FixHealthCarePolicy

The Democrats' healthcare plans are driven by leftist ideology, not by practical considerations. They don't care how much it costs so long as they can ram socialism down our throat. This is a socialist takeover of the government as well as a government takeover of our medical system.

All of this courtesy of Bogus POTUS Barack Obama/Barry Soetero's coup d'etat, which has in effect nullified our Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5). Obama may or may not have been born in the U.S., but he for sure was not a constitutional natural born citizen because his purported father was a British subject/citizen when Obama Jr. was born, and British law governed his birth status, as his own website has said. How can a natural born U.S. citizen be governed at birth by British law? It's a logical impossibility.

So the whole healthcare makeover is a fraud, too, and Obama's signature on any "reform" bill will be fraudulent. Welcome to Socialist Amerika.

Elected offficials of either political party can not be trusted to do the 'right thing' with taxpayer's funds--their record speaks for itsself---

If everyone currently on SS agreed to a hundred bux a month less on their SS chex--and a pile of money began to accumulate--what do you think the Congress would do with that money--just like always---spend it on pet projects not related to fixin' SS

If we're allowed to vote in 2010 (be aware of Osambos thugs)get rid of all encumbents in both parties--give new crooks (law school graduates) access to the problems and solutions.

The government as you stated should be solely focused on reforming Medicare and Medicaid/Medical. These government run health care providers are going bankrupt and should be restructured and reformatted. This administration and our legislators should also research and reformat another government run health care provider which is the VA. The VA has a very poor results/outcome when it comes to patient care and preventative care.
I'm a health care professional and I am not sure what this administration's big thrust or push to overhaul our entire health care system except that some of these lobbyist's groups have supported President Obama during his presidential campaign and he owes these elitist's something! President Obama, his administration as well as the liberal democrats plan to overhaul our entire health care system is absolutely insane! The government run entitie/programs are flailing and so far nothing has been done to improve these and now President Obama, his administration and the liberal democrats want to change our nation's entire health care system?!

“Because Medicare pays providers substantially less than private insurers, premiums for the
public plan would be substantially less than comparable coverage in a private plan.”

'The Lewin Group is not an advocate for or against any legislation. The Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the UnitedHealth Group. To assure the independence of its work, The Lewin Group has editorial control over all of its work products.”

Response:

The study appears impressive considering the amount of data that’s been utilized for its conclusion. However, despite the disclaimer from the Lewin Group I have concern for its alleged impartiality. I recall a recent article regarding UnitedHealth Group’s agreement with the Federal government to replace its medical reimbursement index, due to faulty data that resulted in lower reimbursement of medical expense fees to its insurance customers, and medical providers.

The study claims the Medicare reimbursement has an adverse affect to its bottom line. I failed to understand how is it possible that why do so many Health Insurance Companies have contracts with Medicare servicing its recipients. Medicare pays a fixed cost to various Health Insurance firms in return for servicing its beneficiaries. If it’s such a losing deal, why do they still exist? I also note the irony that United Health is one of the largest Medicare Vendors in the US.

By not addressing the findings, making an attempt to refute the report using innuendo, and changing the subject to Medicare, indicates you have no cognitive rebuttal to the report. HR3200 will increase the Debt by $1.6 Trillion dollar's over 10 years according to the Congressional Budges Office. As of Friday 8/21/09 The 10 year projected DEBT has increased by $2 Trillion dollar's to $9 Trillion. O.M.B.
It makes no sense to take on the additional DEBT for a government run health care program that is insolvent before it is passed and rife with obtuse language and findings that leave health care decisions in the hands of politically appointed panels.
Our money bag is below empty: "'Tis hard for an ampty Bag to stand upright"

Aadertongue:

“Don't you just hate those pesky numbers. They do get in the way.

Nice tantrum. It speaks volumes.. “

Response:

I gave you more credit than you deserved. You seem to be very impress with numbers, then, try and explain this. One of the primary disputes with the administrative cost of Medicare is the omission of the cost of collection of Medicare tax by IRS. Using this logic, IRS is the most productive federal component since the cost of running it can be allocated to other component like ‘Medicare.’ Now, ‘IRS doesn’t have any administrative expense’ because it is allocated to any component that uses its service. Logically that tells me that IRS is the most efficient company in the US. Think of it, zero administrative expense!

Isn’t data mining wonderful! You’re right, numbers does obscure the facts. Intelligence unfortunately is needed to read beyond the numbers.

Why don’t you avoid the name-calling and give me a reasonable answer.


ps: those twenty to thirty duplicate posting are not my doing.

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

Don't you just hate those pesky numbers. They do get in the way.
Nice tantrum. It speaks volumes..

Aadertongue:

“Don't you just hate those pesky numbers. They do get in the way.

Nice tantrum. It speaks volumes.. “

Response:

I gave you more credit than you deserved. You seem to be very impress with numbers, then, try and explain this. One of the primary disputes with the administrative cost of Medicare is the omission of the cost of collection of Medicare tax by IRS. Using this logic, IRS is the most productive federal component since the cost of running it can be allocated to other component like ‘Medicare.’ Now, ‘IRS doesn’t have any administrative expense’ because it is allocated to any component that uses its service. Logically that tells me that IRS is the most efficient company in the US. Think of it, zero administrative expense!

Isn’t data mining wonderful! You’re right, numbers does obscure the facts. Intelligence unfortunately is needed to read beyond the numbers.

Why don’t you avoid the name-calling and give me a reasonable answer.



ps: those twenty to thirty duplicates are not my doing.

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

To addertongue:

Response:

Don't change the subject, try addressing my "innuendos."

addertongue:

Response:

Data mining doesn’t impressed me, a relational affect is not a causal affect. The numbers you have are merely smokescreens that cloud the issues. The numbers have to be reasonable and they are not. Don't side step the subject, address my innuendoes and you address the issues.


Note; OMB is Office of Management and Budget, not O.M.B.