Page 11 of 20 ... 910111213 ...
Results 101 to 110 of 200
  1. john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    04-21-2010, 03:33 PM #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    All you have to ask is who caused the recession we are just digging our way out of. We all know it occurred under Bush/Cheney.
    All you have to ask yourselves is why did the Republicans support all the bills that led to the huge deficit and this recession.
    All you have to ask yourselves is why did the middle class stand in place for the past 8 years when it came to earning power?

    You cant run away from what happened (huge deficits and wicked recession) and didnt (solved none of our structural economic problems) during the Bush administration.

    The facts sometimes are very painful especially if you call everyone Socialist, Communist , dumbass, twit if you disagree with them.


    I laugh when you try to say Bush had HUGE deficits. Then what do you call Obamas deficits being more then ALL of Bushs deficits after only 20 MONTHS of Obama being in office. The most funny thing is they get even larger after that first 20 MONTHS. Obamas next 20 months will have the deficits doubling again.

    If there is any question why Havasucker looks so ridiculous, just look above at what his common sense and logic looks like. I am laughing so hard now a cant go on.


    Here you dumb twit, I will tell you a little secret the republicans were tossed out of office because they spent to much and started giving entitlements like they were going out of style. So what do you think is going to happen with the democrats spending 4 times as much.
    Last edited by john; 04-21-2010 at 03:38 PM.

  2. Atypical is offline
    04-21-2010, 03:43 PM #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    Thanks for posting that. Only one thing. Its too long for those who shout Socialist, Communist, dumbass, twit at every opportunity. Maybe you can summarize it.
    Okay Lloyd, be happy to.

    Ideology without objective facts is worthless.
    Last edited by Atypical; 04-21-2010 at 10:07 PM.

  3. Atypical is offline
    04-21-2010, 04:29 PM #103
    Quote Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong View Post
    The pinch is Obama picking my pocket to redistribute the wealth lol. We won't have to worry about Obama having 8 years; he's done at 4. I really had hope for bipartisan leadership, but with reduced checks and balances in congress he's simply ram - rodding his agenda through, and that's pissing off / galvanizing a lot of people - me too (card carrying non party affiliate).

    Let's take health care for example. Problem: 30,000,000 American are uninsured. Problem: the economy needs stimulus. Problem: no jobs. OK, how about this as a solution - have the government "spend" on building 100 new federal health centers stategically located in areas that need them most. At least he'd be spending on useful assets that support his agenda. These health centers would need to be filled with MRI's, beds, labs, lights, X ray machines...... People would need to design them, build them and the centers would need to be staffed. I would agree on a tax to pay for that.

    Instead, he wants to "punish" the greedy companies for making money (which is the reason for an enterprise). As an owner of AT&T, Obama has personally picked my pocket again.
    The pinch is Obama picking my pocket to redistribute the wealth lol.

    The redistribution has been exclusively from the middle up.
    (eg,. In 2005, 21.2 percent of U.S. national income accrued to just 1 percent of earners. Contrast 1968, when the CEO of General Motors took home, in pay and benefits, about sixty-six times the amount paid to a typical GM worker. Today the CEO of Wal-Mart earns nine hundred times the wages of his average employee. Indeed, the wealth of the Wal-Mart founder's family in 2005 was estimated at about the same ($90 billion) as that of the bottom 40 percent of the U.S. population: 120 million people).


    I really had hope for bipartisan leadership, but with reduced checks and balances in congress he's simply ram - rodding his agenda through, and that's pissing off / galvanizing a lot of people - me too (card carrying non party affiliate).

    Please explain how he has ignored "bipartisanship". The healthcare industry modification took a year. Know why?

    Let's take health care for example. Problem: 30,000,000 American are uninsured. Problem: the economy needs stimulus. Problem: no jobs. OK, how about this as a solution - have the government "spend" on building 100 new federal health centers stategically located in areas that need them most. At least he'd be spending on useful assets that support his agenda. These health centers would need to be filled with MRI's, beds, labs, lights, X ray machines...... People would need to design them, build them and the centers would need to be staffed. I would agree on a tax to pay for that.

    How about something simple, inexpensive and that works? Medicare for all. Obama and the republicans were both against that!

    Instead, he wants to "punish" the greedy companies for making money (which is the reason for an enterprise).

    These companies provide no service - they are middlemen. Would you pay for someone to do something you can do yourself?
    Last edited by Atypical; 04-21-2010 at 05:36 PM.

  4. SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    04-21-2010, 04:42 PM #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Atypical View Post
    The pinch is Obama picking my pocket to redistribute the wealth lol.

    The redistribution has been exclusively from the middle up.

    I really had hope for bipartisan leadership, but with reduced checks and balances in congress he's simply ram - rodding his agenda through, and that's pissing off / galvanizing a lot of people - me too (card carrying non party affiliate).

    Please explain how he has ignored "bipartisanship". The healthcare industry modification took a year. Know why?

    Let's take health care for example. Problem: 30,000,000 American are uninsured. Problem: the economy needs stimulus. Problem: no jobs. OK, how about this as a solution - have the government "spend" on building 100 new federal health centers stategically located in areas that need them most. At least he'd be spending on useful assets that support his agenda. These health centers would need to be filled with MRI's, beds, labs, lights, X ray machines...... People would need to design them, build them and the centers would need to be staffed. I would agree on a tax to pay for that.

    How about something simple, inexpensive and that works? Medicare for all. Obama and the republicans were both against that!

    Instead, he wants to "punish" the greedy companies for making money (which is the reason for an enterprise).

    These companies provide no service - they are middlemen. Would you pay for someone to do something you can do yourself?
    That sure is an atypical response!

    I'm not going to argue, but the last point you make, I don't understand.

  5. Atypical is offline
    04-21-2010, 04:54 PM #105
    The healthcare companies do paperwork and "administer" the process only. Their administration consists of telling clients who they can see, what they can have done (or not do),and how much they will pay or not pay for any of it. And billing for this effort.

    There is no need for any of this. Medicare pays bills and does not tell clients any of those things. The only time a client has a problem with Medicare is if a doctor does not want to treat a Medicare patient. Then the client pays a little more out of pocket, negotiates or goes somewhere else.

    What is an atypical response? And by the way, this is not an argument (except in the rhetorical sense). You perhaps are not aware of some of these things. If you are please explain.
    Last edited by Atypical; 04-21-2010 at 05:38 PM.

  6. SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    04-21-2010, 05:51 PM #106
    Quote Originally Posted by Atypical View Post
    The healthcare companies do paperwork and "administer" the process only. Their administration consists of telling clients who they can see, what they can have done (or not do),and how much they will pay or not pay for any of it. And billing for this effort.

    There is no need for any of this. Medicare pays bills and does not tell clients any of those things. The only time a client has a problem with Medicare is if a doctor does not want to treat a Medicare patient. Then the client pays a little more out of pocket, negotiates or goes somewhere else.

    What is an atypical response? And by the way, this is not an argument (except in the rhetorical sense). You perhaps are not aware of some of these things. If you are please explain.
    I was talking about AT&T, not an insurance company. As you may be aware, they had to take a significant charge against earnings due to the legislation passed. That hurt many investors in the equity. But hey, they can afford it, right?

    Medicare? Unfortunately, my mother cannot get knee replacement surgery. In fact, it appears that they won't even scope them. So I guess she needs to go elsewhere.

    I do agree that it is crazy that insurance is the primary payer of healthcare costs. Insurance,is typically used in exceptional cases, right?

    This "discussion" all goes back to what one thinks the role of government is.

  7. Atypical is offline
    04-21-2010, 06:09 PM #107
    Quote Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong View Post
    I was talking about AT&T, not an insurance company. As you may be aware, they had to take a significant charge against earnings due to the legislation passed. That hurt many investors in the equity. But hey, they can afford it, right?

    Medicare? Unfortunately, my mother cannot get knee replacement surgery. In fact, it appears that they won't even scope them. So I guess she needs to go elsewhere.

    I do agree that it is crazy that insurance is the primary payer of healthcare costs. Insurance,is typically used in exceptional cases, right?

    This "discussion" all goes back to what one thinks the role of government is.
    Do you know why they had to take that charge? Because the government had been paying them a fee to provide government money to their employees for a benefit. That is absurd corporate welfare. The govt has now decided to take only the fee they were paying away, which should have never been given in the first place. Read the details below.

    The 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, still in effect, gives a tax deduction to companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees. In fact, these companies, including AT&T, can deduct 100%--every single penny--of the money they spend on prescription drug benefits from their taxable income. Thus, AT&T gets to keep a whole chunk of money from being taxed, which basically means they get to pocket more of it. The government even goes one step further and subsidizes (read: pays for) a whopping 28% of those prescription drug benefits in the first place, to make prescription drug benefits as affordable as possible for the companies. The companies get both a 28% discount and a nice tax break, all to encourage them to provide prescription drug coverage.

    But there's a loophole in the law big enough to drive a Chevy Suburban through. These companies get to write off the entirety of their prescription medication plan, even though they're actually only paying for 72% of it. The new health-care bill simply closes that loophole, and says that companies can still deduct every penny they pay on prescription drug benefits from their taxes--but only the money they've paid, not the 28% that the government hands them. That's where the billion dollars comes from: AT&T is no longer allowed to deduct things they didn't pay for in the first place.

    So what happens from here? AT&T loses a billion dollars it didn't have any right to keep to begin with, and what do they do?

    AT&T said that it was also looking into changing the health care benefits it offered because of the law. Analysts say retirees could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers as a result of the overhaul.
    In other words, due to losing free money, AT&T will cut benefits for retirees. It's not the health-care bill that's resulting in retirees losing benefits--it's AT&T cutting corners in the worst possible place.


    The actual situation here is not easy to explain. It's much easier to just say, "This health-care bill will force AT&T to cut benefits for retirees." It's a nice soundbite, right? The only problem is, it's just not true.

    You said, But hey, they can afford it, right? That suggests you think I am indifferent to their spending their money (and hurting shareholders) because I want the government to win. If you read the details above, you should now realize that AT&T was screwing the goverment and soon its employees. You prefer that instead? And as a stockholder are you upset that the free ride is over? I bet you are because of your comment. And you obviously didn't know the details. Just pissed at the government "attacking a corporation".

    Is your mother on Medicare? Are they refusing service for some reason? I would appreciate the details.

    Insurance in exceptional cases? Not sure what you mean. It's used whenever it's needed.

    As far as goverment's role, I think healthcare is government's role. Isn't a healthy population beneficial to the country? We are the only industrialized country that doesn't offer a health program without a profit motive connected to it. Are you in favor of saying to the sick, infirmed, (perhaps your mother) screw em? It's their problem, not mine. I'm healthy.
    Last edited by Atypical; 04-21-2010 at 08:16 PM.

  8. SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    04-21-2010, 07:42 PM #108
    Informative, thanks. Interesting stuff indeed. I don't have a problem with "corporate welfare" as you note. In a macroscopic perspective, corporations are employers, and we invest our future in them. Support them, you support you and I.

    We obviously disagree on things, and that is why we have a great country. Your last word is the last, but thanks for the discourse.

    My comment on insurance was meant to say that insurance shouldn't be used daily. It is "insurance" against a unlikely event (floods, premature death, auto accidents.....). Going to the doctor for a cold is a likely event...

  9. Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    04-21-2010, 09:52 PM #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Atypical View Post
    Okay Loyd, be happy to.

    Ideology without objective facts is worth nothing.
    Thanks. That sounds just iike someone we know on this site.

  10. Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    04-21-2010, 09:55 PM #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Atypical View Post
    The pinch is Obama picking my pocket to redistribute the wealth lol.

    The redistribution has been exclusively from the middle up.
    (eg,. In 2005, 21.2 percent of U.S. national income accrued to just 1 percent of earners. Contrast 1968, when the CEO of General Motors took home, in pay and benefits, about sixty-six times the amount paid to a typical GM worker. Today the CEO of Wal-Mart earns nine hundred times the wages of his average employee. Indeed, the wealth of the Wal-Mart founder's family in 2005 was estimated at about the same ($90 billion) as that of the bottom 40 percent of the U.S. population: 120 million people).


    I really had hope for bipartisan leadership, but with reduced checks and balances in congress he's simply ram - rodding his agenda through, and that's pissing off / galvanizing a lot of people - me too (card carrying non party affiliate).

    Please explain how he has ignored "bipartisanship". The healthcare industry modification took a year. Know why?

    Let's take health care for example. Problem: 30,000,000 American are uninsured. Problem: the economy needs stimulus. Problem: no jobs. OK, how about this as a solution - have the government "spend" on building 100 new federal health centers stategically located in areas that need them most. At least he'd be spending on useful assets that support his agenda. These health centers would need to be filled with MRI's, beds, labs, lights, X ray machines...... People would need to design them, build them and the centers would need to be staffed. I would agree on a tax to pay for that.

    How about something simple, inexpensive and that works? Medicare for all. Obama and the republicans were both against that!

    Instead, he wants to "punish" the greedy companies for making money (which is the reason for an enterprise).

    These companies provide no service - they are middlemen. Would you pay for someone to do something you can do yourself?
    Thanks once again. The facts are always helpful.

Page 11 of 20 ... 910111213 ...