OP ED-"Little Timmy Wants to Know Why Nobody Likes Airplanes Anymore?

[scottfromiowa]

Stay tuned to see if the GOP does what "the people" elected them in a majority to do...REPEAL OBAMACARE. Not "re-work it". Not "tweak it". Not "dismantle pieces of it".

REPEAL IT.

In other news USA today speaks with Saudi who states "There will not be $100 barrel oil...ever again". Thank you USA Shale oil/gas producers for giving the US citizens relief from out of control energy prices.

Thank Obama?

NOPE.

Saudi also agreed that the world's religions are unifying as one to rid the cancer "radical Islam" from the earth.

Thank you.

Not in "kahoots" with USA to lower oil price to $50/barrel. This is purely economic. Need to protect their market share and will do what they need to do to accomplish that.

He believes that $50 may or may not be the number that results in consolidation and reduced US drilling...

Orders for new rigs/contracts are slowing as producers would rather pay penalty than complete the order...

[Andy95W]

So we'll totally screw 300 million of us for 15 million? The thousands of new IRS agents really make it one sweet plan!

I further submit to you that NOT all of the 15 million to which you so easily refer ... willing went on Obamacare. They were forced on, threatened, forced with fines, penalties, and IRS action. For many, Their previous insurance programs, of which many were happy with, were eliminated because they did not qualify with .... (Regal Trumpets blowing) "da-da-daDAAAHHHH!" ... the world's savior OBAMACARE!!!!!

My 85 year mother gets Social Security, and I'm glad she does.

- in 1935, Republicans were against Social Security

My 82 year old father has Medicare, and I'm glad he does.

- in 1965, Republicans were against Medicare

Many of my former soldiers benefitted from education opportunities afforded them by the GI Bill, and I'm glad they did.

- in 1944, Republicans were against the GI Bill

I think ObamaCare could be bad, but I'm going to wait and see before I condemn it.

And I certainly won't condemn it just because the Republicans say so. They've been wrong in the past.

[flyboy0681]

(Obamacare forced our evil, pretentious Cadillac Union plan to be even more Cadillac expensive to conform to its massive regulations. It costs our company {and all the other companies too} millions each year! It is forcing our small county hospital out of business, and forced us both onto our evil, pretentious, union Cadillac plan which costs more each month than the insurance we had before Obamacare ... but still way less that that stuff on the exchange. But I doubt you are listening.)

 

Dave, I found this screen shot pretty funny. I just brought up two of the articles mentioned, The first one, "The double-edged sword of Obamacare in Georgia" was written in 2013, before the law took effect. 

 

The second one I read, "Some rural Georgia hospitals need to close", talks about hospitals that were going broke before Obamacare and how they will go under unless Georgia lawmakers don't signup for Medicaid expansion. A Republican state representative goes on to say "when your census is that low....". In hospital jargon "census" is the term used for the number of occupied beds and what she is saying is they don't have enough to keep the facility viable. What's any of this have to do with Obamacare? Ever think that Obamacare could actually help situations like this because people that could not previously get care or admission to a hospital because they couldn't afford the $1,500 a day bed and $200 Tylenol could finally gain admission? Keep in mind that the hospitals that served these rural areas were dependant upon patients that had no or little insurance. How were these facilities supposed to make any money may I ask? Ever think that if your legislature and Governor accepted Medicare expansion that people in these rural areas would become insured and possibly (but not definitely) keep the doors of these small facilities open by filling their beds?

 

Did you bother to read any of these articles or just assumed from the headlines that Obamacare was responsible for their demise?

[flyboy0681]

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/georgias-independent-hospitals-hurting/nQMYb/#__federated=1

 

 

Good grief, send us an article that doesn't pre-date Obamacare.

[flyboy0681]

So we'll totally screw 300 million of us for 15 million? The thousands of new IRS agents really make it one sweet plan!

I further submit to you that NOT all of the 15 million to which you so easily refer ... willing went on Obamacare. They were forced on, threatened, forced with fines, penalties, and IRS action. For many, Their previous insurance programs, of which many were happy with, were eliminated because they did not qualify with .... (Regal Trumpets blowing) "da-da-daDAAAHHHH!" ... the world's savior OBAMACARE!!!!!

 

You forgot to mention jail time Dave.

 

And no, pffft, 300 million of your fellow citizens are not getting screwed.

[flyboy0681]

My 85 year mother gets Social Security, and I'm glad she does.

- in 1935, Republicans were against Social Security

My 82 year old father has Medicare, and I'm glad he does.

- in 1965, Republicans were against Medicare

Many of my former soldiers benefitted from education opportunities afforded them by the GI Bill, and I'm glad they did.

- in 1944, Republicans were against the GI Bill

I think ObamaCare could be bad, but I'm going to wait and see before I condemn it.

And I certainly won't condemn it just because the Republicans say so. They've been wrong in the past.

 

 

This is a short list and misses other programs such as the Fulbright programs (or as republican's said at the time, a complete waste of money). I wonder how many republican's take advantage of these programs as well as unemployment insurance.

[flyboy0681]

I don't want to see folks going without, especially old folks, I would like to think these folks would have made their own plans and safety nets had not government taken the initiative from them? But that's just me ...

And I wonder if anyone gets the point?

that big government regulations are yet again driving small business (in this case - hospitals) out of business, and making big business (in this case big hospitals) even richer?

I though progressives hatred cronyism and government in bed with big business?

 

 

If I understand you correctly, all of these rural seniors would have funded their own million dollar retirement accounts had there been no Social Security to fall back on. In other words, it gave them a false sense of security, why put money away when the government will take care of me. Did I get that correct?

 

You still don't get it on the rural hospital thing. Let me put it to you this way, these hospitals had no customers. How long would a hotel stay open if they couldn't fill their beds each night?

[flyboy0681]

Dave,

Why argue with someone that receives their livlihood from it? It is like going to a union boss and telling him that unions are wrong. What kind of answer do you think you will receive?

and I don't blame him for doing so. Obamacare butters his bread...

 

 

Damned right.

 

But to set the record straight, I've been in the industry since the early 80's.

[flyboy0681]

Funny how how they stayed open all those years ... provided good service ... had full beds ... Made modest profits ...

Until the government forces hospitals admit patients (with relatively) minor health issues but no insurance, house and feed them for a month, before they can finally send them home ... Eat the bill, (pass the cost along to those of us who actually pay) to see the same bums in a month or so when they get sick again after they spent all their money on meth and alcohol ... just to feed and house them for free and eat the bill for another month or so ...

Then comes Obamacare ... the telephone pole that broke the camel's back!

 

I would seriously challenge you on the "modest profit" comment.

 

What part of the concept of lack of paying patients don't you understand? You just said the hospitals had to eat the bill of patients that couldn't afford to pay. That implies that there was an endless stream of patients that could pay and support the hospitals and from what I read, that simply was not the case.

 

I'm trying to understand your position on this because it's a subject important to you, as it should be. Under ideal circumstances, how could these small, < 25 bed rural facilities survive on their own? If you were in charge, how would you make them viable?

[flyboy0681]

More Fox News mis-information. An apologized was actually made today for the inaccuracies stated in this video.

 

This idiot (David Cameron's word for him, not mine) reported that the Birmingham population is predominantly Muslim. Turns out nothing could be further from the truth as the city is 80% Christian.

 

[flyboy0681]

Funny how things (like healthcare) have problems, but are still working ok in a larger sense ... until the government "fixes it?"

 

 

I'm sorry, but I'm not letting you off the hook on this one so fast. How would propose to turn these rural hospitals around and make them profitable? You were fast to condemn their failures on Obamacare so I assume you can just as quickly come up with a viable solution.

[flyboy0681]

Which hospital and doctors do you use? We'll take all our patients who can afford cigarettes, drugs and tattoos, but not food or healthcare ... the patients the government laws forces our hospital to take, but does nothing to address who pays the cost ... and send them to your hospital. You don't mind do you ... If your hospital closes and you have to drive over to Fort Myers?

 

I'm sorry Dave, you may be an excellent professional aviator, but you are totally out of your league on this subject matter.

 

What you said here is that if these welfare recipients and low-lifes paid for their own healthcare instead of beer, the hospitals would have survived. When you consider that one aspirin costs as much as an entire case of Colt 45, your business model comes up a little short.

[flyboy0681]

And you are telling me the thousands of people in our county and nearby counties are not losing their local hospitals by being forced to givie "free" health care to a few ... because the "good" government made it so?

Yeah, sooner or later ... someone pays for free stuff ...

Maybe because you feel so strongly about underprivileged receiving all the benefits of those who can pay their way ... Maybe you would care to write a personal check in the form of a donation to our local hospital?

 

 

You're not listening to me Dave. Hello. Take all of these welfare recipients out of the equation and the hospitals would have closed a lot sooner. Chances are the facilities received Medicaid payments but the reimbursement was not enough to keep them going.

[flyboy0681]

Flyboy's solution to our local hospitals being forced into bankruptcy by government regulation: to our older people and families having to travel miles for health care and having no immediate emergency care ...

Those hospitals need to go bankrupt because they charge too much for aspirin? Amazing!

 

Like I said Dave, you are entirely out of your league on this subject and have zero understanding of how the business of hospitals work.

 

You don't like to answer my questions but let me try just one more time. Say you have a rural Georgia hospital that serves a 100 square mile area and a population of 75,000, has 20 beds, an emergency department, onsite lab as well as a clinic to serve the surrounding area. Let's also say that 90% of that rural population has income slightly above the poverty line and most are not insured. Who supports the hospital? Is it the remaining 10%?

 

You are also talking in circles. In one breath you say that the local population should not have their taxes go towards paying to keep the hospitals solvent, then in the next say that the government should not be paying to keep these hospitals open. Who then, should be paying?

[scottfromiowa]

The collective "MUST" take care of all...Even and especially those that won't/don't care for themselves...

Why must I care when they do not?

Freedom of choice. It is a beautiful thing.

E.R's don't have that luxury.

Society/"The Collective" picks up the tab.

[scottfromiowa]

If it "feels good"...DO IT.

[scottfromiowa]

Business? It is a socialistic boondoggle.

[jetdriven]

The collective "MUST" take care of all...Evan and expecially those that won't/don't care for themselves...

Why must I care when they do not?

Freedom of choice. It is a beautiful thing.

E.R's don't have that luxury.

Society/"The Collective" picks up the tab.

Signed into law by that famous Socialist, Ronald Reagan.

He couldn't get himself elected today, too liberal.

[flyboy0681]

I am fully aware of the exact amount our hospital lost due to unpaid Medicare, Medicaid bills.

Sorry to say it so plainly, but no piece of crap legislation can fix it when a person decides to kill themselves by smoking, drinking, doing drugs, morbidly obese, overeating, no diet, no exercise, smoke, eat weigh 400 lbs ... It's sad ...

But sooner or later you have to let people receive the consequences of their choices ... if you choose to be a drunk, obese, and bankrupt yourself through your lack of discipline and self control, then at some point we should let you do what you chose to do and not bankrupt our hospital trying to save you. Amazing how much we pay out to try to save people when we should just tape their mouth shut!

 

 

What you mentioned are chronic illnesses not typically treated by a small regional hospital. Statistically speaking, they don't have oncology departments or cardiac care units. People with those illnesses go to urban hospitals. Let me remind you that uninsured people in these areas won't be treated for cancer without showing proof of being able to pay.

[flyboy0681]

Like I said Dave, you are entirely out of your league on this subject and have zero understanding of how the business of hospitals work.

 

You don't like to answer my questions but let me try just one more time. Say you have a rural Georgia hospital that serves a 100 square mile area and a population of 75,000, has 20 beds, an emergency department, onsite lab as well as a clinic to serve the surrounding area. Let's also say that 90% of that rural population has income slightly above the poverty line and most are not insured. Who supports the hospital? Is it the remaining 10%?

 

You are also talking in circles. In one breath you say that the local population should not have their taxes go towards paying to keep the hospitals solvent, then in the next say that the government should not be paying to keep these hospitals open. Who then, should be paying?

 

Well?

[flyboy0681]

Signed into law by that famous Socialist, Ronald Reagan.

He couldn't get himself elected today, too liberal.

 

Right you are. May I also add that the legislation states that even "illegal's" have to be treated at the E/R upon presentation.

[flyboy0681]

Well?

You have heard the answer time and again. You just don't' like it. It's so "un - moderate" for us to expect people to pay their own way or buy their own insurance.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I didn't see a response to how a rural hospital can stay solvent and self sufficient. 

 

Scott, be a bud and point me to Dave's response where he explained his solution.

[flyboy0681]

No, I am not speaking of chronic illnesses not treated at a local level. They are chronic health related issues caused by individual choices.

Sometimes you can't save people from themselves.

Instead of being a repeat "enabler" ... you draw the line in the sand and have the unpleasant task of forcing someone to look in the mirror. The morbidly obese woman who weighs 430 lbs and wants us to pay for her scooter, her knee surgeries, her supposed "disability" who now has diabetes, who stays a week or two every other month and each visit she shows up weight 20 lbs heavier, who won't diet, won't take her insulin, now heading towards needing dialysis you tell her you are cutting her off unless she takes some responsibility and loses some weight, and manages her blood sugar. Meanwhile her daughter, the one who just ran out and brought into the hospital for her mother bags of Kentucky Fried Chicken and McDonalds, has a tantrum with the staff, because her charts shows her as morbidly obese ... and that's just wrong! Then they both complain about the food and give the staff fits.

It's just like the single mother who keeps spreading her legs and having more children out of wedlock so she can get more government benefits. At some point you tell her "no more $$$ missy, until you get your tubes tied!"

Yeah, I am mean like that. It's tough love. It's what people really need. A kick in the pants, not another hand out and a pity party!

 

You are (in my view) 100% correct about people that elect to kill themselves by indulging in really bad habits.

 

However, you would have a hard time convincing me that a 22 year old woman has babies just to collect her $156 monthly welfare payment. If that were the case they would spit out dozens, not just 1 or two. I found this about the subject:

 

1. Poor women have more children because of the "financial incentives" of welfare benefits.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women's choice to have children.  States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of "incentive": A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.

Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.

The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children -- about the same as the national average.

[flyboy0681]

Really?

 

 

Come on, please.

[flyboy0681]

Now there's compassion. No feeling for any service or business that doesn't fit into Obama's bright socialist future for America ... If the government regulations need to run some out of business, take away their livelihood or services, it needs to happen, because that is what we progressives know is best for America. So just shut up, and lose your hospital like a man!

How about get the government out of healthcare, let hospitals run as they were intended to run ... People go there for health care. The hospital bill them. They pay their bill. If it is too much, they choose to go somewhere else ... It's called freedom. Ever heard of it?

 

 

That's it, that's your business model for hospitals? I'm going to say something that I haven't said to you before - and please don't take it the wrong way - you are delusional.

 

Rural hospitals have been disappearing for well over a decade yet you still believe Obamacare is responsible. If, as you say, the residents go to the hospital and pay their bill, all is well. But how many freaking people in rural Georgia can afford to fork over $50k for an emergency appendectomy?