Chef Jim Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Yeah. Great idea. Great name. I wasn't talking about the name I was talking about the idea ya schmuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I wasn't talking about the name I was talking about the idea ya schmuck. No kidding D-A. Personally I love pulling information and ideas from Wikipedia. ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 No kidding D-A. Personally I love pulling information and ideas from Wikipedia. ?? How about PBS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I do not mind working and hopefully figuring out the illegal immigration problem. This part obviously needs to be worked on: "...illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born children, who were by law U.S. citizens. The agents used a wide brush in their criteria for interrogating potential aliens. They adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on the street and asking for identification. This practice incited and angered many U.S. citizens who were of Mexican American descent. Opponents in both the United States and Mexico complained of "police-state" methods, and Operation Wetback was abandoned." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I do not mind working and hopefully figuring out the illegal immigration problem. This part obviously needs to be worked on: "...illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born children, who were by law U.S. citizens. The agents used a wide brush in their criteria for interrogating potential aliens. They adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on the street and asking for identification. This practice incited and angered many U.S. citizens who were of Mexican American descent. Opponents in both the United States and Mexico complained of "police-state" methods, and Operation Wetback was abandoned." It's simple. You go to every employer who would likely hire illegals, restaurants, construction sites, farms, etc and ask to see the documentation of every employee and have it verified. Think of the unemployment rate after that happened. Jobs Americans won't do....bullshiit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Your an idiot. Everyone knows there are ill-educated, honking goose-looking ducks and quacking duck-looking geese, usually found in the south, like in West Virginia. LOL! Now back to your regularly scheduled argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Looks like the AMA now supports a public plan. http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/01/am...nded-insurance/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Looks like the AMA now supports a public plan. http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/01/am...nded-insurance/ Actually, it looks like the new AMA president supports a plan that makes available to the uninsured the exact same government-funded plan that is provided to Congress. Which is interesting because the last AMA president opposed it. What I wonder is if the AMA is okay with giving that plan to the 18 million illegals who are a part of the ever-growing "45 million uninsured Americans." I also read that Wal-Mart supports the plan, and why not? Do you have ANY idea how much profit Wal-Mart is going to pocket when it transfers its covered employees to the government plan? All large corporations should embrace it. Hell, I provide full coverage to all of my employees and their families, and even I may transfer everyone but my partner and me to the government plan. It'll save me money, and they'll get the exact same coverage as congress gets. It's a win-win. Unless, y'know, they ever have to use the coverage. But I'm sure it'll be great cuz, y'know, the government is so efficient and productive in all its other ventures. What could possibly go wrong, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Actually, it looks like the new AMA president supports a plan that makes available to the uninsured the exact same government-funded plan that is provided to Congress. Which is interesting because the last AMA president opposed it. What I wonder is if the AMA is okay with giving that plan to the 18 million illegals who are a part of the ever-growing "45 million uninsured Americans." I also read that Wal-Mart supports the plan, and why not? Do you have ANY idea how much profit Wal-Mart is going to pocket when it transfers its covered employees to the government plan? All large corporations should embrace it. Hell, I provide full coverage to all of my employees and their families, and even I may transfer everyone but my partner and me to the government plan. It'll save me money, and they'll get the exact same coverage as congress gets. It's a win-win. Unless, y'know, they ever have to use the coverage. But I'm sure it'll be great cuz, y'know, the government is so efficient and productive in all its other ventures. What could possibly go wrong, right? I'm sure if they get the same coverage that senators and congressmen get, it will suck. How do you get just the President likes it when he says "the group" and "The AMA supports"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I'm sure if they get the same coverage that senators and congressmen get, it will suck. How do you get just the President likes it when he says "the group" and "The AMA supports"? I stand corrected. The president said he is open to it. Much like Obama says he's open to taxing the middle class for the health benefits they receive from their employers. Guess that makes it all gospel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I stand corrected. The president said he is open to it. Much like Obama says he's open to taxing the middle class for the health benefits they receive from their employers. Guess that makes it all gospel. Dr. J. James Rohack told CNN that the AMA supports an “American model” that includes both “a private system and a public system, working together.” Is that ambiguous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Is that ambiguous? The AMA represents only 20% of the doctors in the US. And I imagine not all the members of the AMA agrees with the AMA's position. So what percentage of physicians in the US actually back the plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 The AMA represents only 20% of the doctors in the US. And I imagine not all the members of the AMA agrees with the AMA's position. So what percentage of physicians in the US actually back the plan? A year ago, this poll said 59%. It's higher now. http://www.eldr.com/article/politics/major...-insurance-plan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 A year ago, this poll said 59%. It's higher now. http://www.eldr.com/article/politics/major...-insurance-plan That seem odd. If over 60% of doctors back the plan why is Obama going to such lengths to get their backing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 That seem odd. If over 60% of doctors back the plan why is Obama going to such lengths to get their backing? He needs as much support as he can get. There is a new Kennedy Dodd plan that came out tonight that has a couple interesting elements to it. It would make any employer pay $750 per year, per full time worker, if they didn't offer coverage for that worker through the job, and all that money would go into a pot to pay for coverage for all uninsured. You're exempt and pay nothing if you have less than 25 employees. It has a public provision, and the CBO said it covers 97% of Americans and costs $600 billion over 10 years. That is likely to gain some power in the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 He needs as much support as he can get. There is a new Kennedy Dodd plan that came out tonight that has a couple interesting elements to it. It would make any employer pay $750 per year, per full time worker, if they didn't offer coverage for that worker through the job, and all that money would go into a pot to pay for coverage for all uninsured. You're exempt and pay nothing if you have less than 25 employees. It has a public provision, and the CBO said it covers 97% of Americans and costs $600 billion over 10 years. That is likely to gain some power in the Senate. I just read that, IF as advertised I could see that working sorta. Hell, he is focusing on Afghanistan too. Ok, he MIGHT be doing something right. My main problem with Obama is too much happening so quickly. It makes it hard to determine what he did that works or isn't working. I suppose time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Is that ambiguous? Meaning that he doesn't support a plan where the government program is so cheap that it puts the private programs out of business, which is quite possibly where this is headed. I just read that, IF as advertised I could see that working sorta. Hell, he is focusing on Afghanistan too. Ok, he MIGHT be doing something right. My main problem with Obama is too much happening so quickly. It makes it hard to determine what he did that works or isn't working. I suppose time will tell. First, I'm not sure the plan is that workable. My company spends approximately $10,000/year to provide health care for an employee and their family. If I have the option to say "Screw this. I'll give $750 to the government per employee and let those morons cover these people," precisely who do you think is going to pay for this? The government...with the $750 I just gave them? He'll have to tax the very people he promised not to tax to make this work. Though admittedly, Obama is truthful in that in his plan, if you're happy with your coverage, you won't have to change doctors or plans. Your COMPANY will do it for you, but you won't. So that's good. Next, I heard his town hall meeting and one of the things that bothers me isn't so much that he's doing too much too quickly. People have always had a natural resistance to change, so reluctance toward aggressive agendas isn't unusual. No, what bothers me is that he is irresponsibly "anything is better than nothing." He consistently says, and I paraphrase, that "we MUST do something" and that "the status quo is no good any more." His entire premise is that as long as we're doing SOMETHING, it's better than nothing, and I've watched many companies go under based on the absurd belief that any change is good simply because it's change. It's lazy and narrowminded for the sake of projecting an image of immediate gratification, which is why his 100 day speech was so ridiculous. "Look at everything we've done in the past 100 days. We're really changing things up!!!" A hundred days in, that sounded good. Five months in, unemployment is at 9.5% when it wasn't supposed to exceed 8%, last month we again had larger than expected filings, spending and borrowing is out of control, and every time someone utters the words "green shoots," someone else drives over it with the Tim The Toolman Combine Harvester 3000. Can hyperinflation really be that far behind? Well, it's not the status quo, so that's something to build on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I just read that, IF as advertised I could see that working sorta. Hell, he is focusing on Afghanistan too. Ok, he MIGHT be doing something right. My main problem with Obama is too much happening so quickly. It makes it hard to determine what he did that works or isn't working. I suppose time will tell. It's not that he's doing too much, I feel he's proposing too much. Let's focus on getting the economy back on track, once that happens everything else well be much easier to accomplish. How are all those jobs he said be saving/creating coming along. I'm waiting for him to say "yes we may have lost 400,000 jobs last month but had I not saved 250,000 it would have been 650,000." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 It's not that he's doing too much, I feel he's proposing too much. Let's focus on getting the economy back on track, once that happens everything else well be much easier to accomplish. How are all those jobs he said be saving/creating coming along. I'm waiting for him to say "yes we may have lost 400,000 jobs last month but had I not saved 250,000 it would have been 650,000." Completely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Completely agree. you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts