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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (749557)	10/26/2013 2:17:44 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Respond to of 1572020

>> Flashback: GOP Wanted To 'Fix' Medicare Part D After 'Horrendous' Rollout It is an absurd comparison. No one, not one person, was REQUIRED under threat of financial penalty to enroll in Part D. No one was LOSING their Rx drug benefit by operation of law; under ACA more than a million have lost insurance they were perfectly happy with, and millions more likely will before year end. And the rollout was not "horrendous" compared with the nonsense of healthcare.gov. These are not "glitches". These are substantial problems and no progress has been made in four weeks. As of now, you cannot make an application on the website, and you cannot make an application over the phone. To apply for coverage under the exchanges today, you have to fill out fucking forms with a pencil and mail them in. Please. Your post and the dolt who wrote the article are just idiotic.

To: SilentZ who wrote (749557)	10/26/2013 5:07:32 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572020

Hi SilentZ; Re the comparison between the rollouts of the Republican drug plan and Obamacare. Yeah, every new government program has a few glitches. It's perfectly normal. I read somewhere that when Social Security was implemented it caused millions of people to lose their jobs and have to take part time work. And the Medicare program caused tens of thousands of doctors to abandon their profession. Then there were the thousands of hospitals that were put out of business when the IRS was created. When they started DHS one of the unexpected effects was that millions of people lost their health care. I'm old enough to remember the complaints when the creation of the EPA prevented Americans from seeing their usual family doctor. And that was after Nixon had told us that the bill was going to let us keep our old doctors and insurance plans. Yeah, the Republicans are completely two faced on this issue. Every government program that's ever been started caused crippling damage to 15% of the US economy. This is perfectly normal. Those Democratic senators who have switched sides on the issue and joined the Republicans in calling for a delay are not at all important. There's only 10 of them; heck that's less than 20% of the democratic part of the senate! You could hardly say that a majority of the Democrats want to delay this plan. By election day 2014 the public will have forgot all about the glitches. Those full time jobs can be very tiring. It's much better to have two part time jobs. People will get along with their new doctors. With the new insurance plans the public's health will be improving. That's right, studies show that when the public has less money to spend they cut back on alcohol and tobacco purchases. And a lot of the overweight folks will get thinner, now that they won't have enough money for food. Maybe some of those illegal immigrants have medical experience and can replace the retiring doctors. -- Carl P.S. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

To: SilentZ who wrote (749557)	10/26/2013 12:51:03 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1572020

Single Payer ... As health marketplaces open, Vt. eyes bigger goal From Mike Allen's morning newsletter. --------------------------------- NETWORK NEWS ALERT -- AP FOR SUNDAY PAPERS - "Single Payer ... As health marketplaces open, Vt. eyes bigger goal," by David Gram in Montpelier: "The state has a planned 2017 launch of the nation's first universal health care system, a sort of modified Medicare-for-all that has long been a dream for many liberals. ... It combines universal coverage with new cost controls in an effort to move away from a system in which the more procedures doctors and hospitals perform, the more they get paid, to one in which providers have a set budget to care for a set number of patients. The result will be health care that's 'a right and not a privilege,' Gov. Peter Shumlin said. Where some governors have backed off the politically charged topic of health care, Shumlin recently surprised many by digging more deeply into it. ... He said he expects a payroll tax to be a main source of funding ... "The reasons tiny Vermont may be ripe for one of the costliest and most closely watched social experiments of its time? It's the most liberal state in the country, according to Election Day exit polls. Democrats hold the governor's office and big majorities in both houses of the Legislature. It has a tradition of activism. ... It's small. With a population of about 626,000 and just 15 hospitals, all nonprofits, Vermont is seen by policy experts as a manageable place to launch a universal health care project.... Then there's the fact that Vermont is close to universal health care already. ... 96 percent of Vermont children have coverage, and 91 percent of the overall population does, second only to Massachusetts." goo.gl