marks2065
-
Content
2,903 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Posts posted by marks2065
-
-
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotei have to speak up here. if you follow your conclusions, you are correct in your figures to a point. when you are drawing unemployment, you are not travelling anywhere, eating lunch out, and incurring no additional expenses. the price of gas alone with a 25 mile one-way trip to work 5 days a week puts a dent in the take home pay as does the deduction of taxes. in wv, you have the option to have 10% taken out of unemployment, but it is a choice, not mandatory. don't know about other states. i had the option of drawing unemployment or working for $10 an hour and chose unemployment for these reasons.
Staying on unemployment because you don't like working for less is wrong. This causes increases to the products you buy by raising costs to the bisiness. Unemployment is a bridge to get you to your next job not to support you in a way that makes you more confortable.
Doesn't help that there are 4 people looking for jobs for every job available.
We also have a serious mismatch between skills available and skills needed.
tell the dems to allow projects like the pipeline and the mine in wisc, that would takes tens of thousands off the unemployment lines and improve the economy, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
That ass-umes that the millions of unemployed are qualified for those jobs. Mismatch of skills IS one of the problems we face.
Maybe that is because the people are taining for jobs they want instead of jobs that are available or they can actually get and do. Maybe the colleges need to offer jobs skills classes instead of basket weaving and discussing our favorite auther 101. -
QuoteQuoteQuotei have to speak up here. if you follow your conclusions, you are correct in your figures to a point. when you are drawing unemployment, you are not travelling anywhere, eating lunch out, and incurring no additional expenses. the price of gas alone with a 25 mile one-way trip to work 5 days a week puts a dent in the take home pay as does the deduction of taxes. in wv, you have the option to have 10% taken out of unemployment, but it is a choice, not mandatory. don't know about other states. i had the option of drawing unemployment or working for $10 an hour and chose unemployment for these reasons.
Staying on unemployment because you don't like working for less is wrong. This causes increases to the products you buy by raising costs to the bisiness. Unemployment is a bridge to get you to your next job not to support you in a way that makes you more confortable.
Doesn't help that there are 4 people looking for jobs for every job available.
We also have a serious mismatch between skills available and skills needed.
tell the dems to allow projects like the pipeline and the mine in wisc, that would takes tens of thousands off the unemployment lines and improve the economy, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. -
QuoteQuoteI see something very interesting. Solicitor General Donald Virelli made a comment that I predicted.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-justices-challenge-obama-administration-over-health-170042500.html
According to the article, "Chief Justice John Roberts asked Verrilli whether Washington could compel cellphone purchases. Justice Samuel Alito wondered whether it could force Americans to buy insurance to pay for funeral costs." Virelli responded:Quote"I think it's completely different," said Verrilli, arguing that when it comes to health care, those who don't buy it and get sick can get emergency room care, an expensive option effectively subsidized by their insurance-buying fellow citizens.
Why do people go to the emergency room? Because of EMTALA, which was passed in 1986. I wrote about it here:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-justices-challenge-obama-administration-over-health-170042500.html
Basically, the reason why the need for socialized healthcare exists, says the Solicitor General, is because too many people are getting a free ride. Of course, this free ride has only existed for 25 years! Congress mandated that ERs treat everyone without regard to ability to pay. Therefore, people go into ERs for free care.
The government's solution is not to repeal EMTALA. The government's solution is to force all people to buy a private product. the road to socialized healthcare is paved with creating lousy policies that the government must then fix.
I've perused quite a few amicus briefs and EMTALA isn't even mentioned. I'm wondering if I'm the only person thinking of this.
Right, what we need is Boehnercare: "Can't pay, then go away and die".
How about they either buy insurance or pay the bill themselves? garnish their wages untill the bill is paid or they die. lets start making people accountable for their actions. -
Quotei have to speak up here. if you follow your conclusions, you are correct in your figures to a point. when you are drawing unemployment, you are not travelling anywhere, eating lunch out, and incurring no additional expenses. the price of gas alone with a 25 mile one-way trip to work 5 days a week puts a dent in the take home pay as does the deduction of taxes. in wv, you have the option to have 10% taken out of unemployment, but it is a choice, not mandatory. don't know about other states. i had the option of drawing unemployment or working for $10 an hour and chose unemployment for these reasons.
Staying on unemployment because you don't like working for less is wrong. This causes increases to the products you buy by raising costs to the bisiness. Unemployment is a bridge to get you to your next job not to support you in a way that makes you more confortable. -
QuoteQuoteSo the discussion is what is a "working" wage?
The idea is that unemployment should be such that you are uncomfortable but not destitute and stealing from others so that you may live.
That's only the case if you're still living like a college student with a $300 sublet room. Peoples' rent and mortgage payments don't magically drop when they become unemployed.Quote
However minimum wage is designed to be a step above unemployment benefits?
Thus perhaps it can be argued that the system is now upside down?
That one is better off financially being unemployed than gainfully employed at minimum wage?
It depends on what you were making before becoming unemployed and how long you'll be unemployed for.
1) In the states that I'm aware of you get no more than 50% of what you were making before up to some limit (in California that happens at a $49,400 annual salary). If you were making less than double minimum wage you're better off working if you can get a job.
2) There are total benefit limits. In California it's about 26 weeks worth of benefits and Colorado it's similar. Don't work at all, you don't get a dime after six months, and if you were at or above the wage limit you'd make $2700 less in your first year of unemployment than you would have at a minimum wage job.
There is a dollar for dollar reduction in benefits if you are working, but that means the benefits stretch out longer.Quote
And before you start ranting against unemployment benefits, please look around the safe secure nation we live in, this is greatly impart due to our unemployment system.
Your employer pays about $500 a year in Federal and State unemployment insurance taxes unless they make a habit of laying off people in which case they pay more. Provided that you don't become unemployed very often or for very long more goes into the system on your behalf than you take out.
wrong, you employer pays about $250 - $1000 per employee per year to unemployment. My Rate is something I protect to keep my expenses down. a company with a high rate and over 50 employees could be in trouble financially just from these fees. the longer and more money someone collects on unemployment the higher your rate goes. -
QuoteIt's hard to know what to make of an article that just says "we're right and the government's wrong" without any explanation of how they get their numbers and how that differs from (and is more accurate than) the government's methodology.
Don
You are correct, it is hard to know, but look at past numbers and see the government's numbers ended up being adjusted to closely matching theirs. With that history I would say that the government is probably wrong and just padding the numbers to gain favor of the people. -
QuoteYes, let's transition from a war we can no longer afford to a national healthcare program that we can not afford. That will solve our budget problems.
What I see is everybody arguing about where the money is spent. What I hear is "The war is a waste of money" or" the health care bill is ging to cost a fortune", I want the money to go here or there. Lets just look at the problem from a different angle, like, Why are they spending money we don't have! It doesn't make a difference what it is spent on, either way we are broke.
If the government receives 2.1 trillion it can only spend 2.1 trillion. lets start to argue that. Many of the programs could be funded just off the intrest being paid on the debt. lets start to tell the government that your checkbook is out of money and you have to stop writing checks. -
Quote>This would only be panel to determine best course of treatment . . .
. . . and to deny treatments and tests that the doctors couldn't "prove" they needed. Government panel set up to deny care. Hmm.
> . . . .there is a difference.
Congratulations, you have completely missed the point.
No I did not, I read the end of life planning in the health care bill, I would say you missed the point. -
QuoteQuotewhith these numbers are we now ready to end the Obama experiment?
Blew up in our faces, didn't it?
Not to worry...'Mericans have the reputation to do the same thing again and again and expect different results. The next experiment is in the works.
I used to think when things got bad that any change would be good, but now I question that line of thinking. I hope others do also. -
QuoteQuoteI have used the internet and other areas including my brother who is a doctor. but the information is scattered and unreliable at times. we need a way to put the information together in a way that is user friendly to all, not just a few that happen to be able to navigate the mess.
Who is we?
Medicine is kind of complicated. It is going to be hard for most folks to navigate on their own. Even those who use all the resources available usuallly end up knowing only some of the possibilities and have to rely on their educated, experienced doctor for the rest.
Skydiving has a SIMS manual, why can't we have a SIMS manual for health care? -
Quote>>only ordering tests that are medically needed and making the doctors proove that
>>the test is needed.
>All we need is a board of about 10 -20 people to make a diagnostic flow chart for
>different medical issues that the people could use to guide the doctor in our treatment.
So a "death panel" who would decide to kill your grandma to save money? (sarcasm there)
Yes, that board would be a good idea - but it is exactly what the GOP labeled the "death panel" a few years back. If one of the effects of Romney's entrance into the race is that people are more willing to talk about increased government oversight of healthcare without screaming "DEATH PANEL! SOCIALISM! EVIL!" then that's a good thing overall, IMO.
That is because it was a death panel, planning for end of life. This would only be panel to determine best course of treatment, there is a difference. -
QuoteQuoteQuoteMy doctors have typically given me such information.
is your doctor looking at your best interests? or is he trying not to get sued and make money to buy a new house on the beach? I don't trust anyone right now and I think, if given some good information, I could better direct my treatment while keping the doctor on my side instead of the side of his pocket book.
You can make yourself an educated consumer of health care now. It will take some work but there is a world of information available on the internet.
I have used the internet and other areas including my brother who is a doctor. but the information is scattered and unreliable at times. we need a way to put the information together in a way that is user friendly to all, not just a few that happen to be able to navigate the mess. -
QuoteMy doctors have typically given me such information.
is your doctor looking at your best interests? or is he trying not to get sued and make money to buy a new house on the beach? I don't trust anyone right now and I think, if given some good information, I could better direct my treatment while keping the doctor on my side instead of the side of his pocket book. -
QuoteThis plan would also reduce the need for a trained doctor...or even nurse.
"Just see the receptionist...she has the checklist."
Personally, I respect my doctor's years of training and experience. I don't want a government list. I've seen what governments do. Especially with lists.
this is not to remove the doctor but to educate you. this would not be a regulation for doctors to follow but to give YOU some guide lines to follow and understand your care. With this you would be able toi go to the doctor and ask him why did you run this test or why not run that test. This would not be something like the EPA or the Board of education that hand down regulations and stipulations that must be followed or have government mnoney linked to it. -
Quote
What you are describing is exactly what the Obama administration proposed as "evidence based medicine". This was relentlessly attacked by the Republicans as government intrusion. Even one or two of the doctors who used to post here in SC opposed it as intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. I recall being surprised that anyone could object to a mere list of treatments for each diagnosis that have been found to be effective in clinical studies, but I guess if the Obama administration said the sun is hot certain people would disagree.Quotegov should only have an advisory board for health care, and no control over anything. that is what gov is for is to protect us not control us. all choices made should be between the doctor and the patient not the ins company or the gov. Advice is what we need not control.
I do agree that such a list would be helpful in cutting down on defensive medicine and unwarranted lawsuits. The problem is these days everything is seen as fodder for political spin and advantage. Some people will do anything to gain power for themselves, and don't much care who they have to throw under the bus.
Don
this health care bill is over 2000 pages of regulation, taxes, and control over the health care system. the costs to put this together is stagering. All we need is a board of about 10 -20 people to make a diagnostic flow chart for different medical issues that the people could use to guide the doctor in our treatment. this board could be made out of elected persons in congress or opointed by someone like the surgeon general with aprooval of congress. They would have no control on anything, only there to advise and recommend. -
QuoteI think you're talking to yourself again!
since nobody else wants to talk about the important issues, I guess I am. maybe we should take the west cost aproach and see what celeberty is making a fool of themselves today and ignore that we will all be bankript by the time we kick Obama, reid, and boehner out of office. -
QuoteAnd your one warning.
Sorry but sometime people can not look past their book smarts to actually see what is happening in front of their own eyes. people need to stop depending on the government and start thinking and acting for themselves. The government has screwed up everything they have ever put their hands on and I can see why more every day. If it takes a warning to get a couple people to open their eyes I welcome it. -
With these numbers I would lover to go back to the war mongering free spending Bush. -
whith these numbers are we now ready to end the Obama experiment?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/us-rakes-largest-monthly-deficit-history-2012-tax-revenues-net-refunds-trail-2011 -
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIt is a prooven fact that doctors order unneeded tests to cover their but from lawsuites and other things like that, if the insurance companies and the government backed off and just let doctors run only the needed test it would save alot of money.
I agree, but that's not what you said. You said you wanted doctors to prove the tests were needed.
The flip side of the coin is that many labs are owned by doctors, so the doctors have a financial interest in ordering as many tests as possible. There's nothing illegal about this (unfortunately), but it's a huge ethical problem.
the government and insurance companies should give a list of possible needed tests for each part of treatment and the doctor should discuss them with you. then decide on path to follow.
How does the physician know the treatment BEFORE getting the tests done? Clairvoyance?
are all liberals this incompetent? we need to start thinking for ourselves people! let me spell this out in small simple words. when you go in to the doctor with an issue, the doctor looks at you and says " you may have this", "this" being what ever, you should have some place to look to find out what are the reccommended procedures to follow for what ever "this" is. these recommended procedures should be listed by a board that is medically trained and has no connection to the doctor or hospital. then I can look this up and then discuss with my doctor on how to procede with my treatment. my treatment should not be controled by the government or insurance company. I only need to know proper treatment and tests needed for whatever "this" is.
Government, insurance companies, and lawyers should have nothing to do with my choices on how to procede with my treatment.
there is nothing about government control in anything I said. I want no government regulations controling the path of health care. government is there for our benifit not to control us. -
QuoteQuoteI did not say gov or ins companies should control your care, I said that they should give a list of treatments and tests so you can sit with your doctor and make a plan for treatment. I don't trust the doctors, gov or ins companies so I need something to eduacate myself. There for the gov and ins companies should set some guidelines for me to educate myself and then I can control the doctor on how he treats me.
So you trust the insurance companies and government more than your doctor? Why are you against the healthcare law? Did it not go far enough?
gov should only have an advisory board for health care, and no control over anything. that is what gov is for is to protect us not control us. all choices made should be between the doctor and the patient not the ins company or the gov. Advice is what we need not control. -
QuoteQuotewhere did I say that?
Right here:Quotethe government and insurance companies should give a list of possible needed tests for each part of treatment
You're proposing what many people feared about the healthcare law: death panels.
I did not say gov or ins companies should control your care, I said that they should give a list of treatments and tests so you can sit with your doctor and make a plan for treatment. I don't trust the doctors, gov or ins companies so I need something to eduacate myself. There for the gov and ins companies should set some guidelines for me to educate myself and then I can control the doctor on how he treats me. -
QuoteYou seriously want the government deciding what action is taken in response to your illness??????????
I'd like to pre-opt out of this whacko plan please.
where did I say that? please reread and take an english class if you have trouble understanding what is wrote. -
QuoteQuoteIt is a prooven fact that doctors order unneeded tests to cover their but from lawsuites and other things like that, if the insurance companies and the government backed off and just let doctors run only the needed test it would save alot of money.
I agree, but that's not what you said. You said you wanted doctors to prove the tests were needed.
The flip side of the coin is that many labs are owned by doctors, so the doctors have a financial interest in ordering as many tests as possible. There's nothing illegal about this (unfortunately), but it's a huge ethical problem.
the government and insurance companies should give a list of possible needed tests for each part of treatment and the doctor should discuss them with you. then decide on path to follow.
I have jobs, but no one wants them
in Speakers Corner
How many of those with college degrees are actually working in the field they trained for? How many went to college and are now unemployed because the field they trained in was saturated. How many could have saved tens of thousands of $s by going to a trade school and learned a trade that is currantly looking for people to fill the employment gaps?