Entire U.S. Stealth Fighter Fleet Grounded

[John Galt?]

The ONLY thing (After obama-fail is repealed) that needs to be done to fix health care is to allow insurance companies to offer insurance across state lines. When there is only one or two companies offering in a state, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the problem. The ONLY thing government, on any level, should have to do with health care is to ensure it is fair, does not discriminate or cheat.

Disagree. The problem with HC is free market economics doesn't work because the person getting the product or service isn't the one footing the bill. Bob hurt his knee, clinic A charges $5500 for an MRI, clinic B charges $2500 but the nurse at A is hotter and A is closer, and since the co-pay after insurance is the same Bob goes to clinic A.

The other problem is you have Fraud. Joe goes to the clinic for a broken leg and says he is paying cash-X-Ray costs $500, Jim is on Medicare and goes to the same clinic for an X-ray and the bill is $3500, and since Jim only pays $10.00 he doesn't care.

That is why I like the Norway system where Insurance Cos, Doctors, and Pharma all pre-negotiate standard costs for things. Insurers want the costs as low as possible, providers want it high as possible and pharma just wants to gouge them all. Put them in a room and tell them don't come out till you have an agreement.

[dalbuc]

Disagree. The problem with HC is free market economics doesn't work because the person getting the product or service isn't the one footing the bill. Bob hurt his knee, clinic A charges $5500 for an MRI, clinic B charges $2500 but the nurse at A is hotter and A is closer, and since the co-pay after insurance is the same Bob goes to clinic A.

It is why you really want to move to a plan of catastrophic coverage + MSA's where cost enters into your decision making but you are covered against being bankrupted by a health crisis.

[Freddy]

The ONLY thing (After obama-fail is repealed) that needs to be done to fix health care is to allow insurance companies to offer insurance across state lines. When there is only one or two companies offering in a state, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the problem. The ONLY thing government, on any level, should have to do with health care is to ensure it is fair, does not discriminate or cheat.

Disagree. The problem with HC is free market economics doesn't work because the person getting the product or service isn't the one footing the bill. Bob hurt his knee, clinic A charges $5500 for an MRI, clinic B charges $2500 but the nurse at A is hotter and A is closer, and since the co-pay after insurance is the same Bob goes to clinic A.

The other problem is you have Fraud. Joe goes to the clinic for a broken leg and says he is paying cash-X-Ray costs $500, Jim is on Medicare and goes to the same clinic for an X-ray and the bill is $3500, and since Jim only pays $10.00 he doesn't care.

That is why I like the Norway system where Insurance Cos, Doctors, and Pharma all pre-negotiate standard costs for things. Insurers want the costs as low as possible, providers want it high as possible and pharma just wants to gouge them all. Put them in a room and tell them don't come out till you have an agreement.

And in trying to disagree you make my point even stronger. The reason such things that you mentioned can happen is because who else is the customer going to go to. If I had as many health insurance companies to choose from as I did home owners or even auto insurance, the prices would drop, options expand and fraud greatly reduced.

But lest talk about people not caring because they don't pay.

I work out daily, eat right, and do the right things to try and stay healthy. Yet I would still pay the exact same "Health Care" tax as some smoke pot fat slob who doesn't care because it doesn't cost him anymore. Why am I penalized for doing the right thing and he is rewarded for being a fat slob? And yes, there are HUGE taxes, I think the average tax in Norway is 48%, That's not just people making a lot of money, that's the average person, half his pay goes straight to the government. Same for most socialist countries, the taxation is near 50%.

There is no such thing as free health care and people who say that are just being silly. The only two options are you keep your money and make your own choices or the government strips you of your money and decision making ability.

[John Galt?]

The ONLY thing (After obama-fail is repealed) that needs to be done to fix health care is to allow insurance companies to offer insurance across state lines. When there is only one or two companies offering in a state, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the problem. The ONLY thing government, on any level, should have to do with health care is to ensure it is fair, does not discriminate or cheat.

Disagree. The problem with HC is free market economics doesn't work because the person getting the product or service isn't the one footing the bill. Bob hurt his knee, clinic A charges $5500 for an MRI, clinic B charges $2500 but the nurse at A is hotter and A is closer, and since the co-pay after insurance is the same Bob goes to clinic A.

The other problem is you have Fraud. Joe goes to the clinic for a broken leg and says he is paying cash-X-Ray costs $500, Jim is on Medicare and goes to the same clinic for an X-ray and the bill is $3500, and since Jim only pays $10.00 he doesn't care.

That is why I like the Norway system where Insurance Cos, Doctors, and Pharma all pre-negotiate standard costs for things. Insurers want the costs as low as possible, providers want it high as possible and pharma just wants to gouge them all. Put them in a room and tell them don't come out till you have an agreement.

And in trying to disagree you make my point even stronger.

Actually, I agree with your point, I disagreed with the word "ONLY". I firmly believe there has to be enough insurer's for there to be choices and competition.

There is no such thing as free health care and people who say that are just being silly. The only two options are you keep your money and make your own choices or the government strips you of your money and decision making ability.

Who said anything about "free" health care? What I wrote was replacing medicare/medicaid with private insurance with the state using Medicare tax to cover some retired and poor people's (not all) premiums.

[Freddy]

JG - Correct you specifically did not say free health care, but it has been mentioned in this thread in particular and in the HC debate in general. And yes "ONLY" is not entirely correct unless talking vague generalities. There are in fact many things that would have to be done but I was talking in the general sense.

Now what I will agree on is a national HC plan that I can 100% opt out of. And that means not paying the equivalent taxes for it either. That way if I can afford it I can get my own HC, but for those not so fortunate, they can get basic HC too. But just basic, no cosmetic no elective. Sure laser surgery can fix their eyes, but if a $19 pair of glasses can too, then they get the glasses. If they want laser surgery they pay for it.

[John Galt?]

JG - Correct you specifically did not say free health care, but it has been mentioned in this thread in particular and in the HC debate in general. And yes "ONLY" is not entirely correct unless talking vague generalities. There are in fact many things that would have to be done but I was talking in the general sense.

Now what I will agree on is a national HC plan that I can 100% opt out of. And that means not paying the equivalent taxes for it either. That way if I can afford it I can get my own HC, but for those not so fortunate, they can get basic HC too. But just basic, no cosmetic no elective. Sure laser surgery can fix their eyes, but if a $19 pair of glasses can too, then they get the glasses. If they want laser surgery they pay for it.

What I want is a national HC plan with as little "national" in it as possible. Like I posted a private insurance program with lots of insurers (and different plans) and no one excluded for "pre-existing". Scrap Medicare/caid (which reduces the deficit by nearly half!!) and let private insurers do it, with premium assistance from the gov. for the poor/retired. Mostly I want a plan that is budget balanced instead of the giant sucking vortex of Obamacare, Medicare/caid

[Freddy]

OK John let talk pre-existing a moment OK. And lets try and continue to be un-Washington like as I think we've had a civil conversation so far.

I'm not 100% locked into a position on this as what I think is fair and sensible does not match with what I think is morally correct. If an insurance company is forced to accept people no matter of pre-existing conditions, that raises the costs for those that do not have those conditions. It is morally sound to offer that but again why should I have to pay more money because someone I don't even know has a pre-existing condition. Hey I feel sorry for the family with the 7 year old fighting cancer, but why should I have to pay part of the bill?  Because you know that is exactly how it will happen, If an insurance company is forced to pay more for HC, they will just turn around and charge more from everyone.

Then we have to ask what is pre-existing? If it means what it means under Obama-fail, then people can opt out of any and all insurances and just wait until they get sick. Why pay premiums for years, wait until you get sick. They have to accept you. That alone would drive insurances companies into default. It's almost like allowing people to buy life insurance on a loved one up to 30 days after they have died.   

In reality this demonstrates one of the biggest problems in HC. No matter what system there is, there is a horror story that can demonstrate it's failings.

[ONEBIGDADDY]

How many of our drones can we use instead of using Human Piloted aircraft? I think that is the way we should go. With Satetilites and such Its pretty much going that way regardless...OBD

[ONEBIGDADDY]

OK John let talk pre-existing a moment OK. And lets try and continue to be un-Washington like as I think we've had a civil conversation so far.

I'm not 100% locked into a position on this as what I think is fair and sensible does not match with what I think is morally correct. If an insurance company is forced to accept people no matter of pre-existing conditions, that raises the costs for those that do not have those conditions. It is morally sound to offer that but again why should I have to pay more money because someone I don't even know has a pre-existing condition. Hey I feel sorry for the family with the 7 year old fighting cancer, but why should I have to pay part of the bill?  Because you know that is exactly how it will happen, If an insurance company is forced to pay more for HC, they will just turn around and charge more from everyone.

Then we have to ask what is pre-existing? If it means what it means under Obama-fail, then people can opt out of any and all insurances and just wait until they get sick. Why pay premiums for years, wait until you get sick. They have to accept you. That alone would drive insurances companies into default. It's almost like allowing people to buy life insurance on a loved one up to 30 days after they have died.   

In reality this demonstrates one of the biggest problems in HC. No matter what system there is, there is a horror story that can demonstrate it's failings.

The question is how many of our family members have paid for people with pre existing conditions through entittlements and not through insurances and taxes. Its just a shell game of where the money comes from...It ends up that we all paid regardless of who it is.

[Freddy]

OK John let talk pre-existing a moment OK. And lets try and continue to be un-Washington like as I think we've had a civil conversation so far.

I'm not 100% locked into a position on this as what I think is fair and sensible does not match with what I think is morally correct. If an insurance company is forced to accept people no matter of pre-existing conditions, that raises the costs for those that do not have those conditions. It is morally sound to offer that but again why should I have to pay more money because someone I don't even know has a pre-existing condition. Hey I feel sorry for the family with the 7 year old fighting cancer, but why should I have to pay part of the bill?  Because you know that is exactly how it will happen, If an insurance company is forced to pay more for HC, they will just turn around and charge more from everyone.

Then we have to ask what is pre-existing? If it means what it means under Obama-fail, then people can opt out of any and all insurances and just wait until they get sick. Why pay premiums for years, wait until you get sick. They have to accept you. That alone would drive insurances companies into default. It's almost like allowing people to buy life insurance on a loved one up to 30 days after they have died.   

In reality this demonstrates one of the biggest problems in HC. No matter what system there is, there is a horror story that can demonstrate it's failings.

The question is how many of our family members have paid for people with pre existing conditions through entittlements and not through insurances and taxes. Its just a shell game of where the money comes from...It ends up that we all paid regardless of who it is.

Not true, because you knows as well as I, those entitlements (which I don't think are as frequent as you may be suggesting) won't go away, but my costs will certainly continue to rise. Since Obama-fail has passed, my HC costs have doubled with zero change health wise. And that I am most positive is directly related to the pre-existing condition clause.

[ONEBIGDADDY]

OK John let talk pre-existing a moment OK. And lets try and continue to be un-Washington like as I think we've had a civil conversation so far.

I'm not 100% locked into a position on this as what I think is fair and sensible does not match with what I think is morally correct. If an insurance company is forced to accept people no matter of pre-existing conditions, that raises the costs for those that do not have those conditions. It is morally sound to offer that but again why should I have to pay more money because someone I don't even know has a pre-existing condition. Hey I feel sorry for the family with the 7 year old fighting cancer, but why should I have to pay part of the bill?  Because you know that is exactly how it will happen, If an insurance company is forced to pay more for HC, they will just turn around and charge more from everyone.

Then we have to ask what is pre-existing? If it means what it means under Obama-fail, then people can opt out of any and all insurances and just wait until they get sick. Why pay premiums for years, wait until you get sick. They have to accept you. That alone would drive insurances companies into default. It's almost like allowing people to buy life insurance on a loved one up to 30 days after they have died.   

In reality this demonstrates one of the biggest problems in HC. No matter what system there is, there is a horror story that can demonstrate it's failings.

The question is how many of our family members have paid for people with pre existing conditions through entittlements and not through insurances and taxes. Its just a shell game of where the money comes from...It ends up that we all paid regardless of who it is.

Not true, because you knows as well as I, those entitlements (which I don't think are as frequent as you may be suggesting) won't go away, but my costs will certainly continue to rise. Since Obama-fail has passed, my HC costs have doubled with zero change health wise. And that I am most positive is directly related to the pre-existing condition clause.

Insurance has gone up substantially every year and even now more. Name one year where insurance has gone down? We are mandated to insure everything and then if it is too costly then the insurance companies say...Oh well we used to cover that but not anymore...You can't win lose or draw with insurance companies anymore...JMVHO...OBD

[Freddy]

OK John let talk pre-existing a moment OK. And lets try and continue to be un-Washington like as I think we've had a civil conversation so far.

I'm not 100% locked into a position on this as what I think is fair and sensible does not match with what I think is morally correct. If an insurance company is forced to accept people no matter of pre-existing conditions, that raises the costs for those that do not have those conditions. It is morally sound to offer that but again why should I have to pay more money because someone I don't even know has a pre-existing condition. Hey I feel sorry for the family with the 7 year old fighting cancer, but why should I have to pay part of the bill?  Because you know that is exactly how it will happen, If an insurance company is forced to pay more for HC, they will just turn around and charge more from everyone.

Then we have to ask what is pre-existing? If it means what it means under Obama-fail, then people can opt out of any and all insurances and just wait until they get sick. Why pay premiums for years, wait until you get sick. They have to accept you. That alone would drive insurances companies into default. It's almost like allowing people to buy life insurance on a loved one up to 30 days after they have died.   

In reality this demonstrates one of the biggest problems in HC. No matter what system there is, there is a horror story that can demonstrate it's failings.

The question is how many of our family members have paid for people with pre existing conditions through entittlements and not through insurances and taxes. Its just a shell game of where the money comes from...It ends up that we all paid regardless of who it is.

Not true, because you knows as well as I, those entitlements (which I don't think are as frequent as you may be suggesting) won't go away, but my costs will certainly continue to rise. Since Obama-fail has passed, my HC costs have doubled with zero change health wise. And that I am most positive is directly related to the pre-existing condition clause.

Insurance has gone up substantially every year and even now more. Name one year where insurance has gone down? We are mandated to insure everything and then if it is too costly then the insurance companies say...Oh well we used to cover that but not anymore...You can't win lose or draw with insurance companies anymore...JMVHO...OBD

You are correct, but no, my HC costs had not gone up for several years, but then I get hit with a 100% increase in one year. That is quite a bit. But you know how to get the Insurance companies to play fair, let more of them in. It is just stupid insurance companies (HC wise) can't cross state lines, simply stupid.

[Morgan]

Defense cuts loom over debt ‘super committee’

By Donna Cassata - The Associated Press
Posted : Sunday Aug 14, 2011 10:34:44 EDT

WASHINGTON — For the dozen lawmakers given the task of producing a deficit-cutting plan, the threatened “doomsday” defense cuts hit close to home.

The six Republicans and six Democrats represent states where the biggest military contractors — Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics Corp., Raytheon Co. and Boeing Co. — build missiles, aircraft, jet fighters and tanks while employing tens of thousands of workers.

The potential for $500 billion more in defense cuts could force the Pentagon to cancel or scale back multibillion-dollar weapons programs. That could translate into significant layoffs in a fragile economy, generate millions less in tax revenues for local governments and upend lucrative company contracts with foreign nations.

The cuts could hammer Everett, Wash., where some of the 30,000 Boeing employees are working on giant airborne refueling tankers for the Air Force, or Amarillo, Texas, where 1,100 Bell Helicopter Textron workers assemble the fuselage, wings, engines and transmissions for the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.

Billions in defense cuts would be a blow to the hundreds working on upgrades to the Abrams tank for General Dynamics in Lima, Ohio, or the employees of BAE Systems in Pennsylvania.

For committee members such as Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash.; Rob Portman, R-Ohio; and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., the threat of Pentagon cuts is an incentive to come up with $1.5 trillion in savings over a decade. Failure would have brutal implications for hundreds of thousands workers back home and raise the potential of political peril for the committee’s 12.

“I think we all have very good reasons to try to prevent” the automatic cuts, Toomey told reporters last week when pressed about the impact on Pennsylvania’s defense industry.

The panel has until Thanksgiving to come up with recommendations. If they deadlock or if Congress rejects their proposal, $1.2 trillion in automatic, across-the-board cuts kick in. Up to $500 billion would hit the Pentagon.

Those cuts, starting in 2013, would be in addition to the $350 billion, 10-year reduction already dictated by the debt-limit bill approved by Congress and signed into law by President Obama this month.

Not surprisingly, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has described the automatic cuts as the “doomsday mechanism.”

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/08/ap-military-defense-cuts-loom-over-committee-081411/

[ONEBIGDADDY]

OK John let talk pre-existing a moment OK. And lets try and continue to be un-Washington like as I think we've had a civil conversation so far.

I'm not 100% locked into a position on this as what I think is fair and sensible does not match with what I think is morally correct. If an insurance company is forced to accept people no matter of pre-existing conditions, that raises the costs for those that do not have those conditions. It is morally sound to offer that but again why should I have to pay more money because someone I don't even know has a pre-existing condition. Hey I feel sorry for the family with the 7 year old fighting cancer, but why should I have to pay part of the bill?  Because you know that is exactly how it will happen, If an insurance company is forced to pay more for HC, they will just turn around and charge more from everyone.

Then we have to ask what is pre-existing? If it means what it means under Obama-fail, then people can opt out of any and all insurances and just wait until they get sick. Why pay premiums for years, wait until you get sick. They have to accept you. That alone would drive insurances companies into default. It's almost like allowing people to buy life insurance on a loved one up to 30 days after they have died.   

In reality this demonstrates one of the biggest problems in HC. No matter what system there is, there is a horror story that can demonstrate it's failings.

The question is how many of our family members have paid for people with pre existing conditions through entittlements and not through insurances and taxes. Its just a shell game of where the money comes from...It ends up that we all paid regardless of who it is.

Not true, because you knows as well as I, those entitlements (which I don't think are as frequent as you may be suggesting) won't go away, but my costs will certainly continue to rise. Since Obama-fail has passed, my HC costs have doubled with zero change health wise. And that I am most positive is directly related to the pre-existing condition clause.

Insurance has gone up substantially every year and even now more. Name one year where insurance has gone down? We are mandated to insure everything and then if it is too costly then the insurance companies say...Oh well we used to cover that but not anymore...You can't win lose or draw with insurance companies anymore...JMVHO...OBD

You are correct, but no, my HC costs had not gone up for several years, but then I get hit with a 100% increase in one year. That is quite a bit. But you know how to get the Insurance companies to play fair, let more of them in. It is just stupid insurance companies (HC wise) can't cross state lines, simply stupid.

Our company health care cost go up every year and as our employees get older the rates go up. So the answer to the problem is to fire the older ones or have them euthanized which totally uncalled for. I do not have an easy answer just like you and my parents and grand parents have paid for entitlements for people through taxes and such and so will others. Everyone needs to pay their fair share and to get that to happen is near impossible unless you do a straight flat tax and no politician wants to do that...OBD

[Freddy]

Our company health care cost go up every year and as our employees get older the rates go up. So the answer to the problem is to fire the older ones or have them euthanized which totally uncalled for. I do not have an easy answer just like you and my parents and grand parents have paid for entitlements for people through taxes and such and so will others. Everyone needs to pay their fair share and to get that to happen is near impossible unless you do a straight flat tax and no politician wants to do that...OBD

There goes another one of those worthless slogans, sorry guy, can you please explain to me what is "fair share"? As in actual numbers. How much of my total income should I pay in taxes? 10% 20% 50% how much?

I hear this stated so often and it has absolutely no merit most of the time. Just like the euthanize comment. Typical, 100% statements lacking in any real fact.