EvilMonkey

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 2, 2009 -> 02:03 PM) ah how I love hypocrisy: Find a way to give every American the kind of care the Senators get for the same cost and you may have something. Nice stretch.

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 2, 2009 -> 07:37 AM) I know seven white collar professionals out of work. Two for over a year. So far none have been willing to take jobs for significantly less than they were making. And certainly not willing to move to Omaha and work in a processing plant. Yet only one blames it on H1B professionals that have been hired from overseas that are actually working the same job they work. Tex, so are you upset that more people aren't calling out the Indian programmers and doctors here than they are the MExican meat plant workers? I would say that you are not talking to the right people then, as most of my college friends all went into programming and/or IT and half are out of work, and blaming outsourcing or cheaper foreign talent. And again, you have 2 different arguements here, beacuse the people here on the H1B are here LEGALLY, while the 'undocumented' workers in various businesses are not.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 2, 2009 -> 12:13 AM) Politico is reporting that Obama is planning to bail on the all in one bill and go for an incremental approach. It may not be a bad thing in the end, because it makes opposition for the sake of opposition that much harder. If he puts off the public option for another year, then there's no way that most key GOP leaders can get away with supporting the reforms in its place. If the reforms are worth supporting. I would favor this approach as well, since there may be a few nuggets of usefullness in the huge-ass bills out there now, but they are hard to find in that massive blob of lawyer-speak and ambiguity. This will also make it harder for Dems to sneak stuff in, unless they try to introduce and vote without reading things in the middle of the night. However, how much of a political hit will Obama take for dropping the all in one bill? His most rabid supporters on this (the crazy left) are also the most vocal, and knowing how the fringes on each side brook no compromise, they will surely see this as defeat.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 1, 2009 -> 04:01 PM) If we went after the corporations who, time and again, violate the law by providing the employment supply that fuels undocumented immigration - we would go a longer way to solving that problem and the "illegals getting healthcare" problem than any healthcare reform bill could do. But the truth is, generally when it comes to enforcement of the law - government is too often in the service of protecting money over the law. and if you go back and look at all the various immigration threads we have had, I was all for busting corporations that knowingly hired illegals.

Happy Birthday Tex. I am drinking a beer in your honor right now.

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 1, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) Or we could spend a few hundred billion dollars in rounding them up and destroy our agriculture industry. Until I see a whole lot of unemployed Americans rushing to pick crops in Idaho for four weeks, or work at a processing plant, I'll support a guest worker program that gives them only limited benefits. Using the same system to bring in a $100,000 programmer or accountant, as you would to bring in a $14,000 temporary farm labor, is kind of silly. Tex, not every illegal immigrant in this country picks crops or busses tables. How many meat packing pants have been raided lately? Those are good paying jobs that people lined for inthe hundreds when they were available. We talked about all this in other threads, I have no problems with a viable guest worker program, but then they wouldn't be here ILLEGALLY then, would they. Anyone not here on a guest worker program should be promptly shown the way out of the country.

In the pre-book hype about his book, the publisher saud that Ridge was pressured to raise the threat level. Former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge, speaking for the first time about accusations made in his new book, says he did not mean to suggest that other top Bush administration officials were playing politics with the nation's security before the 2004 presidential election......Now, Ridge says he did not mean to suggest he was pressured to raise the threat level, and he is not accusing anyone of trying to boost Bush in the polls. "I was never pressured," Ridge said. http://rpc.blogrolling.com/redirect.php?r=...%2Face.mu.nu%2F

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 1, 2009 -> 08:25 AM) No, catch up. NSS plan calls for car insurance style, Mr said no to Visa and green card holders buying direct, he wants the companies to pay for the policies instead of the folks here *legally* with Visas, H1B, green cards, etc., So in genious' modification of NSS plan Citizens buy individually from companies and pay for it themselves Legal non-citizens have it purchased for them by the companies that sponsor them. And if we know just where the 'non-legal' people are, at least of the 'illegal' variety, can't we then go and arrest and deport them? If they are allowed into the plan at all, we shold know who they are and where they are at and then be able to return them back across the border.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 09:05 PM) Kap, you think guys like J Wright weren't brought up ad nauseum? Come on, you must be just doing this for fun now. Sure they were, but the alphabert networks and CNN all told us that these guys were no big deal, we really shouldbn't be bothered by them. So yeah, we heard about them, but it was all 'pay no attention to the skelaton behind the curtains'.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:28 PM) OK, here goes. Here it is, in all its glory, the NSS health care plan. This is the framework for what I'd like to see, eventually, though I am fairly certain it won't happen for any number of reasons (mostly political)... --Government should not be running any health care plans, at all. --Employers should not be the ones to provide health coverage either. --Health insurance should be a private market product, just like car insurance. --Health insurance should be REQUIRED for all US citizens and residents. --Health insurance providers would continue offering various plans, but to the public generally. --Health insurance plans need to reflect cost of care - in other words, you shouldn't be paying $25 for any doctor visit. You should be paying $20 for tier 3 doctors, $30 for tier 2, $50 for tier 1, etc. - to reflect actual cost AND allow for real competition to occur (prescriptions are going this way now anyway). Insurance plans should still have a personal spending cap, under some plans. (this one is probably the hardest to make work) --Those who cannot afford regular insurance would need to prove why (income, loss of job, etc.) in some fashion, and then be eligible for a pool, which is covered by all insurance providers on a persons-parallel-with-market-share model (like the utilities do with infrastucture costs in deregulating). The pool costs should be supplemented by the federal government to lower cost, but the plans available should essentially be low-end plans that are truly only a safety net, providing just protection from huge costs (kind of like we made the welfare system less appealing in the Clinton years). --Tax incentives should be large to encourage not-for-profits in all areas of health care - insurance, hospitals, etc. Having NFP's present will help keep overall costs down in the sector. --Insurance providers need to be federally licensed, not state, and be required to clearly publish the number of providers in their systems in each region/city/state/whatever, so that people can make educated decisions about making their plans. --All insurance providers required to provide emergency care at ANY licensed facility in the country at any time, at their given rates, period. --No pre-existing condition restrictions allowed under any plan. --HSA rules need to change to NOT have a use it or lose it policy, and additionally, allow for all health claims to go through that account and be eligible for being non-taxable dollars. --All medical providers required to pre-clear all tests and procedures performed (except in situ for emergency medical), and show actual cost to the patient before performing. --All medical records need to be housed in a database, medical ID cards issued, no more forms and s*** that just take time and cost needless money. --All EMS providers and emergency rooms need to handle emergency medicine for anyone coming in the door - the rest can be sorted out when the person is stable (this is mostly the case anyway, but not always) --No person in the country illegally should be provided insurance, under penalty of fines. If hospitals want to treat patients not properly ID'd, that is their risk to take (emergency med may need to be an exception here). --If any minor ( ETA: --College students currently in school full time should be eligible for government-supported access to the pool plan. ----- That's what I have for now. Not perfect to be sure, and probably not possible, but the best thing I can come up with. By being Federally liscensed can they now compete across state lines and have those restrictions removed? What about tort reform? Your basic structure looks interesting, I'll give you that. You would also need to create some sort of standard for the electronic files, otherwise you will have systems that can't talk with each other, as we have now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 11:12 AM) "Grassroots" efforts funded by corporate interests are astroturfing, even if the people at the rallies are genuine. I have been to 4 townhall meetings, and have yet to be 'funded' by anyone. Also haven't seen anyone bussed in to any of the 4, although there were about 30 people at the last one all dressed in the same plain color shirts (red), who sat quietly thru the whole thing, never clapping, booing, anything. Was kinda odd. How are these people 'funded'? They carry homemade signs, they get there themselves, they don't get a paycheck.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 09:51 AM) Actually, I'd argue that the 'get it passed fast' goal was really just to get the astroturfed opposition to burn brightly for a second and get weary and fade out. It's a smart move to shoot for August, wait for the protests and then shift the goalposts til December and bet that the protests will dissipate before October... so far its proven to be a pretty sound bet. Grassroots movements by people who are not paid or bussed in is not 'astroturfing'. The SEIU and ACORN bussing in of proponents is. Get your term straight. Look at the different sides at the town hall meetings. The people opposed are real people with real concerns, not paid plants, not bussed in, have homemade signs. The proponents always seem to have the most professional sigage, all alike, and are often bussed in from outside whatever district the meetings are in.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 11:43 PM) You reference a section of the bill that talks about not being able to enroll in any other existing private plan - although when I asked you what part of the bill this specifically references you didn't come up with an answer - when I found what I think is the same section of the bill that you reference (I think I even posted that section in this thread,) it appears to be a grandfather clause which simply says that private insurers won't be able to take new enrollees in existing plans that don't meet the same guidelines and rules about what policies can and can't exclude (pre-existing condition, recission, etc.) It doesn't say anything about prohibiting employers from swapping to a new private option or any of that. It just simply says that existing programs that don't comply with federal regulations established by this bill won't be able to have new members enroll. Unless you're referencing another part of the bill that I missed. If so, please provide the section number of the bill so that we all can see in black and white exactly what the scary government is trying to do to kill the insurance industry. The grandfather section does state that if you are enrolled in a private plan, you CAn add new dependents. It also says that "(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan." That means that unless the 'new' plan meets the government criteria, you can't offer that. How long until they make that criteria somethign that now private company can do and stay in business? (HB 3200, pg19, Sec 102) This language immediatly follows "In no case shall an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the coverage or benefits described in clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable coverage under this division" Well, clause (iii) is this: (iii) Such other limited benefits as the Commissioner may specify. That puts the power completely in the Commissioner's hands as to what policies qualify, and what doesn't. It also limits what the current private providers are able to do, such as chance a policy. if they change it too much, or in a way the Commish doesn't like, they no longer qualify for grandfather clause. LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1. Like a lot of bills, there is enough gray language in here to make a lwayer have an orgasm. bring a case up against a sympathetic judge and/or jury, you establish precident. Then you have just 'changed' the meaning to what you really wanted to say to begin with, without having to actually say that upfront.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 29, 2009 -> 07:45 PM) Senator Kennedy politicizes his own funeral. (letter addressed to the Pope, written by the late Senator, read at his funearl) I can't find the link, but I know I read somewhere that back in the Nixon era, kennedy OPPOSED a version of national healthcare that was proposed back then. I have to find that later.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 05:24 PM) Wow, somehow I missed that little soap opera. Some manwhore he was shacking up with, whom he admitted to paying for sex in the past, was inviting others over when barney wasn't around for the same dead. Barney claimed no knowledge of it and ogt off with a slap on the wrist.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 03:15 PM) I guess that's true. I think I just wanted to say Barney's(pppbth) Frank. Although I think if you were to trace his funding, he's right up there on the sleaze factor - but they all are, so that's no different. Well, you did have that prostitution ring operationg out of his house, and he was a major player in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac stuff, yet nothing ever came of that because his party is in power. There has to be more there....

Charlie Rangel recently tried to call the CEO's of insurance companies to the mat by demanding they answer all sorts of questions about their compensation and expenditures. You know he is looking for anything he canuse to start a formal investigation into those eeeevil insurance CEO's. Maybe he should get his own financial house in order first? http://rpc.blogrolling.com/redirect.php?r=...blogspot.com%2F And this gem If the public would care, it seems financial disclosure and paying taxes woulod be the Democrats version of sex scandals. But I bet this gets swept under the rug, or just outright dropped just like the Richardson stuff, or the Black Panter voting stuff. Oh, and just another tweak here, they don't mention that he is a Democrat until over halfway thru the article, and even then they do it in a roundabout way.

QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 07:36 AM) About stopping law suits by deciding in advance, for every patient, which tests should be run? Wow. I guess I've been reading a different thread About stopping 'runaway health care' by deciding in advance, for every patient, which tests should be run.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 03:06 PM) WHY WON'T YOU LET THE CEO'S OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS MAKE PROFITS WITHOUT FORCING THE GOVERNMENT TO POWER GRAB IT AWAY FROM THEM Fixed that for ya.

QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 02:32 PM) I am certain it would also piss off the victims of medical malpractice while making the borderline Doctors very happy! TEx, do you hear the words 'tort reform' and automatically think that it means nobody is ever gonna be able to file a wrongfull death suit or malpractice suit ever again? Or do you hear that if they ARE able to file that the award would be capped at some super low figure like $10,000? I am not advocating any specific plan for reform, but you can't argue that there doesn't need to be some kind of reform. C-section births are on the rise because doctors fear a natural birth complications. Tests are ordered that aren't needed, or may be needed for that 1 in 50 million chance of some super rare disease, for everyone, just to CYA. That costs time and money which can be better spent on other things. Tort reform needs to happen, in some form, along with numerous other changes. Some of which I posted a few posts back. It is not the end-all, but it has to be part of the final package, whatever it is.

At a town hall, a congress critter first accuses a person who wants to ask a question of 'not living there', and gets shown the guys ID to prove he is wrong on that count. He then asks 'Why has tort reform NOT been considered in any of the Dem proposals'. Howard Dean gets up and answers the question candidly, for which I give him props. He pretty much said it wasn't in the bill because they didn't want to piss off the trial lawyers. So much for doing the right thing, they would rather piss off everyone else in the country, except trial lawyers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaMj-WUC-aE...player_embedded

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 10:12 AM) Making an insurance plan that they can "afford" the premiums on but would be f***ed if they actually had to pay that $1000 or whatever deductible doesn't really help much imo. OMG! $1000! You know, you can make payments on medical bills. They might get all the bad press about being eeeeevil, but if you call them upfront and let them know what you can pay, they work with you. What would these same people do if their car broke down and had to have $1000 to fix it! We need a government option for car repairs for those that cant afford it!

I agree with his statement that Ozzie can't handle a bullpen. Yes, sometimes the pieces he has to work with suck, but I have never liked his timing for taking out starters and switching relievers. I am also tired of the team always appearing to be too tight. If the other team beats you because they are better, you tip your hat to them. If they beat you because you make stupid mistakes that you shouldn't be making, that just sucks. THAT said, unless something really bad happens the last part of this season, Ozzie probably should get a full year with this squad. Or half a year, if he really sucks.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 10:01 AM) This will help the uninsured how? Will allow options for those that say they 'can't afford it'. You can still look for implementing some sort of plan to cover those that truly can't afford it, like Medicade welfare, but there needs to be a ceiling on income, etc. Not all the uninsured are there just because they are poor, remember. And you still have the large amount already eligible for government programs that for some reason haven't taken advantage of them.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 09:56 AM) http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=tort%2...l=en&tab=ws Thank you.