Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (148794)	11/26/2005 12:31:24 PM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

If I understand this correctly, the $32/mo is the premium, or, a "contribution" paid by the beneficiary - this doesn't cover the entire funding. I don't know the exact current numbers, but a Medicare beneficiary pays maybe about $50 a month for the parts "A" and "B" - while HCFA funds their medicare carriers for maybe as much as $700 a month. So, the "premium" covers only a fraction of the cost. The real funding comes from payroll taxes. I haven't been following these issues for the past few years, so my numbers are probably off, but the idea is the same. 1/3 hypertensives among adults, and 1/2 hyperlipidemics is higher than "my" guesstimate... will look it up. Medications cost a lot of money... such is life. Developing, manufacturing and marketing those wonderful "silver bullets" is very expensive. Some waste can be trimmed, but it would still cost a lot. In most cases, it is possible to find generic medications which will be nearly as good as brands, and usually just as good. Lovastatin has ben generic for some time... Zocor - recently shown to be equal to Lipitor (and maybe, as they claim, better in some ways) - will have a generic version next year.

To: Lane3 who wrote (148794)	11/26/2005 12:43:59 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793964

I'm posting this because it seems a balanced approach to news skewing, for those who have lost track of the fulcrum. And from a conservative, no less. <g> "Skewed news At the Camp Katrina blog, Spc. Phil Van Treuren points out an "interesting omission" in the New York Times report on the latest suicide bombing in Iraq. (Hat tip: John Cole) The article says: A suicide car bomb exploded Thursday near an American convoy at the entrance to the main hospital in the volatile town of Mahmudiya, killing at least 30 Iraqis and wounding dozens of others... The omitted detail, supplied by the Associated Press, is that at the time of the bombing the U.S. soldiers were "handing out candy and food to children" (The Washington Post also mentions that nearly all the dead were women and children). Was the omission an accident? Or was the Times downplaying, consciously or not, both the brutality of the "insurgents" ("freedom fighters" to some) and an instance of friendly rapport between the American soldiers and the Iraqi population? Like John Cole, I'm generally very wary of assigning malign motives to such things and seeking out the minutest evidence of "liberal bias" (that way madness lies). But still, this kind of thing makes you wonder. I mean, the fact that the U.S. convoy was handing out candy and food to children at the time, and that one of Kurt Vonnegut's heroes plowed an explosive-laden car into a crowd of kids, is not exactly a minor detail. Meanwhile, The Heretik points out something else: the version of the Associated Press story Camp Katrina links to, on the Fox News site, edits AP's copy to change "suicide bomber" to the idiotic "homicide bomber." This is right-wing newspeak at its most laughable. Any bombing that kills people is a "homicide bombing." The distinct feature of "suicide bombing" is that the bomber also kills himself (or herself). On at least one occasion -- the London bombings last July -- the insistence on referring to suicide bombings as "homicide bombings" already led Fox down the path of glaring stupidity. I'd like to know who first came up with the imbecilic idea that the phrase "suicide bombing" somehow makes the bomber sympathetic. I'd also like to know when someone at Fox is going to have enough sense to put an end to this ridiculous policy of rewriting wire copy to fit their propaganda slant. Meanwhile, as The Heretik wisely says: Do we just see in the “news” what we want to see? Our soldiers struggle to do their best, to be most human in the most inhumane circumstances. Those people are still dead. Damned media, damned blog. Damn us all. Oy. posted by Cathy Young at 9:34 PM" cathyyoung.blogspot.com