0
chuckakers

For the socialized medicine bunch

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Now, imagine if you had to deal with CIGNA with absolutely NO chance of changing. Because even though you claim that you had "zero say" - obviously someone in the company did have influence to change it.

But if it's all government provided. That's it. Hope and pray that it is what you want. Cuz I'm scared it won't be.



Except, if it were government provided, voters would have the ability to make changes if necessary. That's nothing like "NO chance of changing."



Like how we can vote and change our income taxes, right?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

You obviously have not yet read post #165.



I did, actually. It just does offer anything but an anecdotal example, and not a great one, at that.



It is a personal experience. He is saying that his experience is contrary to that being stated by others. Why is anecdote untrustworthy?

And regarding the single interest, now I understand the "flippant" comment.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Now, imagine if you had to deal with CIGNA with absolutely NO chance of changing. Because even though you claim that you had "zero say" - obviously someone in the company did have influence to change it.

But if it's all government provided. That's it. Hope and pray that it is what you want. Cuz I'm scared it won't be.



Except, if it were government provided, voters would have the ability to make changes if necessary. That's nothing like "NO chance of changing."



Like how we can vote and change our income taxes, right?



Like we vote for Congressmen who have the power to change our income taxes.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why is anecdote untrustworthy?



I'll assume you mean generally, since I never mentioned untrustworthy.

The short answer is that anecdote != data.

I was once in an auto accident in which not wearing a seatbelt saved my life. Is that evidence that seat belts cause unnecessary risk to motorists? Of course not.

I have a friend that used to have a cat that loved to play fetch, without ever having been trained to do so. Does that mean that playing fetch is instinctive to cats? Of course not.

Re: Muenkel's anecdotal experience, the only conclusion we can draw is that it is not true that his insurance company never pays for any treatments recommended by doctors for any of their customers. We can't conclude anything further. We have an anecdote, not data. Since such a claim was not made, disproving said claim is merely knocking down a straw man.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm not that well educated in american corporate law but I'm pretty sure it's a criminal offense for a company board not to work in the best interest of the shareholders.



In the US, 95% of the time, that would not be a criminal offense; although it would be a basis for shareholders to bring a civil lawsuit against the board and/or management (known as a "shareholders' derivative lawsuit") for breach of fiduicary duty. Most of the time, mismanagement is incompetent, but not corrupt. Only when it rises to the level of actual corruption - basically, stealing the company's money - does it become a criminal offense; and in actuality, that's fairly rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The same Congresspersons who got us out of war in Iraq.



You may recall from law school that the Commander in Chief is not a Congressperson, but the President.



And YOU may recall that it is CONGRESS that creates declarations of war and that authorizes use of force.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

And YOU may recall that it is CONGRESS that creates declarations of war and that authorizes use of force.



What do either of those have to do with getting out of Iraq?



That was one of the major planks in the Dem congressional elections in 06, was it not?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

And YOU may recall that it is CONGRESS that creates declarations of war and that authorizes use of force.



What do either of those have to do with getting out of Iraq?



That was one of the major planks in the Dem congressional elections in 06, was it not?



I'm not sure what you're asking? Elections don't generally have planks. Campaign platforms have planks, metaphorically speaking.

Are you asking if one of the major planks of the Democratic platform for the 2006 Congressional election campaigns was that Congress has the authority to declare war?

If that's the question, the answer is no. That authority is given to Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the uSA.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

And YOU may recall that it is CONGRESS that creates declarations of war and that authorizes use of force.



What do either of those have to do with getting out of Iraq?



That was one of the major planks in the Dem congressional elections in 06, was it not?



I'm not sure what you're asking? Elections don't generally have planks. Campaign platforms have planks, metaphorically speaking.

Are you asking if one of the major planks of the Democratic platform for the 2006 Congressional election campaigns was that Congress has the authority to declare war?

If that's the question, the answer is no. That authority is given to Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the uSA.



How the HELL do you go from "getting out of Iraq" to Article I, when YOU YOURSELF emphasized it in your last post???

However....
Quote

Yet during the interview, she asserted that discontent over the war is the No. 1 issue driving the election.

"This election is about Iraq,'' said Pelosi, a consistent war opponent who has said her failure to prevent the United States from going to war in 2003 is her greatest disappointment in public life.

"If indeed it turns out the way that people expect it to turn out, the American people will have spoken, and they will have rejected the course of action the president is on."

If they win, Democrats will immediately reach out to Bush to find a bipartisan way to begin redeploying troops "outside of Iraq," Pelosi said. They will also apply pressure to disarm the militias, amend the Iraqi constitution and engage in diplomacy in the region.

"A Democratic victory would be in furtherance of reaching that goal. Absent a Democratic victory, we'll be there for the next 10 years,'' Pelosi said.



First 100 days
Quote

Support the troops and oppose an open-ended commitment to the President’s failed strategy in Iraq—calling for responsible redeployment of most U.S. troops by August 31, 2008.


Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How the HELL do you go from "getting out of Iraq" to Article I, when YOU YOURSELF emphasized it in your last post???



I was merely trying to follow the flow of your posts and answer your question.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

How the HELL do you go from "getting out of Iraq" to Article I, when YOU YOURSELF emphasized it in your last post???



I was merely trying to follow the flow of your posts and answer your question.



Um, no - you tried to throw a couple of red herrings.

Nice try.

Now, back to the socialized medicine thread...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

How the HELL do you go from "getting out of Iraq" to Article I, when YOU YOURSELF emphasized it in your last post???



I was merely trying to follow the flow of your posts and answer your question.



Um, no - you tried to throw a couple of red herrings.

Nice try.

Now, back to the socialized medicine thread...



Don't blame me if your question was incoherent. Accept some personal responsibility for yourself. Aren't you suppose to be big on that?
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Re: Muenkel's anecdotal experience, the only conclusion we can draw is that it is not true that his insurance company never pays for any treatments recommended by doctors for any of their customers. We can't conclude anything further. We have an anecdote, not data. Since such a claim was not made, disproving said claim is merely knocking down a straw man.



You're right. I forgot to mention that I have the platinum membership. Silly me.:P



_________________________________________
Chris






Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who's the Real Radical?

When people hear the word "conservative," they think it means something safe and tested that "conserves" established ways of doing things. That's what it means in dictionaries, after all. Maybe we should rewrite the dictionaries.

I cannot emphasize enough that the health care proposals being pushed by today's "conservatives" will radically change the way we all receive health care. Their ideas are completely untried anywhere in the world. And I say their theories have holes you could drive an ambulance through.

On the other hand, what Obama wants to do is leave alone what parts of the health care system are working and only change the parts that aren't working. People who are happy with their insurance coverage now will not have to change, he says.

If anything, some argue, that approach is too conservative, because the system needs a complete top-to-bottom overhaul. Many people would like to scrap the private insurance industry entirely and go to a single-payer system, in which health care costs are paid from a single government fund. If incremental changes don't work, we may get to that eventually. However, the Obama administration has declared that approach off the table, for now.

And, of course, the eventual details of the plan will be up to Congress. We don't yet know what those details will be. My fear is not that Democrats in Congress will come up with a plan that's too radical. Rather, I'm afraid they'll be too cautious, and millions will remain uninsured, while the premiums of others will remain ruinously high.

We'll see. Just understand that, right now, the real radicals are the "conservatives," and the real conservatives are being called "radicals." Don't be fooled by the labels.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/130677/why_conservatives_are_radical_on_health_care/#more
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, back to the socialized medicine thread...



Quote

as far as socialized health care goes, why would anyone want the gov to control health care? has anyone on here seen the mess social security and medicare is in? do we really want them to touch the rest of the health care system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Now, back to the socialized medicine thread...



Quote

as far as socialized health care goes, why would anyone want the gov to control health care? has anyone on here seen the mess social security and medicare is in? do we really want them to touch the rest of the health care system?



I've not heard of anyone being denied their SocSec payments, and I believe the system is solvent for some 30+ years even if no changes are made.

UNLIKE those who depended on their 401k for retirement this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Now, back to the socialized medicine thread...



Quote

as far as socialized health care goes, why would anyone want the gov to control health care? has anyone on here seen the mess social security and medicare is in? do we really want them to touch the rest of the health care system?



I've not heard of anyone being denied their SocSec payments, and I believe the system is solvent for some 30+ years even if no changes are made.

UNLIKE those who depended on their 401k for retirement this year.



Quote

i guess you don't know how the system works. soso security gives you 1to 1.5k a month, then you need to pay for health care and taxes, which leaves you $600-$900left. You have to pay your property taxes of 5k a year, insurance deductibles, elect and heat leaving you with a neg amount in your check book and a pile of paperwork and red tape to get you medicines to stay alive. The reason soso security is viable for 30 years is because they don't give you enough to live.

If you put all the money you paid into soso security over your life into safe secured accounts you would have at least twice the amount of money for retirement. so in otherwords, you have been robbed of at least half your retirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


Now, back to the socialized medicine thread...



Quote

as far as socialized health care goes, why would anyone want the gov to control health care? has anyone on here seen the mess social security and medicare is in? do we really want them to touch the rest of the health care system?



I've not heard of anyone being denied their SocSec payments, and I believe the system is solvent for some 30+ years even if no changes are made.

UNLIKE those who depended on their 401k for retirement this year.



Quote

i guess you don't know how the system works. soso security gives you 1to 1.5k a month, then you need to pay for health care and taxes, which leaves you $600-$900left. You have to pay your property taxes of 5k a year, insurance deductibles, elect and heat leaving you with a neg amount in your check book and a pile of paperwork and red tape to get you medicines to stay alive. The reason soso security is viable for 30 years is because they don't give you enough to live.

If you put all the money you paid into soso security over your life into safe secured accounts you would have at least twice the amount of money for retirement. so in otherwords, you have been robbed of at least half your retirement.



I think those who are retiring this year are pleased to have Soc Sec because their nice safe 401Ks have tanked so badly. Those who invested in nice safe real estate are regretting it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote


Now, back to the socialized medicine thread...



Quote

as far as socialized health care goes, why would anyone want the gov to control health care? has anyone on here seen the mess social security and medicare is in? do we really want them to touch the rest of the health care system?



I've not heard of anyone being denied their SocSec payments, and I believe the system is solvent for some 30+ years even if no changes are made.

UNLIKE those who depended on their 401k for retirement this year.



Quote

i guess you don't know how the system works. soso security gives you 1to 1.5k a month, then you need to pay for health care and taxes, which leaves you $600-$900left. You have to pay your property taxes of 5k a year, insurance deductibles, elect and heat leaving you with a neg amount in your check book and a pile of paperwork and red tape to get you medicines to stay alive. The reason soso security is viable for 30 years is because they don't give you enough to live.

If you put all the money you paid into soso security over your life into safe secured accounts you would have at least twice the amount of money for retirement. so in otherwords, you have been robbed of at least half your retirement.



I think those who are retiring this year are pleased to have Soc Sec because their nice safe 401Ks have tanked so badly. Those who invested in nice safe real estate are regretting it too.



Quote

I guess you missed the part about safe secured accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



If you put all the money you paid into soso security over your life into safe secured accounts you would have at least twice the amount of money for retirement. so in otherwords, you have been robbed of at least half your retirement.



I think those who are retiring this year are pleased to have Soc Sec because their nice safe 401Ks have tanked so badly. Those who invested in nice safe real estate are regretting it too.



Quote

I guess you missed the part about safe secured accounts.



According to the Cato Institute's analysis, SocSec returns are generally** above both long term government bonds and TBills. Less than corporate bonds or the stock market, BUT THOSE ARE HARDLY SAFE SECURED accounts.

** effective rate depends on time period, income, and marital status. Stll, SocSec is generally better.
www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n1-4.html

A comparison of the pre-tax rates of return from the social security system (Tables 2, 3, and 4) with the average rates of return for alternative investments for the time period 1945-89 in Table 1 shows that the social security returns are very favorable. The returns for those retiring presently or in the near future are impressive. For 65-year-old couples (Table 2), the rates of return from the social security system range from 8.14 percent for 50/50 income split couples with 1990 incomes of $100,000 to 11.24 percent for one-earner couples with incomes of $10,000. These rates exceed those of all investments for the 1945-89 time period except the most risky, common stock, which had a rate of return of 13.57 percent. As predicted, couples with one earner have high rates of returns because they receive spousal benefits without making additional contributions. For 65-year-old singles, the rates of return ranging from 7.65 percent for a male beneficiary with income of $100,000 to 10.02 percent for a female with income of $10,000 are somewhat lower than for couples because of the lack of spousal benefits but still compare favorably with all investments except common stock. As anticipated, females have higher rates of return than males with the same income because of their longer life expectancy. Overall, the rates for many 65-year-old beneficiaries are almost twice as high as the average rates of return for long-term corporate bonds, long-term government bonds, and U.S. Treasury Bills for the 1945-89 time period. [3]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites