bpwallace49 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I guess the question is would he have "helped" them by making them wards of the roman state. I KNOW! He didnt teach them HOW to fish . . he just made those loaves and fishes work for everyone! I heard he really liked the moneyshangers in the temple too! At least . . that I s what Sarah palin wrote in "Going Rogue" and she is very well informed crusader of justice . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 its a good thing jesus wasn't selfish or he wouldn't have helped all those poor folk. Pfffftt. I bet he wasnt even from Nazareth . . . have you seen his birth certificate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Pfffftt. I bet he wasnt even from Nazareth . . . have you seen his birth certificate? dumbass, even if Jesus was born in Nazaretth, which he certainly wasn't, he still wouldn't be a natural-born Nazarean given the fact that his father wasn't a Nazerean himself (remember that Joseph was of the house and lineage of David). Of course, it is further likely that Joseph wasn't even his real father and that Jesus was trying to cover up some potentially revolutionary details that his birth certificate might contain as to who his real father really was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 dumbass, even if Jesus was born in Nazaretth, which he certainly wasn't, he still wouldn't be a natural-born Nazarean given the fact that his father wasn't a Nazerean himself (remember that Joseph was of the house and lineage of David). Of course, it is further likely that Joseph wasn't even his real father and that Jesus was trying to cover up some potentially revolutionary details that his birth certificate might contain as to who his real father really was. I stand corrected . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I stand corrected . . . uh, if you think I was mocking you, you really missed the intended humor of my post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 uh, if you think I was mocking you, you really missed the intended humor of my post I didnt think you were mocking at all . . and got the humor of the post . . . wrong emoticon . . should have been not Until I see a footprint from baby Jesus on his birth certificate. . . . then I just cant believe anything he says . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) its a good thing jesus wasn't selfish or he wouldn't have helped all those poor folk. In Jesus' day people worked from can till can't six days a week, and reserved one day, the Sabbath for rest and communion with God. There was no 40 hour work week. Deadbeats were looked down upon, and aid was withheld from them. They were cast out. Remember sloth is one of the seven deadly sins. Those truly in need were taken care of by their family members and when lacking family member by the church. Jesus wanted his followers to take care of the poor, not the Roman government which he did not trust. Crucifiction was a punishment generally reserved for those that opposed the Roman government. The bible is all about free agency and individuals living their life in a way pleasing unto Him. The confiscation of funds the federal government does takes away our free agency, as it limits our choices and opportunities, as well as the opportunities that others may gain from our charity, which is usually much more efficient at helping those in need than the government. Edited December 22, 2009 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Glory-be, those awful insurance companies deny claims at a rate of 3.9% But medicare denies at 6.9%. You should read some of the comments offering explanations such as: The pool of people covered by Medicare is basically everyone in this country 65 years old and up. In other words, it’s the oldest, sickest, most expensive group of people to insure. It’s likely that the overwhelming majority of claims rejected for coverage by Medicare would similarly be rejected by most private insurers, experimental treatments for terminal conditions, expensive end of life care with marginal benefit to the patient, etc. It’s just that people covered by Medicare make more of these types of claims as a percentage of the total number of claims submitted. Percentage of claims rejected doesn’t really tell you much without knowing the makeup of the risk pool and the types and numbers of claims rejected and accepted. and Any idea if the AMA data further breaks out the denial rates for Part A vs. Part B? I think this is important, since Part A is what most of us consider “true” government-run health insurance, whereas Part B is outsourced to private companies. I clicked through to the AMA study but didn’t see a breakout between A and B. and most importantly this: Keep in mind that denying a claim does not mean denying health care. Claims are made after the fact — providers give medical care to patients then submit a claim for reimbursement. The denial of claims harms the provider (physicians and hospitals) but not the patient — they have already gotten treatment. In other words, Medicare is more likely to question the bills it gets than private insurance, which pays them willy-nilly. I'd have thought you'd appreciate good fiscal housekeeping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 In Jesus' day people worked from can till can't six days a week, and reserved one day, the Sabbath for rest and communion with God. There was no 40 hour work week. Deadbeats were looked down upon, and aid was withheld from them. They were cast out. Remember sloth is one of the seven deadly sins. Those truly in need were taken care of by their family members and when lacking family member by the church. Jesus wanted his followers to take care of the poor, not the Roman government which he did not trust. Crucifiction was a punishment generally reserved for those that opposed the Roman government. The bible is all about free agency and individuals living their life in a way pleasing unto Him. The confiscation of funds the federal government does takes away our free agency, as it limits our choices and opportunities, as well as the opportunities that others may gain from our charity, which is usually much more efficient at helping those in need than the government. plus you have to help people you don't wan to, but hey jesus was picky who he help also. so how many people on welfare and medicaid fall into the sloth category anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Crucifiction was a punishment generally reserved for those that opposed the Roman government. Sooo you are volunteering for crucifiction? Or just waiting until "your" gubment gets elected again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 plus you have to help people you don't wan to, but hey jesus was picky who he help also. so how many people on welfare and medicaid fall into the sloth category anyway? Pffft . . obviously all of them! I am sure thay all belong to unions too . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 You should read some of the comments offering explanations such as: and and most importantly this: In other words, Medicare is more likely to question the bills it gets than private insurance, which pays them willy-nilly. I'd have thought you'd appreciate good fiscal housekeeping. I really question how much validity is in your first sentence. Even if it were accepted, my point was that there are two sides to everything, and the demonization of insurance companies isn't completely deserved. If you put a claim into your auto insurer for a new paint job because your 6 year-old washed the car with Comet and a Brillo pad, it'd be denied too. Not because the insurer is evil, but because it's not part of your agreed-on coverage. And you SURELY don't want to hold up the rathole that is Medicare as an example of a well-run, fiscally well-kept program, do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 This thread seems to have gotten off on a tangent. Can we please get back to ME? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 I really question how much validity is in your first sentence. Even if it were accepted, my point was that there are two sides to everything, and the demonization of insurance companies isn't completely deserved. If you put a claim into your auto insurer for a new paint job because your 6 year-old washed the car with Comet and a Brillo pad, it'd be denied too. Not because the insurer is evil, but because it's not part of your agreed-on coverage. And you SURELY don't want to hold up the rathole that is Medicare as an example of a well-run, fiscally well-kept program, do you? So if there are two sides to everything, it stands to reason that your demonization of Medicare isn't completely deserved either, no? I reiterate that according to your link Medicare questioned or paid down a higher proportion of provider claims - NOT requests for procedures before the fact, which is what is inferred - therefore the conclusion could be drawn that Medicare is generating better overall per capita value for money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 So if there are two sides to everything, it stands to reason that your demonization of Medicare isn't completely deserved either, no? I reiterate that according to your link Medicare questioned or paid down a higher proportion of provider claims - NOT requests for procedures before the fact, which is what is inferred - therefore the conclusion could be drawn that Medicare is generating better overall per capita value for money. Which is why the hospitals then turn around and over charge the rest of us to make up for the losses medicare causes. Ever think if there was no medicare, the rest of us would have much more affordable insurance rates? I can't wait to see what doing away with pre-existing conditions is going to do to everyone else's rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Which is why the hospitals then turn around and over charge the rest of us to make up for the losses medicare causes. Ever think if there was no medicare, the rest of us would have much more affordable insurance rates? I can't wait to see what doing away with pre-existing conditions is going to do to everyone else's rates. So you advocate scrapping Medicare then? That should go some way to eliminating the population problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 So you advocate scrapping Medicare then? That should go some way to eliminating the population problem. Not scrapping it, at least not initially. I think you may agree with some of what I would propose. I'd do the same thing with medicare and social security. First thing I'd do is means test it, which I know you agree with at least on the SS side. I'd also slowly increase the age at which people qualify for both programs. I'd increase the age at which you qualify by one year every every two years, starting 5 years in the future. That way it would give people time to plan for their retirement accordingly. I'd leave the cap on SS as it is which I know you disagree with, but if increasing the age and means testing means most of the people over the cap will never see a single dime from either program. I'd keep medicare in place to help the truly indigent. I'd also keep a much scaled down version of SS for the indigent and mentally and severely physically handicapped. I'd couple this with real health care reform (not destruction). I'd use the interstate commerce clause to open up all markets to all insurers (that might be the first time it has been used correctly in my lifetime, ok that might be a little bit of hyperbole.) I'd address tort reform by making a losing plaintiffs attorney pay 1/10 of what ever they are suing for. On further review I would keep punitive damages in place but rather than award them to the plaintiff they would go to the medicaid trust fund. Obviously I'd also address illegal immigration as it is a big issue for border states, as 70% of women that gave birth at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas during 2006 were illegal aliens. I feel quite confident that in smaller border town hospitals that number is larger. I'd also take a long look at some of the dumber regulations that govern hospital facilities. I'd also do something to limit the lavishness of nonprofit hospital facilities. I'd determine the average square foot cost of a typical hospital (adjusting for location of course) for every percent new construction that is over the typical cost I'd reduce medicare/medicaid reimbursements (BTW this would actually be detrimental to me personally). I'd also put a sin tax on all alcohol, tobacco and fast food. Once qualifying age is ridiculously high where SS and Medicare are effectively phased out, I'd continue taxing income for 5 to 10 years to build up sizable trust, I'd do away with the tax on income and fund the scaled down version of SS and Medicaid with the sin taxes. I'm sure if I really thought about it I would think of a few more things but I think that is a good start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Dear Senator Reid: We write to thank you again for your leadership in the Senate health reform deliberations. We greatly appreciate the important elements of fiscal sustainability that are included in the Manager’s Amendment. Among the features that we believe to be critical to a fiscally responsible approach to health reform is a more effective independent Medicare advisory body. The Manager’s Amendment has strengthened the role of the body, now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The Amendment gives the Board the authority to produce annual reports beginning in 2014 and to report on privately financed medical care as well as care financed by Medicare. In addition, its recommendations will receive fast-track consideration under a broader set of circumstances than under the Senate Leadership Bill. These are important steps toward assuring that health care reform will significantly reduce health care inflation in both the public and private sectors. Another feature that has been strengthened is the commitment to delivery system change. The Manager’s Amendment contains several provisions that should stimulate the development of innovative approaches to payment for care. These approaches hold the promise of improving quality and lowering the costs of care. Specifically, the Manager’s Amendment includes an expansion of Medicare pilot programs and provisions for bundled payments for a larger set of conditions. These aspects of the proposed legislation make it far more likely that health care providers will have the tools and incentives to deliver better health outcomes. As a nation, we will need to do more in the coming decade to promote the efficiency and quality of health care. The Manager’s Amendment includes important features that will move our nation’s health care forward while helping to control health expenditure growth. We are grateful for your ongoing efforts and the improvements in the Manager’s amendment. We urge expeditious enactment of your reform legislation. Sincerely yours, Dr. Henry Aaron, The Brookings Institution Dr. Stuart Altman, Brandeis University Dr. Kenneth Arrow, Stanford University, Nobel Laureate in Economics Dr. Gary Burtless, The Brookings Institution Dr. David Cutler, Harvard University Dr. Patricia Danzon, University of Pennsylvania Dr. Angus Deaton, Princeton University Dr. Brad DeLong, University of California, Berkeley Dr. Peter Diamond, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Victor Fuchs, Stanford University Dr. Alan M. Garber, Stanford University Dr. Dana Goldman, University of Southern California Dr. Jonathan Gruber, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Daniel McFadden, University of California, Berkeley, Nobel Laureate in Economics Dr. David Meltzer, University of Chicago Dr. Joseph Newhouse, Harvard University Dr. Uwe Reinhardt, Princeton University Dr. Alice Rivlin, The Brookings Institution Dr. Meredith Rosenthal, Harvard University Dr. Isabel Sawhill, The Brookings Institution Dr. William Sharpe, Stanford University, Nobel Laureate in Economics Dr. John Shoven, Stanford University Dr. Robert M. Solow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nobel Laureate in Economics Dr. Laura D’Andrea Tyson, University of California, Berkeley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Dr. Henry Aaron, The Brookings InstitutionDr. Stuart Altman, Brandeis University Dr. Kenneth Arrow, Stanford University, Nobel Laureate in Economics Dr. Gary Burtless, The Brookings Institution Dr. David Cutler, Harvard University Dr. Patricia Danzon, University of Pennsylvania Dr. Angus Deaton, Princeton University Dr. Brad DeLong, University of California, Berkeley Dr. Peter Diamond, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Victor Fuchs, Stanford University Dr. Alan M. Garber, Stanford University Dr. Dana Goldman, University of Southern California Dr. Jonathan Gruber, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Daniel McFadden, University of California, Berkeley, Nobel Laureate in Economics Dr. David Meltzer, University of Chicago Dr. Joseph Newhouse, Harvard University Dr. Uwe Reinhardt, Princeton University Dr. Alice Rivlin, The Brookings Institution Dr. Meredith Rosenthal, Harvard University Dr. Isabel Sawhill, The Brookings Institution Dr. William Sharpe, Stanford University, Nobel Laureate in Economics Dr. John Shoven, Stanford University Dr. Robert M. Solow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nobel Laureate in Economics Dr. Laura D’Andrea Tyson, University of California, Berkeley How can u trust any of these bleeding liberals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 How can u trust any of these bleeding liberals Most of those are from people working at universities, which we no tend to lean to the left. How many of the doctors on that list are MDs and how many of them are PHD's? How many of the doctors on that list actually have a medical practice? I can come up with a list half that long with MD's that I personally know that vehemently oppose this legislation, and I can only find one that I know that has luke warm support for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Most of those are from people working at universities, which we no tend to lean to the left. How many of the doctors on that list are MDs and how many of them are PHD's? How many of the doctors on that list actually have a medical practice? I can come up with a list half that long with MD's that I personally know that vehemently oppose this legislation, and I can only find one that I know that has luke warm support for it. and how many have any idea about fiscal policy? how much it will cost. yea, it would be great to insure every single person, but is it possible without bankrupting us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 and how many have any idea about fiscal policy? how much it will cost. yea, it would be great to insure every single person, but is it possible without bankrupting us? Yes, it's possible, but the current crop in power isn't worried as much about that as they are about getting control over the whole damn thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Can someone help me fix my Directv TVGuide? I was looking for the Cspan airing where this bill would be debated. Isn't that what Obama promised? Didn't Obama promise transaparency in goverment? Didn't Obama promise Hope and Change? The dude that called him out as a liar was 100% correct. Politicians suck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Most of those are from people working at universities, which we no tend to lean to the left. How many of the doctors on that list are MDs and how many of them are PHD's? How many of the doctors on that list actually have a medical practice? I can come up with a list half that long with MD's that I personally know that vehemently oppose this legislation, and I can only find one that I know that has luke warm support for it. ok, so now we can't trust people who work for universities? as for the people on the list, at first blush, they all seem to be economists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 ok, so now we can't trust people who work for universities? as for the people on the list, at first blush, they all seem to be economists does this mean we have to start calling you doctor now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.