With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

Neomalthusian · Jan 5, 2012

Catawba said:
I have no interest in a plan that does not address affordability.

Do you have interest in the fact that one of our entitlements is on track to bankrupt us? Because that's what my original point was.

Once again you are wrong, Medicare is run at less overhead than private insurance.

I never said it was overhead that makes Medicare a fiscal disaster.

You are welcome to provide evidence to refute it if you wish.

Evidence to refute your arbitrary conjecture?

You are wrong again, I am afraid. The majority of Americans have clearly expressed through 19 different polls this year that they support increasing taxes on the wealthy to help reduce the deficit.

Good god you are hard of understanding anything I'm saying. Who cares what polls say people want? No one will vote to eliminate their own government bennies, and raising tax rates (even though the majority wants to) is not a debt fix either.

As far as your inflation issue, we are at historic lows.

So you disregard the risk of inflation at this point in our history?

Catawba · Jan 5, 2012

Neomalthusian said:
Do you have interest in the fact that one of our entitlements is on track to bankrupt us? Because that's what my original point was.

Your point is moot because the underlying problem, unaffordable health care cost is what is bankrupting the American people. Your plan does nothing to address that. Addressing affordability will require us to upgrade our health care system as every other industrial nation has done.

Good god you are hard of understanding anything I'm saying. Who cares what polls say people want?

The people are who will make the decision, that's what makes what they want important.

No one will vote to eliminate their own government bennies,

No one will vote to increase their hardship in meeting health care costs.

and raising tax rates (even though the majority wants to) is not a debt fix either.

Not alone, no one has ever claimed it would. The only time in the last 30 years that we significantly reduced the deficit was when both sides came together to both cut spending and increase taxes.

So you disregard the risk of inflation at this point in our history?

I don't disregard it, I keep it in proper perspective, which is currently at historic lows.

Ockham · Jan 5, 2012

Catawba said:
Or, they know that government managed M/M have less overhead and none of the profit that private insurance adds to the cost, added to the private insurance companies right to deny you coverage if they so choose.

They don't know that because it doesn't happen - historically it's never happened and it won't happen this time if it ever comes to pass.

Catawba · Jan 5, 2012

1Perry said:
If ANYONE tells you that there is a fund, they are lying to you.

The fact that SS recipients have never missed a payment says otherwise.

Catawba · Jan 5, 2012

Ockham said:
They don't know that because it doesn't happen - historically it's never happened and it won't happen this time if it ever comes to pass.

Thanks for your opinion! However:

"It is generally agreed that this industry adds 15 to 20 percent to the cost of its premiums to pay for its business overhead and profits, whereas the administrative costs of Medicare are less than 5 percent."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/opinion/medicare-and-private-health-insurance.html

Unattainable Health Coverage
Insurance discrimination based on pre-existing conditions makes adequate health insurance unavailable to millions of Americans.

"In 45 states across the country, insurance companies can discriminate against people based on their pre-existing conditions when they try to purchase health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual insurance market.4 Insurers can deny them coverage, charge higher premiums, and/or refuse to cover that particular medical condition.

A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults5 – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years.6

In another survey, one in 10 people with cancer said they could not obtain health coverage, and six percent said they lost their coverage, because of being diagnosed with the disease.7

It is still legal in nine states for insurers to reject applicants who are survivors of domestic violence, citing the history of domestic violence as a pre-existing condition.8

Even when offering coverage, insurers can exclude whole categories of illnesses related to a pre-existing condition. For example, someone with a pre-existing condition of hay fever could have any respiratory system disease – such as bronchitis or pneumonia – excluded from coverage."

Coverage Denied: How the Current Health Insurance System Leaves Millions Behind

Ockham · Jan 5, 2012

misterman said:
You're lucky to be healthy then. With individual policies, the way they make them cheap enough to afford is by simply excluding the sick. So while you might be able to get one, it's not an option for everyone. So stop being so self-centered - and remember that even you will get old and sick and if they could, your private policy would drop you like a rock as soon as you did.

Those who don't have health insurance and are sick still get treated... and don't pay anything. It's not being self-centered, it's telling the truth. Yes, there are times where someone has been chronically ill and has been denied coverage - it's not right, but again, they don't die in the street, they go to the emergency ro

misterman said:
So you simply dismiss the fact that millions have such troubles simply because you haven't?

I don't dismiss it - In fact I already said they do occur, but it's the exception. IF you've got facts that say it's the majority of the time, or the "rule" post it up, otherwise, skip the word twisting games and overzealous assumptions. It bores me.

misterman said:
That's naive and unwise and self-centered. Oh, and your mom's on Medicare - that's government, in case you didn't notice.it

Gee... Medicare is run by the Government? DUH! Questions were asked, I answered them by sharing how I deal with it - when you don't like the answers you feel the need to call me "self centered". Awww... pity party for misterman. And your self-righteous faux indignation is so much better? My belief is that people have to start being a little more determined and for the most part they do exactly that.

misterman said:
My child had a pre-existing condition and couldn't get ANY private policy, at any cost. The law finally required it, but the cost was $900 A MONTH. But hey, since it's not happening to you, it's not happening.

Selective read much?

Ockham said:
While I'm sure they occur, it's my opinion that those occurrences are not the rule, but the exception.

Glad you got insurance - and yes, it's not right that people are denied for pre-existing conditions and just because you had a hard time, doesn't mean everyone else has to suffer for your issues. Planning, investing not only in health insurance but even disability is a good thing. People do what they have to, to get by - including going to hospitals which treat conditions for much less money because they're funded by charities or the wealthy who want to give back. There are lots of options other than just private health insurance which you probably already know. No I haven't always been healthy, but I've done what I had to in order to get by, get better and stay healthy. It's not luck, it's work and it's planning.

Dittohead not! · Jan 5, 2012

Ockham said:
Those who don't have health insurance and are sick still get treated... and don't pay anything.

They get patched together in an emergency room and then skip out on the bill, leaving the rest of us to pay the tab. What a system, certainly one worthy of a great and wealth country like the USA.

Kal'Stang · Jan 5, 2012

Here's an idea. Instead of requireing health insurance companies to take on people with pre-existing conditions which will drive up costs of health insurance why not add a section to Medicare/Medicaid that deals with them specifically? People can buy into government health insurance. And yes I do mean "buy". Sorry, no free rides.

Dittohead not! · Jan 5, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
Here's an idea. Instead of requireing health insurance companies to take on people with pre-existing conditions which will drive up costs of health insurance why not add a section to Medicare/Medicaid that deals with them specifically? People can buy into government health insurance. And yes I do mean "buy". Sorry, no free rides.

Why not just let anyone who wants to buy into Medicare?

Why not allow employers to put their employees on Medicare?

I'll tell you why we don't: The insurance lobby would never allow it, that's why.

Karl · Jan 5, 2012

Catawba said:
Kal'Stang said:

Do you have anything more reliable than a partisan hack site?

Click to expand...

The quotes were from Bush himself.

Do you have anything more reliable than a partisan hack?

Ockham · Jan 5, 2012

Catawba said:
Thanks for your opinion! However:

"It is generally agreed that this industry adds 15 to 20 percent to the cost of its premiums to pay for its business overhead and profits, whereas the administrative costs of Medicare are less than 5 percent."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/opinion/medicare-and-private-health-insurance.html

Thanks for that irrelevant bit of information.

Catawba said:
Unattainable Health Coverage
Insurance discrimination based on pre-existing conditions makes adequate health insurance unavailable to millions of Americans.

"In 45 states across the country, insurance companies can discriminate against people based on their pre-existing conditions when they try to purchase health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual insurance market.4 Insurers can deny them coverage, charge higher premiums, and/or refuse to cover that particular medical condition.

I would assume Holder and the AG's are gearing up to sue then.

Catawba said:
A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults5 – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years.6

And yet more lawsuits... Holder and the AG's are going to be busy.

Catawba said:
In another survey, one in 10 people with cancer said they could not obtain health coverage, and six percent said they lost their coverage, because of being diagnosed with the disease.7

The exception and not the rule. Thanks for proving my insight correct.

misterman · Jan 5, 2012

1Perry said:
Any politician that tells you that there is a surplus in any program is lying to you.

Not really. There was a "surplus" then, in the sense that the government was taking in more in SS taxes than it was paying out. But it was an annual surplus, not a horde of cash like in a savings account.

misterman · Jan 5, 2012

Catawba said:
During his campaign, he said we had 2.6 trillion dollar surplus, which he intended to protect. At the conclusion of this term, he said it was all gone, it had been spent. Borrowing from the SS surplus for general fund use is indeed allowed, and along with it comes the requirement to pay it back.

Key word is "spent." Yes, the cash was spent, but it wasn't just looted from SS, it was borrowed, with interest. Yes, it will have to be paid back. But that's different from saying it won't be paid back.

misterman · Jan 5, 2012

1Perry said:
Then they were lying to you. The entry might have been there but the money wasn't. That isn't trying to excuse reckless spending but it's just noting that the money wasn't there.

The money was there. More cash came in from SS taxes than was spent each year. That's a surplus. The cash may not be in the bank, but it's still on the books.

Is your money in your bank? Nope. Most is loaned out. Yet you don't complain that your bank statement says you have all of it. Same principle.

misterman · Jan 5, 2012

1Perry said:
I'm not attempting to make a partisan point. I was clear to note that if "any" politician tells you that there is a fund, they are lying to you.

No, he's just not explaining it well enough, and you're making assumptions based on ignorance. That's not a lie.

misterman · Jan 5, 2012

Ockham said:
Those who don't have health insurance and are sick still get treated... and don't pay anything.

Stop right there.

No, they don't all get treated, or treated well. But the larger point is this - we simply can't keep up such a system. It's incredibly inefficient. It hikes up costs, even for those who do have insurance. It encourages dumping those who are high-risk. One way or the other, it had to change (and still needs to).

misterman · Jan 5, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
Here's an idea. Instead of requireing health insurance companies to take on people with pre-existing conditions which will drive up costs of health insurance why not add a section to Medicare/Medicaid that deals with them specifically? People can buy into government health insurance. And yes I do mean "buy". Sorry, no free rides.

The costs would exceed the income! They are excluded from insurance for a reason - they're expensive. A pool of payors who are also getting sick all the time is not going to succeed.

Karl · Jan 5, 2012

Ockham said:
The Governments track record of managing ANYTHING other than the military (and even that is suspect economically) is an almost total and abject failure. Their historical record is abysmal. [...]

Gov't accomplishments:

1. Hoover Dam (among others).

2. Created U.S. postal system (despite recent troubles, it has been quite an accomplishment for many decades).

3. Harnessed Mississippi and Ohio rivers for navigation.

4. Created atomic bomb.

5. Created interstate highway system.

6. Put a man on the moon.

7. Created internet.

8. Put remote control rovers on Mars.

And that's just off the top of my head. Now don't you feel foolish parroting that moronic right wing talking point?

misterman · Jan 5, 2012

Ockham said:
The Governments track record of managing ANYTHING other than the military (and even that is suspect economically) is an almost total and abject failure. Their historical record is abysmal. I trust myself more than the government .... I know... crazy huh?

Pure rubbish.

But, of course, it's not like the private sector is perfect. You ever actually deal with your insurance company lately? Ever have to deal with a hospitalization or file appeals?

Karl · Jan 5, 2012

misterman said:
The costs would exceed the income! [...]

I've found that most do not understand, nor care to understand, the concept of risk assessment and management (insurance). They instead selfishly concern themselves over those who may receive more in benefits than they pay, or vice versa.

Other than to say -- correctly -- that the most efficient insurance risk pool would be one that encompasses 313 million people, I'd save my breath

(we'll get there sooner or later)

Ockham · Jan 5, 2012

Dittohead not! said:
They get patched together in an emergency room and then skip out on the bill, leaving the rest of us to pay the tab. What a system, certainly one worthy of a great and wealth country like the USA.

It's not just that, in 2014 what will have to happen is insurance companies cannot deny coverage and cannot raise costs on coverage for pre-existing conditions even though the treatments for those conditions could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, for example, kidney dialysis. Therefore, the insurance coverage for everyone will go up or, health insurance coverage for those who are healthy or relatively healthy will go up in order to compensate. Nothing is actually being done about the costs ... yeah... remember the whole reason for health insurance reform... it was to make the system more efficient and REDUCE THE COST. Yeah, well... that's not gonna happen. In fact, health care coverage will eventually bankrupt this country.

The Video at the below link starts about healthcare at 1:25

Morning Joe blog - Rattner returns with charts: On Congress, Paris Hilton, jobs

Ockham · Jan 5, 2012

misterman said:
Pure rubbish.

Feel free to prove me wrong with all my "rubbish". :lamo

misterman · Jan 5, 2012

Ockham said:
Feel free to prove me wrong with all my "rubbish". :lamo

Already done on this thread. But it's not really a provable/disprovable point, just a bit of lame, unsupported, way overstated rightwing hyperbole. Like most rightwing hyperbole.

Dittohead not! · Jan 5, 2012

Ockham said:
It's not just that, in 2014 what will have to happen is insurance companies cannot deny coverage and cannot raise costs on coverage for pre-existing conditions even though the treatments for those conditions could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, for example, kidney dialysis. Therefore, the insurance coverage for everyone will go up or, health insurance coverage for those who are healthy or relatively healthy will go up in order to compensate. Nothing is actually being done about the costs ... yeah... remember the whole reason for health insurance reform... it was to make the system more efficient and REDUCE THE COST. Yeah, well... that's not gonna happen. In fact, health care coverage will eventually bankrupt this country.

The Video at the below link starts about healthcare at 1:25

Morning Joe blog - Rattner returns with charts: On Congress, Paris Hilton, jobs

Now, you have the cost control right. The so called "Obamacare" bill isn't going to make costs go down. The only way to control costs is to have a genuine universal heath care system such as exists in the rest of the advanced nations.

Catawba · Jan 5, 2012

misterman said:
Key word is "spent." Yes, the cash was spent, but it wasn't just looted from SS, it was borrowed, with interest. Yes, it will have to be paid back. But that's different from saying it won't be paid back.

It will only be paid back if we do not allow the GOP to privatize SS or reduce benefits.

With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

Neomalthusian

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

Kal'Stang

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

Karl

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

misterman

misterman

misterman

misterman

misterman

misterman

Karl

misterman

Karl

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

misterman

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist