published Sunday, March 17th, 2013

Expansion

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

108
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
328Kwebsite said...

Headline error on the front web page: failure to capitalize "Hays." Edit the paper. Thanks.

March 17, 2013 at 12:25 a.m.
fairmon said...

When will medicare become self supporting with monthly premiums and taxes increased? Why borrow money to fund any welfare program? When people, all people, have to pay enough taxes to meet expenses the demands for services will become less. Targeting only the top 5% for a tax increase keeps the protest squelched while the other income levels are paying dearly with hidden taxes fees etc. Simplify, simplify, simplify and everyone participate even if for only 1%.

March 17, 2013 at 12:45 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Fairmon asks: “Why borrow money to fund any welfare program?”

I guess our politicians do it because they’ve spent our tax dollars on other stuff like pre-emptive wars in foreign countries. . . Guns, drones, and defense contractor entitlements aren’t cheap. Profiteers need their profit. . . and, of course, all of those foreign politicians need to be paid.

March 17, 2013 at 7:03 a.m.
anniebelle said...

Really, JonRoss, who are you kidding, your friends maybe, but no one else. Writing in the Washington Post in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war. Today, as the United States has ended combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected. Moreover, two years on, it has become clear to us that our estimate did not capture what may have been the conflict's most sobering expenses: those in the category of "might have beens," or what economists call opportunity costs. For instance, many have wondered aloud whether, absent the Iraq invasion, we would still be stuck in Afghanistan. And this is not the only "what if" worth contemplating. We might also ask: If not for the war in Iraq, would oil prices have risen so rapidly? Would the federal debt be so high? Would the economic crisis have been so severe?

March 17, 2013 at 7:59 a.m.
anniebelle said...

And furthermore, Bush/Cheney cabal put all this on our credit card and not on the books, then proceeded to hand this loaded up credit card to President Obama to "take care of". Plus, putting his payoff to the giant pharmaceuticals in the form of Medicare Part D, also for the present administration to "take care of". You people and your lies and hypocricy are getting old.

March 17, 2013 at 8:06 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

It made my ol' liberal heart sing to read the outcome of yesterday's CPAC. That Palin, Santorum and Coulter were among the stars, immigration never came up, and Christie was excluded are all signs that the GOP continues to be hijacked and will be irrelevant for some time yet. An ultra-conservative GOP will continue to alienate voters and do anything to obstruct the Democrats, even if that means standing in the way of recovery.

March 17, 2013 at 8:42 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

JonRoss blithers: “mountain you are dishonest, as are most Progressives.

Since politicians have been taking out loans to pay for wars for over 200 years, I believe it’s you who is being dishonest here, JonRoss. Every honest and educated person knows there is a connection between war and debt in the U.S - and war is expensive.

It all started with $75 million in loans made to the new United States of America during the Revolutionary War. These war loans were paid back rather quickly and we actually had several years of budget surpluses, BUT the War of 1812 forced borrowing and once again we were back in debt due to a war.

The Civil War pushed the national debt into the unheard of $3 billion range. World War I pushed the public debt up to approximately $25.5 billion, and World War II resulted in one of the first sizable explosions in debt, up to approximately $260 billion by 1950. Then came the Vietnam War, which doubled America’s existing debt.

After the Vietnam War, there was the Cold War - and President Ronald Reagan was a big time spender on the Cold War. Next came the Gulf War. And now we have two of the longest wars in American history – the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Since the terrorist attacks in 2001, we’ve spent huge sums of money on the wars In Iraq and Afghanistan.

And lets be honest here, the only people benefiting from the two longest wars in American history is the military-industrial complex, which has enormous lobbying power in Washington. The only thing the American people have gained from these two wars is debt and lots of it.

March 17, 2013 at 8:54 a.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "mountain you are dishonest, as are most Progressives."

Is that so? Are you contending that you are an example of someone who's reputation is one of offering honesty whenever you post?

"The amount of money spent on "wars in foreign countries" is roughly equal to one or two years of Obama's deficits."

Sir...Congress spends every penny that goes out the door. Obama cannot spend a dime without their approval.

That aside, you really ought to do a little research every now and then. Defense spending, just the part that pertains to wars, has been about $3 trillion since Obama has been President.

"Defense of the country is the primary duty of the national government."

An expensive effort in chasing ghosts is about all that has been accomplished in the decade that the Military has been engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And we have not formed any allies as a result of it either. All we have done is to endanger every single American more, because we now have a whole new set of potential terrorists who want blood for what they have lost, due to the carnage wrought in destroying most of two sovereign nations, as well as a good many of their people in the process.

"There is indeed waste in the execution of that duty. But the cost of defense as a portion of the national budget has been reduced radically over the last 40 years and the cost of breeding voters for Obama has increased geometrically."

Again, such a statement shows that you lack the knowledge to debate it with any clarity whatsoever. War spending represents a current 20% of all funds spent by the Government and that money has not been spent in the defense of this nation at all.

That 20% needs to be eliminated completely before any talk ensues about contracting spending for Medicaid.

Fairmon is right about one thing. Everyone needs to kick in more towards Medicare taxes, for they have always been artificially low.

I will take it one step further and note that the budgets will never be balanced and debt will never have a minute's chance to be paid off until taxation rises to a much higher level than it is currently.

The taxation history over the last 100 years proves it too.

March 17, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "mountain you are dishonest, as are most Progressives."

Is that so? Are you contending that you are an example of someone who's reputation is one of offering honesty whenever you post?

"The amount of money spent on "wars in foreign countries" is roughly equal to one or two years of Obama's deficits."

Sir...Congress spends every penny that goes out the door. Obama cannot spend a dime without their approval.

That aside, you really ought to do a little research every now and then. Defense spending, just the part that pertains to wars, has averaged $750 billion per year or about $3 trillion since Obama has been President.

"Defense of the country is the primary duty of the national government."

An expensive effort in chasing ghosts is about all that has been accomplished in the decade that the Military has been engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And we have not formed any allies as a result of it either. All we have done is to endanger every single American more, because we now have a whole new set of potential terrorists who want blood for what they have lost, due to the carnage wrought in destroying most of two sovereign nations, as well as a good many of their people in the process.

"There is indeed waste in the execution of that duty. But the cost of defense as a portion of the national budget has been reduced radically over the last 40 years and the cost of breeding voters for Obama has increased geometrically."

Again, such a statement shows that you lack the knowledge to debate it with any clarity whatsoever. War spending represents a current 20% of all funds spent by the Government and that money has not been spent in the defense of this nation at all.

That 20% needs to be eliminated completely before any talk ensues about contracting spending for Medicaid.

Fairmon is right about one thing. Everyone needs to kick in more towards Medicare taxes, for they have always been artificially low.

I will take it one step further and note that the budgets will never be balanced and debt will never have a minute's chance to be paid off until taxation rises to a much higher level than it is currently.

The taxation history over the last 100 years proves it too.

March 17, 2013 at 9:33 a.m.
shen said...

fairmon said... When will medicare become self supporting with monthly premiums and taxes increased?

Medicare recipients do pay monthly premiums. Dont confuse medicare with medicaid. They are not one and the same.

March 17, 2013 at 10:20 a.m.
degage said...

Ike, Did you listen to Coulter speak. She did mention immigration. If you remember right Coulter was all in for Christie in2012, Well she has had to rethink this because he is all for amnesty.

I have mixed feeling about immigration. I know a couple that has been in the US for yrs and believe they are upstanding citizens, recently I found out they are illegal. I would vouche for them any day. Then I here of illegals that are nothing but criminals, where do you draw the line.

March 17, 2013 at 10:33 a.m.
shen said...

degage, why must a line be drawned in the first place? America will still have criminals of its own regardless of a persons' legal or illegal status, or if they're Americans whose families date back centuries. When or if someone commits a crime, regardless of legal status, address the problem from a crime has been committed rather than a blanket statement against all.

That's one of the biggest problems in some communities, especially poor/minority. Crime is treated as a blanket statement used to label everyone living within a certain radius, with no regards or respect that the vast majority are innocent of any wrongdoing.

March 17, 2013 at 10:42 a.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

How do we ever expect to control the cost of medicare and medicaid when the reimbursment is paid by the procedure? And this includeds all the drugs that any Dr can perscribe as needed. So order more tests and perscribe more drugs and as a DR or a Hospital you will make more money! I feel the current system is operated as medical care by commision.

March 17, 2013 at 10:54 a.m.
fairmon said...

shen said...

Medicare recipients do pay monthly premiums. Don't confuse medicare with medicaid. They are not one and the same.

I know they pay a token premium for medicare and those with incomes over 85K per year pay a progressively higher premium to the point those with really high annual incomes elect private coverage instead of medicare. Claims exceed revenue from premiums and taxes therefore both need to be adjusted. Medicaid is a welfare program that has to be funded from tax revenue for those legitimately eligible.

March 17, 2013 at 11:30 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

degage, any group that gives Coulter a platform loses all credibility with me. It is bad enough that she is a liar, but she uses those lies to pit Americans against each other. She is a female Glenn Beck.

March 17, 2013 at 12:18 p.m.
rick1 said...

lkeithlu, I do agree with you on Ann Coulter. She was all for Christie to be Romney's running mate last election and I believe she was also supporting Christine to run for President. Coulter also was against Romney before she was for him. Clouter is a classless hack and only cares about being part of the inside the beltway establishment of republicans. She is no way a true conservative.

I will have to disagree with you, when you said she is a female Glenn Beck. She is more of a female Chris Matthews.

March 17, 2013 at 12:47 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Maximus boasts: Clay the Gay Doodler is correct in his assessment that the funeral business is a good investment for any true free market Republican. I have already rolled some of the larger funeral home corporations and casket companies over into one of my numerous stock mutual funds."

Now I understand why you “true free market Republicans” are so opposed to the Affordable Care Act. Ya’ll have investments in casket stocks and funeral home corporations and you’re hoping to make some quick money off of those 82 million Americans who either have inadequate health insurance or can’t afford health insurance. You’re thinking if they’re at risk and not getting any regular medical care, it’ll be good for business. If they don’t have medical insurance, they might die sooner. . . if they do have medical insurance, they’ll die later.

March 17, 2013 at 12:58 p.m.
Maximus said...

Laurel....like I've lectured you people, I go to church, I pay my taxes, I give to charity, and I vote. When it comes to taking care of my family and helping the next generation of the Maximus family get off to a good start,while playing by the rules of guvment and ethics,especially in the good ole U.S. of A., it is every man/woman for themselves. That is the concept helpless libs or those who have known nothing but being a helpless victim have never ever understood. What ever Mtn Laurel, but just the baby boomer stats alone make healthcare, long term care, funeral homes, and Viagra a growth opportunity investment. As financial guru Dave Ramsey says..."so much of being financially secure is common sense" of which most goofy Democrats have a shortage of replaced by girlish emotion.

March 17, 2013 at 1:27 p.m.
Maximus said...

And Laurel, my point was that more people are going to die now that Obamacare is in place. Wow, 82 million American's without proper healthcare, that number keeps going up and up. I thought it was 30 million. Government "officials" mostly working for the IRS will decide whether your downs syndrome child with cancer gets chemo or gets sent to hospice. Bet on the hospice. A downs syndrome kid bagged my groceries at Costco the other day. What a hard working, happy, enthusiastic young lady she was. Those in control of our country right now, especially Barry The Welfare Pimp and his Princess On The Cover Of Vogue wife are heartless secular humanists driven by their lifestyle of relative morality and big government Marxist Socialism. Laurel, walk softly, because if your body mass index exceeds the proper average weight for your height the IRS may come a knockin on your door and it won't be to give you a refund. Put the big gulp down...NOW! You Obama suckers...............

March 17, 2013 at 1:37 p.m.
shen said...

DJHBRAINERD said... How do we ever expect to control the cost of medicare and medicaid when the reimbursment is paid by the procedure? And this includeds all the drugs that any Dr can perscribe as needed. So order more tests and perscribe more drugs and as a DR or a Hospital you will make more money! I feel the current system is operated as medical care by commision

Private insurance pays the same way, DJ. In fact, it was the private insurance industry that helped write the rules for Medicare. Medicare doesn't pay for prescription drugs for subscribers. If subscribers won't prescription drug coverage they must pay an additional premium for it in addition to the their Medicare A/B premium. A is for when a patient is in the hostpial. It pays for the bed the patient is in. B pays for doctors visits, checkups etc. Even then the patient has to pay the 20% left over after Medicare pays 80%. Unless they have a secondary insurance coverage.

This is the same way the private insurance rates are 80% paid by private insurance/ 20% remaining patient/subscriber responsibilty. I know this because I worked both in the private insurance industry and for the federal government. I really don't know where you all are sitting around getting your information from (some group sessions or something with people who know less than you do?), but it's all flawed and not true.

March 17, 2013 at 1:55 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Maximusty,

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

March 17, 2013 at 2 p.m.
shen said...
  • fairmon said...I know they pay a token premium for medicare and those with incomes over 85K per year pay a progressively higher premium to the point those with really high annual incomes elect private coverage instead of medicare*

That depends on what you mean by a token fairmon. The clients I've worked with who are on Medicare, some receive less than six or seven hundred bucks a month, pay a premium of over a hundred dollars monthly. And that doesn't include drug coverage. If they opt for prescription drug cover they have to cough up even more of their monthly income. Also, for doctors visit, hospital, emergency room stays and visits they're still left with being responsible for 20% of the bill Medicare doesn't cover.

March 17, 2013 at 2:03 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Maximucil posts crap that reminds me of D+ elementary school book reports... "this man was in a boat, and he caught a big fish named Marlin, but the sharks ate it, and he coughed up blood."

March 17, 2013 at 2:17 p.m.
shen said...

I forgot to add: The same as with most private insurance companies , Medicare subscribers must meet an annual deductable before Medicare pays that 80%. No matter if their income is only six or seven hundred a month. They're still responsible for meeting their annual deductable before Medicare will pay anything.

March 17, 2013 at 2:26 p.m.
jdavid said...

Shen- Keep your mouth shut. There's no place on this site for facts. We know what we believe even if we don't know why we believe it -- except for Dueteronomy- that let's us assign values to other "types" of people or people "light" ie "progressives" whom God hate as much as we do and whom will be smitten when the smitting time comes. amen

March 17, 2013 at 2:27 p.m.
shen said...

jdavid, that's funny. I'm laughing so hard my eyes are watering. Thanks. I'd really like to be a fly on the wall, just to witness these individuals in their little groups sitting around feeding off one another's misinformation.

March 17, 2013 at 2:29 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

“Maximus says: “Like I have told you in the past, the true Darwinian, free market capitalist observes governments, the U.S. included, and makes the proper indvidual financial decisions to survive, thrive, and get as far away from the unfortunate victims currently supporting Barry The Welfare Pimp.”

Yes, you “true Darwinian, free market capitalists” are a sight to behold. With all that surviving, thriving, observing, and running you must be pooped. As for the rest of us, all of your favorite “true Darwinian free market capitalist” politicians have been keeping us real busy:

“The war in Iraq was launched March 20, 2003, in Baghdad and unexpectedly stretched on for 106 months, just short of nine years.

During that time, 1,111,610 Americans served there for a total of 2,337,197 deployments, with some serving two or more times.

Four thousand, four hundred and eighty-eight of them came home in flag-draped coffins, including 110 women, according to Defense Department data.

Thirty-two thousand, two hundred and twenty-one were brought home with serious combat wounds ranging from concussions to multiple limb amputations.

Two hundred and thirty-five took their own lives while deployed.

In Iraq, 115,376 Iraq civilians were killed between 2003 and 2011 as sectarian fighting intensified, according to the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index, while the number of internally displaced Iraqi civilians rose from 400,000 in 2003 to 2.7 million by 2010.

Surveys by the Army Office of the Surgeon General found in 2006 that 18.6 percent of troops deployed in Iraq suffered "acute stress."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/17/iraq-war-casualties_n_2884952.html

March 17, 2013 at 2:32 p.m.
Easy123 said...

shen,

The word you're looking for is "Schadenfreude". It seems to be a common theme with our "superior" two-party system (you know, the system that is one party away from being Fascism).

March 17, 2013 at 2:36 p.m.
jdavid said...

Thanks Shen. I caught about 4 seconds of the radio lady who wants to be Ann Coulter but doesn't have enough Adam's (See Genesis" apple. I still feel dirty.

March 17, 2013 at 2:39 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Shen... I was speaking about the reason multiple tests are ordered not what a consumer pays. If you come into a hospital the hospital is reembursed a certain amount, by procedure. For medicaid the price for reembursment is also set by the procedure by the government. Is this inacurate? So if you are on medicaid or tenncare / blue care and you are in the ER What is the motivating factor for a hospital not to order tests on you when they are garunteed revenue by the government ( or private insurance but that is not todays topic)? Think about a CT scanner. Hospital buys one and staffs a tech 24-7. Those are fixed costs that the hospital has put a capital investment into. So from a profit standpoint, since most scanners are digital now there are no longer additional costs incurred by running the scanner (such as filmchemicals), Why would a hospital or DR office allow that scanner to go unused when they are garunteed a certain amount per test from medicaid? It is a win win for all. The Patients want the best and latest test for everything (especialy the ones who don't have to pay for it) the hospital makes a profit and the Dr gets thanked for being so diligent. Then you type this......Also, for doctors visit, hospital, emergency room stays and visits they're still left with being responsible for 20% of the bill Medicare doesn't cover. So am I inacurate by stating the hospital is garanteed money by ordering tests? Who paid the 80%? Or was I inacurate about the perscriptions....4$ generics...Who subsidises that? Have you not seen an explosion in the # of perscriptions perscribed to seniors? Who subsidises that. So would you like to tell me again howyou came to this conclusion........ I really don't know where you all are sitting around getting your information from (some group sessions or something with people who know less than you do?), but it's all flawed and not true. .....So would you like to explain to me how my observation if flawed? You have already established I am a slow learner.

March 17, 2013 at 3:03 p.m.
degage said...

Shen, You must not be on medicare. Medicare pays 80% until you meet your deductable. I have a medicare advantage and my deductable is $6700 after the deductable is met it pays 100%. Our co-pays have gone up along with premiums both the advantage and medicare. Believe me I know cause I have had some serious medical problems the past 6 months and my bills are coming in and addding up fast.

March 17, 2013 at 3:06 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Maximus says: “Wow, 82 million American's without proper healthcare, that number keeps going up and up. I thought it was 30 million.”

As I recall, I mentioned in the post that the 82 million figure included both people who do have any health insurance and those who have inadequate health insurance:

“About 44 million people in this country have no health insurance, and another 38 million have inadequate health insurance. This means that nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that, if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families.

Having no health insurance also often means that people will postpone necessary care and forego preventive care - such as childhood immunizations and routine check-ups-completely. Because the uninsured usually have no regular doctor and limited access to prescription medications, they are more likely to be hospitalized for health conditions that could have been avoided.

Delaying care for fear of medical bills is a downward spiral that leads to ultimately higher health care costs for all of us. More than one third of uninsured adults reported they have problems paying their bills, which helps explain why many of the uninsured don't seek out the care they need until the last minute. But when an uninsured person is in crisis and cannot pay, that burden falls upon the insured population, the hospitals, the doctors and the government. And these billions of dollars of "uncompensated care" drive up health insurance premiums for everyone.”

http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/uninsured.html

March 17, 2013 at 3:14 p.m.
limric said...

The Max and The Truths Told

Pulling a well-worn hat that was once a vibrant pink over his tired head,

the pale skinned, grey eyed Maximus hunched over a crumb covered keyboard

He knew for in second that he was going to be God

Not in any ‘O-Bastard’ sense of the word but the truest form

He clacked at the keys and made words as if he were the first magician,

lecturing with wizardry of the most absurd kind

and preaching words for them to envy

From the pictures of his mind he tapped away,

creating great free market structures and clusters of characters,

each within his ill-defined personal traits

Mere seconds before posting did they existed in no universe, and now,

now they were defined, realized and serving a purpose

Thinking he is now God

truly shown then he does not love his brethren

Alas we know not even if God truly is

Each post would have us believe a new story,

And within selfish thoughts he wanders

differentiates between he and them

and no one is more enlightened

You see, he is real but only as far as we are real

And yet imagines…

he is King

March 17, 2013 at 3:29 p.m.
shen said...

DJHBRAINERD said... Shen... I was speaking about the reason multiple tests are ordered not what a consumer pays. If you come into a hospital the hospital is reembursed a certain amount, by procedure. For medicaid the price for reembursment is also set by the procedure by the government. Is this inacurate? So if you are on medicaid or tenncare / blue care and you are in the ER What is the motivating factor for a hospital not to order tests on you when they are garunteed revenue by the government ( or private insurance but that is not todays topic)? Think about a CT scanner.

The point is, DJH, hosptials bill private insurance companies using the same criteria and scale. In fact, private insurance companies rely heavily on medicare/medicaid claims to help keep premiums down for the privately insured. Did you or anyone know there are entire departments in private insurance companies handling and processing medicare, medicaid and tenncare claims? For which they are reimbursed from the federal government. But go ahead, when or if those cuts you're all demanding goes into effect, just watch and see how most of your own livelihoods will be negatively affected.

Before you all jump on that tea party bandwagon, you need to research their true origins, identity, agenda, why they came into being in the first place and see what their sole purpose really is all about.

March 17, 2013 at 4:14 p.m.
shen said...

degage said... Shen, You must not be on medicare. Medicare pays 80% until you meet your deductable. I have a medicare advantage and my deductable is $6700 after the deductable is met it pays 100%. Our co-pays have gone up along with premiums both the advantage and medicare

I know how it works, degage. I've handled thousands, maybe millions of claims both in the private and government sector. I know all about how deductables work/ the 80%/20% and the 100% (unless in cases of accidents or injuries) work. You're not telling me anything I don't already know.

Another thing, on your unpaid bills rolling in, you need a secondary insurance, if you can afford one. Or if you can't afford to pay for a secondary insurance, and qualify/tenncare or medicaid would kick in and pay for the portions of your bill not covered by medicare. But you do have to apply. Tenncare/medicaid will act as that secondary insurance on your behalf. Depending upon your annual income and family size, you should qualify for either of those two and shouldn't be paying anything out of pocket. Either would knock out that 6700 deductible on your behalf.

March 17, 2013 at 4:19 p.m.
dude_abides said...

God, don't ever do that to me, limric, I'd throw myself off Lookout Mountain!

March 17, 2013 at 4:34 p.m.
joneses said...

Many liberals seem to lie without the slightest guilt or compunction.

For left-wing politics, lying goes back to the Russian Bolsheviks or earlier. The masses were lied to because the ruling elite (or the ruling elite to be) felt that the ends (Marxism) justified any means, and the masses were too stupid and ignorant to know what was good for them. But the ruling elite knew exactly what was good for them. Leftists have a rather low opinion of the masses, the average citizen.

Liberalism is like a religion, and it has zealots as fanatical as any other religion. But unlike most religions, liberalism has no moral code. The closest thing to a moral code in liberalism is “don’t get caught”. Ethics are situational, and totally up for interpretation. The truth is subjective, and the truth is merely what you want it to be. To the fanatic the leftist cause is so noble, so sacred that any lying or cheating for the leftist cause is justified.

When a liberal lies to the American public, he is in effect saying,

“You are too stupid to know what is good for you. I know what is good for you. I will say anything I need to say to convince you my way is the right way.”

If liberals were honest about their vision for this country few people would ever vote for them. Liberals must lie to us in order to impose the tyranny of liberalism upon us.

March 17, 2013 at 5:02 p.m.
shen said...

huffingtonpost excerpt: Conservative opponents of the health care law are leaning on lawmakers to turn down the Medicaid money

They're against it because, in their minds, they have a permanent image of the poor being blacks and people crossing the border illegally. Even poor conservatives don't see how they're shooting themselves in the foot. They too have that same image of who wil benefit. Not knowing they themselves are the greates beneficiares of social programs such as medicaid.

March 17, 2013 at 6:28 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

joneses, I like how you addressed each and every specific point posted here by liberals and proved them incorrect using facts that are easily found.

not.

Words are cheap. If you have nothing else, it is obvious.

March 17, 2013 at 6:31 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Maximus boasts: “Honors was fantastic yesterday. I shot a 78 not bad for my first offical spring outing. . . Ah yes, the rich get richer, but they work very hard for it.” . . Maximus lectures: "As financial guru Dave Ramsey says..."so much of being financially secure is common sense" of which most goofy Democrats have a shortage of replaced by girlish emotion.”

Yes, you’re just a good old boy. . . Meanwhile, as the rich have been getting richer:

---"Among troops in Iraq, the divorce rate inched up from 12.4 percent in 2003 to 17.4 percent in 2004, and then to 22 percent in 2009, according to the Army surgeon general's report. . .

---Inside the Army as a whole, the war years propelled a jump in violent crime, sexual assaults, drug abuse and increases in desertions and AWOLs. According to a massive 2012 Army study, violent sex crimes in the Army jumped over 90 percent between 2006 and 2011; violent felonies in general leaped 31 percent during the same time period.

---By 2010, more than 13,000 soldiers were judged unable to deploy by the Army due to illness, minor injury, or legal problems, Army officials said. Last year, 17,000 active-duty soldiers were under arrest, in military prisons or under investigation, according to the Army report. . .

---A 2011 RAND study of 1,500 11- to 17-year-olds in military families and caregivers reported high levels of stress and behavioral difficulty; 45 percent of the kids said people in their community didn't understand "what a deployment is like." . . .

The families of the war wounded have faced unique challenges. Staff Sgt. Bryan Gansner of the 101st Airborne was blown up in Iraq in 2006 and his wife, Cheryl, then 24, rushed to meet him at the old Walter Reed Army hospital in Washington, D.C. She was swiftly introduced into the world of bed pans, needles, surgeries, pain and depression. Her nightmares started almost immediately. . .

After a few weeks in intensive care, reality started to sink in: Bryan's wounding in Iraq had irrevocably altered their future, Cheryl told me. As she described it, the happy life they'd known was over. They would have to sell their house outside Fort Campbell, Ky. They'd lose contact with Bryan's combat buddies and their Army friends back home. As they sat together on a bed in Army housing at Walter Reed, Bryan started sobbing. He told Cheryl he didn't want to be there any more, that he didn't want to be hurt, that he was sorry for putting her through this. As she held him, he admitted he didn't want to live any longer.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/17/iraq-war-casualties_n_2884952.html

March 17, 2013 at 6:36 p.m.
degage said...

Shen, You said "Medicare subscribers must meet an annual deductible before medicare pays that 80%" I was trying to tell you that is not the case.You also said " they are still responsible for meeting their deductable before medicare will pay anything." wrong again. 2:26 post.

March 17, 2013 at 6:47 p.m.
degage said...

Shen, I will Pay my own bills. To many poeple want the govnS of their area to take care of them, I'm not one of those. I have medicare because I paid into it. I will take care of the rest no matter how hard it is. That is the diference between liberals and conservatives.

March 17, 2013 at 6:51 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

It is not. I am a liberal and I pay my own bills. I expect everyone that can to pay their own bills too. Refrain from stereotyping, please. I know conservatives who are on welfare because they have figured out that they can get by without working, so stereotypes do not hold.

March 17, 2013 at 6:56 p.m.
degage said...

Ike I do not know one conservative that wants gov to take care of them, maybe you do and I'm sure there some libs that think like you, good for you. Maybe you aren't as liberal as you think.

March 17, 2013 at 7:06 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I do. White, conservative southerners who vote against abortion, gay marriage and other "liberal" programs who in the words of members of their own families are "too lazy" to get up and go to work and collect their government check instead because it is easy. The picture is not always black and white. Lots of shades of gray.

This is EXACTLY why I respond negatively to absolutes and to stereotyping. Fact is, the red, southern states collect more in federal programs than the liberal states do. Ever wonder why? More people on welfare are white and they vote GOP in large numbers.

March 17, 2013 at 7:13 p.m.
alprova said...

degage wrote: "Shen, I will Pay my own bills. To many poeple want the govnS of their area to take care of them, I'm not one of those. I have medicare because I paid into it. I will take care of the rest no matter how hard it is. That is the diference between liberals and conservatives."

degage, if you pay those leftover bills, then you clearly are someone who can afford to pay them. Being a conservative has nothing to do with it.

Liberals pay their bills too, in case you were not aware of that fact.

Why not categorize the issue as it should be? There are people who can afford to pay for their medical care and there are those who do not have enough money left over at the end of the month to pay anything but the necessary expenses.

Deadbeats or those too poor to afford to pay their medical bills are not limited to supporting one political party or the other.

It's extremely disingenuous to assert otherwise.

March 17, 2013 at 7:15 p.m.
fairmon said...

shen said... fairmon said...I know they pay a token premium for medicare and those with incomes over 85K per year pay a progressively higher premium to the point those with really high annual incomes elect private coverage instead of medicare*

shen responded.... That depends on what you mean by a token fairmon. The clients I've worked with who are on Medicare, some receive less than six or seven hundred bucks a month, pay a premium of over a hundred dollars monthly. And that doesn't include drug coverage. If they opt for prescription drug cover they have to cough up even more of their monthly income. Also, for doctors visit, hospital, emergency room stays and visits they're still left with being responsible for 20% of the bill Medicare doesn't cover.

Token in this case means compared to claims made for payment and the rate of increase in claims. I am aware of the cost to those participating. They can obtain, if they can afford, it a medigap policy with various options labeled A thru N with F being the most expensive but covers all copays and deductibles. I am not suggesting some don't need help paying for their health care coverage but taxes and premiums have to go up to at least cover the claims.

Medicaid is 100% welfare and should be accounted for and paid as such with close monitoring for abuse which is not unusual with nursing homes being among the worst.

March 17, 2013 at 7:21 p.m.
shen said...

degage said... Shen, You said "Medicare subscribers must meet an annual deductible before medicare pays that 80%" I was trying to tell you that is not the case.You also said " they are still responsible for meeting their deductable before medicare will pay anything." wrong again. 2:26 post.

No, degage. I'm not wrong. I was referring to original A/B medicare, and how it pays. The one you use with your red/white/blue card. There are now several different plans for medicare recipients. Where they can have Medicare through other plans such a BlueCross/BlueShield, Humana, United HealthCare etc. etc. Depending upon the plan YOU, the subscriber, selects, the plan pays differently. You're still meeting your deductible, even as you go to the doctor's office and pay perhaps a five or ten dollar co-pay upfront. I can't go into full details of how it works here. It can be long and complicated trying to explain it and I don't want to confuse you anymore than you already appear to be.

Here's an example though: Say your doctor sends you to have an MRI. Depending upon your plan. That MRI may cost over a thousand bucks. Medicare say, THAT'S TOO MUCH! WE'RE ONLY GOING TO PAY FOUR HUNDRED FOR THAT MRI, BECAUSE IT WASN'T A FULL BODY SCAN WHATEVER. Say your medicare deductable is 300 bucks you have yet to meet (i'm no sure what the deductable is now). Well, under the original medicare plan, Medicare would pay only 100 bucks and you'd be responsible for that 300. The 300 going towards or meeting your entire deductable for that year. However, under some of the newer plans you can obtain through BC/BS, Humana whatever....they will pay perhaps 80% of that 400 plus it will still go towards you deductable/helping you to meet your deductable for that year. But you'd still be responsible for 20% of that 400 dollars. 40% of 400 bucks is $160.00. You'll have to pay out of pocket that 160.00. It's been a while, and I've somewhat moved on from the industry, but this is the best way I can explain it.

Believe me, when I say, these individuals some of you are sitting around listening to, feeding you all this stuf, do NOT have your best interest at heart. They just want to get you all up in arms to support their cause. Then they'll be done with you too.

March 17, 2013 at 7:23 p.m.
degage said...

Really Al, We live on a strict budget, on less than you would be comfortable with. We just don't buy anything we can do without. We have saved over the yrs and use that money for any emergency.

You seem to always think you know everything , In this case you are very wrong. I will still pay my bills and not expect the taxpayers to take care of me.

March 17, 2013 at 7:27 p.m.
degage said...

When I only had medicare it paid the same as the advantage does except it didn't cover pharmacies.

March 17, 2013 at 7:31 p.m.
degage said...

Shen, maybe you should check the medicare of the present before you say you don't want to confuse me.

March 17, 2013 at 7:35 p.m.
shen said...

fairmon said... They can obtain, if they can afford, it a medigap policy with various options labeled A thru N with Fmost expensive, covering all copays and deductibles.

The problem is, fairmont, most cannot afford it. Just last week I had an individual to call me because one of their prescription medications was almost three-hundred bucks. And that was just for a 30 day supply of medication. Do you think someone getting by on six or seven hundred bucks a month can actually afford to pay out almost 3 hundred bucks a month continiously month after month on such an income?

fairmon said/part II...Medicaid is 100% welfare and should be accounted for and paid as such with close monitoring for abuse which is not unusual with nursing homes being among the worst

Actually, nope! fairmon. Medicaid is not** 100% welfare. It can be and sometimes is used as a secondary insurance for low income. Many of these people have worked all their lives, in foundaries and before unions fought on their behalf and made if possible for future generations to earn a livable wage. They are older generations who, the newer generations, can't appreciate what jobs were like before Unions, because so many have it so much better now. They can't imagine a time when there was no job protection, on the job health benefits. If you got hurt on the job and couldn't work, tough luck! You're out of here. Child labor. People working in deadly and dangerous situations, where many lost limbs and lives, and their families weren't compensated. Many of those families ended up on the streets begging, or were forced into foster care where they were abused. The America you enjoy today is there for you because so many others before had to suffer and fight for the luxuries and benefits you enjoy on the job today. So yes! By all means, those people, who fought so gallantly knowing they would not likely receive any rewards, have a special place in my heart. Are there abuses? Of course! There's abuses in the private insurance industry too. But that's no excuse to throw the baby out with the wash.

March 17, 2013 at 7:36 p.m.
shen said...

degage said... Shen, maybe you should check the medicare of the present before you say you don't want to confuse me

People can, and still do, opt for the original medicare plan. So there's no change there. You still are meeting your deductable before medicare kicks in to pay/even if you don't realize it. That thiry, forty or fifty plus buck bill you receive also goes towards your deductable, even if you don't pay it. Pay close attention to your EOB {Explanation of Benefits} next time/or if you still have any from your original medicare plan. If they opt for the original medicare plan, the one I was referring to, the rules are still the same. There's no way to explain every type medicare coverage, degage. Common sense tells us that.

March 17, 2013 at 7:47 p.m.
alprova said...

degage wrote: "You seem to always think you know everything , In this case you are very wrong. I will still pay my bills and not expect the taxpayers to take care of me."

Sir, with all due respect, not many people who are poor run around with the conscience thought that they want the taxpayers to take care of them either.

Not all poor people are in the predicament because they did something wrong.

It's very commendable that you are attempting to be self-sufficient, but the reality of the situation is that no matter what you have saved for emergencies, eventually, if your health continues to go south, you're going to run out of the means by which to pay all of your health care bills.

You see, I could easily play your game and offer the criticism that you have not pre-planned for your current situation in having medical bills piling up, by not purchasing a supplemental policy, but I understand and am keenly aware what those plans cost, and not everyone can afford them. You're probably one of those who cannot.

Now you can sit there and gloat about being a conservative who does not want a dime's worth of assistance from the taxpayers, but the reality is that you are currently dependent on the taxpayers.

Yes...you paid into the system for years. Yes...you are definitely entitled to your benefits. But the bills that are paid are paid out of what is flowing into the Medicare coffers last month or last week. What you paid into it is long gone and was used to pay the medical bills years ago.

Look...I get it. I see where you are coming from.

It doesn't matter what you want or do not want. The fact of the matter is that it is highly likely that your health care costs will be augmented by the current taxpayers of this nation, and that is a-okay.

The Medicare system was set up to assist those who are in need, when they are in the twilight of their lives, if one is disabled, or just plain too poor to be self-sufficient.

The bottom line? Dump that ten ton chip on your shoulder that represents what I know is a false sense of pride.

Your being a political conservative does not make you any better than anyone else.

March 17, 2013 at 8:19 p.m.
alprova said...

One of my family members, age 81, has been bleeding internally for almost two years. Long story short, there is nothing that can be done about it, due to his age and other factors. He has been to several Surgeons, all of whom refuse to operate on him because they say he will die on the table.

So...every couple of weeks, he has to have three to four pints of blood to keep him going.

His medical expenses over the past two years have been enormous, but he has never paid one cent out of pocket for any facet of his medical care.

He has a supplemental policy through United Health Care that picks up every cent of his co-pays, deductibles, and whatever Medicare does not pay.

I handle all of his finances, including the tracking of his medical visits and am on the phone in a minute to providers that dare to bill a cent to him. In every case, the problem is that they failed to bill United Health Care for any balances left over that Medicare did not cover.

His supplemental policy is not cheap. It's running around $260 a month currently. But it has saved him thousands of dollars, given his current health care issues.

He is a man who can afford the insurance that is needed to keep those bills from piling up. He's always over-insured himself, just in case.

Heck...he even keeps 2 million dollars worth of liability coverage on his motor vehicles, just in case.

March 17, 2013 at 8:40 p.m.
alprova said...

lkeithlu wrote: "Fact is, the red, southern states collect more in federal programs than the liberal states do."

That is indeed a verifiable fact.

"Ever wonder why? More people on welfare are white and they vote GOP in large numbers."

That too is a verifiable fact.

The Republican cheerleaders can post all they want in condemnation of Liberals, and blame them for social programs until the end of time, but the fact of the matter is that they far too often are criticizing their fellow conservatives, many of whom depend on those social programs every single day of their lives.

March 17, 2013 at 8:49 p.m.
limric said...

Here you go Dude_abides.

This short funky inter-argumentative intermission should make everyone mooovvve! If yo don't 'git on up' with the 'hit'...well....

Oh yea. "Turn the stereo up" -- or else!!

TAXED TO THE MAX :Tower of power

VERSE:
politicians promise all they can to get elected, to make a better land In a smoke filled room, they're makin' all their plans but when the smoke gets clear, you know it's just a scam

BRIDGE:
I'm just an average ordinary kind of guy, punchin' in at nine, punchin' out at five doing all I can to pay the bills on time no matter how hard I try, I just can't get by

REFRAIN:
taxed to the max, but we can't get the facts they just tell us what they think we ought to know (we get) taxed to the max, but we don't get it back someone tell me where the money really goes

VERSE:
Weapon systems, national defense Vested interests, it doesn't make no sense what we think we get, ain't always what we get they keep raising all our taxes, but we get deeper, deeper in debt

BRIDGE:
I'm just an average ordinary kind of man, slightly underpaid, tryin' to understand no matter what I make it's never quite enough I want to do my share, but it just ain't fair

March 17, 2013 at 8:56 p.m.
Maximus said...

MtnLaurel....you would have been saying Hiel Hitler back in 1944. George Bush and the United States won the Iraq war. Mtn, Dude, and Limric keep up the liberal lines and enjoy your life at the bottom of the food chain and yes ya'll I know exactly what I am talking about. Barry The Welfare Pimp is absolutely the worst president this country has ever had.

March 17, 2013 at 9:34 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Maximusty,

You're a moron. You're also a liar, but I link that back to my first statement.

March 17, 2013 at 10:03 p.m.
alprova said...

Maximus wrote: "MtnLaurel....you would have been saying Hiel Hitler back in 1944."

Oh for Pete's sake...

"George Bush and the United States won the Iraq war."

Can you put into one sentence EXACTLY what was won? If you think that we won a thing, I urge you to hop a plane, land in Iraq, depart, announce yourself as an American, and see how long it is until your miserable life comes to an end.

"Mtn, Dude, and Limric keep up the liberal lines and enjoy your life at the bottom of the food chain and yes ya'll I know exactly what I am talking about."

You may think you know what you are talking about, but you find yourself at odds all the time with others. That indicates that you don't know a doggone thing.

Most pathological liars don't know very much at all but how to keep on telling lies.

"Barry The Welfare Pimp is absolutely the worst president this country has ever had."

Once again, you find yourself at odds with most of America, who voted him in for a second term. That very prospect should not have occurred, if indeed he was the "worst President this country has ever had."

Your opinions are not necessarily reflective of anything resembling fact.

March 17, 2013 at 10:13 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Thanks for the update on Peyton Manning, TOES. LOL

March 17, 2013 at 10:17 p.m.
GratefulDawg said...

"Put the big gulp down...NOW! --Maximus"

But wait, Sarah Palin killed with that Big Gulp routine at CPAC. Palin received a standing ovation for taking a sip of "pop". I don't know if the CPAC crowd was wowed by Sarah's safe act of rebellion or the fact that she was able to drink from a straw in only one try...Either way, stand and cheer they did.

And there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was holding an open-records birth certificate request in one hand and a Big Gulp in the other. Its riders name was electoral death.

March 17, 2013 at 11:19 p.m.
fairmon said...

shen said...

Actually, nope! fairmon. Medicaid is not** 100% welfare. It can be and sometimes is used as a secondary insurance for low income. [shen followed this with a tirade about how people were in the situation of needing medicaid assistancce and deserving it]

shen...nothing in my post suggested medicaid was not appropriate and that people receiving it didn't need or deserve it. I have family and friends in the program like most Americans do. Still it is welfare and should be identified and accounted for as welfare. This does not suggest that it should not exist. The point regarding abuse is that those abusing such an important program should be punished severely. Medicaid is a state administered program with some doing a better job than others with all doing, in my opinion, a better job than the federal government would do. People receiving medicaid do not have the income, assets or resources to pay the cost of their care. 100% of any social security or other limited income received is used to help pay the cost of care. How they got there or if they sacraficed or did not is immaterial, they have got to be taken care of by those that can afford it.

March 18, 2013 at 4:52 a.m.
fairmon said...

shen...

It would take too much time to describe how medicare, HMO, PPO and negotiated rates distort the cost of provider services. However, a law that required a provider to charge exactly the same fee to any person provided a specific service would reduce health care cost. That would require that each provider establish the cost for the service without being in collusion with other providers to set the price. Why do you think some DR.s do not accept medicare patients and others limit the number they will accept? Have you reviewed an EOB to see what the rates would be if not a negotiated rate? That is where those with a private standard policy have premiums driven to radically high rates.

March 18, 2013 at 5:08 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

What is Medicaid?

Medicaid is a state and federal partnership. Each state operates a Medicaid program that provides health coverage for lower-income people, families and children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

What does Medicaid cost?

Medicaid coverage is designed to be affordable for everyone who is eligible. Cost sharing for Medicaid varies by state but is extremely limited for most participants.

What are the Medicaid eligibility rules?

The eligibility rules for Medicaid are different for each state, but most states offer coverage for adults with children at some income level.

Eligibility: People with disabilities are eligible in every state. In some states, people with disabilities qualify automatically if they get Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. In other states you may qualify depending on your income and resources (financial assets).

“Buy-Ins”: Some states also have “buy-in” programs that allow people with disabilities with incomes above regular Medicaid limits to enroll in the Medicaid program. Children with disabilities can qualify for Medicaid either under these disability-related rules, or based on family income.

Expansion in 2014: Starting in 2014, the Affordable Care Act will expand the Medicaid program to cover people under age 65, including people with disabilities, with income of about $15,000 for a single individual (higher incomes for couples and families with children).

Help for disabled people: This expansion helps low-income adults who have disabilities but don’t meet the disability requirements of the SSI program. The expansion also helps those whose income is above their state’s current eligibility levels.

http://www.healthcare.gov/using-insurance/low-cost-care/medicaid/#howmed

March 18, 2013 at 5:23 a.m.
conservative said...

Good morning Ike.

He who created you without you will not justify you without you. Saint Augustine

March 18, 2013 at 8:20 a.m.
shen said...

fairmon said... Still it is welfare and should be identified and accounted for as welfare.

For what purpose, fairmon, and why should it matter one way or the other? Is this based on your own personal opinion or stated as fact? If that's the case, why not officially count every program, bellout where government is involved, what have you, as welfare? Why not count that 15 million Romney received, then hid in his church, then wife's account and then offshore accounts, as welfare? Why not count all those extras private businesses have received from the federal government, but refused to openly acknowlege, as wefare? See, your argument is so flawed, yet you don't even realize it. You're so busy hanging onto every word those group heads are spewing, that you don't even realize they're sole purpose, and how their goals negatively affects you personally if they have their way.

fairmon said... shen... It would take too much time to describe how medicare, HMO, PPO and negotiated rates distort the cost of provider services. However, a law that required a provider to charge exactly the same fee to any person provided a specific service would reduce health care cost. That would require that each provider establish the cost for the service without being in collusion with other providers to set the price.

And it would take an entire century to convince you that Medicare operates on the same premise and rules as private insurance. Medicare already pays at a reduce rate that what the physician or service charge. The physician or type of service is billed at the regular amount, then private insurance and Medicare calculate what the service should actually cost, then pay at that already calculated rate. You have In-Network and Out-of-Network providers. In-Network means the provider is aware of the rules, and reduced payments, and have agreed to pay at that predetermined rate. The patient is made aware of this too. If the patient opts to go to an Out-of-Network provider, that provider can charge what they want and the patient will be responsible for the difference. The insurance company, private or government, can refuse to pay any amount altogether, or pay at an even more reduced amount and, in most cases, the patient will be responsible for the difference or paying the charge entirely. You're not telling me anything I don't already know about PPOs and HMOs. I've worked those claims too. In fact, I was on the cutting edge of HMOs and PPOs when they first came into existence.

March 18, 2013 at 8:29 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Maximus says: “You would have been saying Hiel Hitler back in 1944.”

Since it’s you who is always touting your alleged superiority, peddling racially motivated policies, working to undermine our democracy, and promoting your warped plutocratic beliefs, I suspect it’s you who would have been chanting “Hiel Hitler” back in 1944.

March 18, 2013 at 9:45 a.m.
Leaf said...

limric, nice lampoon of Maximus' imaginary world. I can't decide whether he's a comedian masquerading as the most stereotypical gauche used BMW salesman ever, or an enemployed college frat boy who almost got a BS in marketing.

Alprova, good to see you applying your mind to something other than pimp-slapping conservative.

March 18, 2013 at 10:06 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Well, alprova, Fred Phelps has set his sights on me now. (sigh)

March 18, 2013 at 10:09 a.m.
Maximus said...

Leafless, Mtnfatty, Alprovnuthin, Easy#2...I hope you all find healthcare security some day. I don't sell them but what the heck is wrong with a pre-owned BMW? I own three of them, a 650, 740, and SUV and saved thousands in depreciation by buying pre-owned. Getting back to Mtn fatties desire for Nanny State Guvment Security here is my take. "What makes America exceptional is not our government, its not our legal system, its not our military, its individuals like Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Meg Whitman, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs driven by their grand obsession of innovation and personal success that makes America exceptional. Dependence upon a nanny state government or anyone else to provide your security is the path to personal failure." An original quote from Maximus...all rights reserved, Copyright 2013 Maximus.

March 18, 2013 at 12:19 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Maximusty,

You're truly a moron.

March 18, 2013 at 12:37 p.m.
alprova said...

Maxumus wrotew: "Leafless, Mtnfatty, Alprovnuthin, Easy#2...I hope you all find healthcare security some day."

I do appreciate your concern, and thanks to ObamaCare, I now have adequate health care coverage as part of the PCIP already in effect.

"I don't sell them but what the heck is wrong with a pre-owned BMW?"

Nothing.

"I own three of them, a 650, 740, and SUV and saved thousands in depreciation by buying pre-owned."

The truth of the matter is that you probably drive a 1992 Pontiac Grand-Am on it's last legs. Your yard is probably filled with all the other junkers you wore out. The concrete blocks holding them up are probably more valuable than the cars.

You don't own a BMW. Do you kow why I know that? You described one of your vehicles as an "SUV." No self-respecting BMW X3 owner would refer to their vehicle simply as an "SUV."

What a pretentious liar you are.

March 18, 2013 at 12:48 p.m.
alprova said...

Leaf wrote: "Alprova, good to see you applying your mind to something other than pimp-slapping conservative."

Sshhhhhh!!! Don't wake him up.

March 18, 2013 at 12:51 p.m.
Maximus said...

EAsyflush#2...I know...the truth hurts...is that you on the front page of today's TFP sitting with a bunch Obama supporters in the tie dyed shirt? Typical.

March 18, 2013 at 12:52 p.m.
limric said...

" No self-respecting BMW X3 owner would refer to their vehicle simply as an "SUV."

Nice catch Alprova.

March 18, 2013 at 1:03 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Maximusty,

Your quote sounds vaguely familiar.

From Marco Rubio's RNC speech:

"Mitt Romney knows America's prosperity didn't happen because our government simply spent more. It happened because our people used their own money to open a business. And when they succeed, they hire more people, who then invest or spend their money in the economy, helping others start a business and create jobs."

I guess a little paraphrasing doesn't count as plagiarism.

Back to the point. How is it that the same federal aid that helped people like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and nearly every other successful Republican talking head in Washington will hold other Americans back or, as you say, lead to personal failure?

Tell me how that works. Marco Rubio's mother benefits from Medicare. He said so in his State of the Union rebuttal. But, in the same speech, Rubio stated that those programs "hold you back" or "limit you". What about the federal aid Rubio used to go to college? Didn't seem to hold him back, but screw everyone else that might need it, right? It'll make them "dependent", correct?

Why didn't those programs hold Rubio, Ryan, or Mitt Romney's own father back? Why are these same people, that should be lauding these government programs that helped them succeed, demonizing them for the average American? Why are they trying to limit other people's access to the same programs and government funding that worked for them?

Riddle me this, you intellectually and logically bankrupt buffoon.

March 18, 2013 at 1:11 p.m.
Maximus said...

Rubio is one of the new young guns of the Republican party but I did not steal my quote from him. It is original and yes my suv is an X3. As for self respect I have plenty. Rubio may have had some help from the guvment coming up but Marco ran the race and won the election by his own drive, ambition, and individual talents. It is the individual not the collective that drives the success of the United States. I don't know that anyone except Obama is trying to limit our freedoms. Look, I'm done schooling you losers today, I gotta go stack some dead presidents..$$$$$$$$$

March 18, 2013 at 1:19 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Maximus says: I hope you all find healthcare security some day. I don't sell them but what the heck is wrong with a pre-owned BMW? I own three of them.”

Heil Maximus Stomachus. . . He owns three pre-owned BMWs.

And may we inquire about your healthcare insurance policy. . . Is it also pre-owned?

March 18, 2013 at 1:26 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Maximusty,

"Rubio is one of the new young guns of the Republican party but I did not steal my quote from him."

Your quote is an amalgamation of quotes from Rubio and Romney.

"Rubio may have had some help from the guvment coming up but Marco ran the race and won the election by his own drive, ambition, and individual talents."

Rubio said it himself that he would not have been able to go to college without government aid. Drive, ambition and talent only go so far. Would Rubio be where he is today without a college education? Or would he end up like many other second generation immigrants in this country being demonized by the Right?

"It is the individual not the collective that drives the success of the United States."

Not according to history. The collective is the success. Want proof? Read the Preamble.

"It is the individual not the collective that drives the success of the United States."

That is because you are a WingNut hack that is incapable of observing and accepting truth when it is presented to him in a way that any toddler could grasp.

"Look, I'm done schooling you losers today, I gotta go stack some dead presidents..$$$$$$$$$"

Run away, you ignorant coward. I had no doubt that you would not be able to answer my question intelligently or honestly. You might want to get some schooling of your own before you tread into the deep waters again. You're in over your head and your lies are easily found out.

March 18, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Maximus says: “Here is my take. What makes America exceptional etc.”

Please. . . I’ve read your posts and it doesn’t take much thinking to figure out your game and who you’re trying to emulate – the Koch bigots. . . And they’re about as unethical and un-American as anyone in America can possibly be:

“Billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch have been dominant financiers for conservative front groups and nonprofits for nearly three decades. Their money has flowed to organizations dedicated to lobbying for corporate and upper income tax cuts, as well as to groups responsible for mobilizing Tea Party rallies against President Obama.

But the Koch family’s association with fringe right-wing groups began a generation earlier with Fred Koch, the patriarch of the clan. Fred not only founded the company now known as Koch Industries, he also was a founding member of the John Birch Society. As a founding board member, Fred helped engineer a hysterical wave of attacks on labor, intellectuals, public education, liberal clergy members, and other pillars of society he viewed as a threat. Birchers decried everyone from former President Eisenhower to water utility administrators as pawns in a global communist conspiracy.

In the last two years, as the Koch name has become synonymous with right-wing plutocracy in the United States, the Koch family has played down its relation to the Birchers. The Bircher ode to Koch glosses over Fred’s record of bigotry. In a booklet he authored, Fred railed against civil rights leaders, and claimed the movement against racial segregation was a communist plot to use African Americans to destabilize the country. The Koch-funded Birchers held numerous rallies during the ’60s claiming integration would lead to a “mongrelization” of the races.

Although the present-day Koch brothers try to eschew explicit racism, their top Tea Party front group, Americans for Prosperity, is currently pursuing similar racial segregation goals. In North Carolina, the Americans for Prosperity chapter led a campaign to end a highly successful public school integration system.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/10/242334/john-birch-society-celebrates-koch/

March 18, 2013 at 1:51 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Most of you know that I am a conservative. But perhaps regarding todays discussion I mostly side with Liberals on this one.

I am fond of many of the entitlement programs, but not as they are run today. I had a special needs child that qualified me for SSI and Medicaid at one time and honestly could not have gotten by without it.

I also went to nursing school with Pell Grants and Student loans, but I worked full time even 2 jobs at one point to support my family. The government help I received was a means to an end for me. The Gov. invested in me and has gotten it's payback several times over by now.

Sadly this is not the way the system is run. There is no means to an end for the masses on gov. assistance.

So I am not totally against them, just don't like the rules in place, or not in place.

March 18, 2013 at 2:20 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Thanks. I too DO NOT like stereotyping.

March 18, 2013 at 3:03 p.m.
Leaf said...

nurseforjustice, mountainlaurel - I own three nurses. And three mountains. My SUV is a BMW, I mean a Porsche. It's that SUV that's a Porsche, you know the one. I smoke cuban cigars - made out of Cubans. Made out of Fidel Castro! Yeah, that's right. I fly to Cuba in my BMW airplane and buy dictators to smoke in my mansion! I'm awesome! Gotta go buy some gold. Later, idiots!

  • Maximus
March 18, 2013 at 3:39 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

It is nice to have common ground here.

March 18, 2013 at 3:44 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Shen......For which they are reimbursed from the federal government. But go ahead, when or if those cuts you're all demanding goes into effect, just watch and see how most of your own livelihoods will be negatively affected.

Before you all jump on that tea party bandwagon, you need to research their true origins, identity, agenda, why they came into being in the first place and see what their sole purpose really is all about. .........I am confused shen.....I made a statement that there is not a motiviating factor to control costs in a pay by procedure system followed by an everyday example and you go on and on about private vs gov subsidized reembersment procedures. Then you dismiss my observation as being from a what ever you have decided I am....A tea party extremist? I find this type of interaction to be futile. You have even givin a similar example to degage concerning an MRI. SO it is a reading comprehention problem or are my posts to long to hold your attention.(Reads rude doesn't it) So the short version becomes....DO you think I am incorrect by stating that there is not a motivating factor to control cost in a pay by procedure system? And please skip the condesending comments and name calling I find it petty and boring.

March 18, 2013 at 3:51 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Of course a X3 is a SUV....I don't owm one personally, but I have looked at them.

March 18, 2013 at 4:34 p.m.
fairmon said...

shen said...

You're not telling me anything I don't already know about PPOs and HMOs. I've worked those claims too. In fact, I was on the cutting edge of HMOs and PPOs when they first came into existence.

You worked on the ppo and hmo claims processing I was on the negotiating and carrier selection process early in the HMO, PPO era. They saved my client lots of money but they are a big part of the convoluted health care cost problem.

Why do you resent calling a duck a duck? When you take something from one and give it to someone else and there is no obligation to return it or earn it it is welfare. BTW...welfare is not a bad or politically incorrect word. Medicaid is a welfare program just like the earned income credit in the tax system is a welfare program in camouflage. 67% of medicare is currently not funded by premiums and taxes therefore the balance is welfare.

March 18, 2013 at 4:45 p.m.
fairmon said...

shen said.... it would take an entire century to convince you that Medicare operates on the same premise and rules as private insurance.

I agree the premise is similar such as deductibles, co pays etc. but not setting premiums cost. No private carrier receives taxes from employs and employers to help pay claims.

Medicare already pays at a reduce rate that what the physician or service charge.

Yes, a rate that medicare has set and that they refer to as negotiated which is not an accurate description.

The physician or type of service is billed at the regular amount, then private insurance and Medicare calculate what the service should actually cost, then pay at that already calculated rate.

Private insurance is not in a position and should not participate in setting provider rates. The rates are set by medicare with the assistance of others and a provider has no option regarding those rates if they are to serve medicare participants. Some opt not to accept medicare patients and others limit the number they will see.

The billing is at the regular rate and the EOB reflects that which private insurance companies and those with private insurance pay. It is then zdjusted to the allowable medicare rates. The amount charged private insurance is inflated due to the medicare rates which often does not cover provider expenses.

You have In-Network and Out-of-Network providers. In-Network means the provider is aware of the rules, and reduced payments, and have agreed to pay at that predetermined rate.

I assume you mean to be paid at the predetermined rate if they have agreed to accept and treat medicare patients?

The patient is made aware of this too. If the patient opts to go to an Out-of-Network provider, that provider can charge what they want and the patient will be responsible for the difference. The insurance company, private or government, can refuse to pay any amount altogether, or pay at an even more reduced amount and, in most cases, the patient will be responsible for the difference or paying the charge entirely.

True...but the bottom line is that medicaid and to a large extent medicare are welfare programs with providers, those with earned income, private insurance helping pay for them and the government still has to borrow money to cover the cost.

March 18, 2013 at 5:05 p.m.
shen said...

fairmon said... No private carrier receives taxes from employs and employers to help pay claims.

Most all your major, now private, insurance companies started out as non-profit before establishing themselves into the giants they now are. When things were going well they'd switch to for-profit. Then when they found themselves in the red, they'd switch back to non-profit, which allowed them to qualify for all kinds of government quirks and tax breaks. Even remaining for profit, they still qualify for giant fedral government dollars. Like I said before, there's not a major company in America that hires on a large scale that hasn't or doesn't receive government subsidies of some kind. Whether it's a major insurance company or some other major company. They all suckle the government tits.

Fairmon, you seem to be trying to turn this into some kind of a competition, or an effort to say who's the smarter when it comes to insurance. I'm just telling you what I know as fact, because I worked in the insurance industry from the early 1970s on up through the mid and late 1990s. I was there when the ground rules were being argued, batted around and then solidified.

You're goin way off the deep and into a totally unnecessary different direction.

Again, it was the private insurance industry that helped write the rules that both they and medicare follow when paying out claims.

There are all kinds of federal tax breaks and incentives these so-called private companies receive that are not visible to the average person. Yet, they are there, perhaps under some other labeling of some kind.

March 18, 2013 at 5:37 p.m.
shen said...

fairmon said... You worked on the ppo and hmo claims processing I was on the negotiating and carrier selection process early in the HMO, PPO era. They saved my client lots of money but they are a big part of the convoluted health care cost problem.

I never said I was on the processing end, fairmon. You can pull anyone off the street and teach them in only a matter of seconds how the process a claim. My position was much more complex than that.

But I'm not going to continue to round and round with you on the issue. You semm to be trying to turn this into a tit for tat or something. I won't bite. LOL

March 18, 2013 at 5:52 p.m.
shen said...

DJHBrainerd said.. DO you think I am incorrect by stating that there is not a motivating factor to control cost in a pay by procedure system? And please skip the condesending comments and name calling I find it petty and boring

I'll try and simplify it for you in one or two or three sentences: Those things are already in place in an attempt to control cost. They've been in place for sometime now.

March 18, 2013 at 6 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Shen asks: “Why not officially count every program, bellout where government is involved, what have you, as welfare? Why not count that 15 million Romney received, then hid in his church, then wife's account and then offshore accounts, as welfare? Why not count all those extras private businesses have received from the federal government, but refused to openly acknowlege, as wefare?”

Good question, Shen. . . It is rather odd that we never hear the Republicans ranting about these corporate entitlements. . .. Speaking of which, NYT's Paul Krugman has a good commentary on the issue - Mooching off Medicaid:

“Some of the states grudgingly allowing the federal government to help their neediest citizens are placing a condition on this aid, insisting that it must be run through private insurance companies. And that tells you a lot about what conservative politicians really want.

Consider the case of Florida, whose governor, Rick Scott, made his personal fortune in the health industry. At one point, by the way, the company he built pleaded guilty to criminal charges, and paid $1.7 billion in fines related to Medicare fraud. Anyway, Mr. Scott got elected as a fierce opponent of Obamacare, and Florida participated in the suit asking the Supreme Court to declare the whole plan unconstitutional. Nonetheless, Mr. Scott recently shocked Tea Party activists by announcing his support for the Medicaid expansion.

But his support came with a condition: he was willing to cover more of the uninsured only after receiving a waiver that would let him run Medicaid through private insurance companies. Now, why would he want to do that? Don’t tell me about free markets. This is all about spending taxpayer money, and the question is whether that money should be spent directly to help people or run through a set of private middlemen.

And despite some feeble claims to the contrary, privatizing Medicaid will end up requiring more, not less, government spending, because there’s overwhelming evidence that Medicaid is much cheaper than private insurance. Partly this reflects lower administrative costs, because Medicaid neither advertises nor spends money trying to avoid covering people. But a lot of it reflects the government’s bargaining power, its ability to prevent price gouging by hospitals, drug companies and other parts of the medical-industrial complex.

For there is a lot of price-gouging in health care — a fact long known to health care economists but documented especially graphically in a recent article in Time magazine. As Steven Brill, the article’s author, points out, individuals seeking health care can face incredible costs, and even large private insurance companies have limited ability to control profiteering by providers. . .”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/opinion/krugman-mooching-off-medicare.html

March 18, 2013 at 8:05 p.m.
fairmon said...

shen said...

Again, it was the private insurance industry that helped write the rules that both they and medicare follow when paying out claims.

There are all kinds of federal tax breaks and incentives these so-called private companies receive that are not visible to the average person. Yet, they are there, perhaps under some other labeling of some kind.

You know that for a fact? Any tax incentive is for a reason and the receiver either has to do or accomplish something for it. It may be to support some political agenda but they are obligated in some way if they get something.

shen...not attempting to compete but when you suggest that a private insurance company and medicare decide what the provider can charge you are all wet. They can decide what they will pay but not his or their fee. A major problem with insurance and health care is government intervention instead of assuring ample and fair competition and quality of care. Government legislation is a high percent of a providers cost. The government protects insurance companies from competing and fail to regulate them or provide a recourse when they deny legitimate claims. Too many people in government ar narrow minded "input" managers instead of describing the "output" required and the penalties for failing to do so.

March 18, 2013 at 8:23 p.m.
shen said...

fairmon said... but when you suggest that a private insurance company and medicare decide what the provider can charge you are all wet. They can decide what they will pay but not his or their fee.

I've already explained that in my IN-Network verses Out-Of-Network provider. You're so busy trying do a one-up that your reading comprehension has become seriously flawed and askew. Give it a rest, honey. It's really not worth the sweat and effort.

March 18, 2013 at 9:36 p.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon, physicians and medical care providers over-bill patients all the time, knowing that they will not collect all of what is billed from both patients and insurance companies, and they gladly write off the rest as noncollectable debts. This lowers their income taxes tremendously and it's perfectly legal.

They know exactly what they will be paid for their fees when seeing a Medicare or Medicaid patient. They set themselves up to show a loss whenever they see such patients, because they need to offset their gains with lots of losses.

March 18, 2013 at 11:26 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said....

They know exactly what they will be paid for their fees when seeing a Medicare or Medicaid patient. They set themselves up to show a loss whenever they see such patients, because they need to offset their gains with lots of losses.

How can they show a loss when they are paid the amount blled and that they agreed to unless they in fact have a loss? Physicians and providers have a fee for each service and bill patients per that fee schedule whether the patient has health care coverage or not. You can call it "over billing" but it is the fee they set which is higher to off set medicare, HMO, PPO rates plus some uninsured with no ability to pay while hoping the mix of patients is balanced as anticipated. They would prefer no losses and to be paid for all services rendered and pay the taxes.

March 18, 2013 at 11:59 p.m.
fairmon said...

shen said...

I've already explained that in my IN-Network verses Out-Of-Network provider. You're so busy trying do a one-up that your reading comprehension has become seriously flawed and askew. Give it a rest, honey. It's really not worth the sweat and effort.

You explained the difference of IN and OUT of network well. Take the blinders off from having been in the insurance end up to your ears. Medicare in consultation with insurers decide what they will pay whether it is reasonable or not but they do not decide what the providers regular fee will be. Those providers agreeing to see medicare patients have no choice but to accept the amount set by medicare for medicare patients but medicare and the insurers DO NOT determine the providers normal fee for that service. The fee is set higher for all other clients to off set the low amounts paid by medicare. The EOB reflects the normal fee and the medicare discount to meet medicare requirements. Governments in collusion with insurers are a major cause of rapidly rising health care cost.

March 19, 2013 at 12:21 a.m.
shen said...

fairmon, just give up the ghost. You're becoming more and more desperate in some sort of tit for tat effort to appear the better knowing.

I know what the EOB reflects fairmon. EOBs reflect the same with private insurance companies too. That is what the provider charged and what the insurance is willing to pay a percentage or all of. Shooga, again, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Just give it a rest. You're making yourself come across as combative and becoming unhinged over nothing. You've made the issue into some kind of battle when it never was.

Actually, it's not the government in collusion with insurers that has led to the rise in healthcare cost, as much as it's the advances in technology and equipment that can be very expensive to buy and maintain. Then there's the fear by some doctors who may sometimes over order medical tests, in fear that if they're wrong they can be sued for hundreds of thousands and even millions.

March 19, 2013 at 9:33 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Actually, it's not the government in collusion with insurers that has led to the rise in healthcare cost, as much as it's the advances in technology and equipment that can be very expensive to buy and maintain. Then there's the fear by some doctors who may sometimes over order medical tests, in fear that if they're wrong they can be sued for hundreds of thousands and even millions.

I understand that you can expand this to pharma; I have only a layperson's idea of the time and money it takes to develop and test new drugs, and they money must be recovered in the form of higher costs for those drugs before they can be sold in generic form.

March 19, 2013 at 10:02 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

That is exactly correct lkeith. They used to give drug companies 20 yrs to recoup their cost. Things have gotten much (looser)? these days.

March 19, 2013 at 12:09 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.