kapkomet

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ Sep 5, 2009 -> 04:28 PM) I was making progress with a girl that I met a few weeks ago last night...My stomach had other ideas as I got sick all over her dining room. Kinda hoping I didn't blow it. So by blowing chunks, you blew it? Ouch.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2009 -> 04:53 PM) Because no one's making up an enemies list of Democrats right now. We've got the NSA on our side and we're the ones compiling the lists for once. The stuff we've got on you...for example...and that little trip you took a few years ago... A few years ago? Man, I'm so in trouble.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 4, 2009 -> 04:14 PM) Man, I'm gonna say it again. It's tough being a white republican male in america. Why be political, man? Gee whiz.

QUOTE (onedude @ Sep 4, 2009 -> 03:05 PM) Same here. Got laid off around December of 2008....collected unemployment for a few months until a temp agency called with a job. Start full time within the next week or so. Great! I'm glad you landed something.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 4, 2009 -> 03:44 PM) Just carry your AK-47 around for protection. But Barack is going to take away our guns!

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 4, 2009 -> 02:58 PM) LINK That's reasonable. The "crapstorm" I have heard is more about the lesson plans after - not the speech itself. If parents did their jobs, the speech would be what it is anyway. Meaning, if it was a policy speech, you tell your kids that it's a policy speech. If it's nothing more then Obama telling kids to work hard and stay in school, big deal. With that said - the NEA and some of these other dips***s need to let it rest at that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2009 -> 02:51 PM) Yes it can be. We just have to get the cost structure aimed in the right direction. Right now, it's aimed at: greater bureaucracy, no efficiency, higher expenditures, worse care, and higher profits. Yea, under the ObamaCare flag, you're sure right. The higher profits part, yea, these evil bastards make 50-60-70-80% profits... shut 'em down! Please. They do no better then most other companies out there, and in fact, many cases, worse.

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Sep 4, 2009 -> 02:00 PM) Someone clarify something for me with this health coverage they are talking about. Now its strictly optional and not being forced on us right? Then how is it this is being considered communist or even Nazi like by some people? If it were wouldn't it be more like we are taking away all other choice and this is all you get? Thanks for any useful input. It's strictly optional until current health insurance companies cannot compete. There will be price ceilings, which becomes the floor for the private companies, and it will not allow them to compete. Anything over that government "price cap" will get subsidized on the government side and will not on the private side. Thus, over a matter of time, it will put them out of business. It's this simple. While our current system is s***ty in some cases, you have your personal liberties intact. The second that switches over and becomes a part of the state, you've lost your ability to choose. You're now mandated by the government what you can and cannot do for your health. That's socialistic at best because the state has control of decisions that you currently have now. You'll get this cry me a river BS about how people can't do this or that currently, but honestly, they could do a lot of things if they so chose. Re: someone saying this is Nazi Germany or "communism", they're full of s*** and an asshole. But it is socialism - where collectively the slippery slope of the state takes control of a hell of decisions that you used to make without government interference.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2009 -> 11:29 AM) We ration. Let me say that again. We ration. We already ration. We just ration by your income level. We ration. You can't scare people by screaming rationing when those same people have been rationed out for years. So? Of course the current system does. YASNY. "Everyone's included, while we cut costs". It cannot be. They are going to make rationing of today's standards a pimple of an elephant's ass when they're through.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 4, 2009 -> 01:21 PM) If that is the case, please explain why private health insurance exists and thrives in Canada, the UK, France and Germany. Really? It THRIVES? Wow.

First of all, we SHOULD have the highest health care costs in the world. That's because we have the best equipment, r&d, and doctors (for the most part) in the world. I don't, and many other people don't, mind paying a premium. With that said, SS's answer is part of the issue. The other part is that they don't have control over a lot of the other factors... regulations prevent state lines from being crossed. There are mandates of coverage over stupid things. (I bet you want your breast implants, right Balta?). ( - just using that as an example). There's an immeasureable cost on tort law, forget the malpractice insurance costs. You simply cannot say 2% - that's it, proven, done with conversation. There's too many other factors. Medicare and medicaid are so wasteful it's not even funny - especially after seeing some of the things I saw when going through medical billing. Furthermore, the system has no incentive to improve once the government takes it. And they will - language is key - "if you like your insurance you can keep it". Sure, that's true. Today. But even the skeptical ones know that it is the end of the private sector. Except Obama... where in fairy tale land you will have insurance - no matter what - while cutting (RATIONING) costs. You cannot have both, and that is what people know. That's why they can't get traction on this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2009 -> 11:07 AM) Basically what I'm arguing is that the stuff you've proposed does essentially nothing to fix the problem of costs growing towards infinity. Sure it does. It finally puts some relief into the system to where costs aren't so high. But I guess if the government can't cut costs (LMAO - they have SUCH a good record on that) no one can.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2009 -> 11:03 AM) On the other hand, if we do nothing, or attempt any of the "Fixes" you've proposed (aka doing nothing), the fact that health care costs are rising so much faster than inflation will do the exact same thing in 10 years anyway. Oh so what I proposed is "aka doing nothing"? Right. See, there's our problem, right there. You propose government or we aren't fixing it, and that's just absolute nonsense. Period. There's no point of anyone ever saying another word to you because you are so fixated on one solution - government fixes your life. Just hand your life over to the state. You might as well.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 4, 2009 -> 09:09 AM) Reagan preached tax cut gospel to America’s students 4 middle schools does not equal the entire country. And then it was rebroadcast with the choice - remember most areas didn't have access to this. Try pissing up some other tree.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 3, 2009 -> 08:40 PM) it is bad when my 12 year old can do my power point homework. Glad to have the help. Now if she could only right my thesis..lol

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 3, 2009 -> 09:31 PM) That, and because it's fiscally conservative to impose arbitrary cost limits on bills these days regardless of what exactly they do. Sure - all this does is push out the cost structure into the future. When it starts, it will either destroy the next president because the debt is dramatically higher then forecasted (that is to say, expenses of this are being underestimated) or Obama (God forbid) will have his second term, and he won't give a s***.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 3, 2009 -> 08:25 PM) But...that takes time and money. And I can tell you from personal experience, the biggest issue we EVER had was medicare/medicaid. Medicaid is a nightmare. Gee, government run programs. I can also tell you that medicare right now is the worst DSO of most doctors. They simply are not paying right now. That's now, let alone when this thing starts up. I also find it interesting that the "plan" doesn't start until 2013 but the tax collections will start effective immediately. Now why is that? Because it's after the election of 2012, and people will not realize what they are going to get hit upside the head with until after that election. Absolutely shameful.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 3, 2009 -> 07:52 PM) What, you don't think California's been run effectively the last couple years? It's been great, from what I've seen.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 3, 2009 -> 07:53 PM) And "Stupid denials" is exactly the point. They're rejecting a certain percentage as a standard policy and then fighting a little bit whenever the person challenges, and hoping they wont' challenge it. That's the point of this whole thing. That's not how it works. The "battle" is between the insurance and the doctor's billing offices, and most of the time just require a resubmission. Most of these denials are clerical errors or CPT (medical codes) that are not consistent with treatments. The patient never even knows about it until EOBs go out WAY after the fact, but they aren't denied because they're trying to throw people under the bus as you're suggesting. By then, they're paid for and it doesn't matter.

QUOTE (longshot7 @ Sep 3, 2009 -> 06:35 PM) I don't mind the citizenship requirement. Arnold would have made a horrible Prez anyway. Oh good lord yes. He'd be ... horrible.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 3, 2009 -> 06:23 PM) Of course there's a lot under that. But that doesn't mean there's no value to the data. I can tell you from what I remember, PacifiCare was the worst about stupid denials. They just wanted to stretch out payment. This was my point a few days ago that data honestly doesn't mean crap - and this is one of those stories where people can infer the wrong things.

Rejected for what? Are these denials (coding errors or some other issue) or ineligible charges? There's a lot more underneath this then the surface would suggest, IMO.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 3, 2009 -> 03:33 PM) I have 2 responses here. The first is: HAHAHA. The 2nd is a joke. They're doing that much oxycontin? I had no idea. What, I am... legally, of couse. Oh, is that why I'm posting in this thread?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 3, 2009 -> 03:28 PM) You don't understand what Stewart and Colbert are doing if you don't already have an understanding of a lot of the things they're talking about before they broach them. They're doing the same thing that Limbaugh's doing, except they get a pass because they're on the "Comedy Channel". But go on thinking whatever you want to about it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 3, 2009 -> 09:25 AM) Pat Buchanan should just die already. His ideas are about 6 or 7 decades too old at this point. He wrote an article a few months ago about evolution that was straight out of 1950's creationism literature. Yea. He's juuuuuuust a little bit wacky.