Steve O Posted February 8, 2019 Posted February 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, section122 said: The office thread reminded me of one... Seinfeld is terrible. They are all so damn whiny and entitled I don't get why them being ***** people is funny. Another one: Anyone who is opposed to medicare for all is an idiot. That might be too strong. Anyone opposed to medicare for all has likely done no research on the subject and just buys the spin of higher taxes without thinking more about it. We are supposed to be the greatest country in the world but we can't even take care of ourselves. Lose your job? You have also lost your health insurance - hope you are lucky and don't get sick. Have a job, get an illness that takes you out longer than 12 weeks? No job and therefore no insurance sucks to be you. Baby boomers should be pushing hard for this as they will be the ones needing it very soon and yet they don't. Yes your taxes will go up but you won't have to pay insurance premiums anymore. People care more about their right to bear arms than people having the right to healthcare. This boggles my mind. Wait section122 The US is the leader in research for medicine. Cool, if we have universal healthcare they would no longer have to spend huge sums of money on advertising and could put that into R&D. Here is a quick article about how the US is the only country in the top 50 most developed nations to not offer it. http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-us-is-the-only-very-highly-developed-country-without-universal-healthcare/ Building on your opinion regarding medicare for all (single payer, universal health care, call it what you want) I think those that supported the abolition of the individual mandate are going to regret that support. The individual mandate was a key component of the ACA. Now that it no longer exists, the demise of the ACA will happen quicker that it otherwise would have. It will need to be replaced with something. Conservative as I am, I'm not seeing a lot of (actual any) viable alternatives other than single payer that can be instituted quicker and more effectively. Cliches got to be cliches for a reason, most of them are true. Be careful what you wish for (in this case abolition of individual mandate.) 13 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: I miss 26! This just isn't controversial. 1
NoHuddleKelly12 Posted February 8, 2019 Posted February 8, 2019 “Free speech” should not extend to Pats fans on this board. 3
Steve O Posted February 8, 2019 Posted February 8, 2019 1 minute ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said: “Free speech” should not extend to Pats fans on this board. Fixed 1
apuszczalowski Posted February 8, 2019 Posted February 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said: “Free speech” should not extend to Pats fans on this board. You should have stopped after "Pat's fans"..... I always hate when people use "Free speech" to defend themselves or someone else after saying something stupid or offensive. Free speech only gives you the freedom to say what you want without facing criminal charges. Basicallu the government cant have you charged for saying speaking your mind (unless they find it can be considered a threat to someone else). It doesnt mean you can say whatever you want without facing backlash. You may have the right to call someone something offensive or speaking your mind, but it doesnt mean there cant be repercussions from it or consequences 1
boater Posted February 8, 2019 Posted February 8, 2019 On 1/19/2019 at 10:28 AM, Juror#8 said: College degrees are overrated and I think there should be a place for vigilante justice in our society subject to certain parameters. Ya. As others in this thread have estimated, I agree that college is a suboptimal choice for 50% of enrolled students. More specifically: a Bachelor's degree only is folly. I think society has better options for some. I especially like trade schools and apprenticeships---but they are getting more rare. My opinion is formed by my once being the dude who hired people. I got a lot of Bachelor's degrees applying for jobs that didn't need that horsepower. Some employers exploit the glut: I know of one Subway in town that hires only people with Bachelor's degrees. Pretty pathetic.
dpberr Posted February 8, 2019 Posted February 8, 2019 "Anyone who is opposed to medicare for all is an idiot. That might be too strong. Anyone opposed to medicare for all has likely done no research on the subject and just buys the spin of higher taxes without thinking more about it." You're welcome to voice an unpopular opinion in this very entertaining thread. I'm glad you did. I'd only offer that something "big" would have to give to pull off Medicare for all. There simply aren't enough future taxpayers in the United States to support that program, Social Security, the future federal government bailout of state pension systems, the federal debt and even if it's whittled down significantly, the expanse of the federal government. The problem is that the US needs to grow taxpayers at such a significant rate to pull that off and it's not. It's like somebody bringing in a dozen doughnuts for an office party of 30. I think ultimatley it'll come down to some almost too difficult to imagine choices. We can do Medicare for all but no more social security or the government doesn't ride to the rescue of the countless states with massively underfunded pensions and when they go broke, people lose everything they thought they had in them.
unbillievable Posted February 8, 2019 Posted February 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, boater said: My opinion is formed by my once being the dude who hired people. I got a lot of Bachelor's degrees applying for jobs that didn't need that horsepower. Some employers exploit the glut: I know of one Subway in town that hires only people with Bachelor's degrees. Pretty pathetic. Sandwich University only has post-graduate programs. 1
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 8, 2019 Posted February 8, 2019 12 minutes ago, dpberr said: "Anyone who is opposed to medicare for all is an idiot. That might be too strong. Anyone opposed to medicare for all has likely done no research on the subject and just buys the spin of higher taxes without thinking more about it." You're welcome to voice an unpopular opinion in this very entertaining thread. I'm glad you did. I'd only offer that something "big" would have to give to pull off Medicare for all. There simply aren't enough future taxpayers in the United States to support that program, Social Security, the future federal government bailout of state pension systems, the federal debt and even if it's whittled down significantly, the expanse of the federal government. The problem is that the US needs to grow taxpayers at such a significant rate to pull that off and it's not. It's like somebody bringing in a dozen doughnuts for an office party of 30. I think ultimatley it'll come down to some almost too difficult to imagine choices. We can do Medicare for all but no more social security or the government doesn't ride to the rescue of the countless states with massively underfunded pensions and when they go broke, people lose everything they thought they had in them. How about states fund their natural disasters? Like Florida start charging an income tax? Why should Fed pick that up? Now, if they are saying industrial/big ag for the benefit of national economy, sure... Fix that. But, tourism and recreation... That's gratuitous and without charging income tax creating a grossly unsustainable model where too many come into the state lured by other benefits too... Like weather...
Another Fan Posted February 8, 2019 Posted February 8, 2019 Whitney Houston was an overrated singer. Perhaps it doesn’t help one of her most famous performances came from a game most Bills fans want to forget the ending of
Steve O Posted February 8, 2019 Posted February 8, 2019 I think a lot of weather girls get their jobs because of their looks. http://www.ninjajournalist.com/world/weather-girls-yh/?utm_campaign=Weather Icons MJ PARTAY - Desktop USA YA&utm_source=Yahoo&utm_medium=FINANCE_US
section122 Posted February 8, 2019 Posted February 8, 2019 1 hour ago, dpberr said: "Anyone who is opposed to medicare for all is an idiot. That might be too strong. Anyone opposed to medicare for all has likely done no research on the subject and just buys the spin of higher taxes without thinking more about it." You're welcome to voice an unpopular opinion in this very entertaining thread. I'm glad you did. I'd only offer that something "big" would have to give to pull off Medicare for all. There simply aren't enough future taxpayers in the United States to support that program, Social Security, the future federal government bailout of state pension systems, the federal debt and even if it's whittled down significantly, the expanse of the federal government. The problem is that the US needs to grow taxpayers at such a significant rate to pull that off and it's not. It's like somebody bringing in a dozen doughnuts for an office party of 30. I think ultimatley it'll come down to some almost too difficult to imagine choices. We can do Medicare for all but no more social security or the government doesn't ride to the rescue of the countless states with massively underfunded pensions and when they go broke, people lose everything they thought they had in them. Don't forget that their is, already in place, medicare for elderly and medicaid for the poor. The framework is already in place. The program just needs to be expanded. Social Security is already pushing retirement age back which I agree with. That is one step in the right direction. We could stop the military industrialization that has occurred in this country and shrink down our military budget. The federal debt? Nobody in power thinks about this. Hell the POTUS wants 5.7 billion for a wall does is he thinking about the debt or a campaign promise (that Mexico was going to pay for). How about the 70% tax plan where money over 10 million dollars is taxed at 70%? Somehow people have perverted that into everyone would be paying that. How about capping annual earnings at 1 billion dollars a year? Surely people could survive on that and it would open up more money. These are just me spit balling in 15 minutes and some of them admittedly wouldn't work but there are solutions to your problem without catastrophe. At the core of it though, how can every developed nation have it figured out but America can't? 1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said: How about states fund their natural disasters? Like Florida start charging an income tax? Why should Fed pick that up? Now, if they are saying industrial/big ag for the benefit of national economy, sure... Fix that. But, tourism and recreation... That's gratuitous and without charging income tax creating a grossly unsustainable model where too many come into the state lured by other benefits too... Like weather... Another excellent point. If Florida charged income tax their coffers could be full come disaster time. It isn't like hurricanes catch them by surprise. I get a place like Louisiana needed FEMA funds when Katrina came through because it isn't a regular occurrence. I don't get Florida not being prepared. 1
snafu Posted February 8, 2019 Posted February 8, 2019 On 2/7/2019 at 12:10 PM, ShadyBillsFan said: Don sucks so bad the old hag Nancy has put him in his place a few times already. She openly mocks the man and he thinks she was applauding him. You do realize that the only reason she was making that face was because she was trying to keep her dentures from slipping out of her mouth in front of the whole country. The clapping part was mockery.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 8, 2019 Posted February 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, section122 said: Another excellent point. If Florida charged income tax their coffers could be full come disaster time. It isn't like hurricanes catch them by surprise. I get a place like Louisiana needed FEMA funds when Katrina came through because it isn't a regular occurrence. I don't get Florida not being prepared. It's because they can game the system. They have weather in their favor. Endless summer. That enables the military complex to locate there, etc... etc... People pour in. Not taxin creates bad incentives. It's like saying in 1935: "Come to Oklahoma, start a farm." Too many people, too much influence on the land. Yet, as a nation we over-value their worth and chronically bail people out. In NOLA people were still living in FEMA Conex Houses for years after! I work for the USACE... We still got people from up north, their duries going unfulfilled why they are still cleaning up after last few year's hurricanes. Don't even get me started on the wars.
snafu Posted February 8, 2019 Posted February 8, 2019 3 hours ago, section122 said: The office thread reminded me of one... Seinfeld is terrible. They are all so damn whiny and entitled I don't get why them being ***** people is funny. Another one: Anyone who is opposed to medicare for all is an idiot. That might be too strong. Anyone opposed to medicare for all has likely done no research on the subject and just buys the spin of higher taxes without thinking more about it. We are supposed to be the greatest country in the world but we can't even take care of ourselves. Lose your job? You have also lost your health insurance - hope you are lucky and don't get sick. Have a job, get an illness that takes you out longer than 12 weeks? No job and therefore no insurance sucks to be you. Baby boomers should be pushing hard for this as they will be the ones needing it very soon and yet they don't. Yes your taxes will go up but you won't have to pay insurance premiums anymore. People care more about their right to bear arms than people having the right to healthcare. This boggles my mind. Wait section122 The US is the leader in research for medicine. Cool, if we have universal healthcare they would no longer have to spend huge sums of money on advertising and could put that into R&D. Here is a quick article about how the US is the only country in the top 50 most developed nations to not offer it. http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-us-is-the-only-very-highly-developed-country-without-universal-healthcare/ Nobody should attempt medicare for all until and unless the cost to actually perform health care is drastically reduced, including tort reform. People who talk about reducing the cost of healthcare too often get it mixed up with, or limit it to, health care insurance premiums.
Steve O Posted February 8, 2019 Posted February 8, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, snafu said: Nobody should attempt medicare for all until and unless the cost to actually perform health care is drastically reduced, including tort reform. People who talk about reducing the cost of healthcare too often get it mixed up with, or limit it to, health care insurance premiums. Often tell people that, but for insurance, health care would be affordable. As an example, I see two chiropractors. Both are two Dr offices. One of them takes no insurance, no credit cards, $40 cash or check. This office has one very nice lady receptionist that does all the file work, payments, scheduling of next appt, phone answering, etc. Still has time to read or chat on the phone or whatever. The other office, as noted also a 2 Dr. office, has no less than 3 and sometimes 4 folks processing paper work. They scramble around with insurance, try to figure out co-pays, filling out forms, plus all the other standard office work of scheduling, phones, etc. Seldom see anyone in the office with "leisure time." I go to the second office only after my deductible has been met. Know what the co-pay is once deductible is met? You guessed it, same as Dr. # 1's standard price...$40. Edited February 8, 2019 by Steve O forgot something
section122 Posted February 8, 2019 Posted February 8, 2019 2 hours ago, snafu said: Nobody should attempt medicare for all until and unless the cost to actually perform health care is drastically reduced, including tort reform. People who talk about reducing the cost of healthcare too often get it mixed up with, or limit it to, health care insurance premiums. I'm well aware of the seedy side of medical billing. I tell anyone who will listen to negotiate their medical bills. I think (and strong emphasis on think) that part of the price gouging from hospitals/doctors is because they know they are billing insurance companies and that there will be push back so they bill at outrageous numbers and settle for a percentage. Insurance companies can then trot out these outrageous figures and raise rates. I work for a company that provides medicaid services and therefore bills through medicaid. They have created a division solely to investigate fraud and fraudulent claims. If health care was run by the government I would imagine they would also implement a system like this which would help control costs. Our current model is based on for profit companies. If the government stepped in it would no longer be a for profit venture. Prices could then be bargained and fixed. It isn't perfect and would take a lot of people who are a lot smarter than me to figure out the minutia. That said again I come back to us being the only developed country that doesn't have this. Owning guns is a right in this country but receiving adequate medical treatment isn't. That is mind blowing to me. 52 minutes ago, Steve O said: Often tell people that, but for insurance, health care would be affordable. As an example, I see two chiropractors. Both are two Dr offices. One of them takes no insurance, no credit cards, $40 cash or check. This office has one very nice lady receptionist that does all the file work, payments, scheduling of next appt, phone answering, etc. Still has time to read or chat on the phone or whatever. The other office, as noted also a 2 Dr. office, has no less than 3 and sometimes 4 folks processing paper work. They scramble around with insurance, try to figure out co-pays, filling out forms, plus all the other standard office work of scheduling, phones, etc. Seldom see anyone in the office with "leisure time." I go to the second office only after my deductible has been met. Know what the co-pay is once deductible is met? You guessed it, same as Dr. # 1's standard price...$40. Single payer would help alleviate this though imo. Part of the hassle is figuring out what kind of insurance they have, what their copay and deductible is, and following all of the different steps each different company has. If it was one payer source it would streamline the billing process. We submit to medicaid, fidelis, and other mltc's for our company's billing. Want to wager a guess which one is the easiest to submit billing to and receiving payment from?
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted February 8, 2019 Posted February 8, 2019 5 hours ago, section122 said: The office thread reminded me of one... Seinfeld is terrible. They are all so damn whiny and entitled I don't get why them being ***** people is funny. Another one: Anyone who is opposed to medicare for all is an idiot. That might be too strong. Anyone opposed to medicare for all has likely done no research on the subject and just buys the spin of higher taxes without thinking more about it. We are supposed to be the greatest country in the world but we can't even take care of ourselves. Lose your job? You have also lost your health insurance - hope you are lucky and don't get sick. Have a job, get an illness that takes you out longer than 12 weeks? No job and therefore no insurance sucks to be you. Baby boomers should be pushing hard for this as they will be the ones needing it very soon and yet they don't. Yes your taxes will go up but you won't have to pay insurance premiums anymore. People care more about their right to bear arms than people having the right to healthcare. This boggles my mind. Wait section122 The US is the leader in research for medicine. Cool, if we have universal healthcare they would no longer have to spend huge sums of money on advertising and could put that into R&D. Here is a quick article about how the US is the only country in the top 50 most developed nations to not offer it. http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-us-is-the-only-very-highly-developed-country-without-universal-healthcare/ To your Seinfeld point, because we're all sh*tty people deep down inside, so we're laughing at ourselves essentially. To your medicare point, it's simply a question of ethics. Why is anybody entitled to the fruits of anybody else's labor? Be it the doctors who are performing the surgery, or the taxpayers having money forcefully taken out of their paycheck? 1
section122 Posted February 9, 2019 Posted February 9, 2019 1 hour ago, The Real Buffalo Joe said: To your medicare point, it's simply a question of ethics. Why is anybody entitled to the fruits of anybody else's labor? Be it the doctors who are performing the surgery, or the taxpayers having money forcefully taken out of their paycheck? So why do we pay tax at all then? Why do you get to enjoy roads? Why do you get to enjoy any of the multitude of things that your tax bill affords you? To me access to health services should not be dependent on whether or not you can afford them. It isn't cable, it isn't a cell phone. It is people's lives. Doctor's will still be paid. You will still have money taken out of your check for taxes whether it is used to fund a wall or to fund your health and well being. I know what I would prefer to spend my tax dollars on and it isn't bombing some country halfway across the world. At the root of it though I have no problem helping the less fortunate. I am blessed. I have a good job and I have health insurance. I don't have the mine mine mine mindset. I have enough to be happy and hope it continues that way. However it is incredibly stressful knowing that if I lose my job my wife's health is in serious jeopardy as she has diabetes and insulin has skyrocketed in cost. If something, god forbid, were to happen to my job she couldn't get the care she needs. We would have to make decisions about either her health or us eating. That is mind boggling to me in what is supposed to be the greatest country in the world. The greatest country in the world should take care of it's people and I am glad to pay my share to make it so. Yes there are lazy people who would benefit from this but guess what you are already subsidizing them with medicaid. There are many more people like you or I (assumption - apologies if I am wrong) who would benefit from this. I feel like the only people who don't support medicare for all either have incredibly low/no health insurance premiums or have no health concerns. However if and when that changes for them, it will be too late.
Steve O Posted February 9, 2019 Posted February 9, 2019 14 hours ago, section122 said: Single payer would help alleviate this though imo. Part of the hassle is figuring out what kind of insurance they have, what their copay and deductible is, and following all of the different steps each different company has. If it was one payer source it would streamline the billing process. We submit to medicaid, fidelis, and other mltc's for our company's billing. Want to wager a guess which one is the easiest to submit billing to and receiving payment from? My mother is on in home medicaid. She (actually I) write a check each month to medicaid for all but a stipend of her monthly income. Medicaid then pays fidelis, last I knew $44/hr for Mom's care. Fidelis then pays the company that supplies the aides, not sure of that amount. That company then pays the aides that take care of Mom $11.50 an hour. So, what starts at $44/hr becomes $11.50/hr by the time it reaches the people doing the work. At least in this scenario Medicaid paying the aides directly would certainly seem to make sense. If medicaid paid aides directly, maybe i could get better aides for $22/hr, and Medicaid could save 1/2 their costs.
row_33 Posted February 9, 2019 Posted February 9, 2019 20 hours ago, section122 said: The office thread reminded me of one... Seinfeld is terrible. They are all so damn whiny and entitled I don't get why them being ***** people is funny. I have found that ironic people love the show. this also tends to run along ethnic lines and their national embrace of irony. without getting too deep into details, Canadians are a very ironic people
Recommended Posts