PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16


petegz28
03-17-2010, 09:53 PM
So it begins...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011367936_walgreens18m.html

orange
03-17-2010, 10:00 PM
er, so WHAT begins?

wazu
03-17-2010, 10:34 PM
er, so WHAT begins?

Seriously? This question explains a lot, but I'll spell it out.

1. Pharmacy A says "no more Medicaid".
2. Pharmacies B,C, and D suddenly are getting more money-losing Medicaid patients.
3. Pharmacies B,C, and D decide they, too, are sick of this, and they follow suit one-by-one, with each one that leaves shifting more of the burden onto the others.
4. Nobody takes Medicaid.

Now repeat the exercise, only with Medicare.

Brainiac
03-17-2010, 10:36 PM
Now repeat the process, only with Obamacare.

Taco John
03-17-2010, 10:39 PM
Seriously? This question explains a lot, but I'll spell it out.

1. Pharmacy A says "no more Medicaid".
2. Pharmacies B,C, and D suddenly are getting more money-losing Medicaid patients.
3. Pharmacies B,C, and D decide they, too, are sick of this, and they follow suit one-by-one, with each one that leaves shifting more of the burden onto the others.
4. Nobody takes Medicaid.

Now repeat the exercise, only with Medicare.


5. Federal government steps in and mandates that businesses take medicaid patients.
6. Walgreen's Pharmacies close to cut costs, reducing access.

petegz28
03-17-2010, 10:39 PM
Seriously? This question explains a lot, but I'll spell it out.

1. Pharmacy A says "no more Medicaid".
2. Pharmacies B,C, and D suddenly are getting more money-losing Medicaid patients.
3. Pharmacies B,C, and D decide they, too, are sick of this, and they follow suit one-by-one, with each one that leaves shifting more of the burden onto the others.
4. Nobody takes Medicaid.

Now repeat the exercise, only with Medicare.

I wasn't even going to humor him.

orange
03-17-2010, 11:09 PM
It's the STATE OF WASHINGTON MEDICAID, right?

It's NOT 50 states. Right?
It's NOT Federal. Right?
It's NOT Medicare. Right?
It's NOT Obamacare. Right?


Thought so.

Saul Good
03-17-2010, 11:12 PM
It's the STATE OF WASHINGTON MEDICAID, right?

It's NOT 50 states. Right?
It's NOT Federal. Right?
It's NOT Medicare. Right?
It's NOT Obamacare. Right?


Thought so.

Things never start incrementally. Great point. The fact that all Walgreens, nay, all pharmacies in the country didn't burn down every store and piss on the ashes at the exact time shows that the system works.

orange
03-17-2010, 11:20 PM
What exactly is supposed to be the point? That medical care is too expensive?

Who's arguing.

Washington cut its Medicaid budget, so now there's less healthcare available to Medicaid recipients. Never would have seen that coming.

There is a bright side, though. Now that the government is out of the way, the White Knights of capitalism will surely be riding in to save the day!

Mr. Flopnuts
03-17-2010, 11:21 PM
This has been coming for a long time. The state of Washington has just made it impossible for drug stores to profit from Medicaid sales. I expect more to follow suit.

beer bacon
03-17-2010, 11:22 PM
So while every other civilized country on this planet is providing UHC that is both cheaper and more effective than what the average American is paying for health insurance right now, Americans are worried that Walgreens might lose a little bit profit because it will be slightly more difficult to turn the screws on said average American when he/she goes shopping for the drug he/she needs to stay alive or what not.

beer bacon
03-17-2010, 11:23 PM
Hmmm,either more people can saved from dying to treatable ailments or some corporations can make slightly more profits. Tough choice.

petegz28
03-17-2010, 11:24 PM
So while every other civilized country on this planet is providing UHC that is both cheaper and more effective than what the average American is paying for health insurance right now, Americans are worried that Walgreens might lose a little bit profit because it will be slightly more difficult to turn the screws on said average American when he/she goes shopping for the drug he/she needs to stay alive or what not.

Um, how does our population relate to the population in those "other countires"?

beer bacon
03-17-2010, 11:26 PM
Um, how does our population relate to the population in those "other countires"?

There are no "other countries!" I made them all up. America has the best health care in the world if you are a visiting dignitary with limitless wealth. USA #1!!!!

Taco John
03-17-2010, 11:29 PM
So while every other civilized country on this planet is providing UHC that is both cheaper and more effective than what the average American is paying for health insurance right now, Americans are worried that Walgreens might lose a little bit profit because it will be slightly more difficult to turn the screws on said average American when he/she goes shopping for the drug he/she needs to stay alive or what not.


Every other civilized country on the planet has their national defense subsidized by us at no cost. Where do we get the money to subsidize their national defense so that they can use those resources on programs like health care?

Where again?

Where again?

Where again?

Where do we get the money?

Where again?

Say it one more time.

petegz28
03-17-2010, 11:31 PM
Every other civilized country on the planet has their national defense subsidized by us at no cost. Where do we get the money to subsidize their national defense so that they can use those resources on programs like health care?

Where again?

Where again?

Where again?

Where do we get the money?

Where again?

Say it one more time.

The rich of course.

And the middle class....

beer bacon
03-17-2010, 11:40 PM
Hmmm, should we develop this sweet lasers or spend billions and billions of dollars developing military hardware when we have no enemies that can match our current technology and hardware, or should we spend money on providing health care to folk?

Should we invade foreign lands, spend billions and billions of dollar occupying said lands, or should we treat that curable illness grandma has?

These are the difficult decisions that keep me up at night. It is tough, I mean we could provide UHC, but then we might not able to bump up the military budget 10% a year. Fuck!!!

petegz28
03-17-2010, 11:42 PM
Hmmm, should we develop this sweet lasers or spend billions and billions of dollars developing military hardware when we have no enemies that can match our current technology and hardware, or should we spend money on providing health care to folk?

Should we invade foreign lands, spend billions and billions of dollar occupying said lands, or should we treat that curable illness grandma has?

These are the difficult decisions that keep me up at night. It is tough, I mean we could provide UHC, but then we might not able to bump up the military budget 10% a year. ****!!!

Unfortunately for your argument it is a Constitutional obligation for the Fed Gov to protect us from enemies. It is not their Constitutional obligation to make sure you have health insurance.

Taco John
03-18-2010, 12:04 AM
The rich of course.

And the middle class....


Not even. It's China. And it's our future generations who are stuck with the bill.

All this wonderful world stuff about everyone having health care is sugar laced with poison.

Taco John
03-18-2010, 12:05 AM
Hmmm, should we develop this sweet lasers or spend billions and billions of dollars developing military hardware when we have no enemies that can match our current technology and hardware, or should we spend money on providing health care to folk?

Should we invade foreign lands, spend billions and billions of dollar occupying said lands, or should we treat that curable illness grandma has?

These are the difficult decisions that keep me up at night. It is tough, I mean we could provide UHC, but then we might not able to bump up the military budget 10% a year. ****!!!


Tell it to your savior in chief. He's the one borrowing money from China so we can support the weight of the world AND try to provide universal health care at the same time.

penchief
03-18-2010, 06:09 AM
5. Federal government steps in and mandates that businesses take medicaid patients.
6. Walgreen's Pharmacies close to cut costs, reducing access.

Are you serious? The pharmaceutical industry is one of the biggest money making scams going today. They ain't going out of business. Everywhere you look Walgreens or some other chain is buying up an entire block to build a new megastore. There's more drug stores than there are grocery stores. And almost all the grocery stores have drug stores in them. And that doesn't even include the booming mail order drug racket. There's a reason that there's more drug commercials on television than there is anything else.

This is just another example of a corporate power play. They are going to dictate the rules whether we like it or not. And the corporate lackeys in congress are going to bow at their feet. This is no different than the mantra that higher CAFE standards will be bad for the consumer or that off-shore drilling is going to equal lower gas prices. We all know it's bullshit.

Drug stores are not going to close their doors to Medicare because it's too much of a windfall. My guess is that they'll lobby to create a Medicaid prescription drug program similar to the Medicare drug program so that they can charge the taxpayer a premium on prescription drugs for the poor just like they do with the elderly and disabled.

CoMoChief
03-18-2010, 10:33 AM
What exactly is supposed to be the point? That medical care is too expensive?

Who's arguing.

Washington cut its Medicaid budget, so now there's less healthcare available to Medicaid recipients. Never would have seen that coming.

There is a bright side, though. Now that the government is out of the way, the White Knights of capitalism will surely be riding in to save the day!

Stupid fucking liberal.

donkhater
03-18-2010, 10:42 AM
Are you serious? The pharmaceutical industry is one of the biggest money making scams going today. They ain't going out of business.



Really? Pharma R&D has cut thousands of jobs in the last few years. Lilly just laid off 40+ discovery chemists, as did Astra Zeneca. The downsizing of Pharma R&D has been dramatic.

jiveturkey
03-18-2010, 10:44 AM
Really? Pharma R&D has cut thousands of jobs in the last few years. Lilly just laid off 40+ discovery chemists, as did Astra Zeneca. The downsizing of Pharma R&D has been dramatic.They're running out of things to treat. I actually hire people away from pharma and this has been building for the last 5 years or so.

vailpass
03-18-2010, 10:59 AM
So while every other civilized country on this planet is providing UHC that is both cheaper and more effective than what the average American is paying for health insurance right now, Americans are worried that Walgreens might lose a little bit profit because it will be slightly more difficult to turn the screws on said average American when he/she goes shopping for the drug he/she needs to stay alive or what not.

ROFL Could you have your 'facts' more incorrect if you tried? It is ignorance such as yours that is dragging down the rest of us.

donkhater
03-18-2010, 11:04 AM
They're running out of things to treat. I actually hire people away from pharma and this has been building for the last 5 years or so.

Well, sort of. Pharma companies have gotten so large over the last couple decades, that in order to maintain the growth of their stock for their investors, they have focused more on the blockbuster drugs. One of the reasons is that it is just so damn expensive ($600 million the last I heard, I'm sure it's higher now) to get a drug to market. To make a profit (gasp) to keep the company, you know, finacially viable, they can only afford to go after those therapies that will return that investment over the life of the patent until generics undercut them.

Garcia Bronco
03-18-2010, 11:05 AM
What exactly is supposed to be the point? That medical care is too expensive?

Who's arguing.

Washington cut its Medicaid budget, so now there's less healthcare available to Medicaid recipients. Never would have seen that coming.

There is a bright side, though. Now that the government is out of the way, the White Knights of capitalism will surely be riding in to save the day!

No medicaid pays 30 percent of cost. Lets see you open a business and i'll pay you 30 percent of your price. Lets see how long you stay in business.

orange
03-18-2010, 11:15 AM
Well, sort of. Pharma companies have gotten so large over the last couple decades, that in order to maintain the growth of their stock for their investors, they have focused more on the blockbuster drugs. One of the reasons is that it is just so damn expensive ($600 million the last I heard, I'm sure it's higher now) to get a drug to market. To make a profit (gasp) to keep the company, you know, finacially viable, they can only afford to go after those therapies that will return that investment over the life of the patent until generics undercut them.

http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html

Drug Manufacturers Major - 22.2% Net Profit Margin. 3rd highest among 215 industries.

Only third? :deevee:

banyon
03-18-2010, 11:19 AM
Well, sort of. Pharma companies have gotten so large over the last couple decades, that in order to maintain the growth of their stock for their investors, they have focused more on the blockbuster drugs. One of the reasons is that it is just so damn expensive ($600 million the last I heard, I'm sure it's higher now) to get a drug to market. To make a profit (gasp) to keep the company, you know, finacially viable, they can only afford to go after those therapies that will return that investment over the life of the patent until generics undercut them.

Yeah, exponential growth is pretty hard to maintain.

Once you become a mega-cap, its pretty unrealistic to expect massive revenue growth. That's why small caps offer such better potential returns.

To act like they are financially crippled, though is silly.

penchief
03-18-2010, 11:20 AM
Really? Pharma R&D has cut thousands of jobs in the last few years. Lilly just laid off 40+ discovery chemists, as did Astra Zeneca. The downsizing of Pharma R&D has been dramatic.

Drug companies are in the midst of a windfall. Business has never been better. I am not surprised that these companies are cutting back on research in favor of marketing. Whenever profit becomes the overriding consideration cost-cutting will ensue.

Unfortunately, downsizing is not always out of necessity but just another vehicle by which to maximize profits. And it means cutting corners even if the product or the service suffers. They've got all the money in the world to develop and advertise boner pills or any other unnecessary drug under the sun but God forbid they have to pursue cures to chronic and deadly diseases in earnest.

Just like the oil industry, the pharmaceutical industry is not averse to blackmailing the public to get what it wants. And as long as Wall Street is running health care we will continue to see profits trump all else. Which will lead to downsizing and more claims that regulations will only hurt the consumer.

donkhater
03-18-2010, 11:34 AM
Yeah, exponential growth is pretty hard to maintain.

Once you become a mega-cap, its pretty unrealistic to expect massive revenue growth. That's why small caps offer such better potential returns.

To act like they are financially crippled, though is silly.

Well I guess I wouldn't say that they are crippled financially. They made their bed, now they have to sleep in it. They focused on stock returns just like every big business did for the last 2 decades. I'm not saying that's bad (I'm as much of a capitalist as anyone) but they were not smart about the direction the industry ws headed. Ten years ago I remember discussing this with other chemsits and we could see this coming. I'm not sure why the CEO couldn't. So no, despite my comments I certainly don't feel sorry for them.

However, the industry as a whole is crippled by this downturn. The big pharma companies essentially soaked up all the R&D talent/expenses. Most of the smaller start up firms and even mid size places don't really develop their drug hits anymore. Once a promising lead popped up, they partnered with a big boy like Pfizer, Merck or Lilly to help with development and marketing.

So the industry is hurt tremedously as it pertains to the future of drug discovery.

donkhater
03-18-2010, 11:38 AM
Drug companies are in the midst of a windfall. Business has never been better. I am not surprised that these companies are cutting back on research in favor of marketing. Whenever profit becomes the overriding consideration cost-cutting will ensue.

Unfortunately, downsizing is not always out of necessity but just another vehicle by which to maximize profits. And it means cutting corners even if the product or the service suffers. They've got all the money in the world to develop and advertise boner pills or any other unnecessary drug under the sun but God forbid they have to pursue cures to chronic and deadly diseases in earnest.

Just like the oil industry, the pharmaceutical industry is not averse to blackmailing the public to get what it wants. And as long as Wall Street is running health care we will continue to see profits trump all else. Which will lead to downsizing and more claims that regulations will only hurt the consumer.

Big pharma is as guilty of corporatism as any other industry. But while I know you advocate more government regulations (which generally only help those outfits rich enough to deal with them), I advocate deregulation. Let the companies rise and fall on their own. The government's been bailing them out too.

fan4ever
03-18-2010, 11:51 AM
Unfortunately for your argument it is a Constitutional obligation for the Fed Gov to protect us from enemies. It is not their Constitutional obligation to make sure you have health insurance.

BAM!

orange
03-18-2010, 11:56 AM
BAM!

We the People of the United States, in Order to


form a more perfect Union
establish Justice
insure domestic Tranquility
provide for the common defense
promote the general Welfare
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity


do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Looks like "promote the general Welfare" is just as important as "provide for the common defense."

donkhater
03-18-2010, 12:03 PM
We the People of the United States, in Order to


form a more perfect Union
establish Justice
insure domestic Tranquility
provide for the common defense
promote the general Welfare
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity


do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Looks like "promote the general Welfare" is just as important as "provide for the common defense."


PROMOTE not PROVIDE These verbs do not mean the same thing.

i.e. we will get out of the way.

Reagan was right. Some of the scariest words inthe English language are "We're from the federal government. We are here to help".

penchief
03-18-2010, 12:05 PM
PROMOTE not PROVIDE

i.e. we will get out of the way.

Reagan was right. Some of the scariest words inthe English language are "We're from the federal government. We are here to help".

Regulations don't provide. They promote the general welfare by providing legal protections. And Reagan was a corportatist phony who believed in deficit spending.

orange
03-18-2010, 12:06 PM
PROMOTE not PROVIDE These verbs do not mean the same thing.

i.e. we will get out of the way.

Reagan was right. Some of the scariest words inthe English language are "We're from the federal government. We are here to help".

The fact that they didn't repeat a single verb is stylistic. I believe you may be reading FAR too much into it - is "form" really different than "establish" for example? Especially given all that's been done to "promote the general welfare."

donkhater
03-18-2010, 12:52 PM
The fact that they didn't repeat a single verb is stylistic. I believe you may be reading FAR too much into it - is "form" really different than "establish" for example? Especially given all that's been done to "promote the general welfare."

Given what you know about the history of this country, it's roots and adamant condemnation of socialism, you think the verb choice was stylistic?

Why would the founders ever think that promote means provide for? It was definately intentional.

I don't think you are reading NEAR enough into the words of the constitution, although I can't say that comes as much of a surprise.

patteeu
03-18-2010, 12:59 PM
Are you serious? The pharmaceutical industry is one of the biggest money making scams going today. They ain't going out of business. Everywhere you look Walgreens or some other chain is buying up an entire block to build a new megastore. There's more drug stores than there are grocery stores. And almost all the grocery stores have drug stores in them. And that doesn't even include the booming mail order drug racket. There's a reason that there's more drug commercials on television than there is anything else.

This is just another example of a corporate power play. They are going to dictate the rules whether we like it or not. And the corporate lackeys in congress are going to bow at their feet. This is no different than the mantra that higher CAFE standards will be bad for the consumer or that off-shore drilling is going to equal lower gas prices. We all know it's bullshit.

Drug stores are not going to close their doors to Medicare because it's too much of a windfall. My guess is that they'll lobby to create a Medicaid prescription drug program similar to the Medicare drug program so that they can charge the taxpayer a premium on prescription drugs for the poor just like they do with the elderly and disabled.

Pining for the good old days when pharmacies were inconvenient and you had to drive all the way across town to get your prescriptions filled? Is that what your utopian vision promises us? Great plan.

orange
03-18-2010, 01:05 PM
Why would the founders ever think that promote means provide for? It was definately intentional.


Article I, Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;


:doh!:

HonestChieffan
03-18-2010, 01:10 PM
general walfare means we should keep the poor poor, pay them for doing nothing and maintain them forever in squalor. As Orange sees it anyway.

vailpass
03-18-2010, 01:11 PM
Still lookin' for a handout
Things are still the same
Still lookin' for a handout
Not a thing has changed
While they're on welfare
They haven't got a care
'Cause they like it that way
They like it that way

RaiderH8r
03-18-2010, 01:13 PM
What exactly is supposed to be the point? That medical care is too expensive?

Who's arguing.

Washington cut its Medicaid budget, so now there's less healthcare available to Medicaid recipients. Never would have seen that coming.

There is a bright side, though. Now that the government is out of the way, the White Knights of capitalism will surely be riding in to save the day!

Do you ever pull your head out of your ass long enough to breath or have you developed gills?

orange
03-18-2010, 01:14 PM
Time for you to post some pictures of welfare queens, isn't it?

Because obviously that's what every use of the word means.

Chief Henry
03-18-2010, 01:18 PM
Article I, Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;


Using that logic, the gov't should be paying for my YMCA membership

RaiderH8r
03-18-2010, 01:19 PM
Time for you to post some pictures of welfare queens, isn't it?

Because obviously that's what every use of the word means.

How does it promote the common welfare to eviscerate the national economy, to continue to bleed dry any and all production in an effort to throw the bank at people who can't seem to grasp the notion that they are entitled to the pursuit of happiness but not entitled or guaranteed to catch it?

RaiderH8r
03-18-2010, 01:19 PM
Using that logic, the gov't should be paying for my YMCA membership

Using that logic I'm heading over to Barry's house cuz I want dibs on the Lincoln bedroom.

Chief Henry
03-18-2010, 01:21 PM
Do you ever pull your head out of your ass long enough to breath or have you developed gills?

He doesn't even acknowledge that O care is using fuzzy math. You know the kind of fuzzy math that lets O think that health care premiums will be reduced by 3000 %.

vailpass
03-18-2010, 01:22 PM
Time for you to post some pictures of welfare queens, isn't it?

Because obviously that's what every use of the word means.

What do you call government hand-outs if not welfare?

Chief Henry
03-18-2010, 01:28 PM
What do you call government hand-outs if not welfare?

IOU's...dems lovem

orange
03-18-2010, 01:28 PM
Article I, Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;


:doh!:

donkhater?

petegz28
03-18-2010, 01:31 PM
donkhater?

So now healh care is "general welfare"??? Bull....shit.

orange
03-18-2010, 01:34 PM
So now healh care is "general welfare"??? Bull....shit.

No, not "now." I would say health care has been considered "general welfare" since at least when Medicaid was adopted in 1965.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 01:37 PM
No, not "now." I would say health care has been considered "general welfare" since at least when Medicaid was adopted in 1965.

horse shit

HonestChieffan
03-18-2010, 01:40 PM
No, not "now." I would say health care has been considered "general welfare" since at least when Medicaid was adopted in 1965.

I think Madison and Jefferson were the fathers of Medicaid. They were refering to it, foodstamps, and free waverunners for anyone who lives near water under "welare" . These are all rights we are guaranteed.

vailpass
03-18-2010, 01:42 PM
No, not "now." I would say health care has been considered "general welfare" since at least when Medicaid was adopted in 1965.

Please God let this health care debacle be defeated and made to go away so we don't have to hear people say things like this as though it were the truth.

Chief Henry
03-18-2010, 01:44 PM
Orange, if this cluster f uck passes, will our health care premiums decline by 3000 % ?

After all, thats what he said would happen earlier this week in his campaign stop.

orange
03-18-2010, 01:53 PM
Orange, if this cluster f uck passes, will our health care premiums decline by 3000 % ?

After all, thats what he said would happen earlier this week in his campaign stop.

Unlike blogging doofusses, I don't expect ANYONE to be held to every slip of the lip they might utter.

So to make it simple enough for you to understand (maybe):

"No."

orange
03-18-2010, 01:54 PM
Please God let this health care debacle be defeated and made to go away so we don't have to hear people say things like this as though it were the truth.

I guess I missed when Medicaid was ruled unconstitutional. Please refer me.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 01:54 PM
Unlike blogging doofusses, I don't expect ANYONE to be held to every slip of the lip they might utter.

So to make it simple enough for you to understand (maybe):

"No."

In other words....you don't give a fuck what bullshit they tell to people in the form of lies to pass the bill.

Chief Henry
03-18-2010, 01:58 PM
Unlike blogging doofusses, I don't expect ANYONE to be held to every slip of the lip they might utter.

So to make it simple enough for you to understand (maybe):

"No."



OK, if he didn't mean 3000% what did he mean to say ?

300% or 30% or 3%


After all, he is an ivy league lawyer ? He must have met some reduction that began with a 3...

Yesterday the head of the DNC, Tim Kane was all over saying this bill will solve the problem. How much will our health care premiums decrease next year ?

orange
03-18-2010, 02:00 PM
OK, if he didn't mean 3000% what did he mean to say ?


$3000.

vailpass
03-18-2010, 02:00 PM
I guess I missed when Medicaid was ruled unconstitutional. Please refer me.

I understood you to be saying that the constitution called for the government to provide health care to all Americans and was directing my comment at that idea.
If I misunderstood you I apologize.

Chief Henry
03-18-2010, 02:00 PM
$3000.

You believe that ?

petegz28
03-18-2010, 02:03 PM
$3000.

That is an abolute lie. Even Den Sens. have gone on record saying your health inruance premiums will not go down. (See Dick Durbin)

petegz28
03-18-2010, 02:04 PM
$3000.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/m7QAci-XWHY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/m7QAci-XWHY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

orange
03-18-2010, 02:05 PM
You believe that ?

A report from the Business Roundtable concluded that the cost-savings measures in the health reform bills could lower health care spending per employee by $3000. From the beginning, we made clear that most small businesses would be exempt from the employer responsibility requirement, because we do not want to increase the burden on small business. But at the same time, most small business owners want to provide coverage, which is why millions of small businesses would receive a tax credit to make coverage for their employees even more affordable. Today, small businesses pay 18% more for health insurance than large companies do -- with reform, small businesses and their employees will be able to purchase insurance through the insurance exchange, where pooling and competition will lower prices. Today, small businesses can see their premiums skyrocket if just one or two workers fall ill and accumulate high medical costs -- reform will prevent insurance discrimination based on health status, meaning that small businesses will no longer be unfairly penalized if a worker falls ill. To be clear, those critics who claim to be standing up for small business are actually just fighting tooth and nail against all of this – hopefully this good news will turn them around.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/01/senate-health-care-debate-viewing-guide

I believe it's a number that was given in a report, yes.

orange
03-18-2010, 02:09 PM
Even Den Sens. have gone on record saying your health inruance premiums will not go down. (See Dick Durbin)

I believe both the Business Roundtable and Sen. Durbin are talking about the NET effect.

For example, without the bill premiums might go up $5000; with the bill they'll only go up $2000.

Chief Henry
03-18-2010, 02:13 PM
A report from the Business Roundtable concluded that the cost-savings measures in the health reform bills could lower health care spending per employee by $3000. From the beginning, we made clear that most small businesses would be exempt from the employer responsibility requirement, because we do not want to increase the burden on small business. But at the same time, most small business owners want to provide coverage, which is why millions of small businesses would receive a tax credit to make coverage for their employees even more affordable. Today, small businesses pay 18% more for health insurance than large companies do -- with reform, small businesses and their employees will be able to purchase insurance through the insurance exchange, where pooling and competition will lower prices. Today, small businesses can see their premiums skyrocket if just one or two workers fall ill and accumulate high medical costs -- reform will prevent insurance discrimination based on health status, meaning that small businesses will no longer be unfairly penalized if a worker falls ill. To be clear, those critics who claim to be standing up for small business are actually just fighting tooth and nail against all of this – hopefully this good news will turn them around.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/01/senate-health-care-debate-viewing-guide

I believe it's a number that was given in a report, yes.


For the record you do believe our health care premiums will go down by $3,000 dollars.


If Obama ment to say our Health insurance would go down by $3,000 dollars,
he's fabricating BS, because what you posted states that it COULD go down by $3,000 dollars. Words mean things and Obama said our premiums would go down, not could go down.

If you think our premiums will go down, how would you like to buy some
prime beach front real estate in Arizona ?

orange
03-18-2010, 02:18 PM
If Obama ment to say our Health insurance would go down by $3,000 dollars,
he's fabricating BS, because what you posted states that it COULD go down by $3,000 dollars. Words mean things and Obama said our premiums would go down, not could go down.


What he actually said:

Mr. Obama asked his audience for a show of hands from people with employer-provided coverage, what most Americans have.

"Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which means they could give you a raise."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/17/politics/main6306991.shtml


As for your question, I refer you to #68.

HonestChieffan
03-18-2010, 02:20 PM
"as much as" is political speech for zero to 3000" Its meaningless.

Chief Henry
03-18-2010, 02:23 PM
What he actually said:

Mr. Obama asked his audience for a show of hands from people with employer-provided coverage, what most Americans have.

"Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which means they could give you a raise."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/17/politics/main6306991.shtml


As for your question, I refer you to #68.



So you do believe that ? yes or no

go bowe
03-18-2010, 02:24 PM
Seriously? This question explains a lot, but I'll spell it out.

1. Pharmacy A says "no more Medicaid".
2. Pharmacies B,C, and D suddenly are getting more money-losing Medicaid patients.
3. Pharmacies B,C, and D decide they, too, are sick of this, and they follow suit one-by-one, with each one that leaves shifting more of the burden onto the others.
4. Nobody takes Medicaid.

Now repeat the exercise, only with Medicare.yes, more and more doctors' offices are refusing new medicare patients as well...

orange
03-18-2010, 02:31 PM
So you do believe that ? yes or no

That employers who offer healthcare plans will pay lower premiums? Yes.

How much of that you'll see in your paycheck? I don't know.

donkhater
03-18-2010, 02:31 PM
donkhater?

Sorry, I was working.

Provide for the general welfare of the Union is what I read that to mean. NOT the welfare of citizens. Collect taxes to provide for the health of the country NOT the actual physical health of citizens.

The Founding Fathers just liberated themselves from tyranny, they put in a variety of measures restricting the power of any one body of the federal government, abdicating that power to the vote of the citizens and you read 'provide for the general welfare' to mean the mandated redistribution of goods and services from one citizen to another?:shake:

penchief
03-18-2010, 02:32 PM
Pining for the good old days when pharmacies were inconvenient and you had to drive all the way across town to get your prescriptions filled? Is that what your utopian vision promises us? Great plan.

Not at all. But let's not delude ourselves about how the industry is faring. It's become as much a money-making racket as anything. And as long as Wall Street is going to dictate the conditions of health care in this country it isn't going to get any better.

HonestChieffan
03-18-2010, 02:35 PM
Not at all. But let's not delude ourselves about how the industry is faring. It's become as much a money-making racket as anything. And as long as Wall Street is going to dictate the conditions of health care in this country it isn't going to get any better.

They sure have improved since about what...1776? Damn corps.

Chief Henry
03-18-2010, 02:37 PM
yes, more and more doctors' offices are refusing new medicare patients as well...

...and the post office is seriously thinking about doing away with Saturday mail; delivery...what precident is this setting for future gov't programs ???

orange
03-18-2010, 02:39 PM
:shake:

So you're OFF the idea that "PROMOTE" is much different than "PROVIDE" and was used intentionally because of that huge difference? You can say it; I won't flail you.

Unlike blogging doofusses, I don't expect ANYONE to be held to every slip of the lip they might utter.

...

And as for what the Founding Fathers thought in 1789 - I am not in the camp that believes that they believed they were all-knowing and all-seeing. They created an institution to govern the country justly and intelligently, which means governing in the real world of the present, not two hundred years ago.

Even Thomas "Small Government" Jefferson jumped at the opportunity to double the size of this country when it came up - with NO constitutional authority whatsoever. Oh, and also fought a war without a Declaration.

Chief Henry
03-18-2010, 02:39 PM
That employers who offer healthcare plans will pay lower premiums? Yes.

How much of that you'll see in your paycheck? I don't know.



You belong on a "Progressive Car Insurance" TV commercial...you know the one which has the guy carrying the man purse errr Europian hand bag.
You'll be talked into anything by any one.

RaiderH8r
03-18-2010, 02:43 PM
That employers who offer healthcare plans will pay lower premiums? Yes.

How much of that you'll see in your paycheck? I don't know.

They'll pay lower premiums because they'll dump their plans and put employees onto the gov't teet.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 02:45 PM
I believe both the Business Roundtable and Sen. Durbin are talking about the NET effect.

For example, without the bill premiums might go up $5000; with the bill they'll only go up $2000.

LMAO..JFC do you think I can't do math? +$2000 is still not -$3000.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 02:47 PM
That employers who offer healthcare plans will pay lower premiums? Yes.

How much of that you'll see in your paycheck? I don't know.

You're right in one aspect. Employers will pay lower premiums cause they are going to dump providing benefits and pay the penalty instead.

orange
03-18-2010, 02:48 PM
LMAO..JFC do you think I can't do math? +$2000 is still not -$3000.

+$2000 is not +$5000, either. What's the difference*?


* Mathematical term - means subtract one from the other.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 02:49 PM
+$2000 is not +$5000, either. What's the difference*?


* Mathematical term - means subtract one from the other.

The difference is our premiums will still go up. Contrary to what your hero keeps telling us.

Chief Henry
03-18-2010, 02:49 PM
LMAO..JFC do you think I can't do math? +$2000 is still not -$3000.


$940 Billion estimate for 6 years of benefits...

They're also using 500 Billion twice...the MSM are not telling us this.


math is not necessary for socialist and you are trying to speak with a self admitted socialist loving person

orange
03-18-2010, 02:50 PM
You're right in one aspect. Employers will pay lower premiums cause they are going to dump providing benefits and pay the penalty instead.

Why do employers offer healthcare plans now? Are all those benefits going to suddenly go away?

petegz28
03-18-2010, 02:53 PM
Why do employers offer healthcare plans now? Are all those benefits going to suddenly go away?

Yea. As a matter of cost cutting. They can hire more people and dump benefits or emply less people and provide the Guvment madated benefits.


If I am a small business owner with more than 30 employees, the threshhold of when you have to provide insurance to your employees, I am going to pay the fine as opposed to jacking with insurance. And that is what the government wants. It's a funnel.

Chief Henry
03-18-2010, 02:54 PM
Yea. As a matter of cost cutting. They can hire more people and dump benefits or emply less people and provide the Guvment madated benefits.


If I am a small business owner with more than 30 employees, the threshhold of when you have to provide insurance to your employees, I am going to pay the fine as opposed to jacking with insurance. And that is what the DEMOCRATS and OBAMA government wants. It's a funnel.



fixed your post

petegz28
03-18-2010, 02:55 PM
And let us not forget employers will now have to provide insurance to part-timers as well. Even more incentive to pay the fine and dump the benes.

Chief Henry
03-18-2010, 02:58 PM
And let us not forget employers will now have to provide insurance to part-timers as well. Even more incentive to pay the fine and dump the benes.

BINGO...thats the goal, I've seen video of Barney and Obama state that.

Chief Henry
03-18-2010, 03:10 PM
Is it trickery to use $500 Billion twice when looking at the CBO numbers for this bill ?

petegz28
03-18-2010, 03:16 PM
Is it trickery to use $500 Billion twice when looking at the CBO numbers for this bill ?

Let's see, if I have a budget of $1000 and I have $500 in my right pocket for food and $500 in my left pocket for entertainment, how do am I cutting my budget if I take the $500 from left pocket and put it in my right pocket and say I will use it towards food? It still comes out to $1000 being spent.

HonestChieffan
03-18-2010, 03:16 PM
Is it trickery to use $500 Billion twice when looking at the CBO numbers for this bill ?

No. Its just a good way to use "new math"

patteeu
03-18-2010, 03:20 PM
Not at all. But let's not delude ourselves about how the industry is faring. It's become as much a money-making racket as anything. And as long as Wall Street is going to dictate the conditions of health care in this country it isn't going to get any better.

What's wrong with money making rackets? Do you have a job?

petegz28
03-18-2010, 03:24 PM
What's wrong with money making rackets? Do you have a job?

Oh come on, patteeu. You know profits are bad. 2 years ago it was the oil companies. Funny how we hear nothing about windfall profits for them anymore, ain't it?


The most hillarious part of the Dems argument and their constant villafying of insurance companies is, they are going to force people to go buy insurance from said companies!!

You can't make this shit up.

Chief Faithful
03-18-2010, 03:40 PM
Not at all. But let's not delude ourselves about how the industry is faring. It's become as much a money-making racket as anything. And as long as Wall Street is going to dictate the conditions of health care in this country it isn't going to get any better.

You do realize that they will still make money even after Obamacare goes into effect?

penchief
03-18-2010, 03:47 PM
What's wrong with money making rackets? Do you have a job?

Of course I have a job. But there are some things that transcend the profit motive. And I happen to believe that health care is one of them. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, even when working in the health care field. But when the goal of maximizing profits trumps good sense, common decency, and good public policy there's a problem. We reached that point a few miles back. IMO, it's time to restore some integrity to the system.

patteeu
03-18-2010, 03:52 PM
Of course I have a job. But there are some things that transcend the profit motive. And I happen to believe that health care is one of them. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, even when working in the health care field. But when the goal of maximizing profits trumps good sense, common decency, and good public policy there's a problem. We reached that point a few miles back. IMO, it's time to restore some integrity to the system.

So who are you screwing over for that paycheck? Why do you let profit trump common decency. Couldn't you do your job for half the salary you currently earn making it possible for your customers who may be facing hard times in this economy to get by a little better? What kind of monster are you?

petegz28
03-18-2010, 03:54 PM
So who are you screwing over for that paycheck? Why do you let profit trump common decency. Couldn't you do your job for half the salary you currently earn making it possible for your customers who may be facing hard times in this economy to get by a little better? What kind of monster are you?

If he took a paycut, his companies products would be cheaper thus giving people more money for health care!!!!

penchief
03-18-2010, 03:56 PM
You do realize that they will still make money even after Obamacare goes into effect?

Of course, there's nothing wrong with making a living working in the health care field. The problem arises when maximizing profits becomes the primary function of health care. When health care is no longer the goal but merely a vehicle by which large entities enrich themselves we have lost our way. Making a living and making a killing are two different things when talking about issues of human dignity such as health care and education.

As far as the health care bill goes, I really have given up hope that a good bill will ever pass. I realize that the entire process has turned into a cluster****. And it's not because Obama is a socialist and all that bullshit. It's because what is fundamentally a sound idea (universal health care) has been so corrupted by compromise and special interests that it is virtually impossible for a good idea to survive the ideological gauntlet or the well-financed pushback by those who are making a killing off of the corporate health care system.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 04:00 PM
Of course, there's nothing wrong with making a living working in the health care field. The problem arises when maximizing profits becomes the primary function of health care. When health care is no longer the goal but merely a vehicle by which large entities enrich themselves we have lost our way. Making a living and making a killing are two different things when talking about issues of human dignity such as health care and education.

As far as the health care bill goes, I really have given up hope that a good bill will ever pass. I realize that the entire process has turned into a cluster****. And it's not because Obama is a socialist and all that bullshit. It's because what is fundamentally a sound idea (universal health care) has been so corrupted by compromise and special interests that it is virtually impossible for a good idea to survive the ideological gauntlet or the well-financed pushback by those who are making a killing off of the corporate health care system.

When Democracy fails, enter Communism. It's the Pelosi\Obama way.

orange
03-18-2010, 04:01 PM
Profit is good

You DO understand that the pharmaceutical industry is ENDORSING the healthcare reform act, right?

COMING SOON – The drug industry, which has held off running ads until officials sign off on the final reconciliation bill, is growing more comfortable with the emerging legislation and is preparing a substantial pro-reform ad buy in 43 Democratic districts, according to a senior industry source. The amount and timing of the buy have not yet been set and hinge largely on action in the House. Still, the development is a substantial step forward from Monday morning, when industry officials, coming off a tough weekend of negotiating with Democratic staffers, said there were no ads in the works. The movement should also help appease the White House, which has been leaning on the industry to provide Democrats air cover, according to industry sources.

http://www.politico.com/politicopulse/0310/politicopulse208.html


Altogether, now: "Those evil, moneygrubbing, communist bastards. :cuss:"

penchief
03-18-2010, 04:06 PM
So who are you screwing over for that paycheck? Why do you let profit trump common decency. Couldn't you do your job for half the salary you currently earn making it possible for your customers who may be facing hard times in this economy to get by a little better? What kind of monster are you?

I've told you, I've got nothing against making a profit. Not even in the health care field. But when it comes to issues of human dignity in which matters of life and death are not a luxury (nor should they be a privilege), I believe that there needs to be a line drawn in the sand. Maximizing profits should not trump the primary goal of providing quality health care to the most people and at the most affordable cost.

It's a racket because corporate entities are exploiting the health and welfare of Americans in order to get rich. There's nothing wrong with getting rich as long as one does it honorably.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 04:09 PM
I've told you, I've got nothing against making a profit. Not even in the health care field. But when it comes to issues of human dignity in which matters of life and death are not a luxury (nor should they be a privilege), I believe that there needs to be a line drawn in the sand. Maximizing profits should not trump the primary goal of providing quality health care to the most people and at the most affordable cost.

It's a racket because corporate entities are exploiting the health and welfare of Americans in order to get rich. There's nothing wrong with getting rich as long as one does it honorably.

Well I think you make too much money. And therefore make people pay more for your product and you leave them with little for their health care. Where is your dignity?

patteeu
03-18-2010, 04:16 PM
You DO understand that the pharmaceutical industry is ENDORSING the healthcare reform act, right?

COMING SOON – The drug industry, which has held off running ads until officials sign off on the final reconciliation bill, is growing more comfortable with the emerging legislation and is preparing a substantial pro-reform ad buy in 43 Democratic districts, according to a senior industry source. The amount and timing of the buy have not yet been set and hinge largely on action in the House. Still, the development is a substantial step forward from Monday morning, when industry officials, coming off a tough weekend of negotiating with Democratic staffers, said there were no ads in the works. The movement should also help appease the White House, which has been leaning on the industry to provide Democrats air cover, according to industry sources.

http://www.politico.com/politicopulse/0310/politicopulse208.html


Altogether, now: "Those evil, moneygrubbing, communist bastards. :cuss:"

What point are you trying to make here?

patteeu
03-18-2010, 04:17 PM
I've told you, I've got nothing against making a profit. Not even in the health care field. But when it comes to issues of human dignity in which matters of life and death are not a luxury (nor should they be a privilege), I believe that there needs to be a line drawn in the sand. Maximizing profits should not trump the primary goal of providing quality health care to the most people and at the most affordable cost.

It's a racket because corporate entities are exploiting the health and welfare of Americans in order to get rich. There's nothing wrong with getting rich as long as one does it honorably.

I agree with petegz28. You make too much money and it's creating a hardship for the people who pay those exorbitant wages. You should be ashamed of yourself and I hope the Obama administration gets around to fixing this problem.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 04:17 PM
What point are you trying to make here?

He is just in cut and paste mode. Earlier today he tried to defend the CBO #'s being official even as he linked something that showed they were indeed not official.

orange
03-18-2010, 04:17 PM
What point are you trying to make here?

That the drug companies are perfectly comfortable with the bill. That they see it improving their situation. That there's no reason to weep for them.

I could go on.

orange
03-18-2010, 04:19 PM
He is just in cut and paste mode. Earlier today he tried to defend the CBO #'s being official even as he linked something that showed they were indeed not official.

It certainly IS OFFICIAL. That link is the ACTUAL TEXT on the CBO's ACTUAL WEBSITE. Everyone under the sun - right, left, down the middle - is accepting it as official - except you. WTF is your problem?

petegz28
03-18-2010, 04:19 PM
That the drug companies are perfectly comfortable with the bill. That they see it improving their situation. That there's no reason to weep for them.

I could go on.

Sure there isn't. They are just going to fuck the consumer even more. The bill will increase taxes on drugs and you're an idiot if you think those costs won't be passed on.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 04:22 PM
It certainly IS OFFICIAL. That link is the ACTUAL TEXT on the CBO's ACTUAL WEBSITE. WTF is your problem?

No, Orange, it is not. It is a preliminary relase that still has to be ..oh FFS!!!


“Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.” (CBO Preliminary Estimate, 3/18/2010)
"CBO has developed a rough outlook for the decade following the 2010-2019 period..."

"The imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBO's 10-year budget estimates."

"CBO has not extrapolated estimates further into the future because the uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more."

"...CBO anticipates that the reconciliation proposal would probably continue to reduce budget deficits relative to those under current law in subsequent decades, assuming that all of its provisions would continue to be fully implemented." (Congressional Budget Office Preliminary Estimate, 3/18/2010)


It is NOT official yet. Keep spinning the lie, Hoyer Jr. The only reason it was even released in the first place was because the ****ing Dems leaked the info so the CBO posted the preliminary report.

penchief
03-18-2010, 04:28 PM
When Democracy fails, enter Communism. It's the Pelosi\Obama way.

Regulations that promote the general welfare and that are the result of good public policy do not equate to communism. It amazes me that the so many people actually believe that the consolidation of wealth and power which results from the Darwinian economic ideologies being advocated by so many on the right will actually produce more liberty. History has proven the exact opposite.

Oppression has been the result when the masses are subjected to the dictates of the powerful few. Without legal protections to prevent that consolidation of wealth and power (regulations), and without recourse (representative government), history will repeat itself.

I get so tired of hearing the same mantras over and over again. Communism this and socialism that. Well this country has survived almost a hundred years of the communist threat. It's gotten to the point that people don't even use their own powers of observation anymore. The threat is not communism. The threat is corporatism.

All one has to do is look at what has happened over the past three decades. Our representative government has been under attack by forces that wish to consolodate wealth and power by undermining the people's power (government). Their early mantra was "starve the beast." Well, they've nearly succeeded and now that they hold almost all the cards some of you can't wait until they deliver the death blow.

Yes, our government is corrupt. But the problem is not OUR government. It is the corruption. It is the undue influence being exerted by outside forces (the corporate establishment). And by choking off our government they are choking off our ability to defend ourselves from their dicates. Please, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's direct our anger where it belongs. Let's get rid of the corruption.

JMFO.

patteeu
03-18-2010, 04:29 PM
That the drug companies are perfectly comfortable with the bill. That they see it improving their situation. That there's no reason to weep for them.

I could go on.

I don't really see this thread as an example of weeping for big pharma. It's about weeping for the people who currently have health care insurance but who stand to lose that coverage as the unintended impacts of government interference trickle up to them. First it's one state's medicaid users, but medicare and privately insured folks should not rest easy.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 04:31 PM
Regulations that promote the general welfare and that are the result of good public policy do not equate to communism. It amazes me that the so many people actually believe that the consolidation of wealth and power which results from the Darwinian economic ideologies being advocated by so many on the right will actually produce more liberty. History has proven the exact opposite.

Oppression has been the result when the masses are subjected to the dictates of the powerful few. Without legal protections to prevent that consolidation of wealth and power (regulations), and without recourse (representative government), history will repeat itself.

I get so tired of hearing the same mantras over and over again. Communism this and socialism that. Well this country has survived almost a hundred years of the communist threat. It's gotten to the point that people don't even use their own powers of observation anymore. The threat is not communism. The threat is corporatism.



All one has to do is look at what has happened over the past three decades. Our representative government has been under attack by forces that wish to consolodate wealth and power by undermining the people's power (government). Their early mantra was "starve the beast." Well, they've nearly succeeded and now that they hold almost all the cards some of you can't wait until they deliver the death blow.

Yes, our government is corrupt. But the problem is not OUR government. It is the corruption. It is the undue influence being exerted by outside forces (the corporate establishment). And by choking off our government they are choking out our ability to defend ourselves from their dicates. Please, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's direct our anger where it belongs. Let's get rid of the corruption.

JMFO.

Here we go again. General Welfare does not include your health care. Sorry. I know this is the latest twist to the lie you people keep trying to purport.

penchief
03-18-2010, 04:32 PM
Well I think you make too much money. And therefore make people pay more for your product and you leave them with little for their health care. Where is your dignity?

I actually work in a field where I get to help people, not prey on them.

orange
03-18-2010, 04:33 PM
I don't see ANYTHING there that says it's not OFFICIAL.

"preliminary" DOES NOT MEAN "not official"

Try again.

Let me help - here's the link from DRUDGE: Dems Touting 'Unofficial' CBO Score... (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36091)

... where you got your talking point. You might want to click it and read the updates.


ROFLROFLROFL

http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u267/iStock_000003149416Medium.jpg


UPDATE (12:30 EDT): The Congressional Budget Office has released the official score. You can read that here (http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf).

petegz28
03-18-2010, 04:34 PM
I actually work in a field where I get to help people, not prey on them.

Good for you. Take a pay cut so they have more money for health care.

penchief
03-18-2010, 04:34 PM
That the drug companies are perfectly comfortable with the bill. That they see it improving their situation. That there's no reason to weep for them.

I could go on.

Of course, they've used their influence to force enough compromises that it will most likely turn into another boon for them.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 04:35 PM
I don't see ANYTHING there that says it's not OFFICIAL.

"preliminary" DOES NOT MEAN "not official"

Try again.

Let me help - here's the link from DRUDGE: Dems Touting 'Unofficial' CBO Score... (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36091)

... where you got your talking point. You might want to click it and read the updates.


ROFLROFLROFL



http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u267/iStock_000003149416Medium.jpg

Do you need the word "preliminary" defined for you?

penchief
03-18-2010, 04:36 PM
Good for you. Take a pay cut so they have more money for health care.

I've already taken a pay cut. Even so, I've never exploited a human necessity in order to gouge a clients.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 04:38 PM
Preliminary
1. Something that precedes, prepares for, or introduces the main matter, action, or business.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 04:38 PM
I've already taken a pay cut. Even so, I've never exploited a human necessity in order to gouge a clients.

And you think the Fed Gov hasn't? LMAO

orange
03-18-2010, 04:39 PM
Do you need the word "preliminary" defined for you?

Yes, I do. Here's a definition I found: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/preliminary

Nothing in there about "not official."

Please show me one.

Oh, here's one for "preliminary official"

preliminary official statement (POS)
Preliminary prospectus on a pending new issue, circulated usually to gauge the level of interest among prospective investors by giving the broad information (but without indicating the price of the issue). Popularly known as red herring because of the notice (printed in red ink) on its first page which expressly states that the document is not an offer but a public disclosure on a forthcoming conditional sale. Also called preliminary prospectus

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/preliminary-official-statement-POS.html

I guess BusinessDictionary.com doesn't know you can't be both "preliminary" and "official," either. You should email them a correction.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 04:43 PM
Yes, I do. Here's a definition I found: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/preliminary

Nothing in there about "not official."

Please show me one.

Oh, here's one for "preliminary official"

preliminary official statement (POS)
Preliminary prospectus on a pending new issue, circulated usually to gauge the level of interest among prospective investors by giving the broad information (but without indicating the price of the issue). Popularly known as red herring because of the notice (printed in red ink) on its first page which expressly states that the document is not an offer but a public disclosure on a forthcoming conditional sale. Also called preliminary prospectus

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/preliminary-official-statement-POS.html

Ok, Orange. Explain to us all the difference between the words "preliminary" and "official"? And then elaborate on the fact that the CBO stated they still have yet to research this against the reconciliation bill and such.

Let me give you some help.

My wife went to have a mole removed and the preliminary findings was that it was benign. Then the OFFICAL test results came back it was malignant.

orange
03-18-2010, 04:45 PM
Sure there isn't. They are just going to **** the consumer even more. The bill will increase taxes on drugs and you're an idiot if you think those costs won't be passed on.

.

Altogether, now: "Those evil, moneygrubbing, communist bastards. :cuss:"

patteeu
03-18-2010, 04:46 PM
I actually work in a field where I get to help people, not prey on them.

You're ripping someone off. That paycheck you draw is proof positive.

orange
03-18-2010, 04:49 PM
Ok, Orange. Explain to us all the difference between the words "preliminary" and "official"? And then elaborate on the fact that the CBO stated they still have yet to research this against the reconciliation bill and such.

official [əˈfɪʃəl]
adj
1. of or relating to an office, its administration, or its duration
2. sanctioned by, recognized by, or derived from authority an official statement
3. appointed by authority, esp for some special duty
4. having a formal ceremonial character an official dinner
n


English class is over. Now do your homework - post the definition I asked for now, the one that contrasts "preliminary" and "official."

penchief
03-18-2010, 04:49 PM
Here we go again. General Welfare does not include your health care. Sorry. I know this is the latest twist to the lie you people keep trying to purport.

I would suggest that a plague would be a threat to the general welfare. In that vein public health is most definitely a threat to our general welfare as well as our national security. Poverty is a threat to both our general welfare and our national security. Class warfare is a threat to both our general welfare and our national security. A crumbling infrastucture is a threat to both our general welfare and our national security. Our declining education system is a threat to both our general welfare and our national security.

All of those things are a threat to both our general welfare and our national security. Even so, the Reagan/Bush neocons and Rand ideologues have seen fit to neglect and even undermine all of those things in the name of starving the beast. Yet, access to jobs, education and health care all promote not only the general welfare but also life, universal liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They ensure equal opportunity, equal access, and equal justice for all. None of which would be possible without those things.

I'm sorry, but some of you are so wrapped up in rigid ideology and theories that have been proven unworkable that you can't even see what is right in front of you.

Again, JMFO.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 04:49 PM
.

What's the matter, Orange? No talking point to refute that?

petegz28
03-18-2010, 04:50 PM
I would suggest that a plague would be a threat to the general welfare. In that vein public health is most definitely a threat to our general welfare as well as our national security. Poverty is a threat to both our general welfare and our national security. Class warfare is a threat to both our general welfare and our national security. A crumbling infrastucture is a threat to both our general welfare and our national security. Our declining education system is a threat to both our general welfare and our national security.

All of those things are a threat to both our general welfare and our national security. Even so, the Reagan/Bush neocons and Rand ideologues have seen fit to neglect all of those things in the name of starving the beast. Yet everyone of those things promotes not only the general welfare but also universal liberty. They ensure equal opportunity, equal access, and equal justice for all. None of which would be possible without those things.

I'm sorry, but some of you are so wrapped up in rigid ideology and theories that have been proven unworkable that you can't even see what is right in front of you.

Again, JMFO.

A plague is now what we equating this too???? LMAO

petegz28
03-18-2010, 04:52 PM
official [əˈfɪʃəl]
adj
1. of or relating to an office, its administration, or its duration
2. sanctioned by, recognized by, or derived from authority an official statement
3. appointed by authority, esp for some special duty
4. having a formal ceremonial character an official dinner
n


English class is over. Now do your homework - post the definition I asked for now, the one that contrasts "preliminary" and "official."

So you are arguing the "premilinary" statement is "official"?? LMAO you are an idiot. I am still waiting on your elaboration on the CBO stating they still need to research the reconciliation bill before this is considered official?

orange
03-18-2010, 04:52 PM
I don't really see this thread as an example of weeping for big pharma. It's about weeping for the people who currently have health care insurance but who stand to lose that coverage as the unintended impacts of government interference trickle up to them. First it's one state's medicaid users, but medicare and privately insured folks should not rest easy.

Washington - as a result of cuts one year ago - had the lowest Medicaid reimbursement rate in the country. I thinkn it's an aberration, not a bellwether.

penchief
03-18-2010, 04:54 PM
And you think the Fed Gov hasn't? LMAO

Again, the problem is not our government. The problem is the influence of special interests.

orange
03-18-2010, 04:55 PM
So you are arguing the "premilinary" statement is "official"??

Yes, it is.

I am still waiting on your elaboration on the CBO stating they still need to research the reconciliation bill before this is considered official?

They said no such thing. There is no wording in there - or anywhere else - that say's that report is not official.

And that's my last word on this until you can provide ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to back up your claims.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 04:56 PM
Again, the problem is not our government. The problem is the influence of special interests.

Who are they influencing??? JFC! That is so idiotic. That is like saying death from cancer isn't the fault of cancer, it's the fault of the person having a body for the cancer to infest.

penchief
03-18-2010, 04:59 PM
A plague is now what we equating this too???? LMAO

Not at all. A plague is the most extreme case in proving that the public health pertains to the general welfare. It doesn't have to be that dramatic but I think the point is made.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 04:59 PM
Yes, it is.



They said no such thing. There is no wording in there - or anywhere else - that say's that report is not official.
And that's my last word on this until you can provide ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to back up your claims.

Suck it Orange..


'This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal'...

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf



You're wrong. JNust ****ing admit it. I have showd you the text 4-5 times today you ****ing idiot. READ!


Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Madam Speaker:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on
Taxation (JCT) have completed a preliminary estimate of the direct spending and revenue
effects of an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Act
of 2010; that amendment (hereafter called “the reconciliation proposal”) was made public
on March 18, 2010. The estimate is presented in three ways:
 An estimate of the budgetary effects of the reconciliation proposal, in combination
with the effects of H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(PPACA), as passed by the Senate;1
 An estimate of the incremental effects of the reconciliation proposal, over and
above the effects of enacting H.R. 3590 by itself;
 An estimate of the budgetary impact of the reconciliation proposal under the
assumption that H.R. 3590 is not enacted (that is, an estimate of the bill’s impact
relative to current law as of today).
Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its
release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its
consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a
review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and
refinement of the budgetary projections.The reconciliation proposal includes provisions related to health care and revenues, many
of which would amend H.R. 3590. It also includes amendments to the Higher Education
Act of 1965, which authorizes most federal programs involving postsecondary education.
1An estimate by CBO and JCT of the direct spending and revenue effects of H.R. 3590 as passed by the Senate was
provided in a letter to the Honorable Harry Reid on March 11, 2010. That estimate is available at www.cbo.gov (and
JCT’s detailed table of revenue effects is available at www.jct.gov).

petegz28
03-18-2010, 05:02 PM
Now, Orange, do I need to define the word "pending" for you????

Go put some ice on that burn, bitch!!! :D

AustinChief
03-18-2010, 05:09 PM
ok, boys, let's end the semantics debate... YES it is an OFFICAL report in the sense that it is sanctioned ... NO it is not OFFICIAL in that it is not a final authoratative report.

Both of you are right and both are wrong... now back to the debate!

petegz28
03-18-2010, 05:10 PM
ok, boys, let's end the semantics debate... YES it is an OFFICAL report in the sense that it is sanctioned ... NO it is not OFFICIAL in that it is not a final authoratative report.

Both of you are right and both are wrong... now back to the debate!

I'm right, he's wrong. And he knows it.

orange
03-18-2010, 05:12 PM
now back to the debate!

From Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com (conservative):

Update (Ed): I’ve received a lot of e-mail asking me to emphasize that this is a preliminary CBO report. That’s true, but that’s exactly what was promised, too. Politically, I doubt it makes much difference — and generally speaking, the preliminary reports are in the ballpark with the eventual final analysis.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/18/breaking-cbo-releases-the-actual-report/


IOW it doesn't make a bit of difference.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 05:14 PM
From Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com (conservative):

Update (Ed): I’ve received a lot of e-mail asking me to emphasize that this is a preliminary CBO report. That’s true, but that’s exactly what was promised, too. Politically, I doubt it makes much difference — and generally speaking, the preliminary reports are in the ballpark with the eventual final analysis.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/18/breaking-cbo-releases-the-actual-report/


IOW it doesn't make a bit of difference.

Irrelevant.

penchief
03-18-2010, 05:18 PM
Who are they influencing??? JFC! That is so idiotic. That is like saying death from cancer isn't the fault of cancer, it's the fault of the person having a body for the cancer to infest.

They're influencing our elected officials to serve their interests instead of ours.

Even so, you've got your example bass ackwards. Plus, your shortsightedness is not allowing you to follow your own argument to it's logical conclusion.

Your body is the vessel, cancer is the disease. Our government is merely the vessel. It can be filled with virtue or it can be filled with corruption. Government is not the disease, undue influence is the disease. If one is diagnosed with cancer should they commit suicide or go for treatment to rid themselves of it?

Now. Why does the corporate establishment feel the need to corrupt government in the first place? If government were inherently corrupt there would be no need. But because government is the vessel that promotes the general welfare and provides legal protections it is too often at odds with the commercial interests that drive big business. Representative government empowers the people at the expense of ubridled greed.

And because completely eliminating representative government would be viewed as extreme the only logical thing for powerful commercial interests to do is to corrupt it. Which is exactly what they have done. The only thing that would be better for the corporate establishment than corrupt government is no government at all. They would no longer have to worry about pesky regulations or the people getting too uppity.

Getting rid of the vehicle by which we the people assert oursleves (representative government) in order to eliminate something undesirable (corruption) is very shortsighted, IMO. It would leave us no recourse when the time comes for change, other than violent revolution.

JMFO.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 05:56 PM
They're influencing our elected officials to serve their interests instead of ours.

Even so, you've got your example bass ackwards. Plus, your shortsightedness is not allowing you to follow your own argument to it's logical conclusion.

Your body is the vessel, cancer is the disease. Our government is merely the vessel. It can be filled with virtue or it can be filled with corruption. Government is not the disease, undue influence is the disease. If one is diagnosed with cancer should they commit suicide or go for treatment to rid themselves of it?



Now. Why does the corporate establishment feel the need to corrupt government in the first place? If government were inherently corrupt there would be no need. But because government is the vessel that promotes the general welfare and provides legal protections it is too often at odds with the commercial interests that drive big business. Representative government empowers the people at the expense of ubridled greed.

And because completely eliminating representative government would be viewed as extreme the only logical thing for powerful commercial interests to do is to corrupt it. Which is exactly what they have done. The only thing that would be better for the corporate establishment than corrupt government is no government at all. They would no longer have to worry about pesky regulations or the people getting too uppity.

Getting rid of the vehicle by which we the people assert oursleves (representative government) in order to eliminate something undesirable (corruption) is very shortsighted, IMO. It would leave us no recourse when the time comes for change, other than violent revolution.

JMFO.

Question, who allows the government to be corrupted? It wouldn't be the people in the government would it?

penchief
03-18-2010, 06:06 PM
Question, who allows the government to be corrupted? It wouldn't be the people in the government would it?

Some yes and some no. But members of congress are merely transients. They are not the vessel. We can replace those who allow themselves to be corrupted. That's why representative democracies have elections. Besides, why would you indict even those members who are not corrupt?

That said, your analogy is still lacking. If you were diagnosed with cancer, why would you commit hari kari instead of just having the cancerous growth removed?

petegz28
03-18-2010, 06:07 PM
Some yes and some no. But members of congress are merely transients. They are not the vessel. We can replace those who allow themselves to be corrupted. Besides, why would you indict even those who are not corrupt?

That said, your analogy is still lacking. If you were diagnosed with cancer, why would you commit hari kari instead of just having the cancerous growth removed?

That doesn't answer the question. In fact it dodged it.

penchief
03-18-2010, 06:19 PM
That doesn't answer the question. In fact it dodged it.

No it didn't. I answered it perfectly. Members of congress are those who allow themselves to be influenced. I've not only never denied that, I have gone out of my way to decry it. But that still doesn't mean that the ideal of representative government is corrupt.

It also doesn't mean that you throw the baby out with the bath water. Doing so would only play into the hands of those who are corrutping government to begin with.

Again, why commit suicide when there's a cure? And why allow yourself to be conned into ceding the vehicle by which you assert your rights or defend yourself?

If anyone is dodging questions, it's you. I've asked you many pertinent questions in this thread, all of which you have evaded.