|
Delicious...
wrote in message
... On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:24:31 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: 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. If you watch that Frontline "warning" show (It is on PBS.ORG) you will see it was the Clinton era that actually brought us all the deregulation and derivatives problem that crushed wall street and cost the tax payer most of that trillion we spent in TARP 1. As long as you don't forget Gingrich's Contract on America Congress, you're right. Lots of deregulation happened while he was president, thanks in a large part to the Republican-controlled Congress. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
wrote in message
... On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:10:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The biggest cost factor, the actual care, is being ignored by everyone. Perhaps, that's certainly a big number. Something like 70% of docs want a public option or single payer. They're just as sick of the paperwork as everyone else. They just want a government rubber stamp on their bills. I don't blame them but if you are going to control costs more than the insurance companies do you will be denying a lot more of their bills. If you took every penny of insurance company profits away and reduced the top pay for their executives to a GS16 level you wouldn't come close to having the kind of money it takes for universal coverage. Sure is easy to blame the doctors, but it's a fallacy that the are the cause of the problem. Insurance companies are only interested in profit, they don't care a fig about people's health. This is normal for a company, but an abomination for public health. It's like having a military that's only interested in profit vs. national security. Oh wait, we've got that ala Blackwater. Never mind. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:40:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: As long as you don't forget Gingrich's Contract on America Congress, you're right. Lots of deregulation happened while he was president, thanks in a large part to the Republican-controlled Congress. Except for trying to fix health care and disloyalty to his wife, Bill Clinton wasn't much different than Ronnie Reagan. Wall Street animals both, who have brought this country to its knees. Golfers. Hey, is Obama a golfer? You'll have a better understanding of American politics when you stop arguing about Dems and Reps, and follow the money. Golfing is a good indicator. Expensive sport. They golfed while Rome burned. Think Jimmy Carter was a fisherman. Uh-oh. --Vic |
Delicious...
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:40:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: As long as you don't forget Gingrich's Contract on America Congress, you're right. Lots of deregulation happened while he was president, thanks in a large part to the Republican-controlled Congress. Except for trying to fix health care and disloyalty to his wife, Bill Clinton wasn't much different than Ronnie Reagan. Wall Street animals both, who have brought this country to its knees. Golfers. Hey, is Obama a golfer? You'll have a better understanding of American politics when you stop arguing about Dems and Reps, and follow the money. Golfing is a good indicator. Expensive sport. They golfed while Rome burned. Think Jimmy Carter was a fisherman. Uh-oh. --Vic Finance-wise, he was better than Reagan, since he pushed to get us on track for a surplus, but reg wise he wasn't better. A mixed bag I guess. Societally, he was much, much better. I think Obama recently took up golf, but I'm not sure. Didn't Carter shoot rabbits? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
On 10/25/09 3:13 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Vic wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:40:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: As long as you don't forget Gingrich's Contract on America Congress, you're right. Lots of deregulation happened while he was president, thanks in a large part to the Republican-controlled Congress. Except for trying to fix health care and disloyalty to his wife, Bill Clinton wasn't much different than Ronnie Reagan. Wall Street animals both, who have brought this country to its knees. Golfers. Hey, is Obama a golfer? You'll have a better understanding of American politics when you stop arguing about Dems and Reps, and follow the money. Golfing is a good indicator. Expensive sport. They golfed while Rome burned. Think Jimmy Carter was a fisherman. Uh-oh. --Vic Finance-wise, he was better than Reagan, since he pushed to get us on track for a surplus, but reg wise he wasn't better. A mixed bag I guess. Societally, he was much, much better. I think Obama recently took up golf, but I'm not sure. Didn't Carter shoot rabbits? And cheney...he shot his friends. |
Delicious...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:53:48 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:40:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: As long as you don't forget Gingrich's Contract on America Congress, you're right. Lots of deregulation happened while he was president, thanks in a large part to the Republican-controlled Congress. Except for trying to fix health care and disloyalty to his wife, Bill Clinton wasn't much different than Ronnie Reagan. Wall Street animals both, who have brought this country to its knees. Golfers. Hey, is Obama a golfer? You'll have a better understanding of American politics when you stop arguing about Dems and Reps, and follow the money. Golfing is a good indicator. Expensive sport. They golfed while Rome burned. Think Jimmy Carter was a fisherman. Uh-oh. --Vic GWBush was a vacationer. |
Delicious...
H the K wrote:
On 10/25/09 3:13 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Vic wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:40:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: As long as you don't forget Gingrich's Contract on America Congress, you're right. Lots of deregulation happened while he was president, thanks in a large part to the Republican-controlled Congress. Except for trying to fix health care and disloyalty to his wife, Bill Clinton wasn't much different than Ronnie Reagan. Wall Street animals both, who have brought this country to its knees. Golfers. Hey, is Obama a golfer? You'll have a better understanding of American politics when you stop arguing about Dems and Reps, and follow the money. Golfing is a good indicator. Expensive sport. They golfed while Rome burned. Think Jimmy Carter was a fisherman. Uh-oh. --Vic Finance-wise, he was better than Reagan, since he pushed to get us on track for a surplus, but reg wise he wasn't better. A mixed bag I guess. Societally, he was much, much better. I think Obama recently took up golf, but I'm not sure. Didn't Carter shoot rabbits? And cheney...he shot his friends. liar lol |
Delicious...
In article , says...
John H. wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:27:48 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:28:38 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:16:10 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "John H." 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... |
Delicious...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:53:48 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:40:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: As long as you don't forget Gingrich's Contract on America Congress, you're right. Lots of deregulation happened while he was president, thanks in a large part to the Republican-controlled Congress. Except for trying to fix health care and disloyalty to his wife, Bill Clinton wasn't much different than Ronnie Reagan. Wall Street animals both, who have brought this country to its knees. Golfers. Hey, is Obama a golfer? You'll have a better understanding of American politics when you stop arguing about Dems and Reps, and follow the money. Golfing is a good indicator. Expensive sport. They golfed while Rome burned. Think Jimmy Carter was a fisherman. Uh-oh. --Vic Golf is not an expensive sport, unless you enjoy spending the money. I play for about $17 a round, walking. That keeps me off the streets for about 4 hours. |
Delicious...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:58:11 -0400, Tosk
wrote: In article , says... John H. wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:27:48 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:28:38 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:16:10 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "John H." 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. |
Delicious...
|
Delicious...
|
Delicious...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:07:55 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: There were some real tense moments when one SS guy notified the rest of the team via walky talky that Pres Carter's boat was being attacked by a rabbit. Rabbit was momentarily understood to be "robot." Somehow, strangely, that figures. |
Delicious...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:55:45 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: All the facts are out there, including the fact that many modern countries beat our ass in health care. In terms of what? |
Delicious...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:14:48 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:55:45 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: All the facts are out there, including the fact that many modern countries beat our ass in health care. In terms of what? hehe. --Vic |
Delicious...
wrote in message
... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:14:25 -0400, H the K wrote: And cheney...he shot his friends. Hey he shot his lawyer. That was the high point in his otherwise undistinguished career in my opinion. You forgot to mention that his lawyer then apologized for getting shot. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
wrote in message
... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:13:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Finance-wise, he was better than Reagan, since he pushed to get us on track for a surplus, but reg wise he wasn't better. A mixed bag I guess. Clinton had the advantage of a Republican congress that wanted a balanced budget, the biggest tax increase in a generation and a booming economy that we now know was mostly an illusion. The beginning of the bubble that popped a couple years ago. Societally, he was much, much better. I think Obama recently took up golf, but I'm not sure. Didn't Carter shoot rabbits? Carter didn't shoot any rabbits that we heard about but he did beat one about half to death with a canoe paddle in a rogue rabbit attack. That was it! -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
wrote in message
... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:43:30 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Perhaps, that's certainly a big number. Something like 70% of docs want a public option or single payer. They're just as sick of the paperwork as everyone else. They just want a government rubber stamp on their bills. I don't blame them but if you are going to control costs more than the insurance companies do you will be denying a lot more of their bills. If you took every penny of insurance company profits away and reduced the top pay for their executives to a GS16 level you wouldn't come close to having the kind of money it takes for universal coverage. Sure is easy to blame the doctors, but it's a fallacy that the are the cause of the problem. Insurance companies are only interested in profit, they don't care a fig about people's health. I am talking about the medical conglomerates like HMA and the other mega medical corporations that own the doctors. I'm not familiar with that company. They don't appear to be around here, but I could be wrong. Kaiser is here in a big way. I'm not a fan of them, but the docs are usually pretty good. They get a salary, and I know a couple of them. They are not in anyone's pocket. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"jps" wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:24:31 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: "jps" wrote in message . .. 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. |
Delicious...
"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 ... 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 |
Delicious...
wrote in message
... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:52:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:14:25 -0400, H the K wrote: And cheney...he shot his friends. Hey he shot his lawyer. That was the high point in his otherwise undistinguished career in my opinion. You forgot to mention that his lawyer then apologized for getting shot. I do understand that to some extent. It is possible Harry was out of position. There is a definite protocol when several people are hunting a field about where everyone is walking or standing. When you are swinging on a bird there is supposed to be a safe zone around every shooter. At least that is always the way I was taught Cheney, the all powerful, probably demanded it! -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:50:16 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:24:31 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... 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. Holy crap, this was in play long before Clinton was chosen by the DCC to run. Try Reagan. Clinton was just complicit in the collective consciousness of greed that screwed all of us. |
Delicious...
wrote in message
... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:55:45 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:57:28 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:27:23 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: Note from the above link about Medicare admin costs, "Nor does it count most of Medicare's billing, which is outsourced -- and this might surprise people -- to private insurers like Blue Cross Blue Shield and listed under vendor services rather than program administration." Wasn't aware of that. So all the bitching about Medicare billing can as easily be laid off on the private insurance industry by those who want to. And now you know that the private health insurance companies are also sucking blood from Medicare, which is covered with the private ticks. It also debunks that idea that medicare's administrative costs are only 5% doesn't it? No, according to the link - you cut it, you can find it - the usual claim is 2%. But I've always heard 3%. Adding in what they pay the private insurance companies doing the billing brings them to 5-6%. Forget about trying to beat that. You can't. 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. I'm done arguing about this. All the facts are out there, including the fact that many modern countries beat our ass in health care. How it's done is well known to anybody who looks. Cat is out of the bag. I can afford insurance and keep my house. Let the whiners who suffer medical bankruptcy, die because they have no health care, worry about their kids' ailments, and the whining businessmen who have their profits deeply cut into and who can't compete because of health care costs worry about it. No skin off our nose, eh? Me and you will do just fine. Did you see 60 Minutes tonight? They are talking about billions in medicare fraud. Yup.. $60B I think was the number. So, if we could fix some of that, we could save a ton o money. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
|
Delicious...
|
Delicious...
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. |
Delicious...
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 |
Delicious...
nom=de=plume wrote:
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. THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION PLUME...............................TO ASK HARRY KRAUSE. |
Delicious...
"John H." wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:58:11 -0400, Tosk wrote: In article , says... John H. wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:27:48 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:28:38 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:16:10 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "John H." 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? |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com