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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (76030)	12/8/2009 8:43:43 AM
From: JakeStraw	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224757

LOL! It totally ignores actions that could be taken to save billions--tort reform, buying insurance across state lines, health savings accounts--actions that would cost little or nothing, yet would reduce costs significantly. The Wall Street Journal says this is the worst piece of legislation they have ever seen. Nothing in the bill reduces costs, but it does create an enormous new set of government boards and bureaus.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (76030)	12/8/2009 10:37:15 AM
From: Honey_Bee	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224757

Kenneth said: "The health care reform bill will reduce fraud and abuse of the system." I almost spit coffee all over my keyboard reading that sentence. I can't believe that anyone who has been on the planet for more than a day could actually make that statement. So tell me this, if the government COULD "reduce fraud and abuse" in the Medicare system, why haven't they already done it. .

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (76030)	12/8/2009 11:26:02 AM
From: tonto	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224757

You were completely wrong in your statement regarding medicare and efficiency. What are they doing in the future to reduce fraud? Why are they not doing so now? Why did you think your monthly payment of $100 for medicare represented efficiency? Kinda silly when you read what you wrote. Just wondering if there are other people as confused... Satellite hook up down today because of blizzard.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (76030)	12/8/2009 3:11:52 PM
From: JakeStraw	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224757

The only prospective cost-cutting changes are those that will implicitly ration care for those who buy their own insurance or will receive lower Medicare benefits (by roughly $450 billion) once the Finance Committee's plan to empower a benefit/price setting oversight board kicks in. All the rest goes on as before: the legions of pointless paper pushers, the profiteers, the overwhelmed government agencies barely able to keep track of whom they are paying what. Budget neutral? Unlikely. National cost neutral? Impossible. Taxing middle income earners to cover the costs of doing a bit for the poor? For sure. huffingtonpost.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (76030)	12/8/2009 3:20:32 PM
From: JakeStraw	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224757

Why should anyone believe that more government in health care would in any way reduce costs? Government’s health care programs are notorious for rapid spending increases. For example, consider that from 1998 to 2008, after adjusting for inflation, Medicaid outlays grew by 56 percent, and Medicare by 60 percent. Just this year compared to last, Medicaid’s real outlays are expected to jump by 31 percent and Medicare’s by 13 percent. libn.com