An Inconvenient Truth

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by saden1

This discussion isn't going anywhere but lets be clear on one thing, creating and inventing are not the same. To perpetuate the idea that they are the same is a Definist fallacy and disingenuous.

I don't think he meant to claim credit for inventing the internet, but he should probably choose his words a little more carefully. Simple slip of the tongue....nothing more.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I don't think he meant to claim credit for inventing the internet, but he should probably choose his words a little more carefully. Simple slip of the tongue....nothing more.

i agree, but this depends on which way you choose to lean. alittle to the left, or alittle to the right

[JoeRedskin]

He made a slip of the tongue while doing some self promoting and gleefully got called on it by the opposing party.

Does it prove he is a liar? probably not - I mean really, does anyone really believe he would make such a ridiculous claim and expect everyone to belieive it? Does it show he has a slighty inflated sense of his role? maybe, who knows - he may honestly believe he was instrumental in the creation of the internet.

Is it politics as usual in this country? Absolutely - for both major parties.

[Schneed10]

I don't doubt that Al Gore is right about global warming, it's just that I care a lot more about the poor people in our country getting health insurance than I do about global warming.

If forcing companies to be greener costs them money, they're going to respond by either:

1) Cutting back on benefits
2) Charge the employees more for health insurance
3) Or just flat lay people off or hire fewer people

Our country has a lot more important things to worry about than global warming. Al Gore, do you seriously think I'm going to listen to your bitching and moaning about the environment when we have much more pressing economic challenges at hand? Get your effing priorities straight.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I don't doubt that Al Gore is right about global warming, it's just that I care a lot more about the poor people in our country getting health insurance than I do about global warming.

If forcing companies to be greener costs them money, they're going to respond by either:

1) Cutting back on benefits
2) Charge the employees more for health insurance
3) Or just flat lay people off or hire fewer people

Our country has a lot more important things to worry about than global warming. Al Gore, do you seriously think I'm going to listen to your bitching and moaning about the environment when we have much more pressing economic challenges at hand? Get your effing priorities straight.

By what you said I guess that you believe that over 40,000,000 Americans cannot afford health care?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

By what you said I guess that you believe that over 40,000,000 Americans cannot afford health care?

I suppose you are quoting the estimates that say 40 million people in our country are uninsured or underinsured.

Yes I do believe those numbers. If you want to argue them with me, be my guest, but I have to warn you you're stepping right into my wheelhouse. I'm a financial analyst for the biggest provider to uninsured/underinsured patients in Pennsylvania: Temple University Health System.

That was in the interests of full disclosure. Did you know that as of July 1 2007, there will be only 5 hospitals delivering babies within Philadelphia city limits? Obstetrics is such a financial loser that hospitals have closed the program down.

Since 2002, 9 hospitals within Philadelphia city limits have closed. No new ones have opened.

What's driving this? Underinsured patients don't reimburse hospitals; they have no money and no insurance, and consequently hospitals don't get paid. So in low-income areas, like the part of Philly I work in, hospitals are suffering financially and are forced to cut programs. The end result? Not only do these people not have the money for health care, they don't even have enough places nearby that can provide the care.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I suppose you are quoting the estimates that say 40 million people in our country are uninsured or underinsured.

Yes I do believe those numbers. If you want to argue them with me, be my guest, but I have to warn you you're stepping right into my wheelhouse. I'm a financial analyst for the biggest provider to uninsured/underinsured patients in Pennsylvania: Temple University Health System.

That was in the interests of full disclosure. Did you know that as of July 1 2007, there will be only 5 hospitals delivering babies within Philadelphia city limits? Obstetrics is such a financial loser that hospitals have closed the program down.

Since 2002, 9 hospitals within Philadelphia city limits have closed. No new ones have opened.

What's driving this? Underinsured patients don't reimburse hospitals; they have no money and no insurance, and consequently hospitals don't get paid. So in low-income areas, like the part of Philly I work in, hospitals are suffering financially and are forced to cut programs. The end result? Not only do these people not have the money for health care, they don't even have enough places nearby that can provide the care.

i do part time financial needs analysis, and from what i've personally seen, i have NO reason to doubt scheed or those numbers.

it sucks that those that can't afford basic health care can't even get preventive services, and it's short sighted. (ie, see the post's article on how a kid couldn't get a 80$ tooth extraction, needed 250,000$ worth of medical care (including emergency brain surgery) and still ended up dead. just because he had a cavity and the paperwork and willingness of practioners to deal with it was too much to ask.... for every case like that, 3124 other kids could also get tooth extractions when needed and the taxpayer still comes out ahead, as well as lower income families).

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by That Guy

i do part time financial needs analysis, and from what i've personally seen, i have NO reason to doubt scheed or those numbers.

it sucks that those that can't afford basic health care can't even get preventive services, and it's short sighted. (ie, see the post's article on how a kid couldn't get a 80$ tooth extraction, needed 250,000$ worth of medical care (including emergency brain surgery) and still ended up dead. just because he had a cavity and the paperwork and willingness of practioners to deal with it was too much to ask.... for every case like that, 3124 other kids could also get tooth extractions when needed and the taxpayer still comes out ahead, as well as lower income families).

I'm not sure what its called but the goverment does provide health insurance for children from poor families. The problem in our area is that the parents are too lazy or do not know they have to sign the children up. I'd also like to know the dentist that will do an $80.00 tooth extraction.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I suppose you are quoting the estimates that say 40 million people in our country are uninsured or underinsured.

Yes I do believe those numbers. If you want to argue them with me, be my guest, but I have to warn you you're stepping right into my wheelhouse. I'm a financial analyst for the biggest provider to uninsured/underinsured patients in Pennsylvania: Temple University Health System.

That was in the interests of full disclosure. Did you know that as of July 1 2007, there will be only 5 hospitals delivering babies within Philadelphia city limits? Obstetrics is such a financial loser that hospitals have closed the program down.

Since 2002, 9 hospitals within Philadelphia city limits have closed. No new ones have opened.

What's driving this? Underinsured patients don't reimburse hospitals; they have no money and no insurance, and consequently hospitals don't get paid. So in low-income areas, like the part of Philly I work in, hospitals are suffering financially and are forced to cut programs. The end result? Not only do these people not have the money for health care, they don't even have enough places nearby that can provide the care.

I believe the numbers if you want to just use a #. 10 million of those are very temp. while people are changing jobs. So if I quit one job on 3/05/07 and then take a week off between jobs I'm counted on that list. If I'm a younger person who decides I do not need health insurance. I'm on that list. From those two things from what I've read the number would drop to around 25 million. Now how many of those drive new cars have HBO, Cell phones and everything else and just don't buy health insurance? I'd say that number is around 5 to 10 mill easy but no one knows the answer to that part. Now we are down to around a real number of 20 to 15 million uninsured Americans because I do not count the above. That is still a big number but now I'd have to get into the poor and all of that stuff which I will avoid getting into.

The reason doctors do not want to deliever babies is they are always getting sued. Malp. Ins is way up and the doctors and Hosp. just don't want to deal with it anymore. Its a shame.

[paulskinsfan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I believe the numbers if you want to just use a #. 10 million of those are very temp. while people are changing jobs. So if I quit one job on 3/05/07 and then take a week off between jobs I'm counted on that list. If I'm a younger person who decides I do not need health insurance. I'm on that list. From those two things from what I've read the number would drop to around 25 million. Now how many of those drive new cars have HBO, Cell phones and everything else and just don't buy health insurance? I'd say that number is around 5 to 10 mill easy but no one knows the answer to that part. Now we are down to around a real number of 20 to 15 million uninsured Americans because I do not count the above. That is still a big number but now I'd have to get into the poor and all of that stuff which I will avoid getting into.

The reason doctors do not want to deliever babies is they are always getting sued. Malp. Ins is way up and the doctors and Hosp. just don't want to deal with it anymore. Its a shame.

That's somewhat misleading. Lots of independent contractors and/or sole proprietors don't have health insurance, they simply cannot afford it. Im 34, and the last quote I got for health insurance was $650 a freakin month! I cant afford that. People take for granted health insurance provided by their employers. In addition, I think its crap that an insurance company pays such a reduced amount, while someone without insurance gets stuck with the full bill. There was a Dateline story on this recently. Someone without insurance goes in for surgery and gets hit with a $100k bill, but when someone else who has insurance goes in, their insurance company pays like half that amount. Shouldn't the guy without insurance get at least as good a rate as the insurance company when its coming out of his own pocket? Just doesn't seem fair.

[dmek25]

schneed i totally agree with you about the health care thing. but, there isnt a politician alive that is ready to tacke that fiasco. there is soo much money involved that it would be political suicide

[diehardskin2982]

I think both issues of Global warming and healthcare could be resolved if we spent less money trying to fight someone elses civil war (Iraq)... Don't get me wrong I am all about supporting our troops but I think we can support them best by getting them out of that mess and back home. Our money focus is on shit that is abroad when it should be here. Health Insurance Companies need major regualation and reformation by the government. They are not properly serving the community.

[That Guy]

well then, are you proposing a cap on the income of all people making over X dollars? if not, why pick on athletes and no one else?

if so, you realize that discourages innovation and anyone with half a brain would relocate to whichever country decided to advertise its low taxes afterwards. something similar killed the swedish clock making industry, though i'm sure there are only about 2 million other examples across many socialist nations. Either you let people use their money as they see fit or you tell them how to use it, but the later means you'll be taking 60% of nothing instead of 25% of massive piles of cash.

I mean, yeah it sucks that some people make obscene amounts of money and could care less about anyone else, but that's not the player's fault, that's how the system is set up. If anything you should be looking to blame the capitalist system that allows that kind of transfer of money, or you should blame someone truly worthy of being called greedy, like the waltons, who make these $50 and $100mill deals look like peanuts.

personally, i don't mind letting people try to get what they're perceived to be worth or care to see capped allowable income.

[Daseal]

This thread made quite a strange progression. From Al Gore to health insurance, to NFL players getting paid too much.... Wow.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Daseal

This thread made quite a strange progression. From Al Gore to health insurance, to NFL players getting paid too much.... Wow.

You're a salty vet, you know how these things go.