Health Care, Obama.....

[Phrog_gunner]

Frist Friday of the month a town nearby has a block party. They close off 1 street and cars park, cruise in style. Band, BBQ, etc.
Last nite they posted rules, only classic cars, defined as over 20 years old.

Last year I called and they said please bring the MM, it is a draw.

This year a City Police Officer write his badge # on the rules and "do not bring this car back" and he writes down my plate number. He did the same for 8 other cars.

They have old MG and Mercedes. Since when have they been considered "classic"?

Under what authority does the POLICE have to tell me I can't bring my car to a public event?

WELCOME TO AMERIKA! LAND OF THE ENSLAVED AND HOME OF THE OPRESSORS!

Let's get a road trip together and have so many MMs there he gets carpal tunnel (sp?) trying to write notes on them all. Then we all file complaints that our cars were vandalized. Obviously nothing would happen, but we'd annoy the crap out of them.

 

[FordNut]

"By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.
Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.
Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.
CHART: Federal salaries compared to private-sector
These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis."

And they think federal government running the student loan program is going to save money?

 

[FordNut]

I don't think it's too extreme to see that as a possibility, not one bit. The only thing that'll prevent that is the prior posted story about the government hard-on now for cutting motorized transportation in favor of "walking and bicycling". I guess we know what the government is gonna do with GM in the future now...

The "walking and bicycling" trails and roads will be paid for by taxes on motorized transportation.

 

[ddogg626]

Let's get a road trip together and have so many MMs there he gets carpal tunnel (sp?) trying to write notes on them all. Then we all file complaints that our cars were vandalized. Obviously nothing would happen, but we'd annoy the crap out of them.

I'm in, just lemme know when we ride out.

 

[LIGHTNIN1]

And they think federal government running the student loan program is going to save money?

I hear that stunt is going to cost the US 30,000 jobs as it puts the companies that used to do the loans out of business or they have to do layoffs.Everything they touch is a disaster and puts people out of work. I am jockeying for a place under the bridge.

 

[jerrym3]

We, the people, cannot vote on a particular bill. We elect people to represent us. We live in a republic, not a pure democracy. Besides, would you want to vote on every bill? Where do you draw the line?

How many of us would actually read a 2,000 page bill? Or, would we just take the words of Beck or Obermann?

If you don't like the way your rep voted, vote him out next election. That's how we function.

I am so tired of the rhetoric from both sides. They want ratings. They will say ANYTHING to get you p*****d off enough to watch their BS.

Even the head of FOX said on Sunday TV a few weeks ago, "we are in the ratings business". He didn't say that they are in the "information of US Citizens" business.

O'Reilly is looking out for you? O'Reilly is looking out for O'Reilly.

It's pure entertainment. Anything to get you to watch so they can get the advertisers to pay more.

 

[Leadfoot281]

We, the people, cannot vote on a particular bill. We elect people to represent us. We live in a republic, not a pure democracy. Besides, would you want to vote on every bill? Where do you draw the line?

How many of us would actually read a 2,000 page bill? Or, would we just take the words of Beck or Obermann?

If you don't like the way your rep voted, vote him out next election. That's how we function.

I am so tired of the rhetoric from both sides. They want ratings. They will say ANYTHING to get you p*****d off enough to watch their BS.

Even the head of FOX said on Sunday TV a few weeks ago, "we are in the ratings business". He didn't say that they are in the "information of US Citizens" business.

O'Reilly is looking out for you? O'Reilly is looking out for O'Reilly.

It's pure entertainment. Anything to get you to watch so they can get the advertisers to pay more.

I generally agree with this except in representative democracy our president would not have told America to go pound sand. That's excatly what happened last Monday. As I said before, The republicans didn't want it, the Dems didn't want it, the American people didn't want it, and the States didn't want.

Obama told us all to go pound sand, STFU, and go fly a kite.

 

[Mr. Man]

I hear that stunt is going to cost the US 30,000 jobs as it puts the companies that used to do the loans out of business or they have to do layoffs.Everything they touch is a disaster and puts people out of workI am jockeying for a place under the bridge.

. Dibs on your floor mats

 

[CBT]

Good points. I would actually read the bill, tho. I love reading. If I were in office, any bill I was not given ample time to read would automatically get a NO vote, no matter who or what political party proposed it.

We, the people, cannot vote on a particular bill. We elect people to represent us. We live in a republic, not a pure democracy. Besides, would you want to vote on every bill? Where do you draw the line?

How many of us would actually read a 2,000 page bill? Or, would we just take the words of Beck or Obermann?

If you don't like the way your rep voted, vote him out next election. That's how we function.

I am so tired of the rhetoric from both sides. They want ratings. They will say ANYTHING to get you p*****d off enough to watch their BS.

Even the head of FOX said on Sunday TV a few weeks ago, "we are in the ratings business". He didn't say that they are in the "information of US Citizens" business.

O'Reilly is looking out for you? O'Reilly is looking out for O'Reilly.

It's pure entertainment. Anything to get you to watch so they can get the advertisers to pay more.

 

[SC Cheesehead]

Good points. I would actually read the bill, tho. I love reading. If I were in office, any bill I was not given ample time to read would automatically get a NO vote, no matter who or what political party proposed it.

BIG +1 on that! ^^^^^^^

 

[Bluerauder]

Good points. I would actually read the bill, tho. I love reading. If I were in office, any bill I was not given ample time to read would automatically get a NO vote, no matter who or what political party proposed it.

If the volume of :bs: bills is anywhere near what the legislative load is in Virginia, I am not so sure that any individual could read them all. Last year it was more than 2,000 bills. I guess this is what the Congressional Staffers do all the time ... bill reading and research.

I was on a "Bill Reading Task Force" for our local representative for a couple years. The sheer volume of crappola that gets incorporated into these bills is incredible. Moreover, it is really difficult to tell the real meaty issues/bills from the one's that want to name a bridge after some dufus that took out a guardrail and killed himself there or the let's approve a vanity plate design for some obscure group.

Budget bills are really fun --- it is so convoluted that it is hard to figure out what is happening. Complicating the entire process is the fact that all of this stuff is written by legislation lawyers using legal jargon-mumbo jumbo and double and triple negatives that it is hard to figure out if this is something you are "for" or maybe "against". This is the way that they word "Referendum" questions too.

I gave up on the Bill Reading Task Force after 2 years ..... The process itself is broken.

 

[SC Cheesehead]

C.Y.C.B.I...

"The end of freedom in medicine"
By 970 WFLA
Monday, March 29, 2010
TUCSON, Ariz. (970 WFLA) - The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) became the first medical society to sue to overturn the newly enacted health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). AAPS sued Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (AAPS v. Sebelius et al.).


“If the PPACA goes unchallenged, then it spells the end of freedom in medicine as we know it,” observed Jane Orient, M.D., the Executive Director of AAPS. “Courts should not allow this massive intrusion into the practice of medicine and the rights of patients.”


“There will be a dire shortage of physicians if the PPACA becomes effective and is not overturned by the courts.”


The PPACA requires most Americans to buy government-approved insurance starting in 2014, or face stiff penalties. Insurance company executives will be enriched by this requirement, but the AAPS says it violates the Fifth Amendment protection against the government forcing one person to pay cash to another. AAPS is the first to assert this important constitutional claim.


The PPACA also violates the Tenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the provisions authorizing taxation, the AAPS says. The Taxing and Spending power cannot be invoked, as the premiums go to private insurance companies. The traditional sovereignty of the States over the practice of medicine is destroyed by the PPACA.


AAPS notes that in scoring the proposal the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was bound by assumptions imposed by Congress, including the ability to “save” $500 billion in Medicare, and to redirect $50 billion from Social Security. HHS Secretary Sebelius stated that PPACA would reduce the federal deficit, knowing the opposite to be true if these assumptions are unrealistic.


AAPS asks the Court to enjoin the government from promulgating or enforcing insurance mandates and require HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue to provide the Court with an accounting of Medicare and Social Security solvency.


Congress recognized that PPACA cannot be funded without the insurance mandates, and will become unenforceable without them.


Court action is necessary “to preserve individual liberty” and “to prevent PPACA from bankrupting the United States generally and Medicare and Social Security specifically,” AAPS stated.

http://970wfla.com

 

[CBT]

Holy ****ing ****, they didn't just sue them, they sued them IN D.C., even better!!!

C.Y.C.B.I...

"The end of freedom in medicine"
By 970 WFLA
Monday, March 29, 2010
TUCSON, Ariz. (970 WFLA) - The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) became the first medical society to sue to overturn the newly enacted health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). AAPS sued Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (AAPS v. Sebelius et al.).


“If the PPACA goes unchallenged, then it spells the end of freedom in medicine as we know it,” observed Jane Orient, M.D., the Executive Director of AAPS. “Courts should not allow this massive intrusion into the practice of medicine and the rights of patients.”


“There will be a dire shortage of physicians if the PPACA becomes effective and is not overturned by the courts.”


The PPACA requires most Americans to buy government-approved insurance starting in 2014, or face stiff penalties. Insurance company executives will be enriched by this requirement, but the AAPS says it violates the Fifth Amendment protection against the government forcing one person to pay cash to another. AAPS is the first to assert this important constitutional claim.


The PPACA also violates the Tenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the provisions authorizing taxation, the AAPS says. The Taxing and Spending power cannot be invoked, as the premiums go to private insurance companies. The traditional sovereignty of the States over the practice of medicine is destroyed by the PPACA.


AAPS notes that in scoring the proposal the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was bound by assumptions imposed by Congress, including the ability to “save” $500 billion in Medicare, and to redirect $50 billion from Social Security. HHS Secretary Sebelius stated that PPACA would reduce the federal deficit, knowing the opposite to be true if these assumptions are unrealistic.


AAPS asks the Court to enjoin the government from promulgating or enforcing insurance mandates and require HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue to provide the Court with an accounting of Medicare and Social Security solvency.


Congress recognized that PPACA cannot be funded without the insurance mandates, and will become unenforceable without them.


Court action is necessary “to preserve individual liberty” and “to prevent PPACA from bankrupting the United States generally and Medicare and Social Security specifically,” AAPS stated.

http://970wfla.com

 

[LIGHTNIN1]

These crooks are low class crooks. At least Madoff had a little class about scamming his investors. The lawsuits will mount with individuals that can afford it suing also.

 

[FordNut]

Medicare savings...
Here's one of the ways they plan to accomplish that feat: As of April 1 physician payments are reduced by 21% for medicare patients. The payments from medicare are already considerably lower than private insurance and are near the break-even point. Medicaid payments are even lower and are already below cost in many instances.

Get ready for a groundswell in healthcare providers refusing to accept patients with medicare/medicaid.

 

[SC Cheesehead]

Medicare savings...
Here's one of the ways they plan to accomplish that feat: As of April 1 physician payments are reduced by 21% for medicare patients. The payments from medicare are already considerably lower than private insurance and are near the break-even point. Medicaid payments are even lower and are already below cost in many instances.

Get ready for a groundswell in healthcare providers refusing to accept patients with medicare/medicaid.

The clinic were my wife works loses money on every medicaid patient they have.

Already happening. Some clinics have served notice no new Meidcare/Medicaid patients accepted after a certain date.

 

[FordNut]

The clinic were my wife works loses money on every medicaid patient they have.

Already happening. Some clinics have served notice no new Meidcare/Medicaid patients accepted after a certain date.

So that's the government's strategy. If nobody accepts it, then they won't have any claims to pay!

 

[LIGHTNIN1]

So that's the government's strategy. If nobody accepts it, then they won't have any claims to pay!

I think you are on to something there. Remember Social Security when the tax money coming in for it was being put into an account.Then somewhere along the line Congress saw all that money sitting there and could not keep there hands off it . That is one reason it is broke today. With all the taxes that will be coming in for the Healthcare bill, I think Congress saw all that money ahead of time and that is one of the biggest resons for the bill, not healthcare. They will spend the money on other things and they don't care about the healthcare aspect of it.

 

[Bluerauder]

So that's the government's strategy. If nobody accepts it, then they won't have any claims to pay!

And if "they" decide that the hospitalization was "preventable", the payments to Medicare can be cut even further. Yeah, this is gonna save a ton of money until no one will honor Medicare.

 

[LeoVampire]

after reading this new stuff you guys are saying called the Doc's

And if "they" decide that the hospitalization was "preventable", the payments to Medicare can be cut even further. Yeah, this is gonna save a ton of money until no one will honor Medicare.

I called my doctor's offices to see if they had anything to say about this new bill vs my status with them seeing I have Medicare.

They told me not to worry about it and that they still expected me to go to my appointments and let them deal with medicare.

So I guess I have to wait till the new info from Medicare is sent out to all of us before I have any real info about how the changes will effect me one way or the other.

I wonder how much that will cost them to send out all the new info to people like me and the doctors who take it?