They should go to jail. I'm tired of the media making excuses for adults behaving badly! THEY ARE ADULTS! they should be held accountable for their actions. I don't want to hear about them being "good kids" Good people don't violate people's privacy and humiliate them on a global scale! This young man is gone FOREVER.They should be charged with manslaughter.

They should go to jail because someone has died as a direct result of their actions. However, generally speaking, we no longer expect our citizens to take responsibility or pay the consequences when others are hurt by their actions. Example: about 15 different politicians in the last two years and Lindsay Lohan. Therefore when they do something like this or just as irresponsible they don't expect anyone to make anything of it. The people who did this are good, good students, they made a bad decision BUT somebody DIED. Maybe they'll just get probation.....not good enough. We must start again to teach our children about how to make good decisions and how to pay the consequences when they don't. I can't even fathom that they did this because Tyler was gay; I just can't fathom that.

These individules should go to jail. Also why is everyone assuming that this Kid was gay, this kid could have been caught in a momment and experimented this could have been what drove him to suicide.

What a malicious act by adults no less, at the expense of a life. Do these people not have any common sense or conscious. Invasion of privacy with lack of responsibility, totally unacceptable and definitely punishable. Exhibiting a lack of respect for privacy is a violation of a constitutional right. They should be tried and convicted.

No one ever grow a conscience in jail. Placing a child in jail will only put them in harms way and not bring back the young man that has been tragically lost. I believe that these students are too young to understand their actions and I am including the young man that took his own life. My heart goes out to the parents and family of the young man that died but also to the parents of the students forever scared by this tragedy.

They should get the maximum jail time and if it is not a serious crime it should be made one. It is an invasion of privacy and discrimination.

There's more to this than meets the eye.

jail,jail,jail,jail.

Mike G,it took longer than I thought to get back.

“Only the hard working middle class majority gets less and pays more” (with the healthcare bill.)-Mike G, 9/22.

I feel you and I straighten things out when we keep refining our meanings rather than billboarding broad statements. I believe that would be the case for by far most people, and so those interests that are invested in some outcome that is shapeable by public input need to keep the public speaking billboardese. When you say “pays more” I’m assuming you mean that the provisions that went into effect on Sept 23 will mean insurers will have to pay for people they’d rather not be burdened with, and that this would cause them to reduce their payouts to our providers, causing providers to bill higher, -or else that insurers will raise our premiums. There is also a provision, however, that orders insurers to return to the profit margins they thought were great just a few years ago, but which lately were not good enough for them. Insurers have to go back to 85% of revenue from our premiums dedicated to claims payouts, up from sickening lows of recent years. This should counteract their temptation to pay our providers less, which would have started an inflationary spiral. This same provision requiring an 85% payout return also disincentivises them from raising premiums. How much more the payouts for the more ill eats into that 85% pool, and if the result is a slight loss or a slight gain in the payouts our providers see, I can’t say. But I really think that simplistic models expecting wild instability are not weighing everything, and that a year from now people will realize that the sky isn’t falling.

I’m not sure exactly what you meant by “gets less”. In past discussions you used the term “less choice.” I’ll assume that’s what you meant. I then have to make assumptions about what you mean by less choice. Nothing has changed in availability of insurers, so I’m assuming you meant that, per the bill, you no longer have the choice to not be insured. Based on these assumptions, I’ll blunder on.

If “other” people make bad choices in their life, a conservative wants these “other” people to suffer the consequences, to learn a lesson, how to stand on their own two feet, and not force the beleaguered conservative to bail them out. But if this conservative believes that he should have the choice to be uninsured, that it’s his business alone, and that he wants to declare that no one bail him out if he’s unlucky, that’s really the same kind of poor choice he condemns in “other” people. No passerby, seeing him gory and screaming in agony after an accident, will turn away. No hospital will refuse to treat him. This hospital will not refuse to pass on the cost of this treatment to others; it will not let itself go out of business merely to honor the conservative’s wishes that no one bail him out. So much of the conservative’s talk of “choice” is moot. We are grown-ups, whether we want to be or not. We have responsibilities. We make sacrifices for each other. To pretend we have some choice about being a human being in a human society, and all that comes with that, is a strange delusion.

Broad (therefore vague) billboard expressions presented as a package of beliefs, a particular identity, are difficult to deal with in communicating with each other, both by being vague/generalized/possibly more emotional than rational, and by being part of one’s identity and hence protected as carefully as one’s underbelly. Were this not so, political conversations would be as uncharged as the swapping of recipes.

I thought it was said that the leopard could not change his spots.

MikeQ
First Champion of SS
Second Champion of Medicare
Third Champion of Single payer
NOW Champion of Obamicare

Idiot Q champions the insurers who reap 15% profit margins. You know what the profit margin for Dell, Microsoft, and Mobil are? 3-7%.

Idiot! 10-15% are rates usary! OMG, you know nothing about anything but have an opinion on all. And you are always wrong to boot.

Malicious yes, hateful questionable, regrettable with 100% certainty. But where does the responsibility of the victim begin or end, for taking his own life decisions that he alone choose to act upon?
Everyday tens of thousands of people are confronted with embarrassing situations that are life altering, how many choose suicide as the answer rather than face the music?
All of the people involved in this tragedy may well have been very good people, all were caught up in their moments of character instability. One took it way too far. If he was gay and was proud of his sexuality then his suicide was just a cop out. He could have opted to tell his parents and resumed his life. A little more notorious perhaps but, alive he could prove his strength in his convictions.

In the other two, we see malicious vindictiveness an the attempt to shame usually deemed on campuses and other circles as "hazing" a prank or a sick way to get even. Again, if the victim were comfortable within his being, suicide should never have been his first option.
This boy was troubled in more ways than one. He should not be lionized nor the cause for knee jerk legislation that call for more PC restrictions than should be tolerable in free speech society.
Nobody has a crystal ball to know the psyche or the measure of vulnerablity of another at any given time. People at a time of weakness or depression commit suicide. They don't have to be gay or straight. So let's keep it simple. This was a tradegy that society as a whole can learn from.
SUICIDE- LEAVES NO ROOM FOR APOLOGY OR REMEDY.
Feel sorry for the victims parents and family.
The victim made his own choices, the last one he made of his own volition was final and self defeating.
Let's pray for his soul. Hope that he found the serenity and peace that he was looking for in death, that he wasn't strong enough to strive for in life.

Malicious yes, hateful questionable, regrettable with 100% certainty. But where does the responsibility of the victim begin or end, taking his own life for decisions, that he alone choose to act upon?
Everyday tens of thousands of people are confronted with embarrassing situations that are life altering, how many choose suicide as the answer rather than face the music?
All of the people involved in this tragedy may well have been very good people, all were caught up in their moments of character instability. One took it way too far. If he was gay and was proud of his sexuality then his suicide was just a cop out. If an experiment, ooops. He could have opted to tell his parents and resumed his life. A little more notorious perhaps but, alive he could prove his strength in his convictions.

In the other two, we see malicious vindictiveness an the attempt to shame usually deemed on campuses and other circles as "hazing" a prank or a sick way to get even. Again, if the victim were comfortable within his being, suicide should never have been his first option.
This boy was troubled in more ways than one. He should not be lionized nor the cause for knee jerk legislation that call for more PC restrictions than should be tolerable in free speech society.
Nobody has a crystal ball to know the psyche or the measure of vulnerablity of another at any given time. People at a time of weakness or depression commit suicide. They don't have to be gay or straight. So let's keep it simple. This was a tradegy that society as a whole can learn from.
SUICIDE- LEAVES NO ROOM FOR APOLOGY OR REMEDY.
Feel sorry for the victims parents and family.
The victim made his own choices, the last one he made of his own volition was final and self defeating.
Let's pray for his soul. Hope that he found the serenity and peace that he was looking for in death, that he wasn't strong enough to strive for in life.

"Q champions the insurers who reap 15% profit margins."-fred

That 15% is not profit. There are operating costs of course as well. I don't have the exact figure, but private medical insurers paying out 85% of their revenue from premiums end up finally with a profit in the range you cited for other companies. Please, does this sound like I was championing these insurers? I'm waiting for them to become a specialty niche instead of drivers of policy with frightening power over us.

OK? Take a breath.

What’s Dumb, Really?

By CHARLES M. BLOW-NY Times

Big-city liberals and their blogging buddies love to paint Tea Partiers as yokels with incoherent candidates and language-mauling signs. (Some have even dubbed their misspellings and grammatical gaffes “Teabonics.”) On some level, this may be true. But there is also a certain hypocrisy to these taunts.

The unpleasant fact that these liberals rarely mention, and may not know, is that large swaths of the Democratic base, groups they need to vote in droves next month — blacks, Hispanics and young people — are far less civically literate than their conservative counterparts.

Therein lies the hurdle for the Democrats: How can they excite this part of the base that is not engaged and knowledgeable in an off-year election? How can they motivate these voters to help Democrats maintain their Congressional majorities when, according to a poll released this week by the Pew Research Center, 42 percent of blacks, 42 percent of Hispanics and 35 percent of voters ages 18 to 29 years old don’t even know that Democrats have a majority in the House? It’s sad. Pathetic, really. But it’s a political reality. (Only 71 percent of Democrats overall knew that Democrats had a majority in the House. By comparison, 82 percent of Republicans knew it.)

Instead of focusing like a laser on this problem, part of the White House’s new strategy appears to be to pick a fight with the left’s ivory tower intelligentsia.

Vice President Joe Biden said at a fund-raiser on Monday that the Democratic base should “stop whining.” The “professional left” may be whining, but underengaged Democrats are simply wandering. And, by the way, many Democrats don’t even know who the vice president is. In the Pew poll, 64 percent of Hispanics, 51 percent of young adults and 45 percent of blacks could not name Biden as the vice president. (Only 35 percent of Republicans got it wrong.)

In a Rolling Stone interview this week, President Obama both described himself as a progressive and then laid into progressives for their “debilitating” mind-sets. Whom are you talking to, Mr. President? According to a Gallup poll released in July, most Democrats didn’t even seem to know what a progressive was, and of those who did, slightly more said that it didn’t describe them than said that it did.

This high-altitude bickering is a waste of time. You can’t fight in the clouds if you want to win on the ground.

The smarter tactic is to build excitement rather than sow discourse. For example, Obama has made a concerted effort recently to reach out to young people, and that appears to be paying off. According to a Gallup poll released on Friday, the Democratic advantage in the Congressional races among young voters jumped 10 percentage points from last month, producing the “widest generational gaps so far this year.”

Excitement is exhilarating and contagious, even if you’re not aware of all the policies and players. Just ask those Tea Party yokels.


fred- Note that Blow dosent mention that the Tea Party is made up of 30% democrats.

I wonder how many of those dumbass democrats charles blow writes of, actually post on this site. Probably all.

yepper. lets all get out the vote....getting the base to vote fer shit they dont even understand! yippee for america.


I think I'm gonna join the new world order. probably be easier to have a king or a high commission running things. Cause as long as idiots are allowed to decide how this country is run....we all are doomed.

I'm waiting for them to become a specialty niche instead of drivers of policy with frightening power over us.

what???

For your information -my Evo Morales like freind- insurance companies together have almost as much cash as the banks and wall st combined. The biggest industry in America is insurance.

I'm waiting for them to become a specialty niche instead of drivers of policy with frightening power over us.

LMAO!!!

"insurance companies together have almost as much cash as the banks and wall st combined."-fred

Now. But as healthcare moves in increments toward Medicare for all, the medical insurance industry will, like big tobacco, do less and less in their original market, and diversify to stay in business. Some people are still going to want extra insurance, specialized insurance, but these insurers will no longer be running the country and playing God with people in need. That is the time I said I'm waiting for. Fifteen years? Twenty?

“Only the hard working middle class majority gets less and pays more” (with the healthcare bill.)-Mike G, 9/22”

Mike Q I was comparing Obamacare for the middle class to the elite government and public Union policies along with Medicaid where they don’t contribute. Obamacare does not focus on the real problem of bringing down health care costs, instead it focuses on Insurance reform. As the costs and the premiums go up for the middle class they also get less now with rationing and the like. This has no impact to our elite government workers. Insurance costs don’t matter to them because we pay for them. So now I am mandated to get less and pay more. Medicare for all would be way to expensive unless they could control the health care costs.

The honest reality Mike Q, is we don’t know much about Obamacare. We were asked to sign on the dotted line with a wait and see politician promise and they have shown too often they can’t be trusted. Health care needs fixing no doubt and I really hope that Obamacare is better for us. Yet, I have never known the federal government to work that way. They don’t know how to address specific issues but take a 50,000 ft blanket view which may benefit some, while making life worse for many others. That can be avoided if they simply tried to fix what was broken and kept what was working.

Mike G; What in healthcare needs fixing? What parts are broken and what parts need to be repared?

In 1200 pages or less, please........

Fred, not only will I make it short, I will even give you the rated "G" version, suitable for all audiences.

What was and still is broken is the escalating and completely out of control medical costs and the continuous rapid rise in premiums with less choices for the consumer and less affordable coverage for the average American.

The other thing that was broken and is supposedly fixed now is that anyone who wants health care should be able to get it at a reasonable price and not be denied or turned away due to pre-existing diseases.

Thanks Mike G, I pretty much agree. So what do you think a reasonable price per person should be?

WOW!!!
FIRST TIME I EVER AGREED WITH THIS GUY!!!-fred

Third Party Rising

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN-NY Times

A friend in the U.S. military sent me an e-mail last week with a quote from the historian Lewis Mumford’s book, “The Condition of Man,” about the development of civilization. Mumford was describing Rome’s decline: “Everyone aimed at security: no one accepted responsibility. What was plainly lacking, long before the barbarian invasions had done their work, long before economic dislocations became serious, was an inner go. Rome’s life was now an imitation of life: a mere holding on. Security was the watchword — as if life knew any other stability than through constant change, or any form of security except through a constant willingness to take risks.”

It was one of those history passages that echo so loudly in the present that it sends a shiver down my spine — way, way too close for comfort.

I’ve just spent a week in Silicon Valley, talking with technologists from Apple, Twitter, LinkedIn, Intel, Cisco and SRI and can definitively report that this region has not lost its “inner go.” But in talks here and elsewhere I continue to be astounded by the level of disgust with Washington, D.C., and our two-party system — so much so that I am ready to hazard a prediction: Barring a transformation of the Democratic and Republican Parties, there is going to be a serious third party candidate in 2012, with a serious political movement behind him or her — one definitely big enough to impact the election’s outcome.

There is a revolution brewing in the country, and it is not just on the right wing but in the radical center. I know of at least two serious groups, one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast, developing “third parties” to challenge our stagnating two-party duopoly that has been presiding over our nation’s steady incremental decline.

President Obama has not been a do-nothing failure. He has some real accomplishments. He passed a health care expansion, a financial regulation expansion, stabilized the economy, started a national education reform initiative and has conducted a smart and tough war on Al Qaeda.

But there is another angle on the last two years: a president who won a sweeping political mandate, propelled by an energized youth movement and with control of both the House and the Senate — about as much power as any president could ever hope to muster in peacetime — was only able to pass an expansion of health care that is a suboptimal amalgam of tortured compromises that no one is certain will work or that we can afford (and doesn’t deal with the cost or quality problems), a limited stimulus that has not relieved unemployment or fixed our infrastructure, and a financial regulation bill that still needs to be interpreted by regulators because no one could agree on crucial provisions. Plus, Obama had to abandon an energy-climate bill altogether, and if the G.O.P. takes back the House, we may not have an energy bill until 2013.

Obama probably did the best he could do, and that’s the point. The best our current two parties can produce today — in the wake of the worst existential crisis in our economy and environment in a century — is suboptimal, even when one party had a huge majority. Suboptimal is O.K. for ordinary times, but these are not ordinary times. We need to stop waiting for Superman and start building a superconsensus to do the superhard stuff we must do now. Pretty good is not even close to good enough today.

“We basically have two bankrupt parties bankrupting the country,” said the Stanford University political scientist Larry Diamond. Indeed, our two-party system is ossified; it lacks integrity and creativity and any sense of courage or high-aspiration in confronting our problems. We simply will not be able to do the things we need to do as a country to move forward “with all the vested interests that have accrued around these two parties,” added Diamond. “They cannot think about the overall public good and the longer term anymore because both parties are trapped in short-term, zero-sum calculations,” where each one’s gains are seen as the other’s losses.

We have to rip open this two-party duopoly and have it challenged by a serious third party that will talk about education reform, without worrying about offending unions; financial reform, without worrying about losing donations from Wall Street; corporate tax reductions to stimulate jobs, without worrying about offending the far left; energy and climate reform, without worrying about offending the far right and coal-state Democrats; and proper health care reform, without worrying about offending insurers and drug companies.

“If competition is good for our economy,” asks Diamond, “why isn’t it good for our politics?”

We need a third party on the stage of the next presidential debate to look Americans in the eye and say: “These two parties are lying to you. They can’t tell you the truth because they are each trapped in decades of special interests. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear. I am going to tell you what you need to hear if we want to be the world’s leaders, not the new Romans.”

“Thanks Mike G, I pretty much agree. So what do you think a reasonable price per person should be?” -Fred

Fred, obviously that question can not be answered so simply. The more complex and serious the procedure the more it should cost but we all know when we are being gouged. Suppose you get pains in your chest should it cost $2500 for a trip to the hospital to run a couple tests just to find out you are okay? How about the person with no health insurance who had a skin problem who goes for a skin test and gets slapped from the hospital lab with a $2800 bill? Then there is the person who needed a hip replacement and wanted a trusted good doctor who happened to be out of network. The insurance pays 70% out of network but when it is all said and done the hospital cost consisting of the operation and one night is $5,000 to $6,000. The procedure cost $21,000, of which the insurance will only pay $1,000. What good is insurance!

Perhaps the reason for the high prices is the high cost of insurance the doctors must pay or the fact we must pay for those without insurance, including the 13 million illegal’s. We should have been addressing these specific issues and find ways to fix them. Perhaps we could have certain low cost doctors that you can’t sue or special low cost clinics for those with no insurance. Instead, Obamacare does little to address the real problem and only masks the high cost of medical itself, which in the end will not make things better for us.

Could it be like the car makers and big oil are in secret 'partnership', so is medical and the insurance industry?

MikeG: This is the primary reason why I can't agree with your arguments that it is government not the global corporates at the heart of the problem that have have been halting the progress you seem to expect in the private sector.
Nobody seems to be keeping track of the fact that between the banksta's and the globals they alone increased the deficit $3.1trillion and the globals are still sucking in more, despite their holding $1.6trillion from what they had borrowed and promised to infuse into the economy. Instead they are holding out for hostile buyouts and mergers which will again deplete the private sectors workforce.
Notice that they are allowed to borrow at the discount window while freezing jobs, while small domestic businesses must grovel and wait.
You can't blame the government for spending or interference, if you want the gov't to do what you claim about increasing private sector jobs.
the only thing Obama could do without guaranteeing the publics money through temporary takeovers is to issue a Presidential Order demanding that the banks and globals infuse the money immediately, without further delay with the threat to call in all loans w/ addt'l interest charges tacked on- should they refuse to comply. This has been my main point of contention for close to 2yrs now. We've already made our contribution, and again they are the one's holding back.
They've increased the deficit $3.1trillion plus whatever thjey continue to siphon at the discount window. Obama is still dealing with collecting and re-dispersing $800b. Which is the greater burden?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/business/04borrow.html

__________________
"As many households and small businesses are being turned away by bank loan officers, large corporations are borrowing vast sums of money for next to nothing — simply because they can.

Add to Portfolio
Moody's Corporation
Credit Suisse Group AG
Microsoft Corp
Norfolk Southern Corp
International Business Machines Corporation
Johnson & Johnson Inc
Hertz Corp
DuPont Company
PepsiCo Inc
Barclays PLC
Go to your Portfolio »
Companies like Microsoft are raising billions of dollars by issuing bonds at ultra-low interest rates, but few of them are actually spending the money on new factories, equipment or jobs. Instead, they are stockpiling the cash until the economy improves.

The development presents something of a chicken-and-egg situation: Corporations keep saving, waiting for the economy to perk up — but the economy is unlikely to perk up if corporations keep saving.

This situation underscores the limits of Washington policy makers’ power to stimulate the economy. The Federal Reserve has held official interest rates near zero for almost two years, which allows corporations to sell bonds with only slightly higher returns — even below 1 percent. But most companies are not doing what the easy monetary policy was intended to get them to do: invest and create jobs.

The Fed’s low rates have in fact hurt many Americans, especially retirees whose incomes from savings have fallen substantially. Big companies like Johnson & Johnson, PepsiCo and I.B.M. seem to have been among the major beneficiaries.

“They are benefiting themselves by borrowing and keeping this cash, but it is not benefiting the economy yet,” said Dana Saporta, an economist at Credit Suisse in New York.

American corporations have been saving more money since the financial collapse of 2008. But a recent rush of blue-chip bond offerings — including a $4.75 billion deal last month by Microsoft, one of the richest companies in the world — has put even more money in their coffers.

---> Corporations now sit atop a combined $1.6 trillion of "cash", a figure equal to slightly more than 6 percent of their total assets. In the first quarter of this year it was 6.2 percent of assets, the highest level since 1964, when it was 6.4 percent." [CONT]

IS IT OUR MONEY, OR THEIRS?
IF YOU DETERMINE THAT IT IS OURS BECAUSE, WE AND OUR PROJECTED LABORS MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE FED TO LEND IT TO THEM... THEN WHY SHOULD IT BE SO WRONG TO PUT AN ACCELERATED TIMELINE ON THEM TO INVEST, PAY BACK AND BUILD A STRONGER MORE PROFICIENT SOCIETY HERE AND NOW.

"As the costs and the premiums go up for the middle class they also get less now with rationing and the like."-MG

You're seeing rationing already, more than we already had if we wanted a good doctor? Expect a lot of Cuban doctors as the previously uninsured start being able to look out for their health. There needn't be a crisis of a doctor shortage if we're not stiff-necked about where they come from. In time our own medical schools can catch up with demand.

You say the healthcare bill doesn't focus on costs. I think that by getting us unstuck from the for-profit trap, we'll eventually arrive at Medicare for all. When that happens the inflation of charges will go down. With the greater feeling of security doctors and hospitals will have, they will not feel the need to inflate their charges. As many tens of thousands of doctors and hospitals find themselves relieved of the cost of several full time insurance handlers, they can pass these lower costs onto the patient. So healthcare costs can come down, without price controls or starving out doctors and hospitals, just by having a single payer public system.

As for public union employee insurance,-my wife is a teacher, and knows about teachers' union pensions, medical insurance, salaries, and the like.

As with all employees who get medical insurance from employers, this is in lieu of higher salaries, and a big chunk of the insurance premium comes out of their paychecks in addition. To say they "don't care" because they're not paying for it,-how do you figure that?

And their pension, again it's their money, partly in lieu of higher salaries and partly from their paycheck. Teachers in NYS have managed their pension fund from the beginning, and their skill at this has made the NYS teachers' pension one of the best-managed funds in the country, public or private. But what do people do? Do they take lessons from this, and create/improve their own pension funds? No, they act jealous and try to destroy the teachers' fund. These complainers act as if teachers don't face recessionary constraints and the incessant hostility of taxpayers on top of that.

You say that Medicare for all would be too expensive. Based on what? With the efficiency of single payer, and with no extra charge for profit, how could it not be cheaper? Government inefficiency? The figures clearly show that Medicare operates very efficiently, more so than private insurers. That means lower costs, not higher. Pre-65 people would pay premiums to Medicare instead of to for-profit insurers, that, again, would not include a profit gift for private insurers. So how would Medicare for all be too expensive?

It is their money.

John, only banks can borrow from the discount window. Corporations bond. If a corporation wants to raise a billion, they are not going to be able to borrow it from a bank. And when corporations do bond, they are creating economic activity, which is a very good thing. With intrest rates this low, you would be crazy not to borrow or bond. If I could borrow cash at half a point, I'd load up myself.


How does a company like DuPont formulate a 3,4,5,10 year plan, when they dont know how Obamas healthcare plan is going to affect them? Is or is not the govt going to raise-lower capitol gains. Whats he going to do somthing with the Bush tax cuts? Are they going to re-visit cap and trade. Obama has too many unresolved irons in the fire. And a lawmaker election is fast approaching to boot. Nobody knows whats going to happen next.


The con: The the fed create cash out of nothing. They charge the taxpayers points when they print it and then they charge the banks points when they borrow it from the discount window. Then the banks charge us points when they lend it. There are 3 streams of credit owed on that dollar before it is put into circulation. The workers labor will pay it all back.

So John, when every bubble burst's, who ends up with the hard assets?

John, Have you seen David Icke's 6 hour show, "From Prison to Paradise"?

Wanna see movement....open the discount window to everybody.

Q: NYS Teachers defined benefit retirement system is really well managed. Top notch board.

Just goes to show what all corporate, state, city, local and federal govt-social security- defined benefit plans should be like. Unfortunately, most are not.

Medicare for all? Jeez, medicare is cutting reimbursements by 18% this year. Some dr's wont even accept medicare insurance anymore.

I think Obamacare is going to be more like state medicaid. Everybody that wants it will have it. Ofcourse they will have to pay a premium according to earning scale.

State medicaid is now called medicaid managed care. In westchester, the county provides managed care through contracts with five health plans that each provide the same range of care.
The health plans are:
Affinity
Fidelis
Hudson Health
HIP
GHI

Everybody on state medicaid has to enroll in one of the above plans. It is mandatory. Unfornunately not many drs are enrolled in these plans because they pay so little. I heard its something like $45 for an office visit.

They should go to jail if invasion of privacy is a crime that warrants it and they are convicted of it. Since they did not directly cause the death of the student, they should not go to jail for that.

"NYS Teachers defined benefit retirement system is really well managed. Just goes to show what all corporate, state, city, local and federal govt-social security- defined benefit plans should be like."-fred

Now, raising a ruckus to push for proven excellence as a model for how to run things is something I could get behind, rather than throwing everything out without any thought about what to replace it with, as so many tea people seem to be advocating.

"medicare is cutting reimbursements by 18% this year."

What 18%? The fraudulent reimbursements? There was some talk of getting more serious about eliminating the storefront fake medical facilities billing Medicare for non-existant services. So, saying Medicare is cutting reimbursements by 18% is not a sign that it's going broke (it's not), but could reflect reduced fraud. So that figure could be a good thing, not something bad.

It'll be a long time before this all settles out as something useful and manageable.

3 of Every 4 Oil Lobbyists Worked for U.S. Gov't
Washington Post: Among Those Lobbyists Are 18 Former Members of Congress and Dozens of Presidential Appointees / July 21, 2010 / http://tinyurl.com/24999vz
Three out of every four lobbyists who represent oil and gas companies previously worked in the federal government, a proportion that far exceeds the usual revolving-door standards on Capitol Hill, a Washington Post analysis shows.

Key lobbying hires include 18 former members of Congress and dozens of former presidential appointees. For other senior management positions, the industry employs two former directors of the Minerals Management Service, the since-renamed agency that regulates the industry, and several top officials from the Bush White House. Federal inspectors once assigned to monitor oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico have landed jobs with the companies they regulated.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/22/politics/washingtonpost/main6702686.shtml

June 21-2010
Nearly a week after a 21 percent cut to the Medicare reimbursement rate for doctors went into effect, the U.S. Congress voted to stop the cut for another six months.

The Senate approved a stay to the rate cut June 17 but killed its version of an employment-stimulus package, prompting sharp criticism from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) over the ensuing weekend. After a brief face-off with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), however, the House last nightapproved the measure on a 417-1 vote, The Associated Press reported. The lone dissenter was Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.). The measure now goes to President Barack Obama, who called the 21 percent cut “unacceptable” and said he’s pleased at the House vote ’ with reservations.

“A 21 percent pay cut to physicians’ payments would have forced some doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients ’ an outcome we can all agree is unacceptable,” Obama said in astatement. “We should also agree, as I’ve said in the past, that kicking these cuts down the road just isn’t an adequate solution to the problem. The current system of recurring cuts and temporary fixes was passed into law more than 10 years ago. It’s untenable

Hey, just food for thought. Does anyone know how many times the Republicans fillibustered in the past 4 years. And how many times during past nearly 2 year Obama regime?

Peter: Say it ain't so. I for one would miss your very adroit and inciteful analysis. Your messages not only broaden the scope on the issues, it gives us a whole new vantage point from which to ponder the situation. Reconsider?
PS: you were not wrong by a longshot in your argument with fred, I was just applauding his "personal" acumen for securing "his" future. You like I feel that corporations owe just a little bit of loyalty and decorum to the one's who have made their fortunes. That they are not free to treat others like discarded cattel just because of the small print warnings they issue when getting their unwitting employee to sign on those dotted lines.

“Notice that they are allowed to borrow at the discount window while freezing jobs, while small domestic businesses must grovel and wait.” - John

John, So what are we really saying? We want the corporations and banks to succeed, absolutely we do. What was the meltdown all about if not for the fact that OUR 401K investments in these Corporations were threatened by those company’s losing profits. If you own shares in these company’s then you want that investment to go up. The real losers were not the 401K owners but the taxpayer that had to bail out these company’s, especially if they were not invested in them.

So we don’t want the Corporations to die but we want them to pay their fair share. The government should have a hand in those companies paying their fair share. In a free society it’s done with proper rules and regulations to PREVENT an unfair balance and punish those that abuse the system and commit a crime. The government was derelict in it’s duty, which could have prevented the meltdown. So now after the fact, after they agreed to NAFTA, after they allowed bogus loans, after they allowed too big to fails, special interest lobbyists, NWO and so on, they blame the Corporations? In a free society should Corporations be forced to hire, forced not to hoard money or should they be encouraged with the proper incentives, competition and economic environment to make it a win, win for all? The government role is to create a fair playing field so that individuals and company’s can succeed on their own. They should not be taking our taxpayer money to pay for their irresponsible polices and oversights. So I blame government more.

Consider the BP oil spill as an example. If a greedy Corporation broke the law, which caused the spill, then BP should pay the damages from their own profits. If the government allows them to break the law and get away with it or make us pay, then I blame the government more. In addition, if the government was at fault for not having strict enough regulations, then the government should be responsible. In that case, I personally think it should come directly from the salaries of the elite politicians who did not do their job.

"To say they "don't care" because they're not paying for it,-how do you figure that?" - Mike Q

Mike Q, I was refereeing mainly to the elite politicians in the public sector that make legislation they don't have to live by and don't have to pay into their health care, so higher costs don't effect them directly. They continue with their raises and if costs go up, then our taxes go up to pay for them.

I know school teachers relatively speaking, don't make a lot and are contributing more and more to their benefits. No disrespect meant toward your wife's profession. Unlike a lot of these politicians, she has a noble, undervalued job, that deserves more appreciation.

MikeG: how can you say that when the government is nothing more than paid corporate insiders. Those who want to change things inevitably run into those CFR and K Street houseplants that will write the legislation and chair the key committees.
None of them are involved in politics to make this country a better place to live for its citizens, they are all the great majority of K Streeters cheese eating packs of rabid rodents, preening to jump ship at a moments notice, awaiting their move into their new digs in Dubai or a private sector penthouse complete with Golden Parachute in one hand and 1st Class Healthcare courtesy of the public, bonuses and placement in the CFR comes courtesy of howadroit they are at manipulating the swindling processes they acquire from their corporate benefactors.
When will you acknowledge that the vast majority of the governmental maladies that you complain about- originate in those revolving door double agents that the corporations assign and promote as candidates, ...assign to committees, ...and who take turns regardless of party affiliations holding up key legislations that are meant to protect the general public.

Watch Spitzer's opening statement tonight on CNN. I believe he carries just a little bit of our thunder- to present a refreshing viewpoint to Obama for America.

"how can you say that when the government is nothing more than paid corporate insiders....When will you acknowledge that the vast majority of the governmental maladies that you complain about originate in those revolving door double agents that the corporations assign....and who take turns regardless of party affiliations holding up key legislations that are meant to protect the general public"-John

John, I don't follow, aren't we saying the same thing? If the vast majority of government officials are corporate insiders opposing what is best for the people then who are the good ones? How could the legislation they want to pass be in our best interest? Is that what you mean by double agents? If they are double agents that can be bought at a price, then why should we trust anything they want to pass as being in our best interest?

If one Apostle is bad we blame the devil and call him Judas but we don't stop believing or trusting in the messege. How many Judas's would it take to blame the Apostles and start to question their messege?

Hmmmmmmmm! Mike I get where you are coming from but, shudder at the thought of re-arming the right wing with delusions of grandeur and entitlement to turn moderate Republican ideals into their NEO-FASCIST PARTY and letting them implement their version of Hitler's work camps revisited with higher technology at their disposal. Those people "hate" everyone who has an opinion or a measure that runs counter to their lockstep "all hating" propaganda.
I am not defending Democrats by any stretch of the imagination unless Obama restructures his cabinet with more ears to the ground, and practical replacements. Those that come to mind readily would be Russ Feingold for his bi-partisan legislation ability's should he be lost in this coming election. Globalists from both parties have had him targeted for years. Ron Paul to regain control of the Fed. Howard Dean to clean up healthcare. Kucinich to insure job growth here and now.

In no way, would I risk giving the Newts and Boehners the opportunity of flipping the switch that calls for the return to the same policys that Bush/Cheney programs reigned upon a helpless and unempowered populace.
If you don't see the end of SSI, the round-ups of persons of interest, and the use of FEMA CAMPS as part and parcel of the rash continuums of Poppys CIA/IMC recycled cohorts who have already hijacked the voting system, then I am sorry that we don't see "prevention as the best form of antiseptic", in this quasi big $$$ "fixed" election that middle class concerns cannot infiltrate- tinged with that toxic variable contained with elements of the Tea Party espousing right wing "putsch" alternatives of insurrection, and bringing guns to political rallies to curtail another persons free speech.

What better counter weight do the druids behind the scenes need, to insure and maintain their untimate objectives will be accelerated by the need for police state enforcements to end the ensuing chaos
should the big business titans by any chance lose the stranglehold grip on their "status quos"
that both facilitate and funnel all monies into NWO venues.

All of this was covered by General Smedley Butler ages ago, as you well know.

Hmmmmmmmm! Mike I get where you are coming from but, shudder at the thought of re-arming the right wing with delusions of grandeur and entitlement to turn moderate Republican ideals into their NEO-FASCIST PARTY and letting them implement their version of Hitler's work camps revisited with higher technology at their disposal. Those people "hate" everyone who has an opinion or a measure that runs counter to their lockstep "all hating" propaganda.
I am not defending Democrats by any stretch of the imagination unless Obama restructures his cabinet with more ears to the ground, and practical replacements. Those that come to mind readily would be Russ Feingold for his bi-partisan legislation ability's should he be lost in this coming election. Globalists from both parties have had him targeted for years. Ron Paul to regain control of the Fed. Howard Dean to clean up healthcare. Kucinich to insure job growth here and now.

In no way, would I risk giving the Newts and Boehners the opportunity of flipping the switch that calls for the return to the same policys that Bush/Cheney programs reigned upon a helpless and unempowered populace.
If you don't see the end of SSI, the round-ups of persons of interest, and the use of FEMA CAMPS as part and parcel of the rash continuums of Poppys CIA/IMC recycled cohorts who have already hijacked the voting system, then I am sorry that we don't see "prevention as the best form of antiseptic", in this quasi big $$$ "fixed" election that middle class concerns cannot infiltrate- tinged with that toxic variable contained with elements of the Tea Party espousing right wing "putsch" alternatives of insurrection, and bringing guns to political rallies to curtail another persons free speech.

What better counter weight do the druids behind the scenes need, to insure and maintain their untimate objectives will be accelerated by the need for police state enforcements to end the ensuing chaos
should the big business titans by any chance lose the stranglehold grip on their "status quos"
that both facilitate and funnel all monies into NWO venues.

All of this was covered by great heroes General Smedley Butler and later General/President Eisenhower ages ago, as you well know. AND THEIR HEROIC SERVICE TO COUNTRY AND THE MEN WHO SERVED UNDER THEM- REMAINS UNCHALLENGED.

Caveat Emptor! Do not take unnecessary chances with your liberties and freedom lightly.

What was it that President Eisenhower said about the IMC?

John, whatever concept empowers and protects the individual from both overstepping big government and corrupt abusive too big to fail corporations, I will agree with. I will not give more power and control to a government that is just as bad as the corporations you want to bring under control. The will of the people must be followed, rather then have untrustworthy government deciding who should benefit and should not.

What exactly is "the will of the people"?

It is a cliche is it not?

"What exactly is "the will of the people"? It is a cliche is it not?"

Fred, the will of the people is real. In the strict sense, it is not how we govern but good government with the right policies, should be a reflection to some degree, what the majority of people want. Otherwise, why even vote or express your opinion if nothing we say has any consideration? If almost everything a government does opposes the people then they have overstepped their authority. Some examples; Obamacare, not keeping jobs here, overturning proposition 8, suing Arizona, lack of border control, overspending, ignoring abusive business practices and corruption, etc.

Guys, the quandary will still remain, same as it has always been perhaps even worse with the selection of those Tea Party frontmen and women that have been placed out there as your alternative choices to be the focal point in this election.
None of them has a clue, none of them present a remedy, and none them is saavy enough or can be taken seriously enough for them to gain access to mediate with the powers that can and will crush theirs and every aspiration that rides on their coattails in a single soundbyte moment, whenever they stop being amusing buffers for their other trained monkeys and pitbulls.
The only reason these individuals are getting the airtime is to constantly remind us that winning under these conditions [UNLIMITED CORPORATE CAMPAIGN FUNDING]costs oodles of money that rational people will not expend for these terminally flawed candidates.

To say that the Dick Armey right wing didn't orchestrate the outcomes with inordinate subterrainean spending or the Grizzlie Mamas trance provoking endorsements is a gross understatement of today's reality show hypnotics and the audiences it attracts.

There are no worthy Tea Party candidates that represent mainstream America, except for the prodigeous area of tax and spending reform. And there is no money for jobs forthcoming from the private sector unless the Tea Party contingent is willing to throw all education, healthcare and fiscal reform under the bus. And still, the new jobs the private sector will entertain will at the end of all of these purges- will be of the "entry level" non benefit kind THAT YOU DEMANDED AND CALLED FOR.
The privates having gotten all that they have asked for- will again up the stakes once more and have wages, stunted by comparing the costs against foreign investment. Especially, since there is nothing in writing, and no Democrat bill left to worry about that compels them to invest in job growth here.
So tell me, what is the total net gain.
Is it the prize of venting frustration in a crazed frenzied moblike mentality kind of way- a joy worthy of respect when the dust settles. Or is it a 2nd Detroit in awaiting. "Oh shit, We shouldn't have done it, they don't care about us or the message that was intended, like they do about the other enemies they've vanquished and pillaged." Oooops!

Isn't willingly adding, more unbalanced freaks to the freakshow- just like putting the nuclear option directly into the hands of the manipulators?

One thing is certain and that is that we have no clue where these folks are headed or who their handlers are- ...nevermind what insane policys they might try to invoke.
Second- at least two of the ditzy divas have already exposed themselves as whimsical, devil may care, "insiders" with connections.
Third- Ron Paul had already forewarned us that his sons values in no way were a reflection of his own a whole year before his "selection". Duh!


So yeah, alternate party with a plan, ok- I'm with it. Getting behind the Tea Party and it's mindless meandering- NOT A CHANCE.