Henry's rant...

[followsthewolf]

That's a good start, PH. I'm in that situation. How does $600/month for meds just for me (not counting the approx. $400 for my wife's meds and $800/month for her medical coverage) sound to all you future retirees?

[Palehorse]

That's a good start, PH. I'm in that situation. How does $600/month for meds just for me (not counting the approx. $400 for my wife's meds and $800/month for her medical coverage) sound to all you future retirees?

I feel your pain FTW, and have seen this coming for years. While the wife and I were raising our 6 kids it was a constant struggle to keep up with the broken bones, infected tonsils, and other childhood medical related obstacles that crop up when you least expected them; and in groups.  I cannot imagine what it would be like in this day and age with 6 minors children in the house. I'd be living in a tent or dead!

It's bad enough now just trying to keep up with our proactive personal medical plan. They want you to exercise preventative medicine, and in fact many insurance companies penalize you if you do not; but then they refuse to cover the diagnostic testing legally/morally required by the doctor in order to prescribe the medicinal program that suits your specific situation/condition(s).

It's like a Twilight Zone episode sometimes, especially when your income stream has taken the hits most of ours have. And it just keeps getting worse each year with higher premiums and less coverage.

I feel for my children, who are now raising/starting their own families. Should they reach my age group it is going to be Creepshow instead of Twilight Zone; or Tales From The Crypt.

Insurance companies and health care providers have brought this on themselves for their decades of abuse of the system and the infirm. And they are attempting to raise this huge smokescreen with their shameful propaganda blitzkrieg, in order to scare their members into seeing things their way and allowing them to continue robbing us blind.

The sad part is it is working, and only after individuals like you and I are fertilizer will the sheep realize they have let the wolves have their way.

[me]

You know Henry, maybe you believe you are perfectly happy with your coverage right now, and perhaps in reality you are; but wait until your body begins aging and you reach the period in life where your systems start requiring some attention. THAT is when you are going to find out how happy you really are. When you start having to shell out $475.00 every three months to have a phlebotomist draw blood for a quarterly chemscreen. When you have to shell out 200 bucks a month in co-pays for the drugs you need to help your circulatory challenges, maintain your blood pressure, or regulate your heart rate or cholesterol levels. Above and beyond the premiums you already pay each pay period.

Same goes for your spouse, and then your children as they begin having to have medical attention due to sports injuries, or other medical challenges.

You only are happy now because odds are you are not really using your medical coverage very much. But when you really start using it you'll see the big picture in a hurry. . . 30-40% of your income or more can and will start being diverted toward health care costs; between premiums, medicines, co-pays, and outstanding bills at medical institutions related to health events that your insurance will not cover. That is the reality for those currently covered by a majority of plans right now. For those that do not have coverage the picture is even bleaker.

There are programs for them like free or discounted medicines at participating pharmacy's, medicaid, I have two friends who are on it, one with crones disease and a serious heart problem and one with crippling arthritis, cataracts, and some other health issues, and programs within the hospitals.  They are both getting their medications free as well as their health care. 

[Palehorse]

There are programs for them like free or discounted medicines at participating pharmacy's, medicaid, I have two friends who are on it, one with crones disease and a serious heart problem and one with crippling arthritis, cataracts, and some other health issues, and programs within the hospitals.  They are both getting their medications free as well as their health care.

The rub is those "programs" are not "free" to anyone but those who use them. Everyone else makes up the difference, and it is you and I who pay for them.

I know, I worked for one of the big pharma companies and I know how pricing is established; incorporating increases to paying customers to make up for the "philanthropic endeavors" expected for the upcoming year when constructing the AOP. (Annual Operating Plan). Plus, and heres the rub that gives me road rash, they get a tax write off for it to go directly against the profit in a legalized corporate double-dip!

So yeah, the Smith and Jones families nationwide might be getting free or discounted medicines and treatment, but Average Joe and Jane's families will pay more for their services to make up the difference, while the providers get the same revenue generation and a back door increase thanks to the write off!

Why can't you guys see that?!

[Palehorse]

And now look what this poor woman has had done to her by her employer and health care insurance! Sure, its in Canada but how long do you think it is going to take US divisions to start doing the very same thing???

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20091122/CN.Canada.Facebook.Insurance/

MONTREAL — A Canadian woman on sick leave for depression said Monday she would fight an insurance company's decision to cut her benefits after her agent found photos on Facebook of her vacationing, at a bar and at a party.

Nathalie Blanchard said Monday she was diagnosed with major depression and was receiving monthly sick-leave benefits until payments dried up this fall.

When Blanchard called her insurance provider, Manulife, to find out why, she says she was told the Facebook photos showed she was able to work.

"If you have insurance, be careful. This is a major battle and it's not going to be easy," Blanchard, 29, said in a telephone interview from her home in Bromont, Quebec.

She said her insurance agent described several pictures Blanchard posted on Facebook, including ones showing her having a good time at a Chippendales bar show, at her birthday party and on a sun holiday.

Blanchard said Manulife told her it was evidence she is no longer depressed.

Her lawyer, Tom Lavin, said Blanchard was wrongfully dismissed from her benefits, and she had the right to go on holiday.

"The issue for me is that they stopped her disability benefits without the proper medical recommendations. Her doctor recommended she go on vacation," he said.

Blanchard said she took three four-day trips when she was feeling especially low, on her psychiatrist's advice.

Manulife declined to comment on the case specifically but has said in a statement that "we would not deny or terminate a valid claim solely based on information published on Web sites such as Facebook."

Still, Lavin said the issue raises concerns for anyone who expects their private life to remain so if they post personal information to social networking sites such as Facebook.

"It's good warning for people who use Facebook. It's not like being at home and writing in your diary. It's out there for the whole word to see," he said.

Blanchard's case will be before Quebec Superior Court Dec. 8.

[me]

The rub is those "programs" are not "free" to anyone but those who use them. Everyone else makes up the difference, and it is you and I who pay for them.

I know, I worked for one of the big pharma companies and I know how pricing is established; incorporating increases to paying customers to make up for the "philanthropic endeavors" expected for the upcoming year when constructing the AOP. (Annual Operating Plan). Plus, and heres the rub that gives me road rash, they get a tax write off for it to go directly against the profit in a legalized corporate double-dip!

So yeah, the Smith and Jones families nationwide might be getting free or discounted medicines and treatment, but Average Joe and Jane's families will pay more for their services to make up the difference, while the providers get the same revenue generation and a back door increase thanks to the write off!

Why can't you guys see that?!

And you think GSHC for everyone is going to be any less costly? 

[Palehorse]

And you think GSHC for everyone is going to be any less costly?

I do, and it can't be any worse than what the present unregulated health care has in store for us. . . Besides, the government isn't running it as much as they are going to regulate it. "Government run" is a misnomer bandied about by extremists to get the sheep bleating. 

[me]

I do, and it can't be any worse than what the present unregulated health care has in store for us. . . Besides, the government isn't running it as much as they are going to regulate it. "Government run" is a misnomer bandied about by extremists to get the sheep bleating. 

They've done such a bang up record of "regulating" so far somehow that doesn't give me much comfort.  "Cash for clunkers".  What a deal.  Tell the dealer in Muncie who is probably going to go down the tubes because he still hasn't gotten paid what a deal that was. Not to mention the auto auctions and used car dealers who are coming up short on inventory now.  When the doctors don't get paid and quit who is going to see all the new patients?  I know fresh out of school interns who know nothing yet.  Of course they're going to have to graduate more students and slack up on the medical exams for the licenses to put more doctors into the population so the quality of providers is going to take a dive.  Oh, and they will also have to loosen up on the requirements to even get accepted into medical school so that will put people in there who may or may not make it and since they most likely didn't get a scholarship guess who will get to pay for them to enter med school.....ta da....us through government programs to get more doctors. 

Still seems to me like reforming what we already have would be quicker, cheaper, and make much more sense.

[Exterminator]

The rub is those "programs" are not "free" to anyone but those who use them. Everyone else makes up the difference, and it is you and I who pay for them.

No, she isn't paying for them at all.

[Exterminator]

"Cash for clunkers".  What a deal.  Tell the dealer in Muncie who is probably going to go down the tubes because he still hasn't gotten paid what a deal that was.

Which dealer, please?

Not to mention the auto auctions and used car dealers who are coming up short on inventory now.

Huh; a friend of mine owns a used car lot and has plenty of cars...that he bought at auction.

When the doctors don't get paid and quit who is going to see all the new patients?  I know fresh out of school interns who know nothing yet.  Of course they're going to have to graduate more students and slack up on the medical exams for the licenses to put more doctors into the population so the quality of providers is going to take a dive.  Oh, and they will also have to loosen up on the requirements to even get accepted into medical school so that will put people in there who may or may not make it and since they most likely didn't get a scholarship guess who will get to pay for them to enter med school.....ta da....us through government programs to get more doctors.

All bullshit hyperbole. 

Still seems to me like reforming what we already have would be quicker, cheaper, and make much more sense.

That is precisely what they are attempting to do.

[Henry Hawk]

I do, and it can't be any worse than what the present unregulated health care has in store for us. . . Besides, the government isn't running it as much as they are going to regulate it. "Government run" is a misnomer bandied about by extremists to get the sheep bleating. 

here is a good article, regarding this....http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900412679261049.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

[Henry Hawk]

THis made me chuckle...

[Henry Hawk]

From an Article I just read:

A Few Good Scientists
You want the truth? You can't understand the truth!     

In every place of knowledge, there is a statue dedicated to one of the great martyrs of science. He carefully studied the data and came to the conclusion that his people were doomed if action was not immediately taken. For this effort, he was mocked, derided, and ultimately ignored. And, as a result, millions died.

I speak, of course, of Jor-El, Superman's father (his biological father, not the Midwestern hillbilly who adopted him). The destruction of Krypton was the tragic result of science being ignored, and every scientist keeps the lesson of Jor-El in mind whenever he finds himself mocked for warning of an impending catastrophe or questioned for launching his children into space unattended.

And history repeats itself with climate change. We tell you people of the imminent dangers from the earth warming, and what do you do? You mock us. You question our motives. People who can't even convert Fahrenheit to Celsius try and tell us we did the science wrong. Now emails have leaked from the Climate Research Unit that apparently show that scientists were fixing the data and trying to suppress the scientific research of dissenters, and you people demand answers from us. I have one thing to say to that.

How dare you!

You do not understand the first thing about climate research. Man-made global warming is settled science. Disaster is imminent. We know this. It is a fact. We don't waste time on studies that say otherwise, the same way we don't waste time on studies that assert that the earth is flat. We are very smart people, and when we say something is so, you should just accept it.

So you think what is in those emails is important? Well, what exactly do you know? Do you see the white lab coats we wear? That color symbolizes pure science. Were someone like you to wear one, within five minutes it would be stained with neon orange powdered cheese and wet with drool from you trying to comprehend the data sets people like me look at every day.

We are out there trying to stave off global disaster, telling you what political and economic changes you need to make in order to survive. We do the things that you find too complex or too boring to do. One would think that would engender gratitude — or maybe even awe at our abilities — yet you troglodytes cling to everything you can use to second-guess us. Every time it's a bit cold out, you doubt us. Every time one little piece of data has to be revised, you question us. And now some emails make you think you can just throw out everything we've done?

Let me tell you this: If it weren't for scientists like me, you'd still be worshiping fire as an angry god. Every convenience in your life is thanks to us, so when we tell you something, you should just nod your head like you comprehend what we're saying and shut up. And right now I am telling you those emails are unimportant.

Oh, that's not good enough for you. You want us to explain them. You think you're entitled to the truth.
You can't understand the truth!

Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to have scientific equipment on them to gather data, and that data studied by men with computers. Who's going to do it? A layman like you? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for the global warming skeptics and curse the climatologists. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know — that the crushing of data contrary to global warming, while tragic, probably saved grant money. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to the layman, creates scientific consensus. You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about on Twitter, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall studying those measurements you can't even begin to comprehend.

We use phrases like "peer review," "overwhelming consensus," "settled science." We use these phrases as the backbone to a life spent studying something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket made by synthetic fibers my science creates, then questions the manner in which I provide that science! I'd rather you just said, "You're such a genius!" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a lab coat and crunch data. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Of course we hid dissenting data! We had to. So as not to confuse your simple minds from understanding the greater truth that man-made global warming is real! Now, excuse me; I have science to do.

There won't be another Krypton on my watch.

[Henry Hawk]

From the American Thinker...

Bush or Obama: The Quiz

1. President Bush was famous for lacking "intellectual curiosity," while President Obama has been called "the smartest guy ever to become President." Who reads more books: Bush or Obama?

2. Bush was often considered to be in the grip of Big Oil. In contrast, Obama is a Harvard-educated lawyer. Which industry contributed more than five times as much as the other to politicians: the oil & gas industry, or lawyers/law firms?

3. Bush's Christian faith was at the core of his political identity, and he was considered to be in the grip of the "religious right," while Obama is considered more open-minded. In fact, Obama has said, "my faith is one that admits some doubt." Which one refers to Jesus more in public speeches?

4. Bush was criticized for excessive federal spending and running up huge deficits.  Bush's deficit in 2008 was the largest in history.  In fact, President Obama said,

It's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they've presided over a doubling of the national debt ... What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place.

Whose deficit was more than triple the size of the other's: Bush's in 2008 or Obama's in 2009?

5. While Obama criticized Bush for "a doubling of the national debt," the federal debt held by the public went from 35.1% of GDP in 2000 to 40.8% of GDP in 2008 -- an increase of 16% as of fraction of GDP. What is it expected to be in 2016 under Obama's budget plan?

6.  Obama criticized Bush for Guantanamo, military tribunals, wiretaps, troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and "signing statements." Which one of these Bush practices has Obama ended?

Answers:

1. Bush. Obama started reading a book in April and had not finished it by June, putting him on a pace of no more than ten books per year. Bush read forty to ninety-five books a year while President, not counting a new and complete reading of the Bible every year. Bush scored 1206 on his SAT, putting his IQ in the 125-130 range, smarter than 95% of the population and in the company of Lincoln, Rousseau, and Thackeray. He graduated from Yale and earned an MBA from Harvard. Obama earned a law degree from Harvard, but has not released any of his academic records. Despite what you might have heard, we know nothing of his IQ, test scores, or grades from any of the schools he attended.

2. Law firms. In the 2010 cycle so far, Lawyers/Law Firms have contributed $33,779,866 (81% to Democrats), and the Oil & Gas industry has contributed $6,293,631 (34% to Democrats). In the 2008 cycle, the numbers were $233,499,989 (76% to Dems) from lawyers and $35,564,322 (23% to Dems). In all, lawyers contributed about six times more to politicians than the Oil & Gas industry.

3. Obama. Per Eamon Javers at Politico, "As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches -- something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings."

4. Obama's 2009 deficit, the largest in U.S. history. It was more than three times that of Bush's record 2008 deficit. Per the Congressional Budget Office, the 2008 deficit was $455 B, and the 2009 deficit was $1,417 B. As a fraction of GDP, it was the largest deficit since 1945.

5.  The CBO expects the debt held by the public to be 77.1% of GDP in 2016 under Obama's plan, or an increase of 89% as a fraction of GDP, and the highest level since 1950.

6. None.

Guantanamo is still open and probably will be into 2010, maybe longer.
Obama is keeping military tribunals and clandestine wiretapping programs.
Obama plans to keep most troops in Iraq until the summer of 2010.  Even then, he is talking of keeping about 50,000 troops there (compared to about 124,000 now). The number of US troops in Afghanistan increased from 37,000 in January 2009 to 62,000 by August 2009, and Obama is expected to send over 30,000 more. Total number of US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan has increased under Obama so far (from about 184,000 in January to 186,000 in September).
Obama has used signing statements himself.

[Bo D]

This source says his IQ is 91.

http://www.linkydinky.com/BushIQ.shtml