On 09/17/2009 03:37 PM, Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:30:27 -0700, Allan wrote:
>
>> On Sep 16, 10:33 am, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:09:29 -0700, Lawyerkill wrote:
>>>> On Sep 15, 3:15 pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>>>>>> http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2008/8-03-26-
>>>>> NewTrusteesReport.htm
>>
>> I found some of your insights interesting Michael. I took the liberty
>> of selecting a few just for fun.
>>
>>
>>> They actually did take the time and think about it.
>> 24 hours from committee to floor vote.....and Rangel et al said they
>> didn't read it (or need to). Yes, they sure took the time to think
>> about how they were going to stuff this one through.
>
> That bill was 2 years in the making, and every representative had access
> to the bill as it entered the committees and every representative that
> was voting on it SHOULD HAVE KNOWN what was in it and didn't need to read
> it. All that was necessary was the advice of staff that keep track of
> the committee activities. That is how the system works and how it has
> worked since sometime in the 19th century. Yours is just another
> Republicans whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeee.
>
>>> We will have 3 years to get it fixed before it goes into effect. If it
>>> is on the books then the lies will cease. Where there is legitimate
>>> concern legislation can be amended. Budget forecasts get more real the
>>> shorter the time frame.
>> Now that is too funny. Get on the books and then we'll fix it? What,
>> fix it so it is even "better"?
>
> Can't be helped. Only when it is on the books can we stop the
> Republicans from just making shit up.
>

They can continue to make stuff up even after it's on the books.
Remember the Social Security privatization debate? Anyway, it's true
that it's necessary to know what the bill does before voting on it or
supporting it.

>>> I would like to know the real > costs of providing ADEQUATE health care
>>> to all.
>> Whose adequate are we talking about? Yours, mine, or my money for
>> yours? I don't want adequate, I want Cadillac. Why? Because I've paid
>> for it.
>
> Adequate is actually pretty well defined in HR 3200. And go ahead. You
> can have all the Cadillac you want. Nothing stopping you in this
> reform. Nothing at all. You can spend as much on health care as you
> want.
>
>>>> Now if these people are going to go on a public plan where is the
>>>> money coming from? Medicare HI is going broke now, adding 47 million
>>>> more people is just going to make it go broke faster. It's like the
>>>> old business joke of losing money on each individual sale, but hoping
>>>> to make it up on volume.
>>
>>> The current battle is about whether or not government can be trusted to
>>> make things fair.
>> There's that word again...FAIR. Fairness as defined be a
>> redistributionist is far different than that of an economist. I'm a bit
>> tired of a political interpretation of fairness.
>
> Why would I care about _YOUR_ particular definition of "fair". I don't
> even care about _MY_ particular definition. I care about the informed
> and reasoned majority definition of "fair".
>
>> >There is no safe
>>> haven other than representative government.
>> I don't need a Washington Daddy to watch out for my interest, thank you
>> very much.
>
> Scuse me, Daniel Boone. You fight any grizzles lately? How you doin' in
> your relationship with big oil?
>
>>> It is far easier to hold government accountable than to hold
>>> the insurance companies accountable.
>> I can fire my insurer right now - can you fire Obama? How about Harry
>> or Nancy?
>
> I have no need to fire them but your switching from one health insurance
> rip off artist to another is like your particular definition of "fair".
> The joint definition of "fair" says that the choice between one worthless
> overhead or another is not "fair". The need is not to rid ourselves of a
> particular thief so as to deal with another. The need is to rid
> ourselves of thieves in general.
>

Agreed. Regulating private insurance should be sufficient though.

>>> Step 1 is to cut the medicare expenses without cutting the benefits.
>> Impossible - mathematically impossible UNLESS there is fraud and waste.
>
> And this is what separates the economist from the accountant; the social
> welfare specialist from the bean counter. And No, Republican moron,
> social welfare is not a handout to the bums. It is the per capita
> welfare among all groups, i.e. the benefit to the society as a whole.
> Although there may be a reduction of fraud and waste in the delivery of
> services, the most immediate result is cost shifting as discussed below.
>
>>> Cut
>>> the amount being GIVEN to insurance companies (Medigap) and cut the
>>> amount paid for a hospital bed (specifically Medicare "A").
>> Both cut services - no question.
>
> Nope. You REEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLY need to study up on elasticity.
>
>> And Medicare doesn't pay for beds, it
>> pays for discharges. It is the ONE thing about Medicare that actually
>> makes any sense at all - DRGs.
>
> Irrelevant and stupid nit picking. The number of users for the service is
> not going to expand to allow the hospitals to suddenly get some new
> customers to fill empty beds denied to the coots. The "demand" for
> hospital beds is not going to change. The Medicare system pays for
> services and the providers cannot just change to serve some non existent
> other users of those services. Meanwhile the providers have a sunk
> investment in facilities and equipment and supplies and last, but not
> least, in competent employees. So what _WILL_ happen and _HAS_ happened
> in every case ever observed is that the providers will simply charge more
> for services to non-Medicare customers, i.e. They will over-bill the
> private insurance companies and thus shift the costs.
>
> NET RESULT = Granny is still served.
>
> There may actually be some cut in fraud and abuse unless you count the
> cost shifting as fraud. But most of the burden of Medicare cuts will end
> up being shouldered by unsuspecting purchasers of private insurance.
> They can change companies as much as they want and they will still
> swallow the costs. The insurance companies must compete and the providers
> may or may not choose to do business with any particular provider. The
> providers will do business with the companies that pay up and only they
> will survive.
>
>>> I hope that is "slow" enough for you.
>> That was a real coffee spitter.
>>
>>> The most obvious problem with
>>> government at present is the totally corrupt Senate.
>> And I would ad House and Administrative Branch Agreed - 100%
>
> The corruption of the Senate is much more obvious than the House. And if
> the corruption of the Senate could be dramatically reduced then the
> corruption of the House would also abate. The money dries up.
>
>>> And if
>>> Medicare "A" funds had been kept OFF BUDGET and funded by a flat tax on
>>> AGI at the rate of 2% then the Mecicare fund would be very fat indeed.
>> So it becomes a Welfare program not a health insurance program....
>
> LIE! All pay the same percentage of income and receive equal benefits.
>
>> By the
>> way, it is already being funded by an across the board 2.9% income
>> tax.....
>
> LIE! (the tax is only on wages)
>
>> and shifting it to AGI is stealing from seniors who have already
>> paid into the system...
>
> LIE!
>
> I am a senior and my AGI is a pittance. The tax bite for most seniors
> would be less than $300 a year. If this "saves Medicare" then I would be
> an idiot to not pay it. Seniors currently pay Medicare premiums as it
> is. You want to pay those with a tax on wages too?
>
> Medicare taxes are only paid on wages while Medicare benefits are NOT
> BASED ON AMOUNT OF WAGES OR MEDICARE TAXES PAID IN. ALL BENEFITS ARE
> EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED REGARDLESS OF TAXES PAID IN AND REGARDLESS OF
> FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCE.
>
>> Can you say Ponzi V2.0?
>
> Can you say "lying sack of shit"?
>