BoatBanter.com - Delicious...

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Delicious... (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/111040-delicious.html)

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"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
news:eb65e51msrrr45mfaoea21i9f5u5qfbpsb@4ax. com...
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

Do some basic research on Mr. Raines.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"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
news:eb65e51msrrr45mfaoea21i9f5u5qfbpsb@4ax .com...
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

Do some basic research on Mr. Raines.

Let's just assume that he's a terrible, corrupt person. Ok, so what does the
color of his skin have to do with it? You mentioned it in your paragraph, so
I think you should answer the question.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:43 -0400, John H.
wrote:

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?

Perhaps we should come up with some 18th century punishment for
stealing from the government or 20th century communist punishment.

After all the Soviets knew what you had to do to maintain order in a
socialist society. 20 years of genuine hard labor might slow down
these medicare scammers.

No need. The Chinese figured it out.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:40:40 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

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.

Who wrote the article you read and what was the source? I am just
basing my opinion on the amount of denials you get from insurance
companies and the hoops you have to go through to get paid. That is
not the rubber stamp you have with Medicare.
I did just go through this with Aetna and I know they wanted to see
the referrals for everything I claimed . It sure wasn't anything like
that thing 60 minutes was talking about where a storefront with no
bona fides can simply send medicare a bill for something and get paid
in a few days.

Hmmm... the funding of Aetna anti-fraud is the profit motive? Makes sense.
Of course, they do everything for the profit motive, which is the problem.
That's why it takes multiple tries to get reimbursed. I don't have Aetna,
but it's the same story... send it in, wait, nothing, send it in, repeat.
It's obvious to me that neither completely for-profit nor completely
non-profit, gov't run is the answer to stamping out fraud. I believe in
competition, but I also believe in taking the fear and worry out of medical
expense issues.

--
Nom=de=Plume