Headline News 2012

[trixR4kids]

Assuming that article is true and tax hikes are being implemented, then yes it should be helping the deficit. Of course that was also a general sentiment. Obama tries to get rid of the Bush tax cuts which did nothing more than transfer the the tax burden from the rich to the poor and middle class and you hear the same people crying about it. Then they turn around and bash him for the deficit.

This kinda talks about it: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... s-deficit/

[bonesaw]

It's hilarious how every REBUMBLICAN uses the deficit to attack Obama. Then he does something about it and it's the old battle cry, "BUT MY TAX DOLLARS!11111111111111".

Hardly a tax hike for the middle class like Republicans are painting it to be.

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!!!!

Just to preface I am not a REBUMBLICAN or DUMBACRAT, I see the two as one in the same as a two headed monster if you will. I would be all over Mitt if he gets elected and I truly believe he wants to shut down obamacare so he can create his own crappy legislation with his name on it.

I am confused by your "then he does something about it" comment maybe I am being ignorant or missing your statement but how could this law help the deficit? All government programs need to be funded and almost 100% of the time government programs grow requiring more funding (especially federal programs which don't even have the money to begin with let alone to grow bigger). So unless the legislation is to shut down a part of the government, an agency for example and no longer fund it how does this "do something about it?"

CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the deficit by 150-200 billion over the next 10 years. http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romney-oba ... alsehoods/

[streakygopher]

One wheel starting to wobble....

Not that I'm surprised, after all this is the party whose audiences during debates shout out that we should just let sick people die.

Serious question: Can you please refrain from making idiotic, inflammatory statements? The dialogue was rational until now.

[team22tank]

Assuming that article is true and tax hikes are being implemented, then yes it should be helping the deficit. Of course that was also a general sentiment. Obama tries to get rid of the Bush tax cuts which did nothing more than transfer the the tax burden from the rich to the poor and middle class and you hear the same people crying about it. Then they turn around and bash him for the deficit.

I find it somewhat interesting that people talk about the rich and I don't even know what rich is (is it $150,000/year, a million, what is rich?), not paying their far share but they pay the most breaking it down by percentage, until you get to the bottom 50% who don't pay anything.

The irony I find is that we have the richest government in the history of the world, between taxes they collect, inflationary spending, and having the dollar as the reserve currency of the world they are filthy rich. But they never want to cut anything (they may so they do but its all yap and never happens). Again, that goes for all politicians not just the Dems. It is all a big bubble and smoke n' mirrors.

[phish]

One wheel starting to wobble....

Not that I'm surprised, after all this is the party whose audiences during debates shout out that we should just let sick people die.

Serious question: Can you please refrain from making idiotic, inflammatory statements? The dialogue was rational until now.

Just because you're offended doen't mean you're right. What I wrote did actually happen, nothing wrong with pointing it out.

[trixR4kids]

Not getting into the tax debate again. We discussed this ad nauseum a few months ago.

[st8ofhockey]

One wheel starting to wobble....

Not that I'm surprised, after all this is the party whose audiences during debates shout out that we should just let sick people die.

Serious question: Can you please refrain from making idiotic, inflammatory statements? The dialogue was rational until now.

Just because you're offended doen't mean you're right. What I wrote did actually happen, nothing wrong with pointing it out.

You're painting with an awfully wide brush letting the knee-jerk commentary of one buffoon represent an entire party...

[team22tank]

It's hilarious how every REBUMBLICAN uses the deficit to attack Obama. Then he does something about it and it's the old battle cry, "BUT MY TAX DOLLARS!11111111111111".

Hardly a tax hike for the middle class like Republicans are painting it to be.

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!!!!

Just to preface I am not a REBUMBLICAN or DUMBACRAT, I see the two as one in the same as a two headed monster if you will. I would be all over Mitt if he gets elected and I truly believe he wants to shut down obamacare so he can create his own crappy legislation with his name on it.

I am confused by your "then he does something about it" comment maybe I am being ignorant or missing your statement but how could this law help the deficit? All government programs need to be funded and almost 100% of the time government programs grow requiring more funding (especially federal programs which don't even have the money to begin with let alone to grow bigger). So unless the legislation is to shut down a part of the government, an agency for example and no longer fund it how does this "do something about it?"

CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the deficit by 150-200 billion over the next 10 years. http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romney-oba ... alsehoods/

That is fine and dandy but projections by government offices are just about meaningless. Weather it is wars, welfare, whatever the program is always painted in a positive light how could it not be? Then in 10 years people have all but forgotten and whatever new problems exist are from some other force other than the "program" and then the cycle starts again and government grows bigger.

[streakygopher]

One wheel starting to wobble....

Not that I'm surprised, after all this is the party whose audiences during debates shout out that we should just let sick people die.

Serious question: Can you please refrain from making idiotic, inflammatory statements? The dialogue was rational until now.

Just because you're offended doen't mean you're right. What I wrote did actually happen, nothing wrong with pointing it out.

Hardly offended. If you don't see how your remark is idiotic on the face of it, we have nothing to discuss. Yes it happened. So what? The actions of a couple individuals define the group? Back to relevancy. I won't get into the tax debate either.

[Don Adams Wheel of Justice]

Not that I'm surprised, after all this is the party whose audiences during debates shout out that we should just let sick people die.

Link?

[rowshkex]

One wheel starting to wobble....

Not that I'm surprised, after all this is the party whose audiences during debates shout out that we should just let sick people die.

Serious question: Can you please refrain from making idiotic, inflammatory statements? The dialogue was rational until now.

Relatively calm? Sure. Rational? No.

[5 O.T.]

7 Year old girl murdered in Chicago.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/29/ ... ed-girl-7/

[5 O.T.]

Not that I'm surprised, after all this is the party whose audiences during debates shout out that we should just let sick people die.

Link?

Urban legend.

[NYC Gopher fan]

Not that I'm surprised, after all this is the party whose audiences during debates shout out that we should just let sick people die.

Link?

Urban legend.

it happened in one of the debates, I did see a clip of it on tv. some moron did yell "let them die" or something to that effect.

[st8ofhockey]

Not that I'm surprised, after all this is the party whose audiences during debates shout out that we should just let sick people die.

Link?

Urban legend.

it happened in one of the debates, I did see a clip of it on tv. some moron did yell "let them die" or something to that effect.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/13 ... e-20110913

[team22tank]

One wheel starting to wobble....

Not that I'm surprised, after all this is the party whose audiences during debates shout out that we should just let sick people die.

Serious question: Can you please refrain from making idiotic, inflammatory statements? The dialogue was rational until now.

Relatively calm? Sure. Rational? No.

I know, you need to pick it up in that department.

[Bushwood Gopher]

It's hilarious how every REBUMBLICAN uses the deficit to attack Obama. Then he does something about it and it's the old battle cry, "BUT MY TAX DOLLARS!11111111111111".

Hardly a tax hike for the middle class like Republicans are painting it to be.

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!!!!

Just to preface I am not a REBUMBLICAN or DUMBACRAT, I see the two as one in the same as a two headed monster if you will. I would be all over Mitt if he gets elected and I truly believe he wants to shut down obamacare so he can create his own crappy legislation with his name on it.

I am confused by your "then he does something about it" comment maybe I am being ignorant or missing your statement but how could this law help the deficit? All government programs need to be funded and almost 100% of the time government programs grow requiring more funding (especially federal programs which don't even have the money to begin with let alone to grow bigger). So unless the legislation is to shut down a part of the government, an agency for example and no longer fund it how does this "do something about it?"

CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the deficit by 150-200 billion over the next 10 years. http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romney-oba ... alsehoods/

I can't wait. This will be the first time in recorded history where the demand for a service will increase by 30M users of said service, there will be no proportional increase in the supply of doctors/nurses/hospitals to deliver said service (inevitably there will be less--just wait until doctors stop getting reimbursed and they go find something else to do), and the cost of said service will decrease.

Like I said. I can't wait...

[rowshkex]

It's hilarious how every REBUMBLICAN uses the deficit to attack Obama. Then he does something about it and it's the old battle cry, "BUT MY TAX DOLLARS!11111111111111".

Hardly a tax hike for the middle class like Republicans are painting it to be.

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!!!!

Just to preface I am not a REBUMBLICAN or DUMBACRAT, I see the two as one in the same as a two headed monster if you will. I would be all over Mitt if he gets elected and I truly believe he wants to shut down obamacare so he can create his own crappy legislation with his name on it.

I am confused by your "then he does something about it" comment maybe I am being ignorant or missing your statement but how could this law help the deficit? All government programs need to be funded and almost 100% of the time government programs grow requiring more funding (especially federal programs which don't even have the money to begin with let alone to grow bigger). So unless the legislation is to shut down a part of the government, an agency for example and no longer fund it how does this "do something about it?"

CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the deficit by 150-200 billion over the next 10 years. http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romney-oba ... alsehoods/

I can't wait. This will be the first time in recorded history where the demand for a service will increase by 30M users of said service, there will be no proportional increase in the supply of doctors/nurses/hospitals to deliver said service (inevitably there will be less--just wait until doctors stop getting reimbursed and they go find something else to do), and the cost of said service will decrease.

Like I said. I can't wait...

You DO realize there isn't a true shortage of physicians, right...? The issue is more related to maldistribution than it is increasing the absolute supply.

The ACA actually addresses this (at least in part) by redistributing unused residency slots, funding NHSC programs, shifting reimbursements to those entering primary care/general surgical fields, etc. aimed at redistributing the workforce. Not to mention several medical schools are opening... Of course, it's just a start, but it IS a start.

[Composer]

Not that I'm surprised, after all this is the party whose audiences during debates shout out that we should just let sick people die.

Link?

Urban legend.

It wasn't just one person.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-12/politics/30155850_1_tea-party-debate-medical-career-republican-debate

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/audience-tea-party-debate-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html

[phish]

Not that I'm surprised, after all this is the party whose audiences during debates shout out that we should just let sick people die.

Link?

Urban legend.

It wasn't just one person.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-12/politics/30155850_1_tea-party-debate-medical-career-republican-debate

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/audience-tea-party-debate-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html

Not sure if it was the same or a different debate but they also booed a gay soldier for having the nerve to ask the REBUMBLICAN candidates why they're against the repeal of DADT.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailyp ... e-audience

[gopher6]

2 arrested for killing the 5yr old kid
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2674010.shtml?cat=1

[Bobwolf]

2 arrested for killing the 5yr old kid
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2674010.shtml?cat=1

Aweful thing a 5 year old getting shot in his own home, but who in their right mind names their child Nizzel????

[psych]

I do not even know what to say...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/others ... ds-newsxml

My guess is the guy had a severe stress fracture and kept running on it to the point that the stress fracture finally "broke" and became a complete fracture (or whatever the medical terminology is). A guy at Indiana University ~6 years ago had his leg shatter during a cross country meet because he was running on a femoral stress fracture. You do NOT want to mess with stress fractures, but especially femoral ones.

[Armadillo]

Im so sick of people on the right bitching about this law. They choose to just ignore the millions of middle class families, women, seniors, and children who will absolutely benefit from the law. Not that I'm surprised, after all this is the party whose audiences during debates shout out that we should just let sick people die.

You're cordially invited to the 2012 Conservative Puppy-Kicking and Child-Beating Extravaganza.

Be careful with those talking points, they're antiques.

Not sure if it was the same or a different debate but they also booed a gay soldier for having the nerve to ask the REBUMBLICAN candidates why they're against the repeal of DADT.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailyp ... e-audience

You said earlier in this thread that you respect me and my opinions. I believe you when you say that, given that we've known each other for what, six years now or so? With that in mind, are you seriously lumping a conservative like me in with these yutzes based on a shared political leaning? I certainly don't group you, trix, rowshkex, or psych in with nutcases like these people:

[Tee09]

You're cordially invited to the 2012 Conservative Puppy-Kicking and Child-Beating Extravaganza.

Be careful with those talking points, they're antiques.

I'm hoping to break my own record in the "old person in a wheelchair" tossing event. After I oppress some racial minorities and bully some homosexuals as a warmup, of course.

[Armadillo]

You're cordially invited to the 2012 Conservative Puppy-Kicking and Child-Beating Extravaganza.

Be careful with those talking points, they're antiques.

I'm hoping to break my own record in the "old person in a wheelchair" tossing event. After I oppress some racial minorities and bully some homosexuals as a warmup, of course.

Careful you don't strain your fascist-saluting arm. Those take FOREVER to heal properly.

[psych]

Im so sick of people on the right bitching about this law. They choose to just ignore the millions of middle class families, women, seniors, and children who will absolutely benefit from the law. Not that I'm surprised, after all this is the party whose audiences during debates shout out that we should just let sick people die.

You're cordially invited to the 2012 Conservative Puppy-Kicking and Child-Beating Extravaganza.

Be careful with those talking points, they're antiques.

Not sure if it was the same or a different debate but they also booed a gay soldier for having the nerve to ask the REBUMBLICAN candidates why they're against the repeal of DADT.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailyp ... e-audience

You said earlier in this thread that you respect me and my opinions. I believe you when you say that, given that we've known each other for what, six years now or so? With that in mind, are you seriously lumping a conservative like me in with these yutzes based on a shared political leaning? I certainly don't group you, trix, rowshkex, or psych in with nutcases like these people:

Hey now, don't stain our good, upstanding liberalism brand by implicating rowshkex as one of us.

[Armadillo]

Hey now, don't stain our good, upstanding liberalism brand by implicating rowshkex as one of us.

My apologies.

[dxmnkd316]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle ... story.html

A basic package that includes driving a tank and shooting a machine gun costs $399, with more expensive options for driving several models and shooting other weapons such as assault rifles. Drivers who want to smash a car pay an additional $549; for about $3,500, a customer can drive a tank through a trailer house.

[Aldy]

It cost me $175 for a 5 minute return visit to a doctor because of a prescription. That pretty much says it all.

No matter what happens to healthcare in the future. All of them can all go F themselves for charging that much for such a short visit!

$325 for a allergy trip... To get the same darn medicine I have been taking for 5 years now!

Oh, and busted my chin open playing pickup hockey. I now want to sue the guy who gave me a high stick because it cost me over $1,900 to get 8 stitches... 8 FREAKING STITCHES COST ME ALMOST $2,000!!!!!!!!

I had to pay the nurse who checked my vitals, the nurse who took me to the room, the doctor who examined me, the nurse who prepped the materials for the doctor, the different doctor who actually gave me the stitches. All the individual medicines and materials... My "insurance" covered nothing. Because my deductible doesnt kick in until after $5,000 that I pay out of pocket. I understand insurance covers catastrophe, but then why was my mom dropped after 6 years of cancer for hitting a lifetime maximum! My dad stopped keeping track of bills after they totalled voer $800k, (I think they cleared $1M before she died, and over a year later we still got bills. Yes, he just stopped paying them). I cannot even remember when insurance stopped paying their "coverage." Insurance collects and collects, but when it comes time to pay out... they say "go eff yourself." No wonder United Health Care keeps building new buildings and raking in tons of cash.

I dont know if these new provisions will help or not, quite frankly I dont care. The whole insurance thing is a crooked system.

What part of United bothers you the most?

1. Their obscene 8% after-tax margin on operations?
2. The fact they are building 4 new buildings in the next several years and adding new construction jobs?
3. They provide over 100,000 jobs?

You bitch about the $5,000 deductible plan, but it is your employer that chooses what plans to offer and not the insurance company. My guess is you opted for the high deductible plan because you are a single young adult and wanted a lower cost health plan.

Insurance companies aren’t perfect but they are not these “evil” companies you make them out to be.

Do you mind if I ask what noble profession employs your services?

[rowshkex]

Hey now... What have I done wrong?

...I wouldn't even call myself a liberal anyway...

[trixR4kids]

Hahah that's awesome. Pretty expensive but if you get a group it becomes a little more reasonable I'm thinking. (Dx's post)

[gopheritall]

Hahah that's awesome. Pretty expensive but if you get a group it becomes a little more reasonable I'm thinking. (Dx's post)

That would be awesome.

[Kelor]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle ... story.html

A basic package that includes driving a tank and shooting a machine gun costs $399, with more expensive options for driving several models and shooting other weapons such as assault rifles. Drivers who want to smash a car pay an additional $549; for about $3,500, a customer can drive a tank through a trailer house.

Ahh. It reopened!! That place closed down about 6 years ago or so. I assumed they couldn't get the insurance.

[jallengarry]

It cost me $175 for a 5 minute return visit to a doctor because of a prescription. That pretty much says it all.

No matter what happens to healthcare in the future. All of them can all go F themselves for charging that much for such a short visit!

$325 for a allergy trip... To get the same darn medicine I have been taking for 5 years now!

Oh, and busted my chin open playing pickup hockey. I now want to sue the guy who gave me a high stick because it cost me over $1,900 to get 8 stitches... 8 FREAKING STITCHES COST ME ALMOST $2,000!!!!!!!!

I had to pay the nurse who checked my vitals, the nurse who took me to the room, the doctor who examined me, the nurse who prepped the materials for the doctor, the different doctor who actually gave me the stitches. All the individual medicines and materials... My "insurance" covered nothing. Because my deductible doesnt kick in until after $5,000 that I pay out of pocket. I understand insurance covers catastrophe, but then why was my mom dropped after 6 years of cancer for hitting a lifetime maximum! My dad stopped keeping track of bills after they totalled voer $800k, (I think they cleared $1M before she died, and over a year later we still got bills. Yes, he just stopped paying them). I cannot even remember when insurance stopped paying their "coverage." Insurance collects and collects, but when it comes time to pay out... they say "go eff yourself." No wonder United Health Care keeps building new buildings and raking in tons of cash.

I dont know if these new provisions will help or not, quite frankly I dont care. The whole insurance thing is a crooked system.

What part of United bothers you the most?

1. Their obscene 8% after-tax margin on operations?
2. The fact they are building 4 new buildings in the next several years and adding new construction jobs?
3. They provide over 100,000 jobs?

You bitch about the $5,000 deductible plan, but it is your employer that chooses what plans to offer and not the insurance company. My guess is you opted for the high deductible plan because you are a single young adult and wanted a lower cost health plan.

Insurance companies aren’t perfect but they are not these “evil” companies you make them out to be.

Do you mind if I ask what noble profession employs your services?

This is a perfect example of where these kind of posts end up. Did you just read what he said Aldy? The kid writes a post about his mother passing after suffering through a long cancer fight and the financial burden that put on his family and you can't table your political opinion enough to refrain responding...and then you add a spice of snark. Incredible. Whether you agree or not with his opinions or his choice to open up a vein in this forum...probably would have been a sensible, mature thing to let it slide bro.

[Zwak]

Oh...my...god...

Not for the easily queasy

http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticl ... e-in-india

[WPoS]

[quote="Armadillo][/quote]

Spin it however you want, the Supreme Court just stated in effect that the Congress can tax you for not doing something.[/quote]
They're taxing you for using the federal government as your insurance company. That is doing something.[/quote]

Huh? The law says the "tax" is to be paid if a person DOES NOT carry private insurance. That means I get "taxed" if I choose not to have insurance for whatever reason. The "tax" isn't levied at the point of insurance use.[/quote]
If you choose to not purchase private health insurance, you are automatically passing the risk that you will need medical care you can't pay for to the Federal Government, because any hospital that receives federal dollars (aka almost all of them) is required to treat you, even at risk of not getting reimbursed. Therefore, the Government is charging you for that risk.[/quote]

Where's your limit, bonesaw? Where's the line where you say, "OK government, that's enough encroachment on my liberties"? They didn't debate or pass this as a tax on non-compliance, but here we are. I, and many others in this country, are sick of it. We're sick of being lied to, we're sick of the games, we're sick of feeling like more and more money is being siphoned out of our paychecks to pay for things that don't benefit us in the slightest. Call it the "social contract" or whatever horse hockey term you can come up with, but this is going to end. This cannot continue, and if I and my like-minded brethren have anything to say about it, it will end.

*exits room to hummed "Battle Hymn of the Republic*[/quote]

did the Gophers just sweep the Whioux?

W

[Kelly Red]

I'm reading the Star Trib this morning on the arrest of the the 2 teens who shot the 5 year old. I am struck dumb by the inside photo of the memorial items left at the scene of the crime: the sad irony that along side the teddy bears, notes and flowers, someone thought it appropriate to leave a toy gun

[sec 16 row16 seat 16 17]

Joey potter is on the market.

[Aldy]

This is a perfect example of where these kind of posts end up. Did you just read what he said Aldy? The kid writes a post about his mother passing after suffering through a long cancer fight and the financial burden that put on his family and you can't table your political opinion enough to refrain responding...and then you add a spice of snark. Incredible. Whether you agree or not with his opinions or his choice to open up a vein in this forum...probably would have been a sensible, mature thing to let it slide bro.

Jallengarry, yes I did read his post. Did you read mine? At what point was my political opinion brought into the discussion? I understand the financial burden his family went through with his mother's cancer but what I addressed was his hockey injury and statement "My insurance covered nothing" when the cost of getting the stiches was less than the deductible of the plan that he chose. That is the risk you take when you purchase a $5,000 deductible heath plan.

Then he takes a dig at United Health Care and says the whole insurance industry is crooked and they say go eff yourself whenever you file a claim. I work in the insurance industry and know this isn't true. As I mentioned in my post, the insurance industry isn't perfect but it does its bests to administer the benefits of the policy. We would be out of business if we didn't. In fact, states require minimum loss ratios (medical claims over premium) to ensure we are not ripping off the public. Health insurance is very complex with many fingers in the pie - insurance companies, physicians, facilities, drug companies, regulators and more - that you can't put the blame on health care costs on one entity.

I was perhaps a bit snarky with my request for his profession, but if he can rant about my profession then at least I would like to know the type of work he is in.

[Hobey Baker]

So lets get to the bigger point .. most don't honestly think that our govt can do a better than the private sector can. Our Govt is a mess.

Social Security .. going bankrupt
Defense spending ... $5 million dollars for a screw driver
Our deficit.... $16 trillion

There are things in Obama care that are needed and good but selling and passing this bill through both houses and to the US citizens as " penalty" and not a tax is a joke. It would not have passed as a tax. Having the Supreme Court blow this law out based on the commerece clause only to have the chief justice rewrite the bill as a tax is unaccepable.

[rowshkex]

So lets get to the bigger point .. most don't honestly think that our govt can do a better than the private sector can. Our Govt is a mess.

Social Security .. going bankrupt
Defense spending ... $5 million dollars for a screw driver
Our deficit.... $16 trillion

There are things in Obama care that are needed and good but selling and passing this bill through both houses and to the US citizens as " penalty" and not a tax is a joke. It would not have passed as a tax. Having the Supreme Court blow this law out based on the commerece clause only to have the chief justice rewrite the bill as a tax is unaccepable.

Huh? The government CAN do a better job, particularly in terms of administrative value. That's the EXACT reason the ACA has a provision that mandates a limit on the MLR! When you centralize all administrative functions, you become more efficient with less overhead (and no corporate profit-making). It's at least part of the reason CPT codes and reimbursement is (partially) determined by CMS.

You're confusing the whole argument with the point that people don't WANT the government to be involved because they don't want to be told how to live their lives (a valid and arguable point). The implications of a government-run health care system reach all the actors--physicians, patients, insurance companies, etc. Physicians see their reimbursements decreasing because there is less competition (and CMS already dictates reimbursement trends), patients/consumers don't want government involvement, and insurance companies would be no more.

[trixR4kids]

It's not like there aren't better healthcare systems implemented in other countries and the cost is way less. And said countries are doing fine financially, before we start those shenanigans again.

[Greyeagle]

Moving on....

[dxmnkd316]

This healthcare thing is the worst socialist push our country has seen. We need to work to repeal it ASAP. Just one more tax this country can't afford.

[Slap Shot]

This healthcare thing is the worst socialist push our country has seen. We need to work to repeal it ASAP. Just one more tax this country can't afford.

Not sure about how bad it will be, but in general I agree.

[dxmnkd316]

*woosh*

[trixR4kids]

[streakygopher]

It's not like there aren't better healthcare systems implemented in other countries and the cost is way less. And said countries are doing fine financially, before we start those shenanigans again.

So, we're trusting the same entity who rolled out Cash For Clunkers to a multi billion, if not trillion, dollar plan for health care?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2009/10/620000657/1#.T_CV7Ree4gI

What do you propose we do when we find out the money isn't where we thought it was?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125991138&ft=1&f=1014

Which countries are you talking about, Sweden?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_19_24/ai_n29479172/
The European countries you speak of are standing in the bankruptcy line for a reason. They have overspent on social welfare for years and it's coming home to roost.

Here is a CATO institute analysis about other health care programs around the world.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf
The sobering truth is that they are no better and certainly are not less costly. The difference is that governments who implement universal coverage run up huge deficits to pay for it.

I'd rather have a moral, bi-partisan debate about providing social welfare for millions in the form of health care - and a financial discussion on how we're going to responsibly pay for it - than pretend the issue is about anything else.

[GopherFan85]

Just a thought....my sister worked for BCBS MN and I asked why wouldn't a plan work that had people buying health care from which ever health care insurance company they wanted. She answered that BCBS of FL. would be run out of buisness if they had that type of market. The question that couldn't be answered by her, or anyone that I have asked, is if we had a plan where you could buy health care from any company that you wanted wouldn't companies such as BCBS consolidate in to one big company therefore being competitive across the nation? Instead of having specific ones in each state would we be better to have bigger companies that have to fight across the nation? My thought being that like with auto insurance I can by from State Farm and my rate is dependant on what coverages I want, where I live, type of car, and driving record.

[trixR4kids]

It's not like there aren't better healthcare systems implemented in other countries and the cost is way less. And said countries are doing fine financially, before we start those shenanigans again.

Which countries are you talking about, Sweden?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_19_24/ai_n29479172/
The European countries you speak of are standing in the bankruptcy line for a reason. They have overspent on social welfare for years and it's coming home to roost.

Some article written four years ago about how their welfare system is a failure. And yet it's still there and doing fine. Hmmm...

Here is a CATO institute analysis about other health care programs around the world.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf
The sobering truth is that they are no better and certainly are not less costly. The difference is that governments who implement universal coverage run up huge deficits to pay for it.

Cato institute . Who funds the majority of their "research" again?

And again I'm not getting into the tax thing.

[rowshkex]

Studying health policy I can tell you that four-year-old research is pushing the limits, haha.

It's interesting how that CATO Institute report talks about health care quality in terms of technology--that's one of the primary drivers of health care spending. Public health infrastructure is MUCH more important in terms of determining quality with respect to actual health outcomes--the more you put into preventing illness, the more you save, and that's something we don't do around here. They don't even MENTION the phrase "public health" in the article once.

(FWIW, I didn't really read through the entire article, but am thoroughly amused by the inflammatory comments on the sidebars that generally don't provide any substantial information, but serve only to throw out "alarming" statistics that are wholly taken out of context)

[trixR4kids]

Studying health policy I can tell you that four-year-old research is pushing the limits, haha.

It's interesting how that CATO Institute report talks about health care quality in terms of technology--that's one of the primary drivers of health care spending. Public health infrastructure is MUCH more important in terms of determining quality with respect to actual health outcomes--the more you put into preventing illness, the more you save, and that's something we don't do around here. They don't even MENTION the phrase "public health" in the article once.

The Cato institute is funded by the Koch brothers, who are basically libertarians. To think the CATO institute is anything but completely biased given the funding and people who served them (Rupert Murdoch) it's pretty easy to see how they come up with an article such as the one above. Of course they're going to write about public healthcare being innefficient or w/e, they believe the completely unregulated free market has literally never failed.

[rowshkex]

Studying health policy I can tell you that four-year-old research is pushing the limits, haha.

It's interesting how that CATO Institute report talks about health care quality in terms of technology--that's one of the primary drivers of health care spending. Public health infrastructure is MUCH more important in terms of determining quality with respect to actual health outcomes--the more you put into preventing illness, the more you save, and that's something we don't do around here. They don't even MENTION the phrase "public health" in the article once.

The Cato institute is funded by the Koch brothers, who are basically libertarians. To think the CATO institute is anything but completely biased given the funding and people who served them (Rupert Murdoch) it's pretty easy to see how they come up with an article such as the one above. Of course they're going to write about public healthcare being innefficient or w/e, they believe the completely unregulated free market has literally never failed.

I don't even CARE about the whole government regulation bit... I understand the political arguments. It's just frustrating that their discussion doesn't involve public health, when public health is a FOUNDATION of cost considerations... But it's really that way with most discussions about health, health care, and health care spending.

[Tee09]

Studying health policy I can tell you that four-year-old research is pushing the limits, haha.

It's interesting how that CATO Institute report talks about health care quality in terms of technology--that's one of the primary drivers of health care spending. Public health infrastructure is MUCH more important in terms of determining quality with respect to actual health outcomes--the more you put into preventing illness, the more you save, and that's something we don't do around here. They don't even MENTION the phrase "public health" in the article once.

The Cato institute is funded by the Koch brothers, who are basically libertarians. To think the CATO institute is anything but completely biased given the funding and people who served them (Rupert Murdoch) it's pretty easy to see how they come up with an article such as the one above. Of course they're going to write about public healthcare being innefficient or w/e, they believe the completely unregulated free market has literally never failed.

I don't even CARE about the whole government regulation bit... I understand the political arguments. It's just frustrating that their discussion doesn't involve public health, when public health is a FOUNDATION of cost considerations... But it's really that way with most discussions about health, health care, and health care spending.

You just want your degree to be important, don't you?

[streakygopher]

It's not like there aren't better healthcare systems implemented in other countries and the cost is way less. And said countries are doing fine financially, before we start those shenanigans again.

Which countries are you talking about, Sweden?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_19_24/ai_n29479172/
The European countries you speak of are standing in the bankruptcy line for a reason. They have overspent on social welfare for years and it's coming home to roost.

Some article written four years ago about how their welfare system is a failure. And yet it's still there and doing fine. Hmmm...

Here is a CATO institute analysis about other health care programs around the world.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf
The sobering truth is that they are no better and certainly are not less costly. The difference is that governments who implement universal coverage run up huge deficits to pay for it.

Cato institute . Who funds the majority of their "research" again?

And again I'm not getting into the tax thing.

So, who's a better source, Michael Moore? Politics notwithstanding, give me a better dialogue. Give me an argument against the facts as they are represented. Would your rather I simply cite "other" countries without naming a single one and then refer again to "said" countries to support an unsupportable argument? Oh, wait.... Agree or disagree, CATO is a respected and reputable think tank of policy scholars, even if they're thinking is not always politically practical. I don't agree with everything they espouse, but I like their limited government point of view and their support of the Constitution.


Oh, I also posted a link by NPR on how the rich can't save us. Noticed you left the veracity of that link alone.

I'll leave with this one: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788...........I'm not sure who funded Jefferson's opinions

[trixR4kids]

CATO is a respected and reputable think tank of policy scholars, even if they're thinking is not always politically practical.

I'm done.

Jefferson came from a completely different era. How does that quote prove anything?

And the NPR link was about taxes, and I've said many times that that's been discussed ad nauseum.

[Hobey Baker]

So lets get to the bigger point .. most don't honestly think that our govt can do a better than the private sector can. Our Govt is a mess.

Social Security .. going bankrupt
Defense spending ... $5 million dollars for a screw driver
Our deficit.... $16 trillion

There are things in Obama care that are needed and good but selling and passing this bill through both houses and to the US citizens as " penalty" and not a tax is a joke. It would not have passed as a tax. Having the Supreme Court blow this law out based on the commerece clause only to have the chief justice rewrite the bill as a tax is unaccepable.

Huh? The government CAN do a better job, particularly in terms of administrative value. That's the EXACT reason the ACA has a provision that mandates a limit on the MLR! When you centralize all administrative functions, you become more efficient with less overhead (and no corporate profit-making). It's at least part of the reason CPT codes and reimbursement is (partially) determined by CMS.



You're confusing the whole argument with the point that people don't WANT the government to be involved because they don't want to be told how to live their lives (a valid and arguable point). The implications of a government-run health care system reach all the actors--physicians, patients, insurance companies, etc. Physicians see their reimbursements decreasing because there is less competition (and CMS already dictates reimbursement trends), patients/consumers don't want government involvement, and insurance companies would be no more.

So talk about Amtrak, Post office, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare (Bushwood credit)... should I go on. All govt run and losing money. I am simply talking about our govt screwing this thing up, costing way more than predicted and losing money.

Also my point about this law passing under the terms of penalty and now being called a tax is completely fraudulant.

Repeal and start again!!!!

[team22tank]

It's not like there aren't better healthcare systems implemented in other countries and the cost is way less. And said countries are doing fine financially, before we start those shenanigans again.

Which countries are you talking about, Sweden?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_19_24/ai_n29479172/
The European countries you speak of are standing in the bankruptcy line for a reason. They have overspent on social welfare for years and it's coming home to roost.

Some article written four years ago about how their welfare system is a failure. And yet it's still there and doing fine. Hmmm...

Here is a CATO institute analysis about other health care programs around the world.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf
The sobering truth is that they are no better and certainly are not less costly. The difference is that governments who implement universal coverage run up huge deficits to pay for it.

Cato institute . Who funds the majority of their "research" again?

And again I'm not getting into the tax thing.

So, who's a better source, Michael Moore? Politics notwithstanding, give me a better dialogue. Give me an argument against the facts as they are represented. Would your rather I simply cite "other" countries without naming a single one and then refer again to "said" countries to support an unsupportable argument? Oh, wait.... Agree or disagree, CATO is a respected and reputable think tank of policy scholars, even if they're thinking is not always politically practical. I don't agree with everything they espouse, but I like their limited government point of view and their support of the Constitution.


Oh, I also posted a link by NPR on how the rich can't save us. Noticed you left the veracity of that link alone.

I'll leave with this one: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788...........I'm not sure who funded Jefferson's opinions

So true...

The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can’t tolerate a libertarian community. - David D. Boaz

[rowshkex]

Studying health policy I can tell you that four-year-old research is pushing the limits, haha.

It's interesting how that CATO Institute report talks about health care quality in terms of technology--that's one of the primary drivers of health care spending. Public health infrastructure is MUCH more important in terms of determining quality with respect to actual health outcomes--the more you put into preventing illness, the more you save, and that's something we don't do around here. They don't even MENTION the phrase "public health" in the article once.

The Cato institute is funded by the Koch brothers, who are basically libertarians. To think the CATO institute is anything but completely biased given the funding and people who served them (Rupert Murdoch) it's pretty easy to see how they come up with an article such as the one above. Of course they're going to write about public healthcare being innefficient or w/e, they believe the completely unregulated free market has literally never failed.

I don't even CARE about the whole government regulation bit... I understand the political arguments. It's just frustrating that their discussion doesn't involve public health, when public health is a FOUNDATION of cost considerations... But it's really that way with most discussions about health, health care, and health care spending.

You just want your degree to be important, don't you?

Don't worry, the plan is to supplement it with a real degree.

[NYC Gopher fan]

Of course the Koch brothers want everything done in the free market. If we got rid of all govt healthcare, how would we force people to buy healthcare? All the idiots abusing the ER now will continue not buying insurance, and having the rest of us pay for their ridiculous ER costs.
The US has a lower life expectancy and still pays more per person than most developed countries. That's one of our big problems. All these "socialist" euro nations most of you on here despise still manage to spend less per person than we do. And I've lived in multiple of those countries and found the quality of healthcare to be excellent, with the UK being the worst of the bunch. Those nations subsidize a lot more than healthcare, which has to be contributing to their economic woes. remember, people don't realy pay much to go to school in most of those countries, either. And way too many people are on public support (Denmark is the worst if I recall). It's not solely healthcare costs that are spiraling Europe's debt crisis.
And I'll say one thing about insurance companies - all of us have likely had frustrating run ins with them. United seems to take a beating from people, but I think people here tend to forget two things: they employ thousands and thousands of Minensotans, despite not being welcome in this state as a for-profit enterprise. Their own employees in this state don't have United insurance - they can't. They could move to a more tax advantageous state. Also - three of their six business are on the Services side, not insurance. They have nothing to do with insurance, and if you look at their quarterly reports, Optum has been increasing their revenue. The fact they take some of their profits and invest back into the business is part of why they are so large and successful.

[streakygopher]

CATO is a respected and reputable think tank of policy scholars, even if they're thinking is not always politically practical.

I'm done.

Jefferson came from a completely different era. How does that quote prove anything?

And the NPR link was about taxes, and I've said many times that that's been discussed ad nauseum.

I see you find mockery more fitting than actually defending your thoughts.

So, again, which "said countries" are "doing fine financially"? Italy? No. Greece? No. Great Britain? No. Spain? No. Portugal? No. Denmark? No. Japan? No. Hell, Germany is talked about time and again as the one country that can come to the rescue of Europe. Guess what? Their debt-to-GDP ration in 2011 was over 80%. The Wehrmacht cavalry is not coming over the hill. So, which countries are knocking it out of the park again?

Yeah, Jefferson came from a different era. He was there to help form a country. Pretty boring stuff. The Founding Fathers and their contemporaries all eschewed government expansion. In fact, they feared it. They were Federalists; they were free market economists.

[F Da Sue]

Of course the Koch brothers will do anything they can to get Romney elected. Iran isn't going to invade itself for crying out loud.

fyp

As for United, Does the CEO making $102 million dollars a couple years ago raise or lower the amount we as consumers pay for health insurance?

[NYC Gopher fan]

Of course the Koch brothers will do anything they can to get Romney elected. Iran isn't going to invade itself for crying out loud.

fyp

As for United, Does the CEO making $102 million dollars a couple years ago raise or lower the amount we as consumers pay for health insurance?

It doesn't help. my point wasn't to say they were perfect, just to point out how they are beneficial to MN and have a slightly different business model than the BCBSs of world

[streakygopher]

Examples of personal greed or outrageous CEO salaries are often given as examples of why a socialist state is preferred. But it's a faulty comparison. Nobody said capitalism is without fault. It's just that an oppressive expanding government is far less perfect. Every generation it seems has its supporters for a Red state. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right? It's been tried. Stalin murdered maybe twenty million citizens under the altruistic "largess" of Mother Russia. IT HAS NOT, DOES NOT and WILL NOT work.

"The Road to Serfdom," by Frederick Hayek. I can add nothing to that. Free markets = freedom.

[The Rube]

Examples of personal greed or outrageous CEO salaries are often given as examples of why a socialist state is preferred. But it's a faulty comparison. Nobody said capitalism is without fault. It's just that an oppressive expanding government is far less perfect. Every generation it seems has its supporters for a Red state. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right? It's been tried. Stalin murdered maybe twenty million citizens under the altruistic "largess" of Mother Russia. IT HAS NOT, DOES NOT and WILL NOT work.

"The Road to Serfdom," by Frederick Hayek. I can add nothing to that. Free markets = freedom.

Greed is the key.

Without the emotion/whatever of greed, it'd work. Once you get the "if I work less, and get the same profit" attitude injected into the workforce, that system is done for.

[Bertogliat]

This is a perfect example of where these kind of posts end up. Did you just read what he said Aldy? The kid writes a post about his mother passing after suffering through a long cancer fight and the financial burden that put on his family and you can't table your political opinion enough to refrain responding...and then you add a spice of snark. Incredible. Whether you agree or not with his opinions or his choice to open up a vein in this forum...probably would have been a sensible, mature thing to let it slide bro.

Jallengarry, yes I did read his post. Did you read mine? At what point was my political opinion brought into the discussion? I understand the financial burden his family went through with his mother's cancer but what I addressed was his hockey injury and statement "My insurance covered nothing" when the cost of getting the stiches was less than the deductible of the plan that he chose. That is the risk you take when you purchase a $5,000 deductible heath plan.

Then he takes a dig at United Health Care and says the whole insurance industry is crooked and they say go eff yourself whenever you file a claim. I work in the insurance industry and know this isn't true. As I mentioned in my post, the insurance industry isn't perfect but it does its bests to administer the benefits of the policy. We would be out of business if we didn't. In fact, states require minimum loss ratios (medical claims over premium) to ensure we are not ripping off the public. Health insurance is very complex with many fingers in the pie - insurance companies, physicians, facilities, drug companies, regulators and more - that you can't put the blame on health care costs on one entity.

I was perhaps a bit snarky with my request for his profession, but if he can rant about my profession then at least I would like to know the type of work he is in.

If insurance companies aren't crooked, then why does the state require minimum loss ratios to ensure your not ripping off the public?

On another subject, the part of health care that bothers me is that I go into see the doctor for an ailment, my bill will come back and say the fee is $600. Then it will say the corrected fee (per the insurance contract) is $280. Great for me and my insurance. What about those without insurance? They pay $600 for the same care that the clinic provided to me for $280? No wonder why people without insurance can't affoard health care. No wonder they don't pay the bills. I am guessing the clinic can then whine that they lost a hugely inflated $X million dollars. I guess that can't hurt at tax time......or when negotiating contracts.....or lobbying the government......

They are all crooked in my opinion.

[Jupiter]

I'm getting bored of healthcare talk.....

[LeoPohl]

I'm getting bored of healthcare talk.....

So am I, but let's face it--until Parise signs, this is the biggest news of the week to comment about on this message bored.

[Chris Eckes]

I just read through all of this, and the one thing I came away with was a mental image of Armadillo climbing up a bell-tower, humming a song to himself with a sniper rifle in tow

[LeoPohl]

I just read through all of this, and the one thing I came away with was a mental image of Armadillo climbing up a bell-tower, humming a song to himself with a sniper rifle in tow

Austin isn't that far up the road from San Antonio; probably roughly equates from Minneapolis to Rochester. Anyone know what side of the SA area 'Dillo's in?

[GopherFan85]

Disturbing e-mails could spell more trouble for Penn State officials

[trixR4kids]

Disturbing e-mails could spell more trouble for Penn State officials

Yeah even though Sandusky's going to jail for a while this case is far from over. Curley, Spanier and Schultz all knew about this if I remember correctly. That's why this case was so sickening, a lot of people covered this up and allowed it to happen.

[sunbone]

Disturbing e-mails could spell more trouble for Penn State officials

There are at least a couple of people in this whole sad story that should have cells right next to Sandusky as far as I'm concerned. And whatever respect I had for Joe Paterno is now officially completely gone.

[psych]

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/02/news/co ... ?hpt=hp_t2