RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

eulero83 -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/11/2014 8:14:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I don't understand what you wrote here. share more details since 1934 health care in italy was provided through a private providers and statuatory corporations payers, so as a worker your employer (or yourself if self employed) whould give a mandatory share of your salary to the statuatory company that covered health care for your working category, so if you were a plumber or an eletrician you had an insurance that the confederation of craftsmen would negotiate for the whole category. Those companies went broke in 1977 and so the governament nationalized the system fixing the problem with no impact on the people's lifestyle. This are not numbers, but if the people could not support the private system but can support the public one you can make an educated guess on what happened to the costs.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/11/2014 9:08:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I don't understand what you wrote here. share more details since 1934 health care in italy was provided through a private providers and statuatory corporations payers, so as a worker your employer (or yourself if self employed) whould give a mandatory share of your salary to the statuatory company that covered health care for your working category, so if you were a plumber or an eletrician you had an insurance that the confederation of craftsmen would negotiate for the whole category. Those companies went broke in 1977 and so the governament nationalized the system fixing the problem with no impact on the people's lifestyle. This are not numbers, but if the people could not support the private system but can support the public one you can make an educated guess on what happened to the costs. Thanks for the clarification. Government doesn't have to break even, let along make a profit. Is it really a huge deal if government "loses" $100B on a service? They'll just take it from somewhere else. That's the problem. Obamacare passed, and a month later, the report comes out that the government can't spend the amount of money it's going to spend on health care, social security and welfare at current spending and taxing levels. Either benefits had to drop, taxes had to go up, or both. Now, I'm not a rocket surgeon, but even I know that this wasn't news to anyone. This was part of the pushback against Obamacare (that we were already spending too damn much on social support services). Yet, it was treated as news, but not until after Obamacare passed. The plot to show Obamacare wasn't going to cost over $1T? Not only did they bundle 10 years of Obamacare income with 6 years of Obamacare pay outs, but they also had to add in an education bill to get it under $1T net. They knew it wasn't even going to be close to debt neutral. Yet, individual procedure and service costs aren't going to drop. Costs are going to continue to go up. The cost of insurance is going to keep going up (not surprising to some, as the cost of insurance is fairly linked to the cost of individual medical procedures and services). The only thing we can hope for, short of repeal, is that we see a very similar rate of growth as those with a national health care system, though I highly doubt that will happen.

eulero83 -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/11/2014 11:20:56 AM)
DesideriScuri to me you are not spending enough on social services, your taxes are not high enough for the highest income and you are spending too much in warfare, this creates a strong financial economy but weakens and destabilizate the real economy, you for sure remember the 2008. Obamacare does not change the game as it mainly is a Blow Job to the insurance companies without any stabilizating effect, but after the cold war brain washing I don't see any possible improvement to the democrats sucking corporation's dicks with the republicans rimming the anus at the same time (I mean corporation are people so they have sexual needs too).

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/11/2014 6:35:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'll be blunt, the sort of docs that are doing that are the worst sort. The rates are not low. Do you have your own practice now, Doctor Ken? I pay 20% of those bills. I know precisely how much those doctors get. If you think it's low you're welcome to take my bills off my hands. (He's lying again). You mean you don't believe that the doctors are sharing their pay stubs with DK. That is just shocking. I am sure they not only tell him how much money they make, they also show him their stock portfolios and ask advice. And as far as him having to pay out the ass for decent care, well he is under the CMS umbrella so that doesn't surprise me a bit. It's just a shame he blames the insurance companies and can't see it's his own government that is screwing him over. You are a lying sack of shit. I never claimed to see any doctor's pay stubs. I do know precisely how much my doctor's get from me so it isn't hard to figure out how much they make. I will point out again that the first thing my HMO did when it found out I was going on dialysis was cancel my entire company's plan (it couldn't legally cancel just me so they dumped my whole company) which forced me onto Medicare since no insurance company would insure someone in renal failure. So no it is not the government screwing me over. If it wasn't for Medicare I would be dead.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/11/2014 6:38:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Payroll, rent, equipment, debt, living expenses etc. What do you think they cover? How much are their costs, dumbass? What does your "not low" charges pay for? 20% of everything. Don't you fucking get it? If the doctor takes a Medicare patient, the feds pay 80% of the bill and the patient pays the rest. How many different ways does this have to be explained to you?

thishereboi -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/11/2014 7:41:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'll be blunt, the sort of docs that are doing that are the worst sort. The rates are not low. Do you have your own practice now, Doctor Ken? I pay 20% of those bills. I know precisely how much those doctors get. If you think it's low you're welcome to take my bills off my hands. (He's lying again). You mean you don't believe that the doctors are sharing their pay stubs with DK. That is just shocking. I am sure they not only tell him how much money they make, they also show him their stock portfolios and ask advice. And as far as him having to pay out the ass for decent care, well he is under the CMS umbrella so that doesn't surprise me a bit. It's just a shame he blames the insurance companies and can't see it's his own government that is screwing him over. You are a lying sack of shit. I never claimed to see any doctor's pay stubs. I do know precisely how much my doctor's get from me so it isn't hard to figure out how much they make. I will point out again that the first thing my HMO did when it found out I was going on dialysis was cancel my entire company's plan (it couldn't legally cancel just me so they dumped my whole company) which forced me onto Medicare since no insurance company would insure someone in renal failure. So no it is not the government screwing me over. If it wasn't for Medicare I would be dead. No you didn't claim to see their pay stubs, you claimed you knew precisely how much they get. Now you change that to it isn't hard to figure out. But then again sticking to one story has never been a strong suit with you.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/12/2014 4:27:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Payroll, rent, equipment, debt, living expenses etc. What do you think they cover? How much are their costs, dumbass? What does your "not low" charges pay for? 20% of everything. Don't you fucking get it? If the doctor takes a Medicare patient, the feds pay 80% of the bill and the patient pays the rest. How many different ways does this have to be explained to you? FFS, Ken. You are making a claim that the reimbursement payments aren't low. While, technically, they may not be low, to you, you are not receiving them, nor are you incurring the costs of providing them. If the reimbursements are 1/10th of it costs to provide the service, it doesn't matter how high the rate is, in your view, they are low, compared to the costs.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/12/2014 4:52:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'll be blunt, the sort of docs that are doing that are the worst sort. The rates are not low. Do you have your own practice now, Doctor Ken? I pay 20% of those bills. I know precisely how much those doctors get. If you think it's low you're welcome to take my bills off my hands. (He's lying again). You mean you don't believe that the doctors are sharing their pay stubs with DK. That is just shocking. I am sure they not only tell him how much money they make, they also show him their stock portfolios and ask advice. And as far as him having to pay out the ass for decent care, well he is under the CMS umbrella so that doesn't surprise me a bit. It's just a shame he blames the insurance companies and can't see it's his own government that is screwing him over. You are a lying sack of shit. I never claimed to see any doctor's pay stubs. I do know precisely how much my doctor's get from me so it isn't hard to figure out how much they make. I will point out again that the first thing my HMO did when it found out I was going on dialysis was cancel my entire company's plan (it couldn't legally cancel just me so they dumped my whole company) which forced me onto Medicare since no insurance company would insure someone in renal failure. So no it is not the government screwing me over. If it wasn't for Medicare I would be dead. No you didn't claim to see their pay stubs, you claimed you knew precisely how much they get. Now you change that to it isn't hard to figure out. But then again sticking to one story has never been a strong suit with you. I know precisely how much they get from me and precisely how much they get from Medicare. 20 + 80 = 100. How hard is that to figure out dumbass? I didn't claim to know how much they take home. Why do you spend so much time trolling?

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/12/2014 4:57:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Payroll, rent, equipment, debt, living expenses etc. What do you think they cover? How much are their costs, dumbass? What does your "not low" charges pay for? 20% of everything. Don't you fucking get it? If the doctor takes a Medicare patient, the feds pay 80% of the bill and the patient pays the rest. How many different ways does this have to be explained to you? FFS, Ken. You are making a claim that the reimbursement payments aren't low. While, technically, they may not be low, to you, you are not receiving them, nor are you incurring the costs of providing them. If the reimbursements are 1/10th of it costs to provide the service, it doesn't matter how high the rate is, in your view, they are low, compared to the costs. My nephrologist, who sees nothing but dialysis patients who are almost all on Medicare drives, amongst other luxury cars, a brand new Jaguar F type convertible which starts at $81k so I think he's doing ok. The company that owns the clinic is opening more so that business must also be profitable.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/12/2014 5:00:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Payroll, rent, equipment, debt, living expenses etc. What do you think they cover? How much are their costs, dumbass? What does your "not low" charges pay for? 20% of everything. Don't you fucking get it? If the doctor takes a Medicare patient, the feds pay 80% of the bill and the patient pays the rest. How many different ways does this have to be explained to you? FFS, Ken. You are making a claim that the reimbursement payments aren't low. While, technically, they may not be low, to you, you are not receiving them, nor are you incurring the costs of providing them. If the reimbursements are 1/10th of it costs to provide the service, it doesn't matter how high the rate is, in your view, they are low, compared to the costs. My nephrologist, who sees nothing but dialysis patients who are almost all on Medicare drives, amongst other luxury cars, a brand new Jaguar F type convertible which starts at $81k so I think he's doing ok. The company that owns the clinic is opening more so that business must also be profitable. So, you don't know. Got it.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/12/2014 5:08:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Payroll, rent, equipment, debt, living expenses etc. What do you think they cover? How much are their costs, dumbass? What does your "not low" charges pay for? 20% of everything. Don't you fucking get it? If the doctor takes a Medicare patient, the feds pay 80% of the bill and the patient pays the rest. How many different ways does this have to be explained to you? FFS, Ken. You are making a claim that the reimbursement payments aren't low. While, technically, they may not be low, to you, you are not receiving them, nor are you incurring the costs of providing them. If the reimbursements are 1/10th of it costs to provide the service, it doesn't matter how high the rate is, in your view, they are low, compared to the costs. My nephrologist, who sees nothing but dialysis patients who are almost all on Medicare drives, amongst other luxury cars, a brand new Jaguar F type convertible which starts at $81k so I think he's doing ok. The company that owns the clinic is opening more so that business must also be profitable. So, you don't know. Got it. Do you think the guy is going broke buying a new Jag? Really? This fantasy right wingers have that doctors are fleeing the Medicare is absurd. Doctors are always happy to take Medicare. I've never yet had any doctor not take Medicare. Don't you have older relatives? Ask them.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/12/2014 5:15:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Do you think the guy is going broke buying a new Jag? Really? Jealous much? quote: This fantasy right wingers have that doctors are fleeing the Medicare is absurd. Doctors are always happy to take Medicare. I've never yet had any doctor not take Medicare. Don't you have older relatives? Ask them. So, your results are the rule, then? Do you agree or disagree with non-Americans on this board, that live under a national health system, who claim that government setting the reimbursement rates is how we can see an immediate slashing of our costs?

Sanity -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/12/2014 7:36:49 AM)
dk is full of shit I know people who are constantly turned down because they are on Medicare Its very common, I would say the norm What is unusual is finding physicians who accept new Medicare patients

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/12/2014 7:43:40 AM)
No, you don't.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/12/2014 8:02:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity dk is full of shit I know people who are constantly turned down because they are on Medicare Its very common, I would say the norm What is unusual is finding physicians who accept new Medicare patients Actually, his claim may not be full of shit (regarding the acceptance of Medicare patients). His claim was that he hasn't seen a Dr. not take a Medicare patient. It can be 100% true, but I'm not going to believe he's seen a majority of Dr.'s out there to make his claim the "norm," though it very well could be.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/12/2014 9:48:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity dk is full of shit I know people who are constantly turned down because they are on Medicare Its very common, I would say the norm What is unusual is finding physicians who accept new Medicare patients Sure... How many doctors are there in middle of nowhere Idaho anyway? Is it just the one proctologist you see to try and get your head out of your ass?

Sanity -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/12/2014 11:41:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Sure... How many doctors are there in middle of nowhere Idaho anyway? Is it just the one proctologist you see to try and get your head out of your ass? Careful of those cornered rats, they may try and lash out And they might have diseases

Tkman117 -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/12/2014 12:29:37 PM)
Well people like you advocating against vaccines, it's likely they will.

Sanity -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/12/2014 7:33:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Well people like you advocating against vaccines, it's likely they will. The voices in your head have misinformed you again, Ive never advocated against vaccines

BamaD -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/12/2014 8:19:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Well people like you advocating against vaccines, it's likely they will. The voices in your head have misinformed you again, Ive never advocated against vaccines Jenny McCarthy is against them and since she isn't a card carrying communist all conservatives must be against vaccines.

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625