Poll: Healthcare Insurance [Archive]

Yujin

03-30-14, 02:49

Love it, hate it or fear it. . . Obamacare is here to stay. Six million Americans have signed up for it. Even if the GOP gains control of the White House and the Senate, I just don't see how they're going to be able to repeal Obamacare without a viable alternative and with all the infighting in the GOP, that's not going to happen.

Here's an interesting article in today's newspaper:

Despite concerns about Obamacare, big employers not abandoning health benefits.

Companies use health benefits to attract and retain workers with key skills.

By Guy Boulton of the Journal Sentinel.

March 29,2014 5:53 pm.

Patrick Hansen, the chief financial officer of Strattec Security Corp., has no pretensions of knowing how the Affordable Care Act will affect employers years from now.

But for now, Strattec, based in Glendale, has no plans to stop offering health benefits to its employees.

"We'd have a hard time recruiting," Hansen said.

Opponents of the Affordable Care Act — among them Wisconsin Republicans Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Ron Johnson — have contended that the law will result in employers no longer offering health benefits. Now Ezekiel Emanuel, a physician and former adviser in the Obama administration when the law was making its tortuous way through Congress, is contending the same.

In his new book, "Reinventing American Health Care," Emanuel, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a steadfast defender of the law, contends the Affordable Care Act will lead to a sharp drop in employers who offer health benefits.

Most supporters of the law — and some policy analysts and economists ambivalent about it — don't see that happening.

"At the margin, it is not going to have a big impact on whether employers drop coverage," said Robert Town, a health economist at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

Hansen noted one commonly cited reason: Employers offer health benefits to retain and attract workers with the skills needed to run their businesses and organizations, and health insurance is a prized benefit. The Affordable Care Act doesn't change that.

Another is that the tax code bestows generous tax breaks for health insurance obtained through an employer.

Consider the math. Nationally, the average premium for family coverage through an employer was $16,351 last year, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation / Health Research & Educational Trust.

Workers paid an average of $4,565 toward the cost.

The share of the premium paid by employers — roughly 72% on average for family coverage — was tax-free compensation for a worker. And workers can pay their share of the premium with pretax dollars.

People who buy health insurance on their own don't get that tax break.

This means people in the 25% tax bracket who bought family coverage on their own for $16,351 would pay about $4,087 more in taxes — not including state taxes.

That provides a strong incentive for health insurance to remain a prized benefit.

"It's huge," Hansen said, "especially if you had to buy a family benefit.".

Massachusetts model.

There are others reasons to expect employers to continue to offer health benefits.

To retain the tax benefits, a company must offer health insurance to all its employees, from the CEO on down. The Affordable Care Act also requires employers who don't offer health benefits to pay a penalty or tax of $2,000 for each full-time employee.

Employers in Massachusetts didn't stop offering coverage after the state put in place health reforms that were a model for the Affordable Care Act. The reverse happened. More employers began offering health benefits.

Emanuel acknowledged in an interview with The New York Times that what happened in Massachusetts is the best argument against his prediction.

Surveys by benefit consultants haven't found any signs that employers will drop health benefits. In February, Aon Hewitt said a survey of 1,230 employers found that 95% plan to continue offering coverage in the next three to five years.

Matt Weimer, director of employer benefit operations for Diversified Insurance Solutions in Brookfield, said he can't name any clients who have said they plan to drop coverage.

But he expects small employers — particularly those with fewer than 10 workers — to stop offering benefits.

"Those groups really have struggled for some time to offer benefits," Weimer said.

Only 45% of employers with three to nine workers offered health benefits last year, down from 57% in 2000, according to the Kaiser survey. The same trend can be seen among employers with 10 to 24 workers: 68% offered health benefits last year, down from 80% in 2000.

Nearly all employers — 99% — with 200 or more employees, in contrast, offered benefits.

Restaurants, hotels, nursing homes and other employers with a large percentage of low-wage workers — who may value larger paychecks more than health benefits — also could stop offering benefits over time, Weimer said.

In March 2012, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 3 million fewer people would get health insurance through their employers in 2022 because of the law. By comparison, an estimated 159 million would get health insurance through an employer that year.

That is just a projection. Under different scenarios, the Congressional Budget Office estimates range from a reduction of 20 million to a gain of 3 million people with employer coverage.

"We surely should expect that some employers are going to stop offering coverage to their employees as a result of the Affordable Care Act," said Craig Garthwaite, a health economist at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. "That is going to be a good thing for those employees and for the employer.".

Low-wage workers would be eligible for federal subsidies if their employer doesn't provide affordable health benefits, he said. In some cases, they would be better off buying insurance on their own through the marketplaces.

The employees would lose the tax benefit. But low-wage workers pay relatively little, if any, federal taxes.

Garthwaite also said employers' responses will vary by company and industry.

"Remember, ultimately what the employer wants is to craft the most cost-effective package they can give to get the quality of employee they want," he said.

Easier to shop.

More employers can consider dropping health benefits because the new regulations imposed on health insurers makes it easier to get coverage outside the workplace.

Insurers no longer can deny coverage for someone with medical problems, for example, and are limited in how much more they can charge older people than younger people.

In the past, when an employer dropped coverage, workers with health problems may have been unable to buy health insurance and older workers would have had to pay much higher rates.

"My employer is not giving me insurance," Garthwaite said. "I am just taking my compensation in that form.".

All this depends on how the marketplace evolves: how the health plans compare with employer coverage, what the plans cost, whether the marketplaces make it easier to shop for insurance.

"We don't know the answer to that yet," he said.

But he expects that the marketplaces eventually will be easier to use and will give consumers more and better information.

"We've never done this before," Garthwaite said. "Over time, we will get better at it.".

Town, of the University of Pennsylvania, even goes a step further. He expects the Affordable Care Act to affect the economy only on the margins. And he makes a prediction of his own.

"Years from now," he said, "we will think, 'My God, we talked a lot about that.'.

Easy Go

03-30-14, 05:37

I changed plans this year because my employer changed the price and coverage of the three different plans I was offered. I'm sure some of the changes were because of the ACA. Does that count as losing my plan because of the ACA or is it just one of the multiple times I've had to change plans over the years either because I changed employers or because my employer decided that it was in his best interest to unilaterally change the plans I was offered? Does it even make any difference as long as I ended up with a decent plan?

If somebody lost their current plan and decided that the other options available plans were unacceptable for whatever reason, does that mean that they lost their insurance because of ACA?

Since the poll question didn't really answer these questions, I decided to rephrase to "Do you believe that your health insurance options are significantly worse because of the ACA?" and my answer is no.

SteveC

03-30-14, 11:01

Jackson

03-30-14, 13:23

Love it, hate it or fear it. . . Obamacare is here to stay. Six million Americans have signed up for it.The new mantra of the left: ObamaCare can't be repealed!

Let me see if I understand your logic:

We can't eliminate ObamaCare because it's butt-fucking 6 million people?

ObamaCare was legislated into law, and it can be legislated out.

It's not complicated. All they have to do is make ObamaCare optional. If you like your ObamaCare policy, you can keep your ObamaCare policy. Otherwise, you can buy or not buy whatever policy you want.

Remember when this used to be free country?

Thanks,

Jackson.

Esten

03-30-14, 13:24

Yes I kept my employer sponsored health plan.

BTW, I just had a look at Ted Cruz's page ( https://www.facebook.com/SenatorTedCruz/posts/517779935000978). LOL, it's full of positive anecdotes! Here's a few.

Yes! Everyone in my family has a pre-existing condition that range from minor to serious. We were uninsurable on the individual market. Now we've got great coverage through healthcare.gov. We did NOT get a subsidy but it still fits our budget!
835 · March 24 at 3:19pm

Yes. Costs stopped climbing. I'm a small business guy and I don't have to worry because insurance companies can't drop us anymore. 793 · March 24 at 3:14pm

I don't have Obamacare, but someone I know who had bad mouthed it for the past for years, recently had to get coverage after her husband recently passed away. The first words out of her mouth, "Thank God for Obamacare." She is a staunch Republican and believes everything she hears on Fox News. And those who are saying they won't comply are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Wake up! 759 · March 24 at 1:49pm

YES, best law ever! And way overdue! I spent all my retirement savings on overpriced insurance in order to save my life when I got cancer in 2005. I had no income and now have no savings. If it had been in place back then, I wouldn't be looking at a poor retirement, but at least I am not worried about having care anymore.

Yes Ted. In spite of your empty pandering rhetoric I am better off now that I was four years ago. I now have an insurance plan, purchased from a private company, that must insure me rather than suck profit from me. Before, I was dumped from insurance for using it. Now I can use it and cannot be dumped for actually making a claim. YES TED, WE ARE BETTER OFF!!! Single payer and the elimination of the for-profit insurance racket would be an even bigger step for the Citizens of the country. But you aren't interested in the Citizens, you are only interested in campaign donations and personal enrichment.

Jackson

03-30-14, 13:37

Ted Cruz asked more or less the same question on his Facebook page "Obamacare was signed into law four years ago yesterday. Are you better off now than you were then?"

Overwhelming response - Damn right we are! Not pleasant reading for the Obama haters.Bullshit,

You know how this works. Any time there is any sort of online poll, the liberal bloggers quickly spread the word and their zombie sycophants flood the poll with leftist responses.

Of course, the LIV is blissfully ignorant of these strategies, and given that they will only glance at the artificially manipulated poll results, the liberals will have yet again scored a disinformation victory.

Thanks,

Jax.

Esten

03-30-14, 14:10

It's amusing to see Jax attempt to deflect the strategies that are the core of right wing politics onto liberals. The internet is littered with right wing spam, biased polls and so-called "news outlets" that are fronts for disseminating their false or deceptive narratives. This is the right wing "echo chamber" where, if you get enough people saying something, other people may more likely believe it to be true. They further try to reinforce their positioning by declaring themselves "Fair and Balanced" and "The Spin Stops Here". Only true LIVs fall for this stuff. Anyone remember the birther theory? Yep, these are the same people, and right wing political strategists know it. So do the numerous right wing media entrepreneurs who have made fortunes off them.

Tres3

03-30-14, 15:45

ObamaCare can't be repealed
They said the same thing about Prohibition, and it was a much more difficult to repeal Constitutional Amendment.

Tres3.

Big Boss Man

03-30-14, 18:32

The government is running ads stating that everyone deserves healthcare. Just one step away from saying healthcare is a Right. I predict this will become a new third rail in American politics like Social Security. http://youtu.be/5XOIGGdnizY.

In fact, according to Wikipedia, healthcare is a third rail already in Canada.

Ted Cruz was right. Once it starts it cannot be taken back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail_of_politics

Miami Bob

03-30-14, 19:50

Renewal provide choices for the lower level people as we are structured that the lower level people work for a different corp.

Pre- ACA:

Could buy junk insurance with hmo 1500 deuct and $150,000. Lifetime max for very cheap. That option is gone. The cheaper plan I chose with $1,000,000. Lifetime cap is gone. I was told becasue it did not include dental coverage for childern.

Today, I can buy bronze through shitty carrier with small small poor network for about the same pricing as the shit insurance I the carrier had last year. I would just as soon be out of the insurance business. ?I have less than 50 empoyees so I am not regulated. I gave a monthly insurance subsudy that should pay for individual coverage in the shitty bronze paln for most. They will decide what they want or put the cash in their pocket and pay the fine.

Everyone has gotten coverage and seem happy.

I work for a different corp and I am ecstatic: half the cost for better coverage with a very large network.

It is clear to all points of view that the ACA needs quite a bit of fine tuning beyond executive orders. It is likely just too difficult to repeal--just too many moving parts to fix to just end everything. This plan is run by private carriers who have invested and have contractual obligations. Too much to just kill it.

The rub is there is not realistically a way to fine tune as irrational emotion rather than thought, logic and practical analysis of policy goals that might be shared by 50% prevail.

SteveC

03-30-14, 23:54

Bullshit,

You know how this works. Any time there is any sort of online poll, the liberal bloggers quickly spread the word and their zombie sycophants flood the poll with leftist responses.

Of course, the LIV is blissfully ignorant of these strategies, and given that they will only glance at the artificially manipulated poll results, the liberals will have yet again scored a disinformation victory.

Thanks,

Jax.I was right, the Obama haters really don't like the success of this law. Resorting to insulting people as 'zombie sycophants' when they post the way their lives have improved since it came into effect merely demonstrates the paucity of those arguments against it.

Tiny12

03-31-14, 01:23

It's unfortunate you were in the 5% that couldn't keep your policy, but while the ACA was a factor, maybe you should also consider how much this was your insurance company's decision. About 95% of insured Americans kept their policies.

Let's review the facts:
(1) There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Lois Lerner.
(2) There is no evidence of coordinated activity by federal agencies against Catherine Engelbrecht.
(3) There is evidence of valid reasons for the activities of said federal agencies.

Only true LIVs fall for this stuff.

Esten provides us with ongoing examples of the kind of arguments concocted by the left to manipulate the LIV. Esten, I know little about Obamacare, but from what I've read, Obama was lying through his teeth when he said "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan." I read in Forbes that that over 50% of self-employed, like me, would lose their policies, and about 50% of employer sponsored plans would be canceled. That may be an exaggeration, I don't know. But I've got a pretty good idea that your contention that 95% of insured Americans will keep their policies is wrong or very misleading or both. Based on the results of the poll so far, which are far from reliable given the size and nature of the sample, right now 30% are saying they have lost or will lose their policies.

When I posted a video of Catherine Engelbrecht testifying in front of Congress, you apparently believed nothing she said could be considered "evidence," even though if she's lying she could be convicted of perjury. Apparently anything you agree with is a "fact", anything you disagree with is not credible, and the only permissible evidence is from sources you agree with. I say "apparently", because, on further reflection, I don't think you're brainwashing yourself. Jackson's explanation (above) makes more sense. You're probably just really good at spin. That's not intended as an insult BTW.

Easy Go

03-31-14, 22:24

It would be interesting to hear the stories from the four people that say they lost their insurance. Is it simply that their prior policy was discontinued and they had to find a new one that was inferior in their particular circumstances or was it a more complex situation? What about their new policy made it less attractive to them? Cost? Coverage? Size of the network? Didn't include existing doctors?

TejanoLibre

03-31-14, 22:57

I'm like a Nun!

Never had it and never will!

I did get a Free Ticket to BA though!

One-Way!

TL.

Just don't get sick!

Or kill yourself if you get Really sick!

Death by Pussy!

TejanoLibre

04-01-14, 15:03

"We shouldn't have to wait for children to turn five and get school lunches for them to learn the freedom-promoting value of work. Lazy bum babies shouldn't be coddled with all sorts of indolence-promoting nutrition. Give an infant free food and, next thing you know, they'll want health care, and we all know that turns them into takers," said House Budget Committee Chair, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. "Come to think of it, we shouldn't have to wait for babies to even be born to teach them the necessity of self-sufficiency. Since the WIC program aids pregnant woman, we should install treadmills in their wombs so embryos learn the value of work while reading Ayn Rand.".

TL.

SteveC

04-01-14, 21:57

Health warning: If you're an Obama hater with high blood pressure, best skip this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT1RVzLaGNU

Esten

04-02-14, 02:01

Member #4112

04-02-14, 18:15

Another milestone for perhaps the greatest advance in consumer protections in a generation. No, the ACA didn't solve all the problems in our healthcare system. But it addressed some of the most egregious, while expanding healthcare coverage to millions of Americans, including those in the Medicaid expansion and the Sub26ers.

Check out the Fox News youtube video below, it's a historic speech.What a dog and pony show yesterday. ObamaCare's 7.1 million is like going on EBay and placing an item in your "cart", it is then considered "purchased" but if you don't pay for the item in the "cart" it never gets delivered because you failed to pay for it. Same thing with ObamaCare's 7.1 million "purchases / enrollments". How many actually paid? If they didn't pay they don't have insurance so the number is meaningless and Obama is not telling anyone how many paid their premium, what the distribution of alleged enrollments are regarding age brackets, how many of the "new" enrollments are from the 3 million + who lost their insurance due to not conforming with ObamaCare, or how many were "uninsured" prior to ObamaCare.

It's a joke and a bad one at that. Just amazing Obama just happened to "hit" his target number on the last day.

The three great lies are usually.

1. The check is in the mail.

2. I'll respect you in the morning.

3. I won't come in your mouth.

Obama's three great lies:

1. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor period.
2. If you like your insurance plan you can keep you insurance plan period.
3. ObamaCare has 7.1 million enrollments

Tres3

04-02-14, 19:00

Punter 127

04-02-14, 20:43

Esten

04-03-14, 01:38

Of course some people aren't going to pay their premiums. Maybe 10-20%. They repeat that on Fox News every hour, their attacks are getting lamer and lamer. But you'll still have to count the numbers of those who didn't complete their enrollment on the federal website (they have until mid-April) and those who signed up via state exchanges. We'll see what the final number is, but it's likely to still be a good one. And that number will keep going up, while the uninsured rate will keep going down. Due to the open enrollment period as of a month ago, the uninsured rate has now spiked down to a 5-year low.

That must be torture for you guys, to know the uninsured rate is now at a 5-year low. When it spikes down again next month, I can't imagine the pain you will be in.

Regarding Punter's comments, there's just one little problem: Nobody was forced to buy health insurance. They purchased it freely, which is especially true for low income people taking advantage of the subsidies, because they are likely paying more than the small tax penalty they would have faced. The individual mandate does however incentivize people to buy insurance, which gets more people paying into the system rather than freeloading and paying nothing. Some people have considered that a very American idea, including the Republicans who proposed it in the 90's. And Romney implemented it a decade later. It was only when a Democrat took up the idea, that Republicans turned against it. Did Republicans really think they could run against their own idea, and not come across looking like fools?

Thank you guys. You're an endless source of entertainment and amusement. Keep throwing that mud, and howling at the moon. You're giving Mad Magazine a run for its money.

Member #4112

04-03-14, 11:07

Due to the open enrollment period as of a month ago, the uninsured rate has now spiked down to a 5-year low.

That must be torture for you guys, to know the uninsured rate is now at a 5-year low. When it spikes down again next month, I can't imagine the pain you will be in.

Regarding Punter's comments, there's just one little problem: Nobody was forced to buy health insurance. They purchased it freely...Esten has completely lost touch with reality with these two statements.

Punter 127

04-03-14, 21:41

The mindset of the progressive liberal revealed.

Of course some people aren't going to pay their premiums. Maybe 10-20%. They repeat that on Fox News every hour, their attacks are getting lamer and lamer. But you'll still have to count the numbers of those who didn't complete their enrollment on the federal website (they have until mid-April) and those who signed up via state exchanges. We'll see what the final number is, but it's likely to still be a good one. And that number will keep going up, while the uninsured rate will keep going down. Due to the open enrollment period as of a month ago, the uninsured rate has now spiked down to a 5-year low. Remember when Obama told us it would cost less than your cell phone bill?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lT4VzH5xY8

Regarding Punter's comments, there's just one little problem: Nobody was forced to buy health insurance. They purchased it freely, which is especially true for low income people taking advantage of the subsidies, because they are likely paying more than the small tax penalty they would have faced. The individual mandate does however incentivize people to buy insurance, which gets more people paying into the system rather than freeloading and paying nothing.
I don't consider one percent of my income as a “ small tax penalty”.

It appears Esten has revealed the true mindset of the progressive liberal, and they truly think ObamaCare is freedom of choice. How Pathetic.

“If millions of people had been given a free choice and voluntarily chosen Obamacare health insurance, that would be a genuine victory worth celebrating. But for Obama to celebrate a forced, penalty-ridden government mandate shoved down the throats of the People is a violation of the basic tenants of human freedom. With this program, Obama joins every other tyrant in history that threw people in chains for daring to think for themselves and oppose a forced government program.”

Miami Bob

04-04-14, 01:30

Most of the shit plans were not available because they, as shit plans, are grossly inadequate. In the past I could not bring myself to buy my employees health coverage with a $150,000 life time max. That could disappear with a minor heart attack and a stent. I am very happy and believe that end of such bull shit plans is a public service. Walmart provided such insurance to it's hourly employees. I have sued Walmart many times. Their insurance cost walmart $20 to $40 per month and was a sham.

I do not blindly love or hate the ACA aka Obama Care. Obama screwed up by not ramming through what he wanted when he had the opportunity. He sat back and let the congress and the lobbyists do their thing. The long inconsistent law that passed is a balancing of lobbyists' wish lists.

A prime example is dental care for youth. Who could be against such a concept in theory. The law mandates that all ACA policies must include this specific dental insurance. My insurance agent told me that this provision knocked more prior policies than everything else put together. Previously all types of dental coverage were in a separate policy add on. Now the youth dental insurance needs to be part of every primary policy. According to my agent this item cause the end of more policies than anything else.

This was not intentional. It is an unintended consequence of a the way more legislation will be written in the future. The Supreme Court has opened the door to give big business, big lobbyists and the super rich more power. Campaign contributions. Super packs. There will be more custom drafted laws to help those who enjoy the freedom to donate without limitation.

The health carriers and the drug industry wrote this law, not Obama. The basic very general concept came from him--similar to mitt's solution for mass. I have been told by a policy wonk that Obama's original proposal was very similar to republican bob dole's republican counter proposal to the clinton's plan.

Rev BS

04-04-14, 10:25

This was not intentional. It is an unintended consequence of a the way more legislation will be written in the future. The Supreme Court has opened the door to give big business, big lobbyists and the super rich more power. Campaign contributions. Super packs. There will be more custom drafted laws to help those who enjoy the freedom to donate without limitation.Like ants, we scurried about, unaware that we are doing the bidding of a larger magnetic field. Mouthing slogans for others, our anger and braying reveal our inadequacies of being able to express benevolence and charity. And our ego stoke and stroke by monetary success is the root of human folly.

Jackson

04-04-14, 21:11

...unaware that we are doing the bidding of a larger magnetic field...I don't know about you, but I was not in any way "unaware" of the butt-fucking that ObamaCare was going to be for hard working, productive, self-sufficient Americans who will have to pay for the parasites' subsidies.

Thanks,

Jax

Miami Bob

04-05-14, 03:42

This movie is about a future fictional earth that exists with serve poisoned environment to produced wealth and production for the super rich who live on an idealist space station that orbits around the earth--the ultimate beverly hills gated community. The 99.8% on the earth die early and suffer from a poisoned earth to support those blessed living in an insulated heavenly "gated community".

The majority on the earth accept their fate and support the right of ann rand's "super man " who thrive from talent, or inherited wealth live a blessed life.

This is a tale of the koch's brothers vision of the world to come: they do whatever they want to create wealth and everyone else can drop dead...including the worthless parasites who might only have a net wealth or $5 million or $10 million dollars.

Miami Bob

04-05-14, 03:56

The most powerful lobbyists get what they want and everyone pays............just what the founding father envisioned. I own lots of drug stocks--they have the deck stacked politically. I buy one non-formulary drug mail order from england for 50% of what it costs in the USA. The drug comes from england in a box that says made in the USA. This shit goes on nomatter which party is in the oval office or control congress.

Under "anne rand" speak: if this great "super men" have the talent to manipulate the system it is their right to do so. Sounds like a variation on Argentina or the traditional way elites robed and plundered in south america for hundreds of years.

I will drop out of the conversation as the name calling irrational nonsense that passing for policy analysis starts again. Have fun boys. When look at AP again, in a while, to see if anyone posted any interesting chica reviews, I'll see posts that I am a stupid idiot who has his head up his butt.

ElAlamoPalermo

04-05-14, 07:48

I don't know about you, but I was not in any way "unaware" of the butt-fucking that ObamaCare was going to be for hard working, productive, self-sufficient Americans who will have to pay for the parasites' subsidies.

Thanks,

JaxJackson-.

Do you consider yourself a parasite for benefiting from subsidized health insurance in Buenos Aires? It is a fact that you and every other person who has ever utilized the health care system in Buenos Aires benefits from enormous subsidies; to begin with, electricity, gas, and water are subsidized to the tune of 70% at all Buenos Aires hospitals and clinics; insurance premiums would be significantly higher if not for this SUBSIDY. Naturally, we should all excuse Jackson from this blatant hypocrisy as he is suffering from a chronic case of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS), a devastating affliction that lasts at least 1460 days but in Jackson's particularly rabid case will continue for at least 2920 days and perhaps beyond that.

Suerte,

ElAlamoPalermo (formerly Rock Harders).

Punter 127

04-05-14, 10:37

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal announced Wednesday that he has a health plan of his own to replace ObamaCare.

Even if the GOP gains control of the White House and the Senate, I just don't see how they're going to be able to repeal Obamacare without a viable alternative and with all the infighting in the GOP, that's not going to happen.[snip]Infighting in political parties is normal and even healthy, and the Democrat party is seeing infighting as well, which will only increase as we move into election season.

“Jindal’s 26-page plan, called the “The Freedom and Empowerment Plan,” and published by the advocacy group America Next, would use block grants, or as he terms them, “global grant programs,” to give states a fixed amount of money without hamstringing them with federal rules requiring them to offer certain benefits. He also wants to jettison the tax preference for employer-based insurance, as well as let health coverage be available to customers across state line. Jindal’s plan hearkens back to his 1990’s days on the Medicare commission by suggesting older Americans utilize a system known as “premium support.” Unlike the present practice of seniors being trapped in a system where the government sets prices and pays the seniors’ bills, Jindal would require the government to give the seniors the money seek the most competitive price among private health plans.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bobby-jindal-with-an-eye-on-2016-to-unveil-plan-to-replace-obama-health-care-law/2014/04/02/623381d2-b9c2-11e3-a397-6debf9e66e65_story.html

On the surface Jindal’s plan looks pretty good but would need further investigation, we don't need another ObamaCare cluster fuck. I like the fact that it appears to give power back to the states and gets the federal government out of the health care business. And it would let seniors have some control over their own lives. Do we really need the federal government playing God with our health care?

I think Jindal's plan has possibilities and anybody that thinks ObamaCare can't be replaced is kidding themselves. As Tres3 pointed out Prohibition was a Constitutional Amendment and it was repealed, so ObamaCare is not chiseled in stone.

Dccpa

04-05-14, 12:40

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-obamacare-enrollees-were-uninsured-20140403, 0,3487004.story#axzz2 y1 LcK7 bm.

"The real figure probably won't be known for weeks, even months. But researchers at the Urban Institute's Health Policy Center have weighed in with their own estimate. They're figuring that the ACA has reduced the number of uninsured Americans by 5.4 million from the first quarter of 2013 through early March this year.".

They claim to be centrist, but all their donations go to liberal candidates. Hmmm.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/03/think-tank-employees-tend-to-support-democrats

Funny thing is that of about 20 people I know or friends know who are on Obamacare, 19 were forced into the program due to their insurance being cancelled under Obamacare. The 20th person I helped switch to Obamacare to reduce his premium. All 20 previously had insurance.

When they were counting the people who lost their insurance under Obamacare, they listed -0- for my state. Are they now counting the people in my state as having gained insurance under Obamacare?

Esten

04-05-14, 16:24

[URL]"The real figure probably won't be known for weeks, even months. But researchers at the Urban Institute's Health Policy Center have weighed in with their own estimate. They're figuring that the ACA has reduced the number of uninsured Americans by 5.4 million from the first quarter of 2013 through early March this year.".

The article states that the 5.4 million figure (from a month ago) includes newly insured people from the Medicaid expansion. So whether this is "liberal spin" or not depends on whether you consider "enrollees" to include new Medicaid enrollments. The total effect on the uninsured rate will be a combination of state and federal ACA enrollments, Medicaid and CHIP expansion and the sub26ers. Anyone interested in a detailed breakdown of the numbers should check out the excellent website below. The numbers would be even higher if several red states had not denied their low income residents expanded access to Medicaid. The "proof in the pudding" will be the nationwide uninsured rate, which as I previously mentioned was at a 5-year low last month.

ACASignups.net - Tracking Enrollments for the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare)
http://acasignups.net/
http://acasignups.net/graph (all data in one graph)

Esten

04-05-14, 16:40

I don't know about you, but I was not in any way "unaware" of the butt-fucking that ObamaCare was going to be for hard working, productive, self-sufficient Americans who will have to pay for the parasites' subsidies.Actually, the people who really got butt-fucked were those who had a very serious illness and inadequate health insurance. While battling their illness, they also had to deal with the stress of having their life savings depleted and going broke.

Jackson

04-05-14, 19:49

Actually, the people who really got butt-fucked were those who had a very serious illness and inadequate health insurance. While battling their illness, they also had to deal with the stress of having their life savings depleted and going broke.Actually, they butt-fucked themselves by failing to purchase adequate health insurance, and now they want all butt-fuck all of us by making us pay for their mistakes.

Dccpa

04-06-14, 00:54

Actually, the people who really got butt-fucked were those who had a very serious illness and inadequate health insurance. While battling their illness, they also had to deal with the stress of having their life savings depleted and going broke.Esten do you ever read what you write? If their savings are being depleted, then they had the funds buy adequate health insurance and chose not to.

Those that could not afford heath insurance had medicaid or got treated anyway. The hospitals have always been full of people who cannot afford health insurance and yet they got treatment. I know too many medical people who can put to lie your spin.

ElAlamoPalermo

04-06-14, 07:40

Esten do you ever read what you write? If their savings are being depleted, then they had the funds buy adequate health insurance and chose not to.

Those that could not afford heath insurance had medicaid or got treated anyway. The hospitals have always been full of people who cannot afford health insurance and yet they got treatment. I know too many medical people who can put to lie your spin.WRONG. Prior to ObamaCare, individuals (as in persons not eligible to participate in a group health insurance plan through their employer) were frequently denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions and / or quoted unaffordable monthly premiums. Only EMERGENCY care must be granted in the United States regardless of ability to pay; this meaning you present yourself at an emergency room and request care; however, this does not include treatments for many complex ailments of a non-emergency nature. For example, if you will require several months of chemotherapy and have no insurance, you will not be given the treatment without a typically six figure cash deposit.

Dccpa

04-06-14, 12:16

WRONG. Prior to ObamaCare, individuals (as in persons not eligible to participate in a group health insurance plan through their employer) were frequently denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions and / or quoted unaffordable monthly premiums. Only EMERGENCY care must be granted in the United States regardless of ability to pay; this meaning you present yourself at an emergency room and request care; however, this does not include treatments for many complex ailments of a non-emergency nature. For example, if you will require several months of chemotherapy and have no insurance, you will not be given the treatment without a typically six figure cash deposit.I know what the law says and I also know what actually happens in hospitals. Esten was talking about those with savings. Why didn't they insurance before they got sick? And if the premiums are not affordable, why weren't they on medicaid?

No matter what the law is, there are going to be populations that will be negatively affected. For example, now that the open enrollment period is closed, here is a new article showing that Obamacare can now be the cause of persons not being able to get insurance.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/even-healthy-locked-2014-policies-now-185935465--politics.html

I wouldn't have had a problem with the intent of the Obamacare law, like having a government subsidized pool for the few persons that somehow couldn't qualify for medicaid and truly couldn't afford private insurance premiums.

But I do have a problem with the government taking away the insurance I chose. Obamacare was written by and for the insurance companies and rushed through Congress by Democrats before Republicans took over the House. Some people are being helped by Obamacare and others are being harmed. Now the government has added yet another layer of adminstration to healthcare and we will all pay that cost. If they had truly cared about the citizens, they could have done something much simpler and much more cost effective.

Next year, the insurance surcharge starts and the projected premiums increases are 20%. About two years after Obama leaves office, voters are going to realize that the big winner is the health insurance companies and that we are the big loser.

Anyone else aware that the software to pay the insurance companies was not developed. The President's solution, the insurance companies will tell the government how much to pay them. No problem, I am sure the insurance companies won't pad the bill.

Esten

04-06-14, 14:21

Actually, they butt-fucked themselves by failing to purchase adequate health insurance, and now they want all butt-fuck all of us by making us pay for their mistakes.

Esten do you ever read what you write? If their savings are being depleted, then they had the funds buy adequate health insurance and chose not to.

Those that could not afford heath insurance had medicaid or got treated anyway. The hospitals have always been full of people who cannot afford health insurance and yet they got treatment. I know too many medical people who can put to lie your spin.Riiighhhht! It was their fault they did not have adequate insurance, because surely they were not dropped or denied coverage because of job loss or pre-existing conditions, or were ineligible for Medicaid but still quoted premiums they could not afford, or which would have prevented them from saving money for anythine else like a car, college or better housing. Of course, Jackson and Dccpa know all about the personal and financial situations of these millions of Americans to make such blanket statements.

Member #4112

04-06-14, 14:33

You are correct DCCPA, the insurance companies and the big hospital corporations were the early big supporters of ObamaCare. They were licking their chops at all the new revenue. For the insurance companies it was all the new enrollments at higher premium costs which the enrollee paid or the government reimbursed the insurance companies via subsidies. The hospital corporations were now going to be able to do away with most of the cost shifts from non-pay to paying patients as nearly everyone was going to have insurance.

The reality has been quite different. The insurance companies are getting the really sick, subsides are so muddied up they have no idea what they are going to receive from the government and the "young invincibles" on which the program is built are not signing up. The hospital corporations are finding the cost shifting is not decreasing but increasing as folks lost their insurance and the number of uninsured in going UP not DOWN.

Who gets screwed? The taxpayer of course! Obama has recently upped the amount the government will give the insurance companies to cover their losses under ObamaCare. Where is that money coming from. The taxpayer of course!

Obama's three lies:

If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, period.

If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance, period.

We signed up 7.1 Million for ObamaCare.

What is really funny is when the private polices were being cancelled, Obama was saying it was only 5% of the market and not significant, just ignore it.
Yet when he claims ObamaCare has signed up only 2% of the market it is VERY SIGNIFICANT!
Go Figure

2014 mid-terms are coming!

Member #4112

04-06-14, 14:34

Riiighhhht! It was their fault they did not have adequate insurance, because surely they were not dropped or denied coverage because of job loss or pre-existing conditions, or were ineligible for Medicaid but still quoted premiums they could not afford, or which would have prevented them from saving money for anythine else like a car, college or better housing. Of course, Jackson and Dccpa know all about the personal and financial situations of these millions of Americans to make such blanket statements.Just like you do Esten.

SteveC

04-09-14, 20:47

Jackson

04-09-14, 21:10

http://orlandoweekly.com/news/the-perils-of-florida-s-refusal-to-expand-medicaid-1.1665144

A mother of three with three jobs dies because she couldn't afford health care in Florida. I could have got this wrong though and she deserved to die.Stop the lies!

The woman died of "a documented heart condition for which she took medication".

Thanks,

Jax.

SteveC

04-09-14, 23:15

I think the point of the article is that she couldn't afford the medication.

"Woolrich was aware that Dill was trying to get refills on her medication but not that she had become ill. Dill had been bumped off Medicaid because she was making too much money – an estimated $9,000 a year".

SteveC

04-09-14, 23:30

That is, she couldn't afford to buy her medication because of her low income and Florida's refusal to accept federal money to expand the programme. In other states she would have been covered, been able to afford the medication, and thus lived.

Maybe I've misunderstood this case, I'm not infallible, but this is not a lie as in "an intentionally false statement". We just disagree.

Miami Bob

04-10-14, 01:40

It is her own fault and not the direct result of the florida policy? Florida is a laboratory for the implementation of "tea party"type health care policy.

the governor ran on a tea party platform. He paid for his own campaign out of his own pocket as he could not get main stream conservative republican support. The legislative districts are drawn so that a state which is pretty close to 50/50[purple] in natinal elections has a legistlature of over 60% very hard right republican/tea party types. It was over 66% until the last election, when more floridian voted democratic in the presidential elections.

The governor and the legislature were proud that they refused $51 billiuon in health care aide for medicaid.

the consequences of this type of health care is that a young woman died who likely would have lived longer if she had medicaid assistance to pay for her medication. this same types of medication on the average sell for 50% of the cost inthe usa in western europe. this is not a pretty picture.

It don't understand why it is the lying sleeze ball obama lovers' creation. I read the arguements here that are completely disconnected from the reality of life in florida.

this same governor, when first elected, transferred medicaid funding for clinics locally from the non-profits and teaching hospital for the univ of miami medical school to a chain of private urgent care cednters that the governor himself founded before elected. his wife had to sell her stock in the company when the sleeze was exposed. the consequnces of the political manipulation was rendering the univ hospital public function insolent and lose of training monies to fund medical post-grad training programs.

to me this is likely criminal and totally amoral. to anne rand it is the right of the "superman" to exercise his will. a bankrupt and amoral view of the world that can justify the most heinous of actions eg hitler's abuses or congressman paul's performance at the great republican debates when he could not respond when asked repeatedly if his policy intentions were to permit the poor to die outside the hospital emergency room door.

Anyone can defend any point of view, but be honest and accept the effects of the policy you argue to support: to prove a political point the consequnce was i woman died earlier than necessary. i am sure some members here take medication that will give them a longer and better life by being able to buy it and take it. we do not have the sepcifics available to research the specifics of the cost benefits and likely increase in the specific woman's life expectancy--that is just conjecture. the policy construct that lead to the situation is probably occurring daily in the usa.
I cannot imagine killing the ACA without implementing a "better" alternative.

Jackson

04-11-14, 15:34

It is her own fault and not the direct result of the florida policy?Hold on to your hats liberals, because I'm sure that this next statement is going to be completely contrary to everything you've ever believed:

It's her fault because every individual is responsible for their own personal well-being.

She was working. She earned money. Apparently she decided to spend that money on something other that the prescription drugs she needed to live.

Did she decide to spend money on recreational drugs instead? Who knows, but it was her lifestyle decisions that put her in the situation that she was in.

Did she decide to spend money on cable TV, cellphones, designer shoes for the kids, etc. instead? Who knows, but it was her lifestyle decisions that put her in the situation that she was in.

Did she have to burden herself with the financial expense of having 3 kids? Who knows, but it was her lifestyle decisions that put her in the situation that she was in.

Did she have to separate from her husband? Who knows, but it was her lifestyle decisions that put her in the situation that she was in.

Did she decline opportunities to educate herself and have a better job? Who knows, but it was her lifestyle decisions that put her in the situation that she was in.

This woman did not die "because she could not afford heart medication". She died because she decided that her prescription medication was not a priority and choose instead to spend her resources elsewhere.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jax.

Member #4112

04-11-14, 18:02

Rockin Bob

04-11-14, 21:31

Jackson excellent post but liberals / progressives will and ever get it because "personal responsibility" or "taking responsibility" for one's actions are simply not in their lexicon.

Everything is someone else's fault. "We" and that would be everyone but the individual liberal / progressive must fund other peoples misadventures to be "compassionate". All hail the Fourth Reich. The Federal Plantation where the lazy and shiftless willingly sell themselves into slavery to the new democrat Fuhrer dejour.

During the Great Depression, people wanted a JOB not a HANDOUT, under the Democrats they now want a HANDOUT not a JOB!Damn that reminds me of Congressman Fincher from Tennessee! Yeah, the Farm Bill guy who's all for cutting SNAP benefits to people who could use a little help. Well as the Congressman told us, it says in the Bible the one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.

Of course, he has no problem accepting big time help in the way of farm subsidies, like on the order of 3.45 million in direct payments over a 13 year period.

Man, working on the Federal Plantation is just fine for Republicans!

Rockin Bob

04-11-14, 22:05

Hold on to your hats liberals, because I'm sure that this next statement is going to be completely contrary to everything you've ever believed:

It's her fault because every individual is responsible for their own personal well-being.

She was working. She earned money. Apparently she decided to spend that money on something other that the prescription drugs she needed to live.

Did she decide to spend money on recreational drugs instead? Who knows, but it was her lifestyle decisions that put her in the situation that she was in.

Did she decide to spend money on cable TV, cellphones, designer shoes for the kids, etc. instead? Who knows, but it was her lifestyle decisions that put her in the situation that she was in.

Did she have to burden herself with the financial expense of having 3 kids? Who knows, but it was her lifestyle decisions that put her in the situation that she was in.

Did she have to separate from her husband? Who knows, but it was her lifestyle decisions that put her in the situation that she was in.

Did she decline opportunities to educate herself and have a better job? Who knows, but it was her lifestyle decisions that put her in the situation that she was in.

This woman did not die "because she could not afford heart medication". She died because she decided that her prescription medication was not a priority and choose instead to spend her resources elsewhere.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jax.Yeah, I get it, Jax. Let's do a little word substitution so that those who are a little slow can be brought to understand.

Did the financial sector encourage irresponsible mortage lending practices instead of sound ones? Who knows, but it was their corporate management policy that put them in the situation they were in.

Did the financial sector deliberately package what they knew to be crappy mortgages into CMO's they claimed were sound? Who knows, but it was their corporate management policy that put them in the situation they were in.

Did the financial sector bribe no strike that contribute to politicians to overturn responsible legislation like the Glass Steagall Act so they could turn the industry into a casino using other people's money? Who knows, but it was their corporate management policy that put them in the situation they were in.

Did the financial sector turn a blind eye to the massive risks that various derivative instruments entailed? Who knows, but it was their corporate management policy that put them in the situation they were in.

So when the whole house of cards is about to come crashing down as a result of those wonderful free market force that Republicans are always praising to the sky, what happens? Does the Federal Government let them suffer the consequences of their actions, let them go out of business, and make way for those who would move for proper regulation and sound business practices? Oh No! Trillions of dollars goes to prop them up and let them keep on doing business as usual! Privatize the profits, publicize the losses.

Excuse me, but I think all the money the nation spends on bailing out banks and starting absolutely counterproductive wars to name just a couple of ways to piss money down a toilet could be a lot better spent on helping average Americans to get education, capital to start their own business, assistance in times of financial hardship, assistance with rebuilding after natural disasters, and the like.

Such as A Single Payer National Health Service like so many other countries seem to have no problem doing.

And the Republicans go, how are you going to pay for it? How about shrinking the Pentagon and the NSA and the whole military industrial complex down to a size where you could drown it in a bathtub?

Tiny12

04-11-14, 22:51

Rockin Bob, While your posts are completely irrelevant to what Doppelganger and Jackson wrote, I strongly agree with the majority of what you posted. However, Democrats are as much to blame as mainstream Republicans. The Democrat party has traditionally been in the pocket of Wall Street. That changed somewhat, probably temporarily, after Obama became president when the bankers realized how incompetent he is.

SteveC

04-12-14, 03:25

It's her fault because every individual is responsible for their own personal well-being.

She was working. She earned money. Apparently she decided to spend that money on something other that the prescription drugs she needed to live.

Maybe she spent her very low income from her various jobs on food and clothes for her kids and on rent to house her family and didn't have any left over for those medicines. From the income she had its unlikely she was living the high life. Maybe she should have worked 20 hour days on low paid jobs to make sure she could have afforded those medicines? Considering her low income its unlikely that she spent it on designer clothes, illegal drugs, and anything else other than the necessities of life.

I believe in personal responsibility too, but also that people can make mistakes in their lives, that we should have a degree of empathy (and that doesn't mean handouts to freeloaders) for people weaker or more vulnerable than ourselves. Some people think that makes me a communist, I think its just basic humanity.

Esten

04-12-14, 13:19

Ideological arguments are often simplistic and fail to capture the full picture. This is the case here again. Jackson is correct that one is responsible for their decisions and actions, and that these influence their situation in life. People are responsible for making the best of their situation. But people are not always 100% responsible for the situations they find themselves in.

The woman was working three jobs. In itself this demonstrates she had some sense of personal responsibility. However her low income of about $900/ month put her in a coverage gap between access to Medicaid and access to affordable health insurance.

We do not know her upbringing. We do not know if she had a genetic predisposition to her condition. We do not know if her condition was exacerbated because she delayed seeking medical attention to save money, maybe hoping the symptoms would go away. Maybe she made mistakes before but was trying to turn things around. We do not know her expenses for food, rent, clothing and medication. The latter could easily run a couple hundred per month or more. She was raising three kids. She may very well have been spending her money responsibly but coming up short. Maybe she could have saved some money by moving into a cheaper area or in the street, but decided this was not the best idea for her kids. Or perhaps she had enough money, but died because of the stress and exhaustion of her situation, combined with her medical problems. We just don't know. Once again, the right wing ideologues are fooling themselves by thinking they know all about the personal and financial situations of other people.

I would not go so far as to claim Florida's Medicaid decision killed this woman. But it's possible a different decision could have prevented her death. It's a documented fact that mortality goes up when access to healthcare goes down.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

Jackson

04-12-14, 13:33

Yeah, I get it, Jax. Let's do a little word substitution so that those who are a little slow can be brought to understand.

Did the financial sector encourage irresponsible mortage lending practices instead of sound ones? Who knows, but it was their corporate management policy that put them in the situation they were in...Rockin Bob,

I have no idea why you are refuting my point about Personal Responsibility with your complaints about Corporate Responsibility, but then justifying bad behavior by one group by pointing to other bad behavior by another group is a common leftist tactict.

However, I can extract one nugget from your diatribe that is actually relative:

Nobody forced anyone to apply for and subsequently executed those "irresponsible mortgages". In fact, motivated by their own unbridled greed, many of these individuals lied about their income and otherwise misrepresented their ability to repay said mortgages, and when everything collapsed they cried foul and decided to dump their "gambling losses" onto the rest of us to pay. If those same mortgage applicants had instead exhibited some modicum of Personal Responsibility and restrained themselves from committing to a financial obligation that they knew they couldn't meet, the entire mortgage "House of Cards" would have never been built.

Of course there were many participants to the housing collapse, and so I must also observe that if the US Government had not been in the business of setting such low mortgage criteria by their blanket repurchasing of these poor quality mortgages from what many in the lending industry knew were unqualified borrowers, then the entire mortgage "House of Cards" would also have never been built.

Get it?

I doubt it, because for some people it's always the corporation's fault, and never the individual's fault and never the government's fault.

Thanks,

Jax

Rockin Bob

04-12-14, 22:14

Rockin Bob,

I have no idea why you are refuting my point about Personal Responsibility with your complaints about Corporate Responsibility, but then justifying bad behavior by one group by pointing to other bad behavior by another group is a common leftist tactict.

I doubt it, because for some people it's always the corporation's fault, and never the individual's fault and never the government's fault.

Thanks,

JaxJackson, I totally agree with you about the personal responsibility thing. And frankly if the mortgage lenders take advantage of idiots I really don't care.

On the other hand, the policies of the 1% who run this country ain't geared to helping people, they're geared to further enriching the one percent. The government is nothing but a bunch of lackeys for the 1%. It is a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. Read the recent McCutcheon decision by the Supreme Court! Utter nonsense with no other purpose than give even more power to the one percent.

Why don't the banksters and corporate criminals get prosecuted? Because they haven't broken any laws, because they write the laws. And why should someone prosecute them when they can slap their wrists and have a nice job waiting for them when they exit public service?

But a few decades ago when Americans had something like a functioning democracy, what did they do? Elect the idiots. What's the Trouble with Kansas, that sort of thing.

I don't care if poor people get screwed, as long as it's they themselves who are screwing themselves, which is one thing you can rely on them to do do a really good job of. I say if people don't want to help them (would people who can't help themselves ever help YOU?) Fine, but don't kick them when they're down, either.

Fixing what's wrong, identifying what's wrong with the system doesn't have to be a question of who's "fault" it is. It would be great if everybody realized we are in this together. The ship is sinking and we should be finding ways to plug the leak, not blaming somebody for not spotting the iceberg or ordering full speed ahead in an ice field at night.

That being said, what sums up my thoughts on personal responibility is this classic Cris Rock clip. If you just have a couple of minutes just watch the last half, but the whole thing is great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4

Miami Bob

04-13-14, 15:10

SteveC

04-29-14, 10:45

Dccpa

04-30-14, 00:00

More bad news for the people on here who think this should never have been allowed to happen.

http://articles.philly.com/2014-04-28/news/49440051_1_health-plan-obamacare-life-saving-surgery

Of course, he should have bought his own insurance, whatever the cost. I hate parasites like this who rely on subsidised health care.How exactly did he pay for the operation in 2011? He had no insurance and based upon his health insurance premium, his annual income is only about $17 k. Something doesn't add up. BTW, if he tried to sign up today, they would tell him no because the open enrollment period is closed. They would now let him die.

Dccpa

04-30-14, 00:14

The mortgage broker or employee of a major bank or s&l lie to them and misleads them so they can make money...I am assuming this was frequently the case. Joe six pack does not really have the capacity to perform a real due diligence on a mortgage, that is why they go to a licensed professional or a licensed financial institution. It is joe sixpack's fault that the experts lies to them and misleads them to make money. The discussed social poilicy being suggested is to make joe sixpack suffer financial ruin and the licensed professionals and institutions get special help to over come loses resulting from their own misconduct in their own areas of expertise. This reads to me like it is some where on the other side of the looking glass--the mad hatter is dancing with the rabit and is irrational and insane to me. We live in a complex world.Who is to blame? The home buyers lying about their incomes? The mortgage professional who processed the fraudulent applications? The investment professionals who packaged the loans into tranches and sold them to unsuspecting pension funds and other investors?

I will take all of the above for $100 Alex. All of them participated in the fraud for gain. A lot of the home buyers knew they couldn't really afford homes and they lied to qualify. Some people were mislead by the mortgage brokers and those are the ones who deserve sympathy. Their loans should be modified. But the NINJA applicants knew what they were doing.

Jackson

04-30-14, 02:14

Who is to blame? The home buyers lying about their incomes? The mortgage professional who processed the fraudulent applications? The investment professionals who packaged the loans into tranches and sold them to unsuspecting pension funds and other investors?

I will take all of the above for $100 Alex. All of them participated in the fraud for gain. A lot of the home buyers knew they couldn't really afford homes and they lied to qualify. Some people were mislead by the mortgage brokers and those are the ones who deserve sympathy. Their loans should be modified. But the NINJA applicants knew what they were doing.And let's not forget the real estate agents who pumped the properties, the property appraisers whose reports validated the loans, and of course Congress who got the entire ball rolling by ordering Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to lower their mortgage requirements in the first place.

Jax.

Rev BS

05-02-14, 21:18

And let's not forget the real estate agents who pumped the properties, the property appraisers whose reports validated the loans, and of course Congress who got the entire ball rolling by ordering Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to lower their mortgage requirements in the first place.

Jax.So there is enough mayonnaise to spread, what else is new?

I believe in HONEST / VISIONARY government. You on the other hand, believe in NO GOVERNMENT? I do admire your confidence/courage to survive in no mans land. I think the pioneers had that spirit, and to a large degree, most immigrants, especially the illegal immigrants.

SteveC

05-03-14, 08:26

The count is rising.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obamacare-enrollment-may-approach-18-million?cid=sm_facebook

Jackson

05-03-14, 17:35

The count is rising.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obamacare-enrollment-may-approach-18-million?cid=sm_facebookThe bad news is that the butt-fucking of the American taxpayer continues.

Jackson

05-03-14, 17:36

So there is enough mayonnaise to spread, what else is new?

I believe in HONEST / VISIONARY government. You on the other hand, believe in NO GOVERNMENT? I do admire your confidence/courage to survive in no mans land. I think the pioneers had that spirit, and to a large degree, most immigrants, especially the illegal immigrants.Rev,

1. There is no such thing as an "HONEST / VISIONARY government". Government is a bureaucracy that collectively looks out for itself, period. The best you can hope for is that somewhere along the way the bureaucracy also performs some necessary functions.

The very best we can hope for is "HONEST / VISIONARY leaders", for which we are in short supply these days.

2. I've never advocated for "NO GOVERNMENT", although the left likes to use this false alternative in their otherwise intellectually vacant arguments against those who wish for a smaller government because we are the ones paying the bills.

3. What does illegal immigrants aliens have to do with any of this?

Thanks,

Jax.

SteveC

05-03-14, 22:06

The bad news is that the butt-fucking of the American taxpayer continues.You must be one of these visionary leaders, telling people what's good for them. Or what they shouldn't be doing.

ElAlamoPalermo

05-03-14, 23:23

The bad news is that the butt-fucking of the American taxpayer continues.I actually agree with this notion completely, that "the American taxpayer gets butt-fucked". The US taxpayer basically gets jack shit for his income tax dollar; no "free" (meaning payed for by tax revenue) university education, no "free" healthcare, both of which are commonly "included" in civilized first world countries. A US taxpayer earning $200,000 per year is going to lose half his income to taxes between federal income, FICA, and state income (where applicable) and he gets little value for it. US military spending and foreign aid is totally out of control; Medicare paying more for services than private insurance do is blasphemy. In some cases, federal employee salaries are completely out of control; for example, I have two relatives who are GS 13 and GS 14 level federal employees for the NPS; they make upwards of $250,000 annually between them (not including what it costs the government for health benefits, pension contributions, etc); salaries of that sort to administer a park are completely outrageous. Entire government agencies should be eliminated completely; Department of Energy and Department of Labor come to mind. The US does not have a revenue problem, it has a massive spending problem.

Tiny12

05-04-14, 03:19

EAP, The problem is that the American federal government is incapable of efficiently providing higher education or healthcare. If it were able to do as well in that area as, say, Singapore or Hong Kong, some of your so-called fascists on this board, including me, would change our positions. By "efficiently", I include rationing services to those who don't deserve it. For example, taxpayers shouldn't pay for a $100,000 cancer treatment for someone who's going to die in 2 months anyway or a university education in philosophy for someone who's not a top student. Unfortunately, these are exactly the kinds of things politicians would subsidize to buy votes.

Esten

05-04-14, 16:20

Taxes and revenues are near historic lows. The high earners are living better than ever. So any notion that taxpayers are getting butt fucked (based on their taxes) is emotional hyperbole. Spending is also near historic highs. But alleged overspending and waste might not be as much as some people think. The average federal salary is about 80 K, justified by the higher level of education typically required. If you go through a line by line review of mandatory and discretionary spending, you'll probably find it almost all serves a good or necessary purpose. Ideas like eliminating the DOE must be vetted. The private sector is not going to maintain our nuclear weapons and facilities, or ensure safe disposal of radioactive waste for free. Who would pay for it? I'd support some smart spending cuts (Defense is probably a good target) if they were offset by additional smart revenue increases.

I agree with Bill Clinton: What we need is a strong government and a strong private sector.

For those that insist on a negative view, a more accurate statement is that Wall Street and Big Business are butt fucking America. They are the big winners in the Darwinian free-market system. These interests are not looking to create more jobs either. They are looking to create more profits, and where possible this involves eliminating jobs, often good paying jobs.

Miami Bob

05-04-14, 22:58

Is this the governmental process that Jackson is describing?

Tiny12

05-05-14, 00:27

Dear Esten,

The "Darwinian" free market system creates jobs and provides the greatest prosperity for all. When wall street and businesses "butt fuck", as you put it, it's because politicians and government have encouraged or allowed them to do it.

Government and politicians pay subsidies and grant privileges to politically-connected individuals and companies. Right, favored businesses can lower their effective tax rate with loopholes to single digits. And those that are successful and cannot are stuck with federal + state rates around 40% for see corporations and 50% for other entities and individuals.

This is the second or third time that you've looked backwards at tax rates, in 2012 before Obama raised rates, and proclaimed that income taxes are low. And actually they still are for the majority of individuals, as a result of tax cuts that occurred during the Bush administration.

You want more jobs? Allow USA Corporations to bring back money from overseas and invest in the USA without taxing it exorbitantly. Streamline regulations. Create a tax system with lower rates and less loopholes.

Yes, much federal government spending may serve good purposes. But the waste and inefficiency are ridiculous. Too many individuals and companies game the system to receive handouts or to overcharge or to receive what they're not entitled to. Look at the post office. Look at what the Department of Defense spends on nuts and bolts, or the bases and projects it keeps going to satisfy politicians.

Regards,

Tiny.

Esten

05-06-14, 00:07

Ultimately, a key and simple number to follow is simply the overall uninsured rate. It was at 17.3% in December, and at 16.1% earlier this month. We should expect ACA will keep moving that number lower.Uninsured rate now down to 13.4%, the lowest rate Gallup has ever recorded.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/168821/uninsured-rate-drops.aspx

The rate will keep dropping. The CBO says there will still be 30 Million uninsured in 2022, but compare that with 48 Million uninsured in 2012. The ACA was an incremental step, not designed to expand coverage to everyone. But that's a pretty big step, and with significant consumer protections built in as well. Below is a joke told in healthcare policy discussions.

A health policy expert dies and goes to heaven. When there, he is greeted by God himself, and the Lord says that the health expert can ask one question of Him before entering heaven. The health expert chooses to ask God “Will we ever have universal health insurance coverage in the United States?” To which God answers “Yes, but not in my lifetime.”

Member #4112

05-06-14, 20:39

So we are destroying a good system just to insure so few? It would have been much easier just to lump them into Medicaid, where many are ending up anyway.

Everyone "loves" ObamaCare? Well not according to the latest Washington Post / ABC Poll.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...1f4_story.html

Since our liberal / progressive friends embraced the poll prior to this one claiming it showed a trend upward for the Democrats / Obamacare / Obama, I wonder if they will embrace this one with the same vigor?

It would appear Jackson's reach is much greater than his detractors have given him credit for. From the numbers in this poll there are a majority of Obama Haters out there.

Wild Walleye

05-08-14, 12:50

I lost my health insurance (carrier dropped the plan, replacement was 250% more expensive). I grabbed something else and lost my doctors since, none of them were on the new plan. Since my old doctors were not on the new plan, the prescriptions that they wrote would not be filled by the new plan. So, after spending years of building relationships with the three doctors (that I saw most often), I had to start building those relationships all over. We were a family of five and with the exception of the kids' pediatrician, we had to change all the doctors that we see. So, there are five people who had great insurance who had it taken away from them (euphemistically "could not keep it") which, is precisely the opposite of what was promised.

Like I have said from the very beginning, "healthcare reform" in the US has almost nothing to do with healthcare. Healthcare is just the Trojan horse within which the mortal threats to our freedoms are deliberately hidden. IMO, anyone trying to argue in favor of destroying the Constitution and personal liberties in the name of something that they know to be "for the best" is either a wanna-be dictator or a useful idiot.

SteveC

05-09-14, 22:00

First quarter reports from several for-profit hospital systems across the country show that the number of uninsured emergency room admissions are seeing sharp declines, particularly in states which chose to expand Medicaid.

The CFO of Community Health Systems, Larry Cash, told investors in the company's first-quarter earnings call on Wednesday that he expects the ACA to cut uninsured admissions by half, from 8% to 4% over the next three years. He reported that the company has already seen some moderate reductions in such admissions, especially in the states which accepted the option of Medicaid expansion.

"We believe we have recognized, although on a roughly calculated basis, at least $10 million from the 'woodwork effect', (a term coined to describe those who were already eligible for Medicaid but only found out when they attempted to sign up for a plan on the exchanges), and the Affordable Care Act for additional Medicaid business," He told investors.

Bill Carpenter, the CEO, said that at this point the effect of the law had been positive and expected and that he thought those positive effects will continue.

"In the seven states where we operate that have expanded coverage, we saw increasing Medicaid and decreasing self-pay volumes. Increases in Medicaid membership and health insurance exchange participation contributed measurably to our results in the quarter. While we don't expect additional states to expand coverage in 2014, we're optimistic that more conversions will occur over time," he said.

Lifepoint, another hospital system, reported similar positive effects in its first-quarter earnings call last week and said the where Medicaid expansion had been embraced, the results were the most apparent.

HCA reported that it has seen a 29% drop in uninsured admissions in states which expanded Medicaid while their hospitals in states which declined to do so have seen a 5.9% increase in such admissions.

Since use of the emergency room is the only method many of those without insurance have for obtaining healthcare, and since it is the most expensive way of delivering healthcare, reducing the number of uninsured is one of the best ways to reduce the cost of healthcare overall and it would appear that Obamacare is accomplishing one of its main goals reducing costs.

As people receive the care that they need at a reduced cost, the GOP may find that running against Obamacare is more of a liability than it is a positive for them. At this point, it may well be too late to reverse course and embrace the law that their constituents have already begun to accept.

Easy Go

05-12-14, 18:02

I actually agree with this notion completely, that "the American taxpayer gets butt-fucked". The US taxpayer basically gets jack shit for his income tax dollar; no "free" (meaning payed for by tax revenue) university education, no "free" healthcare, both of which are commonly "included" in civilized first world countries. A US taxpayer earning $200,000 per year is going to lose half his income to taxes between federal income, FICA, and state income (where applicable) and he gets little value for it. US military spending and foreign aid is totally out of control; Medicare paying more for services than private insurance do is blasphemy. In some cases, federal employee salaries are completely out of control; for example, I have two relatives who are GS 13 and GS 14 level federal employees for the NPS; they make upwards of $250,000 annually between them (not including what it costs the government for health benefits, pension contributions, etc); salaries of that sort to administer a park are completely outrageous. Entire government agencies should be eliminated completely; Department of Energy and Department of Labor come to mind. The US does not have a revenue problem, it has a massive spending problem.Not to take away from your larger point, I'm curious how your relative's make that kind of money. Looking at the wage table for San Francisco (which has the highest locality supplement at around 35% a GS-13 maxes at $127 K and a GS-14 maxes at $150 K. I know there are some potential bonuses and special pay for particular positions but didn't realize that it could be "upwards of $250 K". Supposedly nobody can make more than the Vice-President's rate of about $201 K.

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2014/SF.pdf

I assume there is some special deal arranged so that the football and basketball coaches of the service academy's since the Navy football coach makes $1.6 M and the others seem to be in the mid-six figures. A football or basketball coach is the top paid public employee in 39 states.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/05/20/coaches-highest-paid-public-employees-washington-and-38-other-states/

The federal government actually looks pretty sane compared to the stories I see of police officers making $200 K and the heads of state hospitals making a million bucks.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/29/local/la-me-0329-top-compensation-20110329

ElAlamoPalermo

05-12-14, 21:01

Not to take away from your larger point, I'm curious how your relative's make that kind of money. Looking at the wage table for San Francisco (which has the highest locality supplement at around 35% a GS-13 maxes at $127 K and a GS-14 maxes at $150 K. I know there are some potential bonuses and special pay for particular positions but didn't realize that it could be "upwards of $250 K". Supposedly nobody can make more than the Vice-President's rate of about $201 K.

If you read my post again more carefully you will notice I wrote that they make upwards of $250 k between them (combined); I also stated the exact federal agency they work for.

Easy Go

05-14-14, 20:06

Thanks. I wondered if they were double-dipping or using one of the other available ways to escape the nominal limit.

SteveC

05-15-14, 02:12

The latest evidence that the ACA is working just as it was intended to. The numbers don't lie, but Republicans do.

http://www.pwc.com/us/hix/employerrates

SteveC

05-19-14, 03:06

I think we all agree that Sean Hannity is an out there nut job liar, but here is a fine example of the anti-ACA propaganda being pushed out there that must have an effect on the opinion polls about the ACA. Last week Hannity hosted three families who claimed to have had their rates hiked and lost coverage because of the ACA.

Their claims were fact checked and lo and behold the fact checkers found that one family had lied and the other two had never actually checked the ACA site where they would have found that they would be paying less and have more complete coverage.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/

Member #4112

05-19-14, 11:26

The latest evidence that the ACA is working just as it was intended to. The numbers don't lie, but Republicans do.

http://www.pwc.com/us/hix/employerratesSteveC, why then, if ObamaCare was working so well, is the White House floating the idea of an ACA Czar to insure when August, September and November roll around and companies begin to receive their cancellation notices due to non-conformance with ObamaCare there is not the same debacle as in 2013?

If the Dem's had a brain they would have let the entire hammer of private and company cancelations fall in 2013, an off election year, and just taken their lumps. No they took the lumps from the little hammer, private cancellations, and put off the big hammer of company cancellations until an election year!

Again, it would have been much cheaper and less disruptive to have moved these "uninsured" in to Medicaid where most are going, if it had to be done at all.

Tiny12

05-19-14, 12:42

The numbers don't lie, but Republicans do.

Yeah, Well, at least Republicans aren't mass murderers, like Democrats:

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/az-congressional-candidate-says-mass-shooters-are-democrats/article_fa1efe8e-de13-11e3-a781-001a4bcf887a.html

OK, I actually don't believe Democrats are murderers. But saying Republicans are liars is just as ridiculous and offensive.

Wild Walleye

05-19-14, 14:50

Uninsured rate now down to 13.4%, the lowest rate Gallup has ever recorded.Unemployment is allegedly way down, too. I can tell you what I see in the real world and it doesn't jibe with the happy horseshit being manufactured in Washington. The nation is in a world of hurt. Tens of millions of people are in the process of losing the healthcare coverage that they had. Why? Please stop with the notion that any of this was intended to provide anyone with better healthcare. No one believes that. If they did, Congress and the WH would be jumping at the opportunity to sign up for Obamacare.

Dickhead

05-19-14, 15:10

Being a law-abiding citizen, and given that my COBRA coverage ran out in November 2013, when I returned from Europe in late October I went to sign up for the insurance. For the record, I am in favor of socialized medicine or universal health coverage or whatever you want to call it. Anyway, it was at least a week or to and into early November before I could even get on my state's site (my state chose both to have its own site and to participate in Medicaid expansion). Once I did, I was told I had to apply for and be denied Medicaid before I could apply for the subsidy. Fine. So the Medicaid threshold is 139% of the federal poverty level, which for a single person is $11,670 for 2014 or $11,490 for 2013. This was a 2013 application for 2014 coverage so I don't know which number they used, but assuming the higher one, 1.39 x 11,670 = $16,221 and the income I reported as actual 2013 was quite a bit more. So, I was denied Medicaid and give a "denial number" to use to apply for the subsidy.

So, I applied for the subsidy, was told how much it would be, then selected a health plan from CIGNA. The subsidy was then netted against the premium to come up with my share of the cost. I was told to expect beaucoup information via snail mail from CIGNA in the near future. Great. A couple of days later, I left the country again for six months. When I left the country I became unable to enter the e-mail account I had given on the application because I was using public computers and hotmail wanted to send me an access code, to my US cell phone, which I did not have with me given it does not work outside the US and Canada. But I didn't think that would matter because I had told them snail mail was my preferred means of communication.

I have an agent in the US whose address I use and who handles my mail. I kept checking with her to see what I had gotten from CIGNA. Nothing. Crickets. Then in late December I got a letter in the mail saying I had been put on Medicaid. Then I got a letter at the end of January saying I had been kicked off because my income had changed. Now, from the time I applied in early November to the time I received the notice my only income was maybe $1,000 in dividends. Then in February I got all kinds of shit from Medicaid including an actual Medicaid card.

Upon my return to the US early this month, I regained access to the hotmail account and had three communications from the health insurance site: first, one confirming the Medicaid denial; and second, one saying there had been 'an error on my account when (I had) initially created it.' This error, not revealed with any specificity, had allegedly been corrected and I was 'invited to return' to the site and continue with my plan selection, which I, of course, thought I was already finished with. The third one, dated Dec. 27, congratulated me on being determined to be eligible for the exact same credit / subsidy that had been determined back in November and telling me I was eligible to purchase a plan through the state's website (which I thought I already had done!

Then I came back home and had all this Medicaid shit and a letter saying 'since you did not respond to our request for further documentation' (no such request was ever received, of course) we threw your ass in the Medicaid pool. Well, Medicaid is free and free is good but there is no way in hell I am eligible for it so tomorrow I have an appointment with an actual person (but via phone) to try to straighten all this garbage out. Any new system of this scope and magnitude is bound to have a few glitches and I have apparently become one of these glitches.

Dickhead

05-20-14, 22:15

SteveC

05-21-14, 05:33

SteveC, why then, if ObamaCare was working so well, is the White House floating the idea of an ACA Czar to insure when August, September and November roll around and companies begin to receive their cancellation notices due to non-conformance with ObamaCare there is not the same debacle as in 2013?

If the Dem's had a brain they would have let the entire hammer of private and company cancelations fall in 2013, an off election year, and just taken their lumps. No they took the lumps from the little hammer, private cancellations, and put off the big hammer of company cancellations until an election year!

Again, it would have been much cheaper and less disruptive to have moved these "uninsured" in to Medicaid where most are going, if it had to be done at all.Agree, its a long, long way from perfect and they could have handled it much better, so say the least. Dickhead's account show's how imperfect it is. I agree with him, a european (or australian, where I live now) system would be preferable, call it socialist if you will. I just think its an improvement on the previous system, and I find comments such as 'its butt fucking' the US people are just so ludicrous and ignorant it pisses me off.

SteveC

05-21-14, 05:35

Yeah, Well, at least Republicans aren't mass murderers, like Democrats:

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/az-congressional-candidate-says-mass-shooters-are-democrats/article_fa1efe8e-de13-11e3-a781-001a4bcf887a.html

OK, I actually don't believe Democrats are murderers. But saying Republicans are liars is just as ridiculous and offensive.Agree, just a touch of hyperbole. To call the ACA 'butt fucking' the American people is ridiculous and offensive too.

Punter 127

05-25-14, 22:51

Ben Carson: VA Mess Predicts Even Worse Outcome for Obamacare.

"I think whats happening with the veterans is a gift from God to show us what happens when you take layers and layers of bureaucracy and place them between the patients and the healthcare provider,"

"And if we cant get it right, with the relatively small number of veterans, how in the world are you going to do it with the entire population?" he asked. "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out."

"We need seriousness here rather than just political speak. 'How can I look better? How can my party look better?' And Im saying this to both Democrats and Republicans: Stop, and think about the people," Carson said.

"You guys are servants. You're not rulers. You have to get that out of your mind and think about what we can do to solve the problems in this nation, some of which threaten to destroy our nation.

Wow, "You guys are servants. You're not rulers" that's something all politicians should be reminded of frequently. IMHO.

Watch Dr Carson's interview.

http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/ben-carson-veterans-hospital-medical-scandal/2014/05/24/id/573233/

I think we all agree that the Veterans are getting a 'butt fucking'.

SteveC

05-26-14, 09:13

"I think whats happening with the veterans is a gift from God to show us what happens when you take layers and layers of bureaucracy and place them between the patients and the healthcare provider,"

"And if we cant get it right, with the relatively small number of veterans, how in the world are you going to do it with the entire population?" he asked. "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out."

"We need seriousness here rather than just political speak. 'How can I look better? How can my party look better?' And Im saying this to both Democrats and Republicans: Stop, and think about the people," Carson said.

"You guys are servants. You're not rulers. You have to get that out of your mind and think about what we can do to solve the problems in this nation, some of which threaten to destroy our nation.

Wow, "You guys are servants. You're not rulers" that's something all politicians should be reminded of frequently. IMHO.

Watch Dr Carson's interview.

http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/ben-carson-veterans-hospital-medical-scandal/2014/05/24/id/573233/

[B]I think we all agree that the Veterans are getting a 'butt fucking'. From the man who said that the ACA was "the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery." I can't take this tea party lackey seriously. He ignores the fact that this issue of veterans' health care has existed a long time prior to this President taking office and that the Democratic party attempted to get additional funding for the Veterans Administration, only to experience yet again, that same old tactic embraced by Mitch McConnell and his chumps; obstruction via filibuster.

I'd trust more the word of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States in their letter to Senator Richard Burr this week. Every year since 2005 they've been "warning Congress about the dangers of long wait times and care rationing due to improper resources, oversight and accountability". "For years the VFW has come to Congress with hat in hand, and for years we've heard the same old story".

For Carson to come out with this bullshit is pure political opportunism. In short the problem existed before the ACA was even thought of and the Republicans have been actively blocking extra funding. If anyone is doing any 'but fucking' its the Republicans in Congress.

Tiny12

05-26-14, 12:42

He ignores the fact that this issue of veterans' health care has existed a long time prior to this President taking office and that the Democratic party attempted to get additional funding for the Veterans Administration, only to experience yet again, that same old tactic embraced by Mitch McConnell and his chumps; obstruction via filibuster....For Carson to come out with this bullshit is pure political opportunism. In short the problem existed before the ACA was even thought of and the Republicans have been actively blocking extra funding. If anyone is doing any 'but fucking' its the Republicans in Congress.Steve, That's not true. Please see the following, which is a news piece, not from the editorial page:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303749904579580270767613840?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303749904579580270767613840.html

This is from the opinion page:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304479704579577761333004746

I agree that Democrat politicians (as well as some Republicans) believe they can solve any problem by mindlessly throwing more money at it.

Member #4112

05-26-14, 12:51

SteveC, please take off the Democratic rose colored glasses please.

The VA debacle reaches all the way back to John Kennedy, crosses party lines from Johnson, back to Nixon, back to Carter, back to Regan, Bush, back to Clinton, back again to Bush and now to Obama. Don't forget Congress's role in this mess nor the VA's on complicity in this tragedy.

Obama made the grand pledge, lie if you will among many others, of fixing the VA as a candidate and then President. Point of fact Obama claimed the VA would be the model for healthcare reform!

http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/flashback-obama-modeled-early-health-care-plan-after-va/

Forget you not the Democrat Party held total political power, House, Senate and Presidency, during Obama's first two years in office. They were free and did enact any and every liberal / progressive pipe dream and program their little hearts desired. Did they fix the VA? NO, they passed among other things ObamaCare.

If you want to view ObamaCare in a few years look no further than the VA!

To this and many prior administrations, military men and women were expendable assets to be used when needed. When not needed ignored, under paid, under supported, and when injured they are to be disregarded. How as a people can we believe it better to pay, feed, cloth, support, subsidize the lazy with welfare, food stamps, Medicaid than care for the very people who sacrifice to guarantee the freedoms we take for granted?

Tiny12

05-26-14, 12:54

Sorry, I linked to the wrong opinion piece below but can't edit my post. The following shows that increased funding for the VA has received strong support from Republicans, and the VA's budget has risen much more than the number of patients it treats:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304652804579574011612797276

Tres3

05-26-14, 13:25

Veterans would be much better served at a lower cost to taxpayers if the entire Veterans Administration were shut down. A special Medicare section could be established that recognized Veterans' unique medical requirements, and paid the providers of those medical services directly. The non-medical services performed by the VA are small when compared to the medical costs, and could be transferred to another agency, such as Health and Human Services. Our Veterans deserve better than they are receiving from the VA, but throwing money at the VA will not solve the systemic problems of the VA.

Tres3.

Don B

05-26-14, 13:26

From the man who said that the ACA was "the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery." I can't take this tea party lackey seriously. He ignores the fact that this issue of veterans' health care has existed a long time prior to this President taking office and that the Democratic party attempted to get additional funding for the Veterans Administration, only to experience yet again, that same old tactic embraced by Mitch McConnell and his chumps; obstruction via filibuster.

I'd trust more the word of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States in their letter to Senator Richard Burr this week. Every year since 2005 they've been "warning Congress about the dangers of long wait times and care rationing due to improper resources, oversight and accountability". "For years the VFW has come to Congress with hat in hand, and for years we've heard the same old story".

For Carson to come out with this bullshit is pure political opportunism. In short the problem existed before the ACA was even thought of and the Republicans have been actively blocking extra funding. If anyone is doing any 'but fucking' its the Republicans in Congress.

Lackey, a favorite term used by the looney progressives, but I repeat myself.

Don B.

Jackson

05-26-14, 21:44

I was able to straighten this all out fairly quickly today and am no longer on welfare as of June 1. My subsidy was $377 per month and the insurance cost $619 so my net cost is $242 a month, up $23 from what they quoted me when I signed up in November. $1,450 maximum annual out-of-pocket.Great. The man gets a $377 per month subsidy, so ObamaCare muse be working.

So who gets to pay the $377 per month subsidy? The Magic Health Care Fairy?

No surprise, the people who are financially benefiting from any program will sing it's praises.

For once I'd like to hear a positive story about Obamacare from someone who actually pays their entire premium themselves, sans subsidy.

Bueller, Bueller?

Thanks,

Jackson.

Dickhead

05-26-14, 23:27

Great. The man gets a $377 per month subsidy, so ObamaCare muse be working.

So who gets to pay the $377 per month subsidy? The Magic Health Care Fairy?

No surprise, the people who are financially benefiting from any program will sing it's praises.

For once I'd like to hear a positive story about Obamacare from someone who actually pays their entire premium themselves, sans subsidy.

Bueller, Bueller?

Thanks,

Jackson.Where did I sing its praises? If a person paid the entire premium with no subsidy, then I think the biggest benefit for many would be the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions. Then there is the requirement that the insurer actually spend 80% (I think that is the number) of premiums on actually providing health care. That's probably good. Everyone should keep in mind that since this is a subsidy against federal income tax, tax planning that maximizes the subsidy (for example, cashing in assets that you have substantial basis in, or making Roth IRA withdrawals) is going to be as necessary as planning that maximizes itemized deductions (taking out an interest-only mortgage, for example).

SteveC

05-27-14, 03:55

S. 1982 (Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014). A bill to improve the provision of medical services and benefits to veterans, and for other purposes.

Summary of the vote: 51 Yea (includes two R), 41 Nay (all R).

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00046#position.

Maybe I misunderstood his stance, but I'm sure Carson was blaming Obama for the problem. The point I was making is that is been a long standing problem, and the latest vote shows the Republicans still opposing help for the vets. Of course Obama has had time to improve matters. I'm not a fan of Obama.

Doppleganger: I'm not a Democrat.

Don B: If you don't think Carson is a 'servile toady or follower' of the Tea Party faction, you haven't read much of his stuff. I think he fits the definition of a lackey perfectly. Google his writings and tv appearances and you'll see. By the way, how would you define a 'looney progressive'? Or is just that some hackneyed phrase that you just threw in there without thinking about it?

Easy Go

05-27-14, 05:28

Is DH's direct subsidy any different than the indirect tax subsidies of my employer-paid insurance? His is on the expense side and mine is on the revenue side but in both cases, the taxpayer is footing the bill.

Easier Medicaid eligibility, direct subsidies for the near-poor, and letting under-26's stay on their parent's policy were always going to be the vast majority of the beneficiaries. It's just making more room at the trough for those that had been shut out before.

Tiny12

05-27-14, 14:12

S. 1982 (Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014). A bill to improve the provision of medical services and benefits to veterans, and for other purposes.

Summary of the vote: 51 Yea (includes two R), 41 Nay (all R).

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00046#position.

The 367 page bill was a grab bag, introduced by Bernie Sanders, the Socialist who caucuses with Democrats. Among many, many other things, it would have increased pension benefits for people entering the armed services now, forced states to grant in-state tuition to veterans, and required the VA to treat veterans who are set financially and whose injuries aren't service related. Like I said, Democrat politicians think they can solve any problem by throwing more money at it. It ain't so.

We should thank goodness for split government. When the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress during the first two years of Obama's term and the pre-Tea Party Republicans had control during part of Bush's term, the politicians spent like drunken sailors.

Dickhead

05-27-14, 19:53

SteveC

05-28-14, 02:58

The 367 page bill was a grab bag, introduced by Bernie Sanders, the Socialist who caucuses with Democrats. Among many, many other things, it would have increased pension benefits for people entering the armed services now, forced states to grant in-state tuition to veterans, and required the VA to treat veterans who are set financially and whose injuries aren't service related. Like I said, Democrat politicians think they can solve any problem by throwing more money at it. It ain't so.

We should thank goodness for split government. When the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress during the first two years of Obama's term and the pre-Tea Party Republicans had control during part of Bush's term, the politicians spent like drunken sailors.I think I posted on here before that politics is the art of the possible. You have to get through what you can even if it isn't perfect; no bill ever is. The Republicans would prefer to stop this bill whose main purpose is to help the health care of veterans rather than give Obama any credit. Are you seriously saying that the Republicans tried to block a bill because it strayed from its fundamental purpose? Name me one bill where they didn't try to add some 'pork' to it. Or the Democrats for that matter. You really have to be joking.

And describing Bernie Saunders as a socialist merely shows that you've no idea what a genuine socialist is.

Tiny12

05-28-14, 03:41

Are you seriously saying that the Republicans tried to block a bill because it strayed from its fundamental purpose? Name me one bill where they didn't try to add some 'pork' to it.

And describing Bernie Saunders as a socialist merely shows that you've no idea what a genuine socialist is.No, I'm saying it was a bad bill. Republicans didn't try to add pork. Instead they wanted to add an amendment that would have imposed sanctions on Iran. And the bill would have passed if Reid had agreed to the amendment. How's that for straying from the bill's fundamental purpose?

Saunders says he's a socialist. Are you calling him a liar? Or do you believe he has no idea what a genuine socialist is?

Lots of money has been thrown at VA hospitals and they're still not working. But so what, let's mindlessly throw some more money at them. In general, that's the platform of the Democrat party, be it education or Obamacare or anything else. To be fair, the proposed Iranian sanctions amendment shows mainstream Republicans aren't guiltless either. They're playing the stupid political game you describe, accepting bad legislation if there's enough pork or other benefits. But they're not as bad as the Democrats.

Tiny12

05-28-14, 03:46

I think I posted on here before that politics is the art of the possible. You are naive. Politics is the art of screwing the people for the benefit of the politicians.

Esten

05-28-14, 23:45

You are naive. Politics is the art of screwing the people for the benefit of the politicians.Posts like these remind us how Republicans with their negative views earned the nickname "The Party of No". It's not enough that they promote policies that lead to financial ruin and death. They have to constantly sow, spew and share their negativity.

Take off the black colored glasses Tiny. Steve's statement is far closer to the truth than yours.

Tiny12

05-29-14, 01:14

Posts like these remind us how Republicans with their negative views earned the nickname "The Party of No". It's not enough that they promote policies that lead to financial ruin and death. They have to constantly sow, spew and share their negativity.

Take off the black colored glasses Tiny. Steve's statement is far closer to the truth than yours.Steve's statement is true for Singapore, Switzerland, New Zealand, and certain Scandinavian countries. It's also true true for certain regional and local governments. Most of the rest of humanity is ruled over by corrupt politicians.

The primary concern of the majority of politicians at the federal level in the USA is getting re-elected. This inevitably leads to corruption, waste, and unfairness, as they sell out to lobbyists and to constituents who want free money. The exceptions are Tea Party types. And also a few misguided soles like Dennis Kucinich, who are right on social issues but missed the boat on economics.

The policies of Democrats and fiscally liberal Republicans will most likely lead to financial ruin.

Punter 127

05-29-14, 06:43

Maybe I misunderstood his stance, but I'm sure Carson was blaming Obama for the problem. The point I was making is that is been a long standing problem, and the latest vote shows the Republicans still opposing help for the vets. Of course Obama has had time to improve matters. I'm not a fan of Obama.[snip]Undoubtedly a rush to judgment by you based on preconceived notions. It is clearly stated in the video, in the transcript of the video, and in my post that Dr Carson said, "We need seriousness here rather than just political speak. 'How can I look better? How can my party look better?' And Im saying this to both Democrats and Republicans: Stop,and think about the people".

Dr. Carson was making a prediction for ObamaCare and using the VA situation as a comparison. By slamming the Republicans and exposing the gridlock in Congress you have given credence to the argument that our government is ill-equipped to administer social programs, at best it's a struggle and they will always be plagued with problems. We've had gridlock in the past and we'll have it in the future with the parties taking turns being the obstructionist, nothing new here.

To best of my knowledge Dr Carson has refused to align himself with any political party. For you to call him a "tea party lackey" is about the equivalent of me calling you a communist party lackey. Why is it so many on the left lack the ability to discuss the issues without such snide remarks?

Dr. Carson nor I offered any blame for the VA situation, other than government itself. But there's plenty of blame to go around.

The VA situation is a national disgrace and we should all hang our heads in shame for treatment of our veterans. The people that protect us deserve better and should not be treated like a political football.

Member #4112

05-29-14, 12:42

Posts like these remind us how Republicans with their negative views earned the nickname "The Party of No". It's not enough that they promote policies that lead to financial ruin and death. They have to constantly sow, spew and share their negativity.

Take off the black colored glasses Tiny. Steve's statement is far closer to the truth than yours.After the your last spanking over European unemployment figures U3 vs U6 where you could not continue to refute the truth, would it be too much to ask if you backed up your allegations that Republicans cause "death" and "financial ruin" other than your nebulas B/S.

By the way Esten, have noticed in the recent elections in Europe the "right wingers" are winning? After a few years of liberal feel good policies which produced no jobs and more debt just like here, folks are getting tired of it?

Rev BS

05-29-14, 23:30

By the way Esten, have noticed in the recent elections in Europe the "right wingers" are winning? After a few years of liberal feel good policies which produced no jobs and more debt just like here, folks are getting tired of it?From Bill Clinton in Roger Cohen's article in the NY Times, May 29,2014: "the first reaction of human beings who feel insecure and under stress is to hang with our own kind.".

Anti Immigration, anti-Europe carries the day. If you are a European observer and have travel extensively in Europe the last few years, you could see and feel it coming. A small indicator is the rise in frequency of racist chants in soccer games aim particularly to the black players from Africa. And on our domestic front, you know the story.

SteveC

05-30-14, 05:40

No, I'm saying it was a bad bill. Republicans didn't try to add pork. Instead they wanted to add an amendment that would have imposed sanctions on Iran. And the bill would have passed if Reid had agreed to the amendment. How's that for straying from the bill's fundamental purpose?

Saunders says he's a socialist. Are you calling him a liar? Or do you believe he has no idea what a genuine socialist is?

Lots of money has been thrown at VA hospitals and they're still not working. But so what, let's mindlessly throw some more money at them. In general, that's the platform of the Democrat party, be it education or Obamacare or anything else. To be fair, the proposed Iranian sanctions amendment shows mainstream Republicans aren't guiltless either. They're playing the stupid political game you describe, accepting bad legislation if there's enough pork or other benefits. But they're not as bad as the Democrats.Are you saying that the Republicans tried to add an amendment that would have imposted sanctions on Iran? Surely that is straying from the bills's fundamental purpose? Why not put that proposal in a separate bill and have it voted on on its merits and pass the VA bill?

Saunders claims he is a democratic socialist in the manner of the Scandinavian countries, not a socialist. There is a world of difference.

As I said, I'm not a Democrat, and I think both parties are corrupt. I would say the Republicans are worse, but its only a matter of degree, and I could be wrong with that one. I am sure that corporate funding of politicians is the biggest danger to US democracy by a long way.

SteveC

05-30-14, 05:43

Steve's statement is true for Singapore, Switzerland, New Zealand, and certain Scandinavian countries. It's also true true for certain regional and local governments. Most of the rest of humanity is ruled over by corrupt politicians.

I'd agree with this point, although I'd include a few more countries in the list. Not all squeaky clean, but much better than the US where the election spending is so enormous the pressure accept corporate money is much greater.

SteveC

05-30-14, 06:01

Undoubtedly a rush to judgment by you based on preconceived notions. It is clearly stated in the video, in the transcript of the video, and in my post that Dr Carson said, "We need seriousness here rather than just political speak. 'How can I look better? How can my party look better?' And Im saying this to both Democrats and Republicans: Stop,and think about the people".

Dr. Carson was making a prediction for ObamaCare and using the VA situation as a comparison. By slamming the Republicans and exposing the gridlock in Congress you have given credence to the argument that our government is ill-equipped to administer social programs, at best it's a struggle and they will always be plagued with problems. We've had gridlock in the past and we'll have it in the future with the parties taking turns being the obstructionist, nothing new here.

To best of my knowledge Dr Carson has refused to align himself with any political party. For you to call him a "tea party lackey" is about the equivalent of me calling you a communist party lackey. Why is it so many on the left lack the ability to discuss the issues without such snide remarks?

Dr. Carson nor I offered any blame for the VA situation, other than government itself. But there's plenty of blame to go around.

The VA situation is a national disgrace and we should all hang our heads in shame for treatment of our veterans. The people that protect us deserve better and should not be treated like a political football.I did say I may have misunderstood his stance. Ok.

Calling him a 'lackey' may have been a touch of hyperbole, but he is definitely of the conservative right, his views on same sex marriage and evolution for example are typical, and he has been touted as a Republican Presidential candidate. He has organised the National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee and has said that he was "warming up to the idea" of a presidential run.

And as for your question "Why is it so many on the left lack the ability to discuss the issues without such snide remarks? Come on, you must have noticed worse remarks by those from the right on this forum, surely!!

Member #4112

05-30-14, 12:07

From Bill Clinton in Roger Cohen's article in the NY Times, May 29,2014: "the first reaction of human beings who feel insecure and under stress is to hang with our own kind.".

Anti Immigration, anti-Europe carries the day. If you are a European observer and have travel extensively in Europe the last few years, you could see and feel it coming. A small indicator is the rise in frequency of racist chants in soccer games aim particularly to the black players from Africa. And on our domestic front, you know the story.Rev, is that like us poor dumb Americans clinging to our religion and guns?

The poor dumb Europeans, being over run by non European immigrants who are trying to change European culture to the culture of their former countries. How uncivilized of the Europeans to wish to retain their own culture.

Punter 127

05-30-14, 21:44

I did say I may have misunderstood his stance. Ok.

Calling him a 'lackey' may have been a touch of hyperbole, but he is definitely of the conservative right, his views on same sex marriage and evolution for example are typical, and he has been touted as a Republican Presidential candidate. He has organised the National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee and has said that he was "warming up to the idea" of a presidential run.

And as for your question "Why is it so many on the left lack the ability to discuss the issues without such snide remarks? Come on, you must have noticed worse remarks by those from the right on this forum, surely!!There's no gray area here, I would have taken you seriously if you would have left the "may have" out of your statement.

It's true Dr Carson has many conservative views but here's what was reported recently in the Washington Times: "Dr. Carson played coy about committing to any national party, saying he has in the past been a flaming liberal Democrat as well as a very conservative Republican, noting he's currently an independent.
We have to remember that we are Americans first, he said. Not that we are Democrats. Not that we are Republicans. Not that we are Independents.".

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/ben-carson-refuses-declare-political-party-or-rule/

There is a "National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee" but I don't know that "he has organised" it himself as you claim.

Yes I've seen worse remarks, I've even been known to fire back when fired upon, but the vast majority of snide remarks and personal attacks on this forum start on the left.

IMHO the forum would be a much better place if we just debate the issues and left the trash talk at home. (not likely to happen)

Esten

05-31-14, 01:14

Steve's statement is true for Singapore, Switzerland, New Zealand, and certain Scandinavian countries. It's also true true for certain regional and local governments. Most of the rest of humanity is ruled over by corrupt politicians.

The primary concern of the majority of politicians at the federal level in the USA is getting re-elected. This inevitably leads to corruption, waste, and unfairness, as they sell out to lobbyists and to constituents who want free money. The exceptions are Tea Party types. And also a few misguided soles like Dennis Kucinich, who are right on social issues but missed the boat on economics.

The policies of Democrats and fiscally liberal Republicans will most likely lead to financial ruin.Of course they want to get re-elected, but many if not most politicians also want to make a positive difference for their constituents and country. And there's a long, long list of good things government does. People take many of these things for granted, but take them away or don't provide them adequately and they will scream. I agree there are sell outs to lobbyists, like when the NRA bought the vote against universal background checks. Yes the people got screwed on this missed opportunity which a strong majority of Americans supported. But some people focus only on the negative examples, and ignore the complete picture.

BTW, government is not about giving people "free money", it spends money on services that their constituents want and value, which in many cases is spending that benefits others, not themselves. Your cynical view of government is partly true but largely incomplete and inaccurate.

We already have the proof that Republican policies have led to financial ruin: the 2008 financial crisis and the failure / refusal to address medical bankruptcies. These are both rooted in small government, "let the private sector take care of things" conservative ideology. It's all part of a pattern of negative, anti-government thought and negative consequences that I have observed with the right wing.

It's shaping up to be a nice weekend. I hope you guys can get through the weekend without the government tyrannizing you too badly.

Rev BS

05-31-14, 02:37

Rev, is that like us poor dumb Americans clinging to our religion and guns? The poor dumb Europeans, being over run by non European immigrants who are trying to change European culture to the culture of their former countries. How uncivilized of the Europeans to wish to retain their own culture.Nobody is poor or dumb. People are by nature selfish and wish to protect what they have. Unless they are inspire and govern by a higher set of values.

Many centuries ago, European Powers set out to conquer and dominate the world. They were fighting for survival. In the process, they were able to enrich themselves in many ways. Were they there by invitation? Hardly!

Now, most immigrants in Europe, legal or otherwise, are from their colonies. A legacy from the past? Like their masters of yesterday, they are also fighting for survival and a better life.

SteveC

05-31-14, 02:57

It's true Dr Carson has many conservative views but here's what was reported recently in the Washington Times: Dr. Carson played coy about committing to any national party, saying he has in the past been a flaming liberal Democrat as well as a very conservative Republican, noting he's currently an independent.
We have to remember that we are Americans first, he said. Not that we are Democrats. Not that we are Republicans. Not that we are Independents..

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/ben-carson-refuses-declare-political-party-or-rule/

There is a "National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee" but I don't know that "he has organised" it himself as you claim.

Yes I've seen worse remarks, I've even been known to fire back when fired upon, but the vast majority of snide remarks and personal attacks on this forum start on the left.

IMHO the forum would be a much better place if we just debate the issues and left the trash talk at home. (not likely to happen)You serious? Are you saying he'd enter the election for President as an independent and not as a Republican? That has to be a joke right? Even Perot with all his money couldn't make it. Do you think conservative donors would waste their money on a third party candidate from the right? A disingenuous statement at best. Ridiculous. And if he didn't organise the committee, or be intimately involved with its organisation, he's sure being quiet about it.

Agree that the debate should be debated civilly, but my perception of the initiators of the trash talk is very different from your's.

Punter 127

05-31-14, 05:30

You serious? Are you saying he'd enter the election for President as an independent and not as a Republican? That has to be a joke right? Even Perot with all his money couldn't make it. Do you think conservative donors would waste their money on a third party candidate from the right? A disingenuous statement at best. Ridiculous. And if he didn't organise the committee, or be intimately involved with its organisation, he's sure being quiet about it.

Agree that the debate should be debated civilly, but my perception of the initiators of the trash talk is very different from your's.No, I did not say he would run as and independent, he (Carson) says at this time he's an independent, his words as reported by the Washington Times, not mine. (sorry the quotation marks were inadvertently omitted). I'm sure the "Draft Ben Carson for President Committee" is Republican based. But you're the one that said "he has organised" it, and I still don't know if that's true. However anybody can be drafted by any party even without being a member of the party, and of course your not required to accept the nomination.

Tres3

05-31-14, 09:54

Of course they want to get re-elected, but many if not most politicians also want to make a positive difference for their constituents and country. Do you really believe that, or are you just trying to elicit another response? Politicians (whether liberal, conservative, socialist, communist or fascist) care about POWER. All other concerns are secondary.

Tres3.

Don B

06-01-14, 01:18

Don B: By the way, how would you define a 'looney progressive'? Or is just that some hackneyed phrase that you just threw in there without thinking about it?

I refer you to my post of 12/1/13 re progressive. I was charitable with 'looney' a rights violated is evil.

Don B.

SteveC

06-01-14, 06:32

No, I did not say he would run as and independent, he (Carson) says at this time he's an independent, his words as reported by the Washington Times, not mine. (sorry the quotation marks were inadvertently omitted). I'm sure the "Draft Ben Carson for President Committee" is Republican based. But you're the one that said "he has organised" it, and I still don't know if that's true. However anybody can be drafted by any party even without being a member of the party, and of course your not required to accept the nomination. Just to clarify, when I say "he has organised it" I meant that he either initiated it or most certainly welcomed the initiative. If he didn't want it to proceed surely he would have rejected it? His silence speaks volumes. But who are we kidding, the only way he'll stand is as a Republican. Or do you disagree with my assertion that conservative donors wouldn't waste their money on a third party candidate from the right? That's the essence of my point.

SteveC

06-01-14, 06:44

I refer you to my post of 12/1/13 re progressive. I was charitable with 'looney' a rights violated is evil.

Don B. Ayn Rand. When you said 'rights violated is evil' I thought we were going down that route. Hope you're happy there, I don't think we share any common ground to even start a discussion on this topic.

Punter 127

06-02-14, 04:21

Just to clarify, when I say "he has organised it" I meant that he either initiated it or most certainly welcomed the initiative. If he didn't want it to proceed surely he would have rejected it? His silence speaks volumes. But who are we kidding, the only way he'll stand is as a Republican. Or do you disagree with my assertion that conservative donors wouldn't waste their money on a third party candidate from the right? That's the essence of my point. Big difference between initiating or welcoming and organizing, but thanks for clarifying.

I think Dr Carson will seek the Republican nomination, but if he doesn't or when the draft movement fails it's quite possible he could run as an Independent. You are the only person I know of that has even considered a 3rd party run. Let me ask you this, did Ron Paul have any conservative donors in 1988 or how about Gary Johnson in 2012?... Sure they did. Did anybody think they would win?... Nope.
The degree of support would depend on the popularity of the mainstream candidates.

I can certainly see how you arrived at your conclusion but where I think your theory is flawed is in the assumption that 3rd party candidates think they can win. In reality most if not all 3rd party candidates are ringers or have other motives. For example in 1968 a Democrat Governor from Alabama named George Wallace ran as an Independent, Wallace openly admitted his goal was to get enough Electoral votes to force the election into the House of Representative where because of the one vote per state rule he thought he could be a "power broker" in the selection of the President. Wallace carried five states and picked up 46 Electoral Collage votes but it wasn't enough because most of his votes came from the Democrats, Republican Richard Nixon waltzed to the White House with 301 Electoral votes, 31 more than needed to win.

I've read that Herman Cain's internal polling suggested he could have taken as much as 40 percent of the Black vote from Obama. So how many Black votes could a Black Republican or a Black 3rd party candidate pull away from a White (female) Democrat candidate? Twenty-Five percent of the Black vote would probable be enough to put a Republican in the White House.

Steve, if we want to continue this discussion we should probably move it to another thread because we're way off topic here. My apologies to Tiny12.

Tiny12

06-02-14, 11:43

Steve, if we want to continue this discussion we should probably move it to another thread because we're way off topic here. My apologies to Tiny12. Feel free to continue the dialog, here or elsewhere. I for one am learning something from it. Carson is a doctor, and many of his public statements are about health care.

Esten

06-03-14, 00:56

Do you really believe that, or are you just trying to elicit another response? Politicians (whether liberal, conservative, socialist, communist or fascist) care about POWER. All other concerns are secondary. Tres, slow down and read more carefully. I did not prioritize motivations, I simply noted there are other motivations. You are welcome to prioritize them. But even if a motivation is secondary, does not make it irrelevant.

Also, you seem to imply that the desire for power and to be re-elected are at odds with doing good. Simply not true as a broad generalization. In fact I would say these motivations more often converge than collide. It's a mixed picture. But people who make sweeping generalizations that all politicians are corrupt and out to screw people, may think they are being insightful but really they are only displaying their ignorance.

SteveC

06-03-14, 02:51

Big difference between initiating or welcoming and organizing, but thanks for clarifying.

I think Dr Carson will seek the Republican nomination, but if he doesn't or when the draft movement fails it's quite possible he could run as an Independent. You are the only person I know of that has even considered a 3rd party run. Let me ask you this, did Ron Paul have any conservative donors in 1988 or how about Gary Johnson in 2012?. Sure they did. Did anybody think they would win?. Nope.
The degree of support would depend on the popularity of the mainstream candidates.

I can certainly see how you arrived at your conclusion but where I think your theory is flawed is in the assumption that 3rd party candidates think they can win. In reality most if not all 3rd party candidates are ringers or have other motives. For example in 1968 a Democrat Governor from Alabama named George Wallace ran as an Independent, Wallace openly admitted his goal was to get enough Electoral votes to force the election into the House of Representative where because of the one vote per state rule he thought he could be a "power broker" in the selection of the President. Wallace carried five states and picked up 46 Electoral Collage votes but it wasn't enough because most of his votes came from the Democrats, Republican Richard Nixon waltzed to the White House with 301 Electoral votes, 31 more than needed to win.

I've read that Herman Cain's internal polling suggested he could have taken as much as 40 percent of the Black vote from Obama. So how many Black votes could a Black Republican or a Black 3rd party candidate pull away from a White (female) Democrat candidate? Twenty-Five percent of the Black vote would probable be enough to put a Republican in the White House.

Steve, if we want to continue this discussion we should probably move it to another thread because we're way off topic here. My apologies to Tiny12. Fair enough, I didn't look at it from the perspective of him being a spoiler candidate. As a keen follower of US political history I should have done, my mistake.

SteveC

06-28-14, 08:38

Someone just sent me this. Not the words of a rational man.

Ben Carson Explains How Gay Marriage Is A Marxist Plot To Impose The 'New World Order'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C10mFuErI1I

Dccpa

06-28-14, 16:32

Someone just sent me this. Not the words of a rational man.

Ben Carson Explains How Gay Marriage Is A Marxist Plot To Impose The 'New World Order'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C10mFuErI1IDid you watch the video? No where in this video is gay marriage even mentioned. Most people would say that promoting Judeo-Christian faith and strong families is very rational.

SteveC

06-28-14, 22:15

Did you watch the video? No where in this video is gay marriage even mentioned. Most people would say that promoting Judeo-Christian faith and strong families is very rational.Sorry, forgot to include the first of the two videos which go together.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byMkr8998xo

I agree that strong families can be a good thing, I just have a wider concept of what a family is than Carson. And I believe in freedom of religion too, any religion, or no religion. Just sad to see too many of those claiming to be christians spend too much time hating other people, which I doubt is the true christian message.

Esten

06-29-14, 15:36

Ben Carson is an interesting guy, but it doesn't take long to realize he is a religious ideologue who allows religion to guide his political views. He supports a flat tax because of biblical statements that everyone should "tithe" and if we question it, we are presuming we know better than God. That kind of rigidity doesn't lend itself to solving many of today's problems. He assumes what he sees as basic truths can be extrapolated into how a country and society should work, but the world is diverse and complex, and his solutions are too narrow and simplistic. He seems oblivious to how big business and the top 1% now control and receive so much of the country's economic output. Carson's views would protect millionaires and billionaires, increase economic inequality, and promote family values over individual freedom. Not surprisingly, the (Fox News affiliated) Wall Street Journal has published articles like "Ben Carson for President". He'd be a disaster, but fortunately that's not going to happen.

Rev BS

07-18-14, 11:18

Kind of tee me off, not from the dog bite but that I had to allocate funds from my Massage Fund to my Emergency Fund. The initial visit to the Emergency Room was a total $115. The breakdown, $45, Rabies & Tetanus vaccine, $35 in pain medication & antibiotics (stardard practice, should have rejected them), and $35 for other costs. Subsequently there are 3 booster shots for rabies & 2 more for tetanus. An additional $125 roughly, so that means a grand total of $240. Meaning I am out of about 3 trips to my favorite massage joint where you can get severe pampering (bath like your mother use to give you, scrub & shampoo) bj in the tub, pedicure/manicure, massage, & sex. Or in reverse order, up to you. So sick to my stomach.

Then I google for similar rabies outcome in the US, I am getting $3000, $6000, $12000, $1800, that's what different people had to pay under different circumstances. I can't give you all the accumulated information right now because I have to go walk the damn dog right now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/upshot/the-global-slowdown-in-medical-costs.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

"What really differentiates the US from other countries is the high price we have long paid for medical care, not big differences in how doctors are treating their patients. ".

"Just this week, the CBC reduced its long term forecasts for spending in the Medicare program, one of several recent reductions, that means the program's solvency is looking safer than it has in years. ".

Rev BS

07-28-14, 22:41

http://www.upworthy.com/a-senator-tried-to-outsmart-a-highly-respected-doctor-it-didnt-work-out-too-well-for-him

A smirky (I know it all) Senator is taken down by a well respected Canadian doctor. The exchange is somewhat of a replay in the AP forums.

Dickhead

07-29-14, 01:21

Tiny12

07-29-14, 13:38

Every marginal dollar that I earn reduces my subsidy by over 13 cents and that is sure a substantial disincentive to work in my book. Income tax and OASDI would eat up another 22.28 cents on the dollar and of course there is the cost to commute. But I can earn up to $6500 and put it in a conventional IRA and my subsidy won't be reduced. Thus that is what I plan to do for the next 8 years until I turn 65. Earn $6500 as fast as possible every year and then choke the chicken. So I am working 8 hours a week at something I can do totally baked.The federal government should encourage work instead of discouraging it. I haven't slowed down to the extent you have but my thinking is similar.

I hope you're able to get the problems with your insurance straightened out.

Dccpa

07-29-14, 20:39

It has now been nine months and eleven days since I completed the application for the insurance coverage, and although I do finally have coverage as of July 1, it's still all fucked up. CIGNA is now attempting to extort six months' worth of back premiums for coverage that never existed. This is apparently due to an error by the state exchange. So now I can't pay the August premium because CIGNA will apply it to January. Today in a conference call both parties acknowledged the error but neither would commit to any timetable for correcting it. This was call #4 to resolve the current situation (I. E. , this month's particular fuck up). Overall it was call #11, including four international calls. Also I discovered that they had my county wrong, and my subsidy should have been $22 a month higher since health insurance costs more in this county than in the one they thought I lived in. I bet everybody in my zip code is getting ripped off like that (the city I live in used be in three different counties but is now its own city and county).

I went to see a doctor last week and I asked her about the new preventive care that must be covered for free and she looked at me kind of sideways dog-head and did not know shit about it. So I'm going to research that and make them give me every single cock sucking test and so forth that's covered (except of course the one where they stick that big hose where the sun don't shine) and see if I can get them to do it all in a single appointment. They made a big deal about their holistic care and how they cover everything from birth to death but they didn't know shit from apple butter in actuality.

Every marginal dollar that I earn reduces my subsidy by over 13 cents and that is sure a substantial disincentive to work in my book. Income tax and OASDI would eat up another 22.28 cents on the dollar and of course there is the cost to commute. But I can earn up to $6500 and put it in a conventional IRA and my subsidy won't be reduced. Thus that is what I plan to do for the next 8 years until I turn 65. Earn $6500 as fast as possible every year and then choke the chicken. So I am working 8 hours a week at something I can do totally baked. I mean I can literally do this job with my eyes closed. This frees up a full-time job for some zit-faced millennial.

Sorry about your problems Dickhead. Esten is likely behind your insurance troubles. Either that or you live in Oregon. :)

Some clarifications for those not as familiar with Obamacare:

1. All retirement plan contributions that reduce your income help towards the subsidy calculation. I use 401 k and IRA contributions. For someone over 50 who made $50 k in a year, they could potentially put $23000 into a 401 k and $6500 into a deductible IRA and reduce their income to $20500. That would qualify the person for a substantial insurance subsidy. Of course, you have to be able to live off of the reduced income. :(

2. The subsidy appears to have levels like the tax brackets. I ran one calculation where a $1 increase in income caused about $160 increase in annual premiums.

3. Household income is how the subsidy is calculated. So if someone lives in your home like a spouse, even if the spouse has coverage at work, they count the spouse's income against you for purposes of calculating your subsidy. And social security income counts against you.

For some in many states, you don't want to reduce your income too low as you will not qualify for medicaid or for a subsidy. For example, $17 k income might qualify you for a 91% subsidy, but $15 k would exclude you subsidy coverage as too low for Obamacare subsidies and too high for medicaid coverage. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it?

Dickhead

07-29-14, 21:37

The best deal I have found is to keep your income under 200% of the FPL because then you qualify for "additional cost sharing" (actually you get some "additional cost sharing up to 250% of the FPL, but not nearly as much). I'm selling appreciated stock up to where my dividends and capital gains are equal to $10,150, which is the sum of the standard deduction and the personal exemption. Then I take another $10,150 out of my traditional IRA. So that is $20,300 in income for purposes of calculating the subsidy or 177% of the federal poverty level. BUT I pay zero federal tax on the capital gains and dividends, then I pay zero state tax because my state has a $20,000 pension exclusion starting in the year you turn 55. Then I get a $399 a month subsidy towards my health insurance. Obviously I can't live on $20,300 in the US so the rest comes out of my Roth IRA, totally tax free and not counted as income for purposes of the subsidy.

So the subsidy almost completely pays for my beer and weed, especially since we are having price wars on the weed here right now. I'd like to thank all of you who are still working for that. I will twist one up now and open a beer in honor of the hard-working US taxpayer.

Rev BS

08-01-14, 11:21

SteveC

08-01-14, 12:05

I think Dickhead's recent travails show that the ACA still has teething problems, to say the least, but that doesn't say its not an improvement on the previous system. (I know that you Ayn Randists and libertarians will groan at that, but so be it). The ACA is still based on the system initiated by Romney in his Massachusetts health reform law, but the european systems have to be better. I've never known anyone go bankrupt seeking health care over there, and the general level of care is better IMHO. But, I just saw this about the right wing's favourite black doctor. Is he the hypocrite of the year? Talk about taking advantage of the system and then pulling up the ladder for the next generation.

Interesting facts about Dr. Ben Carson, Conservative Icon:

1. raised by a single mother.

2. raised in public housing.

3. fed with food stamps.

4. supported with welfare wasnt-dependent-on-government.

5. kept healthy with medicaid.

6. educated in public schools.

7. got eyeglasses from state agency.

8. benefited from affirmative action to enter college.

9. used federal loans and Pell grants in undergrad school.

10. Benefited from affirmative action to enter medical school.

11. Med school paid for with grant from USPHS*.

12. Said: "The disintegration of the family unit and the welfare state are enslaving African-Americans and ruining their futures. ".

Dccpa

08-01-14, 12:46

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/mississippi_gov_phil_bryant_blames_obama_for_the_state_s_uninsured_some.html

I know that you are tired of the same old rhetoric, but nothing can really go forward in this country until you guys can see that there is a need for a "greater good" mindset. We are talking about common sense, not ideology. We have seen the amazing strength of the American economy as it pull itself up from the 2007 financial disaster. This, despite the "enemy" within our own ranks who vowed to oppose Obama at every step of the way. Especially using the "patriotic" thumping of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

What rights? When you don't have a job, and your family is hungry, do you really care about "rights"? Oh yes, of course you do, I can hear you. Why do you always have to shout? But it's like honesty, finding & returning $100 and $10.000, quite a difference in how your mind will rationalize your actions. Action speak louder than words, I was told.What is the point of this article? That the people are receiving treatment for healthcare? I must have missed that. That the people are not receiving food stamps? I didn't see that. That the people aren't working so that they can stay on Medicaid? Didn't see that either, but it wouldn't matter. We have the lowest labor force participation rate in 40 years and the people being written about are the least likely to get hired.

The income levels mentioned in the article do seem low, but what other assistance are these people already receiving? Subsidized housing? Food stamps? Getting subsidized by the government should be hard. Has anyone noticed that the lower labor force participation has been matched by a large increase in disability claims? People cannot find a job and they suddenly decide they are disabled.

Rev BS

08-01-14, 13:20

Has anyone noticed that the lower labor force participation has been matched by a large increase in disability claims? People cannot find a job and they suddenly decide they are disabled.I talk about Integrity before, and got shot down. So to repeat, American integrity is at a all time low. Everyone of us know of someone who is scamming the system.

If the country is to move forward, we need to find areas where we agree on, and take action. Not to roadblock just to see the other side drowned. Somehow, we never learn from the past. Each big step that America has undertook, a big chunk of the population has to be drag screaming and crying from the dark into the sunlight.

Dccpa

08-01-14, 16:38

I talk about Integrity before, and got shot down. So to repeat, American integrity is at a all time low. Everyone of us know of someone who is scamming the system.

If the country is to move forward, we need to find areas where we agree on, and take action. Not to roadblock just to see the other side drowned. Somehow, we never learn from the past. Each big step that America has undertook, a big chunk of the population has to be drag screaming and crying from the dark into the sunlight.You started with the greater good concept which translates to out of your pocket into someone else's pocket, but don't you dare touch my pocket. Why would anyone agree to this concept unless they are one of the ones getting the free goods? Until liberals understand that government is the problem, not the solution to the problem, there is nothing to agree on.

You want social security? Fine, but it was set up as when people lived an average of 3 years past retirement, not decades. Now most people get far more out of social security than they pay into it. Change the social security retirement age to 75 and we can agree it is an equitable, sustainable system.

You want more people on medicaid fine? Make them work, attend job training or classes. Unless someone is truly disabled, permanently drawing money to do nothing and getting more money if you produce children is wrong and has fostered decades of lost families that know nothing other than government dependence.

Lastly the article you cited doesn't really apply as you didn't provide any evidence that the persons mentioned were not receiving government assistance and medical care.

And the a.

Rev BS

08-01-14, 20:04

You started with the greater good concept which translates to out of your pocket into someone else's pocket, but don't you dare touch my pocket. Why would anyone agree to this concept unless they are one of the ones getting the free goods? Until liberals understand that government is the problem, not the solution to the problem, there is nothing to agree on.

And the a.First, the article's main reference was that Mississippi Governor Bryant blamed Obama for his state's rise in uninsured rate, after he rejected ObamaCare. It reminds me of my brother who was not paid by an angry father when he delivered a girl, and not a boy.

Not sure about my brother's tax rate, but probably around 50%. But as all tax crybabies KNOW, there are deductions, and then, there more deductions. And so my brother moaned softly a few times, lost on a bunch of tax write offs & deals, and made out well with others. He was able to sent his 2 kids to Ivy League schools, shop in Paris every year, safari in South Africa, ski in Whistler, bought a condo in NYC for his kid, etc. Even had a Rolls Royce once. And whenever we have lunch, he would try to stuff some $100 bills in my pocket. Ah, what a great country! At 74, he is still working full blast, his SS pocket change. So yeah, I think we can change a few things about Social Security.

Next, government is the problem, but don't you think that they could be the solution, too? Again, we can talk about Singapore, touted as one of the best places to live in the world, and to do business. But not to the "AP Gang That Could Not Shoot Straight". Too many laws, too many restrictions, too much social engineering. I could easily live there, but unfortunately, I cannot afford it. I still jaywalk there whenever I go, but it's not a problem for me not to litter or to smoke weed. Check what it cost to buy a car in Singapore, you might rupture a kidney there. And there is no homeless there. I agree with you about people needing to be re-educated, retrained if they are receiving welfare benefits and paying back with volunteer service.

Well, back to "mind-set". It's very simple. Happy people give, and unhappy people don't. Always remind me of the kid who has the only soccer ball in the neighborhood. Whenever he decided to stop playing, he refuse to loan us the ball even when he could see a whole bunch of dejected kids. He is much better as a grown up, but I still kick his ass and make him pay the bill whenever I see him these days.

So guys, grow up!!!

Punter 127

08-02-14, 00:25

Rev BS

08-02-14, 01:01

No homeless in Singapore, really?

Out In The Cold: A documentary bringing light to the homeless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2NMoMceX9U#t=626.

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/02/out-in-the-cold-a-documentary-bringing-light-to-the-homeless/

The Peoples Action Party which has run Singapore from 1959 (Wikipedia): "The socialism practiced by the PAP during its first few decades in power was of a pragmatic kind. The party economic ideology has always accepted the need for welfare spending, pragmatic economic interventionism and general Keynesian economic policies. However, free market policies has been popular since the 1980s as part of a wider implementation of meritocracy in civil society. By the Seventies, the intellectual credo of the government rested explicitly upon a philosophy of self reliance, similar to the rugged individualism of the American brand of capitalism."

From 3rd world to 1st world, a matter of 65 years? At the start, by providing and creating high standards of basic needs, especially in housing & education, the PAP was able to propel Singapore on the road to first world status. And now with full stomachs and time for reflection, Singaporeans are starting to question the "whys" of existence. The PAP's popularity is recent elections is slowly eroding. Worried about the influence of western cultures, the PAP in 1995 passed the Maintenance of Parents Act in which parents can claim support from their children. Ah, very delicious to our AP gang, I am sure.

So in 2014, we have a Singaporean population that has been "prepared" by the PAP to be able to compete with the best in the world. Of course, not in everything, e.g. basketball or tango. But some of us know that nobody is born quite equal or have similar outcomes in life. And so no surprise, there are actually Singaporeans who are left behind for whatever reason. It is not because they cannot find work, because there are 1.3 million legal foreign workers. If you go to any public food centers, you will find senior Singaporeans still removing trash and wiping tables.

So the "homeless" in Singapore is not of the American variety. You will not be allow to stand in any busy areas, soliciting with signs for any length of time. Yes, there are people in Singapore who get old, sick and die with nobody caring for them. Singapore is not utopia, it is a country that has learn to survive without natural resources and emerge healthy in the war of the survival of the fittest.

Punter 127

08-02-14, 02:51

The Peoples Action Party which has run Singapore from 1959 (Wikipedia): "The socialism practiced by the PAP during its first few decades in power was of a pragmatic kind. The party economic ideology has always accepted the need for welfare spending, pragmatic economic interventionism and general Keynesian economic policies. However, free market policies has been popular since the 1980s as part of a wider implementation of meritocracy in civil society. By the Seventies, the intellectual credo of the government rested explicitly upon a philosophy of self reliance, similar to the rugged individualism of the American brand of capitalism."

From 3rd world to 1st world, a matter of 65 years? At the start, by providing and creating high standards of basic needs, especially in housing & education, the PAP was able to propel Singapore on the road to first world status. And now with full stomachs and time for reflection, Singaporeans are starting to question the "whys" of existence. The PAP's popularity is recent elections is slowly eroding. Worried about the influence of western cultures, the PAP in 1995 passed the Maintenance of Parents Act in which parents can claim support from their children. Ah, very delicious to our AP gang, I am sure.

So in 2014, we have a Singaporean population that has been "prepared" by the PAP to be able to compete with the best in the world. Of course, not in everything, e.g. basketball or tango. But some of us know that nobody is born quite equal or have similar outcomes in life. And so no surprise, there are actually Singaporeans who are left behind for whatever reason. It is not because they cannot find work, because there are 1.3 million legal foreign workers. If you go to any public food centers, you will find senior Singaporeans still removing trash and wiping tables.

So the "homeless" in Singapore is not of the American variety. You will not be allow to stand in any busy areas, soliciting with signs for any length of time. Yes, there are people in Singapore who get old, sick and die with nobody caring for them. Singapore is not utopia, it is a country that has learn to survive without natural resources and emerge healthy in the war of the survival of the fittest.I don't care if you and a band of Bangkok ladyBoys run the place, they still have homeless, their homeless just have less rights and freedom than the homeless in the USA.

Before you said:

And there is no homeless there. Now your story changes. (How typical.).

And according to a BBC report in Feb of 2014, Singapore may be one of the wealthiest and most developed countries in the world, but poverty remains a worrying problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQGTNyw9Rmk

I doubt the majority of Americans want the USA to become a Singapore, although there might be times when their (barbaric?) caning would be useful.

I can't figure out if you view yourself as morally superior to the rest of us, hence your condescending attitude or if you're just so insecure that you need the government to make all you decisions for you. But either way feel free to move to Singapore, don't worry about money I'm sure the government there will care for you.

Rev BS

08-02-14, 03:04

I don't care if you and a band of Bangkok ladyBoys run the place, they still have homeless, their homeless just have less rights and freedom than the homeless in the USA.

Before you said:

Now your story changes. (How typical.).

And according to a BBC report in Feb of 2014, Singapore may be one of the wealthiest and most developed countries in the world, but poverty remains a worrying problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQGTNyw9Rmk

I doubt the majority of Americans want the USA to become a Singapore, although there might be times when their (barbaric?) caning would be useful.

I can't figure out if you view yourself as morally superior to the rest of us, hence your condescending attitude or if you're just so insecure that you need the government to make all you decisions for you. But either way feel free to move to Singapore, don't worry about money I'm sure the government there will care for you.I have an opinion, and you have yours. Anyway, I'll still buy you lunch next time you are in Bangkok. But no ladyboys, I promise.

Punter 127

08-02-14, 03:29

I have an opinion, and you have yours. Anyway, I'll still buy you lunch next time you are in Bangkok. But no ladyboys, I promise.Thanks,

I will probably be in Thailand soon but will be (hopefully) traveling with my Pinay GF and will stay in Jomtien, I don't think we'll have time for Bangkok.

I'm not angry, I'm just very passionate about freedom and the Republic.

Dickhead

08-19-14, 22:14

So I still don't have coverage. It's now been ten months that I have been attempting to comply with the individual mandate. I filed a complaint today with the state insurance commission, and also an appeal with the state insurance exchange to have the premium based on my age when I originally submitted the application that they lost. I have copies of the premium checks CIGNA cashed for July and August, the latter of which had a restrictive endorsement on it (valid in MY state, but who knows about theirs) stating it was "payment in full" for August. Nonetheless they denied my claim for my doctor's visit in July. At one point they had sent me a letter saying pay up or else but that was dated August 9. I have another doctor's appointment tomorrow and I have the direct number of a supervisor at the health exchange who says he will tell my doctor that my coverage is valid, but who knows what the docs will say to that. They don't know me from a plate of piss.

By state law, the insurance commission has to respond to me within 14 days so I will keep you all posted. I also included as part of my complaint that CIGNA refuses to provide me any plan documents and won't change my address even though I have made two phone and two written requests, including one by certified mail.

So you have the concept of the private sector being hungrier and more efficient than the public sector. I can assure you that in this instance, both are equally slothful and inefficient. However, the level of sheer incompetence is higher at CIGNA than at the state health exchange.

Because I have empathy for my fellow citizens, I also contacted the city / county council to inform them that a lot of the people living in my zip code are probably getting ripped off as per my earlier post, and I have the citizens' advocate at the state health insurance exchange looking into this as well. Depending on what kind of response I get from the regulatory agency, I might contact my elected representatives about all this crap. I have the time to do that now that I'm semi-retired. I would do more for my fellow citizens if I did not have just a charred piece of bacon where my soul used to be.

TejanoLibre

08-19-14, 23:20

This is about Argie Health Care.

Which company is the best?

Swiss Medical?

Hospital Aleman?

Osde?

Fuck I don't know!

Do I have to wait 90 days to get covered?

Will they or can they exclude me for previous conditions?

It just cost me 40 k to have my hand sewn on backwards!

No insurance!

Fuck Your American Insurance Companies on this site!

I need the best insurance that pays for everything, zero or minimal cost.

I do NOT want to pay first and then get reimbursed!

That's the same as not having coverage.

I want to add a single white female to my coverage because I am a nice guy.

Non-smoker, non-drinker. Zero drug use.

Should be cheap!

Right?

Thanks,

TL.

You can tell Obama to Fuck himself! Especially if you like that fucking # !

Dickhead

08-27-14, 04:33

My coverage has now been allegedly reinstated and I was able to get prescriptions filled under my plan. However, CIGNA still maintains that I owe them premiums under a non-existent policy that is a figment of their imagination, from Jan-Mar. This could be said to be an improvement over their previous position that I owed for Jan-June, but since they cannot produce any documentation of any contact between us prior to May 25, it is still kinda frustrating.

Dickhead

08-31-14, 02:12

All the previous has been reneged upon, so:

Prior to Obamacare, I had no health coverage.

Since Obamacare, I still have no health coverage, but I am out $450.46 and have a collection agency on my ass. Soon, I will have the doctors whose claims were rejected on my ass as well, another $348.

The only real good news is that I think the regulators have a hard-on for CIGNA. I say this because within two hours of filing the complaint, I got a response from a senior complaint analyst and she had already sent CIGNA a lengthy demand letter, requesting timelines of coverage, spreadsheet analysis of my payments, any recordings of our conversations (could be bad because I went into ballistic mode last week), copies of all interface between the health insurance exchange and CIGNA (it was the health insurance exchange that originally fucked everything up but they've got their shit together now and it's CIGNA that is obfuscating), etc. 14 demand points in all. And whoever this is at CIGNA that the complaint analyst contacted has to send me personally an explanation of all this shit by Sep 9. My guess is they snail mail it to gain more time (has to be postmarked by Sep 9 but if delivered electronically has to arrive on Sep 9) because the deadline for me to submit the money they say I owe for July is Sep 15. Right now CIGNA says if I pay for "July" by Sep 15 they will reinstate as of July 1. But, I already paid for July and have the cancelled check to prove it, and I sent that to the insurance commission, so ideally I'd like to see the response before I pay. If I were healthier I would do that, but instead I see no choice but to pay, get the insurance card, get treated, and continue to fight CIGNA.

I contacted my state legislator about all of this and she did get back to me promptly. She got with the health insurance exchange but it appears the exchange has it right now, and CIGNA would, of course, not talk to her staff for privacy reasons. Today I delivered a notarized privacy waiver to her office (I bet CIGNA still won't talk to them) and my legislator had left me a letter offering me the use of a staff person to do some research if I needed it. I thought that was a good response but I got research out the ying yang. What I need is coverage and treatment, and for my doctors to get paid, and for this collection agency to get off my ass. I told them to bring it on and outlined all the documentation I would use in case of litigation. They ruin your credit anyway, so that's not really all that much comfort.

Further updates to follow. A collateral issue that relates to this whole health exchange dynamic is that now I have a deep and abiding hatred for CIGNA but I am stuck with either them or no one until the first of the year. The only way around this is to move out of the coverage area. Depending on what response I get by Sep. 9, I am certainly considering doing that or at least faking doing so. I am researching how to fake this right now but it should not be too hard. I shouldn't have to resort to that subterfuge because I did everything by the book. But, this has not been a fair fight by any means; it's pretty much all out war now so fuck the book.

Dccpa

08-31-14, 14:26

Dickhead, I concur on CIGNA. They are by far the worst insurance company I have ever dealt with. My claims were for year 1 nursing home coverage for my Mother. I was told by a relative that CIGNA didn't pay for this Father's nursing home care under the same policy. I jumped through all the hoops, including filing 13 separate claims for a 12 month period. First CIGNA took the 13 claims I sent in one envelope and split them up to process. Eventually, CIGNA paid (with multiple checks). Next, demanded the money back. I told the lady, first of all, you are not getting the money back, now what can I do for you. .

Turns out CIGNA wanted the money back because Medicare had not rejected the claims. Keep in mind that a CIGNA employee determined that a Medicare claim did not need to be filed because it was not a covered situation. I had the nursing home file Medicare claims, Medicare rejected the claims and CIGNA went away happy or at least went away.

Dickhead

09-03-14, 16:44

Jackson

09-03-14, 16:52

Finally this shit is straightened out. I originally applied on Oct. 23, 2013 and now, on September 3, 2014, I have achieved coverage. CIGNA has called off its dogs and in fact, because they are so fucking incompetent, they took away seven months of bills when only six months were bogus. Thus, as another poster predicted to me via PM, I am a month ahead. I will let you know if they catch the mistake. The state insurance commission's investigator was very helpful. CIGNA may get some sanctions but I won't know that for another couple of weeks.Congratulations.

In my own limited experience in having purchased a health insurance policy only twice in my life (3 times if you include my policy with Hospital Aleman here in Argentina), the process was simple: The agent came to my house, conversation ensued, I signed an application, gave him my check, and the rest was automatic.

And now for the $64,000 question: In general, was health insurance this difficult to buy BEFORE ObamaCare?

And DH, more specifically to you: Do you attribute the aggravation you experienced to the processing of your ObamaCare subsidy, or do you absolve ObamaCare itself of any complicity in this regard?

Thanks,

Jax.

Dickhead

09-03-14, 19:59

Congratulations.

In my own limited experience in having purchased a health insurance policy only twice in my life (3 times if you include my policy with Hospital Aleman here in Argentina), the process was simple: The agent came to my house, conversation ensued, I signed an application, gave him my check, and the rest was automatic.

And now for the $64,000 question: In general, was health insurance this difficult to buy BEFORE ObamaCare?

And DH, more specifically to you: Do you attribute the aggravation you experienced to the processing of your ObamaCare subsidy, or do you absolve ObamaCare itself of any complicity in this regard?

Thanks,

Jax.I still haven't seen the full results of the investigation but right now it appears that CIGNA was just doing what the documents the state health insurance exchange sent them. I don't know what my experience would have been in a state that used the federal exchange. I'll let you know what the investigation reveals but right now it appears that the initial problem was a computer system overload back in the open season, and then the billing shit arose from a simple human error by an employee of the health exchange, who misunderstood something I had told her on the phone. So, the difficulties certainly emerged from the processing of the application in total, not just the subsidy. If I had bought the insurance through the exchange without the subsidy, I would have had the same problem except CIGNA would have been hounding me for about 2. 5 times as much.

I can't answer to the difficulty of buying insurance before Obamacare because I couldn't afford it. I will say that I bought private health insurance in Argentina and it was a big hassle to get them to stop billing me after I no longer needed the policy.

But this was difficult. Real fucking difficult.

Dickhead

09-03-14, 21:55

Esten

09-04-14, 01:55

A lot of insurance company bs you had to deal with... thanks for sharing your experience.

Dccpa

09-04-14, 14:00

I just tried to suck CIGNA's mistake back into my checking account but I could not. < : (

And don't get on my ass for it because even though this has all been "straightened out," I paid for coverage in July and August and I couldn't use it. It's not like these fucks can go back and refund me for being sick and not being able to go to a doctor, despite having paid for the coverage. I would have been in the ER once in July and once again in August if all this bullshit hadn't happened.

Among the more heinous results of this whole ordeal was learning that my "personal physician" had delayed arranging a fairly urgent test due to waiting to see whether they would get paid for my previous visit. Needless to say, she is fired.Dickhead, get your premiums refunded for those two months through your insurance commissioner. It may not work, but it is worth a shot.

As much as I dislike Obamacare, CIGNA was a terrible insurance company to deal with years before Obamacare was passed.

ER should be renamed extremely long term waiting room. If you survived without going to the ER, you did yourself a favor and saved yourself a lot of misery.

Doctors are like any other service provider. There is always another one. Next!

Dickhead

09-04-14, 20:39

I did request as my remedy that my July and Aug premiums be refunded since I couldn't use the insurance. As I said, the investigator isn't finished yet. But the one time in recent years I did go to an ER, I got seen virtually right away. It was around 9 AM the day after Thanksgiving so maybe I just got lucky.

Monday I puked for ten straight hours so waiting in an ER compares somewhat favorably with that.

Dickhead

09-13-14, 23:44

Today was the first day my bill finally showed up correct in CIGNA's system. So it was July 10 when I first noticed their error. 10 weeks and 14 phone calls to fix it. I still have not gotten the insurance commissioner's report, but I got CIGNA's mandatory response, which they mailed one day after the deadline. It stressed the health insurance exchange's (many) errors while failing to mention their own, and all the misrepresentations and false promises they made. They said the claims they denied were "pended," when they were flat out denied. I did get a mealy-mouthed apology and assurance that I am a valued customer. Oh uh huh. So the situation is far better and I was able to get some tests run last week. I did not skate on a month of premiums as it looked liked I would at one point. I will post again when I get the results of the regulator's investigation.

Just right at 10 and a half months to get things complete and correct under the Affordable Care Act.

Tres3

09-14-14, 02:43

Just right at 10 and a half months to get things complete and correct under the Affordable Care Act.Esten would find nothing wrong with your travails. He would say something like 10 and a half months should be expected from a new system.

Tres3.

Rev BS

09-17-14, 10:40

Kaiser Permanente vs the All-Stars in Southern California.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/health-635322-vivity-care.html

"Unlike traditional HMOs, however, both the insurers and the health systems will be collectively responsible for all the risk of overspending on patients and therefore will share a common goal of providing the most cost-efficient care possible, avoiding unnecessary tests and treatments and ENGAGING THEIR PATIENTS TO KEEP THEM AS HEALTHY AS POSSIBLE.

So don't laugh or get mad at Michelle Obama when she tells you to eat your veggies, and Michael Bloomberg tells you to skip the jumbo size drinks.

Dickhead

09-29-14, 13:23

The investigation has been completed. The insurance commission's investigator found that the fault was essentially with the health insurance exchange and that CIGNA was only following the orders they had received. The exchange sent three separate sets of paperwork with three separate start dates and each time this led to cancellation of the prior policy. The billing is 98% straightened out except for now they have to go back and re-figure what I'm responsible for, because I met the deductible while the denied claims were in limbo and so now they have to give me back the co-pays from those. CIGNA had apparently put some kind of gag order in my file because they were conducting an internal investigation of why their system would allow retroactive billing, and that's why their agents would not give me information about the status of my account. CIGNA's officer apologized for this in writing (great).

I got nothing for the fact that I was uncovered for forty-two days that I had paid for, and I was sick as shit the whole time. I'm getting better now that I'm getting treatment, and now that I've met the deductible for the year, I'm going to get every single fuckin' wart and hangnail and such taken care of before the end of the year. And then I am going to get the fuck out for a while. I also got nothing for the fact that I only had six months to meet the deductible and the fact I had to pay the premium of someone a year older than I was at the start of the year ($15 a month more). These things I am going to pursue through the consumer advocacy arm of the state health insurance exchange. One issue is that neither CIGNA nor the exchange will give me copies of these three alleged communications between the exchange and CIGNA that led to the mistakes in the first place. I think if push comes to shove they will have to give them to me, and then maybe I can at least find someone to blame.

Member #4112

10-02-14, 20:44

Just received my new premium notice for my current employee healthcare plan. My new premium for this coming year, 2015, for the SAME COVERAGE is going UP 29.7%.

Since I fall under the 50 employee cap I don't get the cancellation notice on my current plan until next year, 2016, and if I were to attempt to continue the same coverage I now have for my employees I get to pay the "Cadillac Plan" penalty and I can assure you none of my employees considers our current plan to be a "Cadillac".

Oh thank you so much Obamanation!

Rev BS

10-02-14, 21:23

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-obamacare-at-one-year-20141001-column.html#page=1.

Everything in life, there are good & bad outcomes. Often, it is up to you whether you had a nice time with a chica or you don't. Read hotel reviews and you get the picture. A common trend is for people who pay for a 3 star to complain about a lack of 5 star hospitality.

But here's my tip of the day. As you know, the scumbag that Obama is, his ACA policies is skewer to benefit liberals more than rednecks. Sorry, I meant conservatives.

You just have to pay more, that's how it is. Life is never fair.

So for a measly $499.99, I can coach you how to get on the right side of ObamaCare. There is a secret code that only the insiders like me knows. But time is running out. As you know, passwords only have short lifespan, and I am not sure I have enough inside pull to get the next one. Well, I need money, so I'll reduce it to $19.99.

What a deal, eh!

Member #4112

10-02-14, 23:02

Rev BS

10-06-14, 02:29

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/04/your-money/beware-of-shifting-options-within-medicare-plans.html?ref=health

Enrollment & Re-Enrollment period is coming up. Even as I read the article, it is quite challenging to understand your plans, your needs, and your pocket book. I probably do not need to take any action for my Advantage Plan to be renewed automatically. Somewhere at home in Los Angeles, I probably have some notification sitting there advising my options. My plan is an hold-over from my working days, $5 for co-payments for visits, prescriptions, procedures and admissions.

As it is, all these benefits are totally useless in Bangkok for routine physician visits. So far, they have been averaging a few hundred dollars a year, mostly of the doctor viists / lab tests variety. These are not consider emergencies and would have been denied anyway. This year, I had some tetanus / rabies shot which I could have claimed but choose not to do so. Any big claims which I do not wish on myself can be covered by my US plan but you have to show that you are only visiting Thailand. A look at my passport, and I might have to do a great deal of explaining but which I probably could.

Most people have it far more complicated than me. Wish you all the best.

Dickhead

10-13-14, 21:04

So the subsidy is based on the taxpayers' 2013 estimate of their 2014 income. If the income turns out to be higher than the estimate, the taxpayer will owe money. Sounds good so far. But they did two stupid things. Number 1, they made it such that if your income ends up being greater than 400% of the poverty level, which is $45,960, you have to pay back the entire subsidy. Now, if you were at exactly $45,960, you would be eligible for a subsidy if you were 50 years old or older: $167 a year at age 50 up to $3,245 a year at age 64. So if you are that 64 year old person, the 45,961st dollar you earn ends up costing you $3,244 plus the Social Security and income tax on the dollar. Not too good of a deal.

The other stupid thing they did is cap the payback at $1,250 for a single person. So say a 64 year old person estimates their income at the minimum level to get the subsidy and stay off Medicaid, which is 139% of the poverty level or $15,971. They would get an up-front subsidy of $7,070 a year. Then oh whoops my bad I actually made $45,960 and should only have gotten $167 as indicated above. But, instead of having to pay back $7,070 - $167 = $6,903, I only have to pay back $1,250 and even that I don't have to pay back until April 15. I haven't found out yet if they are going to charge interest on that but it sure is a nice windfall. My example is the maximum extreme but many older people will be getting a free ride on this.

Good thing I will be one of them.

Miami Bob

11-01-14, 18:14

I love my 2014 blue cross shield plan/platinum. $1060 per month with no deductible in network and huge national network. All my doctors and prefered facilities are in-network. Before ACA my non-ACA policy was almost double the price and had a huge deductible.

For 2014 my renewal will be $1355 monthly. I did not go near the website. I used the same insurance agent i have used for years. My agent told me that florida had stopped price regulation--tree tea party freedom loving governor and legislature. He is going to get some quotes if similar coverage is available from other carrier.. I will check out with likely care and preventative work whether the no deductible plan works out better than say a $3000 deductible and lower premiums. I will spend the money one way or the other.

I am 62 years olds. Last year had surgery and lots of expensive tests.

Moore

11-01-14, 23:37

Wouldn't it be much cheaper to get your medical procedures done in BA?

My plan is to be living in Argentina at least 6 months per year by the time I'm at the age when I need a lot more medical care.

In the case of major surgery, I guess I'd still feel more comfortable having it done in USA, but that's why I'll have a very high deductible US plan.

Dickhead

11-02-14, 00:51

ElAlamoPalermo

11-02-14, 01:34

Argie doctors don't know shit from apple butter. I had the clap and the doctor told me to stick my dick in apple tea. Another friend fell and injured both arms. One was broken and one not. They read the xray wrong and put the wrong arm in the sling. Another friend went to the public hospital for diabetes and they were going to cut his leg off at the knee that very day. He went elsewhere and only lost his toe. And I could go on and on. Not having any medical procedures done in Argentina. The fucking doctors go to medical school right out of high school. Two med students I partied with said they had each missed over ***100*** days of class that year.I agree somewhat in that I would never set foot in a public hospital under any circumstances. However I disagree in the assessment that there are no competent doctors in Argentina; some of the private hospitals are perfectly acceptable and there are plenty of competent doctors working in private practice. I personally have OSDE 450 which allows me to utilize any private hospital in Argentina and virtually any private doctor (there are a select few only working for cash) and I am quite satisfied with it. I was able to use the orthopedist for the Argentine Olympic team and a highly qualified ENT doctor (both with training in the USA) all for zero out of pocket expense. On several occasions I have went to Swiss medical at 2 or 3am for minor medical issues and also was attended to by a doctor within 5/10 minutes again with zero out of pocket expense. I have been able to get MRIs and Ultrasound/Doppler studies done at the snap of a finger with no delays and no approvals or out of pocket expense. For about $230 USD per month I cannot complain.

Dickhead

11-02-14, 01:55

ElAlamoPalermo

11-02-14, 07:23

Nothing you wrote speaks to the skill of the doctors. Yeah, if you have good insurance, you can get lots of tests. Just like my friend where they put his wrong arm in the sling. That was not a public hospital. It was Hospital Alemn if memory serves me correctly. So some guy is orthopedist for the Argentine Olympic team. How many medals did they win? He still went to medical school when he was 18 and didn't know shit.

I was attended by the doctor who told me to stick my dick in the tea within 5-10 minutes too (that was Clinica del Sol in Palermo, which has a lofty reputation for some unknown reason). He still didn't know what he was doing. What good does it do to be able to get an MRI at the drop of a hat if the fuckheads can't interpret it correctly? You are confusing service with skill here.To expand a bit, I first went to a younger orthopedist that was located near my place of business; he was an idiot as he claimed I had a SLAP tear and did not order an MRI. I did some research and decided I needed a second opinion so I found who I deemed to be one of the best orthopedists in Buenos Aires. This guy (the olympic team orthopedist when the Argentine men's olympic basketball team won the gold medal, defeating the USA team) said that the original orthopedist was an idiot and could not possibly know what the issue was without an MRI; so I went and got an MRI, brought the MRI results to him and he correctly diagnosed the problem, recommended a way to heal it, and within a month or two the issue was healed. I also sent the MRI results to my cousin who is an Orthopedic Surgeon at Columbia/Presbyterian in NYC and he concurred with the diagnosis and course of healing.

Like anywhere else there are incompetents and quacks, but to say categorically that all doctors in Argentina are unskilled or unqualified is simply not accurate; before seeing any doctor you can easily access their CV and see how experienced they are and whether they have been educated/attended conferences in the USA or Europe in their specialty.

Dickhead

11-02-14, 12:10

That sounds like a 50% success rate with Argie doctors to me, and I'd like a little better odds if undergoing procedures.

Dickhead

11-12-14, 22:56

OK, so this was going on long before the ACA, but this whole "80/20" copay thing is bullshit. My new doctor ordered seven blood tests. The billing rate totaled $1,031.00 so my share would have been $206.20 except I've already met my out-of-pocket max for the year. But, the "negotiated rate" that the lab settled for from the insurance company was only $88.83 so really, I would have paid 100% of the bill and the insurance company 0%. So uninsured people are paying approximately twelve times the price at which the lab is obviously already making some profit. Jesus.

The doctor tells me I should get these same tests every year. Then he says, "We do these tests but we don't really know if they do any good." Hmmm well maybe I won't get them done every year, unless of course they're free. But I did get three free Viagra pills.

Dickhead

12-16-14, 05:12

I got a lot of health care for my out of pocket maximum of $1450 this year. But the state system is still full of bugs so when I updated my income, it went insane and first put me on Medicaid, just like it did last year, and I make too much money for Medicaid. Then it misoverestimated my income by like 60% so my credit or subsidy was way too low. Then they jacked the dog for a month or so before kicking me out of the system and making me start all over again, which I just did yesterday, one day before the deadline. Still can't actually buy or shop for health insurance and it's now been a total of 15 months that they have not gotten any part of any calculation right. Mostly it continues to work out in my favor though, so I know some other sorry bastard is getting screwed to make up for the shit I am manipulating.

But thinking about the theory behind Obamacare, I am much healthier than I was for the prior five years or so when I had no insurance, and thus could be more productive. So, now that I know I will have at least one more year of affordable health insurance, I am going to work 80% more this year than I did last year and I selected that based on repaying the 2014 subsidy I got.

I've given this a lot of thought and I think, "Where was this when I was young and poor?" Because I would have been way more productive in my teens and twenties if I'd had health care. I'd encourage people who are against or skeptical about Obamacare to consider the possibility that they got to age 18 or 21 with a better base of health care than maybe some others, given that health insurance has been historically distributed rather randomly. The whole idea of employer-paid health insurance was an end run around WWII wage controls, for those who don't know.

Rev BS

12-16-14, 12:29

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/prescribing-vegetables-not-pills/

Around 1980's with the Vietnamese, Korean & Chinese immigration in full flow, the markets in the US started to look better in regard to greens & fruits. Previously, you only had cabbage, celery, carrots, tomatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, green beans & peas. Eating lettuce was just starting. And people look at you funny when you ask for asparagus. Boiling was usually the way to cook these "greens". Then drain, add butter & salt. No wonder Americans hate vegetables.

One reason why it is such a great pleasure to live in Bangkok is the array of tropical fruits aside from the all year mango, watermelon, pineapple, banana, coconut & papaya that is well known to Americans. Seasonal fruits like rumbutans, longkong, lychees, longans, mangosteen, chiku, langsat, jackfruit, jumbu, guava, persimmon were anticipated and eaten with gusto. Not to mention the king of the fruits, the durian. A natural aphrodisiac. Legend has it that when the durians drop from the trees, the women's sarongs went up!

It is a constant surprise to me that the American mongers I meet usually do not pay any attention to all these fruits that are on display for sale everywhere in the streets. I can understand the single-mindedness of looking for pussy, but even when that is accomplished, they still stroll around oblivious to these offerings. They do stop to get some grilled meat, or plate of fried rice or noodles. But not even an interested glance, or a question of "what is that?" or "what does that taste like?" to these exotic fruits.

Jackson

12-16-14, 14:17

Legend has it that when the durians drop from the trees, the women's sarongs went up!Durians smell and taste like rotten eggs.

They do stop to get some grilled meat, or plate of fried rice or noodles.Any westerner who eats from one of those road-side food stands will be struck with an intestinal illness for the next 3 days.

That's not just my experience, but the experience of every westerner I've ever met in the past 20 years who has eaten said food.

Thanks,

Jax

Rev BS

12-16-14, 18:17

I was hit hard 3 times with intestinal / stomach sickness that took up to 3/4 days of misery. Chang Mai, Havana and Morelia. The last episode was in 1998. Since then, no problems despite the street buffet. A type of manual vaccination, I think. Knock on wood.

More common for travelers is the cold that comes from too much air conditioning (plane & room). Easily rectified by keeping your resistance up with exercise, sleep and a good diet. And don't let the air stream blow on you too long. Cover up if no choice.

Most potential durian eaters are psych out even before taking a sniff. Information overload. In Thailand, the smell is very low as the Thais like it still quite firm. But elsewhere, they do like it more ripe & creamy, thus more pungent. But I always wonder why some mongers can eat pussies and not durian. Like all the American women who blanch white when they see fish but can swallow unwashed stinky dicks with no problems. Aaah, the mind & the emotion.

SteveC

12-16-14, 22:57

Durians smell and taste like rotten eggs.

Any westerner who eats from one of those road-side food stands will be struck with an intestinal illness for the next 3 days.

That's not just my experience, but the experience of every westerner I've ever met in the past 20 years who has eaten said food.

Thanks,

JaxI've eaten street food in Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia over the last 30 years and never had a stomach upset, nor anyone I was travelling with. If its cooked fresh and quick it should be good, its those hotel buffets that you need to worry about. I've eaten durian too, once. From that point I understood why all the hotels in Malaysia have those warning signs in their rooms; "Durian prohibited". The rest of the fruit is fantastic.

El Perro

12-16-14, 23:24

I've eaten street food in Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia over the last 30 years and never had a stomach upset, nor anyone I was travelling with. If its cooked fresh and quick it should be good, its those hotel buffets that you need to worry about. I've eaten durian too, once. From that point I understood why all the hotels in Malaysia have those warning signs in their rooms; "Durian prohibited". The rest of the fruit is fantastic.Same here though I never made it to Malaysia. And in addition to the hotel buffets, its best to avoid the baked chickens that have been sitting around for two days in grocery stores.

I still miss my grilled chicken lady on soi 35 in Lad Phrao.

Dickhead

12-16-14, 23:58

I got to find out where Pirate Morgan and Don B go to get their skin thinned.

Don B

12-17-14, 17:52

I got to find out where Pirate Morgan and Don B go to get their skin thinned.Probably the same place you had your hemorrhoid operation.

Don B.

Rev BS

12-17-14, 19:30

Don B. The marbles are still working. All in good fun, nobody should get their joints twisted.

Rev BS

01-09-15, 08:27

Way back in 2008, long before the Affordable Care Act was passed, this article came out in the conservative Wall Street Journal. Before the lobbyists and propaganda machine started the communist scare to the stupid American people. And the AP Mens' Glee Club started their Gregorian chant.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122887085038593345

Rev BS

01-24-15, 22:55

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0124-banks-medical-woes-20150124-column.html

I went to see the physician for a routine examination. I saw him and yet somehow, I didn't feel I saw him. The reason probably was pretty nothing much about me had changed. Actually, I felt he hardly knew me even though he has been my doctor for over 30 years. The history was all in the computer and I was just a number to him. How's everything? Blood pressure, then the lab order. Adios! Of course, you could be more prepared and have a list of questions to ask him. Or maybe, if you look like you are about to collapse, he would shown more concern. I did tell him the Levitra was working like a baseball bat, he stared at me and said nothing!

I have a feeling that in the near future, it will be done online. No need to drive through heavy traffic, sit in the waiting room for an hour when he is late.

We don't mind drive-trues in fast food, so why should we mind drive-trues in physician visits? After all, it's our way of life, created & sanctioned by the higher powers in Corporate America.

Rev BS

02-22-15, 21:13

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/republicans_want_to_repeal_obamacare_the_gop_has_a_harder_time_replacing.html?wpisrc=obnetworkoon

With the new Republican majority Congress sworn in, I am salivating with anticipation as to the repeal & replacement of the ACA. The GOP had run on this platform, they should be more than ready to pass & implement their own "dream" Act. But I think they will just pray & wait for the Supreme Court to do their work for them. Or like one reader's comments that the ACA has always been the Republicans' alternative plan for the most part, and they are still scratching their heads as to finding their own ideas. And doing the math, which is now very weak in the American school system. They are very strong in marching bands & cheer squads.

I am very lucky in that I inherited a very strong employee insurance package covered through Medicare. Last week, I visited my doctors for a routine physical & lab tests. As well as an optometrist for some prescriptions. Costs were $5 per visit, no lab charges. Also 3 free shots, flu, pneumonia, tetanus w whopping cough. Doctors were very pleasant since I had no complaints or new conditions. Also, they knew I had to do a survey on the visits. I had forgotten it was Presidents Day, so no traffic, the LA sky was clear and the air crisp. My friend took me to an Asian seafood buffet. $16 for lunch, highlighs were the sashimi and a Brazilian churrasco. Nothing like that for that price in Bangkok.

Some impending changes in benefits coming to my former workplace. Health coverage will not cover the family members, just you. Pension to be eliminated or reduced. And more. The good old days as in Buenos Aires or Bangkok is over. We have been so lucky to have live in the "golden era".