA is expensive.

    Also....these days.....if you were involuntarily terminated from employment, the taxpayers pick up 65% of your COBRA premium. I say "taxpayers" because some people don't make the connection between government and taxpayers. In some cases, you actually pay less for COBRA then when you were paying for health benefits while employed. Kind of crazy, huh?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  14. #334  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I have to make this comment about COBRA being expensive. People often say that. Other than a 3% management fee, the amount you pay for COBRA benefits is the same premium that your employer was being charged on their bill from the insurance company. So, for example, if when you left or got fired from a job and you accepted COBRA benefits and you received a bill for $1236 for family coverage, then your employer was being billed $1200 for you on their bill from the insurance company when you were employed. The extra $36 would represent the 3% fee that the government allows. The reason people think COBRA is expensive is because your employer was likely paying, or subsidising, a portion of your premium. So, maybe you were paying $700 a month for family coverage and now it looks like COBRA raised your premium by $500 when you left. Anyway....just a little pet peeve of mine when I hear people say that COBRA is expensive.

    Also....these days.....if you were involuntarily terminated from employment, the taxpayers pick up 65% of your COBRA premium. I say "taxpayers" because some people don't make the connection between government and taxpayers. In some cases, you actually pay less for COBRA then when you were paying for health benefits while employed. Kind of crazy, huh?
    I can see your point. Unaffordable would probably have been a better choice of words than "expensive" for exactly the reason you stated. Most people are only paying 1/2 the cost of their insurance. When income goes to zero and the cost of healthcare doubles, that feels expensive.

    That was especially true when I worked for a company small enough that they were paying a LOT for insuring the few employees they had in the USA. My family COBRA coverage for sub-par coverage was MUCH more than $1,200 per month. Heck, that's more than my house payment. So I had to go with a private policy that had really high deductables to keep the cost down enough that we could eat and have insurance. Of course, the biggest reason to keep insurance when unemployed is to prevent the "pre-existing conditions" issue from making us un-insure-able with my next employer.

    So, as well-intentioned as COBRA is, I've never found it to be a cost-effective bridge between jobs.

    Also, I need to look in to your statement that the taxpayers fund 65% of COBRA payments for unemployed. That would be nice, since I expect to be out of a job in the next few months. Note to liberals - the best way to reduce the number of uninsured is to increase the number of people with jobs... and creating govt growth takes money out of the economy that could be used by industry to hire, expand, etc.
  15. #335  
    Here is an interesting article on how the CBO works. It seems to carry some credibility because it is written by a former Deputy Director of the CBO.

    Understanding CBO Health Cost Estimates | The Heritage Foundation

    Here is another interesting story on the amount of Medicare Fraud that is estimated to occur with just that one existing program...
    Medicare Fraud: A $60 Billion Crime - 60 Minutes - CBS News

    Multiply that by every entitlement program, and you have massive amounts of tax dollars bleeding out of the system.
  16. #336  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Also, I need to look in to your statement that the taxpayers fund 65% of COBRA payments for unemployed. That would be nice, since I expect to be out of a job in the next few months. Note to liberals - the best way to reduce the number of uninsured is to increase the number of people with jobs... and creating govt growth takes money out of the economy that could be used by industry to hire, expand, etc.
    Well....here is the link to the Department of Labor website where you can get some info: U.S. Department of Labor -- DOL Information Related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 On this page you'll see a link to the COBRA Assistance Program. Click on that for details. This will discuss the 65% subsidy for those on COBRA....but remember....only for involuntary terminations. If you just quit, you won't get the taxpayer subsidy. This was supposed to end 12/31/09 but has been extended twice. My bet, it will become permanent. The reason I feel this way is once you start an entitlement program, you basically can't take it away. The most recent extension of this was under the Temporary Extension Act of 2010: COBRA Continuation Coverage Assistance Under The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  17. #337  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    one mans meal is another mans trash. your interpretation of something is not necessarily everyones. If all believed as you do, then this conversation would not be happening.
    The flaw in your reasoning is that KAM is citing history. It is not his definition of rights that he's advocating. It is the basis of the US form of government.
    ‎"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...
  18. #338  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    yes i knew that,, but im canadian, we dont have natural born rights lol.. im also an atheist, and extremely pragmatic.
    How can you be an atheist if the majority of people declare that there is a God?
    ‎"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. #339  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    How can you be an atheist if the majority of people declare that there is a God?
    a what?!?
  20. #340  
    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    This is why people ignore libertarians. They pretend that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are islands and nothing came after so they don't bother to learn about case law after that has as much standing as the Constitution.
    I think this only applies to the faux libertarians that seem all the rage lately. Case law certainly does matter from the standpoint of precedent, but one can never assume that precedent cannot be overturned.
    So they whip the less informed and bemoan the fact that no one understands the Constitution and quote the 10th and 14th amendments, all the while completely ignorant to the court cases that have already settled the law they complain about.
    So, you think that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not islands, and yet case law is inviolate and infallible?
    You wake up to the sound of an alarm that was required to meet a government specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you.
    That doesn't sound like a long-term business model.
    Grammar correction is such a tacky sport, don't you think?
    I wasn't correcting your grammar. My point was that if you use majority opinion to determine what is real, God is a matter of fact, and I'm going to Hell.
    Quotes are not a rational defense of anything.
    The quote itself is not. The meaning behind it certainly addresses your point.
    But I like em too.

    Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. -Thomas Jefferson
    That's exactly why the amendment process is there. Shame that all libertarians don't fit into your little box that you'd like to make out for them.
    I wasn't talking about voting.
    Opinion polls then?
    I was talking about all of government, including all three branches.
    No, in the section I quoted before I made that statement, you were talking about 'They' referencing 'Your fellow citizens and the society that you live in'. If you meant government there, I'd have assumed you'd have said government rather than 'fellow citizens and the society that you live in'.
    That *was* how the original design was intended. Your bias is showing.
    I think you're ascribing to me a bias that I don't hold.
    And apparently feelings are hurt.
    Not particularly.
    You didn't strike me as the one that was going to feel genuine insult and hurt, but I apologize all the same.
    I'm not insulted (but it seems you may take offense to the finer grammatical point). I think you were mischaracterizing and insulting both KAM and the libertarian viewpoint (as if there were a singular such thing).
    Libertarians will play games with you all day if you let them.
    So will most people with an agenda to advance. I think the same applies to most of the 'liberals' and 'conservatives' here as well.
    They can't talk case law because they're ignorant of our laws and/or they're too lazy to spend time learning about American government and law, so they stick to the 10th and 14th amendments because they're simple. And it's a good fit.
    While I admit I'm certainly not an expert on case law, I would never generally ignore it.
    It just gets old being told you don't understand original intent or natural law or the 10th or the 14th or liberty or Ayn.
    Which one us has the bias that's showing? I've never read any of Rand's stuff. I'm also curious which sort of libertarians are beating the 14th amendment at people. Pro or con? Personally, I've not much problem with incorporation.
    None of those things are an island and all are intertwined with other 'rights', but a libertarian will lose his religion if he admits as much, so around and around you go.

    Am I wrong?
    Certainly about me, but I wouldn't dream of making the claim for anyone else. That wouldn't be very libertarian of me.
    Far from advocating a "minimal state", we find it unquestionable that in an advanced society government ought to use its power of raising funds by taxation to provide a number of services which for various reasons cannot be provided or cannot be provided adequately by the market. -Hayek

    Yea. That Hayek.
    What movie did Selma say that in?
    ‎"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...

Posting Permissions