Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Something I don't understand about the Health Care Debate (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=381468)

  • Aug 5, 2009, 02:22 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by amdeist View Post
    Charles Hugh Smith at [email protected] says it best when he writes;

    The “Impossible” Healthcare Solution: Go Back to Cash

    The expansion of health insurance and government entitlements created “free money” and thus the explosion of healthcare costs. The solution is simple and “impossible”: we all pay cash.

    Here’s why healthcare (a.k.a. sick-care) costs cannot be reduced; the entire system is based on vast pools of “free money.” The corporate-America or union/government employee who goes to the doctor pays a few dollars for a visit and drugs; the “real cost” is of no concern. Ditto the “real costs” charged to Medicare and Medicaid.

    The link between the “consumer” of healthcare and the provider has been broken for decades. There is no “free market” in healthcare — there isn’t any market at all. We live in a Kafka-esque nightmare system in which “some are more equal than others” and hundreds of thousands of dollars are lavished on worthless tests, procedures and medications for two reasons:

    1. Because there’s “free money” to pay the bills

    2. So-called “defensive medicine” in which worthless tests are administered to stave off random (sometimes valid, sometimes nuisance) malpractice lawsuits.

    There is a solution so simple and so radical that it is “impossible” (and of course you’re reading it here): shut down insurance and all government entitlements, and return to the “golden era” of the 1950s when everyone paid cash for healthcare. Here are the costs of childbirth as of 1952 at one of the finest hospitals on the West Coast, The Santa Monica Hospital:

    And here are the obstetrical rates:

    Having a baby cost $30, which is today’s dollars is $244. A private deluxe room cost $23 or $187 in today’s dollars. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s inflation calculator, $1 in 1952 is $8.14 in 2009 dollars.

    What does it cost to have a baby now? $10,000? Or is it $25,000? Who even knows?

    I know all the reasons why “costs had to skyrocket”: we’re getting so much better care now, right? Actually, as measured by death rates and any other metric you want to select, there is simply no way to justify a 40-fold increase (or is it 100-fold?) in medical care costs. The returns on all the “miracles of modern medicine” are in fact exceedingly marginal — but nobody wants to talk about that.

    In 1952, if something awful happened and a patient died, here was the response: “We’re very sorry.” Families weren’t outraged; they expected people to die and interventions were not expected to be miraculous every single time. Doctor Kildaire and all his imitators on TV had not brainwashed the public into reckoning that if someone died, a mistake had been made. They also hadn’t been brainwashed by the mental disorder known as “the American Legal System” into thinking that in every possible circumstance in life, there is liability, and the only question is where to pin it for the big bucks jackpot.

    Stories about people suing doctors and hospitals for 5 times the value of a house ($1 million in today’s money would have been $120,000 in 1952, when you could buy a nice house for $20,000) simply did not exist in the 1950s. The cultural mindset that someone somewhere must be at fault and it’s a “right” to go after them did not exist. Since insurance was limited, there was no “free money jackpot” to go after, either.

    A lot of good points here.

    There is one thing I would dispute, however. He says that "The returns on all the “miracles of modern medicine” are in fact exceedingly marginal — but nobody wants to talk about that. "

    I'll talk about it. It's factually incorrect. Literally millions of lives have been saved due to breakthroughs in cancer treatments, heart treatments, etc. People who had NO CHANCE at survival 50 years ago are surviving after outpatient treatments today. The invention of the heart stent alone has prevented thousands of heart attack-related deaths. Chemotherapies and radiotherapies that didn't exist 50 years ago are de-rigure today and save thousands of lives. The existence of transplantation technologies that didn't exist 50 years ago save thousands of people every year today. The existence of blood-presssure meds and cholestoral lowering meds save thousands of lives every year.

    Each one of these techniques, therapies or meds, cost about a billion dollars to develop. And for each one that is successfully developed, there are hundreds of meds, therapies, and techniques that fail... but still cost money to investigate and study. I've posted the costs of developing a single medicine here before. I'm not just pulling that billion dollar number out of a hat.

    The higher cost of medicine today than in the 1950s is justified on that basis alone. And the differences between the quality of care today and the quality of care in the 1950s are HUGE.

    So I dispute that point.

    The rest of what he said has some validity... in fact more than some, in most cases.

    Elliot
  • Aug 5, 2009, 03:50 PM
    amdeist
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    A lot of good points here.

    There is one thing I would dispute, however. He says that "The returns on all the “miracles of modern medicine” are in fact exceedingly marginal — but nobody wants to talk about that. "

    I'll talk about it. It's factually incorrect. Literally millions of lives have been saved due to breakthroughs in cancer treatments, heart treatments, etc. People who had NO CHANCE at survival 50 years ago are surviving after outpatient treatments today. The invention of the heart stent alone has prevented thousands of heart attack-related deaths. Chemotherapies and radiotherapies that didn't exist 50 years ago are de-rigure today and save thousands of lives. The existence of transplantation technologies that didn't exist 50 years ago save thousands of people every year today. The existence of blood-presssure meds and cholestoral lowering meds save thousands of lives every year.

    Each one of these techniques, therapies or meds, cost about a billion dollars to develop. And for each one that is successfully developed, there are hundreds of meds, therapies, and techniques that fail... but still cost money to investigate and study. I've posted the costs of developing a single medicine here before. I'm not just pulling that billion dollar number out of a hat.

    The higher cost of medicine today than in the 1950s is justified on that basis alone. And the differences between the quality of care today and the quality of care in the 1950s are HUGE.

    So I dispute that point.

    The rest of what he said has some validity... in fact more than some, in most cases.

    Elliot

    I think what he means by the returns being marginal are the increasing costs of keeping people alive. Yes, without doubt, modern medicine has extended life, but at what cost? We have an increasing elderly population, of which I am one, that daily add to the burden on society for healthcare, social security, medicare, retirement funds, etc. We simply have too many people on earth today, and another major war is inevitable. Look how many people in our society have health, social, emotional or psychological problems. I certainly wouldn't advocate eliminating anyone, but to keep finding new ways to extend life without quality of life borders on what I would call insane!
  • Aug 5, 2009, 04:33 PM
    inthebox
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by amdeist View Post
    Charles Hugh Smith at [email protected] says it best when he writes;

    The “Impossible” Healthcare Solution: Go Back to Cash

    The expansion of health insurance and government entitlements created “free money” and thus the explosion of healthcare costs. The solution is simple and “impossible”: we all pay cash.

    Here’s why healthcare (a.k.a. sick-care) costs cannot be reduced; the entire system is based on vast pools of “free money.” The corporate-America or union/government employee who goes to the doctor pays a few dollars for a visit and drugs; the “real cost” is of no concern. Ditto the “real costs” charged to Medicare and Medicaid.

    The link between the “consumer” of healthcare and the provider has been broken for decades. There is no “free market” in healthcare — there isn’t any market at all. We live in a Kafka-esque nightmare system in which “some are more equal than others” and hundreds of thousands of dollars are lavished on worthless tests, procedures and medications for two reasons:

    1. Because there’s “free money” to pay the bills

    2. So-called “defensive medicine” in which worthless tests are administered to stave off random (sometimes valid, sometimes nuisance) malpractice lawsuits.

    There is a solution so simple and so radical that it is “impossible” (and of course you’re reading it here): shut down insurance and all government entitlements, and return to the “golden era” of the 1950s when everyone paid cash for healthcare. Here are the costs of childbirth as of 1952 at one of the finest hospitals on the West Coast, The Santa Monica Hospital:

    And here are the obstetrical rates:

    Having a baby cost $30, which is today’s dollars is $244. A private deluxe room cost $23 or $187 in today’s dollars. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s inflation calculator, $1 in 1952 is $8.14 in 2009 dollars.

    What does it cost to have a baby now? $10,000? Or is it $25,000? Who even knows?

    I know all the reasons why “costs had to skyrocket”: we’re getting so much better care now, right? Actually, as measured by death rates and any other metric you want to select, there is simply no way to justify a 40-fold increase (or is it 100-fold?) in medical care costs. The returns on all the “miracles of modern medicine” are in fact exceedingly marginal — but nobody wants to talk about that.

    In 1952, if something awful happened and a patient died, here was the response: “We’re very sorry.” Families weren’t outraged; they expected people to die and interventions were not expected to be miraculous every single time. Doctor Kildaire and all his imitators on TV had not brainwashed the public into reckoning that if someone died, a mistake had been made. They also hadn’t been brainwashed by the mental disorder known as “the American Legal System” into thinking that in every possible circumstance in life, there is liability, and the only question is where to pin it for the big bucks jackpot.

    Stories about people suing doctors and hospitals for 5 times the value of a house ($1 million in today’s money would have been $120,000 in 1952, when you could buy a nice house for $20,000) simply did not exist in the 1950s. The cultural mindset that someone somewhere must be at fault and it’s a “right” to go after them did not exist. Since insurance was limited, there was no “free money jackpot” to go after, either.



    I agree with the cash part - as an out patient. The prices of laser eye surgery and botox have come down [ relatively speaking ] compared to when they first came out.

    Let that side of it be truly free market. However I doubt physicians, and health insurance companies will not want to compete based purely on suppply, demand, service , value.

    I'm not sure about the acute care / hospital side of healthcare. Technology costs. Can people afford it? A motor vehicle accident causing multiple trauma and multiple organ system involvement can easily cost thousands of dollars a day. It is easy to see why. You have hospital costs , labor [ physicians, nurses, phlebotomists, transporters etc.. ] material costs [ medications, the ivs, the repsirator, the bed, the Mri, cat scans ] etc.

    This is where the US healthcare system IS BETTER than others... I think thisarea of healthcare will still be via third party [ whether gov and or insurance co ] . Just watch " trauma: life in the ER " and any of the reality medical shows and ask yourself how much does it costs or how does it get paid?




    G&P
  • Aug 6, 2009, 03:52 AM
    tomder55

    amdeist ,yes to contain costs eliminating a bunch of infirmed would do the trick . The Dems seem to have the culture of death covered in both ends of this deal. Advise seniors to opt for early death ,and increase funding for abortion services.

    Once those ends are optimized and costs are still out of control can eugenics be far behind ?

    SS and Medicare are supposedly funded by us when we are young and working contributors to society .They in liberal theory are self funded .
    The fact that our lives contribute to a burden to these programs is a gross distortion of the problem . The real problem is that they are government run programs that have been pilfered by our elected representatives for years .The real problem is that like most government programs they are poorly managed.
  • Aug 6, 2009, 04:19 AM
    N0help4u

    Quinn and Rose just read the outline of the healthcare plan. Pages 29 to 200+

    29 talks about it being mandated
    If you choose your own plan they will go through it with a fine tooth comb and try to insist you switch.

    Further on
    It talks about free health care for the illegal aliens

    How medicare/medicaid will simply just become a part of the national health care.

    The national ID for the national health care (toward the mark)

    How there will be a board to determine if you qualify for life saving care and surgery.

    That there will be NO appealing if they turn you down for care.
  • Aug 6, 2009, 06:40 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N0help4u View Post
    That there will be NO appealing if they turn you down for care.

    Good morning, N0:

    Do you remember when George W. Bush said that the Gitmo detainees DIDN'T have habeas corpus rights? He said that he has the power to prevent them from ever having their cases heard in court... Well, of course, they DO have the right to challenge their imprisonment, and their cases ARE in court...

    So, when some rightwinger tells you that you can't appeal a government decision, he's either lying, can't read or has an agenda.

    Your Constitution says quite clearly in the First Amendment that you have the right to "..petition the government for a redress of grievances...".

    excon
  • Aug 6, 2009, 07:10 AM
    N0help4u

    This is the left saying IN THEIR health care package that there will be no appealing if they say YOU can not get heart surgery.

    Do you think they are going to let the constition or anything stand in their way when they are going for CHANGE that will reframe what our rights are??

    Its in THEIR healthcare package plan they are so ready to pass asap
  • Aug 6, 2009, 07:38 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N0help4u View Post
    This is the left saying IN THEIR health care package that there will be no appealing if they say YOU can not get heart surgery.

    Why would one not get heart surgery? What would be the grounds for refusing that? Where in the bill does it say that?
  • Aug 6, 2009, 07:47 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Why would one not get heart surgery? What would be the grounds for refusing that? Where in the bill does it say that?

    Because the government has decided that this 80-year-old man doesn't have a very long life expectancy anyway, and the Health Benefits Advisory Committee (established on page 30 of the bill for the purpose of determining what benefits will be granted and which will not be) has decided that the cost of providing that operation isn't justified. THAT would be the grounds for denying it. And that is where it is written... pages 30-40 of the Bill.

    But of course, you have to have read the bill to know that. And since the President has been trying to get the bill passed without anyone reading it, there's no way you would have known that little fact.

    Elliot
  • Aug 6, 2009, 07:49 AM
    N0help4u

    Yeah if you have health issues they will say that your quality of life doesn't warrant the expense. ETW has it right it is in pages 30-40 of the bill.
  • Aug 6, 2009, 07:49 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N0help4u View Post
    This is the left saying IN THEIR health care package that there will be no appealing if they say YOU can not get heart surgery.

    Hello again, N0:

    I remind you again, that the most powerful man in the world, POTUS, SAID that the detainees won't get hearings... But, they did...

    So, I don't care WHO writes down the words "you can't appeal", or who says them to you in the hopes that you'll be frightened by them, they're full of ka ka.

    excon
  • Aug 6, 2009, 07:52 AM
    N0help4u
    So you are saying Obamas change will be disregarded after it is passed?


    We shall see
    Let me know in your later years how it goes with your health if you need surgery or life sustaining care and get it.
  • Aug 6, 2009, 08:09 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N0help4u View Post
    So you are saying Obamas change will be disregarded after it is passed?

    Hello again, N0:

    What I'm saying is that I highly DOUBT there are such words written into the bill. I think they're just made up by the right to scare people.

    Certainly, NO lawmaker is going to propose a law that takes away peoples rights under the Constitution... It's just not going to happen.

    I'd be happy to be WRONG, though. Just show me the words in the bill, and I'll back down.

    excon
  • Aug 6, 2009, 08:13 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, N0:

    I remind you again, that the most powerful man in the world, POTUS, SAID that the detainees won't get hearings.... But, they did....

    So, I don't care WHO writes down the words "you can't appeal", or who says them to you in the hopes that you'll be frightened by them, they're full of ka ka.

    excon

    Who would you appeal to? The same guys who made the decision in the first place?

    And you think you'll get a fair hearing on said appeal?

    Such trust you have in our government!!

    Such a drone you've become.

    "Government is good... they have your best interests at heart. They'll let you appeal. They only want what's best for you."

    Ever try to appeal with the IRS? How far did you get?

    That's what we're talking about here... health care run by a cross between the IRS and the DMV. Incompetence AND cold-heartedness rolled into one.
  • Aug 6, 2009, 08:17 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Who would you appeal to? The same guys who made the decision in the first place?

    Hello again, El:

    It's pretty hard to discuss these issues if you don't even have a basic understanding of HOW our country works, and you don't.

    excon
  • Aug 6, 2009, 08:19 AM
    N0help4u

    LOOK up page 29 line 4-16

    I would be interested in knowing the exact wording myself.

    If you can find different than 'what you think the righties are making it to say' I would be interested in knowing.
  • Aug 6, 2009, 08:20 AM
    amdeist
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    amdeist ,yes to contain costs eliminating a bunch of infirmed would do the trick . The Dems seem to have the culture of death covered in both ends of this deal. Advise seniors to opt for early death ,and increase funding for abortion services.

    Once those ends are optimized and costs are still out of control can eugenics be far behind ?

    SS and Medicare are supposedly funded by us when we are young and working contributors to society .They in liberal theory are self funded .
    The fact that our lives contribute to a burden to these programs is a gross distortion of the problem . The real problem is that they are government run programs that have been pilfered by our elected representatives for years .The real problem is that like most government programs they are poorly managed.

    After watching the bloodbath that just happened with the non-government financial industry, the automobile industry, and the insurance industry that is yet to come, to say the government run programs are the problem is somewhat misinformed. It is unfortunate that the government got involved with helping any of these companies. Were they to be allowed to fail, millions who would find themselves unemployed without any unemployment payments would wake up and smell the coffee. All that the stimulus has done is pushed forward the demise of capitalism for a short while.
  • Aug 6, 2009, 08:43 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by amdeist View Post
    After watching the bloodbath that just happened with the non-government financial industry, the automobile industry, and the insurance industry that is yet to come, to say the government run programs are the problem is somewhat misinformed.

    Actually, it is very well informed. What is misinformed is to say that these financial companies failed of their owen accord. They were pushed by the government.

    The mortgage debacle was a direct result of the Community Reinvestment Act and various Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs DESIGNED to create a market for sub-prime mortgages. The CRA laws FORCED banks to make 60% of their loans to people who couldn't afford them. I, as a lender, was FORCED to make loans that I knew were bad because if I didn't my bank would be shut down by the Federal Government. The existence of these bad loans was not the fault of the banks. It was the DIRECT RESULT of a government program that interfered with the normal workings of the credit market.

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were both DESIGNED to create a guarantee for lenders so that these lenders could make loans to people who would not otherwise be able to afford these loans. That was the reason for their creation. Eventually Fannie and Freddie stopped guaranteeing those loans, and instead began both MAKING them and BUYING them, thus creating a marketplace for these bad loans. If not for the existence of Fannie and Freddie, NONE of the bad mortgage loans would have been made, because there would never have been a market for them. Again, these two government programs, designed specifically for the purpose of interfering with the normal workings of the credit market, were the direct cause of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. If they hadn't existed, those mortgages would never have been made in the first place.

    Say what you will about the derivatives markets being the cause of the problem... without the existence of the sub-prime mortgages there never would have been a mortgage derivatives market. And the sub-prime mortgages were the direct result of the existence of CRA, Fannie and Freddie.

    So informed people KNOW that the failures we have experienced in the sub-prime mortgage market were the result of GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS that caused the problems, not failures of the financial institutions that made the loans in the first place or traded in derivatives.

    Same thing for the auto industry. Government interference in auto manufacture, along with their support for unions over management are what made GM and Chrystler's business models unsustainable. Government regulations, monitoring and café standards drove the costs of manufacture through the roof. Union requirements caused the price of labor to be double or triple what non-union shops were charging. Between these two factors, GM and Chrystler were driven out of the market in terms of pricing. You could by essentially the same vehicle from Toyota or Nissan for 1/3 to 1/2 off the price of a GM or Chrystler vehicle, because the foreign car makers didn't have the same overhead in terms of regulatory costs, café standards, and labor costs. Again, this is a case where government interference caused the problem in the first place. And INFORMED people know that.

    Quote:

    It is unfortunate that the government got involved with helping any of these companies. Were they to be allowed to fail, millions who would find themselves unemployed without any unemployment payments would wake up and smell the coffee.
    Agreed. They would have realized that belonging to a union and putting your trust in government programs designed for social engineering and weal redistribution are NOT the solutions to making a better life for themselves.

    Quote:

    All that the stimulus has done is pushed forward the demise of capitalism for a short while.
    Exactly the opposite. Helping those companies only pushed back the inevitable demise of GOVERNMENT Interference in capitalism. A demise that has taken place every time it has been tried throughout history.

    Elliot
  • Aug 6, 2009, 08:52 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    So informed people KNOW that the failures we have experienced in the sub-prime mortgage market were the result of GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

    Hello a:

    Actually informed people know the failures were due to greed, a LACK of government oversight and a LACK of regulation...

    It's not ME who is saying that... It's the American people, who FIRED the folks who think that way. Because, THAT thinking WAS in play for the last 8 years, and it brought us DISASTER!

    excon
  • Aug 6, 2009, 09:51 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello a:

    Actually informed people know the failures were due to greed, a LACK of government oversight and a LACK of regulation...

    No, that's what uninformed amateurs looking for someone at whom to point a finger and looking for simplistic solutions to complex problems "know". REAL economists and analysts know exactly what I stated. All of which is demonstrable through historical fact.

    Quote:

    It's not ME who is saying that... It's the American people, who FIRED the folks who think that way. Because, THAT thinking WAS in play for the last 8 years, and it brought us DISASTER!

    Excon
    Yep... uninformed Americans made that decision. And now they are learning better. They are becoming more informed.

    That's why this health care bill is floundering and Obama is trying to rally his forces to get it moving again.

    Elliot
  • Aug 6, 2009, 09:58 AM
    amdeist
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello a:

    Actually informed people know the failures were due to greed, a LACK of government oversight and a LACK of regulation....

    It's not ME who is saying that... It's the American people, who FIRED the folks who think that way. Because, THAT thinking WAS in play for the last 8 years, and it brought us DISASTER!

    excon

    You are right on, but can't communicate with someone who watchs Fox News and lets people like Rush, Sean and Glenn do their thinking for them. The good news is that they are offering nothing but negativity, without solutions. Even Einstein realized that doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is insanity. Now that Americans have removed the old regime, we can watch reality, and don't have to argue about old ideology that has already failed.
  • Aug 6, 2009, 10:00 AM
    N0help4u

    LOL that's a good one
    Tin foil hat time for the conservatives.

    Kool aid
    For the right coming right up
  • Aug 6, 2009, 11:23 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by amdeist View Post
    You are right on, but can't communicate with someone who watchs Fox News and lets people like Rush, Sean and Glenn do their thinking for them. The good news is that they are offering nothing but negativity, without solutions. Even Einstein realized that doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is insanity. Now that Americans have removed the old regime, we can watch reality, and don't have to argue about old ideology that has already failed.

    Actually, I get my talking points not from FOX, et al. I get them from my professional background in economics and finance.

    You might want to try reading a book on something other than Keynsian economics. You might learn something.

    We're not talking about trying the same thing again and again. We're talking about trying it for the first time since 1942... a free market system WITHOUT government intervention using the interstate commerce clause as an excuse to regulate every industry under the sun. You ought to try it before you dismiss it.

    But you won't.

    As for the reality that we're starting to see... That reality includes the highest level of unemployment in 60 years, despite the fact that Obama promissed that if we passed his stimulus bill, unemployment wouldn't go over 8%. We're seeing the highest level of budget deficits in history... quadruple what George Bush left us. We're seeing the national debt double... more debt than all the prior administrations left behind COMBINED. We're seeing two of the top three auto companies, 10 of the top 12 banks, and the largest insurance company in the USA taken over by the government. We're seeing money that was SUPPOSED to be used to buy up "toxic assets" instead used to take over companies. We're seeing the government firing CEOs of private companies and dictating the salaries of employees of private companies. We're seeing the government try to put laws into place that control what we drive, how much gas we use, how much we pay in taxes based on the energy we use (even though that energy is produced by private companies at no cost to the government), and what kinds of lighjtbulbs we can buy. Not to mention what types of toilets we can use.

    And on top of that, we're seeing the government try to take over health care.

    Yes, you are quite correct. The people voted out the Republicans. Now they are seeing reality.

    And they're getting angry at what they see.

    THAT'S why your seeing the reactions you're seeing at town hall meetings. Because reality is kicking in... we don't have to argue about the policies of the old regime anymore. We're seeing the reality of the new regime in action.

    And it ain't good for the Dems.

    Elliot
  • Aug 6, 2009, 11:28 AM
    N0help4u

    ... I thought I liked your Jewish page replies...
    You are a voice of reason in politics too.
    :D greenie for ETW
  • Aug 6, 2009, 11:35 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N0help4u View Post
    ....I thought I liked your Jewish page replies.....
    you are a voice of reason in politics too.
    :D greenie for ETW

    Why, thank you.

    :p

    Elliot
  • Aug 6, 2009, 11:38 AM
    amdeist
    [QUOTE=ETWolverine;1906713]Actually, I get my talking points not from FOX, et al. I get them from my professional background in economics and finance.

    You might want to try reading a book on something other than Keynsian economics. You might learn something.

    Can't argue with a self-appointed expert on everything. Not only have I read more books on economics, have two masters degrees from SMU and GW, but have written a book on Amazon.com entitled "What Has Capitalism Done For You." I wrote it in 2004, and predicted in my last chapter exactly what is happening today and will happen in the next couple of years.
  • Aug 6, 2009, 11:44 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by amdeist View Post
    Can't argue with a self-appointed expert on everything. Not only have I read more books on economics, have two masters degrees from SMU and GW, but have written a book on Amazon.com entitled "What Has Capitalism Done For You." I wrote it in 2004, and predicted in my last chapter exactly what is happening today and will happen in the next couple of years.

    Damn you showed him. :) Welcome to the site. You'll find that ET has the answer to everything.
  • Aug 6, 2009, 11:49 AM
    ETWolverine
    [quote=amdeist;1906760]
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Actually, I get my talking points not from FOX, et al. I get them from my professional background in economics and finance.

    You might want to try reading a book on something other than Keynsian economics. You might learn something.

    Can't argue with a self-appointed expert on everything. Not only have I read more books on economics, have two masters degrees from SMU and GW, but have written a book on Amazon.com entitled "What Has Capitalism Done For You." I wrote it in 2004, and predicted in my last chapter exactly what is happening today and will happen in the next couple of years.

    It took you until 2004 to predict the current state of affairs?

    There have been experts in finance predicting this stuff since Jimmy Carter instituted the CRA laws back in the 70s. The ABA has made this their pet project for the past 20 years, since the S&L debacle forewarned us that this was going to happen.

    And it took you until 2004? Where the hell have you been?

    You've been too busy pushing your idea of Utopia in your book... government programs ubber alles.

    Well, it's your government programs, designed to push your Utopian vision, that got us into this mess.

    Elliot
  • Aug 6, 2009, 11:55 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    And it took you until 2004? Where the hell have you been?

    When was your book published?
  • Aug 6, 2009, 11:57 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by amdeist View Post
    Can't argue with a self-appointed expert on everything.

    Hello again, a:

    I must speak up for self appointed experts on everything. Some of us actually DO know what we're talking about.

    excon
  • Aug 6, 2009, 12:07 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    When was your book published?

    Those who can, do. Those who can't write books telling others what to do. I've been "doing" for the past 16 years.
  • Aug 6, 2009, 12:07 PM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N0help4u View Post
    LOOK up page 29 line 4-16

    If you can find different than 'what you think the righties are making it to say' I would be interested in knowing.

    Hello again, N0:

    You'll have to link me to the bill you're talking about. I find NOTHING on page 29, lines 4-16 on the bill I examined. That would be the Senate Bill here: http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf

    excon
  • Aug 6, 2009, 12:13 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, N0:

    You'll have to link me to the bill you're talking about. I find NOTHING on page 29, lines 4-16 on the bill I examined. That would be the Senate Bill here: http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf

    excon

    Try HR 3200 out of the House.

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...3200ih.txt.pdf
  • Aug 6, 2009, 12:28 PM
    ETWolverine

    Interestingly enough, the bill calls for an appeals system for "qualified" private insurance carriers (pages 37 & 38 of the bill), but makes no mention of a similar system for the government health plan.

    I find that to be a very telling fact.

    Private insurance companies need a way to deal with appeals. But the government doesn't.

    Hmmmm...

    Elliot
  • Aug 6, 2009, 12:30 PM
    excon

    Hello again, El & N0:

    4 (A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-shar
    5 ing incurred under the essential benefits pack-
    6 age with respect to an individual (or family) for
    7 a year does not exceed the applicable level spec
    8 ified in subparagraph (B).
    9 (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable
    10 level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is
    11 $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a
    12 family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded
    13 to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year
    14 by the annual percentage increase in the Con

    Nope!! Nothing about not being able to appeal here. Maybe it's on the back of Obama's missing birth certificate.

    excon
  • Aug 6, 2009, 12:31 PM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Those who can, do. Those who can't write books telling others what to do. I've been "doing" for the past 16 years.

    All those books published and read, such waste eh? God you love yourself. :p
  • Aug 6, 2009, 12:37 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, El & N0:

    4 (A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-shar
    5 ing incurred under the essential benefits pack-
    6 age with respect to an individual (or family) for
    7 a year does not exceed the applicable level spec
    8 ified in subparagraph (B).
    9 (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable
    10 level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is
    11 $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a
    12 family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded
    13 to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year
    14 by the annual percentage increase in the Con

    Nope!!! Nothing about not being able to appeal here. Maybe it's on the back of Obama's missing birth certificate.

    excon

    1) They are setting limitations.

    2) They are NOT putting a system in place to appeal those limitations, even though they create such a system for private carriers (who already have appeals processes in place as part of the normal course of business) just a few pages later.

    NO's point is pretty much right on the money, whether you wish to admit it or not.
  • Aug 6, 2009, 12:39 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    All those books published and read, such waste eh? God you love yourself. :p

    Read by whom? I don't see any reader reviews of AMDEIST's book. Do you?

    And yes, I do love myself. Being right all the time just makes me easier to love.
  • Aug 6, 2009, 12:45 PM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    1) They are setting limitations.

    2) They are NOT putting a system in place to appeal those limitations,

    NO's point is pretty much right on the money, whether you wish to admit it or not.

    Hello again, El:

    The right wing scare points are that there's NO APPEAL. Because they didn't say there is, you say that means there isn't.

    Dude! Dude! Dude! Are you listening to yourself??

    If health care shouldn't be reformed, you're going to have to come up with better stuff than THAT! The buffoonery your side is presenting as debate, is actually HURTING your cause - not helping it.

    DUDE!

    excon
  • Aug 6, 2009, 12:48 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, El:

    The right wing scare points are that there's NO APPEAL. Because they didn't say there is, you say that means there isn't.

    Dude! Dude! Dude! Are you listening to yourself???????

    If health care shouldn't be reformed, you're gonna have to come up with better stuff than THAT! The buffoonery your side is presenting as debate, is actually HURTING your cause - not helping it.

    DUDE!

    excon

    I asked this question earlier. Who do you appeal to? The same people making the decision in the first place? And you expect a different answer on appeal?

    DUDE!!

    Once the government makes a decision, that is IT. Try appealing a decision of the IRS if you think I'm wrong.

    Elliot

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:02 PM.