New CH.com Forum | |
http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl
Daily Chat >> General Posts >> ICFBI !!! http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1236650273 Message started by Batch on Mar 9th, 2009 at 9:57pm |
Title: ICFBI !!! Post by Batch on Mar 9th, 2009 at 9:57pm
ICFBI… (I Can’t F@#k&ng Believe It... ) The liberal entertainment media moguls have corrupted the last bastion of conservative programming… 24!!! Where do it say the liberal bitch actress playing the idiot president of the United States on a TV drama series, gets to make an actual commercial add favoring the global warming cool-aide guzzlers with a statement favoring actions to counter climate change ???
Mark my words… This will have ramifications in the media tomorrow… V/R, Batch |
Title: ICFBI !!! Post by George on Mar 9th, 2009 at 10:01pm
This Topic was moved here from Getting to Know Ya by George.
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Batch on Mar 9th, 2009 at 10:03pm
Thanks George... I Phat Phingered my selection of the appropriate forum...
V/R, Batch |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Brew on Mar 9th, 2009 at 10:04pm
Batch - Put down the gun and back away slowly. ;D
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by George on Mar 9th, 2009 at 10:08pm
No prob, Pete. ;)
Best, George |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Kevin_M on Mar 9th, 2009 at 10:58pm
I hear ya, man. I couldn't believe this from today's The Bold and the Beautiful soap.
Quote:
I agree with this blog poster: Quote:
This is going to get wild in soap news tomorrow. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by notseinfeld on Mar 9th, 2009 at 11:59pm
Great Call
There's always liberal bias on TV with some subtle, some not. Everyone has an agenda and the omniscient hollywood producers never miss the opportunity to inject what they know to be best for me in their work. As for the 24 lady, I doubt it was a wise career decision and hope she get the derision so richly deserved. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Mar 10th, 2009 at 12:10am
I dont understand. Don't actors do commercials for third parties all the time?
Did she do it as some sort of Presidential authoritarian figure or something? |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by AlienSpaceGuy on Mar 10th, 2009 at 12:46am
Well, keep burying your head in the sand, like the proverbial ostrich, and continue to buy petrol guzzling cars and burning coal until the whole world is black from the soot.
But he who cites an especially cold day to deny global warming, makes the mistake to muddle up weather (a local, short-term event) with climate (a large-scale, long-term phenomenon). While the temperature near the equator isn't expected to change dramatically, the average polar temperatures are definitely on the raise. It is expected that in a few years the North Pole will be ice-free in the summer. The resulting increase of the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles will result in more severe weather situations, like heavier hurricanes, more tornadoes, more extreme heatwaves and blizzards. This will especially be the case in the USA, where there are hardly any mountains to damp down the winds between the North Pole and the Gulf of Mexico. An indication that we are already get the effects of global warming: in central Europe the 10 hottest summers, in a 160 year row of observations, all happened in the last 20 years. But continue to believe in the extenuations of the oil, gas and coal lobby and keep on to vilify the only sensible and climate-neutral energy source: nuclear energy. Getting now off my soapbox. [smiley=smokin.gif] Edited to add: Whom do you call "liberal"? Are these the people who recognize facts instead of believing the lobbyists? |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 10th, 2009 at 2:26am Batch wrote on Mar 9th, 2009 at 9:57pm:
So ... are you against her right to make commercial endorsements, or are you against the rights of companies to make advertisements for their products? It do say in First Amendment that government shall not pass laws restricting freedom of speech ... that wear it say she can make actual commercial add!! |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Pinkfloyd on Mar 10th, 2009 at 3:36am Batch wrote on Mar 9th, 2009 at 9:57pm:
Don't call MY President an idiot. :( If you don't like her, don't vote for her next time. If you can't respect the person, respect the office. Bobw Her daughter is OBVIOUSLY a Republican. Maybe she'll run next time. Vote for her. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by M.R. on Mar 10th, 2009 at 5:07am
Batch, that's what you get for watching prime time TV.. I gave 95% of it up years ago. Ya know damn well who makes that shit.
AlienSpaceDude, the liberals and green wienies won't let us build nuke plants. They would rather have us pedal bikes or wave our arms for our power. Mike |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Batch on Mar 10th, 2009 at 7:55am AlienSpaceGuy wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 12:46am:
Ahhh.... Thank you for asking about this interesting factoid... No... These people would be the out of control liberal idiots in Congress who voted for the Trillion dollar stimulus spending legislation before they read it... (Please note I didn't call it "Porkulus")... and the Marxist trained community organizer in the White House who signed it into law anyway... Hmmm... As Commander in Chief... That amounts to gross dereliction of duty... like... Failure to honor his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States... High Crimes and Misdemeanors rings a bell and may apply as well... Hell... The Manchurian Candidate couldn't have done more to destroy the US economy and the retirement savings belonging to millions of baby boomers ... in his first 50 days in office... BTW... because these same comrade liberal idiots voted to remove the E-Verify provisions from the Omnibus supplemental spending bill... illegal aliens could take 300,000 construction jobs, or 15% of the 2 million jobs that new taxpayer-financed projects are predicted to create... so they can send most of their earnings back home... Now THAT is very stimulating... but not to our economy... BOHICA… When the comrade liberal idiots in Congress pass the “Card Check” legislation prohibiting secret ballots for employees when deciding whether or not they want union representation in their workplace… we will start down the slippery slope to becoming the USSA… Unionized Socialist States of America… Thanks again for the great question... Take care, V/R, Batch |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Kevin_M on Mar 10th, 2009 at 9:52am
So Ueli, according to the interpretation given, it has nothing to do with the breadth of mind in your post.
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Mrs Deej on Mar 10th, 2009 at 10:43am
All of this because of some stupid global warming commercial? Wow, Batch, we all know you HATE President Obama, but don't blame his cabinet for coming into your TV show, 24. Are you against the idea of global warming, do you deny the fact that the ice caps are melting, and oh let me guess, it's all President Obama's fault, because good ol President Bush had NOTHING to do with it?
Seriously... ::) |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Lobster on Mar 10th, 2009 at 10:48am
We should have a 'Political Discussion' forum.
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Mrs Deej on Mar 10th, 2009 at 10:52am Lobster wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 10:48am:
I would need ten more moderators just to maintain all the shit that gets thrown around in there. LOL ::) 8-) |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Lobster on Mar 10th, 2009 at 10:58am Mrs Deej wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 10:52am:
Let them tear each other up. Just somewhere else. :P |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Mrs Deej on Mar 10th, 2009 at 11:02am
LMAO...Lobster, they just need to visit the tropics...then they wouldn't care about any political discussion!!
...just sayin |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Bob P on Mar 10th, 2009 at 11:09am Quote:
Heck, we're getting "clean" coal while you Euros still burn the dirty stuff. Invest in soap and rags cause they're gonna use a lot of them to clean that coal! I'd badmouth the Liberal Entertainment Media except my son-in-law is one of them. Now that I think of it, his show title is very liberal, "Lie To Me". |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Kevin_M on Mar 10th, 2009 at 12:30pm Opus wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 11:46am:
Surely no profit in selling fossil fuels. Quote:
Your link, the 2009 Int'l Conference on Climate Change: The annual meeting of lobbyists from front organizations for fossil fuels. Sponsors: Beginning down the list alphabetically... Accuracy in Academia: AIA was founded in 1985 by Reed Irvine as an outgrowth of Accuracy in Media. (they share the same address and fax #) Accuracy in Media: Funders Bethlehem Steel Carthage Foundation; see Scaife Foundations Chevron Ciba-Geigy Coors Foundation Dressor Industries Exxon Lawrence Fertig Foundation Horizon Oil and Gas IBM Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical F.M. Kirby Foundation Mobil Foundation Pepsico Phillips Petroleum Company Smith Richardson Charitable Trust; also see Smith Richardson Foundation Texaco Philanthropic Foundation Union Carbide A dozen or so others are professional sceptic outfits, economic for their funders, if we just keep on going down the list. I especially liked this part in the link: Quote:
True. Big oil is not the only fossil fuel funding. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Opus on Mar 10th, 2009 at 12:55pm Kevin_M wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 12:30pm:
Personally I don't know why the blogger is a part of that group. That doesn't make the story about the satellite data wrong. I would have posted the link from NOAA but it is down at the moment. I also believe that big oil is doing bad things. I believe they are keeping vehicle gas mileage down. I think normal cars should be getting 50mpg and hybrids over 75mpg. Engine technology has advanced considerably in the last 25 years with no increase in gas mileage? I believe that big oil is also stopping the building of nuclear power generating plants. The no-nuke craze is over but almost nothing is being built in this country. Nuke plants may cause real global warming because of the huge amount of waste heat and water vapor they release, but that is probably what we will need soon. Paul [smiley=smokin.gif] |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 10th, 2009 at 1:33pm Opus wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 12:55pm:
Big oil has no reason to oppose nuclear power - very few electric power generators use oil, and building new nuclear plants won't cost big oil customers. Most commercial electric generators converted to coal or natural gas for economic reasons. And there is a renaissance of nuclear power on the way - I know of one that is being permitted now north of Tampa. But now people want to shut it down before it is even built, because the company has started to charge consumers for their costs, but it won't be online for several years (just upgrading power lines to handle the load will take a good chunk of time and a cost a good deal of money). In the 80s, it was concern over safety that nuked the nukes. Some of that was well founded - every single nuclear plant in the US has its own design, so what is learned from one cannot be applied to others the way that people do with jumbo jets. And some in the industry were sometimes sloppy. There are new modular units that are much better designed, and that removes many of the historical concerns. The big issue now is money - where does a utility company get $20 billion for a new plant, when the credit markets are broke and consumers are hurting and don't want to start paying now for plant that won't be delivered for 5 or 10 years?? Quote:
Much of that is from larger cars. Even the Corolla is much larger than it was decades ago. People who buy cars that are stingy on gas tend to be stingy consumers - the profit is in building larger vehicles that include theatre systems, fountains, and a full kitchen. That's what people want, that's what people pay for. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 10th, 2009 at 1:44pm Quote:
No, it isn't. George Will was wrong - the research center he tried to quote said that he is wrong and the current Arctic ice levels are significantly smaller. And more importantly, they are thinner, because they are only a year old in most places. Before the thinning started, they were 10-30 feet thick; now, not so much. So they do not represent the same resistance to change that they did 3 decades ago, when they were larger and thicker. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Bob P on Mar 10th, 2009 at 2:10pm Quote:
215'! Good thing I'm moving away from the beach and up to the Sierra. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Opus on Mar 10th, 2009 at 2:35pm monty wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 1:44pm:
Your right it was in Dec but there is no proof of that now. It could be even higher but we won't know because of the data errors. The arctic ice was even START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() Quote:
There is a British team collecting ice thickness data right now, so we will have the data in a few months. It will be slow because they are going on foot thinking the ice is too thin for vehicles. I think they will be surprised at what they find. When I first saw what the sun was doing a few years ago, I thought that the climate would start cooling down in 10 years. Last summer was so cold and wet almost nothing grew well outside. If this year is worse I will be looking into making an entire garden into a greenhouse. Then I will know my 10 year prediction was 8 years off. Paul |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Brew on Mar 10th, 2009 at 3:53pm
Here's what I don't get:
Who cares if the globe is warming, cooling or staying the same? It's all part of a geologic cycle. There is evidence galore that the earth has gone through other, more severe periods of warming and cooling. We're still here. Plants and animals are still here. They go extinct all the time. And new ones are discovered all the time, too. And I could sit in my house and mess around with the thermostat in an attempt to be able to notice a one-tenth of a degree difference in the temperature without success. And finally on to the part I REALLY don't get: Nobody can prove or disprove the fact that mankind has any significant impact on the ongoing geologic cycle of warming and cooling. Doesn't it require a huge leap of faith in one direction or the other to subscribe to either philosophy? Kind of like joining a church and reciting a creed. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Artonio on Mar 10th, 2009 at 4:02pm Brew wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 3:53pm:
I would imagine that the same argument could be made about second hand smoke causing cancer. With that in mind.. is it still okay to smoke in a car with an infant? just a thought. with warm regards, Tony |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Brew on Mar 10th, 2009 at 4:57pm
Erring on the side of caution is one thing; this is why most prudent people throw their trash in a trashcan, drive cars that get semi-decent mileage, don't dump paint thinner into the sewer, etc.
But giving up a car for a bike, throwing away your refrigerator, etc. - that's all guilt driven. Let me ask this: If Al Gore suddenly decides that global warming has reversed itself, should we all idle our cars to warm the place up a little? It is pretentious for him to claim to know the answers that even men of science cannot agree on. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Kevin_M on Mar 10th, 2009 at 5:38pm Brew wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 3:53pm:
Brew wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 4:57pm:
This is only as good as it is presently. Quote:
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Kirk on Mar 10th, 2009 at 6:00pm
Sorry Ueli but the North Pole has already been clear of ice in the summer. first time I remember it happening was in 87. Been there, did'nt get the T-Shirt. I believe its happened before that and I've seen it once since and heard of it a few times. But I can only say it happened twice that I personaly saw it. There is no reason for me to go that far North as a rule. Whether it has jack all to do with climate change I don't know. But up North it is considered rare, but not unknown to happen. In 1935 3 ships got crushed thinking that they had a clear shot one Summer going by the Pole. They were wrong.
[smiley=smokin.gif] |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Kevin_M on Mar 10th, 2009 at 6:09pm Opus wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 2:35pm:
Quote:
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() How's that prediction going for you? |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Guiseppi on Mar 10th, 2009 at 6:17pm
Those that know me know I stay out of politics as it consists of people shouting, hoping if they shout loud and long enough..they'll change someone elses minds. When the other person is too busy thinking about what their next comeback will be....to even listen to what is being shouted.
What worries me about climate change: .....if you are a republican you are required to believe it's all bull$hit, if you are a Democrat, you are required to believe it's gospel. Anytime something becomes polarized along party lines, I worry about the chances of any progress being made at discovering the truth. Joe....who will be long gone in 50-75 years but worries about what I'll leave my kids. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Mar 10th, 2009 at 6:28pm We're gonna have a record low 27 tonite. Buried in a half inch of snow yesterday. What's the correct temp supposed to be? |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Melissa on Mar 10th, 2009 at 6:47pm Kevin_M wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 6:09pm:
I think that is what Paul is getting at, that the sun is to blame for global cooling. He believes global cooling is happening, not global warming. I tend to lean toward that direction myself, as the earth is due for it. As for how much of an impact humans have on the climate, I'm sure we have some, but to be totally responsible for it makes for huge egos. :-/ Either way, I do what I can to leave less of a footprint. :) |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Kevin_M on Mar 10th, 2009 at 7:01pm Melissa wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 6:47pm:
That is why I posted the satellite and surface temp image, which contradicts. I can't view pics, so I hope it showed up. Despite any sun's net natural cooling effects, temp is not following it. BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 6:28pm:
How many postage stamps got buried? ;) |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by lashultz on Mar 10th, 2009 at 7:04pm
Wow, I think I will stay out of this discussion and veer left.
Lee |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Brew on Mar 10th, 2009 at 7:38pm
And I'm going to get my coal furnace ready - for when the word comes down that we need to heat the planet back up a little.
Does anyone know what the perfect temperature for Mother Earth is? I mean, I'll stop stoking the fire once we get close. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Jimi on Mar 10th, 2009 at 7:41pm
You better Lee. I'm keeping my eye on you. 8-)
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Opus on Mar 10th, 2009 at 10:04pm Kevin_M wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 6:09pm:
Your chart is 3 years out of date and doesn't have the corrected data. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() The theory that cosmic rays cause clouds was suppose to be tested in cycle 24 to see if the solar wind does keep cosmic rays from Earth resulting in fewer clouds but cycle 24 is so far a no show. Historical evidence shows that during the START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() Of course cosmic rays causing clouds is just a theory just as carbon dioxide causing global warming is a theory. Neither of these are facts until proven. Paul [smiley=smokin.gif] |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by stevegeebe on Mar 10th, 2009 at 11:58pm
Trying to globally legislate carbon limits is akin to outlawing volcanic eruptions....or better yet, eliminating earmarks from the budget. It's not going to happen.
Our dear Planet is overpopulated and it is directly linked our utilization of the stored energy in fossil fuels. Period. Once we use it up to the point of it becoming the new Gold, it will be over. Then you will begin to see massive deforestation that will make the destruction of the Rain Forest in South America look like a blip. Massive die-off and wars will follow. Our Planet will shed the weak of us off like a abusive parasite and She will continue to orbit around our Star as if nothing happened. Don't worry about it. Change is the only constant. Have a nice day. Steve G |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Charlie on Mar 11th, 2009 at 12:51am
Let's put it this way: The Nothwest Passage is getting too easy to navigate. Or: Fire up the SUV and don't forget to wear a beer can hat.
Charile |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Paul98 on Mar 11th, 2009 at 5:32am Brew wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 4:57pm:
Well put Brew. The tide of scientific debate is turning. The term "Global Warming" has already morphed into "Climate Change" because the evidence for man made global warming is unsound. More and more scientists are coming forward to dispute man is the driving force behind global warming. Evidence is emerging from core samples and other paleo-climatic studies that show CO2 increase lags the warming periods the earth has seen and is in fact a result of warming, not the cause. We are still coming out of an ice age that peaked 1,000s of years ago. -P. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Kevin_M on Mar 11th, 2009 at 6:25am Opus wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 10:04pm:
I see the up and down variance in annual mean within the ascending 5-year mean, which has it's dips as it continues upward, but I don't see any flat line since 2000 on the Global Land-Ocean Temperature chart. Quote:
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 11th, 2009 at 6:53am Paul98 wrote on Mar 11th, 2009 at 5:32am:
No, that is a ridiculous claim. There have always been a variety of terms - greenhouse effect, hot house effect, global change, global warming, climate change, etc. The fact that one of these is used more often than another does not signify anything about the evidence or science. That is like saying that the reason that race relations in America changed is because people switched from using the word 'negro' to 'colored' to 'black' to 'African American'. At best, such changes in the languages reflect slight changes in perception. Language changes all the time. The term climate change has become more popular for several reasons. The changes that are predicted involve more than warming - the tropics will see more rain, while many temperate areas will see an expansion of deserts. Using the word 'climate' also emphasizes the fact that the changes are long term and on average ... many in the general populace hear other terms and assume there will be a constant, even warming everywhere, which is not what the climatologists intended to communicate. The term 'warming' gives some people a warm fuzzy feeling; that is an obvious mis-communication if someone is concerned about sea levels rising several feet, or reduced food production when the human population is headed to ten billion. Paul98 wrote on Mar 11th, 2009 at 5:32am:
Well, the minority of scientists who think that humans can have no effect on climate are getting better organized and more vocal, but that is due in no small part to economic and political support (as others have pointed out in previous posts). And that statement attempts to frame the debate in terms of a straw-man argument. Most climatologists do not say that man is the 'driving force' behind climate or climate change. A more reasonable position is that that burning fossil fuel that took millions of years to accumulate in a century or two will pump up the carbon in the atmosphere, and this will cause heat to be retained in the atmosphere, which will change the climate, leading to a variety of consequences (many of which are rather negative). Paul98 wrote on Mar 11th, 2009 at 5:32am:
This lag does not disprove the simple, testable hypothesis that carbon (CO2 and methane and chlorocarbons) increase heat retention in the atmosphere (which is undoubtedly true). It does negate the observation that CO2 and methane levels are rising due to human activity. There is no reason to assume that these changes will not lead to increased heat retention in the environment. The only valid scientific questions are how much, and how fast. The fact that there has been a variable lag between CO2 and temperature in the historical record only proves that there is multiple causation in a complex system. The fact that one cause is sometimes a secondary cause does not mean that it cannot be a primary cause under other circumstances - like the rapid release of carbon that was accumulated over millions of years. 10, 50 and 100 million years ago, human contributions to erosion were insignificant. That historical record does not mean that human impacts on erosion today can be ignored - in most places, where there are people, the accelerated erosion is tied to human affairs. That does not mean that soil conservationists deny the fact that erosion can be a natural process. CO2 lags do not disprove the idea that human activity is leading to climate change; this argument has been discussed and dissected at length; it is not true. Here is one good article on that: START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Kevin_M on Mar 11th, 2009 at 7:06am
In fact, Paul (Opus), the updated information you provided abets and supports the statements Ueli (ASG) made earlier in the thread.
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Brew on Mar 11th, 2009 at 7:12am
Nobody's answered my question: What is the perfect temperature for the earth?
Once I know this, and since the fluctuation is caused by man, I can do my part to either help warm or cool things a little. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Kevin_M on Mar 11th, 2009 at 7:25am BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 6:28pm:
Quote:
Check Paul's (0pus) info. Ain't happening man. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 11th, 2009 at 9:11am Brew wrote on Mar 11th, 2009 at 7:12am:
Well, if you want to keep agriculture going at the current breadbasket locations (US Midwest, Pampas, Ukraine, and Yellow River Valleys), then it would not be a good idea to heat things up more than a degree or so. A three or four degree shift would make these areas far less suited to agriculture. The areas to the north in Canada do not have soils that are nearly so good, so it would not be a simple case of one country's loss being another's gain. Likewise, people who like mean sea level around where it is now probably want things to be about the same or cooler. Losing 2-5% of the US land mass doesn't sound like much, until you consider how many people live or work near the coast and what the value of the built environment is there. People who like eating oceanic fish also don't want much warming, as oxygen levels in the water and productivity drop with increasing temperature. Even if someone personally hates fish, about 20% of protein eaten by humans comes from the oceans, so a loss there will impact the cost of other sources of protein. Quote:
Quote:
Sure - in that scenario, 1/10th of a degree is not significant at all. But that is not what we are talking about in climate change - the average change per year may be a fraction of a degree, but over decades and centuries it is semi-cumulative and the net effect is much greater. A more relevant metaphor than your house is the human body. Body temperature is usually lowest around waking at dawn. It can go up several degrees if we are working in hot weather, or go down several degrees if we sit around in cold weather. The arms and legs vary in temperature more than the rest of the body. But if the average core temperature of the body changes by a fraction of a degree over time (as with thyroid problems or chronic fever), a person will lose or gain a lot of weight and the way their body works will change dramatically. Even though the temperature in your neck of the woods may range from -30 to 105 degrees F over the course of a year, changing the average temperature by a few degrees will lead to big changes in the amount of ice on Earth, it will change precipitation and sea levels and crop ecology in non-trivial ways. In the long run, the Earth will adapt. In the short run, some species and human societies may not. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Brew on Mar 11th, 2009 at 9:42am
So, I'll set up my Climate Change Adjustment Machine, and if you'll be so kind as to post here when we need a tweak one way or the other, I'll just flip the switch to heat or cool, depending on where we're at. It'll have a combination dirty coal furnace / internal combustion diesel engine for global warming, and a quarter-acre greenhouse with a removable top which will release oxygen into the atmosphere when cooling is needed. Since you know when each is needed, just let me know and I'll do my part.
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 11th, 2009 at 10:00am
Excellent, dude!
The available evidence suggests that rapidly burning carbon that accumulated over millions of years is enough of an influence to overcome the hypothetical global cooling (which may have happened in the last 1.3 years, although that could be a blip). So for now, the dirty coal furnace and internal combustion need to be muzzled. You'll also breathe better. I'm not sure about your greenhouse idea, but we can talk about this and other strategies in the future. :) |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Brew on Mar 11th, 2009 at 10:02am
Deal. ;)
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by FramCire on Mar 11th, 2009 at 12:21pm
I wont get into any more political threads after the way I was treated last time.
However, there is 1 simple solution that would have avoided this entire thread! DVR!!! Fast forward through commercials and you can just watch the show. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Lobster on Mar 11th, 2009 at 12:41pm Brew wrote on Mar 11th, 2009 at 10:02am:
It was 70 here yesterday. Today it is 29. Fire up the coal stoker. Keep it running until I have to drive between a pair of Corona bottles to cross the IL/WI border. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by vietvet2tours on Mar 11th, 2009 at 12:44pm
Current conditions (as of 9:53 AM) Today's forecast
°F | °C Mostly SunnyMostly Sunny -2°F Feels like: 0°F Barometer: 30.3 in steady Dewpoint: -4° Humidity: 92% Visibility: 10 miles Precip in last hr: NA Precip last 24 hrs: NA Wind: 3 mph S Sunrise: 7:34 AM Sunset: 7:14 PM UV Index: 2 Low Observed at Billings, Billings Logan International Airport. All times shown are local to Billings. Today Snow Hi: 18° Lo: 4° Snow Noon Snow Showers 2° Snow Showers 6 PM Snow Showers 16° Snow Showers 9 PM Snow Showers 11° Cows need to fart more cuz this global warming thing ain't working. Kinder gentler Potter |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Batch on Mar 11th, 2009 at 7:20pm Mrs Deej wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 10:43am:
Steph, I don’t hate Obama… There are too many good people in need of love and a helping hand to waste time hating an empty suit like him… That’s why I spend most of my time reaching out to cluster headache sufferers. I do hate what Obama and the liberals in Congress are doing to our country. I also find it terribly frightening that so many people are totally oblivious to the damage Obama and the socialist run Congress have already done to the economy and that Obama intends to do even more damage with the help of the wicked witch of the West – Pelosi, who’s out of control demands to fly around in Air Force G-5 executive jets are coming at our expense. Between the two of them and the politburo they’ve already run up enough deficit spending with the stimulus plan that your children and my grandchildren will still be paying for it long after we’re gone. That’s over $18,000 in additional taxes per household and that doesn’t include the out-year costs of increased entitlements buried in this bill that will take it to over $80,000 per household in additional taxes regardless of the income bracket… To be fair, I’m equally pissed at the three gutless RINO Senators who could have stopped this terrible plan so people could read it and the other Republicans in the House that voted to pass it. I’m also pissed that President Bush started all this with the first TARP legislation instead of backstopping US banks and financial institutions through the FDIC and Federal Reserve… This is why I would like to encourage you and any of the others who don’t understand what they are doing to all of us, to pull down and read the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 that Congress passed and Obama signed today (that President Bush promised to veto) with 8500 earmarks, that Obama promised to veto during his campaign. When you do download it, please find something we can’t live without that is worth going further in debt. You can download it at: START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() I think you’ll find the following as tragically disturbing as I do like:
We’ve too many cluster headache sufferers here in the United States now that can’t afford to pay for their own oxygen therapy or other cluster headache medications… I know… I talk with many of them on a frequent basis. Please tell me these are examples of things you truly believe is where we do not need to spend our tax dollars… If you haven’t figured it out by now, Obama only cares that he has the power to push a Marxist agenda that includes the redistribution of wealth and demonizes business with higher taxes so he can pay back and empower the unions that paid for his nomination and election. That will cost all of us in many ways. It’s also no secret that he wants to reduce the public to a welfare class that’s totally dependant on government by promising more entitlements. Read his books… Universal Health Care is a classic example. The National Coalition on Health Care at START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]()
And here’s what the faithful obamanites think when their messiah speaks about Universal Health Care as our Nation’s Capitol burns… “Why work for a living? Obama’s gonna buy my house for me and give me free medical insurance even if I don’t work… And those evil people who do work for a living… who already pay for their own house and who are already paying for their own health insurance… Well… They’re just going to have to pay for mine… “ This massive increase in entitlements makes government bigger, and that should scare the crap out of everyone. The idiots in the Senate can’t even run their own private dining room without loosing millions and they want to run ours and make us pay for their stupidity? Think about it… When things get tight financially, most of us develop and stick to a tight budge to make sure expenses don’t exceed income. So what do the idiots in Congress and the Marxist trained community organizer in the White House do… Just the opposite… Please tell me this makes any sense… While we plan our meals to ensure our families eat healthy food at reasonable price, the obamanoid tells us to sacrifice while he and his family dine on $100 a plate Kobe beef… Obama’s idea of change is the destruction of the Constitution and all it stands for. This will come at the expense of more freedoms lost. If the socialists are successful in passing the "Employee Free Choice Act" we will be on the road to socialism. The title of this bill alone should turn people’s bowels to water… What free choice? The socialists think people are too stupid to realize the title of this bill is exactly the opposite of what it says… It takes away the right to a secret ballot… That is another freedom lost! The Employee Free Choice Act will take away the right to decide whether or not to vote for a unionized workplace with a secret ballot. If passed, this bill also means union officials will get to see the employee’s names and how they voted. It also means that a union bureaucrat will get to set the labor rate and work conditions… and not the prevailing labor rate for the type work being accomplished. Taken to the next logical step, that means illegal aliens will now be paid union wages… So let’s talk about climate change… There have already been a lot of comments here in this thread that have debated the cause and effect of climate change and whether or not man plays a role. So far as rational cluster headache sufferers, we don’t appear have an answer on which we can all agree… So let’s talk more specifically about the propaganda (even during the TV program 24) where the socialists are using climate change to justify one of the most egregious pieces of appropriation legislation (That’s Congressional speak for more taxes) called CAP IN TRADE. If you think this will only apply to the big fossil fuel consuming corporations… think again… If you use electrical power to heat and run your home… YOU PAY. If you use heating oil or natural gas to warm your home… YOU PAY. If you drive a car… YOU PAY. If people really believe Obama’s lies that they won’t pay more tax if their family earns less that $250,000 I’m very sorry for them and I wish they would open their eyes. So you see, I don’t hate Obama… It is just that I still believe that Lincoln was right in his hopes that “Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.” I also believe in the Declaration of Independence that states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Finally, I believe in the guiding principles of democracy as laid down by our founding fathers in the Constitution of the United States... Not in the principles of socialism, fascism, or Marxism as espoused by the Marxist trained community organizer in the White House or the idiots in Congress. Take care, V/R, Batch |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Jimi on Mar 11th, 2009 at 7:28pm
Pete,
You're going to have a heart attack if you don't quit thinking about the things that you cannot change. You are retired. You have made yours. Help out those around you that are struggling. Enjoy what few years that you have left. Thats what I am doing. Life is too short to stroke out. I don't like it either but I'm not gonna let it control me. :P |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Batch on Mar 11th, 2009 at 8:23pm
Jimi my dear friend,
Thanks for the kind words of concern, but to do nothing is to die a thousand deaths. Pointing out the egregious acts of corrupt politicians in either party that are out to destroy our great Nation keeps my brain cells functioning properly and provides a healthy level of cardiovascular exercise... That gives me the control I need to reach out to others in need... including those in desperate need of common sense... Take care, V/R, Batch |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by stevegeebe on Mar 11th, 2009 at 8:26pm
Hey Batch..it all about the Cloward Piven Strategy.
Steve G |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 12th, 2009 at 4:41am Batch wrote on Mar 11th, 2009 at 7:20pm:
You did a good job of disproving your own point there, Batch. Other advanced countries spend half of what the US does, and they cover ALL their citizens with a decent standard of care. It amazes me that you can take that as proof for your recurrent political obsessions - if you would think about it, it shows that the current system is failing in many ways. Another great thing about our corporate health system is that if you lose your job, you lose your health care, and then the price of insurance goes way up - assuming you can find a company to cover you and not write a contract that excludes anything you have suffered from in the past!! Assuming that you can afford the insurance without a job. Why does the US spend so much more to cover only some of of its citizens? About half of every dollar of premiums that people pay them goes for actual medical services, while half goes for overhead, including advertising, sky-boxes at stadiums, and multi-million dollar bonuses for executives that outsource the customer service to third world countries. You think that private corporations are always more efficient? Guess again - there is a huge, wasteful medical bureaucracy on the private side. Government-run programs like Medicaid and Medicare are relatively lean and efficient, spending only about 5% on admin while putting 95% of each dollar to actual medical care. That's right ... the government is actually about 10 times more efficient at administering health insurance than the private sector! Because in this case, government is trying to get the job done, while the corporations are devoted to getting as much of your money as they can! |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Artonio on Mar 12th, 2009 at 4:53am
On the point of health care.. check this chart out that compares what other countries spend compared to the USA...
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() Seems like lots more cash is being spent on administrative fees here in the private sector than on actual medical fees here in the US than in other countries. oh.. and the other countries that I refer to have health care for everyone of it's citizens. with warm regards, Tony |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Batch on Mar 12th, 2009 at 5:43am
Steve,
You're right... Thanks... I was giving credit to Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel for the Strategy. Take care, V/R, Batch |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Artonio on Mar 12th, 2009 at 6:26am
here's an interesting paper put forth by the O.E.C.D concerning
Health Care Reform in The United States, It compares both Obama's Plan and McCain's plan then makes an analysis and recommendations. Interesting. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() with warm regards, Tony |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Bob P on Mar 12th, 2009 at 10:16am Quote:
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Batch on Mar 12th, 2009 at 10:30am
Nice try Monty... There you go again with the typical liberal spin… Diversion, misdirection, obfuscation, and the classic ploy… demonize the private business sector and capitalism...
I don’t recall any private hospitals with sky-boxes… They’re privately funded and they also receive a lot of private donations… or at least they did… until the messiah makes one of his more recent proclamations law in order to severely limit or eliminate tax breaks for charitable contributions to hospitals, church, OUCH, CH.com, etc… Take another sip of Kool-Aid and stroll over to the nearest VA Hospital or talk to folks who only have Medicaid. The only efficiency government run medical health care enjoys over private sector is the ease with which they reject coverage for needed medications and treatments... I take it you'd rather have idiot liberal politicians like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd overseeing Universal Health Care... These two criminals helped push the subprime lending that's resulted in the single largest and most catastrophically expensive government orchestrated screw ups in the history of the world... Having said that, we still have the best private and public health care in the world... That's probably why so many folks want to come here to take advantage of it. Your argument also fails to recognize a few very important cost drivers affecting private health care medical plans:
(I would add that as tort costs continue to climb today as our GDP shrinks so the percentage of medical costs to GDP will climb even more under the Marxist trained community organizer... ) Granted tort system costs are debatable, but that's only if you want to believe what lawyers and liberal politicians say... Illegal Aliens - The cost of treating illegal aliens has been a hot topic for years... "Illegal immigrants can get emergency care through Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor and people with disabilities. But they can't get non-emergency care unless they pay. They are ineligible for most other public benefits. Data on health care costs for illegal immigrants are sketchy because hospitals and community health centers don't ask about patients' legal status. In California, a 2004 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform put the state's annual cost at $1.4 billion. Similar studies in Colorado and Minnesota in 2005 came up with much smaller estimates: $31 million and $17 million, respectively. One thing is clear: Undocumented immigrants are driving up the number of people without health insurance. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 59% of the nation's illegal immigrants are uninsured, compared with 25% of legal immigrants and 14% of U.S. citizens. Illegal immigrants represent about 15% of the nation's 47 million uninsured people — and about 30% of the increase since 1980" - USA TODAY - CBO studies have similar figures... Illegal immigrants murder 12 Americans every 24 hours, drunk driving illegals kill 13 more a day... If the liberals get their way granting immunity to illegal aliens... health care costs to taxpayers will go up by another $2.6 Trillion... with no increase in benefits to the folks paying all the additional tax… Government Regulation of Health Care Industry - “A far more accurate “bottom-up” approach suggests that the total cost of health services regulation exceeds $339.2 billion. This figure takes into account regulation of health facilities, health professionals, health insurance, drugs and medical devices, and the medical tort system, including the costs of defensive medicine. Moreover, this approach allows for a calculation of some important tangible benefits of regulation. Yet even after subtracting $170.1 billion in benefits, the net burden of health services regulation is considerable, amounting to $169.1 billion annually. In other words, the costs of health services regulation outweigh benefits by two-to-one and cost the average household over $1,500 per year. The high cost of health services regulation is responsible for more than seven million Americans lacking health insurance, or one in six of the average daily uninsured. Moreover, 4,000 more Americans die every year from costs associated with health services regulation (22,000) than from lack of health insurance (18,000). The annual net cost of health services regulation dwarfs other costs imposed by government intervention in the health care sector. This cost exceeds annual consumer expenditures on gasoline and oil in the United States and is twice the size of the annual output of the motion picture and sound recording industries.” - CATO Institute START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() Medical Technology – This is one of the few areas where the United States still holds a clear advantage over the rest of the world… The question used to be how to control costs without sacrificing innovation that saves so many more lives. Medical technology spending comprised about 20 percent of the growth in health-care costs for the last five years, and now exceeds $200 billion annually. I say “used to be” as unfortunately the messiah wants to stifle this entrepreneurial advantage with government grants loaded with more red tape than carter’s little liver pills. Let’s save the attack on the big pharmaceutical firms and their impact on health care costs for another day… I suspect we’ll have some agreement here. In conclusion it would appear that Tort Reform, Deportation of Illegal Aliens, and Limiting Government Regulations would make health care medical plans more affordable… Hmm… on second thought, deporting tort lawyers might help too. Take care, V/R, Batch |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 12th, 2009 at 9:00pm Batch wrote on Mar 12th, 2009 at 10:30am:
You don't recall? That because you probably never heard about it. Doesn't mean it isn't happening. And I was talking about health insurance companies, not hospitals. I have close friends that worked for a major health insurance company, and close friends that still do - you have heard of this company, cause it is one of the biggies. The company has sky boxes at the local NFL franchise, where the big-wigs schmooze each other. They recently cut paid holiday for the call center workers to save $2 million, and then gave another $2 million bonus to the CEO. They told the call center workers not to get demoralized - after all, they still have jobs. Then they started outsourcing those jobs to Mexico and India. This company spends millions advertising on TV and mailing out expensive glossy magazines to people that they insure ... 99% of which are thrown away unread. At the end of the day, they charge people a dollar for health care, and give them 50 cents worth. Just like the other health insurance companies do, which leads to the US paying more and getting less. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Charlie on Mar 13th, 2009 at 10:37am
If you ask Canadians, especially, if they would give up their system for ours, the answer is: "No, no, no." The same goes for Europe, especially Sweden. In Canada and Britain, you are allowed to pay for "better" or faster service. For the polls that state otherwise, it's true that drug companies look for rare exceptions and have even paid for results that are favorable to them and lie about the numbers.
Our service here is getting crappy anyway. Too much paperwork and specialists treating patients as sources of income rather than in need of serious treatment. (I have direct experience with this with ridiculous and unnecessary testing. It's a crime) Bring on socialized medicine! :o Charlie |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Artonio on Mar 13th, 2009 at 12:25pm Batch wrote on Mar 12th, 2009 at 10:30am:
Japan's GDP towards Health care is 8% that is nearly half of what the USA pays. Japan has the longest life expectancy and the infant mortality rate is lower than that of the USA They utilize Socialized insurance. 80% of their hospitals are private which is greater than that in the USA and 80% of their doctors have private practice. As far as technology goes they have come up with ways to take an MRI for $98.00 as opposed to $1,200.00 that we pay in the USA. It seems they use technology to pass on the benefit and saving to the consumer there... we have a tendency to use technology to make a few people wealthy here. We are supposed to be God Fearing Humanitarians... sadly that is often confused with, Let's see how many pieces of paper we can accumulate with the words "In God We Trust" emblazoned on it... "I think some people are under the impression that God finds favor on those who have accumulated the most of these little pieces of paper. ...and as far as the illegal immigrants go... I know personally quite a few conservatives that have absolutely no problem... hiring them for a lesser wage. I guess they think they're doing us a favor. Wrong... they're doing their wallet a favor. with warm regards, Tony |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 13th, 2009 at 1:44pm Batch wrote on Mar 12th, 2009 at 10:30am:
Yes, but you mislead. That number is for the entire tort system - medical malpractice is a minority of that. Torts include: Auto Accidents - a third of all tort activity. When that teenager rear ended me, it cost $2000 to fix my car. If the insurance companies can agree on who pays, no tort. If they can't agree, or if the person who hit me didn't have insurance, a tort is needed. If that kid had seriously injured or killed me, it could have generated several million dollars of tort damages. Is that something that should be outlawed? Maybe the people that are paralyzed from a car collision should be told to stop faking it and go get a job, instead of being a burden to society for the rest of their lives? Asbestos - companies that knowingly exposed workers to deadly asbestos are now paying for it. Good thing. It also encourages other companies to not act in the same way. Commercial torts - protection of trademarks, copyright, patents, and other intellectual property. More often than not, this is a corporation suing a corporation or individual. Tobacco - another multibillion tort. The most recent big case demonstrated that the industry they developed 'light' cigarettes to persuade smokers to keep smoking, even though the tobacco industry knew that these did not lower the risks. Corporate corruption - When execs illegally backdate options and skim money, the remedy is tort action. When Enron collapsed, a tort was necessary to try and recover some of the lost billions. Ever hear of Bernie Madoff? Exposing his fraud will generate a wee bit of tort activity. Does it bother you that companies sometimes conspire to fix prices and charge you more money? Tort may be needed to recover damages and set penalties. Medical device and prescription drug litigation - when companies conceal studies showing a danger and people are injured or die, the only way to recover damages is a lawsuit. More tort activity. Medical malpractice - another area where tort is necessary. Why should an incompetent doctor not be held responsible if he is negligent and injures or kills someone?? There is a movement to turn tort into a bad word. Won't work. A tort is defense against certain types of action: Negligence, intentional harm to a person, intentional harm to tangible property, strict liability, nuisance, harm to economic interests, and harm to intangible property interests. If you want to protect yourself against such damages, you need the ability to file a tort lawsuit. I would argue that tort reform is needed to increase (at least initially) the number of lawsuits related to medical care. Under current law, HMOs are not accountable for bad decisions that injure or kill people: Quote:
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Brew on Mar 13th, 2009 at 1:51pm Charlie wrote on Mar 13th, 2009 at 10:37am:
Let's ask the Canadians here. What say you, eh? |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Artonio on Mar 13th, 2009 at 2:07pm Brew wrote on Mar 13th, 2009 at 1:51pm:
I'd also like to hear how people from Canada as well as other countries feel about their Healthcare. with warm regards, Tony |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Bob P on Mar 13th, 2009 at 2:25pm Quote:
The illegals are leftovers from FDR's Bracero Program, to bring Mexican field workers north of the border to fill in for the field workers gone off to fight WWII. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Artonio on Mar 13th, 2009 at 2:49pm Bob P wrote on Mar 13th, 2009 at 2:25pm:
... wouldn't that make them a little too old to be working the fields today? Immigration laws are immigration laws. When my parents came to this country in the '20s through ellis island... they had to follow the laws. They had to become naturalized through a series of processes. I agree that this should still be the case. I find it confusing though when a high percentage of the very people who scream loudest about what a drain the illegals are on or economy and health care actively with warm regards, Tony |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 13th, 2009 at 2:58pm |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by MJ on Mar 13th, 2009 at 3:28pm Artonio wrote on Mar 13th, 2009 at 2:07pm:
As long as your discussing insurance and health care costs. A subject close to me. Its tough for others to make a comparison without some data. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() I think this site has erred on the very conservative side. I also think that unless someone has to cover there own health ins. costs its pretty tough to understand the situation fully. If you have corporate or government insurances, military care or welfare assistance one cant know the extent of the problem. As the operator of a smaller business: The coverage for my family of 7 wich is through 2 different insurance providers to get the best current coverage runs at 1,560.00 dollars per month or $18,720 per year. We have a 3000.00 dollar deduction on mine and 1500 each for the kids and wife. So before any payout from the insurance company in a given year we have to spend $30,720.00, that is just under the average wages in this country. We have seen an increase in cost every year amounting to some 5-6% We have met our deductions 3 years running. We have no dental or optical care and that easily runs up another 6-10k per year. The policies have a cap of 1 million and 2 mill for me. After that its all out of pocket. In the event of a catastophic illness we be F---ed Oh but we can see whatever docs we want. So on health care its easy to understand why so many in this country cant even begin to afford quality or any kind of health care for that matter. Especially among the unemployed or self employed. I have it good compared to many I have talked with. with less than 20 our employess must contribute a substantial sum to get insurance or we dont provide, fortunately many of their partners are employed by governmental associations, state and schools, where they get free coverage with minimal deductions. If the current administration can find a way out of this health care mess at any cost I am 100% for it. GO OBAMA and company. HEALTH CARE FOR ALL!!!!!!!!! I really care not so much about any other political issue out there, except bringing business back to America. Controlling health care costs will help. Our K-12 education is socialized. One would think at the least our children could get the health care they need. A family has to make well over 80k to live anymore and remain healthy in the US. on their own, or under 16K to get assistance. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Bob P on Mar 13th, 2009 at 5:14pm Quote:
Chester may have been the first illegal immigrant but FDR opened the flood gates. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Batch on Mar 13th, 2009 at 6:40pm
Well… There you go again Monty… Spin away from the tort facts... And I knew about the corporate sponsored sky-boxes… I purposely left them out of my response as bait… and you jumped on it like a hawk on a June bug…
I’ve really got to thank you for being such a great straight man and for being so honest in bringing out two of the most deeply rooted pillars of the liberal mantra… Demonizing Big Corporations and The Destruction of Capitalism. Liberals demonize big business and the managers who run them for the simple reason that they can’t control them. Liberals despise capitalism for the same reason and they think their socialist ways of running government are more efficient so they should be applied to the publicly held business corporations as well. Liberals must be in control… That’s the fundamental tenet of Socialism, Fascism, and Marxism. These ideologies profess that people should have the power not big business who use the principals capitalism and a free market… but the liberal elite thinkers who know better must lead the people. The liberal elite know best who the evil capitalists are that make people work for the big corporations that don’t pay people enough money… That’s why liberals want to empower the unions… to make sure the people get paid more money for their work instead of letting free market forces determine the wage. Above all, the liberal elite want to destroy capitalism and the evil CEOs who run these big corporations. Please don’t get me wrong, I’m just as passionate as you are in ferreting out white-collar corruption and I’m relieved to see Madoff is finally in jail for keeps. His theft of over $65 Billion dollars has permanently damaged the lives of thousands of investors including major retirement funds and charities that serve hundreds of thousands of people. Madoff’s was the single most costly white-collar crime in the history of the stock market and he’ll stay in prison for the rest of his life. I’m sure you’ll agree with me that all white-collar criminals should be treated the same way. Moreover, I think you’ll also agree that the Justice department should go after Madoff’s wife and the rest of his family for aiding and abetting him during this crime. They are just as guilty as a bank robber’s getaway driver, so they should be stripped of their ill-gotten gains from Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and sent to prison as well. So let’s get back to those evil publicly owned health care corporations and the evil capitalists who run them that you feel are so inefficient and so crass as to outsource their labor and only give policy holders fifty cents worth of care for every dollar paid in health care insurance premiums… Why did these evil health care corporations outsource so many positions overseas? The answer is simple. Big government taxes these health care corporations at the highest corporate tax rate in the world… 35%, and big government wants to enact even more tax through Cap and Trade, and that doesn’t include the state and local taxes these evil health care corporations must pay. In order to stay in business, these healthcare corporations must reduce labor costs by outsourcing the labor off shore in order to operate at a profit and not go out of business… That my friend, is Business Administration 101… Have you called the airlines lately and spoken to someone in India… How about calling Microsoft tech support? Hmm answered in India too… Dell Computer or HP? India… I’m confident you can call just about any major US based corporation and find some of their support has been outsourced off shore for the same reason… These corporations want to stay in business and not go into bankruptcy like GM or Chrysler will be forced to because they let the unions set the extravagant wages, retirement, and health care benefits. So let’s get back to the health care policyholder that only gets 50 cents worth of health care out of every dollar paid for health insurance… Right away we can see that 35 cents worth of the health care he didn’t get for his dollar went to the federal government in the form of corporate income tax. Another 5 to 7 cents went to State and local corporate income tax… Hmmm… Now that evil health care corporation is down to 8 to 10 cents profit on every dollar it earned in sales of medical insurance premiums… In reality, these evil health care corporations get to keep even less in profit… Let’s take the big dog and most evil of all the publicly traded managed health care corporations, UnitedHealth Group (UNH). As you can see from the financial chart below, UNH managed a net profit margin of 3.67% START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() Wow… The evil owners of UNH made $81.19 Billion dollars in total sales, but the federal government came along and took $28.42 Billion dollars in corporate tax off the top… And the State and local tax collectors took another $4 Billion dollars. Somewhere in there, the UNH management had to pay for their employees and all the other overhead costs… and of course they had to pay for the medical procedures and medications the policyholder needed… When all is said and done, UNH got to keep $2.98 Billion dollars in profit… Or did they? Well not exactly… START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() As you can see from the chart above, as a publicly traded managed health care corporation it’s the shareholders that own 99% of UNH… The “insiders” that include members of the UNH board of directors, CEO, COO, CFO and other corporate officers own 1%. So who really owns UNH? Well, as you can see the biggest shareholders are institutional investors and mutual funds… And who are these institutions… why these are the firms that manage the retirement funds, 401k, and IRAs that the people expect to draw on after they retire because they know they can’t live on Social Security… Hmmm interesting… And who owns the mutual funds??? Why the people do… At least the people who worked for a living and saved their money so they could invest in UNH or a mutual fund… BTW… If you check the 10 Largest Publicly Traded Managed Care Companies at the following link and look up their financial statements, you’ll find they all operate with around a 4% profit margin. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() So let’s get this straight… The people that earned the money and took the risk of investing it either directly in UNH, or a mutual fund… only to have the federal government that takes no risks, come along and tax the dividends from UNH or the mutual funds as regular income, and then the federal government taxes any profits from the sales of shares in either as capital gains at the present rate of 15%... So the federal government gets to eat into the profits too… But wait… The Marxist trained community organizer in the White House thinks a 15% capital gains tax rate is too low… He wants to take more money from the people who invested in UNH… He wants to raise the capital gains tax to 20% and take the extra tax revenue he takes from the UNH investors and give it to other people who don’t work and illegal aliens so he can redistribute wealth… or use it to make a down payment on Universal Health Care… How egalitarian… Well no… that’s actually Socialism, Fascism, or Marxism depending on how you see it… but it sure as hell isn’t Capitalism. So how does the Marxist trained community organizer in the White House plan to do that without raising any “new tax” on people earning less than $250,000 as he promised… Simple… he tells princess Pelosi and her politburo to let the Bush tax cuts on an “old tax” expire at the end of 2010… and that lets the anointed one hold his nose high and claim he’s kept his campaign promise… What a clever devil… How honorable… BTW, if you want to see what letting the Bush tax cuts expire will cost you in increased capital gains tax… go to the following link, but remember that’s not the only tax cut that expires: START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() Ah… You probably thought I forgot about the sky-box and all the slick glossy flyers the evil health care corporation purchased… Well that’s called advertising… You see in a free market where evil health care corporations compete with each other for customers… (and the operable word here is competition), the company that offers the best health care plan at the lowest price gets the most clients… That’s if they’re able to advertise that advantage to potential buyers of their health care services. A lot of people owe their jobs to these advertising costs… The Ad firm, the printers, all the good people that work at the stadium cleaning and servicing the sky-box… And you want to put all these good people out of work because you don’t think the evil health care corporation should be allowed to advertise? Now you claim that government can provide health care more efficiently, so lets look at the Veterans Administration. This is health care run by the federal government… According to their own report, the VA received appropriations of $92.7 Billion dollars in 2008. They also had, collections totaling $2.4 billion in 2008. Their own report also states that VA facilities treated a total of 5,500,000 patients in 2008. Doing the simple math… ($95.1 Billion VA Cost/5.5 million patients treated at all VA facilities)… Well… that works out to an equivalent insurance cost per year, per VA patient of $17,290. That’s not very efficient when you compare it to the average annual cost of $7900* per person in managed health care premiums paid to the evil publicly owned health care corporations… Again, I suggest you talk with any patient treated at the nearest VA facility and ask them what they thought of the health care they received… * The National Coalition on Health Care START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() Getting back to the evil CEOs who cheat their people and the share holders who own their publicly traded corporations… What would you say should be done with an evil CEO of a failing corporation that lost over $21 billion that also handed out over $3 Billion dollars in bonuses a week before being taken over by another corporation that received $24 Billion in bailout money? Someone should go to jail… Right? And how about another evil CEO and two other evil senior officers that cooked the accounting books to show a significantly higher profit than an actual loss so they could make their performance goals and be paid handsome bonuses? What should be done to that evil CEO who cooked the books in order to receive a total compensation of $91.1 million that including $52.6 million in bonuses for doing this; and his CFO who earned $30.8 million that including $16.8 million in bonuses who helped him; and a third officer who received $7.3 million, of which some $3.5 million was bonus money, who also helped? I think you’ll agree with me, these three criminals should be brought to trial, and if found guilty, they should be stripped of the nearly $130 Million in ill-gotten gains and be sent to prison like Madoff… Right? That would be justice wouldn’t it? Well… not so fast. What if these last three evil capitalists got off with just a kiss… That would be a travesty of justice and I’m sure that like me, you would want more punitive action taken against these evil corporate capitalists and white-collar criminals. But what if one of the evil corporate capitalists was none other than Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2004 who directed the purchase of over half of the toxic subprime loans to meet his bonus quota… What if this subprime experiment in social engineering resulted in the largest financial crisis in the history of the world… and that this crisis has already cost us over $2 Trillion dollars… not to mention the loss of half our 401k and IRAs And what if Rains’ getaway drivers were none other than Senator Chris Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank… Chairman of two most powerful housing and banking committees charged with the responsibility to oversee the operation of Fannie Mae… And what if Raines made political contributions to these two… And what if the top three recipients of his political contributions were Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and none other than the Marxist trained community organizer now in the White House? Think about it… Think about honor, principals, and values… Think about what’s best for our great Nation… Then Act! Take care, V/R, Batch |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Artonio on Mar 13th, 2009 at 7:32pm
I guess it all boils down to this... is health care a human right or should someone make a profit from human suffering. Is it reasonable to have people refused healthcare because of the bottom line? Should the citizens of this great country be sacrificed, disregarded and left to die because a corporation finds it to be more cost effective to pursue the best business plan?
That is the equivalent to a self imposed spontaneous abortion IMO. What would one think of a pregnant woman who refuses to feed herself because she would rather buy the latest fashion... or stock-pile her money away? I'd imagine that one would ask if she were sane... one certainly would be compelled to act on behalf of the un-born child. I really don't see how in a civilized world any health care should be "for profit" . I also believe steps should be taken with every aspect of the healthcare industry to cap costs, remove taxes, and offer subsidized education. Variations on this theme seems to work in other in countries to a lesser or greater extent. After health is maintained and the key focus... the population will then flourish... with their vim and vigor... they can skip along the malls and markets shopping their little hearts out. just a thought. with warm regards, Tony |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by cavalier on Mar 13th, 2009 at 8:23pm
Has 24 got keefer in it, have'nt watched it to comment but it must be close to your heart, or soul!
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Batch on Mar 13th, 2009 at 9:16pm
Yuppers
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 13th, 2009 at 9:42pm Batch wrote on Mar 13th, 2009 at 6:40pm:
Batch - again you have typed on your keyboard, and again the over-sized letters that came out demonstrate that you have no grasp of the truth. You retreat to simplistic cliches and ideological hyperbole. The company that has sport boxes in the stadiums and is outsourcing jobs doesn't pay any taxes!! So how is big government to blame for all the things that they do? It is officially a non-profit corporation, but it still manages to pay its executives millions and treat the average person like shit. It is still moving jobs overseas. You can't blame government for that. Wait, you can, because you don't need to connect your rhetoric to reality. And how do you use your theories of "Big Government = Evil; Private Sector=Good" to explain the situation MJ described?? Or my friend who applied to 11 insurance companies and was denied 11 times because his a doctor saw a suspicious mole and said "It's probably nothing, but lets take it off to be safe." Every company my friend applied to said that since the doctor didn't do a biopsy, he couldn't prove he didn't have skin cancer and should not get coverage. Here's a Econ 101 term for you: "market failure." It occurs when allocation of goods and services by the market are markedly sub-optimal. That's what we have with health insurance today. If the market was working, people and employers wouldn't want to change it. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by purpleydog on Mar 14th, 2009 at 1:01pm Quote:
Batch, you have your numbers wrong. Looking at the link you provided, START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() "In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5.0 percent – two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700." This doesn't include what the employer paid. You still want to compare it to what the average COST per patient is at the VA? You mean actual costs for healthcare, right, or did you get the two distinctly different figures confused? Currently, according to your link, the average yearly premium paid by the worker for a family of 4 is more than a full time minimum wage job. No wonder people can't afford health insurance. And asking our vets about the quality of health care received at a VA facility, I suppose you could ask any insured person the same question. Either it sucks, or it doesn't. In my experience, it depends on the facility... for either. Quote:
Part of the reason we have skilled trades, is because of the labor unions. The unions fight for a fair wage, they fight for health care, they train the people in their trades. They try to keep jobs in this country. And because of the trade unions, the people who belong to them make a halfway decent living. They don't have to worry about living at the poverty level with 3 kids to support. They are in a retirement plan. They have health insurance. These people aren't getting rich. Far from it. These people are known to you as the working class. Otherwise, the people left over making minimum wage can't afford insurance. How will that affect the profitability of health care? |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Kevin_M on Mar 14th, 2009 at 4:05pm Batch wrote on Mar 13th, 2009 at 6:40pm:
Batch, I seem to be of the impression that profits are taxed, not total revenue. Being that income before taxes for UNH in 2008 was $4.624 billion, and after tax income was $2.977 billion, that would leave taxes paid of $1.647 billion, which is 35% of $4.624 billion. Could you please reconcile this figure with the corporate taxes you say they paid of $28.42 billion? Because... Batch wrote on Mar 13th, 2009 at 6:40pm:
if your figure is incorrect, then this information given is also incorrect. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Opus on Mar 14th, 2009 at 9:09pm purpleydog wrote on Mar 14th, 2009 at 1:01pm:
Thanks Chris, I couldn't have said it better myself. Paul [smiley=smokin.gif] |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Batch on Mar 15th, 2009 at 10:20am
monty wrote Mar 13th, 2009, 9:42pm
Quote:
There you go again Monty... More spin, redirection, obfuscation, and fear-mongering... The truth about liberal criminals is hard to take isn't it? I guess you and Maxine Waters are of like mind... Franklin Raines is the liberal’s hero for buying half the existing subprime loans that have destroyed Fannie May and forced it into government hands, and so are Dodd and Frank for making this experiment in social engineering possible at a cost of over $2 Trillion dollars. How’s that for truth? It’s also a matter of record. It’s amazing how they’ve kept themselves out of jail… It appears the law and justice don’t apply when liberals commit crimes… That must be why we have a tax cheat as the Secretary of the Treasury and head of the IRS in TurboTax Geithner… (another matter of record) And, as it appears there are crooks in both the private sector and in government… evil isn’t exclusive. As far as the health care debate goes…. There’s also no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to health care… Somebody has to pay the bill. Even liberals know that… You pay for what you get… That is unless you can legislate everyone else to pay for your health care when nobody is looking... Affordable health care a complex issue, but it can be solved. The real question is the fundamental principals and ideologies upon which we base the solution. On one hand we have the liberals who want to take us to a socialist state that trashes the Constitution and takes away freedoms. On the other we have the conservatives who want to use a free market approach that upholds the fundamental principals, rights and freedoms laid down in the Constitution. If you want to come to the table to work on that solution, then we check our guns at the door and sit under one or the other of two big signs that lets all concerned know our allegiance and goals… One sign reads “I believe in the principals and freedoms of democracy laid down by our Nation’s founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.” The other sign reads “I believe in the principals of Socialism and I want the United States to be under Socialist rule.” MJ brings up some good empirical examples on health care costs. Although I disagree with his concluding solution, I can see from his viewpoint where more affordable health care insurance is clearly desirable. We all want that. I happen to think this can be accomplished without committing to Universal health care. My sister works in a large hospital in Long Beach, CA in the insurance office so is very familiar with the different premium rates and the common problems many face. She’s been to several seminars on managed health care and suggested the National Coalition on Health Care figure I used in the previous post… The $7900 annual cost is an average for individual coverage as costs vary considerably from state to state. The average cost for a family of four is $12,700. For the purpose of my argument in comparing the relative efficiencies as a function of cost between government and private managed health care, MJ’s figures are more than adequate and they still make my point. Government run health care is still less efficient and more expensive. My family owned and ran a small business that delivered gasoline and heating oil for over 40 years so I also understand MJ’s situation. Between the Teamster’s Union and the Sheet Metal Workers Union, we were forced to pay union sponsored health care premiums that cost twice what we paid for our own coverage and we owned the company. These costs made capital improvements all but impossible for many years. As a result, we had the oldest delivery trucks in the area. The only way we could make ends meet was to provide the very best service and have non-union family member/owners make deliveries after the union drivers clocked out for the day and on weekends. We always had a delivery truck staged at home and when the business phone rang at home after normal business hours… one of us ran out of the house jumped in the truck and made the delivery. I went on several dates in high school in one of our delivery trucks. It was always a hoot to pull up to the local A&W to order burgers & fries. You see I am willing to debate the issue of Universal Health Care, but the liberal elite in congress don’t want that debate. They think this is too important a decision for the people to make so they found it necessary to hide that legislation that makes it law in a Trojan Horse bill called the ARRA Stimulus Act that nobody could read before they voted. I see it as just the opposite… I think the issue of Universal Health Care is too important for the idiots in Congress to have a say… After all, if liberals can empower women with the freedom of choice to abort over 50 million babies before they could be born, why can’t this same freedom of choice be granted to the people so they can decide for themselves on the type of health care they want. Monty… You’re not going to tell me that the freedom of choice is a right that liberals grant on a selective basis are you? Nobody gets turned away from an ER… even illegal aliens get treated and few ever pay… that is unless they tried to go to the University of Chicago Medical Center where David Axelrod and Michelle Obama cooked up a plan that steered patients who don’t have private insurance — primarily poor, black people — to other health care facilities… I got that from several RNs and Doctors at NIH… All with over 25 years experience in government and private hospitals… Given the health care experience and examples set by FLOTUS… you better be careful in what you wish for in Universal Health Care… You bring up a good point in "market failure.” When a company delivers goods or services to the market with poor quality and value, people don’t buy them… and when there are no sales, the company goes out of business. That’s free market capitalism at it’s finest. Unfortunately from Political Science 101… when a government program fails… the people who work for a living just have to keep paying more tax for it… That’s kind of like the war on poverty… It’s been 45 years of mostly liberal controlled congress since Johnson declared war on poverty… and we still haven’t won… yet that war has cost taxpayers over $10 Trillion dollars and the liberals don’t even have an exit strategy. Oh yes… The over-sized letters… There’s a simple explanation and it’s not for emphasis… I’m blind in one eye and although I’ve 20/20 vision in the good eye, that’s only at distance. The over-sized letters make it easier for me make sure I address points properly… BTW… Vision in the good eye is still sharp enough to spot liberal spin and socialist propaganda… and it won’t go unchallenged… Kevin_M, Regarding my UNH calculation… You’re right, I screwed the pooch. However in looking at the Jan 2009 SEC filings by UNH it appears they delivered 82 cents worth of MEDICAL COSTS on each dollar of medical insurance PREMIUMS paid… That’s even better than the 50 cents on the dollar we used to start this part of the thread. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() I don’t know about you but I think this is exactly the kind of dialog we need. Lets try to measure apples to apples on the overall cost for starters as an objective measurement of comparing the relative efficiencies between government and private health care. I don’t have a good answer on comparing the relative worth of the actual health care as delivered to the recipient, as that would appear to be far more subjective in nature. Having said that, let’s see if such a measure exists. The UNH SEC filing is at the following link. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() Take care, V/R, Batch Correction 2: Medical Tort Costs for 2008 = $30.4 Billion – CBO |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by HSJones on Mar 15th, 2009 at 11:05am
Every American should get health care, no matter whether they are rich or poor. I would rather have the "evil" socialized medical system, as virutally all of western Europe has than the system that we now have, which is no system. By the way, haven't you noticed that the value of the dollar has sunk to all time lows against the Euro? Have you ever lived or even visited Europe? The people live well and don't have to worry about losing their apartment or house if the major earner gets seriously ill and the kids don't go hungry. It seems that you would rather have high company profits than healthy people. One more thing: PLEASE stop writing in bold case letters, it hurts the eyes. Thanks. And please stop writing such long posts, they are really boring-learn to edit and not just copy from whomever has taken over from the John Birch Society. Thanks again. ;)
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Brew on Mar 15th, 2009 at 11:25am HSJones wrote on Mar 15th, 2009 at 11:05am:
I disagree. Quote:
I agree. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Marc on Mar 15th, 2009 at 12:02pm Brew wrote on Mar 15th, 2009 at 11:25am:
And I agree with you, Sir - but I'm pulling out of these posts. Batch is wasting his time and effort. In today's America, people who are either unwilling or unable to earn what they feel that they deserve, will demand to take it from others who have it. Respectfully, Marc |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Batch on Mar 15th, 2009 at 2:25pm
HSJ,
Welcome to CH.com! You bring up a good point that probably needs to be clarified... I've never said people should go without health care. Moreover, I'm of the opinion that health care can be made available to all "US citizens" without incurring the terrible expense of Government run Universal Health Care. The cost of Government run Universal Health Care once added to existing government spending, will add Trillions of dollars to the present 40% of our GDP now spent by big government and that will put us ahead of the European average at 47% of their GDP going to government. On cost alone that will make us more socialist than most of the countries in Western Europe. That level of horrific spending will also cause the value of our dollar to drop like a rock. Regarding my travels... With 24 years Naval Service, I've had the opportunity to travel all over the Western Pacific, East Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. I was stationed in Japan with my family living there for nearly 4 years while I was flying fighters off the Carrier USS Midway so I've had the opportunity to visit and in some cases fly over Japan, South Korea, South and North Vietnam, the Philippines, Australia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Iran (before they held our embassy folks hostage). After I retired from the Navy , I spent the next 15 years traveling all over the world as a communications engineer with working visits up and down the Amazon to Brazil, Colombia, and Peru. I also added working trips to the UK, Germany, the BENELUX, Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway. On balance, I found our system of government far better than in any country I've visited and I had just about everyone I spoke with on this topic in agreement telling me the same thing. As my work frequently involved visits to US embassies, I also found there were a lot of good people willing to wait in line to become US citizens if that's any measure. I agree my posts are too lengthy... I'll try to overcome my urge to shoot into a target rich environment. Sorry if my visual impairment causes you grief... I'm zoomed into the max my browser permits... Perhaps you can zoom out with cntl (-). I've dialed it down a notch and picked up some new 4x cheaters... Take care and again, Welcome to CH.com V/R, Batch |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Brew on Mar 15th, 2009 at 2:42pm
Batch - By changing your font style, I believe you have acquiesced too easily and too soon. When I see that big, bold typeface, I know I'm about to read something of substance.
I vote no. Don't do it. "Don't go changin' to try to please me. Don't change the color of your We want size 18. We want size 18. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by wildhaus on Mar 15th, 2009 at 3:10pm HSJones wrote on Mar 15th, 2009 at 11:05am:
So Pete if I ask you to become a Socialist flame bayonet will reciprocate? as fast as you did for the request above..... It will make life, some what boring for Monty..... and deny me an interesting and educational discussion..... So Pete, as Brew posted "Don't go changin' " Michael |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 15th, 2009 at 4:07pm Batch wrote on Mar 15th, 2009 at 10:20am:
Apologies - I don't know how I got the idea that you were yelling. ;) Do you use Firefox? That browser has a function where you can increase the size of text as big as you need. Just hit ctrl and + at the same time, as many times as you need to get things pleasantly re-sized. This has a big advantage over your current method, as it resizes everything you read (not just your own posts) - and it keeps reading more consistent for others. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Linda_Howell on Mar 15th, 2009 at 4:35pm
I agree with Jimi.
Just for giggles I "googled "political debate forums and came up with Eleventy-trillion of them, and I'll betcha not one persons ideas, thoughts or opinions were changed one single iota on any one of them. jest sayin... |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Artonio on Mar 15th, 2009 at 5:41pm
Below is a brief description of Healthcare services adopted in five other countries, Each country is similar in as much as they are wealthy free markets and democracies.
The USA is currently using a GDP of 16.5 and not all of it's citizens are covered. Use the brief description below to compare to your health care policy. __________________________________________________ UNITED KINGDOM: Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on health care: 8.3 Average family premium: None; funded by taxation. Co-payments: None for most services; some co-pays for dental care, eyeglasses and 5 percent of prescriptions. Young people and the elderly are exempt from all drug co-pays. What is it? The British system is "socialized medicine" because the government both provides and pays for health care. Britons pay taxes for health care, and the government-run National Health Service (NHS) distributes those funds to health care providers. Hospital doctors are paid salaries. General practitioners (GPs), who run private practices, are paid based on the number of patients they see. A small number of specialists work outside the NHS and see private-pay patients. How does it work? Because the system is funded through taxes, administrative costs are low; there are no bills to collect or claims to review. Patients have a "medical home" in their GP, who also serves as a gatekeeper to the rest of the system; patients must see their GP before going to a specialist. GPs, who are paid extra for keeping their patients healthy, are instrumental in preventive care, an area in which Britain is a world leader. What are the concerns? The stereotype of socialized medicine -- long waits and limited choice -- still has some truth. In response, the British government has instituted reforms to help make care more competitive and give patients more choice. Hospitals now compete for NHS funds distributed by local Primary Care Trusts, and starting in April 2008 patients are able to choose where they want to be treated for many procedures. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JAPAN Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 8 Average family premium: $280 per month, with employers paying more than half. Co-payments: 30 percent of the cost of a procedure, but the total amount paid in a month is capped according to income. What is it? Japan uses a "social insurance" system in which all citizens are required to have health insurance, either through their work or purchased from a nonprofit, community-based plan. Those who can't afford the premiums receive public assistance. Most health insurance is private; doctors and almost all hospitals are in the private sector. How does it work? Japan boasts some of the best health statistics in the world, no doubt due in part to the Japanese diet and lifestyle. Unlike the U.K., there are no gatekeepers; the Japanese can go to any specialist when and as often as they like. Every two years the Ministry of Health negotiates with physicians to set the price for every procedure. This helps keeps costs down. What are the concerns? In fact, Japan has been so successful at keeping costs down that Japan now spends too little on health care; half of the hospitals in Japan are operating in the red. Having no gatekeepers means there's no check on how often the Japanese use health care, and patients may lack a medical home. -------------------------------------------------------------------- GERMANY Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 10.7 Average family premium: $750 per month; premiums are pegged to patients' income. Co-payments: 10 euros ($15) every three months; some patients, like pregnant women, are exempt. What is it? Germany, like Japan, uses a social insurance model. In fact, Germany is the birthplace of social insurance, which dates back to Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. But unlike the Japanese, who get insurance from work or are assigned to a community fund, Germans are free to buy their insurance from one of more than 200 private, nonprofit "sickness funds." As in Japan, the poor receive public assistance to pay their premiums. How does it work? Sickness funds are nonprofit and cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions; they compete with each other for members, and fund managers are paid based on the size of their enrollments. Like Japan, Germany is a single-payment system, but instead of the government negotiating the prices, the sickness funds bargain with doctors as a group. Germans can go straight to a specialist without first seeing a gatekeeper doctor, but they may pay a higher co-pay if they do. What are the concerns? The single-payment system leaves some German doctors feeling underpaid. A family doctor in Germany makes about two-thirds as much as he or she would in America. (Then again, German doctors pay much less for malpractice insurance, and many attend medical school for free.) Germany also lets the richest 10 percent opt out of the sickness funds in favor of U.S.-style for-profit insurance. These patients are generally seen more quickly by doctors, because the for-profit insurers pay doctors more than the sickness funds. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TAIWAN Percentage GDP spent on health care: 6.3 Average family premium: $650 per year for a family for four. Co-payments: 20 percent of the cost of drugs, up to $6.50; up to $7 for outpatient care; $1.80 for dental and traditional Chinese medicine. There are exemptions for major diseases, childbirth, preventive services, and for the poor, veterans, and children. What is it? Taiwan adopted a "National Health Insurance" model in 1995 after studying other countries' systems. Like Japan and Germany, all citizens must have insurance, but there is only one, government-run insurer. Working people pay premiums split with their employers; others pay flat rates with government help; and some groups, like the poor and veterans, are fully subsidized. The resulting system is similar to Canada's -- and the U.S. Medicare program. How does it work? Taiwan's new health system extended insurance to the 40 percent of the population that lacked it while actually decreasing the growth of health care spending. The Taiwanese can see any doctor without a referral. Every citizen has a smart card, which is used to store his or her medical history and bill the national insurer. The system also helps public health officials monitor standards and effect policy changes nationwide. Thanks to this use of technology and the country's single insurer, Taiwan's health care system has the lowest administrative costs in the world. What are the concerns? Like Japan, Taiwan's system is not taking in enough money to cover the medical care it provides. The problem is compounded by politics, because it is up to Taiwan's parliament to approve an increase in insurance premiums, which it has only done once since the program was enacted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SWITZERLAND Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 11.6 Average monthly family premium: $750, paid entirely by consumers; there are government subsidies for low-income citizens. Co-payments: 10 percent of the cost of services, up to $420 per year. What is it? The Swiss system is social insurance like in Japan and Germany, voted in by a national referendum in 1994. Switzerland didn't have far to go to achieve universal coverage; 95 percent of the population already had voluntary insurance when the law was passed. All citizens are required to have coverage; those not covered were automatically assigned to a company. The government provides assistance to those who can't afford the premiums. How does it work? The Swiss example shows that universal coverage is possible, even in a highly capitalist nation with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. They can make money on supplemental insurance, however. As in Germany, the insurers negotiate with providers to set standard prices for services, but drug prices are set by the government. What are the concerns? The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world -- but it's still far cheaper than U.S. health care. Drug prices are still slightly higher than in other European nations, and even then the discounts may be subsidized by the more expensive U.S. market, where some Swiss drug companies make one-third of their profits. In general, the Swiss do not have gatekeeper doctors, although some insurance plans require them or give a discount to consumers who use them. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- source: START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() with warm regards, Tony |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by cavalier on Mar 15th, 2009 at 7:56pm
Do you know the doctors here earn upto £150000 per year if they can prove they have done some preventative work.
An example, when i went to the docs last year i saw a newbie, I thought wow! she's taken my blood pessure, asked me to cough( not sure about that one but it was quite nice) sent me for blood tests and i felt like she really cared, then i read if they can show some improvement in my wellbeing and yearly checks she would be in for a bonus to take her to the limit of 150k Think i should have trained to be a Doctor rather than an Engineer Same amount of traning but less money in my pocket. You know! we kiss the medical arses for their expertise but its only because its tangable, there are plenty of Professions that save lives and look after the health and welfare of the world but its not glamorised on T.V Get off your soapbox Colin. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Opus on Mar 15th, 2009 at 9:37pm
Pete, your font is fine with me but sorry to say TLDR.
The real problem with American health care is high malpractice awards and malpractice insurance. The Government will never fix that because it will hurt lawyers. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Paul [smiley=smokin.gif] |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by HSJones on Mar 16th, 2009 at 8:12am Bob P wrote on Mar 13th, 2009 at 5:14pm:
FDR opened the floodgates to immigration? I admire FDR and he saved us from being conquered the the Nazis and Japan, but the one thing that I do not admire about him was his refusal to let a shipful of German Jewish immigrants enter the US before we entered the war-all of them were shipped back to Germany and killed in the concentration camps; I also do not admire him for placing American Japanese in concentration camps. Not only were they illegally denied their freedom, but their personal property and homes were sold at a fraction of their worth at auctions and even today the survivors and their families have not been giving any compensation except for a coupe of thousand dollars. The Neisi (sp?) division, composed of volunteer Japanese Americans fought the Nazis in Europe and was the most highly decorated division in US history DESPITE having their parents and younger siblings being imprisoned for no reason other than being of Japanese Americans. It was the worst abuse of the Constitution and human rights in American history and will never be able to be erased (and by the way, despite taking about 40 years to repay those whose property was illegally seized by the government, the most anyone got was a couple of thousand dollars whereas much of that property is now worth hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars). Those in the camps (located in deserts) never rioted or caused any troubles and their sons who volunteerd for combat were among the bravest American soldiers that we have ever had (for Hawaii US Senator Daniel Inoue lost an Army in combat in Italy).. While Blacks were not imprisoned, they too served honorably although discriminated against because of their race and the Black fighter pilots, known as the Tuskegee pilots, were also the most decorated combat flying units in WWII. Most blacks were not allowed to be anything but cooks and servants in the Navy and as laborers in the Army. Even today, without Black people volunteering, we woulld have to resort to a draft to fight the "war on terrorism". Think about it. Just one more thing: there was virtually no immigration during Roosevelt's terms in office. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for us to have won WWII for it was Black workers who took the place of drafees and harvested the food for our troops and civilians (of course, they were treated poorly-did you know that most of the "Red Ball Express" drivers were Black men? When Truman finally did away with segregation after WWII, our modern armed forces were born. We owe a debt of thanks to them and to the Japanese Americans that can never be fully repaid though, sadly, most Americans have no knowledge of their accomplishments (and one high school SENIOR asked me if the Germans were on our side during WWII!) :'( |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by LeLimey on Mar 16th, 2009 at 8:29am HSJones wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 8:12am:
Can anyone say deja POO??? ::) |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 16th, 2009 at 10:42am HSJones wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 8:12am:
I agree. Denying ships like the S.S. St. Louis the right to disembark its passengers is a black spot on the history of the US. Even today, there are arbitrary distinctions being made - Cuban refugees are given special status (no doubt that they are fleeing a miserable situation) but refugees of violence and oppression from other lands do not get the same treatment, and are often denied entry and sent back to torture or death. This wouldn't have been an issue before Chester Arthur ... until then, there was no concept of illegal immigration. HSJones wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 8:12am:
Really? Worse than slavery? Worse than the wars against the Indians? |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by BarbaraD on Mar 16th, 2009 at 1:32pm HSJones wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 8:12am:
Mr. Jones... don't know where your info came from, but... My DADDY won WW11 single-handed with his fearless tank (the "Baby Barbara") and made the world safe for democracy.... That's all "documented" in the Coffee Shop in Gladewater Texas (check for yourself) and has been well known for decades... :) But our family never received a stinkin' cent in compensation for the HELL he went thru and the sacrafices he gave for his country... and actually he never expected anything. Mom and me just stayed home and waited for him to come home and live in our free country.... Hugs BD |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Batch on Mar 16th, 2009 at 1:34pm Quote:
Quote:
We need to get folks like Michael Berger, Oliver Reeh, and others living in Europe to give us their perspectives… I think folks here in the US would be interested to hear what they have to say about government provided health care… While we’re on this topic, let's put these figures in a slightly different context... We are already paying for $588 Billion for Medicare and Medicaid (2008 Federal Budget) That comes to 4% of the GDP for 2008, and these programs were never designed to provide health care for every US citizen... Supposedly only wage earners and their spouses who paid payroll tax… but now that the liberals have seen fit to offer this benefit to illegal aliens, most of whom have been here a short time so haven’t paid their fair share, the level of health care is being diluted. Let's do the math to see what would happen if we had to pay for Universal Health Care in 2008... (BTW… the 4x cheaters gave me a headache so I've bumped the font size back up to the original setting). The latest estimate of the US GDP for 2008 is $14.58 trillion (buying power), $14.33 trillion (exchange rate), and $14.51 (Federal Budget). Lets use the bigger figure in the following calculation cause bigger is always better... Right? If we assume an average annual cost of health care premiums per person of $7,900 (and this figure has already been opined earlier in this thread by MJ as being very conservative - read low and clearly lower than the cost of Government run VA medical coverage), and a US population of 310 million. When we do the math we get 310 x 106 times 7.9 x 103 = 2,449 x 109 = $2.45 Trillion dollars a year for Universal Health Care or 16.9% of the 2008 GDP. But we're already paying tax for Medicare and Medicaid and even the least casual observer knows old government programs never die so that brings the total healthcare cost to $3.04 Trillion… and that still doesn’t include the VA or the State’s contributions to Medicaid – read Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP), so we get $3.04 Trillion UHC/$14.58 Trillion GDP = Universal Health Care that would cost us 20.8% of the 2008 GDP. Well… At first glance, that may be acceptable to some folks… but we still need to pay for all the other “Entitlements” like the single biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world… the Social Security system, with estimated costs of $613 Billion in 2008 and $645 Billion in 2009. And guess what… just like convicted criminal Madoff, the clever liberals broke into the Social Security piggy bank and spent all of it… mostly to pay for social entitlements… And that my friends, is also a matter of record… In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson transferred the Social Security Trust Fund to the general fund… to pay for the War on Poverty… A war the liberals started… that we still haven’t won… So now we perpetuate the Ponzi scheme by appropriating funds each year to make the payments… There’s also the matter of an estimated $250 Billion in interest on the National Debt (The latest figure for interest paid on the National Debt for 2008 is $412 Billion), and… Heck! I’ll just jump to the bottom line for the “Mandatory” outlays for 2008… $ 1.484 Trillion dollars… And of course… NONE OF THESE “MANDATORY” OUTLAYS FOR SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS ARE CALLED FOR IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES! (And Yes… the all caps are for emphasis.) Now let’s look at the “Discretionary Outlays” for Defense for FY2008 at $482 Billion Plus the Defense Supplement for the “Global War On Terror” $195 Billion… by the time you add the odds and ends, the Defense Budget for FY2008 comes to over $700 Billion… (BTW… I love the way Congress changed the wording on the Federal budget to make entitlements “Mandatory” and Defense, the only thing spelled out in the preamble to our Constitution as something to be provided, is now termed “Discretionary” by the liberals) … “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Please note the words “provide” and “promote”… Big Difference… Google it if you’re not sure… Jumping to the bottom line for FY2008 Budget “Estimate” we get: 2008 Estimated Receipts = $2.52 Trillion, Outlays = $2.93 Trillion and we end up with an Estimated Deficit of $410 Billion… And now we add the cost of Universal Health Care at an estimated $2.45 Trillion dollars… and the annual Budget Deficit jumps to $2.86 Trillion dollars… Yikes! Now let’s see what happens in 2009 if we add the estimated cost of Universal Health Care where the budget estimated shows Receipts of $2.7 Trillion, Outlays of $3.1 Trillion and a Deficit of $407 Billion… But Wait… That was before TARP… so add another $700 Billion (we won’t count the 8% increase in the “Omnibus” funding bill for 2008 that included over 8,000 earmarks, the $1 Trillion or so the Fed and the FDIC kicked in that will need to be replaced)… plus at least half the $ 876 Billion ARRA Stimulation Bill ($1 Trillion dollars including interest)… And that brings the FY 2009 Deficit to at least $1.9 Trillion dollars… and the Obamadude as well as princess Pelosi and her politburo are still on a roll to add even more to the Deficit… Now if we add the cost of Universal Health Care at an estimated $2.45 Trillion dollars we come up with and estimated annual Budget Deficit of $ 4.35 Trillion dollars… YGBSM! Folks… We’re still talking chump change when you look at the National Debt… Congress (read princess Pelosi and her politburo in the House) has been spending our asses off and put us in debt to the tune of $10,983,549,928,728.74 ($10.98 Trillion Dollars) as of 03/12/2009… And that is a matter of record… For those of you who skipped class when American Government was being taught or who were unfortunately subject to socialist propaganda and missed the facts… None of the Presidents are directly responsible for the Budget Deficits… Only the House of Representatives has the authority to appropriate funds… Read the Constitution gave the House of Representatives the authority to originate all bills to levy taxes and spend government money… In closing, for the liberals among us here in the US, your beloved messiah, the anointed one, or Obamadude as I call him… who you believe is looking out for the middle class as he promised in his campaign… has just signaled he might not oppose Taxing Health Benefits… Take care, V/R, Batch |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by wildhaus on Mar 16th, 2009 at 2:11pm
I live in Switzerland, and as Tony has taken Switzerland as an example for “nation wide” health insurance, I would like to shed some “light” on this topic from my perspective..
Yes, we do have a good nation-wide health insurance, provided by private health insurance companies, not a government system paid by taxes, yes, the “government” dose subsidize the hospital facilities to some extend, not the health care, and this is a very small part of the taxes we pay, education is a very big chunk... for example.... The health insurance is a very expensive one! but, that is for reasons that mostly do not apply in the USA. We are a very small country, about 7.7 million people (2009), and almost every big canton (State to you) (26 cantons, incl. half cantons) has a larger medical center, be it in St. Gallen, Zurich, Basel, Bern Lausanne, Geneva, and a few more locations, providing almost all the services one would need, and that is very costly! Although comfortable… is it necessary?... I think, as long as we can afford it, why not. Is it logical? Oh well that’s Swiss internal politics, and it is not relevant to this post. But we do not have the “habit” or problem of litigation the way it is practiced in the USA that forces the medical institutions to pass the costs of malpractice insurance on to the “customer”, and that inflates the costs of your treatments in the USA... One more thing that one very rarely sees in Switzerland, is the need for second and 3rd opinions. That’s a very costly habit, for what ever reason. I pay (per month) SFr. 928.80 (USD785.20) for a family of 4, that is a private insurance, including all my needs, be it O2, Zomig, and alternative meds., be it treated by the top Dr’s, and more, for that matter for all the family the same conditions...... and until now no questions asked... by the health insurance. I pay it gladly, as I know I need it, and use it, with respect, so I try not abuse the offered services, or take advantage of the tremendous treatment possibilities. I simply try to use the services in a comprehensive and responsible way. Michael |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Charlie on Mar 16th, 2009 at 2:33pm
Screw statistics. As I left the idiot MD that for some inexplicable reason decided to pick medieval butt probing for a specialty.....I'll never understand this unless there is some kind of kink involved.......egad! :o, Anyway, I ran into a representative of an evil drug company delivering all kinds of goodies and whoknowswhatelse to this moron.
This is a big reason medieval buttreamings cost more than a SUV. Charlie |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 16th, 2009 at 2:46pm
Good to hear about another country's system.
In the US, medical malpractice is not a big factor in the cost. Medical malpractice insurance goes up every time the stock market goes down - insurance companies like AIG screw everyone, and blame patients. Quote:
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Opus on Mar 16th, 2009 at 3:21pm monty wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 2:46pm:
Maybe it isn't where you live. Using START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() Orthopedic Surgery $37,352 Cardiac Surgery $30,045 Family/General Practice & Minor Surgery $11,593 Obstetrics and Gynecology $50,143 The median income per household is $33,679. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() Paul |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 16th, 2009 at 4:03pm Opus wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 3:21pm:
I didn't say that malpractice insurance wasn't expensive - my point was that the amount of underlying medical malpractice damages does not justify the high rates that insurance companies charge. Those insurance companies make their money by holding and investing the premiums - when they lose on Wall Street or in Las Vegas, they raise rates on doctors and start chain emails about outrageous (and fictitious) malpractice cases. If a doctor has 1000 patients he or she sees throughout the year, that amounts to $11 to $50 per patient for insurance. Not a trivial sum, but not closely related to what the average doctor costs the insurance companies. The average OB-GYN salary is between $200,000 to $300,000, which means that they bill at three times that rate and have $400K to $600K for operating costs ... should be enough to cover the costs of doing business, although the insurance companies are going to leech as much as they can. By way of comparison, how much does the average doctor pay for rent, electricity, wages for staff, medical supplies, continuing education and professional licensing, filing paperwork with 7 insurance companies using 7 different billing systems, and all the other costs of doing business? |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Batch on Mar 16th, 2009 at 6:00pm
There you go again Monty...
More spin and redirection to divert people away from the fact that National Health Care is not only possible without big government taxing a country back to the stone age, but that it works wonderfully well in Switzerland based on private medical insurance, free market competition... and the principals of capitalism. Why is it so hard for liberals to accept the truth when it proves their socialist Ponzi schemes are not necessary? Now that was a rhetorical question... We all know liberals can't take truth like this because if more people understood the fact that liberals must have control in order to force their socialist agenda on everyone, they would never get elected... That's probably why liberals want keep the people dumbed down by perpetuating one of the most ineffective and most expensive public education systems per capita in the world... Thank you Michael for pointing out that free market based national health care is possible without grossly inefficient government intervention, and that it works very well in Switzerland with people using private medical insurance... Take care, V/R, Batch |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Artonio on Mar 16th, 2009 at 7:39pm
Free market is a wonderful thing... and if left unchecked (not to be confused with regulated) a loaf of bread will cost us $274.00... believe it or not... that is a good thing. I can afford it and if I only wish to eat one slice and throw the rest away... so what? STFU Don't whine to me that you're hungry instead, use the energy to go work as a slave in my factory. What's that you say? You can't work because you're paralyzed from the eyebrows down... well all I can say is... it sucks to be you... now stop bothering me.
There seems to be no limits to human greed... and that my friends, has nothing to do with political affiliation. I guess one can make the argument that if you are willing to take the risk and put in the time with any enterprise you deserve the largest share of the profits. It only stands to reason that if you are fortunate enough to be blessed with employment, work 60 hour weeks, you should have no problem shopping at the company store even if you could never afford the product that you are making. I often found it ironic that some of those who wrote the constitution owned slaves... and that the term slave or slavery was never mentioned in the constitution. Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if all of the haves could just move to a beautiful island where they would not have to be bothered by the have-nots ? All praises and honor to you John Galt. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() with warm regards, Tony |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 16th, 2009 at 8:29pm Batch wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 6:00pm:
It's not hard at all. We should look at Switzerland and other developed nations that seem to do a better job than the US. The Scandinavian systems, Germany, UK, and Canada as well. Find the simplest, best way to fix the problems with the US system. Can the wingnut conservatives accept these points: Quote:
Quote:
The industry that now controls the US system spent a lot of money last time there was serious talk of change, and they will do so again. Because economically, the optimal solution is not one where everyone has coverage and decent services at an affordable price. Pareto efficiency in health care means maximal profits with high prices and some people not having coverage. We can only move from maximum economic efficiency to maximum social efficiency if there are regulations to curb the excesses of the market. That's what Switzerland did, and that is what the US has to do. You won't like it. As I said before, there would be no clamor for changing our current system if it worked well. I don't want government to get involved in bookstores or restaurants or other sectors where the market works (except for normal zoning and health/safety regulations). Otherwise, let people buy and sell as they wish. Your hyperbolic rhetoric about socialism and marxism simply don't fit what Democrats want. We tried getting a Swiss styled system under the Clintons, and then the shrieking classes went apoplectic about socialist plots and visions of sugar plum fairies that danced in their heads. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Opus on Mar 16th, 2009 at 8:59pm monty wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 4:03pm:
The START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() This cost has to passed to the patients, and thus passed on the the insurance companies which results in higher premiums. My union is self insured, premiums keep going up because costs keep going up. Every increase in premiums are scrutinized and questioned. Fixing the malpractice lawsuit problem would be a big step in lowering medical costs, at least in my area. No politician will do this because either they are lawyers or they have them as friends. Paul |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by HSJones on Mar 16th, 2009 at 9:28pm
Anybody know of a poor MD pr one on foodstamps? When I see my doctor (and god knows what he is charging the insurance company), he usually sees me for 15 minutes and has every other waiting room with a patient in it-I think that he must make well over $5000 dollars an hour before expenses and at least keeps several thousand dollars a week for himself after expenses. The parking spaces in the hospital reserved for MDs contiain Mercedes, Porsches, etc. In most of Europe each MD is assigned a certainn number of patients and he is paid quite well for that PLUS he can see private patients and god knows what they are charged. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for doctors's problems given the amount of money that they make.
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 16th, 2009 at 9:29pm
So how do you propose fixing it, Opus? A cap of $250,000 damages for all cases, including when an intoxicated doc botches spinal surgery and a person is condemned to a life of excruciating pain??
|
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by HSJones on Mar 16th, 2009 at 9:42pm monty wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 9:29pm:
No, an incompetent MD who causes the serous injury of death of a patient should pay up, lose his/her license and get sent to prison like any other thug who hurts or kills people. The title "MD" does not put the person who has it above the law, neither civil nor criminal and in the siutation that you described the doctor should be tried in both types of courts. If he/she causes the death or serious injury of a person due to negligence or intoxication then he/she should spend a LONG time in prison having his/her anus examined by the other prisoners. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Batch on Mar 16th, 2009 at 9:43pm
I think it's time we quantified the issue posed by many that the founding fathers of our Nation who were also signers of the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution were all slave owners or favored slavery.
The topic of slavery and our Nation’s founders happens to be a topic I studied in an elective course in Political Philosophy while I was working on my degree in Chemistry at the University of Washington. The professorial tag team that taught the course on alternating days were a married couple… He was white, she was black, and both were excellent… For reference, he was a Democrat and she was a Republican. They both spent a day on the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Their presentations were objective with ample proofs from the National Archives… I’ve long since lost my notes taken during this class, but the following from START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() “One of the most frequent tactics employed to discredit America's Founding Fathers is to say that the Founding Fathers were all pro-slavery racists and hypocrites. Therefore, why should we care what their views were on any subject? African-American professor Walter Williams wisely explained the use of this tactic in these words: “Politicians, news media, college professors and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers' ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists.” These people paint a false picture of the Founding Fathers and the issue of slavery. The historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by the Founders; slavery was introduced in America nearly two centuries before the Founders. In fact, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay noted that there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery prior to the Founding Fathers. The Revolution was a turning point in the national attitude against slavery - and it was the Founders who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, one of the reasons given by Thomas Jefferson for the separation from Great Britain was a desire to rid America of the evil of slavery imposed on them by the British. Benjamin Franklin explained that this separation from Britain was necessary since every attempt among the Colonies to end slavery had been thwarted or reversed by the British Crown. In fact, in the years following America's separation from Great Britain, many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others). It is true, however, that not all of the Founders from the South opposed slavery. According to the testimony of Thomas Jefferson, John Rutledge, and James Madison, those from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia favored slavery. Nevertheless, despite the support in those states for slavery, the clear majority of the Founders was opposed to this evil--and their support went beyond words. For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering: “I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and... I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity... May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.” Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories. It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:” “I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].” -George Washington Take care, V/R, Batch |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Opus on Mar 16th, 2009 at 10:06pm monty wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 9:29pm:
Personally I don't know that answer. That is for people who can handle money decisions a lot better than me. All I know is the system is broken, START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() Paul |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Batch on Mar 16th, 2009 at 10:23pm
More typical liberal spin tactics Monty… mix fact with fiction… Baffle’m with propaganda and dazzle’m with footwork…
Quote:
True… you did try to push Universal Health Care through under the Clintonistas… but it was more like Swiss cheese… with unsustainable black holes to suck up taxpayer’s available wealth at every income level… Even the democrats bailed out on “Hillary Care” when they saw the fundamental concept and terrible flaws that made it indefensible in Congress… Folks may find the following illuminating…
I take it you’re still not ready to check your guns at the door and sit at the table under one of the two signs for an objective debate… Take care, V/R, Batch |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Kevin_M on Mar 16th, 2009 at 10:29pm
Batch,
I sense a common ground of reasonable objective motivation here. Batch wrote on Mar 15th, 2009 at 10:20am:
Taking a look-see at how it may be accomplished, the example of Switzerland deserved comment. Batch wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 6:00pm:
While in agreement with the possibility of a better way for us here, also hoping economically more efficient, there are seeming certain compromises I'd like your opinion on as to the extent of you deem fair. Previous mention has been to set the conversation only under one of two flags. Batch wrote on Mar 15th, 2009 at 10:20am:
What you have described as working "wonderfully well" has what seems certain departures from "free market competition" and "principles of capitalism". It looks like government regulation and not allowing for profit to be made have been used to accomplish this. Artonio wrote on Mar 15th, 2009 at 5:41pm:
Working "wonderfully well" seems inclusive of government regulation and some muffling of capitalism. Would you submit your thoughts here? Another item that could show an applicable difference is the previously stated 46% uninsured rate here, while in Switzerland: Artonio wrote on Mar 15th, 2009 at 5:41pm:
Is our health insurance resolution starting from a deeper hole to dig out of and perhaps more drastic in reversing, especially in this employment scenario? I'll conclude by sidetracking and asking your indulgence to read the link that follows. I'm not too familiar with political slants and have preferred to be more accepting of information that withholds any words lending editorial on one's own information in that respect. I'll cite a for-instance: Batch wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 1:34pm:
I've noticed here below, there is an explanation of on-budget, off-budget inclusion interpretation of SS to the general fund that was explained due to perhaps better grasping of budget understanding. Quote:
Refreshingly noted was the ability to explain without using words of political leaning. If you were to read the link, I'd appreciate your comments. There seemed also a conflicting problem at the time with the growing expense of Viet Nam and domestic social programs at the time. LBJ wished to come across as very positive with the ongoing, about then simultaneously pinning a medal on Westmoreland for his thusfar commanding, and all just before the Tet Offensive. I realize it was put down, but believe Westmoreland to be replaced later. BTW. I learned here from you of Operation Linebacker. considered highly influencial swaying negotiations and effective. Very much kudos to you, buddy! ;) A Guilio Douhet leaning maybe partly still surviving. And thank you Billy Mitchell, his Argonne-Meuse assistance forgotten between wars. Pershing was fantastic with military education and preparedness but technologically stagnant, learning from Civil War mentors. Surprising since his idol Grant saw the advantage of rifled bores. Perhaps the only military aircraft named for a person, Mitchell B-25, if I recall from memory. Aside, any info to offer of whatever laser-guided briefings of the time? Just additionally, I've noticed information given citing the source being a lobbyist group with media ties and perhaps tending to frame the desires of its funders into the best light. Voicing of written opinions that may have certain monied interests priortized when looking over a situation can instill skepticism, having nothing to do with personal perceptions. While not always easy to exclude, when employed, there can be a tendency to cross-check to adapt subjective thought to a little further evidence to preserve trust with perceptions of objectivity and reasonableness coming through to the forefront to remain amiably engaged. Thank you for tolerance, time, and whatever thoughts you may be feel free to consider. :) |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by HSJones on Mar 17th, 2009 at 1:26am
You need to step away from the computer and get l**D! I have never read such obsessive-compsive as yours in my ife-as a matter of fact, DON'T go hook up with a girl, you'd bore her to death!
When you went to school were you taught to use 10 words when 2 would do? See a doc about some lithium, my friend. :o |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Artonio on Mar 17th, 2009 at 1:35am HSJones wrote on Mar 17th, 2009 at 1:26am:
Way out of line. Show a little respect please. with warm regards, Tony |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Artonio on Mar 18th, 2009 at 12:40pm Kevin_M wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 10:29pm:
Good Post! |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Lobster on Mar 18th, 2009 at 1:12pm
I like what you are saying Batch... but do note that it is more Libertarian than Conservative.
Rush would punt you in the nuts if he read your 'too much government' posts. As a fairly non-political observer, I have noted the following: This administration's government exercises authority far beyond what the founding fathers envisioned. The prior administration's government exercised authority far beyond what the founding fathers envisioned. The administration before that's government exercised authority far beyond what the founding fathers envisioned. The administration before that's government exercised authority far beyond what the founding fathers envisioned. The administration before that's government exercised authority far beyond what the founding fathers envisioned. Republicans and Democrats and Conservatives and Liberals are all sides of the same 'more government' coin. And I agree... mixing government and health care is a bad idea. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by [joHnny]w_ an_h on Mar 29th, 2009 at 9:22pm monty wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 1:33pm:
i'm not buying that. my 78 f250 4x4 with a 300 cid 4bbl carb, headers, heavy ass cast iron 4 spd transmission and transfer case, 35" tires and a #300 tube steel front bumper with a heavy duty warn winch gets 14mpg. my wifes 96 s15 gmc jimmy with stock features and a 4.3 muti port fuel injected engine gets 16mpg. very different vehicles in size and fuel configuration. same fuel millage. anybody remember when ford came out with that pantywaste looking body style in 96 and they discontinued the 460, 351w,302, and 300 i6 engines with the new dohc triton engine with the 30 mile long timing chain that clicks and rattles. when the triton first came out it got 14 mpg in a thin steel mostly plastic half ton pick up. just recently they started upping their fuel millage. they could have done this years ago but they didn't. ford mustangs and falcons made back in the mid 60s with the 6cyl and tiny v8 still got around 20+mpg even on unleaded gas. and believe me theres alot more steel in an old mustang than the plastic one they make today and allot less aerodynamics. hell my 63 dodge dart gets 24 mpg. 45 years later thier bragging about 30 maybe 35mpg out of a compact car? bullshit |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 29th, 2009 at 9:49pm -johnny- wrote on Mar 29th, 2009 at 9:22pm:
Which part? The part about the Corolla? The Corolla started out as a sub-compact with a 1.1 liter engine. Today it is a 1.8 liter compact. Along the way, engine technology improved, but the car got larger and heavier and more powerful, which offset much of the mileage improvements. I would rather drive a 2005 car that gets 35 mpg than a 1975 car that got the same. The part about larger, fancier cars being more profitable? That's true as well. I saw numbers a few years ago that showed that the factories made around $10,000 on the average SUV, while they lost a little bit on the smaller cars, and they were happy to operate like that as long as their market share of SUVs was going up,up,up. Does that mean that these trends are 100% uniform? Not necessarily. You could be right about the cars that you mentioned - I'm not familiar with those. But overall, small cars have gotten larger, and big, fancy cars are where the profits have been. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Brew on Mar 29th, 2009 at 9:57pm
Uh, I bought a new Corolla 3 years ago and it has a 1.6 liter engine in it, Monty.
It also happens to be one of the most reliable engines ever mass produced. I'll trade that for your "offsets" any day. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by monty on Mar 29th, 2009 at 10:32pm Brew wrote on Mar 29th, 2009 at 9:57pm:
So did I (four years ago). But the current base, LE, LXE and Sport S all have 1.8 liters, and the other lines have larger engines. My narrative is correct. Over time, that car has gotten bigger (more weight and wind resistance), the engine has gotten larger and more powerful, and that has kept mileage around the same spot. I'm not putting values into it - it is simple physics and historical fact. Technology helps - the engine is more efficient in some ways, the larger body is redesigned to lower drag as much as practical. But I really don't see where I said anything worth disagreeing with. If you don't believe me, go here, or any of the hundreds of other pages that document the same thing: START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to ![]() ![]() Brew wrote on Mar 29th, 2009 at 9:57pm:
I'm not suggesting that reliability be abandoned. I like my Corolla, and I just said it is much better than the same car was in the past - something about continuous improvement, I do believe. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Brew on Mar 29th, 2009 at 10:34pm
Can't argue with any of that.
Don't want to, either. ;) |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by [joHnny]w_ an_h on Mar 30th, 2009 at 12:30am monty wrote on Mar 29th, 2009 at 9:49pm:
what i'm saying is the SUVs and pick up trucks haven't improved in fuel mileage until gas went up over $4 a gallon. they had the technology but they held out. (the big 3) companies like toyota havent held back so much. i would put toyota up against any car manufacturer in the world. i could be wrong but from what i understand is that european cars before they can be sold in the US get %15 less gas mileage due to epa standards which don't really have anything to do with emissions. the corollas that you and bill drive that get 35mpg here in the states might get 40-42mpg if they're sold in say france or italy. btw. i commend you both on your choice of automobile. i would much rather buy a toyota made in kentucky that a chevy made in mexico. |
Title: Re: ICFBI !!! Post by Opus on Mar 30th, 2009 at 8:57pm
When comparing mpg ratings between American and European cars, If the rating is in mpg for the European car it is probably using the START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to
![]() ![]() Also the European combined gas mileage figure is closer to the EPA rating. Using the Extra Urban rating is akin to the old EPA highway mileage rating. I found out the EPA retroactive change the old ratings to the formulas they use now. My 89 Mustang which used to be rated for 32 mpg highway is now rated for 26. I did in fact get 32 mpg with that car. I guess the new rating reflect the average driver who cannot properly drive a car. I see most people today speed up, slow down, and brake for no apparent reason, while I can drive a steady speed on the same road. Paul Paul |
New CH.com Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.4! YaBB © 2000-2009. All Rights Reserved. |