Y2HH

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 08:40 AM) So, where then are your complaints about the efforts by my current Senators to make sure that payday loans are exempted from any new financial regulation bill because Senator Corker happens to have the billionaire "Check into Cash" guy in his state? Or the complaints about how that same Senator is fighting to make sure that Fedex keeps a special designation in the law that prevents their workforce from unionizing? Those are the 2 I happen to know because I get to vote against that guy now. There are 532 different versions of that happening right now. I officially lodge my complaints on both right now. I dislike that sort of politics and I feel its a big issue in this country. I don't care if it's a democrat, a republican or an independent pulling garbage like this...they're wrong, and I don't support them. Unfortunately, I cannot and will not devote the time necessary to follow every such story, but again, no matter where or when this happens, I'm against it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 08:34 AM) I love how much anger you guys show over any deal-making in a Dem bill compared to how little you show when a Republican does the same thing. If republicans pulled that crap in this bill, you'd see me talking about it equally as much. Once again, I'm ignored when I outright tell everyone that I dislike the GOP just as much, and I honestly do. I'm just not a big poster on all subjects, but this one in particular. I'm aware the republicans have done similar things in the past, and are probably doing it now, and they can stick it up their asses, too.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 08:32 AM) I love how that is covered up now as the "Nebraska deal", instead of what it actually is... I also love the dismissal of it because "it will be killed by reconciliation". That makes it ok to be in there now.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 08:30 AM) So...therefore you have a problem with the way the Constitution sets up Congress such that local interests can wind up dominating certain debates. Perhaps if the Constitution was longer, we could have found a way around this. (/rimshot) If you honestly believe that, then I honestly believe you're naive.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 08:23 AM) A slap in the face for everything Congress is supposed to stand for? This type of horse-trading for local issues has been done for centuries. It makes for some bad policy, but let's not pretend that this is somehow unique. If you set up a system where a politician is going to be beholden to local voters, then you can't be surprised when that politician acts in the interest of his local voters. The only way around that would be to hold a proportional election system where there is no connection between local issues and their representative. I'm not pretending it's unique. It's bad practice, it's bad policy. What's worse is we are forced to 'accept that that's the way it is'. A lot of people here seem to think I'm a republican, and I dislike them as much as I dislike the democrats...they're all bastards and both parties CONSTANTLY play these games.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 08:15 AM) Really, if you got rid of things like the Nebraska deal (which will be killed on reconciliation), you could probably cut out about 10% of the pages, but there's no way to reform this system in the way that it needs to be reformed in a length that will make you happy other than starting from scratch. That bothers me...things like "the Nebraska deal" should have never existed. Either people are for this or not...but the outright placement of "payoffs and buying of votes" right in the bill is just Government run amok. It shouldn't even come to reconciling it out -- it shouldn't have EVER been put in there. The fact it was is a slap in the face of everything congress/senate is supposed to stand for.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 08:09 AM) Throw it all out and establish a fully government run universal system. You kill off 90% of the pages because you don't have to have different regulations at different levels, you don't have different groups lobbying for special deals, you don't have to worry about making sure your language is so tight that lobbyists can't find their way around. It's the only solution. No matter how tight they word these bills they seem to find they're way around it anyway. I relate this to Microsoft's endless attempts to prevent piracy with code so tight and controlled via verification communications of multiple sorts to validate the end user license, that it should be IMPOSSIBLE to crack. Only it's cracked before they even get to release it. The only thing Microsoft ends up doing is making life harder on their actual paying customers, and the pirates still go free on their merry way with less obstacles than the standard user has to put up with.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 08:02 AM) How do you plan on fixing the "engine" without tacking on an additional several thousand pages? Can be done. The constitution is shorter than this, and covers a LOT more ground.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 08:09 AM) Throw it all out and establish a fully government run universal system. You kill off 90% of the pages because you don't have to have different regulations at different levels, you don't have different groups lobbying for special deals, you don't have to worry about making sure your language is so tight that lobbyists can't find their way around. It's the only solution. Not happening. And no, just because you use a different font doesn't mean you have my support. The bill needs to be simpler, and it needs to target more than just insurance. It can be shorter AND fix how bills are created and also regulate the insurance industry at the same time.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2010 -> 06:01 PM) People also like to point to the "2000! pages! LOL!" without realizing that its not like 2000 pages in a text book. It's still 1500 pages too many, regardless. And I repeat, to all, it's EASY to understand bullet points, but it's NOT easy to understand the many if's, else's, or when's that apply differently depending on the specific situation in relation to those bullet points. There will be pages that counteract other pages, and/or supersede them, again, depending on the situation at hand. Combined, all of these things HAVE to be taken into account to truly understand what this bill will actually do and how it will actually apply to real life. Fixing the steering wheel of the car (insurance), when the engine remains broken (hospitals/doctors charging whatever they feel like charging), will do nothing for the people. It will merely shift who pays for what and how.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 10, 2010 -> 10:14 PM) No one knows what's in the bill? I do. The one thing they are negotiating is abortion and that will be something similar to the senate or house. If you don't know what's in it it's because YOU HAVENT READ THE BILL! READ THE BILL! READ THE BILL! I'd love for you to say that to me in person so we could have an in depth discussion on what's in the bill, because your claim to know whats in the bill is laughable, at best. And an outright lie in the least. You couldn't, right now, without Googling, give me ANYTHING in the bill that's not some bullet point list, and I don't need to know you to know that. You have no clue what's in the bill, or how it's written, and you couldn't even begin to decipher it without a degree in law. You THINK you know what's in the bill. You've read a few things here and there, but never the final bill, because it's not released yet, since they make changes to it from minute to minute. You've heard things, second, third or fourth hand... But you have zero understanding outside of a bullet point list as to what's ACTUALLY in the bill and how it ACTUALLY applies to real life. Not even congress knows, because 99% of them haven't read it. Same goes for the senate. I like to be real. So be real...and stop lying to yourself about understanding that bill. You don't. Neither do I. Nobody truly does. And that's the problem.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2010 -> 01:07 PM) Honestly, between as many things as we've seen demonized in this bill and as many lectures as we've heard about it being 2000 pages of government takeovers, do you actually think it would be possible to write and pass a bill that directly reformed every single thing on your list all at the same time? There's a reason why this one is aimed at reforming insurance companies. Because there's only so many lobbies you can take on at once. If this bill makes things better, then it's worth passing. The phrase "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" applies here. And there in lies the rub. That's quite a big "IF". Now, for just a second, let's stop pretending our government does anything right the first, second, third or nine hundredth time and recognize that they almost always do it wrong, with more inefficiencies than any other entity in the known universe. Therefore the odds are against this being better than what we currently have. In that case, it's NOT worth passing. While both are big IF's...going by their modern track record...this is doomed to fail.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 10, 2010 -> 12:48 PM) Insurance companies haven't really been helping but they aren't the problem all by themselves, it's probably the way we practice medicine in this country, and the fact that it's just bogged down by so much inefficiency. This I can agree with. I'm for health care reform, I've said this many times. What I'm not for is just tossing a bunch of s*** on paper and passing it without even knowing what it stands for or how it will work when implemented. I consider this an intelligent country, overall, and we need to be smart about this. They want to call this "comprehensive", fine -- though this has become a bulls*** government word that does nothing more than make whatever issue we are discussing sound bigger. What we've done thus far isn't smart. It's flat out dumb. It's kneejerk garbage that we usually get as of late. Quickfix after quickfix, when the underlying problem is still there. You can stick a huge bandaid on a gaping wound, but unless you heal that wound, you've done nothing but cover the real problem that lies beneath. If they're going to reform this, they need to reform ALL of it. * Doctors * Hospitals * Drug companies * Generic drug companies * Pharmacy's * Hospitals * Administration * Insurance THAT is comprehensive reform. What we have right now is this: 2000+ pages of lawyer speak bulls*** about one thing and one thing only... * Insurance That, ladies and gents, is a bandaid over a huge f***ing gaping wound...nothing more.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2010 -> 12:37 PM) Then your argument is that health insurance companies do nothing to hold down health care costs but add a nice additional layer of bureaucracy in there to increase costs. Yes, that's exactly what I said. That is the most senseless logic I've EVER heard on this board. I mean that...EVER. That's like saying the people who make car radios do nothing but increase the cost of cars. Health insurance, like any insurance, is a service. A necessary one in many regards, from life, to auto, to home. To pretend it's not, is just...well, f***ing stupid. Insurance is a necessary thing in this world, to pretend it's not is naive. I'm not giving the insurance companies a free pass in this, they don't deserve one. That said, while there are many things that can be done to reign in insurance companies, attacking them and only them isn't the answer...the doctors, hospitals, and all that lies between, including the drug companies, need to be reformed, too. I've made this point from the beginning. You and many others who support Obamacare ignore this point...and continue to ignore this point.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2010 -> 12:29 PM) If health insurance companies have no cost control mechanism, then what exactly are they good for? Again, you blame health insurance when they aren't the ones sending the bills, but unlike the federal government, private industry can't just say, "we aren't paying you that", or they lose the business. This is the same tireless argument about health care reform. This isn't health care reform, it's health insurance reform. The insurance companies are NOT the ones sending the bills. The insurance companies are NOT the ones sending the bills. The insurance companies are NOT the ones sending the bills. Seems that no matter how many times I say that, people still don't get it...or don't want to get it.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 10, 2010 -> 11:01 AM) You said "you are all" when it was me and Balta talking, what else am I supposed to deduce from that? I mean really now. I go out and I look at these graphs on my own, I don't listen to the rabbling because it's mostly worthless. To me, by far the most depressing thing about the last 18 months or so of this debate is that it shows me how intellectually lazy people in this country are. (Y2HH this last sentence doesn't apply to you) Well, I defiantly cannot argue what you said there. While I may not agree with all aspects of Healthcare reform with the users on Soxtalk, at the very least they are informed in SOME WAY. It's really amazing to me when you discuss this issue with random people how uninformed they are, about EVERYTHING to do with this subject. Most of them repeating things they've heard from either side, without ever bothering to research or read up on their own.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2010 -> 08:32 AM) I think you and I see the graph in question and come to an opposite conclusion 1990 expenditures (all values approximate): Private insurance: $200 billion Medicare: $100 billion Out of Pocket: $130 billion Medicaid (Federal + State) $75 billion 2007 expenditures: Private Insurance; $670 billion Medicare: $400 billion Out of Pocket: $275 billion Medicare + Medicaid: $300 billion There are a few trends I get from that. Yes, the government share has gone up, but the slope of "Private insurance" is higher than the slope of Medicare by quite a bit. Private insurance has gone up by a lower percentage, but that's only because the starting values were so different. Medicare has gone up by quite a bit less than private insurance overall and per year. The thing that has really, really shot upwards other than private insurance is Medicaid. In other words, it's the cost of covering the uninsured, which is, as I keep saying, a big reason to motivate this, because there are cheaper and better ways to do that. There is the comparison I'm talking about. Let's not pretend it WASN'T a comparison now.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 10, 2010 -> 10:58 AM) WTF are you talking about, no, I wasn't making a comparison, I linked a chart that said "X amount is spent on private insurance and increases at this rate and Y amount is spent on public insurance and increases at this rate" and then I explained WHY I linked it and then I said what exactly I meant when I posted it (i.e. not a comparison) more than once and you still are making my points for me? I never said you, in specific.

You are all outright comparing the rising costs of medicare to private insurance, then saying it's not a comparison. Nevermind. This is once again, as I said from the VERY beginning of this discussion years ago -- to those who believe, no explanation is necessary, to those who don't believe, no explanation will do.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 10, 2010 -> 10:53 AM) It wasn't a comparison. Yes, it was.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 10, 2010 -> 10:52 AM) It is also going to prove a lot towards what government run health care would look like, as fewer and fewer medical facilities and doctors are willing to accept Medicaid patients because of the lower payouts The idea that the medical profession will do a lot more work, for a lot less money is the central pillar of this plan, and it is false. Right, and I don't see why people don't seem to get that. But it is what it is.

Medicare has a forced cost control mechanism that private doesn't have, thus any comparisons between the two are null and void -- as you are comparing apples to oranges. IE, the government often just decides it's not paying what it promised to the doctors via Medicare, or pays less...and there isn't anything they can do about it. The private industry, however, doesn't get away with that.

I think it just shows that in the wake of ultimate destruction (Chernobyl), nature will not only forget about us, but it will do everything in it's power to wipe any memory of us, too...and in a very short time in the grand scheme of things. I think it's fascinating. This is why I'm never worried about mother nature or the Earth in general. Humans don't care about climate change for the sake of the Earth, they care about it for the sake of themselves. We, as a race, don't like to admit that when the Earth decides to give up on us, there will be nothing we can do about it...and shortly thereafter, it will have forgotten about us all together. I'm sure it calms the fears of many that if you drive a few less miles a year or go "green", you're doing your part and helping...but in the end, one super volcano, one asteroid, or one little virus is going to hit the reset button for the Earth, and then it'll all start over a couple of eons later. I personally find that cool, albeit dark.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 10, 2010 -> 10:00 AM) Yeah mine is only like .60 or something like that since it's under $1k right now. I mean, you figure a CD tends to start at about 1.5 or so so 1.35 is not bad at all. Apparently: The transition will occur only if you have no brokerage or investment accounts at all at E*Trade. If you do, your savings account stays there. Otherwise, customers with savings accounts will be summarily moved over.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 10, 2010 -> 09:58 AM) I'll be curious to see how your situation changes with the Discover thing, in terms of linking accounts. So far nothing has changed.