PDA

View Full Version : Well, Duh CNN



OUthunder
11/3/2010, 12:20 PM
Just got this alert from CNN via e-mail.

"Midterm elections confirm Americans are deeply frustrated with pace of economic recovery, President Obama says."

Ya don't say, maybe it also has something to do with that little health care bill you passed earlier this year as well.

tcrb
11/3/2010, 12:28 PM
CNN is full of genius.

Partial Qualifier
11/3/2010, 12:39 PM
MSNBC was darn good TV last night. Just stupefying, bewildering antics.

If you can appreciate those "wow....just wow" moments, last night MSNBC was pure gold.

delhalew
11/3/2010, 01:09 PM
MSNBC was darn good TV last night. Just stupefying, bewildering antics.

If you can appreciate those "wow....just wow" moments, last night MSNBC was pure gold.

Did they orchastrate a mass suicide like the Hale Bob comet beam me up people?

Whet
11/3/2010, 01:18 PM
That is a mantra of the Progressive spin machine! It is not the pace of the "recovery," but instead, the American voters were pissed over the way the Administration and Democrat Congress forced Obamacare, HUGH bailouts/stimulus bills, and cap & tax (passing the House) upon the public. The majority of the public opposed these schemes, as evidenced at last summer's townhall meetings.

THAT is why they paid the price at the polls yesterday.

stoopified
11/3/2010, 01:21 PM
MSNBC was darn good TV last night. Just stupefying, bewildering antics.

If you can appreciate those "wow....just wow" moments, last night MSNBC was pure gold.Truly unbiased professional journalists at work. :D

tommieharris91
11/3/2010, 01:27 PM
Truly unbiased professional journalists at work. :D

Hah. MSNBC doesn't even try to be unbiased.

virginiasooner
11/3/2010, 01:55 PM
Just got this alert from CNN via e-mail.

"Midterm elections confirm Americans are deeply frustrated with pace of economic recovery, President Obama says."

Ya don't say, maybe it also has something to do with that little health care bill you passed earlier this year as well.

Yeah, Americans don't like the bill because the bill didn't go far enough! What would you change -- kicking your kids off your health insurance at 21, even though they won't be able to get insurance anyplace else, or perhaps declaring that spousal abuse is a pre-existing condition? What would you change about the bill, or do you not know enough about it other than Obama pushed it through therefore it must be evil incarnate?

SoonerNate
11/3/2010, 01:56 PM
Yeah, Americans don't like the bill because the bill didn't go far enough! What would you change -- kicking your kids off your health insurance at 21, even though they won't be able to get insurance anyplace else, or perhaps declaring that spousal abuse is a pre-existing condition? What would you change about the bill, or do you not know enough about it other than Obama pushed it through therefore it must be evil incarnate?

How's that hope and change working for ya?

picasso
11/3/2010, 01:57 PM
Yeah, Americans don't like the bill because the bill didn't go far enough! What would you change -- kicking your kids off your health insurance at 21, even though they won't be able to get insurance anyplace else, or perhaps declaring that spousal abuse is a pre-existing condition? What would you change about the bill, or do you not know enough about it other than Obama pushed it through therefore it must be evil incarnate?

The people who voted it in still don't know what exactly is on the thing.

Obama should have worked solely on the economy and left health care alone for another time.

Last night was a 70 year *** kicking.

virginiasooner
11/3/2010, 02:01 PM
Obama should have worked solely on the economy and left health care alone for another time.

Last night was a 70 year *** kicking.

Lyndon Johnson was told the same thing about the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act back in 1964 and 1965.

picasso
11/3/2010, 02:05 PM
Lyndon Johnson was told the same thing about the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act back in 1964 and 1965.

You're comparing free health care to civil rights?

How about free mortgages?

virginiasooner
11/3/2010, 02:24 PM
You're comparing free health care to civil rights?

How about free mortgages?

Yew bechta! And don't cloud the issue by calling health care "free" because it comes from the government. There are a lot of American companies that would like to provide health insurance to their employees, but can't, because they would no longer be competitive with foreign companies (like companies in CANADA) where the government provides health insurance to all citizens.

And as for mortgages, do you think what the banksters did to the American people is hunky dory? I want the banksters locked up for all the long-term damage they did to the American economy, not to mention the world economy.

Whet
11/3/2010, 02:25 PM
Interesting article:


Few Democrats survive healthcare vote


By Julian Pecquet - 11/02/10 11:00 PM ET
Democrats who voted for their party's signature domestic achievement dropped like flies throughout the evening, adding credence to Republicans' claim that the American public wants them to repeal healthcare reform.
The law's proponents read the writing on the wall early on and acted quickly to pre-empt that impression.
"American voters’ focus during the elections was overwhelmingly on jobs and the economy, and this will remain the key public concern until the economy substantially improves," Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, said in a 10:30 p.m. statement. "As pre-election polls reflect, calls to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are not supported by America’s voters — and they certainly were not the motivating factor in the elections."
The evening started pretty well for Democrats who voted for healthcare reform, with Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky handily winning reelection with 54.5 percent of the vote. Yarmuth's seat was listed as "likely Democratic" in the Nov. 1 edition of The Cook Political Report, one of 77 "yes" vote seats in play Tuesday evening.
Things quickly went downhill from there.
Within hours, a dozen members had lost reelection, including four freshmen elected in the 2008 Democratic wave: Reps. Tom Perriello and Glenn Nye of Virgina and Suzanne Kosmas and Alan Grayson of Florida.
They weren't alone: Democratic Reps. Baron Hill (Ind.), Carol Shea-Porter (N.H.) and Allen Boyd (Fla.) quickly joined them. So did Pennsylvania Reps. Kathy Dahlkemper, Chris Carney and Paul Kanjorski, all of whom were main targets of the anti-abortion-rights group the Susan B. Anthony List.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who voted for the bill when her vote was crucial but later voted no on reconciliation, was also defeated.
The trend is even worse when factoring in yes votes who weren't running for reelection.
Retiring Rep. Bart Gordon (Tenn.) left Democratic candidate Brett Carter to get pulverized by Republican Diane Black, 29.3 percent to 67.5.
Democrats did, however, pick up Republican Rep. Joseph Cao's seat in Louisiana. Cao had voted yes on the bill in November — the only Republican to do so — but changed his vote when the bill returned before the House in March.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/127261-few-democrats-survive-vote-in-favor-of-health-reform

BTW - the leftist-progressive "Families - USA" is one of those funded groups of the Open Society Institute (George Soros’ foundation)

Notice the Progressive propagandist used the same message - Americans were concerned about the economy,not Obamacare?

Whet
11/3/2010, 02:55 PM
Yeah, Americans don't like the bill because the bill didn't go far enough! What would you change -- kicking your kids off your health insurance at 21, even though they won't be able to get insurance anyplace else, or perhaps declaring that spousal abuse is a pre-existing condition? What would you change about the bill, or do you not know enough about it other than Obama pushed it through therefore it must be evil incarnate?

Sounds like someone has been/is involved in spreading the new message about the Obamacare debacle! Talking points galore!!

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_pp.html

Sooner5030
11/3/2010, 03:01 PM
What would you change -- kicking your kids off your health insurance at 21

Why should they be required to be covered on YOUR plan past 18? They are adults and can purchase their own health insurance. If insurance companies want to underwrite policies then that is fine but don't make them just because the mob thinks everyone should go to college and live off their parents teet.

Cornfed
11/3/2010, 03:06 PM
Why should they be required to be covered on YOUR plan past 18? They are adults and can purchase their own health insurance. If insurance companies want to underwrite policies then that is fine but don't make them just because the mob thinks everyone should go to college and live off their parents teet.

I was wondering when someone would see that as well

sooner59
11/3/2010, 03:07 PM
Are they "required" to be covered, or are they "allowed" to be covered until 26? I turned 26 before it took effect, so I have my own policy anyway.

virginiasooner
11/3/2010, 03:10 PM
Why should they be required to be covered on YOUR plan past 18? They are adults and can purchase their own health insurance. If insurance companies want to underwrite policies then that is fine but don't make them just because the mob thinks everyone should go to college and live off their parents teet.

What about the kids who CAN'T GET insurance after they turn 18 or 21? Face it dude, it happens. Kids who had cancer as a child usually have an impossible time getting insurance when they become adults. Do you think that's a good thing? What is your solution? I guess you're one of those "I've got mine, screw eveyone else" American.

Tulsa_Fireman
11/3/2010, 03:13 PM
Do you think that's a good thing?

Yes.


What is your solution?

There isn't a solution because it's not a problem. People die. Spending billions of dollars of other people's hard earned money to simply delay this fact is stupid. Folks die, it sucks, but just like a dumb kid with a strong back should falter in school and get a job as a bricklayer, folks can and will die.

It's a fact of life.

Sooner5030
11/3/2010, 03:16 PM
What about the kids who CAN'T GET insurance after they turn 18 or 21? Face it dude, it happens. Kids who had cancer as a child usually have an impossible time getting insurance when they become adults. Do you think that's a good thing? What is your solution? I guess you're one of those "I've got mine, screw eveyone else" American.

You're confusing health care with health insurance.

Indigent care facilities cannot turn away folks that qualify…..if you don’t qualifiy than you have the funds to purchase your own insurance.

Sorry, but I am sick of funding through tax dollars and borrowing against my son's future to pay for the leech society.

sooner59
11/3/2010, 03:18 PM
Yes.



There isn't a solution because it's not a problem. People die. Spending billions of dollars of other people's hard earned money to simply delay this fact is stupid. Folks die, it sucks, but just like a dumb kid with a strong back should falter in school and get a job as a bricklayer, folks can and will die.

It's a fact of life.

You realize that not everyone with cancer dies, right? Some pull through it. By denying them coverage, it could cause death to someone who might actually beat it.

Cornfed
11/3/2010, 03:20 PM
What about the kids who CAN'T GET insurance after they turn 18 or 21? Face it dude, it happens. Kids who had cancer as a child usually have an impossible time getting insurance when they become adults. Do you think that's a good thing? What is your solution? I guess you're one of those "I've got mine, screw eveyone else" American.

Its not that they can't get insurance it's that they dont want to pay a large amount to have it.

And if you have had cancer you can apply for disabilty and then who pays for your health insurance, yes the taxpayers.

Tulsa_Fireman
11/3/2010, 03:20 PM
Sucks to be them.

Whet
11/3/2010, 03:36 PM
What about the kids who CAN'T GET insurance after they turn 18 or 21? Face it dude, it happens. Kids who had cancer as a child usually have an impossible time getting insurance when they become adults. Do you think that's a good thing? What is your solution? I guess you're one of those "I've got mine, screw eveyone else" American.

Progressive's talking point!
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1154/5143377395_25215e9054_d.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4069/5143997128_47ac40dc14_d.jpg

TheHumanAlphabet
11/3/2010, 03:40 PM
Watched both CNN and Fox last night. Fox blew CNN away. FOX >>>> CNN.

SCOUT
11/3/2010, 03:41 PM
You're confusing health care with health insurance.

Indigent care facilities cannot turn away folks that qualify…..if you don’t qualifiy than you have the funds to purchase your own insurance.

Sorry, but I am sick of funding through tax dollars and borrowing against my son's future to pay for the leech society.


This

virginiasooner
11/3/2010, 03:59 PM
You're confusing health care with health insurance.

Indigent care facilities cannot turn away folks that qualify…..if you don’t qualifiy than you have the funds to purchase your own insurance.

Sorry, but I am sick of funding through tax dollars and borrowing against my son's future to pay for the leech society.

I'm confusing nothing. It is FAR FAR CHEAPER in the long run for people to have a regular doctor, get regular checkups, and not have to worry about going bankrupt to cover health expenses. And indigent people are the most expensive to treat. They don't have health coverage, so their only medical care is when they show up at the emergency room. And they are sicker than those who have a regular doctor.

Whet
11/3/2010, 04:07 PM
I'm confusing nothing. It is FAR FAR CHEAPER in the long run for people to have a regular doctor, get regular checkups, and not have to worry about going bankrupt to cover health expenses. And indigent people are the most expensive to treat. They don't have health coverage, so their only medical care is when they show up at the emergency room. And they are sicker than those who have a regular doctor.

[cough ... talking point, again]
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4059/5143455943_4c5c7da876_d.jpg

Sooner5030
11/3/2010, 04:07 PM
It is FAR FAR CHEAPER in the long run for people to have a regular doctor

Not when "free" health insurance changes behavior and decisions. If in doubt why should I not go to the doctor? After all it is "free".

tcrb
11/3/2010, 04:13 PM
I'm confusing nothing. It is FAR FAR CHEAPER in the long run for people to have a regular doctor, get regular checkups, and not have to worry about going bankrupt to cover health expenses. And indigent people are the most expensive to treat. They don't have health coverage, so their only medical care is when they show up at the emergency room. And they are sicker than those who have a regular doctor.

Of course it's cheaper when someone else is paying for it.

Here's my litmus test: When Obama and all the Congressmen, Senators, and other elected officials sign up for it along with all their family members, then you can sign me up too.

sooner59
11/3/2010, 04:13 PM
The American health care system is designed to treat acute conditions. In the 1800's and first half of the 1900's that was fine as most deaths were attributed to acute conditions. Today, the largest causes of death are heart disease and cancer, and diabetes are on the rise in the U.S. The problem is that the system isn't set up to focus on chronic conditions. This is why healthcare is so expensive. Preventative care, continuous monitoring, and regular checkups would decrease healthcare spending a great deal in the long run.

40-something million people without insurance coverage waiting until they get so bad that they have to go to the ER and get free urgent care causes big losses incurred by the hospitals, therefore causing cost of care to be increased to counteract it. There needs to be a shift in focus concerning how care is delivered, not just how it is paid for. Otherwise, as time goes by and the population increases along with life spans, we are gonna be in serious trouble....and countries like China will have us by the nuts.

Whet
11/3/2010, 04:17 PM
Sooner5030 - you are just stonewalling your ultimate acceptance of Obamacare! After all, they researched what the public wants to hear and put those findings into talking points to use to convert the unbelievers! VirginiaSooner is using most all the official talking points!

Here is the Politico article on their devious attempts to change the public's perception of the awful Obamacare:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0810/The_new_message_Improve_health_care_dont_talk_cost .html

And, their "secret" presentation, which has all the VirginiaSooner talking points in the slides:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_pp.html

Shortly, you should see him write about how the rich are going to pay for Obamacare AND many more healthcare workers are going to be trained to take care of you!

virginiasooner
11/3/2010, 04:18 PM
Of course it's cheaper when someone else is paying for it.

Here's my litmus test: When Obama and all the Congressmen, Senators, and other elected officials sign up for it along with all their family members, then you can sign me up too.

Fine. Throw in all federal employees, their dependents and all federal contractors. Let's throw in the military as well, as well as military contractors. That would be an excellent start to a public option.

Whet
11/3/2010, 04:19 PM
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037/5143489157_8f4a4bca67_d.jpg

virginiasooner
11/3/2010, 04:21 PM
Sooner5030 - you are just stonewalling your ultimate acceptance of Obamacare! After all, they researched what the public wants to hear and put those findings into talking points to use to convert the unbelievers! VirginiaSooner is using most all the official talking points!

* * *



Thank you! And this is just the stuff I know off the top of my head.

Cornfed
11/3/2010, 04:23 PM
Let's throw in the military as well

The Military's health care has gone down hill since the mid 90s.

They actually have a co-pay.

Sooner5030
11/3/2010, 04:26 PM
health insurance was designed to let people pool their risks in order to pay for a catastrophic event or illness. Not to subsidize doctor visits and get your script for Ritilin for little johny and prozac for depressed mommie.

tcrb
11/3/2010, 04:27 PM
Fine. Throw in all federal employees, their dependents and all federal contractors. Let's throw in the military as well, as well as military contractors. That would be an excellent start to a public option.

I didn't say federal employees or military....they are already included. But your president and the congress are not. If it's not good enough for them and their families, it's not good enough for me and mine.

TheHumanAlphabet
11/3/2010, 04:29 PM
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037/5143489157_8f4a4bca67_d.jpg

I had read that they exempted members of Congress. Is that not so?

Bourbon St Sooner
11/3/2010, 04:29 PM
Yew bechta! And don't cloud the issue by calling health care "free" because it comes from the government. There are a lot of American companies that would like to provide health insurance to their employees, but can't, because they would no longer be competitive with foreign companies (like companies in CANADA) where the government provides health insurance to all citizens.

And as for mortgages, do you think what the banksters did to the American people is hunky dory? I want the banksters locked up for all the long-term damage they did to the American economy, not to mention the world economy.

So, in Canada health care is "free"?

Cornfed
11/3/2010, 04:29 PM
I didn't say federal employees or military....they are already included. But your president and the congress are not. If it's not good enough for them and their families, it's not good enough for me and mine.

You do realize that if a military persons dependant walks into an off-base Hospital emergency room it is not "paid" for fully?

Tulsa_Fireman
11/3/2010, 04:30 PM
Yes.

Next question.

Scott D
11/3/2010, 04:31 PM
Watched both CNN and Fox last night. Fox blew CNN away. FOX >>>> CNN.

That's funny, I thought they along with MSNBC sucked Dean's sweaty balls.

Cornfed
11/3/2010, 04:46 PM
Yes.

Next question.

whats the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

SCOUT
11/3/2010, 04:50 PM
The American health care system is designed to treat acute conditions. In the 1800's and first half of the 1900's that was fine as most deaths were attributed to acute conditions. Today, the largest causes of death are heart disease and cancer, and diabetes are on the rise in the U.S. The problem is that the system isn't set up to focus on chronic conditions. This is why healthcare is so expensive. Preventative care, continuous monitoring, and regular checkups would decrease healthcare spending a great deal in the long run.

40-something million people without insurance coverage waiting until they get so bad that they have to go to the ER and get free urgent care causes big losses incurred by the hospitals, therefore causing cost of care to be increased to counteract it. There needs to be a shift in focus concerning how care is delivered, not just how it is paid for. Otherwise, as time goes by and the population increases along with life spans, we are gonna be in serious trouble....and countries like China will have us by the nuts.

The New England Journal of Medicine published a paper on this subject back in 2008. Their conclusion was that the claims on these savings were "overreaching."

There is a substantial savings available for preventable deaths but they are not realized through Dr. visits. They are realized through education on heart disease, diet, exercise, smoking etc.

sooner59
11/3/2010, 04:55 PM
The New England Journal of Medicine published a paper on this subject back in 2008. Their conclusion was that the claims on these savings were "overreaching."

There is a substantial savings available for preventable deaths but they are not realized through Dr. visits. They are realized through education on heart disease, diet, exercise, smoking etc.

The problem is that a vast amount of those uninsured will only "get it" if a doctor tells them straight up, "you are going to kill yourself if you keep doing what you are doing". They aren't exposed or just don't listen to public awareness and available info. That is their problem, but when they cost hospitals money by getting free care down the road, its our problem as well.

tommieharris91
11/3/2010, 05:02 PM
There is a substantial savings available for preventable deaths but they are not realized through Dr. visits. They are realized through education on heart disease, diet, exercise, smoking etc.

If that's what it takes to get rid of ugly fatasses, then I just might start warming up to the death panels idea.

While were at it, we should kill the muslims and messicans. It's what the Nazis would have done.

SCOUT
11/3/2010, 05:02 PM
The problem is that a vast amount of those uninsured will only "get it" if a doctor tells them straight up, "you are going to kill yourself if you keep doing what you are doing". They aren't exposed or just don't listen to public awareness and available info. That is their problem, but when they cost hospitals money by getting free care down the road, its our problem as well.


Wow, so we need to have government run healthcare because fat people only listen to Dr.'s? The job description for being a Dr. keeps getting less and less desirable.

Cornfed
11/3/2010, 05:04 PM
Or we could just make the fast food restaurants have healthy menus.........(wait for it)

Ok Ok I'll say it.... it workd for smoking didin't it??

sooner59
11/3/2010, 05:12 PM
Wow, so we need to have government run healthcare because fat people only listen to Dr.'s? The job description for being a Dr. keeps getting less and less desirable.

First of all, I don't support government run healthcare. Just that coverage should be available at whatever price by some means, not the government. And fat people, skinny people, whatever. They could be diabetic. They could be exposed to some carcinogens from various sources. They could have a whole in their heart and not know it yet. If they are aware, they may know how to help prevent a heart attack before it happens. Lots of people don't even listen to their doctors, but at least they know if there is something that needs to be addressed health-wise.

OUthunder
11/3/2010, 05:26 PM
Yeah, Americans don't like the bill because the bill didn't go far enough! What would you change -- kicking your kids off your health insurance at 21, even though they won't be able to get insurance anyplace else, or perhaps declaring that spousal abuse is a pre-existing condition? What would you change about the bill, or do you not know enough about it other than Obama pushed it through therefore it must be evil incarnate?

Actually, I know quite a bit about, having three small children and all. I also know that covering people with pre existing conditions is damn near impossible unless you tax the hell out of the people who make a decent living. I also know, that employers are already ****ing employees, so that they pass the cost onto me, which Obama is already going to do via taxes. So, Not only does the working, tax payer get ****ed once by Obama, they get ****ed twice by the employer.

Oh yeah, how is Obama gonna pay for this without raising taxes??? HE ISN'T!!! The working stiff is going to be taxed to holy hell to pay for the abortion known as Obama care. Speaking of abortions, who's gonna pay for those? Yep, the taxpayer.

Please, go crawl back under your ****ing rock before questioning me on something I just happen to know a little about since it costs me real ****ing money, and in the end...my kids their ****ing future!!!

SCOUT
11/3/2010, 05:52 PM
First of all, I don't support government run healthcare. Just that coverage should be available at whatever price by some means, not the government. And fat people, skinny people, whatever. They could be diabetic. They could be exposed to some carcinogens from various sources. They could have a whole in their heart and not know it yet. If they are aware, they may know how to help prevent a heart attack before it happens. Lots of people don't even listen to their doctors, but at least they know if there is something that needs to be addressed health-wise.

That's all well and good but as I mentioned earlier, the costs savings of preventative medicine are exaggerated.

With that said, coverage is, and has been, available at a price.

sooner59
11/3/2010, 07:27 PM
Lots of companies had clauses saying people with certain conditions were automatically declined. But yeah they could probably find it somewhere, but it was sad the amount of money some had to spend just for basic care coverage. And regardless of the cost savings, preventative medicine needs to become more of a focus to address the "cause of death" numbers in the U.S.

soonercastor
11/3/2010, 07:33 PM
Hah. MSNBC doesn't even try to be unbiased.

neither does FOX :rolleyes:

CobraKai
11/4/2010, 10:32 AM
whats the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

African or European?

badger
11/4/2010, 10:56 AM
Hate Michael Moore or loathe him, I liked that after he did his Sicko documentary that he had shaved like 50 pounds off of him. He said the reason was that he realized that government wasn't going to take care of his health, so he better take care of it himself.

I wish more people would face the dreaded treadmill, aquarobics class and weight machines at my local gym. If you are embarrassed about how you look, don't be - the gym is full of people who are embarrassed how they look and misery loves company, so get yer arse on a d@mn treadmill. If your knees are shot, they have exercise bikes!

Caboose
11/4/2010, 10:57 AM
Neither health care nor health insurance are a right.

tommieharris91
11/4/2010, 11:02 AM
Hate Michael Moore or loathe him, I liked that after he did his Sicko documentary that he had shaved like 50 pounds off of him. He said the reason was that he realized that government wasn't going to take care of his health, so he better take care of it himself.

I wish more people would face the dreaded treadmill, aquarobics class and weight machines at my local gym. If you are embarrassed about how you look, don't be - the gym is full of people who are embarrassed how they look and misery loves company, so get yer arse on a d@mn treadmill. If your knees are shot, they have exercise bikes!

Hell, if everyone did this, health insurance premiums would fall substantially.

Sooner98
11/4/2010, 11:08 AM
I've always wondered, of all these millions of people who "can't afford health insurance", what percentage of them have:

1. cable TV or a satellite dish
2. a cellular phone
3. a home, which is above their means of what they can afford
4. a car
5. a computer, with high-speed internet

But hey, why have any personal responsibility when you can have it all? Let someone else pay for my health insurance!

Caboose
11/4/2010, 11:09 AM
First of all, I don't support government run healthcare. Just that coverage should be available at whatever price by some means, not the government.

Please explain this further.

virginiasooner
11/4/2010, 11:09 AM
Hell, if everyone did this, health insurance premiums would fall substantially.

Now THAT'S delusional. The CEOs will still want 20 million a year (plus stock options) denying sick people health care.

Caboose
11/4/2010, 11:10 AM
Now THAT'S delusional. The CEOs will still want 20 million a year (plus stock options) denying sick people health care.

So dont buy it. What is the problem?

SCOUT
11/4/2010, 11:14 AM
So dont buy it. What is the problem?

You will soon be fined for making this choice.

badger
11/4/2010, 11:15 AM
Hell, if everyone did this, health insurance premiums would fall substantially.

Forcing yourself to work out not only makes you work out, it makes you think about what you're going to have to do next every time you are tempted to go to the vending machine. You start looking at calories on packages are realize how long you'd have to spend on the treadmill to burn off that little dinky can of soda.. and you end up drinking flavored water instead.

NP and I are currently on the Couch to 5K thing. Look it up online if you are looking to get into one of these things. Friday's workout is 20 minutes nonstop running. The time is easy, just trying to do it at a certain speed throughout its entirety is difficult :eek:

virginiasooner
11/4/2010, 11:17 AM
So dont buy it. What is the problem?

I want my money that I pay in premiums to go to MY MEDICAL CARE, not enriching someone's personal bottom line. I do not cry for millionaires, because they do not cry for me.

Sooner98
11/4/2010, 11:19 AM
Yew bechta! And don't cloud the issue by calling health care "free" because it comes from the government. There are a lot of American companies that would like to provide health insurance to their employees, but can't, because they would no longer be competitive with foreign companies (like companies in CANADA) where the government provides health insurance to all citizens.

And as for mortgages, do you think what the banksters did to the American people is hunky dory? I want the banksters locked up for all the long-term damage they did to the American economy, not to mention the world economy.

v_KKgzVspag

SCOUT
11/4/2010, 11:20 AM
I want my money that I pay in premiums to go to MY MEDICAL CARE, not enriching someone's personal bottom line. I do not cry for millionaires, because they do not cry for me.

You obviously don't understand how insurance works. If you pay let's say $500 a month for 5 years you will have paid in $30,000. If you get in a car wreck and need a surgery with a couple of days in the hospital, you will be looking at $100,000 easily.

When you get older your expenses are going to dramatically increase, assuming you live that long. Prescriptions alone often cost in the thousands per month.

Pooling of risk is the purpose of insurance, pay as you go is a losing bet when it comes to healthcare.

tommieharris91
11/4/2010, 11:23 AM
Now THAT'S delusional. The CEOs will still want 20 million a year (plus stock options) denying sick people health care.

Not at all. With the lower risk of payouts from elimination of obesity-caused diseases, the insurance cos. can offer cheaper health insurance while the companies can keep the dividend to their shareholders the same.

You know, if that were to happen, at least one of them would.

Caboose
11/4/2010, 11:26 AM
I want my money that I pay in premiums to go to MY MEDICAL CARE, not enriching someone's personal bottom line. I do not cry for millionaires, because they do not cry for me.

That didnt answer the question at all. Why don't you just pay out of pocket for your medical expenses? That way 100% of your medical expenditures go to YOUR medical care. Oh let me guess, you want someone else to pay for it?

virginiasooner
11/4/2010, 11:37 AM
You obviously don't understand how insurance works. If you pay let's say $500 a month for 5 years you will have paid in $30,000. If you get in a car wreck and need a surgery with a couple of days in the hospital, you will be looking at $100,000 easily.

When you get older your expenses are going to dramatically increase, assuming you live that long. Prescriptions alone often cost in the thousands per month.

Pooling of risk is the purpose of insurance, pay as you go is a losing bet when it comes to healthcare.

I understand how insurance works -- all kinds -- auto, home, life, health. I have all of them. The problem I have with health insurance is that more money goes to DENYING care and paying executive salaries, than actually caring for people who need it -- even after paying into the company for years, and when the first major illness hits, they dig through your records to find a reason to deny payment.

virginiasooner
11/4/2010, 11:39 AM
That didnt answer the question at all. Why don't you just pay out of pocket for your medical expenses? That way 100% of your medical expenditures go to YOUR medical care. Oh let me guess, you want someone else to pay for it?

I want EVERYONE to pay. How is that having "someone else" pay for it?

Caboose
11/4/2010, 11:43 AM
I want EVERYONE to pay. How is that having "someone else" pay for it?

Why should I pay for your medical expenses? The idea of having the option to send a tiny portion of your money to a CEO's paycheck is so revolting to you... yet you love the idea of forcing everyone in America to pay for your personal medical expenses. Reconcile the two, logically.

Why don't you leave funding my medical care up to me and I will leave funding yours up to you. What is wrong with that?

Whet
11/4/2010, 11:47 AM
Highest paid CEOs:

1. Lawrence Ellison, Oracle $84.5
2. Carol Bartz, Yahoo $47.2

3. Leslie Moonves, CBS Corp. $34.2
4. Marc Casper, Thermo Fisher $34.3

5. John Hammergren, McKesson $34.2
6. Philippe Dauman, Viacom $34.0
7. J. Raymond Elliott, Boston Scientific $33.4
8. Ray R. Irani, Occidental Petroleum $31.4
9. Thomas M. Ryan, CVS Caremark $30.4
10. Mark Hurd, Hewlett-Packard $24.2
11. James Hackett, Anadarko Petroleum $23.5
12. A.G. Lafley, Procter & Gamble $23.5
13. William Weldon, Johnson & Johnson $22.8
14. Miles White, Abbott Laboratories $21.9
15. Bob Iger,Walt Disney $21.6 million
16. Samuel Palmisano, IBM $21.2 million
17. Robert J. Stevens, Lockheed Martin $20.5 million
18. Randall L. Stephenson, AT&T, $20.3
19. Jay S. Fishman, Travelers Companies $20.1
20. Jeffrey L. Bewkes, Time Warner$19.4
21. John G. Stumpf,Wells Fargo $18.8
22. James M. Cracchiolo, Ameriprise Financial $18.2
23. K. Rupert Murdoch,News Corp $18.0
24. Ronald D. Sugar, Northrop Grumman $17.9
25. Alan Mulally, Ford Motor Company $17.9
26. Louis Chenevert, United Technologies $17.9

Purveyors of propaganda in RED
I don't really see all those insurance company CEOs dominating the $20+million paychecks!

Whet
11/4/2010, 11:59 AM
I wonder if the government should take over the food industry, too. After all, we can not live without food and why should these millionaire owners of IGA, Safeway, Albertsons, and other food giants be making all that money at the expense of the poor people that can't afford to buy the expensive food???

What about these department stores and their executives making all that money? How can poor folks afford to buy underwear and socks with the high prices they charge? A person can't live without clothes, or the means to keep them clean!! Obama should contemplate taking over this business sector too!

People's lives depend on getting food and clothing! People can not live without these necessities! Obama should take over these sectors to ensure everyone gets their constitutional rights protected! It is a constitutional right to have food and clothing!

Why is ADM charging so much for its corn? They would rather make a dollar, than keep a starving family from eating!! Obama should take over ADM, too!

Power companies are charging too much for electric! People can not live without electrical power to their homes! Obama should take over the power companies, so everyone can have electrical power!!!!

How can people live without toilet paper? It is a constitutional right to have toilet paper! Those huge corporations are more concerned about making money, rather than poor folks having toilet paper! It is a health issue! Obama should take over the toilet paper industry, so everyone can afford toilet paper!!!

How can people, in today's society live without computers? Those huge computer companies and their high paid CEOs would rather make money, than allow a poor person to have a computer! It is a constitutional right to have a computer and smart phone! Obama should take over the computer companies to ensure everyone can afford a computer and smart phone!!

tommieharris91
11/4/2010, 12:03 PM
Highest paid CEOs:

1. Lawrence Ellison, Oracle $84.5
2. Carol Bartz, Yahoo $47.2

3. Leslie Moonves, CBS Corp. $34.2
4. Marc Casper, Thermo Fisher $34.3

5. John Hammergren, McKesson $34.2
6. Philippe Dauman, Viacom $34.0
7. J. Raymond Elliott, Boston Scientific $33.4
8. Ray R. Irani, Occidental Petroleum $31.4
9. Thomas M. Ryan, CVS Caremark $30.4
10. Mark Hurd, Hewlett-Packard $24.2
11. James Hackett, Anadarko Petroleum $23.5
12. A.G. Lafley, Procter & Gamble $23.5
13. William Weldon, Johnson & Johnson $22.8
14. Miles White, Abbott Laboratories $21.9
15. Bob Iger,Walt Disney $21.6 million
16. Samuel Palmisano, IBM $21.2 million
17. Robert J. Stevens, Lockheed Martin $20.5 million
18. Randall L. Stephenson, AT&T, $20.3
19. Jay S. Fishman, Travelers Companies $20.1
20. Jeffrey L. Bewkes, Time Warner$19.4
21. John G. Stumpf,Wells Fargo $18.8
22. James M. Cracchiolo, Ameriprise Financial $18.2
23. K. Rupert Murdoch,News Corp $18.0
24. Ronald D. Sugar, Northrop Grumman $17.9
25. Alan Mulally, Ford Motor Company $17.9
26. Louis Chenevert, United Technologies $17.9

Purveyors of propaganda in RED
I don't really see all those insurance company CEOs dominating the $20+million paychecks!

I like how you didn't throw #2 or #23 in there.

Also, virginiasooner must be talking about Jay S. Fishman.

soonerscuba
11/4/2010, 12:05 PM
Needless babble
Why is ADM charging so much for its corn? They would rather make a dollar, than keep a starving family from eating!! Obama should take over ADM, too!
Needless babbleI've heard worse ideas.

Sooner98
11/4/2010, 01:20 PM
I wonder if the government should take over the food industry, too. After all, we can not live without food and why should these millionaire owners of IGA, Safeway, Albertsons, and other food giants be making all that money at the expense of the poor people that can't afford to buy the expensive food???

What about these department stores and their executives making all that money? How can poor folks afford to buy underwear and socks with the high prices they charge? A person can't live without clothes, or the means to keep them clean!! Obama should contemplate taking over this business sector too!

People's lives depend on getting food and clothing! People can not live without these necessities! Obama should take over these sectors to ensure everyone gets their constitutional rights protected! It is a constitutional right to have food and clothing!

Why is ADM charging so much for its corn? They would rather make a dollar, than keep a starving family from eating!! Obama should take over ADM, too!

Power companies are charging too much for electric! People can not live without electrical power to their homes! Obama should take over the power companies, so everyone can have electrical power!!!!

How can people live without toilet paper? It is a constitutional right to have toilet paper! Those huge corporations are more concerned about making money, rather than poor folks having toilet paper! It is a health issue! Obama should take over the toilet paper industry, so everyone can afford toilet paper!!!

How can people, in today's society live without computers? Those huge computer companies and their high paid CEOs would rather make money, than allow a poor person to have a computer! It is a constitutional right to have a computer and smart phone! Obama should take over the computer companies to ensure everyone can afford a computer and smart phone!


http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140715

badger
11/4/2010, 01:43 PM
Awww, eff it. Let's go down Whet's list, shall we?

1- Food. The government already provides food stamps for those that cannot afford food. I don't see them ending this program, nor expanding it.

2- Clothing. Unlike healthcare and food, you can buy used clothing. Plus, with stores like Goodwill and Salvation Army out there, you can get some new stuff on the cheap as well.

3- Corn. Um.... whatever. Iowa will get it's ethanol money, because it's the first presidential primary location, even if it's just a silly caucus.

4- Power companies. They are already regulated. Companies like ONG/OG&E must seek permission before raising rates in Oklahoma. If I'm not mistaken, there's also laws against shutting off heat during the winter.

5- Toilet paper. I imagine people use food stamps on toilet paper while they're at the grocery store.

6- Computers. The libraries have 1-hour limits for a reason. Homeless people love to come to our downtown library to check their e-mail and browse the Internet.

7- Smart phones. They keep getting cheaper and new models keep coming out, so it's probably best to never get one. The almighty iPhone dropped its price $200 only a few months after its initial release, for example.

So, there you go.

Scott D
11/4/2010, 01:44 PM
Actually, the surprising thing was how many of those CEO's are in charge of companies that make pharmaceuticals.

Caboose
11/4/2010, 01:47 PM
Actually, the surprising thing was how many of those CEO's are in charge of companies that make pharmaceuticals.

Not surprising at all. Pharmas have some of the highest profit margins out there.

StoopTroup
11/4/2010, 02:01 PM
People didn't like the Doctor's rates back in the day and when Section 8 came to pass and they would only pay so much for certain procedures. The Insurance Companies got the bright idea that they could regulate the amounts and not only that....they hired experts to tell Doctors how they should take care of their patients and quit covering certain procedures as they believed the Doctors were thieves. Quite possibly they were right to do so in some cases but now after years of being in charge of it all....they are no better at it than anyone else. It's plain and simple greed folks.

The Government has always been involved in all of this since Section 8 made it mandatory to see those patients and IMO it may not have been the way to get Doctors to honor their Hippocratic oath but it worked out for a good number of people who would have been left to die needlessly.

The Government now is getting involved again and to an even larger extent due to the Insurance Companies apparent mis-management of all this for decades. People in the industry are scared of the changes and now the politicians are using the Tea Potters and pubs to try to put a stop to it all. I have very little faith that this is about lowering the costs of Government as it is to protect the many entities that feel the Obama Administration is going to make them change the way they do business and force them to be humanitarians prior to adding up the bottomline for bonuses.

If I was gonna lose a multi-million dollar bonus.....I'd be writing my Congressman too. What folks think they are doing by backing these limit Government Politicians probably won't come to pass unless they are true to their word and able to derail the Republican Parties hold on Greed. My opinion is that if it the TeaPotters were to get power...the greed will eventually overcome their original intent too.

Sooner5030
11/4/2010, 02:17 PM
^^^^^^
the gubment's purpose is to protect me from people that think the gubment should solve their problems with someone elses money. We've drifted so far from a meritocracy that even the most intelligent folks have no idea what freedom and individual liberty means.

If you are unhappy with your insurance company.....then start your own and show them how it is done. Otherwise shut up and pay up.

Bourbon St Sooner
11/4/2010, 02:21 PM
I want my money that I pay in premiums to go to MY MEDICAL CARE, not enriching someone's personal bottom line. I do not cry for millionaires, because they do not cry for me.


So profit is bad, but fraud is good. Conservative estimates say 10% of Medicare spending goes to fraud.

Caboose
11/4/2010, 02:23 PM
^^^^^^
the gubment's purpose is to protect me from people that think the gubment should solve their problems with someone elses money. We've drifted so far from a meritocracy that even the most intelligent folks have no idea what freedom and individual liberty means.

If you are unhappy with your insurance company.....then start your own and show them how it is done. Otherwise shut up and pay up.

I agree with this. There is a segment of our society who thinks that the purpose of the government is to take care of them. They think the purpose of the government collecting taxes is to make social changes or to administer some kind of cosmic justice.

CobraKai
11/4/2010, 02:31 PM
Not surprising at all. Pharmas have some of the highest profit margins out there.

I, for one, am glad. It's not the world's governments that are busy trying to cure cancer and diabetes and other scourges. It is pharma companies, and they are not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts, it is so they can make a fortune. Call me Machiavellian, but I don't really care what they make. I have a daughter who's life has been changed by the wonder of Singulair, so I really don't care if the Glaxo CEO has a gold-plated yacht.

In a perfect world the brightest doctors and scientists in the world would spurn private industry and dedicate their lives to solving world problems. The reality is that most of us work for the companies that can afford to pay us what we think we are worth.

Cornfed
11/4/2010, 02:33 PM
Browsing through the convo here one thing that is alarmingly clear (and has been obvious for years) as soon as the Govt gets involved with something it goes to shat.

badger
11/4/2010, 02:34 PM
I worry about the quality of health care going down throughout this transition to the era of Obamacare. If costs are deemed too high, then will the number of services and treatments go down? Will women who just gave birth have to leave the hospital the moment that the kid's out? Will kids with broken bones just be issued cute looking Band-aids? Will Pokes with terminal cases of "team on the rise!" chants simply be added to our prayer lists?

Cornfed
11/4/2010, 02:37 PM
I worry about the quality of health care going down throughout this transition to the era of Obamacare. If costs are deemed too high, then will the number of services and treatments go down? Will women who just gave birth have to leave the hospital the moment that the kid's out? Will kids with broken bones just be issued cute looking Band-aids? Will Pokes with terminal cases of "team on the rise!" chants simply be added to our prayer lists?

My wife's uncle is on disability and when he goes to the hospital after a set amount of days they send him home and then re-admit him the next day....lol