Delicious...
 

On 10/26/09 9:08 AM, Don White wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:58:11 -0400, Tosk
wrote:

In , says...

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:27:48 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"John wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:28:38 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"John wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:16:10 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"John wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:59:23 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:



I had to flush The Freak and Looney Tunes also.
Too bad...I had hoped we could beat some sense into them, but
they've
been
taken over by the dark side.
I stay on the Lt Colonels case because he's the one guy who
should
know
better.... unless they sell commissions in the US Army these
days.

Hi Don.

Are you ready to stop with the immature name-calling and
personal
insults yet?

It would improve the atmosphere, no?
I'm watching your lead..Lt Colonel.

Don, it's nice of you to call me that, but I'm no longer entitled
to
that. Now it would be LTC Ret.

It's really not fair to the LTC's doing the work, if you know what
I
mean.
When I refer to your rank of Lt Colonel....I mean in the Dope Army.

Wow, Don.

I guess you're just way too smart for me. So keep up with your
attempted insults and your name-calling. Maybe one day Harry, who
doesn't even answer most of your stuff any more, will adopt you.
Then
you'll have an 'official' father figure.

Go for it.
Too bad the Army didn't provide you with one. It might have made a
difference in your outlook.


Don, I didn't need one.

But I can understand why you're still looking for one.

If Donnie's kid had a father figure, he might have turned out
differently.

Donnie is a typical beer swilling, self indulgent, union teet sucker. He
should have spent more time with his kids, probably wouldn't be so
bitter and bored now... And he certainly wouldn't be paying for his
beer, cars, and God knows what else...

He's definitely shown he's not man enough to stop the name-calling and
personal insults. Of course, Harry wasn't either.

I've had enough of them.

Don't like that 'little voice of conscience' constantly correcting you eh?




What could be funnier than name-caller herring whining about others
name-calling?

Delicious...
 

H the K wrote:
On 10/26/09 9:08 AM, Don White wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:58:11 -0400, Tosk
wrote:

In , says...

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:27:48 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"John wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:28:38 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"John wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:16:10 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"John wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:59:23 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:



I had to flush The Freak and Looney Tunes also.
Too bad...I had hoped we could beat some sense into them, but
they've
been
taken over by the dark side.
I stay on the Lt Colonels case because he's the one guy who
should
know
better.... unless they sell commissions in the US Army these
days.

Hi Don.

Are you ready to stop with the immature name-calling and
personal
insults yet?

It would improve the atmosphere, no?
I'm watching your lead..Lt Colonel.

Don, it's nice of you to call me that, but I'm no longer entitled
to
that. Now it would be LTC Ret.

It's really not fair to the LTC's doing the work, if you know
what
I
mean.
When I refer to your rank of Lt Colonel....I mean in the Dope
Army.

Wow, Don.

I guess you're just way too smart for me. So keep up with your
attempted insults and your name-calling. Maybe one day Harry, who
doesn't even answer most of your stuff any more, will adopt you.
Then
you'll have an 'official' father figure.

Go for it.
Too bad the Army didn't provide you with one. It might have made a
difference in your outlook.


Don, I didn't need one.

But I can understand why you're still looking for one.

If Donnie's kid had a father figure, he might have turned out
differently.

Donnie is a typical beer swilling, self indulgent, union teet
sucker. He
should have spent more time with his kids, probably wouldn't be so
bitter and bored now... And he certainly wouldn't be paying for his
beer, cars, and God knows what else...

He's definitely shown he's not man enough to stop the name-calling and
personal insults. Of course, Harry wasn't either.

I've had enough of them.

Don't like that 'little voice of conscience' constantly correcting you
eh?




What could be funnier than name-caller herring whining about others
name-calling?

YOU WAFA

Delicious...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:45:23 -0700, jps wrote:

Clinton led the subprime lending, deregulation of Delimitative. Bush did
not correct the problems and kept Greenspan on as the Fed Man.

Holy crap, this was in play long before Clinton was chosen by the DCC
to run. Try Reagan.

Reagan started the idea that deregulation could be good but it was
Bush 41 that got the ball rolling and I really have not seen anything
different from the 3 guy that followed.
Bush/Clinton/Bush represented big business as well as they possibly
could and screwed the little guy every chance they got. I still have
hopes for Obama but it is slipping fast.


I do also. I don't know how possible even it is for meaningful
re-regulation. They're certainly _talking_ about it, which is a good start,
but the proof is in the doing.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:22:26 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:55:30 -0400, wrote:


Besides, that article has some other gems, such as the there's no
evidence the private insurers do any better with fraud than does
Medicare.


Did you see 60 Minutes tonight? They are talking about billions in
medicare fraud.

No, missed that. But see above. Maybe you missed it.
Somehow the Medicare fraud doesn't bother me as much after seeing
that.
After all, we're paying almost 10 times more to Aetna than to
Medicare.
So for every buck of mine going to a crook cheating Medicare, there's
nearly a sawbuck of mine going to the crook cheating Aetna.
Great system. Pretty equitable for the crooks percentage wise.
Lucky I can afford it. Good luck to those who can't.
They'll need it.

--Vic

I bet Aetna doesn't have near the fraud rate of medicare. They said
the whole Florida medicare department only had 3 investigators and
they called the process "pay and chase". They paid the claim, then
they determined if it was valid. The crooks would start and close the
fraudulent businesses faster than the investigators could look into
the claims.


I'm sure you're right. The "fraud" with Aetna (not singling them out
particularly) is that they're doing all the other bad activities (for
individuals). The problem with the Medicare fraud is that it's partly a
legislative issue. They must issue payment within I recall 30 days. The
investigative arm is underfunded (just got a $200M boost, but that's still
light in my view).

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:24:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:37:36 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra
of
the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more
efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we
eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single
payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning
into
a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for
profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that works,
than
pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time. When
it
was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the chattering
class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery...

You really need to review the facts about the VA, for example,
before
you make statements like this. Check out the person who's in
charge
of
the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still a
problem
and
will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials.
And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is
bad,
as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales
increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed
just
accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at
$500
million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back
10-15%
shortly. Put stops on your stocks.

Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are
created
and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services,
which
of
course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way
your
party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of
yourself for supporting The king and his court in their underhanded
activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The government
spent
tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their
cronies
on
Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money spent in
to
SBA
loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the other
"investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs.
Other
than
a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done anyway.
When
that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker.
Govenment
does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending.

Hank Paulson and George Bush got that ball rolling.

Goldman Sachs strikes again...

Hell, Bush was just continuing rolling the Clinton ball. Clinton and
his
administration caused the dot.com bubble, set the stage for the housing
bubble and Bush just continuing the screw ups.

Oh yeah, it was Clinton who caused the bubble.

I don't think you want to know the reason why Bill. It was for lack
of regulation and control of the greedy assholes who run Wall Street.

When you give control of the economy to folks who'd have you investing
in tulip bulbs, you've given them too much control.

Deregulation was a Republican mantra that the Democrats bought. We
also bought supply side economics.

Both ideas suck and they're still trying to repackage them every time
we turn around.

Get a clue. Even if you have to pay for it. Clinton pushed for the easy
loans, named the first black leader of Fannie Mae. Franklin Raines. Was
Clinton Justice Department that made a deal to settle for 10 million and
they dropped the fraud charges. He lied about FM's profits while buying
all the subprime loans and pocket $100 million in bonus money. He should
have had to pay back all the bonus money plus all the costs of the
investigation at the minimum and at the maximum, spent time in the stony
lonesome. Clinton led the subprime lending, deregulation of Delimitative.
Bush did not correct the problems and kept Greenspan on as the Fed Man.

Just curious, but what does the color of skin have to do with whether or
not he acted inappropriately?

I think I know the answer, but do tell.
--
Nom=de=Plume


His color was brought up when he got the job. And he was probably protected
by the Executive branch for both being appointed by the branch, and because
of his color.

Delicious...
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:22:26 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:55:30 -0400, wrote:


Besides, that article has some other gems, such as the there's no
evidence the private insurers do any better with fraud than does
Medicare.


Did you see 60 Minutes tonight? They are talking about billions in
medicare fraud.

No, missed that. But see above. Maybe you missed it.
Somehow the Medicare fraud doesn't bother me as much after seeing
that.
After all, we're paying almost 10 times more to Aetna than to
Medicare.
So for every buck of mine going to a crook cheating Medicare, there's
nearly a sawbuck of mine going to the crook cheating Aetna.
Great system. Pretty equitable for the crooks percentage wise.
Lucky I can afford it. Good luck to those who can't.
They'll need it.

--Vic

I bet Aetna doesn't have near the fraud rate of medicare. They said
the whole Florida medicare department only had 3 investigators and
they called the process "pay and chase". They paid the claim, then
they determined if it was valid. The crooks would start and close the
fraudulent businesses faster than the investigators could look into
the claims.

My fishing partner is a retired investigaor for the Calif AG. He went after
MediCal fraud. And they also found a lot of Federal Fraud. HE said the
Feds rarely looked at the fraud the state uncovered.

Delicious...
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:24:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:37:36 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra
of
the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more
efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we
eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single
payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're
turning
into
a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for
profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that works,
than
pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time. When
it
was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the chattering
class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery...

You really need to review the facts about the VA, for example,
before
you make statements like this. Check out the person who's in
charge
of
the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still a
problem
and
will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials.
And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed
is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is
bad,
as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales
increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed
just
accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at
$500
million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back
10-15%
shortly. Put stops on your stocks.

Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are
created
and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services,
which
of
course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way
your
party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed
of
yourself for supporting The king and his court in their
underhanded
activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The government
spent
tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their
cronies
on
Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money spent in
to
SBA
loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the other
"investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs.
Other
than
a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done anyway.
When
that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker.
Govenment
does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending.

Hank Paulson and George Bush got that ball rolling.

Goldman Sachs strikes again...

Hell, Bush was just continuing rolling the Clinton ball. Clinton and
his
administration caused the dot.com bubble, set the stage for the housing
bubble and Bush just continuing the screw ups.

Oh yeah, it was Clinton who caused the bubble.

I don't think you want to know the reason why Bill. It was for lack
of regulation and control of the greedy assholes who run Wall Street.

When you give control of the economy to folks who'd have you investing
in tulip bulbs, you've given them too much control.

Deregulation was a Republican mantra that the Democrats bought. We
also bought supply side economics.

Both ideas suck and they're still trying to repackage them every time
we turn around.

Get a clue. Even if you have to pay for it. Clinton pushed for the
easy loans, named the first black leader of Fannie Mae. Franklin Raines.
Was Clinton Justice Department that made a deal to settle for 10 million
and they dropped the fraud charges. He lied about FM's profits while
buying all the subprime loans and pocket $100 million in bonus money.
He should have had to pay back all the bonus money plus all the costs of
the investigation at the minimum and at the maximum, spent time in the
stony lonesome. Clinton led the subprime lending, deregulation of
Delimitative. Bush did not correct the problems and kept Greenspan on as
the Fed Man.

Just curious, but what does the color of skin have to do with whether or
not he acted inappropriately?

I think I know the answer, but do tell.
--
Nom=de=Plume


His color was brought up when he got the job. And he was probably
protected by the Executive branch for both being appointed by the branch,
and because of his color.

By whom? Seems to me, you just brought it up for no reason, unless you're
claiming you copied and pasted your paragraph from somewhere.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:33:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:22:26 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:55:30 -0400, wrote:


Besides, that article has some other gems, such as the there's no
evidence the private insurers do any better with fraud than does
Medicare.


Did you see 60 Minutes tonight? They are talking about billions in
medicare fraud.

No, missed that. But see above. Maybe you missed it.
Somehow the Medicare fraud doesn't bother me as much after seeing
that.
After all, we're paying almost 10 times more to Aetna than to
Medicare.
So for every buck of mine going to a crook cheating Medicare, there's
nearly a sawbuck of mine going to the crook cheating Aetna.
Great system. Pretty equitable for the crooks percentage wise.
Lucky I can afford it. Good luck to those who can't.
They'll need it.

--Vic

I bet Aetna doesn't have near the fraud rate of medicare. They said
the whole Florida medicare department only had 3 investigators and
they called the process "pay and chase". They paid the claim, then
they determined if it was valid. The crooks would start and close the
fraudulent businesses faster than the investigators could look into
the claims.

My fishing partner is a retired investigaor for the Calif AG. He went after
MediCal fraud. And they also found a lot of Federal Fraud. HE said the
Feds rarely looked at the fraud the state uncovered.


Sounds like it'd be a good investment.

Delicious...
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:37:46 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:28:30 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/26/09 6:22 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:55:30 -0400, wrote:


Besides, that article has some other gems, such as the there's no
evidence the private insurers do any better with fraud than does
Medicare.


Did you see 60 Minutes tonight? They are talking about billions in
medicare fraud.

No, missed that. But see above. Maybe you missed it.
Somehow the Medicare fraud doesn't bother me as much after seeing
that.
After all, we're paying almost 10 times more to Aetna than to
Medicare.
So for every buck of mine going to a crook cheating Medicare, there's
nearly a sawbuck of mine going to the crook cheating Aetna.
Great system. Pretty equitable for the crooks percentage wise.
Lucky I can afford it. Good luck to those who can't.
They'll need it.

--Vic


Note that the medicare fraud on display in 60 minutes last night was not
being committed by the government, but by private-sector, for-profit
individuals.

Yep. Health care providers all.
Somebody's got to pay for that Mercedes.

--Vic

You missed the point. It's a government run system riddled with fraud.
Now the government is trying to institute a *bigger* government run
system, which will still be administered by individuals. You don't
think the fraud will increase likewise?

Delicious...
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:22:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:22:26 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:55:30 -0400, wrote:


Besides, that article has some other gems, such as the there's no
evidence the private insurers do any better with fraud than does
Medicare.


Did you see 60 Minutes tonight? They are talking about billions in
medicare fraud.

No, missed that. But see above. Maybe you missed it.
Somehow the Medicare fraud doesn't bother me as much after seeing
that.
After all, we're paying almost 10 times more to Aetna than to
Medicare.
So for every buck of mine going to a crook cheating Medicare, there's
nearly a sawbuck of mine going to the crook cheating Aetna.
Great system. Pretty equitable for the crooks percentage wise.
Lucky I can afford it. Good luck to those who can't.
They'll need it.

--Vic

I bet Aetna doesn't have near the fraud rate of medicare. They said
the whole Florida medicare department only had 3 investigators and
they called the process "pay and chase". They paid the claim, then
they determined if it was valid. The crooks would start and close the
fraudulent businesses faster than the investigators could look into
the claims.


I'm sure you're right. The "fraud" with Aetna (not singling them out
particularly) is that they're doing all the other bad activities (for
individuals). The problem with the Medicare fraud is that it's partly a
legislative issue. They must issue payment within I recall 30 days. The
investigative arm is underfunded (just got a $200M boost, but that's still
light in my view).

And you're both most likely wrong. As I said, the article I posted
was what seemed like a pretty good examination of Medicare and the
private insurance industry. They said they could find no evidence
that there was less fraud in private insurance than there is in
Medicare.
What is the funding of Aetna anti-fraud?
Don't know, do you?
Well, why should you? After all, 60 minutes isn't doing features
about Aetna. Taxpayers aren't squawking about Aetna.
Furthermore, where is the competitive pressure that would force them
to address it? There's a sweet little oligopoly of health carriers
here, as in most states.
Fraud costs go up? Who cares, raise the premiums.
It's easy to live with mythical assumptions, but it's a lot more fun
to examine them.

--Vic