Obama '08?

@kuvasz,

Ha!

I've never seen you post a single thing here that wasn't an attack on someone.
Stay in your basement you little coward.

1 Reply

@kuvasz,

The usual suspects are gathering and it wouldn't be any fun without you.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

To paraphrase B. Franklin, Waterboy is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be amused. His particular brand of insanity is wasted on A2K.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Baby talk? A little sometimes I guess. However, my entire discourse hasn't been composed entirely of post such as the ones we are all now presently posting. Not only that, but you do tend to take whatever is said and just kind of say it back.

0 Replies

@blueveinedthrobber,

Quote:

but sometimes you just want to shoot fish in a barrel. Not very mature, but there it is

Well, as you can see, you are not alone in that.

BTW, I think you took that whole Hillary thing a little harder than most people meant. There was a difference of opinion between you and a lot of Obama supporters and people who just didn't and still don't like Hillary Clinton. I think you were wrong in your assessments but it wasn't like I thought you turned into John McCain or anything. (I can't really speak for anyone else, but I doubt they do either)

0 Replies

revelette I was called an outright racist, an idiot, and people just stopped communicating with me during the 2008 election cycle, and my relationship with this community has never been the same since. I'm not whining about it, and I'm not broken hearted about it, I'm just stating a fact.

I still believe with all my heart the Amercian voters made the wrong decision in the 2008 primary.

Unless there are some major shifts in the next two years I will probably not vote for Obama again. that's not to say I'll vote republican. I'll stay home, as I was going to in 2008 until Palin got on the ticket, or more likely I'll do a write in.

I hope that what happens is that Obama changes course in mid stream and becomes the President he promised to be. I still think he was by far the best choice between the two candidates that made the ballot.

Since everyone, rightly so, loves squinney, ask her. I have been sitting in front of the news for years and making predicitons that almost ALWAYS end up happening a few years later on a broad range of subjects in politics, finance, science and more which makes it painfully obvious you don't have to be a genius to read the writing on the wall, to paraphrase Paul Simon. You just have to pay attention.

1 Reply

@blueveinedthrobber,

You're not the only one wearing a change of shoes after we wear it for awhile. Obama's campaign rhetoric and what he's done can't be considered acceptable behavior; more a liar and bender than what he made himself out to be during the campaign.

His ObamaCare is the worst legislation that this country is going to suffer from in the future. Our country is already bankrupt,, and he's made sure it stays that way, because he's not taken care of the revenue side of that equation. "Not a dime more" he said. I'd like to know how he plans to add 40 million more patients to the US health care system without it costing a dime more - when he's failed to identify any cost savings or how it's going to be paid. Medicare funding is already in big trouble; anybody with brains knows.

Obama is a liar; and he's going to be a one term president if I can help it.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Bless my stars and garters!

My enemy's enemy is my friend?

Naaahh....

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I'd like to know how he plans to add 40 million more patients to the US health care system without it costing a dime more - when he's failed to identify any cost savings or how it's going to be paid. Medicare funding is already in big trouble; anybody with brains knows.

But he isn't adding 40 million more patients. The number of patients doesn't change. The number of insured patients does. The cost savings is in having them insured so they get treatment earlier which makes it cheaper then having those 40 million patients go to the emergency room.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados, Have you ever studied cost accounting? When all the premiums are not going to be paid by the consumer, who do you think picks up the tab? Not a dime more? You wanna buy a bridge?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
I'd like to know how he plans to add 40 million more patients to the US health care system without it costing a dime more - when he's failed to identify any cost savings or how it's going to be paid. Medicare funding is already in big trouble; anybody with brains knows.

But he isn't adding 40 million more patients. The number of patients doesn't change. The number of insured patients does. The cost savings is in having them insured so they get treatment earlier which makes it cheaper then having those 40 million patients go to the emergency room.

can't deny that. what happens remains to be seen. I think the end bill was a ******* mess and nowhere near what was promised. I realize that nothing ends up without a certain amount of compromise but this was ridiculous.

0 Replies

ther problem is that both of you have valid points. this was mishandled tremendously.

0 Replies

I would liike the opportunity to enter the hospital rooms and death beds of everyone responsible for this cluster ****, on down the line, and urinate into their IV's.

0 Replies

There has always existed a fundamental problem with Medicare, because the government added people who never paid into the plan. Not only that, but those who paid into the plan will receive benefits far in excess of what they paid in.

Now, show me how the government adds 40 million more patients where most will not be paying 100% of the premium, and it won't cost a dime more?

There's an interesting article in today's San Jose Mercury News about "Medicare imbalance means changes ahead."

They provide this example:

Quote:

Consider an average-wage two-earner couple together earning $89,000 a year. Upon retiring in 2011, they would have paid $114,000 in MediCare payroll taxes during their career.
But they can expect to receive medical services - from prescriptions to hospital care - worth $355,000, or about three times what they put in.

Not a dime more? ROFLMAO

0 Replies

If the government had invesed the money they were entrusted with over the years instead of pissing it away on the myriad of crap they have, we'd probably have that money...IMO.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

parados, Have you ever studied cost accounting? When all the premiums are not going to be paid by the consumer, who do you think picks up the tab? Not a dime more? You wanna buy a bridge?

And when all the hospital costs are not paid by the consumer, who do you think picks up the tab?

The TOTAL cost for health care is still there whether 60% of people have insurance or 100% of them do.

Simple question for you CI.
If it costs $20 to change oil every 3,000 miles and $2,000 to replace the engine if never replace the oil, how long would the engine have to last to make not changing the oil the logical choice?

Now..
In order for the health care system to exist, it has to collect enough money to pay for all the people it gives care to. In the present system the 80% with insurance pay for the 20% without it because that has to happen for health care to continue. The 20% without insurance end up only going to the Dr when they need to have an engine replaced vs going for an oil change. That means the 80% are paying MORE than is necessary for that 20%.

This is not an issue where the 20% NEVER get medical care. It's an issue of the cost for the medical care of that 20%. We already know the other 80% pays for it in one way or another. If we reduce the cost of care for the 20% we reduce the total cost of health care.

1 Reply

@parados,

What you are missing is that many people also don't have the money to even do regular oil changes on their cars. What happens after their car breaks down is that they have other options such as walking or taking the bus.

At the present time, many middle class families cannot afford to see the doctor, because "they can't afford it." Many become more ill, and many of those die. Even those with insurance have caps and restrictions - and that's controlled by the insurance companies.

How does the government collect health insurance premiums from people who do not earn enough to pay for rent and food?
Looks like 100% government subsidy, or no health insurance.

Do you understand the strains already on MediCare? I've posted an example of the premiums paid, and the cost of benefits that's three times what they paid.

How is covering 40 million more patients - many who cannot afford to pay a dime - not cost the government more?

There are over 40 million people without health insurance. How much of the calculated current cost of over $300,000 get paid - even when younger people are included? There's still a long-term cost involved that doesn't have any identified revenue to cover them.

Our government has been running on cost assumptions that usually turn out to be wrong; do you trust their numbers today? I don't.

BTW, I want to make it clear that I've always been an advocate for universal health care for our country. How ObamaCare was implement has too many wrong-headed decisions without accounting for the revenue side vs cost, and how our country is going to be able to handle the increased deficit for the long-term.

4 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

It would have helped if that fuken bush government had paid for the drug bill the republican government passed rather than use medicare funds to pay for it! That was also a bullshit feel good bill passed for the idoits who dont understand that we have to pay for these things.

1 Reply

@rabel22,

Both parties are guilty of spending more than they take in. That's the reason our national debt continues to increase regardless of who's in power.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

What you are missing is that many people also don't have the money to even do regular oil changes on their cars. What happens after their car breaks down is that they have other options such as walking or taking the bus.

That would be an argument if those without insurance NEVER saw a Dr or got health care. That is not true however.

Quote:

Do you understand the strains already on MediCare? I've posted an example of the premiums paid, and the cost of benefits that's three times what they paid.

That is a strain on Medicare but it doesn't affect the cost of health care as a whole. If we eliminated Medicare tomorrow it wouldn't stop those on Medicare from getting health care. It would only change who pays for it. The people that don't have insurance and get "free care" are similar to this example. When one part can't pay for itself, the other parts have to cover it. Yes, some parts of the system are struggling to cover their costs but it only moves the costs to other parts that can pay. It doesn't affect the overall cost, only what each part pays.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know