Sad day for America
in [Toyota]
|
From: Bill Putney on 23 Mar 2010 19:29 Vic Smith wrote: > On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:46:38 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> > wrote: > >> Vic Smith wrote: >> >>> ...Unfortunately for me and my wife, we won't have a house anymore. >>> It's not a fancy or big house, but we like it. >> Do I detect a contradiction there? You presently don't have a house >> anymore, but you like it? Did you not meant to say what you said, or >> are you having trouble keeping the story straight that you're trying to >> tell? >> > Might help you to read one sentence after another. Sometimes they > have dependencies. I won't bother replacing what you clipped. > It's become quickly apparent I just don't like you. Yeah - I'm all choked up about that. > What does "Did you not meant to say" mean? > You inventing a new language? Nope - it's what some people call a typo. Capisce? >>> ...It's morally repulsive for me see people go without health care... >> But you want to have mandated that your feelings get assuaged by the >> cost coming from my pocket? If it's you that the problem bothers, then >> you are free to pay what you can to alleviate the problem. I don't >> advocate mandating that you pay for things that I believe in beyond what >> the Constitution stipulates - that would be called theft. > Well, however the Constitution works out for you is fine with me. > I pay hefty health insurance taxes to ensure I can keep my house. > And I pay all the other taxes required to maintain my residence in the > U.S.A., and my locality. > I'm all-around happy with the results. > And I am fine with the 1st Amendment giving you the right to act > stupidly here. No thanks - you're doing enough of that for everybody. I'd just as soon not. > You can also pay what is required to maintain residence in the U.S.A., > and in your locality - or not. > And you can whine about the laws of the land, or change them. > Go ahead and work to get the health care bill repealed. > Might make you feel all warm and fuzzy. > Just grow up and stop whining. Who's whining. (I purposely used the possessive there so you'd know how really educated I am. I know you're impressed.) >>> Back in the HWBush admin a young diabetic deadbeat without insurance >>> was in the news. I think he was 18 years old and it was in Tennessee. >>> He'd stiffed the hospital more than once, and walked in once more, >>> going into diabetic shock. >>> The hospital gave him a shot of insulin, then the billing boss told a >>> couple of orderlies to take him to a nearby park, because he didn't >>> want to admit him and get stiffed again. >>> The orderlies propped him under a tree in the park. >>> It was a pretty leafy tree and a beautiful summer day. >>> Later that day passersby found him sitting there, dead. >>> That's when I decided I was willing to be taxed more to provide >>> health care for all... >> That was awful if true. >> >> The problem, again, is that your determination to alleviate the problem >> in the way you advocate violates many things. You are free to give >> whatever you wish to help fix the problem, but please don't take it from >> me - I just might have my own causes that I don't demand your property >> is confiscated for. >> > There is no problem except in your own mind. Check back with us in 5 or 10 years to let us know how this transfer of wealth is working for everybody you are so concerned about. That's the sad thing about socialism, Marxism, and liberalism in general - the very people who it is claimed to be helping are the ones who end up taking it in the shorts in the end. Liberalism always ends up achieving the exact opposite of its stated intended goals. Liberals always figure that it fails only because they didn't yet do enough of whatever it is that they already tried that failed. > I don't determine anything except what's best for me. Yes - I know - and screw the other guy. We get it. > As I said (you snipped it), I was willing to be taxed more to provide > universal health care, and I wasn't taxed. I still am willing to be > taxed more for that, and suspect I will be. You didn't need to take down the whole nation for that - you could have paid extra voluntarily. Instead you approve of confiscating the property of others so you can feel good. How generous you are with the money of others so that you can feel good. > That's how I feel, and that's how I'll vote. > Because it's best for me. > You can do as you please. > I don't need you telling me how to feel or how to vote. > Not too complicated for you to understand. That's priceless. You have a little problem with private property ownership. > You fund the armed forces, then I'll take care of the health care end. > How's that? There's a minor little difference: One is authorized by the Constitution, the other is not. >>> ...They got theirs, and they don't want a penny of it going to anybody >>> else. >> Forcibly, no. That would be a violation of principles. >> > > You stick to your "principles," I'll stick to mine. My principles don't infringe on you. The ones you advocate do infringe on others. But you already admitted that you will do what's best for you, and in essence, screw the other guy and damn the Constitution. Again - we got that. >>> ...In any case, I've saved enough to continue paying my health insurance >>> vigorish, so I'll do fine. >>> What I like most about the health care bill just signed is removal of >>> caps, so a real health catastrophe can't bankrupt me. >>> I won't lose my house even though I have insurance. >>> A little peace of mind there. >>> And that my wife is no longer locked into her job to keep us insured, >>> though it's not clear to me yet how that will work out... >> Hah! That is a very astute observation on your part. People will not >> have incentive to work or do other things if it is guaranteed as a "right". >> > Astute? You know the meaning of astute but not vigorish? > What a sheltered life you've led. Yes - astute is a common English word - universally known. Vigerish is apparently some kind of thugland colloquialism (I did have to look that up to be sure to spell it right). -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Bill Putney on 23 Mar 2010 19:30 Conscience wrote: > On 2010-03-23 15:24:28 -0700, Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> said: > >> Steve Stone wrote: >>> From the horses mouth. >>> Please tell me what is incorrect or left out here?... >> >> Sounds absolutely *great*. Please check back with us in 5 to 10 years >> and let us know how utopiacare is working for you and the entire country. >> >> I especially love the part about that there's no discrimination based >> on income level. That was really funny. You apparently haven't heard >> how they plan to try to pay for this pie in the sky. Key word: "Try". > > There's already discrimination. Congress is exempt. Hah! I keep forgetting. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Canuck57 on 23 Mar 2010 20:42 On 23/03/2010 8:57 AM, SMS wrote: > On 22/03/10 7:38 PM, C. E. White wrote: > >> "The Government Accountability Office reported that in 2006, the plans >> earned profits of 6.6 percent, had overhead (sales, etc.) of 10.1 >> percent, and provided 83.3 percent of the revenue dollar in medical >> benefits. These administrative costs are far higher than traditional >> fee-for-service Medicare." > > Medicare Advantage can continue, but the government needs to equalize > the amount they pay to the same amount as what they pay for > fee-for-service Medicare. Alas, most seniors won't understand the sweet > deal they've been getting under Medicare Advantage until the plans are > no longer are subsidized at such a high level. Medicare Advantage was a > sweet deal for the private insurance companies also. That's the problem > here, everyone expects the government to pay for their extra benefits. Agreed. And will they be disappointed when all is said and done. The door has been kicked open for more taxes a coming. I wonder how long it will take Obama to say my grossly negligent mispending is due to health care to justify a 5 to 8% national sales tax like GST or VAT. After all, governmetn needs more money big time, $1.7 trillion short this year with health care additive.... Taxes are going to go through the roof. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
From: Steve Stone on 23 Mar 2010 20:58 > After all, governmetn needs more money big time, $1.7 > trillion short this year with health care additive.... > How short were they before the bill was signed?
From: Canuck57 on 23 Mar 2010 22:13
Some will just lay off employees and hire contract or not replace them. Or perhaps hire different back cheaper to compensate. Sort of like the layoff rate is higher for above 45 years old than lower. Keeps them off the pension...as it is a ruse in trouble too. If it is food, in demand, perhaps pass it on. Boats and cars are discretionary, thus no price increases there will float well. Yep, Obama'mama bailouts...now trying to buy the poor vote with taxpayers money. No one is looking out for the middle class. On 23/03/2010 4:43 PM, Mike Hunter wrote: > Let see if I have this right, 30,000,000 more people will be covered, > including the most costly with pre-existing conditions, many will be > subsidized and the gap in prescription drug coverage will be eliminated, > businesses will be taxed more and they will NOT pass on that tax increase to > the customer? If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. > LOL > > > "Steve Stone"<n2ubp(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:hobdbv$82d$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> From the horses mouth. >> Please tell me what is incorrect or left out here? >> ---- >> >> >> * This year, children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be >> denied health insurance coverage. Once the new health insurance exchanges >> begin in the coming years, pre-existing condition discrimination will >> become a thing of the past for everyone. >> * This year, health care plans will allow young people to remain on >> their parents' insurance policy up until their 26th birthday. >> * This year, insurance companies will be banned from dropping people >> from coverage when they get sick, and they will be banned from >> implementing lifetime caps on coverage. This year, restrictive annual >> limits on coverage will be banned for certain plans. Under health >> insurance reform, Americans will be ensured access to the care they need. >> * This year, adults who are uninsured because of pre-existing >> conditions will have access to affordable insurance through a temporary >> subsidized high-risk pool. >> * In the next fiscal year, the bill increases funding for community >> health centers, so they can treat nearly double the number of patients >> over the next five years. >> * This year, we'll also establish an independent commission to advise >> on how best to build the health care workforce and increase the number of >> nurses, doctors and other professionals to meet our country's needs. >> Going forward, we will provide $1.5 billion in funding to support the next >> generation of doctors, nurses and other primary care practitioners -- on >> top of a $500 million investment from the American Recovery and >> Reinvestment Act. >> >> Health insurance reform will also curb some of the worst insurance >> industry practices and strengthen consumer protections: >> >> * This year, this bill creates a new, independent appeals process that >> ensures consumers in new private plans have access to an effective process >> to appeal decisions made by their insurer. >> * This year, discrimination based on salary will be outlawed. New >> group health plans will be prohibited from establishing any eligibility >> rules for health care coverage that discriminate in favor of higher-wage >> employees. >> * Beginning this fiscal year, this bill provides funding to states to >> help establish offices of health insurance consumer assistance in order to >> help individuals in the process of filing complaints or appeals against >> insurance companies. >> * Starting January 1, 2011, insurers in the individual and small group >> market will be required to spend 80 percent of their premium dollars on >> medical services. Insurers in the large group market will be required to >> spend 85 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Any >> insurers who don't meet those thresholds will be required to provide >> rebates to their policyholders. >> * Starting in 2011, this bill helps states require insurance companies >> to submit justification for requested premium increases. Any company with >> excessive or unjustified premium increases may not be able to participate >> in the new health insurance exchanges. >> >> Reform immediately begins to lower health care costs for American families >> and small businesses: >> >> * This year, small businesses that choose to offer coverage will begin >> to receive tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums to help make >> employee coverage more affordable. >> * This year, new private plans will be required to provide free >> preventive care: no co-payments and no deductibles for preventive >> services. And beginning January 1, 2011, Medicare will do the same. >> * This year, this bill will provide help for early retirees by >> creating a temporary re-insurance program to help offset the costs of >> expensive premiums for employers and retirees age 55-64. >> * This year, this bill starts to close the Medicare Part D 'donut >> hole' by providing a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the gap >> in prescription drug coverage. And beginning in 2011, the bill institutes >> a 50% discount on prescription drugs in the 'donut hole.' >> > > -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |