Closed Thread
Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. #26
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Any discussion of reducing the cost of healthcare MUST begin with tort reform.

    Of course, that is also the reason why the cost of health will never be brought under control with this administration.
    As was pointed out, trial lawyers are on both sides of the aisle willing to fight on this one.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  2. #27
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pvfd27 View Post
    I pity you. It must be so very lonely being the only one who knows anything...

    I tried being civil, but you're a waste of time, George.

    DaSharkie, apparently you are also wrong and just don't get it. There isn't a single lawyer out there that screws the system for personal gain, it's those damn patients
    Here are two more things Iknow:

    1. You have a gripe against lawyers
    2. You have no fundamental knowledge of how insurance works

    I'm not the only one here who knows anything.

    I'm simply the one here who knows the MOST. Please don't forget that.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  3. #28
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Here are two more things Iknow:

    1. You have a gripe against lawyers
    2. You have no fundamental knowledge of how insurance works

    I'm not the only one here who knows anything.

    I'm simply the one here who knows the MOST. Please don't forget that.
    Let's share some more fun facts.

    1. Your inability to accept the truth is blaring. Because I'm critical of leeches and ambulance chasers, I have a gripe?? You obviously idolize lawyers and feel it's OK for them to fleece the system.

    2. Insurance companies are in business to make money. That is the fundemental truth. Your assumption is again, wrong. Deal with it.

    The affliction, "delusions of grandeur" comes to mind. They have meds for that and insurance companies may even reimburse the cost. Hope you have coverage.

  4. #29
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pvfd27 View Post
    Let's share some more fun facts.

    1. Your inability to accept the truth is blaring. Because I'm critical of leeches and ambulance chasers, I have a gripe?? You obviously idolize lawyers and feel it's OK for them to fleece the system.

    2. Insurance companies are in business to make money. That is the fundemental truth. Your assumption is again, wrong. Deal with it.

    The affliction, "delusions of grandeur" comes to mind. They have meds for that and insurance companies may even reimburse the cost. Hope you have coverage.
    1. I have worked with lawyers every day of my life for about 25 years. The overwhelming majority of them are NOT ambulance chasers and provide a necessary and vital service to their client. There are laws and regulations that govern the way they do business. There are ethics boards set up in every state to enforce these laws and regulations. These laws and regulations guard against "fleecing" the system. When an attorney operates outside of the laws and regulations, they are disciplined.

    2. When did I say that an insurance co. was not a for-profit business (although some are not)? I work for an insurance company. When rates are set, no matter the risk ir type of coverage, there are a number of factors taken into consideration, including being competitive and making a profit. But your assertion that they put a surcharge on the charged premium for the CEO's personal pocket is absurd.

    You see, one thing to remember here, Skippy, is that when my fingers hit the keyboard, I know what I am talking about.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  5. #30
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I'm just going to touch on a couple of things from your list.

    I don't know if I'd categorize it as broke. I still seem to get mail everyday and it all appears to arrive in a timely manor.

    I'd venture to guess that the heart of the Postal Service's problems is the advent of e-mail and the internet. How many people and businesses now communicate, pay bills, etc electronically instead of using the regular mail? That's a lot of revenue they've lost, so I'm sure it's had a huge impact on the operation.

    You mentioned UPS and FEDEX. At this point, both have "super stores" offering more than just shipping services, like copy & printing, PO Boxes, supplies. Aside from bigger cities, they tend to not have a location in every town. They also have some places in which you can access their shipping services through a third party. All of these undoubtably help their bottom line.

    The Postal Service on the other hand, is pretty much just in the mail/shipping business. They also really don't have third party locations and they still, in many cases have branch offices in many small communities. They're trying to close some of these, but that greatly upsets the citizens and they end up giving in an keeping them open.
    As for the USPS, I think broke means out of money.

    Undoubtably, all of these have issues. Some of the reasons they are broke is because of the Baby Boomer generation. There's a switch going on from a large group paying into these systems to that group now drawing out from the system. Additionally, costs are going up a lot! It doesn't take a whiz at math to figure out there's going to be some money problems.
    As for SS, the reason it is broke is that for the last 70 years or so the government keeps dipping into the funds. The other issue is payouts to illegal and legal immigrants who have never paid into the system. In essence, it was poorly managed by our government.

    Your last sentence should also be applied to the Health Care system. Cost have gone up, it doesn't take a math whiz to figure that out. What they are ignoring in the debate is all of the costly advances in medicine. We are now able to do things we couldn't do 30 years ago. I have a broken bone in my wrist that has been broken for about 2 years now. I recently got an x-ray to show that. 30 years a ago you stop there and determine if surgery or a cast will fix it. Now I go get an MRI to see if the bone is still alive and to get a better picture. That just increased the cost of my treatment by $2,000.


    The program didn't exactly "go broke" as you claim. The program exhausted it's allocated funding. Even though we went thru the funding faster than expected, that doesn't sound like a failed program. That sounds more like a successful program without sufficient funding to meet the actual interest.

    Could the program have run better in terms of helping the american car manufacturers? Sure, but at the same time, a lot of the foreign cars - particularly the one's that qualified for the program (on the purchase end) - are now made in the US with US workers. So it still helped to keep some of our citizens in their jobs, even if it did make money for the Japanese or whomever.

    Hang on - those weren't my claims.

  6. #31
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    While your last sentence may very well be true, one of the problems regarding the private insurance industry is that them being "aggressive at reducing cost", has pretty much nothing to do with actually saving money in order to be able to pay for treatment for more people. It has pretty much everything to do with increasing profits, dividends, bonuses, etc. and in too many cases denying coverage for things that could/would benefit patients in order to do so.
    Realize that the government does the same thing. Medicaid denies procedures and treatments all the time, so does the VA. Private industry cost cutting measures comes from applying Quality systems (TQM Six Sigma, etc) to their operations to reduce administrative overhead.

    With a private insurance company if I don't like the service or the product I can to another insurance company. My neighbor is unhappy with the service he is getting at the VA, he is stuck and cannot go elsewhere.

    Also, realize that insurance companies run on about a 3% profit. Half of that goes to taxes for the government.

  7. #32
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DFDMAXX View Post
    I wouldn't want to regulate lawyer fees. If they want to charge that much and folks want to pay, then so be it. Let the free market decide what a lawyer is paid. People do shop around for lawyers. Keep the government out of our pay. I don't want the gov't making any limitations on what an individual can make for an honest living.

    Add my vote to tort reform, also ease the restrictions that hinder competition for health insurance. Once again, get the gov't out of the way.
    The problem is the lawyer comes knocking on your door. Tells you he can get you $10,000 for the doctors screw-up. You agree. The lawyer wins $20,000 and keeps the rest.

    Tort reform would certainly help, but I don't know how you would accomplish it. Perhaps limit the amount the lawyer can charge?

  8. #33
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    What I find amazing is how people keep confusing health care with health insurance. They are two completely different animals.

    Insurance of any kind is simply a way of managing risk. In a simple form, the insurance company takes on the risk of 1 million people. They calculate how much will be spent on each person for health care. They add on 1.5% for their own profit and 1.5% for the governments share of their profit. They take this final number and divide by 1 million to get the cost person.

    Health care and the cost of health care directly affects how much the insurance companies HAVE to charge. Remember, they are competing amongst each other so it is in their best interest to control cost while providing good service.

    The final piece of the puzzle, which is completely ignored, is what is the cost of basic, necessary health care. To answer that you need to define "basic, necessary health care". To me, this does not include things like Vasectomies, sex changes, ED pills, tying tubes and then reversing, invitrofertilization, hip replacements, knee replacements, and a huge list of things.

    What should be included are immunizations, treatments of LIFE threatening situations, fixing broken bones, cuts, and internal injuries, etc.

    Again, a large part of the cost increase is these non-essential things as well as advances in treatments. Better and more necessarily has to cost more.

  9. #34
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    1. I have worked with lawyers every day of my life for about 25 years. The overwhelming majority of them are NOT ambulance chasers and provide a necessary and vital service to their client. There are laws and regulations that govern the way they do business. There are ethics boards set up in every state to enforce these laws and regulations. These laws and regulations guard against "fleecing" the system. When an attorney operates outside of the laws and regulations, they are disciplined.

    2. When did I say that an insurance co. was not a for-profit business (although some are not)? I work for an insurance company. When rates are set, no matter the risk ir type of coverage, there are a number of factors taken into consideration, including being competitive and making a profit. But your assertion that they put a surcharge on the charged premium for the CEO's personal pocket is absurd.

    You see, one thing to remember here, Skippy, is that when my fingers hit the keyboard, I know what I am talking about.
    Now, now, little one. This must be traumatic for you. Maybe you can hug one of you lawyer teddybears.

    It is obvious you are slanted towards insurance companies and lawyers. That explains your inability to accept the criticism. Do the lawyers dicipline themselves as well as doctors? I'll bet a couple slip through, what do you think?

    How insurance companies operate was your tangent, not mine. You are a little too simple-minded to understand what I meant by the CEO comment. I'll try to dumb it down in the future.

    I never said all lawyers were leeches. Once again, it is your somewhat troubling infatuation with them that clouded you thinking.

    You have a lot of growing up to do, Skippy.

  10. #35
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    1. I have worked with lawyers every day of my life for about 25 years. The overwhelming majority of them are NOT ambulance chasers and provide a necessary and vital service to their client. There are laws and regulations that govern the way they do business. There are ethics boards set up in every state to enforce these laws and regulations. These laws and regulations guard against "fleecing" the system. When an attorney operates outside of the laws and regulations, they are disciplined.
    Everyone bashes lawyers until they need one. Half of a great line is nothing changes a conservative to a liberal faster than being arrested.

    I would always be surprised at how quickly numerous of my conservative colleagues would hire an attorney (an evil trial attorney at that) when they were injured on the job and were being screwed over by the department. All of a sudden attorneys weren't leeches any longer. They wanted a Seal Team in a suit to protect them.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #36
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Everyone bashes lawyers until they need one. Half of a great line is nothing changes a conservative to a liberal faster than being arrested.

    I would always be surprised at how quickly numerous of my conservative colleagues would hire an attorney (an evil trial attorney at that) when they were injured on the job and were being screwed over by the department. All of a sudden attorneys weren't leeches any longer. They wanted a Seal Team in a suit to protect them.
    I agree with you 100%. But I am confused why it is a bad thing that a person, conservative or liberal, exercises their right to legal representation. I would not hesitate to hire an attorney for a matter that I could not adequately bring to a conclustion by myself. But I am still confused what makes this a bad thing.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  12. #37
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pvfd27 View Post
    Now, now, little one. This must be traumatic for you. Maybe you can hug one of you lawyer teddybears.

    It is obvious you are slanted towards insurance companies and lawyers. That explains your inability to accept the criticism. Do the lawyers dicipline themselves as well as doctors? I'll bet a couple slip through, what do you think?

    How insurance companies operate was your tangent, not mine. You are a little too simple-minded to understand what I meant by the CEO comment. I'll try to dumb it down in the future.

    I never said all lawyers were leeches. Once again, it is your somewhat troubling infatuation with them that clouded you thinking.

    You have a lot of growing up to do, Skippy.
    You should really do a little research on who you are talking to, db.

    Three posts to the Ignore List. Probably a record.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  13. #38
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Everyone bashes lawyers until they need one. Half of a great line is nothing changes a conservative to a liberal faster than being arrested.

    I would always be surprised at how quickly numerous of my conservative colleagues would hire an attorney (an evil trial attorney at that) when they were injured on the job and were being screwed over by the department. All of a sudden attorneys weren't leeches any longer. They wanted a Seal Team in a suit to protect them.
    Interesting how you choose to ignore the millions of dollars that malpractice and trial lawyers use to contribute to mostly Democrats to prevent revamping of laws that are abused. You have no problem with this occurring - but don't let any group contribute to a Republican. You are a hypocrite.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  14. #39
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    312

    Default

    You do not want to know what I lend all of the problems to but let me add some real food for the thought about the post office and Social Security.

    Our type of country has lended to the so called "failure" of the USPS. In other countries the postal service is run by the governement and the govenrment only. Yes UPS and FEDEX deliver to those countries but guess what, the other countries governement still gets paid for the delivery. In other words you pay what it costs for FedEx to deliver plus what the government charges to deliver. Competition is allowed in our governement but with the post office the governemnt also has the right under law Article I, section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution (interpreated by the US Supreme Court) to operate and maintain a monopoly on the deliver of mail. They do not do this. It is in our US Constitution that there will be a Post office that is responsible for the delivery of mail and posting of roads. A change in our US Constituion to change the USPS would be nearly impossible. The Fed is required to do two things with our tax money, maintain a military and have a Post Office.


    A little dollar sense. The USPS handles 600 million letters and packages a day. Lets say for arguement sake that the average cost of a letter/package is $.50. that is $300 million a day. Now multiple that by 6 for the days they are open, that is $1.8 billion now multiple that by 52 weeks, that is $93.6 billion. NOONE can tell me that they cannot run the post office with nearly $100 billion dollars. How much of that $$$$ is going to fund other government projects or padding hte pockets of politicians?

    Social Security, no one planned on it getting so needed. When it started pension and retirement plans were also started. Which for a little more information retirement and pentions plans were started to recruit the sparse labor that was available after WWII. Companies did not want women back then they wanted men. Plus Social Security did not plan on women drawing off of it for themselves and not from a husband.

    There is a cap on the Social Security Tax that is paid buy us. The total cap is 12.4% which we only pay half of that. Which is 6.2%. The max dollar amount any one person will pay is $5580. So that means you or I pay the $5580 if we make $90,000 and Bill Gates who makes $11,000,000,000 (yes that is billion) a year pays $5580. Something is wrong there. And yes he can still draw Social Security.

    Federal Government Employees who pay into Social Securuty their entire career cannot draw Social Security.

    Given a 45 years of working in a career and other jobs you pay ~ $220,000 into social security. That money given a descent investment portfolio is worth about $762,000 when you reach the age to draw it. The average amount drawn from SS is $1060 a month. Say if you are lucky enough to draw for 30 years you get $381,960. What happended to the other $300,000 and the interest that is beeing earned while you are drawing it for those 30 years. That does not include if you are married and your spouse dies. You only get to draw the higher of the benefits, yours or your spouses.

    My Point is the programs will work. Everyone in governement needs to be removed and started a new with normal people nit some people that learned how to manipulate the system while in college.

  15. #40
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cappy05 View Post
    You do not want to know what I lend all of the problems to but let me add some real food for the thought about the post office and Social Security.

    Our type of country has lended to the so called "failure" of the USPS. In other countries the postal service is run by the governement and the govenrment only. Yes UPS and FEDEX deliver to those countries but guess what, the other countries governement still gets paid for the delivery. In other words you pay what it costs for FedEx to deliver plus what the government charges to deliver. Competition is allowed in our governement but with the post office the governemnt also has the right under law Article I, section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution (interpreated by the US Supreme Court) to operate and maintain a monopoly on the deliver of mail. They do not do this. It is in our US Constitution that there will be a Post office that is responsible for the delivery of mail and posting of roads. A change in our US Constituion to change the USPS would be nearly impossible. The Fed is required to do two things with our tax money, maintain a military and have a Post Office.


    A little dollar sense. The USPS handles 600 million letters and packages a day. Lets say for arguement sake that the average cost of a letter/package is $.50. that is $300 million a day. Now multiple that by 6 for the days they are open, that is $1.8 billion now multiple that by 52 weeks, that is $93.6 billion. NOONE can tell me that they cannot run the post office with nearly $100 billion dollars. How much of that $$$$ is going to fund other government projects or padding hte pockets of politicians?

    Social Security, no one planned on it getting so needed. When it started pension and retirement plans were also started. Which for a little more information retirement and pentions plans were started to recruit the sparse labor that was available after WWII. Companies did not want women back then they wanted men. Plus Social Security did not plan on women drawing off of it for themselves and not from a husband.

    There is a cap on the Social Security Tax that is paid buy us. The total cap is 12.4% which we only pay half of that. Which is 6.2%. The max dollar amount any one person will pay is $5580. So that means you or I pay the $5580 if we make $90,000 and Bill Gates who makes $11,000,000,000 (yes that is billion) a year pays $5580. Something is wrong there. And yes he can still draw Social Security.

    Federal Government Employees who pay into Social Securuty their entire career cannot draw Social Security.

    Given a 45 years of working in a career and other jobs you pay ~ $220,000 into social security. That money given a descent investment portfolio is worth about $762,000 when you reach the age to draw it. The average amount drawn from SS is $1060 a month. Say if you are lucky enough to draw for 30 years you get $381,960. What happended to the other $300,000 and the interest that is beeing earned while you are drawing it for those 30 years. That does not include if you are married and your spouse dies. You only get to draw the higher of the benefits, yours or your spouses.

    My Point is the programs will work. Everyone in governement needs to be removed and started a new with normal people nit some people that learned how to manipulate the system while in college.
    I agree with you that no one should be exempt from social Security taxes and there shouldn't be a maximum limit. The SS system has become more than just a retirement system. One can get SSI without ever contribution a dime.

    FYI, Federal employees do collect SS at retirement. It is included in our retirement planning.

    As for the Post Office, they are the only ones who deliver letters. UPS and FEDEX deliver packages, which are sometimes overnight letters.

  16. #41
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    You should really do a little research on who you are talking to, db.

    Three posts to the Ignore List. Probably a record.
    Impressive argument, da. Please forward the list of your earth shattering contributions to society.


    YAWnnnnnn...

  17. #42
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    17

    Question

    So do we want government intervention or do we want the market to decide these issues?

  18. #43
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1990Retired View Post
    So do we want government intervention or do we want the market to decide these issues?
    Well, since the federal government consumes 30% of GDP, and having Health care consume 15% is too much, then one can easily see that Federal government has gotten to big and needs to be shrunk

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 2 First 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Food For Thought?
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-16-2009, 07:16 PM
  2. FDNY-Food for Thought
    By FLA1786 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03-15-2007, 05:14 PM
  3. Food For Thought? Lol
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-06-2006, 12:12 PM
  4. Safety Food For Thought
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-02-2006, 09:50 AM
  5. Food for Thought #1
    By Dalmatian90 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-06-2002, 11:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register