DC Tom Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Don't get me started on health insurance companies. I would have agreed with punishing them, but I don't want to see them go under. Is that because their 1.5% profit margins are excessive, or because their customer service is so damned horrific? Obamacare states that you cannot be denied insurance and you will pay the same as everyone else. If you can't be denied insurance, why have it until you need it? Taxpayers will be paying for it. It will be another entitlement that will bankrupt the country faster than Medicare and Medicaid ever could. Hence, why it's such a bad piece of legislation. The people who don't realize that are people that also seem to think that money is some unlimited resource that just floats through the air, and some people are luckier to grab more of it than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Don't get me started on health insurance companies. I would have agreed with punishing them, but I don't want to see them go under. Obamacare states that you cannot be denied insurance and you will pay the same as everyone else. If you can't be denied insurance, why have it until you need it? Taxpayers will be paying for it. It will be another entitlement that will bankrupt the country faster than Medicare and Medicaid ever could. I'm sure you're more up on this than I am, but there seems to be some confusion by a lot of people as it pertains to health care and health insurance. The focus needs to be on affordable health care. The governments part in the health care industry should be to regulate but not to over regulate. Other than that they need to stay the hell away from it. They can allow insurance to be sold interstate and do a little tort reform. I'd bet there would be a lot less practicing of defensive medicine if the good docs & hospitals didn't have to be looking over their shoulders all the time. I'm sure there are alot more things that should be done, but that would be a start. Is that because their 1.5% profit margins are excessive, or because their customer service is so damned horrific? Hence, why it's such a bad piece of legislation. The people who don't realize that are people that also seem to think that money is some unlimited resource that just floats through the air, and some people are luckier to grab more of it than others. Silly boy, the government makes the money, so they can just.........make more money if they need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) Is that because their 1.5% profit margins are excessive, or because their customer service is so damned horrific? I have no problem with people making money. If you work hard, you should be rewarded. It's with paying legislators to make rules that allow them to make even more money than they otherwise should that I have a problem. And that doesn't just go for insurance companies. Hence, why it's such a bad piece of legislation. The people who don't realize that are people that also seem to think that money is some unlimited resource that just floats through the air, and some people are luckier to grab more of it than others. That's because people are idiots. Edited March 12, 2012 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I'm sure you're more up on this than I am, but there seems to be some confusion by a lot of people as it pertains to health care and health insurance. The focus needs to be on affordable health care. The governments part in the health care industry should be to regulate but not to over regulate. Other than that they need to stay the hell away from it. They can allow insurance to be sold interstate and do a little tort reform. I'd bet there would be a lot less practicing of defensive medicine if the good docs & hospitals didn't have to be looking over their shoulders all the time. I'm sure there are alot more things that should be done, but that would be a start. True, many people confuse health care with health insurance. Hence the reason many people think that both are a right, when just urgent/emergent health care should be a right. Cheap or free health care is NOT a right, any more than cheap or free food, clothing, or shelter are rights. As for what could be done to lower costs for people, tort reform and interstate competition are great starts. But Obamacare wants nothing to do with those. HSA's are great in that they can make the subscriber a better consumer and put more money in his/her pocket. But Obamacare wants to limit, if not eliminate, them. And with almost 2,000 pages, the regulations, panels, committees, facilitating organizations, etc. will drive costs up even more, while there will still be rampant corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 True, many people confuse health care with health insurance. Hence the reason many people think that both are a right, when just urgent/emergent health care should be a right. Cheap or free health care is NOT a right, any more than cheap or free food, clothing, or shelter are rights. As for what could be done to lower costs for people, tort reform and interstate competition are great starts. But Obamacare wants nothing to do with those. HSA's are great in that they can make the subscriber a better consumer and put more money in his/her pocket. But Obamacare wants to limit, if not eliminate, them. And with almost 2,000 pages, the regulations, panels, committees, facilitating organizations, etc. will drive costs up even more, while there will still be rampant corruption. Scrap the whole damn bill and make the simple changes first. The government should facilitate good health care by some regulation and no over regulation, not trying to dictate what they aren't even experts in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Scrap the whole damn bill and make the simple changes first. The government should facilitate good health care by some regulation and no over regulation, not trying to dictate what they aren't even experts in. If only that ever stopped them in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 swiss wages Headline: Switzerland criticized for new immigrant curbs http://ca.news.yahoo.com/switzerland-criticized-immigrant-curbs-184652638.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Headline: Switzerland criticized for new immigrant curbs http://ca.news.yahoo.com/switzerland-criticized-immigrant-curbs-184652638.html 1. Make domestic policies 2. Have members of a super-national organization that you are not a part of telling you how you should structure your immigration system and what is best for you. 3. ????? 4. Profit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 1. Make domestic policies 2. Have members of a super-national organization that you are not a part of telling you how you should structure your immigration system and what is best for you. 3. ????? 4. Profit! Nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/09/29/former-lotto-winner-amanda-clayton-found-dead/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Too much of a good thing. She's the face of the American electorate circa 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Too much of a good thing. She's the face of the American Barry electorate circa 2012. Fixed it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Seniors on SS are entitled to their benefits. That is a fact that you can't distort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Seniors on SS are entitled to their benefits. That is a fact that you can't distort. And I'm entitled to the money I've put into the system. What is my recourse when it's not there in 20 years when I'm ready to collect it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) Retired Vets are getting payed by who? ------------------- If the government fires workers due to budget cuts what do you say to Obama? Good job reducing BIG government and redundant bureaucracy. or Obama just put another 1000 people on unemployment? And I'm entitled to the money I've put into the system. What is my recourse when it's not there in 20 years when I'm ready to collect it? So you agree YOU are entitled. That's easy Doc, IF you are that worried - retire now and collect what's yours Edited October 2, 2012 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 So you agree YOU are entitled. That's easy Doc, IF you are that worried - retire now and collect what's yours I'm as "entitled" as anyone who has paid into the system. But I won't see the money and no, I can't retire now and get it. So again, what's my recourse when I can't collect on what's rightfully mine when the time comes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) Do youself a favor.... When youre driving along alone.....just....in that fat welfare queen's voice yell out....OBAMA PHONE!!!! Its pretty funny. Edited October 2, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 The Entitlement Mentality- http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-us-well-spend-less-155302525.html Rich in US: We'll Spend Less If Obama Wins Call it a threat or a promise. But a new poll shows that people earning at least $250,000 a year will spend more money if Mitt Romney wins the election. Barack Obama and Mitt RomneyThe latest Mendelsohn Affluent Barometer showed that 43 percent of the $250,000-plus earners would spend more if Romney is elected. Only 18 percent of them would spend more if President Barack Obama is re-elected. Just 39 percent said the election will have no impact on their spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 The Entitlement Mentality- http://finance.yahoo...-155302525.html Rich in US: We'll Spend Less If Obama Wins Call it a threat or a promise. But a new poll shows that people earning at least $250,000 a year will spend more money if Mitt Romney wins the election. Barack Obama and Mitt RomneyThe latest Mendelsohn Affluent Barometer showed that 43 percent of the $250,000-plus earners would spend more if Romney is elected. Only 18 percent of them would spend more if President Barack Obama is re-elected. Just 39 percent said the election will have no impact on their spending. It's called consumer confidence. Nobody is spending their money because nobody is confident in the finances, rich or poor. Kind of like 30 year mortgages around 3% but the housing market is in the tank. We'll see a bump in consumer spending for the holidays, declare the winter of recovery, then back "The New Normal" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanM.D. Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 The Entitlement Mentality- http://finance.yahoo...-155302525.html Rich in US: We'll Spend Less If Obama Wins Call it a threat or a promise. But a new poll shows that people earning at least $250,000 a year will spend more money if Mitt Romney wins the election. Barack Obama and Mitt RomneyThe latest Mendelsohn Affluent Barometer showed that 43 percent of the $250,000-plus earners would spend more if Romney is elected. Only 18 percent of them would spend more if President Barack Obama is re-elected. Just 39 percent said the election will have no impact on their spending. It might also have something to do with the gov't taking a lot more money from those folks if Obamacare remains intact. The TAXES in this legislation are not at all insignificant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts