This is topic IS THERE A DOUBLE STANDARD? in forum Politics/Religion/Current Affairs at The Geek Culture Forums!.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000370

Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on September 10, 2008, 13:13:
 
______________________ Well, Well, Well IS there a double standard in the quad-yearly fight between the Dems/GOP. Seems that a statement made by John boy, about a Hillary proposal, draws fire when it comes back from Obama. Plus I think that Mz Palin invited the attack with her comments about Hockey Moms, and pit bulls. Maybe we should ask Mike Vick?
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on September 10, 2008, 15:41:
 
It's blatantly obvious that Obama's "lipstick on a pig" had nothing to do with Palin, so I don't blame Obama for getting annoyed at the fake outrage.

I think the only thing missing is for photoshopped pictures of Palin as a lipsticked pig to start floating around the internet. If they want to make such a big deal out of nothing, why shouldn't there be something for them to get actually outraged about? Or am I wrong? Maybe the real lipsticked pig is McCain after all?
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on September 10, 2008, 16:38:
 
I believe there is a story about sexism in this election, but it's nothing that either side can feel self righteous about. Both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have faced questions that would have been greeted with derision if put to a male candidate, and personally I found it quite shocking and depressing in both instances. The Republican shouts of foul in Sarah Palin's case have however been picked up and treated seriously by the media which is sympathetic to them, and which dismissed Hillary's complaints as whining, sour grapes and evidence of her unfitness for office. Double standards are par for the course in an election.
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on September 10, 2008, 17:45:
 
___________________ On the topic of Hockey Moms, A Biker Buddy, I mean we have done thousands of miles of road pounding together. Well both his sons got into youth hockey and then school hockey. When you go to these kids games watch the dads they are taking notes on how to improve their kids game, the Moms are worse than rabid dogs. They would not let one mom bring in a boat horn, she was ready to fight the management of the arena.
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on September 11, 2008, 04:25:
 
_________________ Back to the original topic.

____ What the hell is this [email protected]#$#@%^&&&$* woman doing giving away troop movements. During WW2 That kind of BS could get you tried for treason, I guess she can't keep a SECRET.


____ Loose lips sink ships. Dumb [email protected]#$#@%^&&&$*
 
Posted by shentzu (Member # 2253) on September 11, 2008, 15:56:
 
hypocrisies?!?!?!? this is the GOP!!!!ELEVENTYONE!!1!!

if you haven't seen a trend in the 10 house owning man who calls his opponent elitist, or the son of a president who runs as an outsider, or the party of oppression of women complaining about sexism, or the party of racism complaining about the race card, or the party that had special purple heart band-aids to mock a wounded war hero so they could vote for one the next year, or the party that declares that their theme is service so they can make fun of community service, or the party where a man can use someone else's sex life for gain while leaving his 3rd wife on her deathbed, or the party that campaigns on anti-gay platforms right up until they are caught having gay sex, or.....

lets face it, i could go on ALL DAY and still not have to reach back to before 1995.

ethics, honor, and morality are not their "do best" k?
 
Posted by nibbler (Member # 21492) on September 11, 2008, 17:54:
 
well if we are trying to point out inconsistencies as a party, and not individuals who misbehave, Lets look at a party whose mantra is "tax the rich, they don't pay enough". How many multi-millionaire democratic congressman and senators hire tax attorneys and CPAs to avoid paying "too much" tax? Why doesn't Obama and his wife give a little extra in taxes since they make several million dollars a year?

If they really believed that the rich should pay more, why don't they?
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on September 11, 2008, 20:44:
 
nibbler wrote:
Why doesn't Obama and his wife give a little extra in taxes since they make several million dollars a year?

You're apparently unaware of how our tax structure works...

Income up to $8,025 is taxed at 10%.
From $8,026 to $32,550 is taxed at 15%.
From $32,551 up to $78,850 is taxed at 25%.
From $78,851 to $164,550 is taxed at 28%.
Anything over $164,550 is taxed at 33%.

And before you claim that Obama has dodged paying all those taxes, go look at his tax return numbers

The point being... our tax structure is set up so that people that make a lot of money do, in fact, pay a little more if they aren't cheating the system.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 11, 2008, 21:02:
 
quote:
Originally posted by nibbler:
Lets look at a party whose mantra is "tax the rich, they don't pay enough"...

...If they really believed that the rich should pay more, why don't they?

<bad-maxwell-smart-impression>
Ah, the old "build an extreme parody of the other guy's position, then call him a hypocrite for not conforming with it" trick, that's the third time I've fallen for it this week.
</bad-maxwell-smart-impression>

btw - if you have a look at the 2006 tax details Steen linked to, you'll see the Obamas gave over $5,000 per month to charities in 2006, that could be seen as voluntarily "paying more tax".
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on September 12, 2008, 04:13:
 
quote:
Originally posted by nibbler:
well if we are trying to point out inconsistencies as a party, and not individuals who misbehave, Lets look at a party whose mantra is "tax the rich, they don't pay enough". How many multi-millionaire democratic congressman and senators hire tax attorneys and CPAs to avoid paying "too much" tax? Why doesn't Obama and his wife give a little extra in taxes since they make several million dollars a year?

If they really believed that the rich should pay more, why don't they?

Hello nibbler, whatever happened to your former id "chesty"?

Your post certainly makes me feel fear for that oppressed and suffering minority, the billionaires should Obama come to power. [Big Grin] However the super rich can take comfort from the fact that before the current downturn, though they amount to less than 1% of the working population, they appear to the only group in US society, that was better off than they were at the start of the Bush presidency. So I think they will get by.
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on September 12, 2008, 04:34:
 
______________________- Lets cut to the TRUTH. Business and Business interests run the USA. So those high rollers and their allies (GOP) will not do any thing that will hurt the bottom line on the profit sheet.

If you work for a paycheck, you are not part of the elite. So if you don't get to make the choices about where or how the company spends it's money, why would you vote (GOP). You are working for the "MAN" that gets the Tax breaks. ARE YOU INTERESTED IN HIS MAKING A TON OF MONEY WHILE HE THROWS YOU THE CRUMBS? Must be.
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on September 13, 2008, 13:58:
 
quote:
September 12, 2008 04:13
Your post certainly makes me feel fear for that oppressed and suffering minority, the billionaires should Obama come to power. [Big Grin]     ... though they amount to less than 1% of the working population.

Is the problem really that "the government needs to collect more taxes"?

Why isn't "more efficient first" the better choice?
 
quote:
from "Mc Cain picks running mate"

September 03, 2008, 03:45
The point of the McKinsey report is that the US spends a lot more than other OECD countries for outcomes that are ... often worse than theirs. It is not unreasonable to conclude that there must be a better way.

Originally posted by ASM:
PS: Your statement "the US spends a lot more than other OECD countries for outcomes that are ... often worse" easily supports the premise that spending more does not mean "better."

FYI: To find out if a doctor bills for more than 24 hours of work in a day (as an example), you need to take all the cases (patients) he worked on, and add up the hours billed for each case (unless the doctor bills something like "yesterday I worked for 27 hours on a patient, and today I worked on the same patient for 27 hours also").

#include <sarcasm.h>
Gee ... maybe fraud and waste aren't all that bad.
 
quote:
"Liberal" Idiot: If the government is allowed to search all medical records (claims) to investigate the billions of dollars of fraud and waste in medical care, then the invasion of privacy will be even worse than wire-tapping. Just spend more money without looking where it goes!!! It's the right thing to do!

 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on September 13, 2008, 21:34:
 
ASM65816 wrote:
Why isn't "more efficient first" the better choice?

I'm pretty sure it's because our politicians are greedy bastards who allow their votes to be bought by special interest groups who have no interest in efficiency since those they represent are the ones who directly benefit from government waste?

If the government is allowed to search all medical records (claims) to investigate the billions of dollars of fraud and waste in medical care

You seem to be unaware of how this works. They can already investigate medical claims. That's what that paper you sign that authorizes your doctor/hospital/whatever to release records to your insurance is for. If you want to file a claim, you have to give that authorization. No way around it.

Duh.
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on September 14, 2008, 00:31:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM:
Why isn't "more efficient first" the better choice?

September 13, 2008 21:34
I'm pretty sure it's because our politicians are greedy bastards who allow their votes to be bought by special interest groups who have no interest in efficiency since those they represent are the ones who directly benefit from government waste?

But it's votes that the politicians really want, and "the public" (voters) already know about fraud and waste in health care programs like Medicare. The news has even revealed "other countries get better health care without spending as much money."

Shouldn't a politician tell the voters: "You know all that fraud and waste in health care? I'm going to find it, then I'll take the money and spend it on something that actually keeps people healthy. And the best part is nobody will have to pay extra taxes ... not even rich people!" (Just an observation.)

quote:
Originally posted by ASM:
If the government is allowed to search all medical records (claims) to investigate the billions of dollars of fraud and waste in medical care

September 13, 2008 21:34
You seem to be unaware of how this works. They already can investigate medical claims. That's what that paper you sign that authorizes your doctor/hospital/whatever to release records to your insurance is for. If you want to file a claim, you have to give that authorization. No way around it.

They don't "investigate" medical claims. The government looks at the claim: Is the name in a database? Is the ID number in a database? Is the hospital approved for the service? Is that a service we pay for?   [crazy]   Ok! Give them the money!!!

Second, you sign to give the hospital/physicians access to your records (so they can get their money). If they're the ones scamming the system, then having them report fraud is like the fox guarding the hen house.

Currently, the government trusts the hospitals and physicians. The government doesn't say "we want to verify that patient _x_ received this list of treatments on the following dates" -- partly because the patient is supposed to authorize access to records first. Only if criminal charges are filed can the government ask for medical records (subpoena).

The total benefits paid per individual is only thing the government keeps track of (so they know when to stop paying).

There's no national medical record database yet, and one point of concern is the risk of such a system being compromised and violating privacy rights (which is a legitimate concern).

With respect to US health care, a major problem (IMNSHO) is the "we-can't-let-them-die" mentality. As a cynic, my question to the hospitals/physicians is: Do you care about the patients, or are you using them to get every dime you can from the government, the insurance companies, and everyone else?

Then there's the patients. Personal responsibility for one's own health should be a major factor. <rant> I think a HUGE dose of Amish life should be given to those who complain that it's not their fault for not taking care of themselves. </rant>
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 14, 2008, 00:34:
 
Only ASM could describe the culture of waste and fraud that has flourished for 8 years under the Bush regime, then blame it all on "liberal idiots". [shake head]

quote:
P.J.O'Rourke:
Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then get elected and prove it.


 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on September 14, 2008, 06:03:
 
ASM65816 wrote:
Currently, the government trusts the hospitals and physicians. The government doesn't say "we want to verify that patient _x_ received this list of treatments on the following dates" -- partly because the patient is supposed to authorize access to records first. Only if criminal charges are filed can the government ask for medical records (subpoena).

Bwahahahaa... try getting a physician to treat you without singing forms to allow the release of records to your insurance company (which includes Medicare and Medicaid) so that they can submit claims. Some doctors will do it, but then you will pay every cent of the bill and you'll hav to submit the claims to your insurance company on your own. The insurance companies (including Medicare/Medicaid) will promptly send you a form to sign that gives them authorization to access your records. Until you sign that form, they won't pay your claim.

Look... the fact that Medicare and Medicaid can investigate a claim does not mean that they do. Indeed, most of the time, they don't. This arrangement is very profitable for the medical groups that do this sort of thing, and they pay lobbyists to get congress to make sure that any legislation passed will keep them profitable.

Let's look at a few numbers:
2007 lobbying totals by industry:
$1,439,371,68 - Pharmaceuticals/Health Products
$1,096,106,248 - Insurance
$635,796,478 - Hospitals/Nursing Homes
$596,753,621 - Health Professionals
$0 - "Liberal" idiots

Do you really believe that it's the "liberal idiots" concerned with privacy who keep things the way they are now, ensuring that money flows from government medical programs to the medical industry?
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on September 14, 2008, 12:12:
 
Part I: Lobbyists Support "Equal Opportunity" (How nice </sarcasm>)
quote:
September 14, 2008 06:03
Let's look at a few numbers: 2007 lobbying totals by industry
...
$1,439,371,68 - Pharmaceuticals/Health Products

... and the money goes to BOTH Republicans and Democrats.

If you plan to vote against Republicans because they accept lots of lobbyist money, you better vote Ralph Nader for President because the Democrats "accept lots of money" also.
 

Part II: The Daily KOS Said Better Things About Republicans?
quote:
from "Medicare Deceived Congress, Hid Fraud" (Daily KOS)

"The bad news is that Republican senators and Congress people are all over this, while Democratic politicians remain to be seen and heard from.  Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami, lead the way in predicting upcoming hearings into bedeviled Medicare, a $466 billion program.

What's being done to address the mess?  Once again, it's Republican lawmakers who are leading the way. In June, [Mel] Martinez [R-FL] joined U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, in sponsoring legislation that takes aim at fraud on major fronts..."

For Democrats, maybe the question to ask is: Have we been "riding on the coat-tails" of great Democrats of the past, and we forgot to make a good name for Democrats now?
 

Part III: No Shortage of Idiots
quote:
Do you really believe that it's the "liberal idiots" ... who keep things the way they are now?
As far as I'm concerned, everyone that thinks US health care can be fixed without confronting fraud first is an "idiot." (Technically, it's more accurate to describe the condition as "living on delusions and wishful thinking" instead of "idiocy.")
 

Part IV: How to Run Investigations
quote:
Medicare and Medicaid can investigate a claim does not mean that they do.
Just an observation (common sense): If you want to investigate fraud, you have police or someone like the FBI investigate. If you want to investigate wasteful spending, you have accountants (like a CPA) to investigate (audit) the "books" (financial records). From Medicare's "investigation" track record, shouldn't someone else do the investigating?
 

Part V: Limited Access is Not Full Access
quote:
getting a physician to treat you without singing forms to allow the release of records
FYI: Only "the physician" has FULL ACCESS to records. Information is typically "released" on a "need to know" basis. Medicare ONLY receives information (medical records) needed to support claims (on a case by case basis). Medicare (government) can't say "hey, since this guy filed a claim -- tell me everything about him since 1967." (See the difference yet?)
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on September 14, 2008, 16:03:
 
ASM65816 wrote:
... and the money goes to BOTH Republicans and Democrats.

And yet you choose to blame "liberal idiots" rather than corrupt politicians. You blame the people, not the politicians and the medical industry who are actually responsible. Are you beginning to grasp my point yet? (of course not... this is a bit like explaining quantum physics to a bowl of Jell-o, but I'm feeling Quixotic today).

If you plan to vote against Republicans because they accept lots of lobbyist money

No, I'm planning to vote against Republicans because I don't believe John McCain's health will stand up to four years in office and Palin's "don't take time to blink" policy also means she won't take time to think, either, and will not understand the ramifications of her reactionary, faith-based style of decision making. The results of that will be just as disasterous, if not more so, than the Bush administration's irresponsible behavior.

FYI: Only "the physician" has FULL ACCESS to records. Information is typically "released" on a "need to know" basis. Medicare ONLY receives information (medical records) needed to support claims (on a case by case basis). Medicare (government) can't say "hey, since this guy filed a claim -- tell me everything about him since 1967."

Actually, they can. The permission that you sign does not place any limit what can be released. Have you ever read one of these before signing it? I'm thinking not. All records retained by that physician or organization can be released once you sign that paper. In practice, insurance companies do not request anything beyond the relevant records (and rarely request anything more than what is submitted in the first place), because nobody wants MORE papaerwork to look at.

Expansions of this argument and straw-man additions to the one claim that I am refuting aside, your own posts are now showing that you understand that it's not liberals trying to protect privacy that cause fraud, which WAS your original statement.

I assume you're going to throw up every diversionary argument you can come up with in order to avoid saying "whoops, I was wrong" and continue this line of stupid posturing. Unfortunately for you, I've made my point (fraud is not caused by "liberal idiots" demanding privacy) and you have inadvertanetly agreed with that point, so the argument is over.

I won.

Kthxbai.
 
Posted by nibbler (Member # 21492) on September 14, 2008, 19:50:
 
quote:
Hello nibbler, whatever happened to your former id "chesty"?

Well you post one little link that doesn't quite conform to html standards...
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on September 14, 2008, 19:58:
 
Kinda makes you wonder what the point of HIPAA was, huh Steen? As far as I can tell, it's just one more frakkin' form to sign. More dead trees, but nothing changed.

Maybe the paper lobby pushed it through. [Razz]
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on September 14, 2008, 20:22:
 
HIPAA had some good provisions in it... but the health care industry has worked dilligently to find ways to get around them.

Meet MedFICO.
From the folks that brought you the credit score system in all it's glory, here's MedFICO! It's a new business project underway with the goal of assessing patient's ability to pay their medical bills. The system would gather patient's bill payment history from hospitals around the country and then assign patients a score similar to a credit score.

What could possibly go wrong?
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 14, 2008, 20:45:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
As far as I can tell, it's just one more frakkin' form to sign. More dead trees, but nothing changed.

Sounds like that 'paperwork reduction' law, which required government departments to explain _why_ they were asking for information from the citizens. The idea was to stop government asking pointless questions, and reduce the amount of paperwork. The reality was that every government form got an extra paragraph or two that said (in governmentese) "coz we wanna know".
 
Posted by nibbler (Member # 21492) on September 14, 2008, 21:37:
 
So back to the point of liberal Democrat millionaires who say, "the rich need to pay more" - Why do they hire tax professionals Like Wineberg, Solheim Howell & Shain to help them find 1 hunnert an fitty Gs in tax deductions?
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 14, 2008, 22:11:
 
quote:
Originally posted by nibbler:
So back to the point of liberal Democrat millionaires who say, "the rich need to pay more" - Why do they hire tax professionals Like Wineberg, Solheim Howell & Shain to help them find 1 hunnert an fitty Gs in tax deductions?

Probably for the same reason I pay someone to do my taxes, because tax forms give me a headache, and there's other things I'd rather do with my time.

Plus, of course, with Obama being the kind of guy who publishes his tax details online, he'd want to be _very_ sure he got it right, because he knows the other side will be going through the details with a fine tooth comb looking for any excuse to call him a tax evader. No-one has, which implies his deductions were legit.
 
Posted by nibbler (Member # 21492) on September 14, 2008, 22:31:
 
Once again you miss the point.

He has stated that rich people do not pay enough. He is, by any standard, rich.
He does not have to take deductions. He can file and pay taxes without getting credit for taxable donations, etc...
If he truly believed he needed to pay more. Why didn't he?


And blaming the "Bush Regime" is ludicrous. The Democrats have had the congress and what have they done?
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 14, 2008, 22:51:
 
Probably because he's living by his principles, not your strange parody of his principles.

The guy paid $5,000/month "extra tax" (charitable donations) - and because he didn't pay even more you claim he's a hypocrite?
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on September 14, 2008, 22:52:
 
nibbler wrote:
Once again you miss the point.

He has stated that rich people do not pay enough. He is, by any standard, rich.
He does not have to take deductions. He can file and pay taxes without getting credit for taxable donations, etc...
If he truly believed he needed to pay more. Why didn't he?


And blaming the "Bush Regime" is ludicrous. The Democrats have had the congress and what have they done?


Quoting myself:
"I'm pretty sure it's because our politicians are greedy bastards who allow their votes to be bought by special interest groups who have no interest in efficiency since those they represent are the ones who directly benefit from government waste?"

Nibbler:
If you aren't a complete idiot (and I make no assumptions about this), you might pick up on the not-so-subtle clues that I think most of our government is corrupt and that political party membership has little or nothing to do with what sort of legislation actually gets enacted once they're in office.

Your arguments fail because Republicans not living up to an unrealistic standard that nobody else lives up to does not make your beloved Democrats into angels sent by God to save us all from the horrors of peace, equal rights for homosexuals, legalized abortion and the teaching of evolution.
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on September 15, 2008, 02:32:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM:
FYI: Only "the physician" has FULL ACCESS to records. ... Medicare (government) can't say "hey, since this guy filed a claim -- tell me everything about him since 1967."

Originally posted by Steen:
Actually, they can. The permission that you sign does not place any limit what can be released.

Steen, I'm going to call you a liar.

By your assertion, "the government" gets to know if you had an ingrown hair on your buttocks in 1967, but they don't notice that the doctor who billed you treatments last month died before you went to the hospital. (FYI: Medicare fraud includes the use of doctor ID's that have recently died.)

Using your words literally: You said "released" which implies action by the physician (whom I said had FULL ACCESS). If you really wanted to back-up "they can (ask for information back to 1967)" -- you should have said "Medicare can DEMAND ANY AND ALL PATIENT INFORMATION."
 
quote:
it's not liberals trying to protect privacy that cause fraud, which WAS your original statement.

Originally posted by ASM (about Medicare):
They don't "investigate" medical claims.

I said on September 14, 2008, 00:31 -- Medicare doesn't investigate claims. As I mentioned in a paragraph above, Medicare pays claims to DEAD DOCTORS. How hard is it to tell whether or not a doctor is DEAD?!!!! Assuming the government can "know everything" about medical records, how the Hell do they miss the FACT that a doctor is DEAD?

Once again, as Daily KOS (a liberal-pinko-communist-propaganda rag [Roll Eyes] ) pointed out -- the Republicans are the FIRST to propose anti-fraud legislation on Medicare. Where the Hell are the Democrats?!!! Cowering in fear? Someone stole their typewriters to keep them from writing bills? What's the deal? Lobbyists threatened to strangle a kitten if the Democrats refused to be silent?   [Confused]

For _decades_, shows like "60-minutes" revealed health care fraud and waste -- Why has NEITHER Democrat NOR Republican politicians addressed WELL-KNOWN public reports? Don't bother bashing Republicans, we've heard that.... Why have the Democrats failed to address the problem of health care fraud?
 
quote:
here's MedFICO! It's a new business project underway with the goal of assessing patient's ability to pay their medical bills.
<GRRRRR> Check QUANTITY of "treatments received" not ability to pay bills.   [Mad]
quote:
Assistant: Doctor, according to billing, this patient received 15 treatments this month.
Doctor: Well, he's able to pay the bill, so what's wrong?
Assistant: The treatment should be once per month. According to billing, he's getting three times a Lethal Dose of medication.
Doctor: In that case, make sure we get paid for three times a Lethal Dose of medication ... especially if he lives. </Groucho Marx voice>

By the way, if corrupt doctors and hospitals are the "REAL" problem -- increasing insurance (Obama's plan) will simply give doctors and hospitals MORE MONEY TO STEAL.
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on September 15, 2008, 03:54:
 
_________________ To the U.S. Citizens, Are you better off than you were Eight years ago. Do you have more money in the bank.? Do you have more real estate? Are you in better Health? Are you up to your ears in debt?
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on September 15, 2008, 04:18:
 
quote:
Originally posted by nibbler:
Once again you miss the point.

He has stated that rich people do not pay enough. He is, by any standard, rich.
He does not have to take deductions. He can file and pay taxes without getting credit for taxable donations, etc...
If he truly believed he needed to pay more. Why didn't he?


And blaming the "Bush Regime" is ludicrous. The Democrats have had the congress and what have they done?

No, I think you miss the point, the important point, and it is this. This talk about double standards is part of the election as beauty contest, as presented by your overwhelmingly partial right wing media, which blighted the previous two presidential elections and continues to trivialise and demean your once great democracy.

Not only every politician, but every interesting human being is full of contradictions, and so is the world we live in. Double standards and hypocrisy of one sort or another are part of the stuff of life, and apply to everyone, and the question you ask about Obama applies to every politician that has ever made worthwhile and lasting reforms, with the possible exception of the saintly Gandhi. Asking why Obama is not giving more of his money away (and BTW how much is enough?), is about the same as me asking why all you hard core Republican voters aren't in Iraq fighting that war you profess to believe in so strongly. It is only in the cartoon world of Republican fancy that everyone is either an uncomplicated square jawed knuckle headed hero, or an educated intelligent evil super villain. If you are going to ask a question about double standards, let it be about something serious that betrays real corruption, or other crimes. That is important, and because power corrupts, it is necessary to kick the ruling party out every now and then to bring them down to size. Corruption is also a lot more likely under the current administration because of their policy of making sure that every job with even a tangential relationship to government is filled with Republicans, from the Supreme Court, the administrators sent to Iraq, scientific advisors, right down to the political lobbyists of K Street. While the motive for this might well be the "mission", the effect is cronyism, and corruption.

Let me add a caveat to that. Character is important, but it is not the whole story, or even the most important part of the story, which is of course who has the policies that are most likely to put right, (or at least make better), the almighty international, and economic mess we are in now?

Now I won't raise Iraq again, because that particular dead horse has been flogged till its bones gleam in the pale moonlight. The economy is another matter. The long and the short of it is, the housing bubble, the credit crunch, the resulting world wide recession, and the chaos on Wall Street today stem directly from the ideologically pure, but economically illiterate policy of deregulation and cutting red tape to liberate the banking system's creativity. Well that happened, they certainly were creative, I wouldn't have thought of lending to people who could never pay the money back. Try as you might, the blame for this rests squarely with the White House.

So who has the policies to start putting Humpty Dumpty together again. Palin and McCain are promising to shake up Washington, and not to blink (hmmm... that'll be interesting to watch), and continue the "mission" of reform. When you translate this rhetoric into policy, it seems that Republican "change" means another 4 years of the same with maybe a new face or two. That BTW was what the lipstick on a pig remark was about, it was not directed at Sarah Palin, though of course your media will not admit it, anything to distract the electorate from the actual issues. So the economic policies of the last 8 years will continue, where for every situation whether budget surplus, or complete financial meltdown, tax cuts are the answer. The only change he has hinted at, which might help, is that he says he will try to balance the budget, though how he will do this whilst not "blinking" in Iraq will be tricky, an economy on the floor, tax cuts and an expensive foreign war do not usually lead to a balanced budget. Still you can't really blame McCain, he has always admitted that he is not particularly interested in economics, and he will have Sarah Palin to help him, whose experience in dealing with the budget surpluses in her oil rich state will no doubt prove invaluable.

Will the Democrats' policies work better? Nothing is certain, but I hope so, and they have one big advantage. They are not constrained by the simplistic remedies that Republicans think apply to every situation. And thank goodness they do not have a "mission" or a spurious "war on terror" that will excuse all manner of lies, corruption, and above all the insidious creeping erosion of all the constitutional and democratic rights, that allow a nation to call itself free.
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on September 15, 2008, 07:11:
 
ASM65816 wrote:
I said on September 14, 2008, 00:31 -- Medicare doesn't investigate claims.

And I said they don't investigate them as well. That doesn't change the fact that they can. It just means that those damn privacy lovin' "liberal idiots" are not to blame.

Why has NEITHER Democrat NOR Republican politicians addressed WELL-KNOWN public reports? Don't bother bashing Republicans, we've heard that.... Why have the Democrats failed to address the problem of health care fraud?

Quoting myself again, since you didn't read it the last two times:
I'm pretty sure it's because our politicians are greedy bastards who allow their votes to be bought by special interest groups who have no interest in efficiency since those they represent are the ones who directly benefit from government waste

As you yourself pointed out, how hard is it to determine that a doctor was dead when a claim was submitted? It's not because "liberal idiots" are demanding privacy. It's because our politicians are corrupt and let the medical industry dictate the policies they write which allow for the fraud that is so very profitable for them.

Once again, your own arguments support my statements that fraud in the medical industry has nothing to do with "liberal idiots" and their demands for privacy.

I won the argument.

Again.

I look forward to seeing your next round of random tangents that serve only to prove that "liberal idiots" and their demands for privacy are not at fault, which is the only point that I'm arguing.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 15, 2008, 13:37:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steen:
I look forward to seeing your next round of random tangents that serve only to prove that "liberal idiots" and their demands for privacy are not at fault, which is the only point that I'm arguing.

Oh come on Steen, you know ASM's rants aren't intended to address what anyone else here is arguing.

Lets examine his track record, shall we?

1. I mention my contempt for terrorists, and that people I know have been terror victims.
ASM declares me a supporter of terrorists.

2. Colonel Panic mentions his (partly) African family background.
ASM makes gratuitously anti-black comments in every discussion the Colonel enters.

3. Doctor Who posts about his hurricane worries.
ASM posts that the people who are losing their homes are lazy whining [email protected]@rds who had it coming.

4. Various people mention major health problems they (or people close to them) have experienced.
ASM chimes in with "the sick are a burden on society, let 'em die".

Starting to see a pattern here?
 
Posted by nibbler (Member # 21492) on September 15, 2008, 17:20:
 
Let's just get this straight. I have never really been the biggest John McCain fan, really never a fan of any politician, but when McCain met at the Surf Club here this spring he said that Americans were gonna have to face up to the bad investments they made (interest only, sub-prime loans and the like) and it would be hard but had to be done.

He was speaking to a group that , by and large, were real estate people, many of whom had leveraged themselves against a booming market with interest only loans.
The idea was that if they bought a series of condos at pre-construction cost, they would be able to unload them on the retirees from up north before the payments came due and make a fortune.

Many of these people had been doing it for fifteen years as the prices along the coast skyrocketed. But last fall the market became saturated and these folks now had several thousands of dollars of mortgages a month to meet with no buyers in sight.

The average politician who faced these voters would say, "We need to help people who can't make their mortgage. It's not your fault, you didn't know that one day you would have to pay the piper."

He looked them in the eye (it was a close room with only about a hundred folks there) and said "It is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to make good on your investment."

He said that America has to start doing the right thing and not the thing that makes everybody happy for now.

I still don't agree with him all the time. I do know that the Government needs to let the market Lay the track and apply throttle and brake when needed.

And I know that the leftist Barack Hussein Obama would like to take more of my money in the form of increased taxes. to bail out people who don't take care of their own binness.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on September 15, 2008, 17:50:
 
Wow chesty nibbler! You really are a true believer. So this financial hurricane that is currently battering Wall Street is nothing to do with the government, and the people to blame are a few property speculators no? On their own they've managed to trash the US and the world economy? Interesting that McCain blames those individuals taking on debt they cannot afford while your government also continues to rack up its own current account debt, covered by more and more Chinese money. Sooner or later someone will have to pay the piper, unless you want to sell your entire country to China. Or maybe you think lower taxes, exciting foreign wars and cheap gas for your SUVs are the God given right of every American.

You sir, are a true Republican, untroubled by that irritating mix of facts and logic the rest of us call reality. You, in the words of that government spokesman, make your own reality! I salute you! [Applause] [crazy] [Applause] [crazy]
 
Posted by nibbler (Member # 21492) on September 16, 2008, 11:48:
 
Well the morgage crisis didn't come about because banks were chasing people down and making them take mortgages that would make them "house poor".

And McCain has been for a balanced budget all along.

True conservatives want the Government to be as responsible with the money they take from us as we are with our own.

And our economy is strong. We are having problems because of reckless spending, not because of lack of production.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 16, 2008, 13:48:
 
quote:
Originally posted by nibbler:
And McCain has been for a balanced budget all along.

So is Bush.
That, and $2 will get you a cup of coffee.

quote:
We are having problems because of reckless spending...
You are having problems because of reckless lending, which was possible because the Bush regime refused to enforce existing financial regulations.
 
Posted by Colonel Panic (Member # 1200) on September 16, 2008, 14:40:
 
quote:
Originally posted by nibbler:
And I know that the leftist Barack Hussein Obama would like to take more of my money in the form of increased taxes.

How do you know that? Show us the Obama policy that causes you to know this.

Here is what Obama has to say:

http://origin.barackobama.com/taxes/

Here is how CNN/Money calls it:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm

You either make over $250,000 a year or you are just another Republican liar trolling the forum.

I'm betting on the latter.

CP
 
Posted by Colonel Panic (Member # 1200) on September 16, 2008, 17:32:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
[QUOTE]
2. Colonel Panic mentions his (partly) African family background.
ASM makes gratuitously anti-black comments in every discussion the Colonel enters.

Druid! You noticed.

I gotta wonder if anybody does when the warning in this forum reads Please note: trolling and cruelty are not tolerated here, and those that practice it will have posting privileges removed.

For a very long time it has appeared that Nitrozac and Snaggy feel that racist comments are nither trolling, nor cruel.

The two of them won't eat meat because it is cruel to animals. Apparently, we with African heritage live a few levels below those highly regarded animals.

I once considered sending a check for a Super Fan membership, but stopped once I saw the writing on the wall clearly stated, "You people are not welcome here." That ASM is allowed to continue to publish his filth on this forum, in brazen disregard of the rules is proof of that writing.

Their knack of looking the other way at racist postings has hurt a lot of feelings and hurt the formerly cordial nature of these forums.

CP
 
Posted by nibbler (Member # 21492) on September 16, 2008, 21:30:
 
Remember that $250,000 is married filing jointly for $250,000 (meaning that single would be $125,000)- That's putting s lot of folks in there. A whole lot of geeks.

He wants these people who earn 25% of all wages to pay more than 45% of the income tax.

Is that fair? And, more importantly, is that going to work?

How about we look at this "punitive tax" from a historical viewpoint:

This is the story of how mean old rich people got their comeuppance from Congress. Sort of..

quote:
The theory behind the luxury tax sounded simple enough. Congress believed anyone willing to spend $100,000 or more on a new boat surely would be willing to pay an additional 10 percent to the federal government. But that didn't happen. Rather than pay the tax, many people in the market to buy a boat either didn't buy one, or bought one overseas. As a result, the luxury tax didn't bring in much money at all, and the customers' reluctance to buy put the boat-building business, particularly here in Rhode Island, out of business. We first visited Rhode Island in June of 1992. The luxury tax had been in effect for 18 months. Tens of thousands of jobs had been lost across the country, thousands in Rhode Island alone.
And the same thing will happen if this Idiotic Idealistic plan of Obama's goes into effect.

People will renegotiate their salaries to just under the punitive mark and pay thousands less in taxes - netting more.

Or those who make much more will be paid in foreign countries and foreign currencies (many Hollywood Liberals are being paid in Euros already) Taking even more money out of the governments hands.

Please forget your jealousies and understand how the world works, not just how some vote-buying nut case pretends it will all workout.

History has never shown that oppressive taxes have netted more in the long term for a countries coffers.

And I know you're gonna love this: Back in the olden days there was a king name Rehoboam who did what Obama wants to do...
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 16, 2008, 23:40:
 
quote:
Originally posted by nibbler:
Remember that $250,000 is married filing jointly for $250,000 (meaning that single would be $125,000)

$200,000 actually.
RTFA. (pdf file)

quote:
From TFA:
The Obama plan maintains the existing marginal tax rates for every family making less than $250,000 – and single people making less than $200,000

quote:

How about we look at this "punitive tax" from a historical viewpoint:

Um, what does the failure of a totally different kind of tax (from the administration of that Godless Liberal George Bush senior) prove?

quote:

People will renegotiate their salaries to just under the punitive mark and pay thousands less in taxes - netting more.

Hilarious.
Chesty, your economics lessons are almost as funny as your science lessons.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on September 17, 2008, 07:26:
 
Thanks Chesty/nibbler for the history lesson. Can I offer you two in return.

The problems in Wall Street run deeper than the sub prime crisis. If that was so it would not be too difficult for the banks to work out how much bad debt they each had, but that is only the most recent manifestation of the corruption of the US and world financial systems by financial instruments too complex for their actual worth to be assessed. Some 5 years ago Warren Buffet "the sage of Omaha" gave a stark warning about this in his annual letter to investors, which concluded:-

quote:
The derivatives genie is now well out of the bottle, and these instruments will almost certainly multiply until some event makes their toxicity clear. Central banks and governments have so far found no effective way to control, or even monitor, the risks posed by these contracts. Derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal
Don't let the florid drama of the last few days blind you to acute seriousness of what is happening now, this is as Alan Greenspan has admitted "a once in a century event", and one which classic Republican laissez faire economics will not and cannot fix. Relying on individual guts and enterprise makes sense most of the time, but it was not a good strategy when dealing with Hurricane Katrina, and this, though entirely different, could be much bigger. It is not enough for John McCain to tell people to just keep calm and carry on. Your government ignored history before, and now in Iraq you are relearning the terrible lessons of the Vietnam War. If you vote in another Republican president, you may have to relearn the equally appalling lessons of the Great Depression.

Still in these circumstances I can understand why you would prefer that the argument returns to the traditional insults, mudslinging, and rumour mongering.
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on September 17, 2008, 07:54:
 
_______________ Callipygous I wish that I was as good a wordsmith as you.


I am reminded of the quote "those who do not study history will be forced to relive history". I do not remember the writer or the exact quote. You and I and many on these forums understand that, this has been played out before. The French, had their revolution, The world has had the great depression. that was really cured by World War Two, and the realignment of world economies.

Right now we are at the edge again, and I am unsure if there is a turning back point?

Too many people do not see the danger, in the world, in finances and in health. These people are blind to the danger or feel that is of no danger to them. I am too old to go back to work.

Some of you want to argue that this or that, is the right path argue all you want, we may have passed the point of no return. There are a lot of desperate people in the world that want some of the pie we have, how do we appease them "let them eat cake" ain't going to cut it.


When I started this thread it was about unfair reporting.

Now I see a much bigger problem the problem of the HAVES / HAVE NOTS. How will this play out in the next few years?
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on September 17, 2008, 19:29:
 
Part I: R-T-F-M (Read The Form / Manual)
quote:
Originally posted by ASM:
FYI: Only "the physician" has FULL ACCESS to records. ... Medicare (government) can't say "hey, since this guy filed a claim -- tell me everything about him since 1967."

Originally posted by Steen:
Actually, they can. The permission that you sign does not place any limit what can be released.

I won the argument.     Again.

 
READ A MEDICARE FORM!   CMS 1490s   Block 6
quote:
I AUTHORIZE ANY HOLDER OF MEDICAL OR OTHER INFORMATION ABOUT ME TO RELEASE TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AND CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES OR ITS INTERMEDIARIES OR CARRIERS ANY INFORMATION NEEDED FOR THIS OR A RELATED MEDICARE CLAIM. I PERMIT A COPY OF THIS AUTHORIZATION TO BE USED IN PLACE OF THE ORIGINAL, AND REQUEST PAYMENT OF MEDICAL INSURANCE BENEFITS TO ME.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/cmsforms/downloads/cms1490s-english.pdf

"Any information needed for this or a related Medicare claim" -- If medical records are NOT RELATED to the claim then the government HAS NO RIGHT TO THEM.

When you're wrong -- don't say "I win!"
 

quote:
our politicians are corrupt and let the medical industry dictate the policies they write
FYI: Anyone SUBMITTING A FRAUDULENT CLAIM is "corrupt." Politicians aren't the ones filing all the "false claims." The laws against Fraud ALREADY EXIST. Read the "False Claims Act" -- which provides a legal tool to counteract fraudulent billings turned in to the Federal Government.
 

Part II: TFD and His Past
quote:
Originally posted by TFD:
1. I mention my contempt for terrorists, and that people I know have been terror victims.   ASM declares me a supporter of terrorists.

You have contempt for terrorists? Sympathy is not contempt, and you seemed to sympathize with Osama bin Laden, and how he was "wrongly" hunted.
 
quote:
Originally posted by TFD from "Pawns of Mass Destruction":

"before the lynch-mob took over the Whitehouse." (July 28, 2004, 18:08)
"Oh, so if you know someone's guilty, you can just dispense with all that tiresome bureaucratic red-tape of trials, evidence, and lawyers. Just get straight on with the hangin' " (July 30, 2004, 00:23)

TFD, you seemed upset someone might "hurt" Osama bin Laden. Your "contempt" looks a lot like "sympathy" in my dictionary.
 
quote:
Originally posted by TFD from "Pawns of Mass Destruction":

"The US made it quite clear at the time that they had no intention of showing their 'confidential intelligence reports' to the Afghan government. "

That was your "big reason" not to turn over bin Laden. Well, since there's no harm in revealing one's own SECRETS, why not give out your GC password? While you're at it, post the numbers for your financial accounts along with any associated PIN numbers. Last but not least, if you gave information to police which led to the arrest and conviction of anyone involved in organized crime or gang violence, post that information, along with your present address and pictures of family members.

[shake head]   TFD, your contempt (hatred) for US leaders and "half" the American population (Republicans/Conservatives) is ABSOLUTELY UNMISTAKABLE. However, your "contempt" for Terrorists doesn't keep you from jumping in front of one and yelling "STOP!!! DON'T HURT HIM! IT'S NOT FAIR!"
 

Part II: CP and His Past
quote:
Originally posted by "Colonel Panic":
ASM is allowed to continue to publish his filth on this forum, in brazen disregard of the rules is proof of that writing.

Well, CP, would you like me to dredge up your past words?

Just ask me, and I will gather a "fine selection" of them, for all to consider. (You're rather low on my priorities, so don't expect anything before next week.)
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on September 17, 2008, 22:44:
 
ASM65816 wrote:
"Any information needed for this or a related Medicare claim" -- If medical records are NOT RELATED to the claim then the government HAS NO RIGHT TO THEM.

I think you forgot which side of the argument you're on (or you're trying to switch sides). I have maintained all along that medical fraud is not caused by "liberal idiots" demanding privacy and that Medicare can, in fact, access medical records related to the claim, but they don't do so because of corruption in the system.

Your point was that "liberal idiots" won't allow records to be released, so they are to blame for fraud.

The form and the bit you quote prove my point nicely and undermine yours.

You've lost this argument.

I won.

... and it's driving you fscking nuts (granted, it's a short drive), which amuses me greatly.

When you're wrong -- don't say "I win!"

Good thing I'm not wrong, huh? ... and it's just so damned fun to rub your nose in it as you try so desperately to manipulate what I've said and add other points to my argument and find some way to prove me wrong.

By your own facts, "liberal idiots" demanding privacy are not to blame for medical fraud, which was your original claim. I refuted that claim and now you're refuting that claim as well.

In short... I win!
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 17, 2008, 23:27:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steen:
You've lost this argument.

I won.

... and it's driving you fscking nuts (granted, it's a short drive), which amuses me greatly

[Applause] [thumbsup] [Applause] [thumbsup] [Applause]
 


© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0