Not because they are poor, but because their negative effect on the economy is not catastrophic.  There will always be people gaming the system, it is all about costs and enforcement.   It is all about priorities. 

I suppose  all comes down to "work" and not performance.  As long as a person appears to be working, they are not a noticeable leech on society.   I can see why it would anger people because it is more visible.  However, the gaming that is not visible is far and away more detrimental.

I am patiently awaiting your proof of death panels in the health care reform proposal.

 

So your position is that the government cannot be trusted to run an efficient health care plan?  Ok! Great! The current health care reforms with a public option are for you then.  If you do not like or do not trust the government to run health care, then simply do not buy it.   Keep your existing private insurance.  The public option is simply an OPTION. If you don't like it do not use it.

 

I always find it strange how some people rail against the incompetance of the government on one side and overlook things they normally praise (ie the military).  The military is the largest government run program.  Should it be privatized?  What about the police?  Privatize them?  Firemen?

So the government can effectively control the military, and control thousands of nuclear warheads, but obviously any government health care plan would be horrible because it is run by the government...

 

 

If they're successfully denying meds I'd call them individuals in line for big promotions. If they're granting too many meds I'd say they're on their way out the door.

That's how our current system works.  There's no way a government system is going to work perfectly, but why do we have to pretend that a cost/benefit analysis isn't at the heart of every business, including our current insurance providers?

How are the pockets of privately funded insurance so bottomless?

 

I don't get this. I very rarely see people posting links to sophomoric Olbermann segments, the majority of liberals/progressives I know don't rally around a personality figure the way conservatives do around Glenn Beck. I watched that video the republicans are whining about with the celebrities taking a pledge to Obama at the end, and all I could think was "this is creepy" and "who gives a shit about Ashton Kutcher?"

I just think prominent democratic figures (beside Obama) aren't nearly as important and need not be defended the way someone like Beck/Limbaugh is. Point out some crazy shit a progressive said and at least in my circle of friends we'll call it crazy along side you. Try posting a thread with some of the outrageous Olbermann stunts or diatribes and see how many people rise up to defend it, I seriously doubt many will care, other than the conservatives who jump on it to bash the guy.

You guys need to disassociate the information from the personality. The fact that people here are still linking Glenn Beck's site in spite of his antics which are clearly eccentric and off-putting instead of going to a more presentable source which corroborates thestory cuts to the heart of the issue.

This is speculation on my part, but given that Obama won the election by a significant amount and Fox is still getting better ratings than the other 'liberal' networks I'm inclined to believe it shows a large number of progressives are getting their news from other sources. For better or worse that means the internet. I mention that because I just really don't have the strong feelings towards any liberal news personalities that you guys seem to have with yours. I rarely see Olbermann lionized, and if he had a tea party I might send him a dress and some stuffed dolls, but I certainly wouldn't go chant in front of a camera for him.

That's not to say that there aren't plenty of people out there who would, but overall I think liberals just don't put anyone on a pedestal the way you guys seem to.

I find this perplexing too. Clinton (with a republican congress) worked arduously to cut back the number of people on welfare. The recent spike of people applying for welfare has an obvious economic trigger.

I don't doubt that there's people gaming the system, but that's inevitable with any system. The 9/11 charity debacle is a perfect example of how reprehensible people can be especially since charity systems tend to be inherently poorly policed. That doesn't mean, however, that the purpose of welfare is thwarted, it just means that, assuming investigation wouldn't cost so much that it's a major net loss, the qualifications of welfare recipients need to be more effectively enforced. I'm sure it's a very complicated issue when you go through the technical aspects of it.

I just view people gaming the system the way department stores view 'shrinkage.' You need to establish acceptable thresholds and act accordingly when they're crossed, not just close up shop.

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2009/04/most_welfare_families_have_few.html

 

Numbers in the News question

Q: I ask you to take courage and post the number of women who have 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or more children on welfare. - Barbara Santillo

A: I wasn't able to to locate precisely the information you sought, but this should go along way toward answering your question:

Among families receiving cash assistance, three-quarters have 1 or 2 children. Here's the breakdown:

• One child, 47.9 percent.
• Two children, 27.8 percent.
• Three children, 13.8 percent.
• Four or more children, 8.6 percent.
• Unknown (for the study), 1.9 percent
• Average, 1.9 children.

The data is from a 2006 report to Congress and is for 2003. Sharon Parrott, who follows welfare reform and related issues for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the trend probably has not changed much since then.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services was unable to provide me information on the demographics in the state.

Sure don't buy it, but you still pay for it. So, could you blame people for not wanting to pay twice. Soon enough the govt. "plan" will be bloated beyond belief. We can alway do what Norwood, Ontario does and have a lottery to get a doctor. Google it yourself.

Having spent 24 years in the military, there is a lot of waste their too. But they are getting better. You touched on a key point... Military personnel manage the military day to day, not the Washington bureaucrats.  The highest generals get paid less that the newest congressman. Nobody is getting rich in the military. I often found myself personally responsible for the safety of billions of dollars worth of aircraft at a time, all while getting paid far less than the guy taking out the trash in the capitol building. I'd call that a bargain to the taxpayer. I guarantee your UHC administrators won't be so cheap. Of course if you effectively  pay no taxes, what a deal.

Actually, leftists are out on the streets with their hands out waiting for someone to fill it.

This presidency is already becoming a laughing stock.  In record time, I might add.

Nobody is suggesting everyone on welfare is cheating. However, here's what your numbers don't tell you. The 8.6% with 4 (or more children) are using 300% (or more) benefits each case than 47.9% with 1 child. So your small number is misleading as they are getting a minimum of 32% of the benefit. Three kids 200% more than one kid or 40.2% of the benefits. That means that 72%+ of the benefits go to people with 3 or more kids. Damn statistics huh?

What does that prove? That welfare benefits children? It's possible that people with multiple kids are spending all the money on liquor, but it seems more likely to me that a large part of the money they're getting is going to its intended target - their children.

Sadly the statistics I was able to find don't show the age of the recipient, their marital status, or the age of the children, but a single mother with two or more children getting more benefits than a married couple with one child doesn't sound all that nefarious to me.

 

What are we even talking about here though? Maybe I missed something you said in the mix of everyone else's replies, but you don't seem to be saying we should tear the whole system down and I'm not saying there's no abuse going on. It doesn't really seem like we disagree on anything here, other than you probably think there's more abuse going on than I realize, but I don't fancy myself an expert on the level of abuse anyway, I'm quite willing to admit there's probably more than I think there is.

 

agreed, to be at 42% after 6 mo. or so..

 

I don't like polls myself.. but typically... their dead on.

Polls aside... (quotes are paraphrasing)

"I will reach across party lines for true bipartisanship."  Here, republicans, here is a heaping serving of dog crap.  Eat it.  When the republicans don't take a bite, they are berated for not embracing bipartisanship.

"The war on terror is over.  Troops will be coming home."  Why, Mr. President, are you about to send more troops to Afghanistan and are now referencing this again as the "war on terror?"  Maybe W was indeed doing the right thing, and it wasn't until you were in his position that you realized it.

Don't even get me started on the continuous referencing of the peaceful, educated, protestors as rioters and un-American.  Or the Health Care debacle.  Or the attempts to equalize Americans through economy.  Equality is not determined strictly through your wealth, but it's disgusting that Mr. President wants to put a dollar figure on it.  Or the appalling behavior by NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. that continue to coddle this presidency in hopes to get at the money he is printing.

No, I am not a Fox slappy.  There are times when their obvious bias towards the right is just as distasteful to me.  But they will not hesitate to call out their fellow conservatives if they do something stupid.  They are the closest thing to unbiased we have, unfortunately.

Sorry.  This president has bitten off more than he could chew.  He went in thinking this was the ultimate popularity contest and once he was in office, he was slapped with a massive dose of reality and he's in panic mode right now.  He will continue to drag out health care as long as he can because it's a huge issue and it is hiding all of the other crap he's feeding America right now.

W did not leave the country in the greatest shape, agreed.  But Obama has sent us into a tailspin, and most people backing him keep waiting for him to get the plane under control.  Sorry people, the only ones that can do that are yourselves.  Keep relying on the government, particularly this government, and you will be wondering soon how we turned into a third world country.

Heh.  Didn't know I was feeling so animated about all this.

Peace, love, harmony!

 

Oh, I almost forgot.  Since I am unhappy with this president and the freefall that this country is in, that makes me a racist.

/facepalm

Native Americans have a right to health care if they live near an Indian Healthcare provider.  I'm married to a Native American.  When he was in Oklahoma, he got treated for the things that ailed him.  His sister and her children are still getting routine health checkups, dental care, getting their prescription medications.  None of them have had to go without health care (but I should point out, they live in a suburb of Tulsa, and according to the article that your posted from Native Times, the "after June" thing doesn't happen to wealthier tribes who supplement, and my husband's tribe just opened a lovely casino last year, so those funds will continue to provide the care they need).  

OK, now here's the clincher.  Right now, my husband does NOT have healthcare.  We live in Central Florida, and there are no Indian Health Clinics here.  Six-months-a-year care beats NO months a year care.

 HR 3200  "America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009"
 Sec. 1233. Advance care planning consultation.

I have read this section several times. Sometimes when I read it I get the impression that it is a counseling of options.

However other times when I read it I get the impression that these consultations give the council the power to influence what care a person will receive. The fact that the entire thing is written in so much legalese that even lawmakers admit to not understanding it make me suspicious.

I invite everyone to read it for themselves and make their own decisions.

 

It's not a commandment, it's a bill. If the Republicans weren't just interested in fear mongering they would simply rephrase that part of the bill in a way which explicitly precludes the possibility of death panels before anyone votes on it.

Conversely if the democrats wanted to push ahead on the health care debate they would rewrite or amend that section. For all the concessions and changes being discussed it just blows my mind that neither side has made an effort to reword the bill in a way that would negate the death panel talking point. Do I just not understand the process here?

 

I too have read it.  You have to expand the meaning of the words very very very far to think there is anything that suggests "death panels".   Ask yourself a common sense question. If these actually were death panels, would that be political suicide?  I think the obvious answer is yes.

There is no way the current administration or any previous Republican administrations would advocate for death panels. Even if they truly wanted them, establishing death panels would not be politically viable.

Which "lawmakers" admit to not understanding it?  Grassley? Mostly ones with big R's in front of their names correct?

 

There is little difference between military bureaucrats and other government ones.  Paperwork, red tape and jumping through hoops.

I looked it up, generals get paid more than the newest congressman.  184,000 to 174,000.  Not to mention other benefits generals get such as free housing and not having to run for your job every two years.

Since you gave me incorrect facts on general to congressman pay, I simply cannot believe your assertion about health care administrators unless you provide some actual facts, not just things you think.

 

Really?  I do not recall anyone in this thread calling you a racist. 

I would venture a guess that if you think the country is in a freefall then that makes you a staunch Republican and thats about it.

Right.  The one's with big D's simply admit to not having read it.

Death panels.  Counselers.  Call it what you want, but this is not something that should be held for others to decide, and the proposal as it stands leaves it open to interpretation, which is incredibly dangerous when you are talking about life and death.

 

That is good.  I do not recall saying anyone here called me a racist. 

There are many liberals out there who believe and claim just because people disagree with Obama or protest against items he is presenting, that they are racist.  Sorry that I had to fill in that gap.

And no, I am not a republican.  Republicans are typically just as bad as Democrats.

By big R you mean Representative?

They'd follow the standard government pay scale.

Let's assume they'll be between a GS-13 and 15, living in Washington DC. This table shows what they can expect to make:

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2008

Annual Rates by Grade and Step

Grade	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3	Step 4	Step 5	Step 6	Step 7	Step 8	Step 9	Step 10
1	20607	21295	21980	22662	23347	23750	24427	25110	25137	25779
2	23169	23720	24486	25137	25417	26164	26911	27658	28406	29153
3	25279	26122	26965	27807	28650	29492	30335	31178	32020	32863
4	28379	29325	30272	31219	32165	33112	34058	35005	35951	36898
5	31751	32808	33866	34924	35982	37039	38097	39155	40213	41271
6	35392	36572	37752	38931	40111	41291	42471	43651	44831	46011
7	39330	40641	41951	43262	44572	45883	47193	48503	49814	51124
8	43557	45009	46460	47912	49364	50816	52268	53720	55172	56624
9	48108	49712	51317	52921	54525	56129	57733	59338	60942	62546
10	52979	54745	56511	58277	60044	61810	63576	65342	67108	68875
11	58206	60146	62087	64027	65967	67908	69848	71788	73728	75669
12	69764	72090	74416	76742	79068	81394	83720	86046	88372	90698
13	82961	85727	88493	91259	94025	96791	99557	102323	105088	107854
14	98033	101301	104569	107836	111104	114372	117639	120907	124175	127442
15	115317	119161	123006	126850	130694	134538	138383	142227	146071	149000

* Rate limited to the rate for level IV of the Executive Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5304 (g)(1)).

http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/html/dcb.asp

 

 

The department of defense pay calculator isn't working at the moment so I'll have to take your word for it on 174,000-184,000 for generals, but it seems plausible. Bear in mind that figure is going to be adjusted by location and generally when you hear military pay estimates you tally the health care benefits, housing allowance, etc. into the total and housing allowances, per diems, etc. will vary dramatically based on location. Luckily though most generals are either in Washington DC so there's not going to be the same amount of variation there was when I was moving around the country as a senior airman.

 

 

Here's a link which is supposed to let you calculate the salaries of military folk and adjusts for location and benefits, but it's not working for me. If any of you guys can get it to function post your results here.  Remember a general/admiral is O-7 to O-10, but I *think* most of the people making decisions in the pentagon are going to be at least O-8 or O-9.

http://www.defenselink.mil/militarypay/mpcalcs/Calculators/RMC.aspx

 

An interesting number, 42%.  Why is it when there are dozens of polls released, do you latch on to the Zogby outlier? Hmmmmmmmmm.  It seems you will ignore all other evidence and accept only the number which reflects your personal opinions/feelings.

Most other polls put the president in the low to mid 50's in approval.  Which is just fine. In fact its about equal to President Bush's approval ratings just before 9/11, and President Bush did not have an inherited tanking economy to deal with.