Denninger, have you lost your mind?

[Sparky1]

Where would that be?

Well here you go starting trouble again. Karl is the voice of reason and a shining example of civil discourse and inteligent reasonable conversation. I offer the following quote as proof of that.

"
Re: Cap and trade - 06-29-2009, 08:35 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOUTHPIECE?

Bite me you jackass.

Do go watch the video. Then go read The Ticker and judge for yourself, or why don't you do the honorable thing you spineless wimp and ask Randy or Stef yourself?" (Quote Genisis)



Brian

 

[thoward]

I said no such thing.

I said if you sell to one group without pre-existing condition and individual rating tests you must allow anyone else under the same circumstances to buy under the same price.

This is called Robinson-Patman and has applied for the purpose of Goods for quite some time. It is part of anti-trust law. What part of enforcing anti-trust law doesn't make sense?.

Seeing that Medicare is the largest player by far and it is a gov service, they will set the price. I have no issue with a usual and customary fee schedule ceiling but you can not tie that schedule to the largest insurer which happens to be a gov entity. Also, a 24 hour ER is much like a specialty store and as such should be able to charge more than a general clinic.

The Robinson-Patman Act was intended to keep business from undercutting another. Not to restrict profit.

Of course I am. If I go to work for GM whether or not I have a pre-existing condition has NO BEARING on whether or not I can obtain insurance. Anyone should be able to buy under THEIR plan if they so choose, provided that GM has employees in your state.

When it comes to pre-existing, those that have abused their body should not be automatically accepted at the same price as someone who has not. It only drive up the price for the responsible party.

There is no such thing as "free".

Hence the "quotations"

.[/QUOTE]

 

[Genesis]

Seeing that Medicare is the largest player by far and it is a gov service, they will set the price. I have no issue with a usual and customary fee schedule ceiling but you can not tie that schedule to the largest insurer which happens to be a gov entity. Also, a 24 hour ER is much like a specialty store and as such should be able to charge more than a general clinic.

The Robinson-Patman Act was intended to keep business from undercutting another. Not to restrict profit.

On the contrary. Medicare can say "we will pay X" and the Doctors can say "we won't accept X." This is called the free market. If the doctors will accept X, then they must accept (and publish) X as the price for EVERYONE.

The problem right now is that you pay X+ (or sometimes X*!) so that Medicare and Medicaid can pay X. That is, you are FORCED at gunpoint to subsidize the government-run care.

When it comes to pre-existing, those that have abused their body should not be automatically accepted at the same price as someone who has not. It only drive up the price for the responsible party.

If an insurance company does not accept pre-existing conditions for a business, then it does not have to for an individual who enrolls under the same program.

Whether I work for GM or Frobozz, or myself has NO BEARING on my health insurance. Forcing open enrollment will in turn foster tremendous competition as now ALL plans will have to compete for ALL customers, instead of being able to LOCK YOU to what your employer provides (or not.)

Do you want ONE choice for health insurance or ONE HUNDRED choices?

Do you want ONE grocery store or TEN grocery stores?

You are arguing for only ONE grocery store where you can buy your food, and the grocer is free to rape you repeatedly because you are barred from buying at the store next door!

 

[krush]

Letting government determine "what they will pay" is stupid and usually wastes money and/or drives costs up for everybody.

For example: when stationed overseas in the Navy (Hawaii and Guam are considered oversea), the housing allowance is USE IT OR LOSE IT. Stateside, the allowance is a tax-free check cut to the person---if you stay somewhere cheap you keep the difference.

Use it or lose it forces everybody to spend as much of the allowance has possible. Well, the landlords know exactly what these rates are and what do you think they ask? Then when houses fill up, they ask more and the Navy is forced to raise the allowance---vicious cycle.

Meanwhile, the non military folk get screwed because the average rent price goes up and up while their pay stays the same. This is meddling in the market.

IRONY, the Navy bitches about how much housing costs in Guam...they are the majority of the problem.

 

[Genesis]

Letting government determine "what they will pay" is stupid and usually wastes money and/or drives costs up for everybody.

What I put forward is not "let government determine what they will pay."

It is "let government determine what they will OFFER to pay for a given service." The provider may accept or decline. But - if he/she accepts, he may not bill anyone else at a higher rate. Period.

The problem we have with health care is the massive cost-shifting that is embedded in the system. This is both pernicious and structural - it is DESIGNED this way, on purpose, and everyone OTHER THAN the government gets hosed, in some cases severely so.

Competition works everywhere it is tried, provided it is actual competition. Forcing you to buy your groceries at the local stop-and-rob while the government employee can shop at the supermarket isn't competition, its robbery. The stop-and-rob has no incentive to price to the market as they have a captive audience - after all, you must eat, right?

 

[hyperfishing]

The day the house bill passed, a congressman was angry that someone had slipped into the bill, a provision that people under ERISA would no longer be able to sue private insurance companies for health care coverage, EXCEPT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS!!!!!! How much did it cost the insurance companies to buy off a congressperson to try to pull off this scam? I dunno, free house, free jet. Whatever.

I really have to laugh at the folks trusting private health insurance companies. They are scum, pretty cut and dried, as evidenced by the massive frauds carried out by Wellpoint, paying bonuses to employees to deny coverage to policy holders, or Columbia, hit with a 1.5 billion dollar fine by the justice department.

Dig a hole and throw them into it, along with malpractice insurance lawyers and their lawsuits. The 30% cost savings will insure everyone in one giant pool, that does not try to con doctors or patients with delays, denials, or overpayments.

 

[hyperfishing]

The day the house bill passed, a congressman was angry that someone had slipped into the bill, a provision that people under ERISA would no longer be able to sue for health care coverage, EXCEPT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS!!!!!!

I really have to laugh at the folks trusting private health insurance companies. They are scum, pretty cut and dried, as evidenced by the massive frauds carried out by Wellpoint, paying bonuses to employees to deny coverage to policy holders, or Columbia, hit with a 1.5 billion dollar fine by the justice department.

Dig a hole and throw them into it, along with malpractice insurance lawyers and their lawsuits. The 30% cost savings will insure everyone in one giant pool, that does not try to con doctors or patients with delays, denials, or overpayments.

 

[Trojan]

What I put forward is not "let government determine what they will pay."

It is "let government determine what they will OFFER to pay for a given service." The provider may accept or decline. But - if he/she accepts, he may not bill anyone else at a higher rate. Period.

The problem we have with health care is the massive cost-shifting that is embedded in the system. This is both pernicious and structural - it is DESIGNED this way, on purpose, and everyone OTHER THAN the government gets hosed, in some cases severely so.

Competition works everywhere it is tried, provided it is actual competition. Forcing you to buy your groceries at the local stop-and-rob while the government employee can shop at the supermarket isn't competition, its robbery. The stop-and-rob has no incentive to price to the market as they have a captive audience - after all, you must eat, right?

I think that would be a good start. But I don't think there is any answer that serves all. I also don't like the free give a ways. But under the circumstances This is the first time in this generation life time that there are no real jobs available. And yes there is nickle dime work, but there are not jobs for everyone. Most peoples life style today is based on a lot higher wage. No matter what you say. It is a hard way to go to adjust to the lower wages. loosing a house, car, boat, plane is a hard lesson to adjust to. It's not there fault there victims of the times. These are not the slum people. They were good workers. Were not looking at 10,000 people spread out across the world. Were talking about Millions. The minute you cut these people off you will have all kinds of looting and gang raids. No one will be safe. I don't think that many people think this can happen. Our banks are now installing a small bullet proof room that you enter and you communicate to the teller by camera to a teller in another room. You people laughed at me 3 years ago when I said it was going to happen before any of this did happened. Are you still laughing. People are now returning to cattle rustling and bank robing. old couples are being pistol whipped and robbed. Am I still wrong? I purchase ammo monthly. I have my bunker complete, do you? Being protective of your family, home and things is not being a radical. BILL

 

[Genesis]

The minute you cut these people off you will have all kinds of looting and gang raids. No one will be safe. I don't think that many people think this can happen.

Oh I absolutely do think it can happen - remember, when you think you need gold, you will need tubular steel, lead and brass a lot more.

 

[Sparky1]

Most peoples life style today is based on a lot higher wage. No matter what you say. It is a hard way to go to adjust to the lower wages. loosing a house, car, boat, plane is a hard lesson to adjust to.

ROFLOL!!! I'm sorry, but you should have stopped at car.

I can see it now, Obama's newest social programs, "Planes For Paupers" and "Yachts For Have-Nots". Lord help us.

 

[Brian Degulis]

I think that would be a good start. But I don't think there is any answer that serves all. I also don't like the free give a ways. But under the circumstances This is the first time in this generation life time that there are no real jobs available. And yes there is nickle dime work, but there are not jobs for everyone. Most peoples life style today is based on a lot higher wage. No matter what you say. It is a hard way to go to adjust to the lower wages. loosing a house, car, boat, plane is a hard lesson to adjust to. It's not there fault there victims of the times. These are not the slum people. They were good workers. Were not looking at 10,000 people spread out across the world. Were talking about Millions. The minute you cut these people off you will have all kinds of looting and gang raids. No one will be safe. I don't think that many people think this can happen. Our banks are now installing a small bullet proof room that you enter and you communicate to the teller by camera to a teller in another room. You people laughed at me 3 years ago when I said it was going to happen before any of this did happened. Are you still laughing. People are now returning to cattle rustling and bank robing. old couples are being pistol whipped and robbed. Am I still wrong? I purchase ammo monthly. I have my bunker complete, do you? Being protective of your family, home and things is not being a radical. BILL

Your wrong It is they're fault because as you said they were living above they're means. Yes they are victims but not of the recession they are victims of they're own lack of preperation. When things were good they choose to have toys or to many kids or whatever. Now when things are bad they're asking government to conficate money from people that acted responsibly to bail them out. You keep screaming wait untill it happens to you then you'll see. You know what it won't happen to me because I'm prepared my priorities are straight I live within my means and save for a rainy day. I don't borrow money for cars or boats or any toys that I don't need I only have them if I can pay for them. I don't depend on others for my financial well being in good times or bad.

Brian

 

[Boatsb]

Your wrong It is they're fault because as you said they were living above they're means. Yes they are victims but not of the recession they are victims of they're own lack of preperation. When things were good they choose to have toys or to many kids or whatever. Now when things are bad they're asking government to conficate money from people that acted responsibly to bail them out. You keep screaming wait untill it happens to you then you'll see. You know what it won't happen to me because I'm prepared my priorities are straight I live within my means and save for a rainy day. I don't borrow money for cars or boats or any toys that I don't need I only have them if I can pay for them. I don't depend on others for my financial well being in good times or bad.

Brian

Many of us are in a similar position because we planned on a few extra years of prosperity. I needed 4 more years but now I am dealing with the decisions I made and working extra to pay my commitments. As to Jobs being beneath me. I don't know of many.


"Things I have done for money sounds" like a good new thread. Maybe 2 sections. Things I am proud of and things I would not want to do again.

 

[Sparky1]

Your wrong It is they're fault because as you said they were living above they're means. Yes they are victims but not of the recession they are victims of they're own lack of preperation. When things were good they choose to have toys or to many kids or whatever. Now when things are bad they're asking government to conficate money from people that acted responsibly to bail them out. You keep screaming wait untill it happens to you then you'll see. You know what it won't happen to me because I'm prepared my priorities are straight I live within my means and save for a rainy day. I don't borrow money for cars or boats or any toys that I don't need I only have them if I can pay for them. I don't depend on others for my financial well being in good times or bad.

Brian

Not everyone who has been affected by this downturn was living beyond their means. There's only so much you can plan for in life, and many got caught up in this before they even knew what was happening. Look at how much was lost in 401K's through no fault of those it affected.

Hell, I'll be the first to admit I've made some lousy financial decisions over the years which have come back to bite me on the ass. But when you've been doing the same thing for 20+ years without a hiccup, you think you have things pretty well figured out. Then the old, "shit happens", thing comes into play, and there you sit, wondering what the hell happened.

As far as people taking a job that is beneath them, I have little or no sympathy when it comes to that. You never know where a dead end job make take you as I'm living proof of that. One thing's for sure, you'll never have a door of opportunity opened if you're sitting on the couch, whining about not having a job.

 

[Brian Degulis]

No not everyone was living beyond they're means but the simple truth is that most are. Last time I checked the average savings was $1200 and the average credit card debt was around $10,000. That's not living within your means. Over 50% of the people in this country living at or below the poverty level have cable television. As for the 401Ks there is always risk the prudent thing to do is not invest money you can't afford to lose. Any acountant will tell you that if your within 5 years of retirement your 401K should be switched to the lower paying safe stuff. If you didn't do that or you invested money you couldn't afford to lose then the loss is your fault you gambled and lost plain and simple.

Don't get me wrong I'm not claiming to be some great planner that never gets bit I've got plenty of scars. But I do try to prepare and I don't blame others for my mistakes or turn into a big cry baby when a gamble goes bad.

The simple truth is if we haden't of slipped into this entitlement mentality over the last 50 or so years we would not have so many people in such bad shape. If schools taught basic finance principals we would not have people living off credit cards. In the end for 99.9% of us our lives will be the sum total of the decisions we make we are or should be responsible for our own well being.

Brian

 

[Genesis]

Your so-called "401k gains" were in fact fueled by the fraudulent accounting you all cheered when your accounts were going up.

How many are cheering the recent stock market rise NOW among you here? Virtually everyone, right?

Look at the P/E lately? 143 on the S&P. That's not my number - that's S&Ps - they run the index. http://www2.standardandpoors.com/po...ces_500/2,3,2,2,0,0,0,0,0,1,11,0,0,0,0,0.html

How? Simple. The Fed is buying MBS and Treasuries and the primary dealers (big banks) are speculating in stocks, trying to suck you into the market. These very same banks are claiming that mortgages on which the owner hasn't paid a nickel in a year are worth 100 cents on the dollar.

Without these FRAUDS the S&P wouldn't be at 1,000 and the Dow wouldn't be at 9368. EVERY major bank in this country would be recognized as what it is - bankrupt - along with nearly all of the large regional banks.

You've cheered this stock market over the last three months, right?

Then you're cheering fraud, just like you were in 2003-2007.

I don't want to hear ONE whine when the floor disappears (if you don't think it will, I will simply note that the highest P/E on the SPX that was ever recorded - before this stupidity - was 60 - right before the Tech Wreck in 2000) if you haven't and don't raise hell about the fraud NOW.

America is full of people who are happy to try to profit from fraud when it goes their way, but when it doesn't, they whine and demand a handout.

 

[Sparky1]

How is it that anybody can take BO seriously when it comes to health care?

Check out this video from CNN, of all places. No blaming Fox for this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG56B2et4M8

 

[Sparky1]

No not everyone was living beyond they're means but the simple truth is that most are. Last time I checked the average savings was $1200 and the average credit card debt was around $10,000. That's not living within your means. Over 50% of the people in this country living at or below the poverty level have cable television. As for the 401Ks there is always risk the prudent thing to do is not invest money you can't afford to lose. Any acountant will tell you that if your within 5 years of retirement your 401K should be switched to the lower paying safe stuff. If you didn't do that or you invested money you couldn't afford to lose then the loss is your fault you gambled and lost plain and simple.

Don't get me wrong I'm not claiming to be some great planner that never gets bit I've got plenty of scars. But I do try to prepare and I don't blame others for my mistakes or turn into a big cry baby when a gamble goes bad.

The simple truth is if we haden't of slipped into this entitlement mentality over the last 50 or so years we would not have so many people in such bad shape. If schools taught basic finance principals we would not have people living off credit cards. In the end for 99.9% of us our lives will be the sum total of the decisions we make we are or should be responsible for our own well being.

Brian

Can't argue with any of that.

 

[thoward]

On the contrary. Medicare can say "we will pay X" and the Doctors can say "we won't accept X." This is called the free market. If the doctors will accept X, then they must accept (and publish) X as the price for EVERYONE.

Medicare/caid has too big a market share for health care ever be called a free market. A free market is determined by what the market will bear not by what the gov thinks it is worth!

 

[Boatsb]

And the Government has not even told us the cost of the new procedure of shoving the program .... The obemena.

 

[Brian Degulis]

Seeing that Medicare is the largest player by far and it is a gov service, they will set the price. I have no issue with a usual and customary fee schedule ceiling but you can not tie that schedule to the largest insurer which happens to be a gov entity. Also, a 24 hour ER is much like a specialty store and as such should be able to charge more than a general clinic.

The Robinson-Patman Act was intended to keep business from undercutting another. Not to restrict profit.





When it comes to pre-existing, those that have abused their body should not be automatically accepted at the same price as someone who has not. It only drive up the price for the responsible party.



Hence the "quotations"

.

[/QUOTE]

Heres some more info on the Robinson-Patman Act that explains why it probably is not aplicable to health care. Looks like #19 knocks it out. I think it could also be argued that the services being sold to an insurance co. or Medicare are being sold in bulk quantities and an individual's are not.

In order to bring the substantive portions of the Act into play, there must be

two or more consummated sales,

reasonably close in point of time,

of commodities,

of like grade and quality,

with a difference in price,

by the same seller,

to two or more different purchasers,

for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any territory thereof,

which may result in competitive injury. Furthermore,

the "commerce" requirement must be satisfied.11
These jurisdictional elements are interpreted strictly and technically, and three of them may be of particular interest. First, as the first element indicates, the plaintiff must establish that actual sales occurred. The Act does not apply, for example, to long term leases; to mere offers to sell; to acting as an intermediary between a seller and its customers; or to licensing computer software. 12 Second, as the third element indicates, the Act applies only to commodities; it does not apply to intangible products. Thus, for example, electricity has been classified as a commodity subject to the Act, because "[e]lectric power can be felt, if not touched. It is produced, sold, stored in small quantities, transmitted, and distributed in discrete quantities." 13

By contrast, courts have concluded that the Act does not apply to intangible products such as cellular telephone service and cellular telephone activation service; 14 the printing of comic books;15 newspaper advertising; 16 real estate leases; 17 long distance voice telecommunications services; 18 and cable television service. 19 When a transaction involves both the sale of goods and the sale of services, the Act applies "only if the 'dominant nature' of the transaction is a sale of goods."20

Brian