| Author | Post |
|---|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 11:36 pm |
|
goldrush wrote: callmelou wrote: goldrush wrote: callmelou wrote: goldrush wrote: callmelou wrote: Let's figure it out together: nobody I know has complaints about Medicare...nobody is denied service...nobody is denied coverage at 65 for pre-existing conditions...it's rare that someone needs to complain. Anybody who has used private insurance, or who reads a newspaper is aware of the horror stories that the pvt sector r has made routine...their refusal to pay...their unwillingness to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions...the recent case of them stopping payment for cancer treatment because the 44 yo pt failed to disclose on her app that she had acne as a teen....This isn't about healthcare..it's about the right being scared to death by the Palin-type of fear mongerers they listen too and read...try thinking for yourself, people.
Does this represent the best thinking you can come up with? I'm sure you can do better than this specious logic. Try again.
Ummm....well, cranky one, you're not disputing my comments , you're just doing a Repubbie type of response------ soooooo.
Oh yea? There's nothing to dispute. Your conclusion does not follow from the premise. Re-read you post and you'll see it's illogical. Sorry..just because you think something is illogical because it differs from your view point doesn't make it so.
You seem to be definition-challenged. It's not a question of view point. Your "Let's figure it out together . . . " is unreasoned and a non sequitur. Come on, lou. Give it up. Your in over your head.
Ahttp://WWW..the word 'illogical' is determined by definition...and you get to interpret that definition....sorry...I haven't decided to accept your interpretation, Robin...why don't you try to stick to the subject rather than bashing?
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 11:36 pm |
|
goldrush wrote: callmelou wrote: goldrush wrote: callmelou wrote: goldrush wrote: callmelou wrote: Let's figure it out together: nobody I know has complaints about Medicare...nobody is denied service...nobody is denied coverage at 65 for pre-existing conditions...it's rare that someone needs to complain. Anybody who has used private insurance, or who reads a newspaper is aware of the horror stories that the pvt sector r has made routine...their refusal to pay...their unwillingness to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions...the recent case of them stopping payment for cancer treatment because the 44 yo pt failed to disclose on her app that she had acne as a teen....This isn't about healthcare..it's about the right being scared to death by the Palin-type of fear mongerers they listen too and read...try thinking for yourself, people.
Does this represent the best thinking you can come up with? I'm sure you can do better than this specious logic. Try again.
Ummm....well, cranky one, you're not disputing my comments, you're just doing a Repubbie type of response------ soooooo.
Oh yea? There's nothing to dispute. Your conclusion does not follow from the premise. Re-read you post and you'll see it's illogical. Sorry..just because you think something is illogical because it differs from your view point doesn't make it so.
You seem to be definition-challenged. It's not a question of view point. Your "Let's figure it out together . . . " is unreasoned and a non sequitur. Come on, lou. Give it up. Your in over your head.
Ahttp://WWW..the word 'illogical' is determined by definition...and you get to interpret that definition....sorry...I haven't decided to accept your interpretation, Robin...why don't you try to stick to the subject rather than bashing?
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 11:31 pm |
|
callmelou wrote: goldrush wrote: callmelou wrote: goldrush wrote: callmelou wrote: Let's figure it out together: nobody I know has complaints about Medicare...nobody is denied service...nobody is denied coverage at 65 for pre-existing conditions...it's rare that someone needs to complain. Anybody who has used private insurance, or who reads a newspaper is aware of the horror stories that the pvt sector r has made routine...their refusal to pay...their unwillingness to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions...the recent case of them stopping payment for cancer treatment because the 44 yo pt failed to disclose on her app that she had acne as a teen....This isn't about healthcare..it's about the right being scared to death by the Palin-type of fear mongerers they listen too and read...try thinking for yourself, people.
Does this represent the best thinking you can come up with? I'm sure you can do better than this specious logic. Try again.
Ummm....well, cranky one, you're not disputing my comments, you're just doing a Repubbie type of response------ soooooo.
Oh yea? There's nothing to dispute. Your conclusion does not follow from the premise. Re-read you post and you'll see it's illogical. Sorry..just because you think something is illogical because it differs from your view point doesn't make it so.
You seem to be definition-challenged. It's not a question of view point. Your "Let's figure it out together . . . " is unreasoned and a non sequitur. Come on, lou. Give it up. Your in over your head.
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1805 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 10:19 pm |
|
Craig wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091025/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul
Its funny, the dems are going to shove the public option through and we will soon be a socialist country. But it will go down in history as Olympias bill since she is going to be remembered at the one that let the horse out of the barn...
It would appear Congress and the White House are living in a sound proof bubble. Nobody wants any part of this mess. They have a handfull of liberals sitting behind closed doors trying to overhaul 1/6 of our economy with no medical experience of any kind that will effect 310 Million American's.
Now, how they think they can pour that can of gasoline and light up Snowe as "the one" is beyond me. The bill that she voted for will have no resemblance to the one that comes through that door. George Soros told them in no uncertain terms, they cannot have a bill passed that does not include the heavy handed Government Run option in it because that is how they will keep their power. So all of a sudden, the public option is viable once more, everyone suddenly luvs it....what a bunch of morons who are deciding our future and our children's futures. For just a minute there and I admit it was brief, but I actually thought there might be some sound of WE THE PEOPLE filtering through that bubble but apparently it was plugged up by the radicals on the left.
This group is shamelessly brutalizing our democracy. 
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 10:14 pm |
|
goldrush wrote: callmelou wrote: goldrush wrote: callmelou wrote: Let's figure it out together: nobody I know has complaints about Medicare...nobody is denied service...nobody is denied coverage at 65 for pre-existing conditions...it's rare that someone needs to complain. Anybody who has used private insurance, or who reads a newspaper is aware of the horror stories that the pvt sector r has made routine...their refusal to pay...their unwillingness to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions...the recent case of them stopping payment for cancer treatment because the 44 yo pt failed to disclose on her app that she had acne as a teen....This isn't about healthcare..it's about the right being scared to death by the Palin-type of fear mongerers they listen too and read...try thinking for yourself, people.
Does this represent the best thinking you can come up with? I'm sure you can do better than this specious logic. Try again.
Ummm....well, cranky one, you're not disputing my comments, you're just doing a Repubbie type of response------ soooooo.
Oh yea? There's nothing to dispute. Your conclusion does not follow from the premise. Re-read you post and you'll see it's illogical. Sorry..just because you think something is illogical because it differs from your view point doesn't make it so.
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 08:29 pm |
|
callmelou wrote: goldrush wrote: callmelou wrote: Let's figure it out together: nobody I know has complaints about Medicare...nobody is denied service...nobody is denied coverage at 65 for pre-existing conditions...it's rare that someone needs to complain. Anybody who has used private insurance, or who reads a newspaper is aware of the horror stories that the pvt sector r has made routine...their refusal to pay...their unwillingness to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions...the recent case of them stopping payment for cancer treatment because the 44 yo pt failed to disclose on her app that she had acne as a teen....This isn't about healthcare..it's about the right being scared to death by the Palin-type of fear mongerers they listen too and read...try thinking for yourself, people.
Does this represent the best thinking you can come up with? I'm sure you can do better than this specious logic. Try again.
Ummm....well, cranky one, you're not disputing my comments, you're just doing a Repubbie type of response------ soooooo.
Oh yea? There's nothing to dispute. Your conclusion does not follow from the premise. Re-read you post and you'll see it's illogical.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3784 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 08:02 pm |
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091025/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul
Its funny, the dems are going to shove the public option through and we will soon be a socialist country. But it will go down in history as Olympias bill since she is going to be remembered at the one that let the horse out of the barn...
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1805 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 05:27 pm |
|
These are some current GOVERNMENT Run Health Care Overruns.......so does anyone really believe any of the numbers coming out of Washington as to how much it's going to cost, how it's going to be funded ....and the benefits are what again??? The numbers are staggering...
Program year predicted cost actual cost
Medicare 1965 $12 Billion $110 Billion
Medicare Hospital 1965 $9 Billion $67 Billion
Medicaid Hospital 1987 $1 Billion $17 Billion
Medicare Home 1988 $4 Billion $10 Billion
SCHIPS 1997 $5.4 Billion $6.8 Billion
Medicare Presc. Drug 2003 $49 Billion $41 Billion
Wall Street Journal Oct 09
Last edited on Sun Oct 25th, 2009 05:29 pm by Razenkn
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1805 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 03:32 pm |
|
callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote: Biggerthanabreadbox wrote: callmelou wrote:
Hate Hate Hate--a waste of tine.
Move your stubby ring ringer over one key.
a ring ringer? How about you move your stubby "finger" down one key?!
LLL!
So you think Marm has a "hate" key...so do I.
I think libbie-lusingit has a "glass house" key....
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 12:50 am |
|
BigSurprize wrote: Biggerthanabreadbox wrote: callmelou wrote:
Hate Hate Hate--a waste of tine.
Move your stubby ring ringer over one key.
a ring ringer? How about you move your stubby "finger" down one key?!
LLL!
So you think Marm has a "hate" key...so do I.
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 11:51 pm |
|
Biggerthanabreadbox wrote: callmelou wrote:
Hate Hate Hate--a waste of tine.
Move your stubby ring ringer over one key.
a ring ringer? How about you move your stubby "finger" down one key?!
LLL!
|
Biggerthanabreadbox
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 60 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 11:42 pm |
|
callmelou wrote:
Hate Hate Hate--a waste of tine.
Move your stubby ring ringer over one key.
a ring ringer? How about you move your stubby "finger" down one key?!
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 11:19 pm |
|
Hate Hate Hate--a waste of tine.
Move your stubby ring ringer over one key.
|
Schoolmarm
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 13th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 233 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 08:28 pm |
|
callmelou wrote: goldrush wrote: callmelou wrote: Let's figure it out together: nobody I know has complaints about Medicare...nobody is denied service...nobody is denied coverage at 65 for pre-existing conditions...it's rare that someone needs to complain. Anybody who has used private insurance, or who reads a newspaper is aware of the horror stories that the pvt sector r has made routine...their refusal to pay...their unwillingness to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions...the recent case of them stopping payment for cancer treatment because the 44 yo pt failed to disclose on her app that she had acne as a teen....This isn't about healthcare..it's about the right being scared to death by the Palin-type of fear mongerers they listen too and read...try thinking for yourself, people.
Does this represent the best thinking you can come up with? I'm sure you can do better than this specious logic. Try again.
Ummm....well, cranky one, you're not disputing my comments, you're just doing a Repubbie type of response------ soooooo.
Hate Hate Hate--a waste of time.Last edited on Sun Oct 25th, 2009 01:08 am by Schoolmarm
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:48 pm |
|
goldrush wrote: callmelou wrote: Let's figure it out together: nobody I know has complaints about Medicare...nobody is denied service...nobody is denied coverage at 65 for pre-existing conditions...it's rare that someone needs to complain. Anybody who has used private insurance, or who reads a newspaper is aware of the horror stories that the pvt sector r has made routine...their refusal to pay...their unwillingness to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions...the recent case of them stopping payment for cancer treatment because the 44 yo pt failed to disclose on her app that she had acne as a teen....This isn't about healthcare..it's about the right being scared to death by the Palin-type of fear mongerers they listen too and read...try thinking for yourself, people.
Does this represent the best thinking you can come up with? I'm sure you can do better than this specious logic. Try again.
Ummm....well, cranky one, you're not disputing my comments, you're just doing a Repubbie type of response------ soooooo.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4261 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 04:35 am |
|
What's In Your Wallet?
House Health Care Bill Exceeds $1 Trillion
Friday, October 23, 2009 5:25 PM
WASHINGTON – Healthcare legislation taking shape in the House carries a price tag of at least $1 trillion over a decade, significantly higher than the target President Barack Obama has set, congressional officials said Friday as they struggled to finish work on the measure for a vote early next month.
Democrats have touted an unreleased Congressional Budget Office estimate of $871 billion in recent days, a total that numerous officials acknowledge understates its true cost by $150 billion or more. That figure excludes several items designed to improve benefits for Medicare and Medicaid recipients and providers, as well as public health programs and more, they added.
The officials who disclosed the details did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them publicly.
Some moderate Democrats have expressed reluctance to support a bill as high as $1 trillion. Last month, Obama said in a nationally televised address before a joint session of Congress that he preferred a package with a price tag of around $900 billion.
Obama's speech provoked enough concern among House Democrats that senior presidential aides were called to a meeting in the Capitol to explain precisely what the president had in mind when he set the target.
The figure of $871 billion "is a coverage number. I think the White House has made that very clear. It is a number about coverage," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said recently when asked about the size of the measure.
There was no immediate response from the White House.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4261 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 02:13 am |
|
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 01:41 am |
|
callmelou wrote: Let's figure it out together: nobody I know has complaints about Medicare...nobody is denied service...nobody is denied coverage at 65 for pre-existing conditions...it's rare that someone needs to complain. Anybody who has used private insurance, or who reads a newspaper is aware of the horror stories that the pvt sector r has made routine...their refusal to pay...their unwillingness to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions...the recent case of them stopping payment for cancer treatment because the 44 yo pt failed to disclose on her app that she had acne as a teen....This isn't about healthcare..it's about the right being scared to death by the Palin-type of fear mongerers they listen too and read...try thinking for yourself, people.
Does this represent the best thinking you can come up with? I'm sure you can do better than this specious logic. Try again.
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 12:48 am |
|
| Let's figure it out together: nobody I know has complaints about Medicare...nobody is denied service...nobody is denied coverage at 65 for pre-existing conditions...it's rare that someone needs to complain. Anybody who has used private insurance, or who reads a newspaper is aware of the horror stories that the pvt sector r has made routine...their refusal to pay...their unwillingness to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions...the recent case of them stopping payment for cancer treatment because the 44 yo pt failed to disclose on her app that she had acne as a teen....This isn't about healthcare..it's about the right being scared to death by the Palin-type of fear mongerers they listen too and read...try thinking for yourself, people.
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23rd, 2009 11:32 pm |
|
CHOICE AND COMPETITION
MEAN WHAT YOU SAY AND DO WHAT YOU MEAN
Last edited on Fri Oct 23rd, 2009 11:34 pm by goldrush
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23rd, 2009 10:26 pm |
|
Pelosi calls an emergency meeting on push for ‘robust’ public option
By Jared Allen and Molly K. Hooper - 10/23/09 11:44 AM ET
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is scrambling to push back the notion she lacks the votes for a “robust” public option.
Pelosi (D-Calif.) called an emergency meeting of her caucus Friday morning to declare that she has not abandoned the push for including that provision in a healthcare bill.
The Speaker met late Thursday night with the Progressive Caucus, the bloc of Democrats most supportive of a robust public option, and assured them that it was still on the table, according to a member in attendance.
And according to attendees, Pelosi reiterated that pledge to the larger caucus at Friday's morning meeting.
The Hill reported Thursday night that a survey of Democrats shows Pelosi and her leadership team are a handful of votes short of the 218 they need to guarantee passage of a healthcare bill containing the public option favored by liberals. That public option would be tied to current Medicare rates for hospitals and "Medicare plus 5 percent” for doctors.
The results of the survey set off rumors that Pelosi was planning to admit defeat on a goal she has consistently guaranteed would be met.
At Friday’s caucus meeting, leaders took a roll call of those members in attendance — 196 of the 256 House Democrats — on a single question: Do you support a robust public option?
A member supportive of a robust public option said there was “overwhelming support” for a “Medicare plus 5 percent” public option among those members in attendance.
But this member also said that the votes of as many as 50 of the 60 absent members could still be up in the air.
If all Republicans vote no on the healthcare bill, Pelosi can lose no more than 38 votes from within her caucus on any eventual healthcare bill.
In speaking with reporters later, Pelosi had a difficult time admitting that her caucus was not prepared to accept a "robust public option" in the Democratic bill.
Despite the "congenial," "lively" and "friendly" caucus meeting Friday morning, Pelosi told reporters that "the answer is no -- no decision on that has been made."
Reporters peppered the speaker and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) with questions on the failure to twist enough arms in favor of a robust option at a press conference with Rep. Ron Klein (D-Fla.) on a provision to close the Medicare "donut hole."
Pelosi said unequivocally, however, that "at the end of the day we will have a public option in our legislation."
Clyburn explained that the leaders had been shopping four different versions of a government-run plan around to the Democratic caucus but have yet to determine which to include.
“We are still in the process of determining which public option suits the majority of our caucus,” Clyburn said.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4261 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23rd, 2009 04:05 am |
|
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 11:17 pm |
|
The cost of ObamaCare is causing a few Dems sticker shock. Yesterday, Reid attempted to move $247 billion in Medicare costs off the books but, it was defeated on a 47 to 53 procedural vote. Among the 53 nay votes, were a dozen Dems.
Reid’s gambit was to remove the $247 billion from the budget for ObamaCare by proposing standalone legislation superseding automatic cuts in Medicare payment to docs. Dems had included this fix as a part of “comprehensive” reform but that pushed total costs for ObamaCare to high. Well, 53 senators weren’t fooled by the phony budget math.
Hopefully, Dems worried about spending understand that the premise of ObamaCare rests on automatic future spending cuts like doc payments that will never happen in practice, among other budget gimmicks.
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 05:22 am |
|
Razenkn wrote: BigSurprize wrote: Razenkn wrote: callmelou wrote: Razenkn wrote: callmelou wrote: azsu wrote: you can't be serious, what a joke
cindisue_g wrote:
callmelou wrote: cindisue_g wrote: President Obama wants the government to run our health care and they can't even handle the H1N1 vaccine. Unlike the regular flu vaccine, the government is in charge of the H1N1 vaccine. The government is distributing this vaccine. Those waiting for the vaccine are saying it is a distribution problem by the government and that there is too much paperwork....production is done, why can't our government get this vaccine out to those that need it, especially children who are dying (2,300 adults and children have died in the last few months) from this flu. And the government thinks they can run our health care - God help us all!
You are wrong about this..the initial problem was one of manufacturing too little too late...the manufacture of vaccine is done by the pharm companies..not by the federal government.......the gov't cannot distribute what does not exist.
I know it is hard for you to admit, but it is our great government that is to blame for this debacle. As I said, they can't even get a vaccine out and they want to run health care - god help us all!!!
Helllllooo...you seem to have difficulty understanding the difference bewteen manufacturing and distribution. If something doesn't exist, how would you suggest it be distributed? It's just a lot easier to blame the WH for everything than to try to think..sorry if I disturbed your Fox News show.
Wasn't President Bush bashed for the very same thing during the Chicken Flu or Bird flu or whatever flu that was, remember how it was going to be a pandemic and of course it wasn't, it was just the liberal media outlet trying to add one more thing to the Bash Bush list. So, now that the real pandemic has hit, the H1N1 (SWINE) flu outbreak, where's the vaccine??? Why was it ok for the DEMS to be all up in arms over President Bush not getting it fast enough (in the end he did but they didn't use it) but we aren't allowed to call attention to the fact that Barack Hussein Obama hasn't done his job in getting it here. You say there is a difference between manufacturing and distribution??? Why wasn't that an excuse when you were screaming about President Bush not moving fast enough??? D...I...S....I....N....G....E...N....U.....O.....U.....S! Do you think????
Here is an example of the Government's expertise and competence....and they want to take over our health care system...yippee....
SWIFTWATER, Pa. – The federal government originally promised 120 million doses of swine flu vaccine by now. Only 13 million have come through.
There have been other bottlenecks, too: Factories that put the precious liquid into syringes have become backed up. And the government itself ran into a delay in developing the tests required to assess each batch before it is cleared for use.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.......
LOL, I knew you wouldn't be able to dispute the truth....don't you hate it when I post the facts that completely prove you wrong??? I'm sorry, I will try to go easier on you next time....Nighty night mamalubardo....
The bard needs to do some one-on-one tutoring with libbie-lou...cuz she hasn't mastered the "ignore them" part yet. LLL
The first ZZZZZZZZ was for your Ego, bigrants...this is for your Id...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1805 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 05:02 am |
|
BigSurprize wrote: Razenkn wrote: callmelou wrote: Razenkn wrote: callmelou wrote: azsu wrote: you can't be serious, what a joke
cindisue_g wrote:
callmelou wrote: cindisue_g wrote: President Obama wants the government to run our health care and they can't even handle the H1N1 vaccine. Unlike the regular flu vaccine, the government is in charge of the H1N1 vaccine. The government is distributing this vaccine. Those waiting for the vaccine are saying it is a distribution problem by the government and that there is too much paperwork....production is done, why can't our government get this vaccine out to those that need it, especially children who are dying (2,300 adults and children have died in the last few months) from this flu. And the government thinks they can run our health care - God help us all!
You are wrong about this..the initial problem was one of manufacturing too little too late...the manufacture of vaccine is done by the pharm companies..not by the federal government.......the gov't cannot distribute what does not exist.
I know it is hard for you to admit, but it is our great government that is to blame for this debacle. As I said, they can't even get a vaccine out and they want to run health care - god help us all!!!
Helllllooo...you seem to have difficulty understanding the difference bewteen manufacturing and distribution. If something doesn't exist, how would you suggest it be distributed? It's just a lot easier to blame the WH for everything than to try to think..sorry if I disturbed your Fox News show.
Wasn't President Bush bashed for the very same thing during the Chicken Flu or Bird flu or whatever flu that was, remember how it was going to be a pandemic and of course it wasn't, it was just the liberal media outlet trying to add one more thing to the Bash Bush list. So, now that the real pandemic has hit, the H1N1 (SWINE) flu outbreak, where's the vaccine??? Why was it ok for the DEMS to be all up in arms over President Bush not getting it fast enough (in the end he did but they didn't use it) but we aren't allowed to call attention to the fact that Barack Hussein Obama hasn't done his job in getting it here. You say there is a difference between manufacturing and distribution??? Why wasn't that an excuse when you were screaming about President Bush not moving fast enough??? D...I...S....I....N....G....E...N....U.....O.....U.....S! Do you think????
Here is an example of the Government's expertise and competence....and they want to take over our health care system...yippee....
SWIFTWATER, Pa. – The federal government originally promised 120 million doses of swine flu vaccine by now. Only 13 million have come through.
There have been other bottlenecks, too: Factories that put the precious liquid into syringes have become backed up. And the government itself ran into a delay in developing the tests required to assess each batch before it is cleared for use.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.......
LOL, I knew you wouldn't be able to dispute the truth....don't you hate it when I post the facts that completely prove you wrong??? I'm sorry, I will try to go easier on you next time....Nighty night mamalubardo....
The bard needs to do some one-on-one tutoring with libbie-lou...cuz she hasn't mastered the "ignore them" part yet. LLL
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 04:55 am |
|
Razenkn wrote: callmelou wrote: Razenkn wrote: callmelou wrote: azsu wrote: you can't be serious, what a joke
cindisue_g wrote:
callmelou wrote: cindisue_g wrote: President Obama wants the government to run our health care and they can't even handle the H1N1 vaccine. Unlike the regular flu vaccine, the government is in charge of the H1N1 vaccine. The government is distributing this vaccine. Those waiting for the vaccine are saying it is a distribution problem by the government and that there is too much paperwork....production is done, why can't our government get this vaccine out to those that need it, especially children who are dying (2,300 adults and children have died in the last few months) from this flu. And the government thinks they can run our health care - God help us all!
You are wrong about this..the initial problem was one of manufacturing too little too late...the manufacture of vaccine is done by the pharm companies..not by the federal government.......the gov't cannot distribute what does not exist.
I know it is hard for you to admit, but it is our great government that is to blame for this debacle. As I said, they can't even get a vaccine out and they want to run health care - god help us all!!!
Helllllooo...you seem to have difficulty understanding the difference bewteen manufacturing and distribution. If something doesn't exist, how would you suggest it be distributed? It's just a lot easier to blame the WH for everything than to try to think..sorry if I disturbed your Fox News show.
Wasn't President Bush bashed for the very same thing during the Chicken Flu or Bird flu or whatever flu that was, remember how it was going to be a pandemic and of course it wasn't, it was just the liberal media outlet trying to add one more thing to the Bash Bush list. So, now that the real pandemic has hit, the H1N1 (SWINE) flu outbreak, where's the vaccine??? Why was it ok for the DEMS to be all up in arms over President Bush not getting it fast enough (in the end he did but they didn't use it) but we aren't allowed to call attention to the fact that Barack Hussein Obama hasn't done his job in getting it here. You say there is a difference between manufacturing and distribution??? Why wasn't that an excuse when you were screaming about President Bush not moving fast enough??? D...I...S....I....N....G....E...N....U.....O.....U.....S! Do you think????
Here is an example of the Government's expertise and competence....and they want to take over our health care system...yippee....
SWIFTWATER, Pa. – The federal government originally promised 120 million doses of swine flu vaccine by now. Only 13 million have come through.
There have been other bottlenecks, too: Factories that put the precious liquid into syringes have become backed up. And the government itself ran into a delay in developing the tests required to assess each batch before it is cleared for use.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.......
LOL, I knew you wouldn't be able to dispute the truth....don't you hate it when I post the facts that completely prove you wrong??? I'm sorry, I will try to go easier on you next time....Nighty night mamalubardo....
The bard needs to do some one-on-one tutoring with libbie-lou...cuz she hasn't mastered the "ignore them" part yet. LLL
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1805 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 04:42 am |
|
callmelou wrote: Razenkn wrote: callmelou wrote: azsu wrote: you can't be serious, what a joke
cindisue_g wrote:
callmelou wrote: cindisue_g wrote: President Obama wants the government to run our health care and they can't even handle the H1N1 vaccine. Unlike the regular flu vaccine, the government is in charge of the H1N1 vaccine. The government is distributing this vaccine. Those waiting for the vaccine are saying it is a distribution problem by the government and that there is too much paperwork....production is done, why can't our government get this vaccine out to those that need it, especially children who are dying (2,300 adults and children have died in the last few months) from this flu. And the government thinks they can run our health care - God help us all!
You are wrong about this..the initial problem was one of manufacturing too little too late...the manufacture of vaccine is done by the pharm companies..not by the federal government.......the gov't cannot distribute what does not exist.
I know it is hard for you to admit, but it is our great government that is to blame for this debacle. As I said, they can't even get a vaccine out and they want to run health care - god help us all!!!
Helllllooo...you seem to have difficulty understanding the difference bewteen manufacturing and distribution. If something doesn't exist, how would you suggest it be distributed? It's just a lot easier to blame the WH for everything than to try to think..sorry if I disturbed your Fox News show.
Wasn't President Bush bashed for the very same thing during the Chicken Flu or Bird flu or whatever flu that was, remember how it was going to be a pandemic and of course it wasn't, it was just the liberal media outlet trying to add one more thing to the Bash Bush list. So, now that the real pandemic has hit, the H1N1 (SWINE) flu outbreak, where's the vaccine??? Why was it ok for the DEMS to be all up in arms over President Bush not getting it fast enough (in the end he did but they didn't use it) but we aren't allowed to call attention to the fact that Barack Hussein Obama hasn't done his job in getting it here. You say there is a difference between manufacturing and distribution??? Why wasn't that an excuse when you were screaming about President Bush not moving fast enough??? D...I...S....I....N....G....E...N....U.....O.....U.....S! Do you think????
Here is an example of the Government's expertise and competence....and they want to take over our health care system...yippee....
SWIFTWATER, Pa. – The federal government originally promised 120 million doses of swine flu vaccine by now. Only 13 million have come through.
There have been other bottlenecks, too: Factories that put the precious liquid into syringes have become backed up. And the government itself ran into a delay in developing the tests required to assess each batch before it is cleared for use.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.......
LOL, I knew you wouldn't be able to dispute the truth....don't you hate it when I post the facts that completely prove you wrong??? I'm sorry, I will try to go easier on you next time....Nighty night mamalubardo....
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 04:37 am |
|
Razenkn wrote: callmelou wrote: azsu wrote: you can't be serious, what a joke
cindisue_g wrote:
callmelou wrote: cindisue_g wrote: President Obama wants the government to run our health care and they can't even handle the H1N1 vaccine. Unlike the regular flu vaccine, the government is in charge of the H1N1 vaccine. The government is distributing this vaccine. Those waiting for the vaccine are saying it is a distribution problem by the government and that there is too much paperwork....production is done, why can't our government get this vaccine out to those that need it, especially children who are dying (2,300 adults and children have died in the last few months) from this flu. And the government thinks they can run our health care - God help us all!
You are wrong about this..the initial problem was one of manufacturing too little too late...the manufacture of vaccine is done by the pharm companies..not by the federal government.......the gov't cannot distribute what does not exist.
I know it is hard for you to admit, but it is our great government that is to blame for this debacle. As I said, they can't even get a vaccine out and they want to run health care - god help us all!!!
Helllllooo...you seem to have difficulty understanding the difference bewteen manufacturing and distribution. If something doesn't exist, how would you suggest it be distributed? It's just a lot easier to blame the WH for everything than to try to think..sorry if I disturbed your Fox News show.
Wasn't President Bush bashed for the very same thing during the Chicken Flu or Bird flu or whatever flu that was, remember how it was going to be a pandemic and of course it wasn't, it was just the liberal media outlet trying to add one more thing to the Bash Bush list. So, now that the real pandemic has hit, the H1N1 (SWINE) flu outbreak, where's the vaccine??? Why was it ok for the DEMS to be all up in arms over President Bush not getting it fast enough (in the end he did but they didn't use it) but we aren't allowed to call attention to the fact that Barack Hussein Obama hasn't done his job in getting it here. You say there is a difference between manufacturing and distribution??? Why wasn't that an excuse when you were screaming about President Bush not moving fast enough??? D...I...S....I....N....G....E...N....U.....O.....U.....S! Do you think????
Here is an example of the Government's expertise and competence....and they want to take over our health care system...yippee....
SWIFTWATER, Pa. – The federal government originally promised 120 million doses of swine flu vaccine by now. Only 13 million have come through.
There have been other bottlenecks, too: Factories that put the precious liquid into syringes have become backed up. And the government itself ran into a delay in developing the tests required to assess each batch before it is cleared for use.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.......
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1805 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 04:21 am |
|
callmelou wrote: azsu wrote: you can't be serious, what a joke
cindisue_g wrote:
callmelou wrote: cindisue_g wrote: President Obama wants the government to run our health care and they can't even handle the H1N1 vaccine. Unlike the regular flu vaccine, the government is in charge of the H1N1 vaccine. The government is distributing this vaccine. Those waiting for the vaccine are saying it is a distribution problem by the government and that there is too much paperwork....production is done, why can't our government get this vaccine out to those that need it, especially children who are dying (2,300 adults and children have died in the last few months) from this flu. And the government thinks they can run our health care - God help us all!
You are wrong about this..the initial problem was one of manufacturing too little too late...the manufacture of vaccine is done by the pharm companies..not by the federal government.......the gov't cannot distribute what does not exist.
I know it is hard for you to admit, but it is our great government that is to blame for this debacle. As I said, they can't even get a vaccine out and they want to run health care - god help us all!!!
Helllllooo...you seem to have difficulty understanding the difference bewteen manufacturing and distribution. If something doesn't exist, how would you suggest it be distributed? It's just a lot easier to blame the WH for everything than to try to think..sorry if I disturbed your Fox News show.
Wasn't President Bush bashed for the very same thing during the Chicken Flu or Bird flu or whatever flu that was, remember how it was going to be a pandemic and of course it wasn't, it was just the liberal media outlet trying to add one more thing to the Bash Bush list. So, now that the real pandemic has hit, the H1N1 (SWINE) flu outbreak, where's the vaccine??? Why was it ok for the DEMS to be all up in arms over President Bush not getting it fast enough (in the end he did but they didn't use it) but we aren't allowed to call attention to the fact that Barack Hussein Obama hasn't done his job in getting it here. You say there is a difference between manufacturing and distribution??? Why wasn't that an excuse when you were screaming about President Bush not moving fast enough??? D...I...S....I....N....G....E...N....U.....O.....U.....S! Do you think????
Here is an example of the Government's expertise and competence....and they want to take over our health care system...yippee....
SWIFTWATER, Pa. – The federal government originally promised 120 million doses of swine flu vaccine by now. Only 13 million have come through.
There have been other bottlenecks, too: Factories that put the precious liquid into syringes have become backed up. And the government itself ran into a delay in developing the tests required to assess each batch before it is cleared for use.
Last edited on Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 04:35 am by Razenkn
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 02:49 am |
|
azsu wrote: you can't be serious, what a joke
cindisue_g wrote:
callmelou wrote: cindisue_g wrote: President Obama wants the government to run our health care and they can't even handle the H1N1 vaccine. Unlike the regular flu vaccine, the government is in charge of the H1N1 vaccine. The government is distributing this vaccine. Those waiting for the vaccine are saying it is a distribution problem by the government and that there is too much paperwork....production is done, why can't our government get this vaccine out to those that need it, especially children who are dying (2,300 adults and children have died in the last few months) from this flu. And the government thinks they can run our health care - God help us all!
You are wrong about this..the initial problem was one of manufacturing too little too late...the manufacture of vaccine is done by the pharm companies..not by the federal government.......the gov't cannot distribute what does not exist.
I know it is hard for you to admit, but it is our great government that is to blame for this debacle. As I said, they can't even get a vaccine out and they want to run health care - god help us all!!!
Helllllooo...you seem to have difficulty understanding the difference bewteen manufacturing and distribution. If something doesn't exist, how would you suggest it be distributed? It's just a lot easier to blame the WH for everything than to try to think..sorry if I disturbed your Fox News show.
|
azsu
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 1st, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 02:41 am |
|
you can't be serious, what a joke
cindisue_g wrote:
callmelou wrote: cindisue_g wrote: President Obama wants the government to run our health care and they can't even handle the H1N1 vaccine. Unlike the regular flu vaccine, the government is in charge of the H1N1 vaccine. The government is distributing this vaccine. Those waiting for the vaccine are saying it is a distribution problem by the government and that there is too much paperwork....production is done, why can't our government get this vaccine out to those that need it, especially children who are dying (2,300 adults and children have died in the last few months) from this flu. And the government thinks they can run our health care - God help us all!
You are wrong about this..the initial problem was one of manufacturing too little too late...the manufacture of vaccine is done by the pharm companies..not by the federal government.......the gov't cannot distribute what does not exist.
I know it is hard for you to admit, but it is our great government that is to blame for this debacle. As I said, they can't even get a vaccine out and they want to run health care - god help us all!!!
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2527 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 01:54 am |
|
callmelou wrote: cindisue_g wrote: President Obama wants the government to run our health care and they can't even handle the H1N1 vaccine. Unlike the regular flu vaccine, the government is in charge of the H1N1 vaccine. The government is distributing this vaccine. Those waiting for the vaccine are saying it is a distribution problem by the government and that there is too much paperwork....production is done, why can't our government get this vaccine out to those that need it, especially children who are dying (2,300 adults and children have died in the last few months) from this flu. And the government thinks they can run our health care - God help us all!
You are wrong about this..the initial problem was one of manufacturing too little too late...the manufacture of vaccine is done by the pharm companies..not by the federal government.......the gov't cannot distribute what does not exist.
I know it is hard for you to admit, but it is our great government that is to blame for this debacle. As I said, they can't even get a vaccine out and they want to run health care - god help us all!!!
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 12:18 am |
|
callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote: blackstone wrote: callmelou wrote: blackstone wrote: The Baucus plan which creates insurance “exchanges” would initially provide significant tax advantages for families compared to employer –sponsored coverage. For those with lower incomes, however, this advantage gets scaled back as families gross income increases.
Example: according to the CBO, a family of four earning $42K and electing a mid-level plan at a cost of $14,700 would pay $2,600 and the government would pay (subsidize) the other $12,100. If the families combined income were to, say, increase to $54K, the government subsidy drops from $12,100 to $9,900. That am’ts to an implicit increase in their marginal tax rate of 34% for each additional $ of income.
A single worker earning $20,600 and buying the same plan at a cost of $5,000 would receive a subsidy of $4,400. If the worker’s income were to increase to, say, $26,500, the subsidy is reduced to $2,700. That is a marginal tax increase of 29%.
So, what does this really mean? According to the CBO, higher marginal tax rates will reduce people’s incentive to earn more through promotions, accepting new positions, etc.
A “not so” non-intended consequence would have workers earning identical incomes paying vastly different taxes based on where they get the coverage. Families getting coverage from employer-sponsored plans would pay significantly higher taxes. They wouldn’t receive anything close to the $12,100 from the current tax exclusion.
As they say, the devils in the details. And, nobody is looking at the details.
I don't agree with your conclusion that people would avoid promotions based on the stats you provided...unless a tax is 100%, there is always an incentive to earn more...and, as you know, a marginal increase is not on the total earnings, just a portion of it. So, percentages lie (YOU LIE, PERCENTAGES!!!!). If you and I are in a bar and mama joins our table, the population of our table has increased by 50%. You then get upset at us and leave...the table population falls, not by 50%, but by 33%....I know you understand that, but some, OK, many people don't.
Don't shoot the messenger. This came from the CBO. If you disagree with them, here's their address: http://www.cbo.gov/
LOL Being a fan of the bard + having read the book "How To Lie With Statistics"...libbie-lou is now an authoritarian when it comes to #'s.
I'm not disputing what you wrote, just the interpretation, blackstone....and I'd never shoot ya---I'm a democrat. Sheesh..seems that Surpy is becoming more rantie in speech and nicknames...must have been stuffy in the closet so you're coming out, bigrants..
What closet would that be...cuz you're not making any sense. I have multiple names for you...just as you do for me. You give - I give...it's one big happy warm and fuzzy social network!
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 12:12 am |
|
BigSurprize wrote: blackstone wrote: callmelou wrote: blackstone wrote: The Baucus plan which creates insurance “exchanges” would initially provide significant tax advantages for families compared to employer –sponsored coverage. For those with lower incomes, however, this advantage gets scaled back as families gross income increases.
Example: according to the CBO, a family of four earning $42K and electing a mid-level plan at a cost of $14,700 would pay $2,600 and the government would pay (subsidize) the other $12,100. If the families combined income were to, say, increase to $54K, the government subsidy drops from $12,100 to $9,900. That am’ts to an implicit increase in their marginal tax rate of 34% for each additional $ of income.
A single worker earning $20,600 and buying the same plan at a cost of $5,000 would receive a subsidy of $4,400. If the worker’s income were to increase to, say, $26,500, the subsidy is reduced to $2,700. That is a marginal tax increase of 29%.
So, what does this really mean? According to the CBO, higher marginal tax rates will reduce people’s incentive to earn more through promotions, accepting new positions, etc.
A “not so” non-intended consequence would have workers earning identical incomes paying vastly different taxes based on where they get the coverage. Families getting coverage from employer-sponsored plans would pay significantly higher taxes. They wouldn’t receive anything close to the $12,100 from the current tax exclusion.
As they say, the devils in the details. And, nobody is looking at the details.
I don't agree with your conclusion that people would avoid promotions based on the stats you provided...unless a tax is 100%, there is always an incentive to earn more...and, as you know, a marginal increase is not on the total earnings, just a portion of it. So, percentages lie (YOU LIE, PERCENTAGES!!!!). If you and I are in a bar and mama joins our table, the population of our table has increased by 50%. You then get upset at us and leave...the table population falls, not by 50%, but by 33%....I know you understand that, but some, OK, many people don't.
Don't shoot the messenger. This came from the CBO. If you disagree with them, here's their address: http://www.cbo.gov/
LOL Being a fan of the bard + having read the book "How To Lie With Statistics"...libbie-lou is now an authoritarian when it comes to #'s.
I'm not disputing what you wrote, just the interpretation, blackstone....and I'd never shoot ya---I'm a democrat. Sheesh..seems that Surpy is becoming more rantie in speech and nicknames...must have been stuffy in the closet so you're coming out, bigrants..
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 11:51 pm |
|
blackstone wrote: callmelou wrote: blackstone wrote: The Baucus plan which creates insurance “exchanges” would initially provide significant tax advantages for families compared to employer –sponsored coverage. For those with lower incomes, however, this advantage gets scaled back as families gross income increases.
Example: according to the CBO, a family of four earning $42K and electing a mid-level plan at a cost of $14,700 would pay $2,600 and the government would pay (subsidize) the other $12,100. If the families combined income were to, say, increase to $54K, the government subsidy drops from $12,100 to $9,900. That am’ts to an implicit increase in their marginal tax rate of 34% for each additional $ of income.
A single worker earning $20,600 and buying the same plan at a cost of $5,000 would receive a subsidy of $4,400. If the worker’s income were to increase to, say, $26,500, the subsidy is reduced to $2,700. That is a marginal tax increase of 29%.
So, what does this really mean? According to the CBO, higher marginal tax rates will reduce people’s incentive to earn more through promotions, accepting new positions, etc.
A “not so” non-intended consequence would have workers earning identical incomes paying vastly different taxes based on where they get the coverage. Families getting coverage from employer-sponsored plans would pay significantly higher taxes. They wouldn’t receive anything close to the $12,100 from the current tax exclusion.
As they say, the devils in the details. And, nobody is looking at the details.
I don't agree with your conclusion that people would avoid promotions based on the stats you provided...unless a tax is 100%, there is always an incentive to earn more...and, as you know, a marginal increase is not on the total earnings, just a portion of it. So, percentages lie (YOU LIE, PERCENTAGES!!!!). If you and I are in a bar and mama joins our table, the population of our table has increased by 50%. You then get upset at us and leave...the table population falls, not by 50%, but by 33%....I know you understand that, but some, OK, many people don't.
Don't shoot the messenger. This came from the CBO. If you disagree with them, here's their address: http://www.cbo.gov/
LOL Being a fan of the bard + having read the book "How To Lie With Statistics"...libbie-lou is now an authoritarian when it comes to #'s.
|
blackstone
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 52 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 11:26 pm |
|
callmelou wrote: blackstone wrote: The Baucus plan which creates insurance “exchanges” would initially provide significant tax advantages for families compared to employer –sponsored coverage. For those with lower incomes, however, this advantage gets scaled back as families gross income increases.
Example: according to the CBO, a family of four earning $42K and electing a mid-level plan at a cost of $14,700 would pay $2,600 and the government would pay (subsidize) the other $12,100. If the families combined income were to, say, increase to $54K, the government subsidy drops from $12,100 to $9,900. That am’ts to an implicit increase in their marginal tax rate of 34% for each additional $ of income.
A single worker earning $20,600 and buying the same plan at a cost of $5,000 would receive a subsidy of $4,400. If the worker’s income were to increase to, say, $26,500, the subsidy is reduced to $2,700. That is a marginal tax increase of 29%.
So, what does this really mean? According to the CBO, higher marginal tax rates will reduce people’s incentive to earn more through promotions, accepting new positions, etc.
A “not so” non-intended consequence would have workers earning identical incomes paying vastly different taxes based on where they get the coverage. Families getting coverage from employer-sponsored plans would pay significantly higher taxes. They wouldn’t receive anything close to the $12,100 from the current tax exclusion.
As they say, the devils in the details. And, nobody is looking at the details.
I don't agree with your conclusion that people would avoid promotions based on the stats you provided...unless a tax is 100%, there is always an incentive to earn more...and, as you know, a marginal increase is not on the total earnings, just a portion of it. So, percentages lie (YOU LIE, PERCENTAGES!!!!). If you and I are in a bar and mama joins our table, the population of our table has increased by 50%. You then get upset at us and leave...the table population falls, not by 50%, but by 33%....I know you understand that, but some, OK, many people don't.
Don't shoot the messenger. This came from the CBO. If you disagree with them, here's their address: http://www.cbo.gov/Last edited on Wed Oct 21st, 2009 11:27 pm by blackstone
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 09:05 pm |
|
cindisue_g wrote: President Obama wants the government to run our health care and they can't even handle the H1N1 vaccine. Unlike the regular flu vaccine, the government is in charge of the H1N1 vaccine. The government is distributing this vaccine. Those waiting for the vaccine are saying it is a distribution problem by the government and that there is too much paperwork....production is done, why can't our government get this vaccine out to those that need it, especially children who are dying (2,300 adults and children have died in the last few months) from this flu. And the government thinks they can run our health care - God help us all!
You are wrong about this..the initial problem was one of manufacturing too little too late...the manufacture of vaccine is done by the pharm companies..not by the federal government.......the gov't cannot distribute what does not exist.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4261 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 03:43 pm |
|
Well Shut My Mouth!
Dems Eye Insurance Industry's Antitrust Protection
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:25 AM
WASHINGTON -- Top Senate Democrats intend to try to strip the health insurance industry of its exemption from federal antitrust laws as part of the debate over health care, according to congressional officials, the latest evidence of a deepening struggle over President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor.
Congressional officials said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, arranged to make the announcement Wednesday, joined by Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York.
The officials who disclosed the plans did so on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting a formal announcement.
In a statement, the major industry trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, said the industry already was one of the most regulated in the country. The focus on the industry's antitrust exemption, it said, was "a political ploy designed to distract attention away from the real issue of rising health care costs."
The move against the antitrust exemption came as Obama appealed to congressional Democrats not to let internal differences sink his comprehensive plan to remake the nation's health care system. "The bill you least like" improves coverage for millions, he said in New York. "Let's make sure that we keep our eye on the prize."
After months of struggle, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate hope to have legislation ready for votes in both houses within a few weeks, and plan on having a compromise measure ready for Obama's signature by the end of the year.
Progress has been slow, particularly as Democrats squabble over whether to allow the federal government to sell insurance in direct competition with private insurers, and if so, under what terms. Obama's remarks appeared an attempt to place that and similar disagreements in a larger context _ a decades-long attempt to provide insurance for millions who lack it while cracking down on insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.
Insurance industry officials have been involved in discussions for months with the White House and key congressional Democrats over proposed legislation. They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4261 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 03:37 pm |
|
Pelosi Wants To Hide IT
Democrats Balk at Posting Healthcare Bills, Other Legislation Online
Tuesday, October 20, 2009 7:10 PM
By: David Lightman, McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON -- As Congress prepares to consider historic changes to the nation's health care system, Democratic leaders are balking at supporting a change in the rules that would let the public see the bills' texts 72 hours before a vote.
An unusual coalition of conservatives, watchdog groups and a handful of Democrats has joined the push by Rep. Brian Baird , D- Wash. , to put the 72-hour measure into a binding rule for the House of Representatives . Similar efforts in the Senate haven't gained much momentum.
House Democratic leaders have pledged transparency before. In their 2006 campaign book, in the "integrity" section, they vowed that legislation would be available to the public 24 hours before "consideration" of final versions.
On some recent big bills, that hasn't happened, however. On Feb. 12 , the 1,100-page, $787 billion economic-stimulus plan was made public at 10:45 p.m. EST and brought up in the House 13 hours later.
Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D- Calif. , said that since Democrats took control of the House in 2007, several measures had been adopted to make the legislative process more transparent, such as posting amendments' texts online before consideration.
Pelosi also said last month that she was "absolutely" willing to put the health care bill online 72 hours in advance but that she wouldn't back legislation forcing her to do so.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4261 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 03:21 pm |
|
Not Surprising
Grassley Warns HHS Web Site May Be ‘Propaganda’
Oct. 20, 2009, 9:07 p.m.
By John Stanton
Roll Call Staff
Senate Finance ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is raising concerns that a Department of Health and Human Services Web site that urges visitors to send an e-mail to President Barack Obama praising his health care reform plan may violate rules against government-funded propaganda.
The Web page is accessed through a “state your support” button featured prominently on the HHS Web site and carries a disclaimer that the Web site is maintained by HHS.
In a letter sent to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Tuesday, Grassley warned that “any possible misuse of appropriated funds by the executive branch to engage in publicity or propaganda in support of an Administration priority is a matter that must be investigated and taken seriously,” noting that in 2005 Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) argued that “the use of official funds for similar activities were 'underhanded tactics' and that these tactics 'are not worthy of our great democracy.'”
The form letter on the “state your support” page includes language hailing Obama's efforts. “We strongly support your commitment to comprehensive health reform. This is not a luxury. The continuing, sharp escalation of health care costs for families, businesses, and government is unsustainable. Reform is imperative. We believe that health reform must be enacted this year,” the letter says.
Additionally, the form letter says that signatories will back Obama's efforts. “During these extraordinarily challenging times, we need to put aside past differences and address the health and economic crisis. Our shared interest must come before narrow interests so we can achieve a health system that is affordable and provides high quality for all Americans. We will support your budget with its reserve fund dedicated to achieving health care reform in a fiscally responsible manner. Each of us must be prepared to contribute to achieving this fundamental goal. By signing this statement we affirm our commitment to work with you and our Congressional leaders to enact legislation this year which provides affordable, high quality coverage for all Americans.”
The page requires signatories to provide their name, zip code and e-mail address, and also asks for their mailing address and phone number, although that information is not labeled as required.
In his letter, Grassley notes that HHS has recently issued new guidance to insurers that they must obtain permission from beneficiaries before sending out mailers critical of the reform efforts in Congress. “The use of the official HHS.gov Web site for activities that seem to be nothing more than government propaganda raises many serious questions,” Grassley wrote.
Grassley asked Sebelius for a host of information, including which contractors helped develop the Web site, which third parties and executive branch offices will have access to the personal data and whether signatories will be or have been contacted by HHS or other executive branch offices.
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2527 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 02:39 pm |
|
President Obama wants the government to run our health care and they can't even handle the H1N1 vaccine. Unlike the regular flu vaccine, the government is in charge of the H1N1 vaccine. The government is distributing this vaccine. Those waiting for the vaccine are saying it is a distribution problem by the government and that there is too much paperwork....production is done, why can't our government get this vaccine out to those that need it, especially children who are dying (2,300 adults and children have died in the last few months) from this flu. And the government thinks they can run our health care - God help us all!
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4261 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 05:31 am |
|
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 04:57 am |
|
blackstone wrote: The Baucus plan which creates insurance “exchanges” would initially provide significant tax advantages for families compared to employer –sponsored coverage. For those with lower incomes, however, this advantage gets scaled back as families gross income increases.
Example: according to the CBO, a family of four earning $42K and electing a mid-level plan at a cost of $14,700 would pay $2,600 and the government would pay (subsidize) the other $12,100. If the families combined income were to, say, increase to $54K, the government subsidy drops from $12,100 to $9,900. That am’ts to an implicit increase in their marginal tax rate of 34% for each additional $ of income.
A single worker earning $20,600 and buying the same plan at a cost of $5,000 would receive a subsidy of $4,400. If the worker’s income were to increase to, say, $26,500, the subsidy is reduced to $2,700. That is a marginal tax increase of 29%.
So, what does this really mean? According to the CBO, higher marginal tax rates will reduce people’s incentive to earn more through promotions, accepting new positions, etc.
A “not so” non-intended consequence would have workers earning identical incomes paying vastly different taxes based on where they get the coverage. Families getting coverage from employer-sponsored plans would pay significantly higher taxes. They wouldn’t receive anything close to the $12,100 from the current tax exclusion.
As they say, the devils in the details. And, nobody is looking at the details.
I don't agree with your conclusion that people would avoid promotions based on the stats you provided...unless a tax is 100%, there is always an incentive to earn more...and, as you know, a marginal increase is not on the total earnings, just a portion of it. So, percentages lie (YOU LIE, PERCENTAGES!!!!). If you and I are in a bar and mama joins our table, the population of our table has increased by 50%. You then get upset at us and leave...the table population falls, not by 50%, but by 33%....I know you understand that, but some, OK, many people don't.
|
blackstone
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 52 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 01:37 am |
|
The Baucus plan which creates insurance “exchanges” would initially provide significant tax advantages for families compared to employer –sponsored coverage. For those with lower incomes, however, this advantage gets scaled back as families gross income increases.
Example: according to the CBO, a family of four earning $42K and electing a mid-level plan at a cost of $14,700 would pay $2,600 and the government would pay (subsidize) the other $12,100. If the families combined income were to, say, increase to $54K, the government subsidy drops from $12,100 to $9,900. That am’ts to an implicit increase in their marginal tax rate of 34% for each additional $ of income.
A single worker earning $20,600 and buying the same plan at a cost of $5,000 would receive a subsidy of $4,400. If the worker’s income were to increase to, say, $26,500, the subsidy is reduced to $2,700. That is a marginal tax increase of 29%.
So, what does this really mean? According to the CBO, higher marginal tax rates will reduce people’s incentive to earn more through promotions, accepting new positions, etc.
A “not so” non-intended consequence would have workers earning identical incomes paying vastly different taxes based on where they get the coverage. Families getting coverage from employer-sponsored plans would pay significantly higher taxes. They wouldn’t receive anything close to the $12,100 from the current tax exclusion.
As they say, the devils in the details. And, nobody is looking at the details.
Last edited on Wed Oct 21st, 2009 01:39 am by blackstone
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4261 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 12:45 am |
|
It's Under 900 Billion
House healthcare bill under $900 billion: Pelosi
Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:42pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Tuesday new estimates showed a healthcare overhaul drafted by Democrats would reduce the U.S. budget deficit over 10 years and cost less than $900 billion.
The preliminary estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office moved Democratic leaders closer to finishing a merger of three separate healthcare reform bills into one for debate on the House floor.
The budget watchdog had been asked to analyze a healthcare bill with three different versions of a government-run insurance option as leaders worked to merge bills on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
"The preliminary estimates we've seen from the CBO enable us to make our choices knowing that whatever choice we make will reduce the deficit and will pay for the bill," said Pelosi, who did not release the estimates.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4261 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:41 pm |
|
|
Ken Wright
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 97 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 03:32 pm |
|
| These 1,000- 1,500 page bills not only violate the keep it simple stupid (KISS) principle, they are a treasure trove for lawyers for the next twenty years. Can't the DC fools do anything right?
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 07:15 am |
|
callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote: callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote: This link takes you to the 1502 pages of the Senate Healthcare Bill...enjoy!
http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf
October 19, 2009
Senate Finance Committee bill has been filed
Senate Finance Committee members have been notified that the committee's health reform bill was filed today. S. 1796 weighs in at 1,502 pages, according to a Senate Republican leadership source. It's still not up yet on the Finance Committee website or Thomas.gov. We'll post a link as soon as we get one.
UPDATED:
Read the entire 1,502 page Finance bill.
Read a document outlining the concerns of Sens. Kerry, Schumer, Menendez, Stabenow and Rockefeller that the tax on high-end plans will hit plans that are not overly generous.
Read Sen. Rockefeller's expanded views on reform.
UPDATE 2: The Senate Finance Committee filed its sweeping health care reform bill Monday and its release served largely to highlight the divisions among Democrats over the direction of reform.
The massive, 1,500 page bill is expected to serve as the backbone for Democratic reform efforts going forward and five senators expressed concerns about one of its main provisions, a 40 percent tax on high-end insurance plans.
The tax is designed to pay for reform and lower costs by making the so-called Cadillac plans less attractive for insurers to offer. Under the bill, a plan that costs an individual more than $8,000 and a family more than $21,000 annually would be subject to the tax.
But Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez, Debbie Stabenow and Jay Rockefeller are concerned that the threshold that defines a Cadillac plan is too low and will whack middle-class people.
“We remain concerned that the thresholds are too low and will impact plans that are not overly generous and that in 2019 far too many plans will be impacted by the excise tax. We plan to continue to work with Chairman Baucus on this issue to ensure that provision bends the cost curve, but not at the expense of middle-income Americans,” the senators wrote in a one-page “additional views” document that was released with the bill.
The document is reminiscent of a dissent that is filed with the majority opinion in a court case.
Rockefeller filed his own 13-page additional views document that spelled out his concerns, many of which he aired during the eight-day mark up of the bill. The West Virginia Democrat remains concerns that the bill does not contain a public option; that it does not uniformly apply insurance market reforms and that state-based exchanges designed to help people buy insurance will not be as effective as a single national one.
UPDATE 3: It's important to remember that the bill won't exist in this form for long. Senate Majority Leader Reid and Sens. Max Baucus and Chris Dodd along with senior White House aides are merging the Finance and Health Committee legislation into one bill that will be considered on the floor of the Senate. The behind-closed-doors dealings have drawn criticism from Republicans, particularly because President Obama had promised a transparent process and pledged to negotiate the health care bill on C-SPAN
The point of reading this is what? I don't think you read UPDATE 3 above.
It's as close as you'll get for quite some time...take it or leave it.
I'll wait til they turn it into a movie...it's going to be renegotiated ad nasuseum.
Ain't it the truth...it's scary when we actually agree on something. Don't get used to it though...it won't last long.
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:48 am |
|
BigSurprize wrote: callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote: This link takes you to the 1502 pages of the Senate Healthcare Bill...enjoy!
http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf
October 19, 2009
Senate Finance Committee bill has been filed
Senate Finance Committee members have been notified that the committee's health reform bill was filed today. S. 1796 weighs in at 1,502 pages, according to a Senate Republican leadership source. It's still not up yet on the Finance Committee website or Thomas.gov. We'll post a link as soon as we get one.
UPDATED:
Read the entire 1,502 page Finance bill.
Read a document outlining the concerns of Sens. Kerry, Schumer, Menendez, Stabenow and Rockefeller that the tax on high-end plans will hit plans that are not overly generous.
Read Sen. Rockefeller's expanded views on reform.
UPDATE 2: The Senate Finance Committee filed its sweeping health care reform bill Monday and its release served largely to highlight the divisions among Democrats over the direction of reform.
The massive, 1,500 page bill is expected to serve as the backbone for Democratic reform efforts going forward and five senators expressed concerns about one of its main provisions, a 40 percent tax on high-end insurance plans.
The tax is designed to pay for reform and lower costs by making the so-called Cadillac plans less attractive for insurers to offer. Under the bill, a plan that costs an individual more than $8,000 and a family more than $21,000 annually would be subject to the tax.
But Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez, Debbie Stabenow and Jay Rockefeller are concerned that the threshold that defines a Cadillac plan is too low and will whack middle-class people.
“We remain concerned that the thresholds are too low and will impact plans that are not overly generous and that in 2019 far too many plans will be impacted by the excise tax. We plan to continue to work with Chairman Baucus on this issue to ensure that provision bends the cost curve, but not at the expense of middle-income Americans,” the senators wrote in a one-page “additional views” document that was released with the bill.
The document is reminiscent of a dissent that is filed with the majority opinion in a court case.
Rockefeller filed his own 13-page additional views document that spelled out his concerns, many of which he aired during the eight-day mark up of the bill. The West Virginia Democrat remains concerns that the bill does not contain a public option; that it does not uniformly apply insurance market reforms and that state-based exchanges designed to help people buy insurance will not be as effective as a single national one.
UPDATE 3: It's important to remember that the bill won't exist in this form for long. Senate Majority Leader Reid and Sens. Max Baucus and Chris Dodd along with senior White House aides are merging the Finance and Health Committee legislation into one bill that will be considered on the floor of the Senate. The behind-closed-doors dealings have drawn criticism from Republicans, particularly because President Obama had promised a transparent process and pledged to negotiate the health care bill on C-SPAN
The point of reading this is what? I don't think you read UPDATE 3 above.
It's as close as you'll get for quite some time...take it or leave it.
I'll wait til they turn it into a movie...it's going to be renegotiated ad nasuseum.
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:46 am |
|
callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote: This link takes you to the 1502 pages of the Senate Healthcare Bill...enjoy!
http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf
October 19, 2009
Senate Finance Committee bill has been filed
Senate Finance Committee members have been notified that the committee's health reform bill was filed today. S. 1796 weighs in at 1,502 pages, according to a Senate Republican leadership source. It's still not up yet on the Finance Committee website or Thomas.gov. We'll post a link as soon as we get one.
UPDATED:
Read the entire 1,502 page Finance bill.
Read a document outlining the concerns of Sens. Kerry, Schumer, Menendez, Stabenow and Rockefeller that the tax on high-end plans will hit plans that are not overly generous.
Read Sen. Rockefeller's expanded views on reform.
UPDATE 2: The Senate Finance Committee filed its sweeping health care reform bill Monday and its release served largely to highlight the divisions among Democrats over the direction of reform.
The massive, 1,500 page bill is expected to serve as the backbone for Democratic reform efforts going forward and five senators expressed concerns about one of its main provisions, a 40 percent tax on high-end insurance plans.
The tax is designed to pay for reform and lower costs by making the so-called Cadillac plans less attractive for insurers to offer. Under the bill, a plan that costs an individual more than $8,000 and a family more than $21,000 annually would be subject to the tax.
But Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez, Debbie Stabenow and Jay Rockefeller are concerned that the threshold that defines a Cadillac plan is too low and will whack middle-class people.
“We remain concerned that the thresholds are too low and will impact plans that are not overly generous and that in 2019 far too many plans will be impacted by the excise tax. We plan to continue to work with Chairman Baucus on this issue to ensure that provision bends the cost curve, but not at the expense of middle-income Americans,” the senators wrote in a one-page “additional views” document that was released with the bill.
The document is reminiscent of a dissent that is filed with the majority opinion in a court case.
Rockefeller filed his own 13-page additional views document that spelled out his concerns, many of which he aired during the eight-day mark up of the bill. The West Virginia Democrat remains concerns that the bill does not contain a public option; that it does not uniformly apply insurance market reforms and that state-based exchanges designed to help people buy insurance will not be as effective as a single national one.
UPDATE 3: It's important to remember that the bill won't exist in this form for long. Senate Majority Leader Reid and Sens. Max Baucus and Chris Dodd along with senior White House aides are merging the Finance and Health Committee legislation into one bill that will be considered on the floor of the Senate. The behind-closed-doors dealings have drawn criticism from Republicans, particularly because President Obama had promised a transparent process and pledged to negotiate the health care bill on C-SPAN
The point of reading this is what? I don't think you read UPDATE 3 above.
It's as close as you'll get for quite some time...take it or leave it.
|
Current time is 11:32 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...   |
|
|
|