Tell Me Something
 

Congress is trying to pass this healthcare bill. On the news the other day it was said that it will cost approximately 13% per person of your yearly income for this universal health. That could be very expensive for a family of four depending on a persons income. Also they do not say what your coverage would be. Do you start with a standard minimal policy and then buy add ons for amputations, joint replacements etc: for exsample?

What is included in a diabetic's coverage? Does it cover the office visit? Are meds paid for, or co-pay or do you pay for your own meds?

Orthopedic surgeon- Does the health care bill pay the bill or do you pay for the x-rays or MRI what portion comes out of pocket?

Do we the American public know what out of pocket monies that we will be paying?

You're thinking way too much. Don't worry about anything. The government will take care of everything for you. After all, they know what's best for us.:morons:

I already pay for healthcare, my own.

Your own and many other people's. Don't forget about your taxes that already go to cover people on government plans like RIte Care.

Jimmy, don't sell yourself short. You're very generous.:uhuh:

I believe that 13% number came from the Congressional Budget Office
and will affect people making $52, 000 or more. In addition,today they said the
the Bill, if passed, would need to cut into Medicare as well. Their own people are saying we can't afford it.

Obama saying HC will be paid for from the waste and fraud found in Medicare,
900 Billion over 10 years, is wishful thinking.

If he can start today and find 90 Billion by next September, then let's talk about HC.

Cut first...spend later. That won't work, the cut part is a complete lie.

For sure, Tell me somethin i don't know. :D
Sure get's quiet in here when it comes to how this is really going to be paid for.

Remember that promise from Obama, "Will not tax anyone making less then $250,000."

"Forget about it." You and I will be taxed to pay for it. :fury: That is why the IRS is going to be in charge of collecting thru our tax form and some of us will not be getting a tax return, it will go towards paying for health care.

it's only the beginning....

Staff in carbon footprint trial face £100 fines for high emissionsBen Webster, Environment Editor
Timesonline.UK Sept 14, 2009

People who emit more than their fair share of carbon emissions are having their pay docked in a trial that could lead to rationing being reintroduced via the workplace after an absence of half a century.

Britain’s first employee carbon rationing scheme is about to be extended, after the trial demonstrated the effectiveness of fining people for exceeding their personal emissions target. Unlike the energy-saving schemes adopted by thousands of companies, the rationing scheme monitors employees’ personal emissions, including home energy bills, petrol purchases and holiday flights.Workers who take a long-haul flight are likely to be fined for exceeding their annual ration unless they take drastic action in other areas, such as switching off the central heating or cutting out almost all car journeys. Employees are required to submit quarterly reports detailing their consumption. They are also set a target, which reduces each year, for the amount of carbon they can emit.

Those who exceed their ration pay a fine for every kilogram they emit over the limit. The money is deducted from their pay and the level of the fine is printed on payslips. Those who consume less than their ration are rewarded at the same rate per kilogram

There goes my paycheck. :wall:

Does that include passing gas(farting) Take Beano and you may get a rebate on your fine. OOPS!! just released some carbon, "Where's the Beano?" :rotf2: :jump1:

For all the copy/pasting you do, we still can't get you trained to actually post a link to the article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 713708) For all the copy/pasting you do, we still can't get you trained to actually post a link to the article.

not that hard to find

Staff in carbon footprint trial face £100 fines for high emissions - Times Online

Mr Symons stayed within his ration last year by giving up his Mazda RX8 sports car and buying a diesel Peugeot 207. He met this year’s target largely because his partner had a baby and he rarely left home except to go to work.

One employee, Dan Dowling, 29, switched the mode of transport for his honeymoon in Rome from plane to train. His colleague, Emma Bollan, stopped blow-drying her hair and cut down on roast dinners. She said: “The big incentive is not the prospect of earning £100 but in trying to ensure that you don’t have to pay out.”

Several WSP staff added that peer pressure played a part in persuading them to stay within their ration.

Mr McLachlan said: “There have been some interesting competitive dynamics in the company as a result of having this transparency.”

LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE STUPIDITY

hey, JD, now how about defining "healthy majority" for me...hmmmm???

hey, scott, how about selectively taking a phrase out of context and trying to apply it to a completely different topic.


Let's be clear for a moment:
First, this is a private company sponsored program.
Second, it is a voluntary, opt-in program for the employees.
Third, if they fall below their quota, they are rewarded up to 100 pounds.

If these people choose to voluntarily allow their company to dictate their carbon footprint, so be it. But don't copy/paste a story and try to represent it as a mandatory program that is taking place.

How exactly is an opt-in program provided by a *private firm* that provides an incentive to decrease a person's carbon usage, and a penalty for not doing so "Liberal Progressive Stupidity".

STUPID LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES WILL WANT TO SHOVE THIS UP YOUR BUTT AS WELL, THAT'S HOW.....:uhuh:
"in a trial that could lead to rationing being reintroduced via the workplace "
Britain’s first employee carbon rationing scheme is about to be extended AND EXTENDED...AND EXTENDED AND EXTENDED

NOW...DEFINE "HEALTHY MAJORITY"...SPECIFICALLY THE ONE THAT THE REPUBLICANS ENJOYED DURING THE BUSH YEARS WHEN THEY RAN ALL OF THAT LEGISLATION THROUGH AND THE DEMS COULD ONLY HELPLESSLY WATCH:rotf2:


APPROPRIATELY CALLED A "SCHEME" BY THE WAY, OR BETTER, A SCAM

How will we know Pelosi has promised to send it to vote before the American Public even has a chance to read it.

Welcome to the USSA

Yes, Bush had a real opportunity there for a while - good thing for the dems he was idiot.

LIKE I SAID...

THE POLITICO

September 25, 2009
Categories: Senate

Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup.

Put this way you're making it sound like this would be a "new" 13% tax which is misleading. Most importantly the plans discussed so far would be progressive in nature.

Here's the big problem.

Today we spend over 15% of our GDP on health care which is dramatically higher than any other nation on the planet. The US rankings for life expectancy, infant mortality, overall health care performance etc... are all pathetically low. We are also the only industrialized nation to not provide coverage to all citizens.

The one thing we do excel in is responsiveness, but this is coming at a frightening cost.

With current rates of spending, there's plenty of money in the "system" to provide good care.

I can't believe some of the numbers of people who like their present health insurance. I've got what should be decent coverage through BCBS and my out of pocket expenses have gone through the roof the past two years. Easily over a grand on basic stuff this year alone for the family, not to mention the countless hours spent yelling at the insurance company as they seem to magically find ways to deny nearly every other claim.

-spence

THIS IS A LIE, AMERICANS DRIVE MORE AND WE HAVE A HIGH MURDER RATE, NEITHER HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEALTHCARE BUT BOTH DRASTICALLY REDUCE LIFE EXPECTANCY NUMBERS OVERALL COMPARED TO OTHER NATIONS, BACK THOSE NUMBERS OUT COMPARITIVELY AND SEE WHERE WE STAND...ALSO, INFANT MORTALITY IS DEFINED DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, WE TRY TO SAVE CHILDREN AT MUCH EARLIER STAGES THAN OTHER COUNTRIES AND MANY EARLY DELIVERIES ARE NOT EVEN CONSIDERED IN THE MORTALITY RATES IN OTHER COUNTRIES..CHECK THE FACTS...ALL OF THOSE RANKINGS FOR THE US ARE ALL REMARKABLY HIGH WHEN FAIRLY COMPARED TO ELSEWHERE...MORE SPINCE BS...WHY DON'T YOU JUST MOVE TO CUBA WHERE YOU CAN ENJOY ALL THAT YOU DESIRE?????

Actually, rankings like these tend to factor in deaths preventable by treatment, life expectancy adjustments for those born with disabilities etc...

If you have data that contradicts the generally cited research, please share...otherwise you're just full of hot air.

Some people react to info like this as if it's anti-American or something which is beyond me. For some there is terrific health care in the US, that's the the point. The question is that considering how much more it costs us, are we any better off for it?

-spence

If you have quantitative proof, I'd be interested to see it. (But without the CAPS Lock key, as it's quite difficult to read)

you are full of something far more offensive....you demand facts and accuracy from others and continually lie your ass off...must be a prerequisite for liberal progressives, you claim to "lean libertarian" and then start a sentence with " what should the government enforce":rotf2:....the only truth for you is the bs that furthers the agenda, your "generally cited research" is from the UN, the world's most corrupt organization....being disingenous is a game for you like Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest..all LIARS....lies through smarmy smirks to forward a radical agenda...


"The US rankings for life expectancy, infant mortality, overall health care performance etc... are all pathetically low"

THIS IS A LIE...a despicable lie.....meant to tear down our healthcare system in order to replace it with your socialist version....

For "some" there is terrific health care in the US....THIS IS AN INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING LIE...

HOW ABOUT CITING THE "GENERALLY CITED RESEARCH" SHOWING THE NUMBERS OF AMERICANS THAT ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR HEALTHCARE AND HEALTH INSURANCE ....DUMBASS




The Politico
September 25, 2009
Categories: Senate

Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup

Wow, you were successful in both being an ass and not adding any value to the conversation.

Perhaps you just think two negatives always do make a positive? :humpty:

-spence

NO SENSE IN ARGUING WITH A COMPULSIVE LIAR:uhuh:

"We are also the only industrialized nation to not provide coverage to all citizens." SPENCE

ANOTHER TWISTED LIE....we provide care to all citizens and non- citizens.....there are a lot of countries where you have "coverage" and can't get "care".....I'll take care over coverage any time....

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Life Expectancy for Countries — Infoplease.com
FOXNews.com - U.S. Trails Others in Health Care Satisfaction - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News (GASP FOX NEWS DURING the BUSH years.....)

"The US rankings for life expectancy, infant mortality, overall health care performance etc... are all pathetically low." SPENCE


world life expectancy average 66.6....US... 78.1 highest Macau 84.4

Fox reported a study by the Commonwealth Fund(a longtime Universal Heaalthcare Advocate) of 7000 people in 5 countries....

By Todd Zwillich, reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD

SOURCES: “The Commonwealth Fund 2004 International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care in Five Countries,” Commonwealth Fund, Oct. 28, 2004. Cathy Schoen, vice president, Commonwealth Fund. Carolyn M. Clancy, MD, director, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The Honorable John Hutton, MP.

you couldn't find anything more up to date than 2004????


the facts just don't match Spence's mindless rhetoric

"The US rankings for life expectancy, infant mortality, overall health care performance etc... are all pathetically low." SPENCE

No, I grabbed 2004 b/c it was Fox and during the Bush years. Where are the facts you mentioned to refute Spensinski then?

2009 estimated deaths per 1000 live births in the US is 6.26 putting us in the same league as Belarus and Poland, behind 44 other nations and pretty close to dead last among traditional First World countries.

Considering our health care spend (15% of GDP) is dramatically higher than any other nation, I'd say that's pretty pathetic.

-spence

If what you are saying is true then that is a hard fact for proud Americans to swallow. I would wager that the diff. between the 44 nations is a very small percentage and I would also wager that the influx of "undocumented" immigrants is also a factor. Still, I would rather my children born here over any other place on earth

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2091rank.html

It's about double the best countries. The percentage seems small but when you think about some 4 million born in the US every year, that translates roughly into 15,000 more deaths compared to the best.

Granted there are a lot of reasons for infant mortality, hence it's use as a general measurement.

-spence

which is why your statement was absurd....even...pathetic:uhuh:

No, many experts in the matter believe it's a reasonable measure when used properly. That's why they measure it.

You probably just think it's a statistic derived so that poor nations can suck the blood of the USA.

-spence

ugh

The CIA infant mortality rate stats are interesting. 12 of the countries with lower IMF rates than U.S. have populations less than one million--some as low as 14 or 15 thousand which, as you say, is our total yearly infant death rate. They may not even have 1000 births per year which is the rate number used for IMR. Other than Japan, the other "better" countries have populations ranging in the low to double digit millions. We compare VERY, VERY favorably with populations over 100 million, with the exception of Japan which is an ethnically and culturally homogenous society lacking our demographic problems and blessed with a healthy life style and diet. The U.S. IMR stats seem to have gone down from the 7 per 1000 to 6.26/1000 and sit just above Cuba which is supposed to be a model of socialist health care.

As you say, there are a lot of reasons for infant mortality. The rates, however, can be skewed by how they are reported by individual countries. Many countries report relatively few infants as having died during the first 24 hours. This number is over one third of all infant deaths in the US, Australia, and Canada, but only about one fourth of totals in Japan and Sweden, it's less than one sixth of total in France, and only 1 twenty fifth of total in Hong Kong! Figures so low for some countries as to be suspect.

In Cuba and many European countries, births of less than 1000 grams are not counted toward mortality stats. In Switzerland, babies born less than 30 cm long are not counted as live births, and babies weighing less than 2.2 pounds and die after birth are counted as still births so do not affect the IMR. In Japan and Hong Kong babies born alive but die within the first 24 hours are reported as miscarriages so do not affect the IMR.

The Canadian Medical Assoc. Journal for Sept. 5, 2000 reports that "international comparisons of infant mortality are compromised by a lack of standardization with regard to birth registration practices. Studies have documented wide variation in the rate at which extemely small babies at the borderline of variability (e.g. 550g) are registered in different countries. As a potential solution the WHO has recommended that international comparisons of infant mortality be restricted to live births in which the newborn weighs 1000g or more. such a restriction would eliminate a substantial proportion of neonatal deaths from the infant mortality counts of most industrialized countries, however. This and other challenges inherent in birth-wieght-specific comparisons mean that international infant mortality rankings will continue to be based on crude rates and still favor industrialized countries which tend NOT TO REGISTER EXTREMELY SMALL LIVE BIRTHS"

Dr. Linda Halderman states that low birth weight infants (less than 1000g) are not counted against the "live birth" statistics for many countries reporting low IMR. When weight at birth is factored in, Norway has no better survival rates than the US. Survival rates for high risk low weight babies is higher in the US than in Norway and Japan because we do so much more to save them. In Belgium and France any baby born before 26 weeks gestation is not considered alive and doesn't count against the IMR.

Uniform reporting would move the U.S. up from the bottom third to about the middle of the OECD group. Our unique problems of life and health style, lack of homogenous cultural ethnicity, high crime rates, high teen pregnancy rates, racial diversity, massive illegal immigration problems, etc., would probably keep us from being the best, no matter what health care bill is passed. Maybe, if we swore off of red meat, ate tofu and rice, stayed close to home and all thought the same way, etc., we would be #1.

The thing to keep in mind is that the stat is used as a general measure of health, not a ranking of the quality of care.

You can have great health insurance, but not get prenatal care and as a result have a bad result. (As an example, I know someone who nearly had a tragic ending to a really stupid home birth.).

The question I pose is, for how much we spend, why aren't we more healthy?

-spence

I agree, the thing to keep in mind is that the stat is used as a general measure of health, not a ranking of the quality of care.

You can have great health insurance, but not get prenatal care and as a result have a bad result. (As an example, I know someone who nearly had a tragic ending to a really stupid home birth. The story is incredible...and stupid)

What I ask, is for how much we spend, why aren't we more healthy as a group?

-spence

Candy, Chips, Cookies, over eating, Soda, Sugar, Smoking, Drugs, booze, computer games, etc:

So why spend so much? It would seem like most of this is under our personal control.

-spence

And it should be, we are a free people and can make our own choices, good or bad.

Spence, I apologize for not being able to finish my post before you responded to it. One of those time glitches that I run into in writing lengthy stuff and the system cuts me off. I have gone back and "edited"--that is added the rest of what I wished to say, which may, in part, be a sketchy answer to your question.