 |
|
| Politics Forum Index » General Politics Forum » The Republican Plan... |
|
Page 7 of 12 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 10, 11, 12 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Curly Surmudgeon... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:58:02 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
Quote: Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:28:43 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Probably, but a lot of folks like Gunner would not have had
healthcare or insurance in the first place. That would be their
choice.
Tax gummer & be sure he pays.
Why should I pay for him?
You are a Democrat.
Now if I were an illegal alien..or a minority member..he would be all
for other people paying for my medical care.
Because Im a white male citizen..all bets are off.
Gunner
Makes you wonder what planted Cliffie and Hawkie are from, doesn't
it?
Most likely sprouts of their Mama's and Dad's...
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible: Slavery Good, Gays Bad, Snakes Talk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Curly Surmudgeon... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:39:34 -0500, "PLMerite"
<stockade at (no spam) smokebombhill.com> wrote:
Quote: "Gunner Asch" <gunner at (no spam) NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:cq2af55m8oh7tce2vhhiaubnck3b4fslgb at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:28:43 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Probably, but a lot of folks like Gunner would not have had
healthcare or insurance in the first place. That would be their
choice.
Tax gummer & be sure he pays.
Why should I pay for him?
You are a Democrat.
Now if I were an illegal alien..or a minority member..he would be all
for other people paying for my medical care.
Bullshit, you are seeing karma in action. The lack of compassion you've
shown through the years is coming back at you.
Quote: Because Im a white male citizen..all bets are off.
Doesn't matter what color you are, you're a reprehensible piece of lying
shit.
Quote: Exactly. Your job in this Brave New World is to be quiet and pay taxes
to support the freeloaders.
Gummer's job is to pay for his own sloth, poor planning and
irresponsibility just as he rants about against others.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible: Slavery Good, Gays Bad, Snakes Talk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ed Huntress... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBB62B99762Dhopewell at (no spam) 216.196.97.130...
Quote: "Ed Huntress" <huntres23 at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote in
news:4af38557$0$4976$607ed4bc at (no spam) cv.net:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBAA65288B58hopewell at (no spam) 216.196.97.130...
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:bcj5f59g3dj3ik1vndnht3ep26doph7jbs at (no spam) 4ax.com:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:11:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
A well-designed system won't disrupt anyone. The current proposal
falls short, mostly because the insurance industry has gutted some
of the big things that could save serious money.
You are very quick to show that stuff like tort reform is a small
percentage.....how about the report in Fortune 500 that shows that
the profit margin in healthcare insurance is about 2.2%? Do you
have figures that show different?
If it gets high just give more bonus money ...
Noted.....no figures that show different.
Take comfort in this delusion, RD. It's about all the insurance
industry has left. <g
Here's the truth of the situation: The insurance industry churns a lot
of money. In the case of health care insurers, 83% of it passes right
through their hands to the health care providers -- doctors,
hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, etc. This has a close parallel in
the way that traditional advertising agencies used to work: 85% of
their "revenue" passed right through to the media in which they
advertise.
The "real" revenue of health care insurers, in other words, is the
remaining 17% of the total cash that runs through their hands. Thus,
the 2.2%, which is figured on the total cash that passes through
(their nominal "gross revenue") is more accurately something like 13%
net profit on real revenue -- the revenue they hold on to, to provide
services and to run their companies. Unlike most companies, in which
the costs of production or the internal costs of providing services
would be where most of the 83% goes, in the insurance industry, that
83% just goes out to external service providers. The insurance
companies have nothing to do with all of that production. They aren't
producing anything, except a lot of paper, and internal services, like
marketing, which help them run their companies.
Not bad at all. And that explains why their assets are a relatively
high multiple of their book value. In other words, their stock value
reflects a large amount of "goodwill," which, in this case, is another
way of saying that all of that "company value" which has nothing to do
with their tangible assets is really a sort of illusion. It's the
difference between what they're making on their initial investment,
and what the stock is worth based on its current and projected
profits.
For those who aren't into reading balance sheets with a jaundiced eye,
what all this means is this: The health care insurance business is a
pretty solid money-making machine. Thus, their stock values are high
relative to the tangible-asset values of the companies. But when those
insurance companies are liquidated, there's nothing much there but a
lot of wind and noise.
For that, we pay a bundle.
I agree with what you wrote......however, look at your last statement.
For everything the government runs, we pay a bundle. Medicare/Medicaid
close to being insolvent, the post office had to farm out work to UPS and
FedEx, Amtrak is a sinkhole instead of being a viable commodity, Social
Security (another Ponzi scheme) is soon going to have many more problems
when the baby boomers go on it instead of paying into it.
None of that has anything to do with their efficiency in providing services.
Insolvency, if it were the actual case (it isn't -- it's all a matter of how
much we're assessed to pay for it, because their revenue is based on
political decisions, not business decisions), is an illusion. Those things
are the result of many government services being political footballs. Their
efficiency, particularly in the case of Medicare and Social Security,
actually is quite high. And don't bother to bring up the sophistic arguments
we hear from the right-wing pundits and black-hole economists who like to
argue the point. We've heard them all, and they're a pile of crap.
Quote: The government
has no way of producing revenue. All they can do is increase taxes on
the private sector (or cut services) and that is a problem if there are
less jobs and less people earning money to pay taxes.
Nonsense. There is an optimum ratio of public services to private ones; the
public ones being those that are necessary but which the private sector
can't, or won't, provide.
The legitimate argument, and the subject that should be the permanent debate
over government in the US, is about which services should be provided by
government and which should be provided by private business -- or, in a few
cases, which shouldn't be provided at all. The answer is ever-changing as
the world and technology change. But I'm not going to get into that debate
here. That's impossible to sort out in this venue.
Quote: All government
employees are a cost, not a revenue producer so as government numbers
increase, the cost of that government goes up and the private sector has
more of a load with over 10 unemployment.
Your underlying assumption here is that the government services don't
provide a net benefit to the private sector. But they do, in most cases, by
providing a range of services from protection of the food supply to security
of the country, that are essential preconditions for a stable and efficient
private sector. You're shoehorning public services into a private-sector
model, looking at it as a revenue/expenses business proposition. It doesn't
work that way.
Quote: The estimates on the cost of
the health care bills are based on conjecture about what can be done to
eliminate waste and fraud (makes you wonder why nothing was done before
if all that was known) and not concrete numbers. So far, the government
has a poor record of hitting its estimates.
This really is an endless argument, RD. Your opinions are interesting
because of their political implications but not because we have any
particular insights into the economics -- not that you couldn't, but your
positions are so doctrinaire and cliched that they're not useful in
themselves.
The "small government" position, which really was popularized by Barry
Goldwater and that generation of conservatives, and which was brought to
political fruition by Reagan, is mostly a myth. We had that debate in the
1960s through the 1980s. It was a populist revival of a debate that was held
on different terms in the 1920s. It was put into practice, or an attempt was
made to do so, in the 1980s. It failed dismally.
And the reason it failed is because of unyielding special-interest
constituencies -- the ones who vote conservative. Farmers in Iowa who
survive on price controls and other subsidies; manufacturers in Ohio;
bankers on Wall Street; international traders in everything; wholesalers and
shippers who depend on subsidized transportation; defense contractors --
these are the real hard-core of power on K Street and in Washington. If you
don't agree with this, you haven't read "The Education of David Stockman,"
about Reagan's budget director, who was the purest small-government,
supply-side politician who had the brains and the power to do anything about
it. He hit that brick wall. And he came to realize that there is no
constituency for small government or reduced spending, because the powerful
conservatives who should be ideologically on board all have convenient
justifications of their own to overlook their own transgressions of the
small-government model. And the ones who keep mouthing the platititudes
(like you and most of the self-styled conservatives here) have neither the
power to do anything about it, nor the awareness of what happens when they
elect someone who they think will promote their small-government desires.
They didn't bother to look at the budgets, for example, at the beginning and
the end of Reagan's terms.
So you're having an argument that's no longer relevant. The world has passed
it by. That doesn't even address the point that it never had any significant
reality, having been based on ideas that have never been tested, except that
some half-witted attempts have failed -- hands-off policies at the beginning
of the Great Crash, which whipped us into the Great Depression, and
anti-regulation policies that just drove us into the greatest financial
crisis of modern times.
This debate would be worthwhile if it was conducted on a plane that takes
real experience into account, rather than the myths and delusions that
underlie almost all of the discussion that goes on here about economics and
the proper role of government. I strongly recommend that anyone who is
interested in the realities read the Stockman interview as a start:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/budget/stockman.htm
It's old now, but it's amazing that nothing much has changed in all that
time. Recognizing the workings of power in our government is a prerequisite
for discussing the theories, IMO. Without it, we're just playing in a
sandbox.
--
Ed Huntress |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Gunner Asch... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:28:43 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Quote:
Probably, but a lot of folks like Gunner would not have had healthcare
or insurance in the first place. That would be their choice.
Tax gummer & be sure he pays.
Why should I pay for him?
You are a Democrat.
Now if I were an illegal alien..or a minority member..he would be all
for other people paying for my medical care.
Because Im a white male citizen..all bets are off.
Gunner |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Gunner Asch... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:27:02 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:sjh5f5191sid2oo6926ij1btg6oao0egso at (no spam) 4ax.com:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
The rest is bullshit. If someone doesn't wish to cover themselves, for
whatever reason, they are young and invulnerable, for example, why fine
them? It is their choice.
So why are we paying for gummer?
Go ask Gummer.
Because I payed for 45 yrs.
And we are all still paying for every illegal alien that gets medical
care.
Notice the House pulled all the amendments that would prevent illegal
aliens from getting medical care on the new "health care plan"?
Gunner |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael A. Terrell... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Gunner Asch wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:28:43 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Probably, but a lot of folks like Gunner would not have had healthcare
or insurance in the first place. That would be their choice.
Tax gummer & be sure he pays.
Why should I pay for him?
You are a Democrat.
Now if I were an illegal alien..or a minority member..he would be all
for other people paying for my medical care.
Because Im a white male citizen..all bets are off.
Gunner
Makes you wonder what planted Cliffie and Hawkie are from, doesn't
it?
--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PLMerite... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Gunner Asch" <gunner at (no spam) NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:cq2af55m8oh7tce2vhhiaubnck3b4fslgb at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Quote: On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:28:43 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Probably, but a lot of folks like Gunner would not have had healthcare
or insurance in the first place. That would be their choice.
Tax gummer & be sure he pays.
Why should I pay for him?
You are a Democrat.
Now if I were an illegal alien..or a minority member..he would be all
for other people paying for my medical care.
Because Im a white male citizen..all bets are off.
Exactly. Your job in this Brave New World is to be quiet and pay taxes to
support the freeloaders.
Regards, PLMerite
--
"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
money."
- Dame Margaret Thatcher |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Cliff... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:56:02 -0800, Gunner Asch <gunner at (no spam) NOSPAMlightspeed.net>
wrote:
Quote: On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:27:02 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:sjh5f5191sid2oo6926ij1btg6oao0egso at (no spam) 4ax.com:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
The rest is bullshit. If someone doesn't wish to cover themselves, for
whatever reason, they are young and invulnerable, for example, why fine
them? It is their choice.
So why are we paying for gummer?
Go ask Gummer.
Because I payed for 45 yrs.
Welfare Queen.
Quote: And we are all still paying for every illegal alien that gets medical
care.
So cause their employers to pay for it.
Quote: Notice the House pulled all the amendments that would prevent illegal
aliens from getting medical care on the new "health care plan"?
Good for them !!
Cliff |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Cliff... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:58:02 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
Quote:
Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:28:43 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Probably, but a lot of folks like Gunner would not have had healthcare
or insurance in the first place. That would be their choice.
Tax gummer & be sure he pays.
Why should I pay for him?
You are a Democrat.
Now if I were an illegal alien..or a minority member..he would be all
for other people paying for my medical care.
Because Im a white male citizen..all bets are off.
Gunner
Makes you wonder what planted Cliffie and Hawkie are from, doesn't
it?
No doubt both of us pay for health care & insurance & taxes.
Unlike gummer.
--
Cliff |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PLMerite... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Cliff" <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:vonaf5d2ikdvpmf89lav6djdiejd5m9ike at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Quote:
So cause their employers to pay for it.
Reality 101: Businesses do not pay for anything. They pass costs on to
their customers, reduce payroll expenses, or close.
Regards, PLMerite
--
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
money."
- Dame Margaret Thatcher |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Scott... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lookout... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ok..here's the plan.
First, we lose the White House. And the Senate. And the House of
Representatives.
Then we................................let Faux News , Lush Dimbaugh
and Ann Coulter fight for us.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Gunner Asch... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 07:26:55 -0800, "Scott" <nunya at (no spam) bidneth.com> wrote:
* OPINION
* NOVEMBER 7, 2009, 9:58 A.M. ET
What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says
Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation.
* Article
* Comments (399)
more in Opinion »
* Email
* Printer
Friendly
* Share:
facebook ? More
o StumbleUpon
o Digg
o Twitter
o Yahoo! Buzz
o Fark
o Reddit
o LinkedIn
o del.icio.us
o MySpace
*
Save This ? More
* smaller Text larger
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote
(H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to
know.
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified
plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a
"grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan
designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your
own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a
qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the
co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified
plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it.
That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then
filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
View Full Image
McCaughey2
Associated Press
Protestors wave signs in front of the Capitol on Thursday.
McCaughey2
McCaughey2
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will
likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases
his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated
$2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is
17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes
will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300
out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income.
Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be
eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified
plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all"
variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium
levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles
differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government
is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must
include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be
fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this
requirement.
• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan"
for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of
family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with
payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
Eviscerating Medicare:
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500
billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and
hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.
• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment
system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are
paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical
home."
The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A
primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and
diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that
patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a
physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with
demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to
"disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."
A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical
homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago
if cost control was a priority.
• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants
in overseeing care for hospice patients.
• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments
for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the
country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the
standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New
York and Florida.
• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans
(used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result
in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.
• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness
research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors
electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
Questionable Priorities:
While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions
of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs
with vague standards of accountability.
• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with
no required qualifications except having "documented community activity
and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide,
and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse,
poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker
program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the
cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the
program."
These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize
health services and health related social services under Federal, State
and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility
.. . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including
transportation and translation services.
• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and
linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care
workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an
interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.
• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic
preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating
secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for
nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for
improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the
demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants
should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds
including racial and ethnic minorities."
• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of
newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.
For the text of the bill with page numbers, see
www.defendyourhealthcare.us.
Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths
and a former Lt. Governor of New York state. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Scott... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Gunner Asch" <gunner at (no spam) NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:4v7bf5lskvscgna1uv6g6ik7sf3isr31rf at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Socialism on the March. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RD (The Sandman)... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dan <dnadan56 at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Kt3Jm.15048$Wf2.14823 at (no spam) newsfe23.iad:
Quote: RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote in
news:hd1slq$qf1$4 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:43:31 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote in
news:hd09md$spf$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:26:38 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote in
news:hcqs7n$1mr$10 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health
insurance coverage they already have.
How can that be when more than 16% have no health insurance?
That number is of people with health insurance, 84% are happy
with what they have. Now, do you have a handle on it?
Do you really think 100% of those with health insurance are happy
with it?
Huh? You don't read very well, Curly. The statement was that of
people with health insurance, 84% are happy. Where do you get
100% out of that comment?
Simple subtraction. 100% of the people minus 16% without insurance
is 84% which is equal to the 84% you said are happy with theirs.
84/84 = 100%.
As I said, you don't read very well. If the 84% was of people *WHO
HAVE* health insurance, how can you subtract 16% for people *WHO DO
NOT HAVE* health insurance? It is like me saying that 90% of all
Honda owners are happy with their Hondas and you claiming that can't
be true because 55% of Jaguar owners are unhappy. ;)
You did not say that. You said: "Over 84% of the folks out there are
happy with the health insurance coverage they already have." which
includes those with zero health coverage (zero is the health coverage
they have).
What you meant to say was something along the lines of: "84% of the
people with health insurance coverage are happy with what they have."
I agree I could have stated it better. However, in the clarifications to
Curly, I did say that. He continued to misread it. Additionally, if one
says that 84% of Democrats are happy with Obama that doesn't mean that
the other 16% are Republicans.
Quote: We can still debate that statements, because it would take a bit of
investigation as to the actual questions and how people were chosen,
who did the survey, and what "with health insurance coverage" means in
the context of the survey, and some other statistics which may or may
not be able to be teased out of the survey raw data.
Yep, but that doesn't change what I said in my statement.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:44 am
|
|