From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 12:17:30 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:17:30 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] How the liberal Democrats deceive on healthcare Message-ID: <0a0a01ca6617$83be7ae0$8b3b70a0$@com> Richard, well stated. - John -----Original Message----- As John alluded to in another post, while liberals believe that people have a right to health care, conservatives believe the Constitution grants no such right, and health care is a privilege. Whether it's someone's fault regarding their situation isn't really an issue. And if my employer provides health insurance, it's considered part of my benefits package. If I want to keep those benefits, I had better be productive enough to make it worthwhile for my employer to keep providing them to me. Heath care is a product, and health care providers are in business to make money. Consider the example of when Paul McCartney played at the Superdome in 2002. Floor tickets sold for $250 each, because that was what the market would bear. If you had the money to spare and the desire to go, you spent $250 for a ticket. If you didn't have the desire to go and/or you didn't have the money, you didn't go. The government doesn't have the right to tell Paul how much to charge for a ticket, and it doesn't have the right to buy a ticket for those who can't afford to pay. You don't have the right to attend a Paul McCartney concert. It's the same with health care. Insurance companies and health care providers can charge whatever the market will bear. If you don't want to pay what they are asking, you do without, but you don't have a right to health care. Using my example, though, if Paul McCartney doesn't sell enough $250 tickets to pay his costs and make a profit, he'll lower ticket prices. When health care providers raise their prices to the point that demand starts to fall off, they'll lower prices. But as long as people keep buying health care service, providers have the right to charge whatever they want. That's capitalism. Richard From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 12:17:54 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:17:54 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] How the liberal Democrats deceive onhealthcarestatistics Message-ID: <0a0b01ca6617$91c75080$b555f180$@com> >I'm not sure if Jer meant it that way, but the fact does remain that nowhere i>n the Constitution or Articles of Confederation does it say anything about >being entitled or having a right to healthcare. John, nowhere in the Constitution, A.O.C or the Bill of Rights does it say anything about a Dept. of Veterans Affairs, EPA, the Dept. of Labor and Mine Inspections or anything of that type. Okay, strike the EPA reference. Still, we take care of our veterans (or try to) and we provide benefits and medical coverage to miners who have become ill from Black Lung from working in the mines. I think we **do** need to do something that helps to make medical insurance more affordable for those who don't have it (like me!) I'm willing to pay for a private policy for myself so I can have something if needed, but it shouldn't have to cost an arm and a leg. Now for those who **could** afford to buy health insurance but **choose** not to, I don't feel so much for them. And as far as those long lines to wait for a doctor and stuff...I grew up in a military family and we got treated at the base hospital or dispensary when needed. Everybody waited in line. JY From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 12:18:18 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:18:18 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] How the liberal Democrats deceive on healthcare Message-ID: <0a0c01ca6617$a02d6150$e08823f0$@com> >Whether it's someone's fault >regarding their situation isn't really an issue. And if my employer provides >health insurance, it's considered part of my benefits package. If I want to >keep those benefits, I had better be productive enough to make it worthwhile >for my employer to keep providing them to me. Bullshit. Yes it IS an issue whether someone loses coverage through no fault of their own. The only difference between them and you is you weren't handed a pink slip and they were. Yeah, your employer MAY keep those benefits as long as he/she can afford them. When the premiums get too excessive or too expensive, it's a cost-saving measure they can adopt to drop or reduce coverage. JY From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 12:21:45 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:21:45 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] How the liberal Democrats deceive on healthcare Message-ID: <0a1501ca6618$1bc0d130$53427390$@com> I agree, Richard. I believe, you should get what you pay for. If you're not paying for it, you SHOULD NOT receive quality care that someone IS paying for, in this instance. Why not become a transient by choice, then by sitting by the railroad tracks in Toilet paper boxes, then go stand in line somewhere and get fed, clothed, hospitalized, and nourished to the hilt (remember by choice). If you lose your job, get food stamps, social services cards, free charity-type hospitals, etc. But, you should never assume that the government owes one anything but to pass laws, build highways, etc. IF the congress's purse from taxpayers provide it. I belonged to enough organizations from the Jaycees to the Rotary, and other organizations where I gave back to the populace for helping me out when I was destitute. Some just continue to believe "Obama money, his stash, he's gonna take care of me with free money", etc. Work hard, help others in life who are truly worthy of the good deed you provide and it'll come back to you multiplied in blessings. --jer-- BTW, john, when I talked about those same low-lifes (yes, there are inconsiderate, money-grabbing (Glenn Beck believes they enslave themselves by purposely staying on the welfare and workfare rolls), I was hammered by you as "elitist". Why the double-speak, when we're referring to the same pile of trash in the dump? ---jer-- From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 12:35:00 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:35:00 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] Buyer's remorse? Message-ID: <0a1901ca6619$f57ee4b0$e07cae10$@com> Interesting since it's coming from The Boston Globe: http://tinyurl.com/y9m6nb4 JY From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 13:10:14 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:10:14 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] How the liberal Democrats deceive on healthcare Message-ID: <0a2901ca661e$e138f9a0$a3aaece0$@com> And therein lies the problem. Insurance is tied to the job. Why? Because of tax policy. Insurance coverage, paid by the employer is non-taxable income. If the employer gave you the cash to buy your own policy, it becomes taxable income. This has been the policy since the end of WWII. If you change the policy so that everyone can deduct from their income whatever they spend on health insurance, the whole game would change. I have health insurance through my wife's job. Are we happy with it? Nope, but we have no other option. I'm sure we could find a much better policy for the $500 we spend plus the $150 employer kick-in, but we can't afford to pay taxes on that $500 or take the $150 loss that her employer pays. Instead of the government taking over the health industry, they should be getting out of it. Free the tax code is the first thing to do. Westley -----Original Message----- >Whether it's someone's fault >regarding their situation isn't really an issue. And if my employer provides >health insurance, it's considered part of my benefits package. If I want to >keep those benefits, I had better be productive enough to make it worthwhile >for my employer to keep providing them to me. Bullshit. Yes it IS an issue whether someone loses coverage through no fault of their own. The only difference between them and you is you weren't handed a pink slip and they were. Yeah, your employer MAY keep those benefits as long as he/she can afford them. When the premiums get too excessive or too expensive, it's a cost-saving measure they can adopt to drop or reduce coverage. JY From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 21:15:12 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:15:12 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] How the liberal Democrats deceive on healthcare Message-ID: <0abc01ca6662$a0e2b280$e2a81780$@com> I started to bring you up Westley as a hypothetical since I remembered reading how you had your health ins. via your wife's teaching job and ask how you would handle it if you **didn't** have health insurance through that. And honestly, I don't think you'd find a policy that would cover you, your wife and the kids for that $650/month. If you did, it would most likely be one of those high deductible policies or something tied into the HSA thing (Health Savings Account). With a child (or do you all have a couple?) the high deductible thing might put you in the poor house before you met those deductibles. I've hardly ever seen a parent with children who didn't have to use an E.R. at one time or another with falls, bike accidents or something similar. JY ----------------------------------------------------- And therein lies the problem. Insurance is tied to the job. Why? Because of tax policy. Insurance coverage, paid by the employer is non-taxable income. If the employer gave you the cash to buy your own policy, it becomes taxable income. This has been the policy since the end of WWII. If you change the policy so that everyone can deduct from their income whatever they spend on health insurance, the whole game would change. I have health insurance through my wife's job. Are we happy with it? Nope, but we have no other option. I'm sure we could find a much better policy for the $500 we spend plus the $150 employer kick-in, but we can't afford to pay taxes on that $500 or take the $150 loss that her employer pays. Instead of the government taking over the health industry, they should be getting out of it. Free the tax code is the first thing to do. Westley From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 21:15:28 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:15:28 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] How the liberal Democrats deceive onhealthcarestatistics Message-ID: <0abd01ca6662$aad03380$00709a80$@com> "...John, nowhere in the Constitution, A.O.C or the Bill of Rights does it say anything about a Dept. of Veterans Affairs, EPA, the Dept. of Labor and Mine Inspections or anything of that type." Jim, good point...there are many "creations" by the federal government I would love to be able to go back into time and prevent from becoming reality. John From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 21:16:40 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:16:40 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] How the liberal Democrats deceive on healthcare Message-ID: <0abe01ca6662$d5698150$803c83f0$@com> Jim, If I'm reading you correctly, I'll add to all those who have some sort of warped thinking that their employers are "obligated" to pay towards a healthcare package....what if your employer decided to say "that's it, we're out of here and moving to South America where we can get good, productive employees to work for less than half plus we won't have to pay them any kind of benenfits." So my question is...do you prefer to be in the unemployment line with no decent income coming in or are you satisfied with a job where your employer at least gives you some kind of healthcare benefit, not to mention a regular salary? When you look at it that way, what your current employer is giving you doesn't seem all that bad. We have lost sight of what employer benefits are: simply a "perk" to encourage good employee personnel to come work for a particular company over a competitor. In some bizarre, mental-deficient way, we have somehow started thinking of employer benefits as a "right." Well, my message to everyone who thinks that way - particularly Obama, Pelosi, Reid and all the other Demwits: keep it up...and soon the only employers left in this country will be distributors who ship/deliver all the products coming into this country from China, India, Vietman, Cambodia, Taiwan, Phillipines, South America, etc. Well, I guess that could create a few more jobs at UPS or FedEx. - John From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 21:17:10 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:17:10 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] How the liberal Democrats deceive on healthcare Message-ID: <0abf01ca6662$e78b88b0$b6a29a10$@com> Jer, it wasn't me...unless it's the other John. I don't think I've ever used the word "elitist" in my commentary here...besides the fact that I don't think I've ever criticised you. That might have Jim, who is JY. -----Original Message----- BTW, john, when I talked about those same low-lifes (yes, there are inconsiderate, money-grabbing (Glenn Beck believes they enslave themselves by purposely staying on the welfare and workfare rolls), I was hammered by you as "elitist". Why the double-speak, when we're referring to the same pile of trash in the dump? ---jer-- From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 21:17:34 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:17:34 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] Buyer's remorse? Message-ID: <0ac001ca6662$f5921460$e0b63d20$@com> Jim, You're right. Interesting that the Boston Globe would allow this...although Jeff Jacoby is acknowledged as being a conservative. John -----Original Message----- Interesting since it's coming from The Boston Globe: http://tinyurl.com/y9m6nb4 JY From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 21:17:57 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:17:57 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] How the liberal Democrats deceive on healthcare Message-ID: <0ac101ca6663$03775c70$0a661550$@com> "...If you change the policy so that everyone can deduct from their income whatever they spend on health insurance, the whole game would change." Westley, you are absolutely correct...it would be over for the Demwits Party to be able to control the lives of Americans when it comes to healthcare. John -----Original Message----- And therein lies the problem. Insurance is tied to the job. Why? Because of tax policy. Insurance coverage, paid by the employer is non-taxable income. If the employer gave you the cash to buy your own policy, it becomes taxable income. This has been the policy since the end of WWII. If you change the policy so that everyone can deduct from their income whatever they spend on health insurance, the whole game would change. I have health insurance through my wife's job. Are we happy with it? Nope, but we have no other option. I'm sure we could find a much better policy for the $500 we spend plus the $150 employer kick-in, but we can't afford to pay taxes on that $500 or take the $150 loss that her employer pays. Instead of the government taking over the health industry, they should be getting out of it. Free the tax code is the first thing to do. Westley From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 21:18:25 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:18:25 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] Daddies (military guys) coming home to their fur babies Message-ID: <0ac201ca6663$13f80fe0$3be82fa0$@com> Gotta watch these. JY http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/40324 From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 21:21:41 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:21:41 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] Starner Jones, MD Message-ID: <0ac301ca6663$88e33eb0$9aa9bc10$@com> Before reading the letter below you should know that it is true. Many have heard me say over the past few years how liberal snopes.com is. The below story easily proves this point. You see, I did a check on snopes.com and even they confirm it is true. But snopes.com went a step further....besides verifying that Dr. Jones did in fact write the below letter that was published, snopes.com took it upon themselves to include a rebuttal letter published by the same newspaper a few days later. WHO ASKED SNOPES.COM TO INCLUDE THE "LIBERAL" PERSPECTIVE REBUTTAL LETTER???? NO ONE ASKED SNOPES.COM IF THERE WAS A REBUTTAL LETTER!! When they verified Dr. Jones' letter, that should have been the end of their story. But no, they had to tack on a reader's response (without request) that attacked and personally labeled Dr. Jones as some sort of "hateful person." Strange, but in all my years of frequenting snopes.com and verifying so called "letters to the editor," this is the only time I've found that they took it upon themselves to print a liberal minded rebuttal without being asked to do so. And the Mikkelson's (snopes.com publishers) wonder why I blogged them last year as being extremist liberals who look to slant their research in favor of the Obama and the Democrats. This proves it. John ________________________________ Short, sweet and to the point... This should be on the front page of every newspaper in America -in large bold letters. This was a "letter to the editor" in August 29th Jackson , MS newspaper. Starner Jones, MD is a seventh generation Mississippian and wanted to come back to Mississippi after going somewhere else for college and medical school. His extracurricular interests are golf, hunting, fishing and college football. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- Dear Sirs: "During my last night's shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B tune for a ringtone. Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid. She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer. And our Congress expects me to pay for this woman's health care? Our nation's health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture - a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. A culture that thinks "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me". Life is really not that hard. Most of us reap what we sow. Don't you agree? STARNER JONES, MD Jackson , MS From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 21:23:50 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:23:50 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] How the liberal Democrats deceive onhealthcarestatistics Message-ID: <0ac401ca6663$d5c71530$81553f90$@com> "And as far as those long lines to wait for a doctor and stuff...I grew up in a military family and we got treated at the base hospital or dispensary when needed. Everybody waited in line. --JY" Jer Responds: There is a considerable difference, JY about getting to wait in line for free service (like the military or charitable institution) and paying for a service and get the "charitable institution" services (like a private doctor). Last year I spent 8 hrs waiting with my son at a charity hospital because he was in school but not on my insurance plan any longer. Then, they told me to come back the next day I had to return the 60 mile round trip, and I again waited another 9 hrs with him. Until getting completed service. There IS a considerable difference between "not getting what you pay for" and "getting what you felt you should get". Being out of work and not having medical coverage is the same as one's son no longer having insurance coverage on one's policy and either getting a bill which you cannot pay for or going to a charitable hospital. Both suck. However, being out of work in either of our cases doesn't give us entitlement and not a right in the U.S. Constitution. In my case, we waited long periods of time. This is indicative (Universal Health Care) to socialized medicine or "share the wealth", "share the benefits of government", and since there are other in place socialized institutions such as "Social" Security, Welfare, unemployment benefits, charity hospitals and many others brought in to begin establishing a welfare/socialist state of entities and entitlements, proper planning or else use of these establishments is what's offered. Other services are either "Glinda, the Good Witch of Oz" or the U.S. pied piper (aka "Obama, the magnificent" "chosen one".) who is going to lead us down the path to oblivion of which can never be reversed. It looks like December 21, 2112 can't come quick enough. --jer-- From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 21:24:42 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:24:42 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] How the liberal Democrats deceive on healthcare Message-ID: <0ac501ca6663$f4d64900$de82db00$@com> "Instead of the government taking over the health industry, they should be getting out of it. Free the tax code is the first thing to do. --Westley" Jer responds: Yes, here's the truth to it, I agree. Under the Constitution, NO ONE is "entitled" to a "level playing field" where everyone makes the same amount of money, (equally wealthy), having same health and employment benefits and status. If this is/was the case, we all would be in a complete and total socialist state (country). However, that would be Utopia, because I've often mentioned that the socialist/communistic/Marxists' original leaders from 100-150 yrs before would be rolling over in their graves knowing their efforts, vision and sacrifice to establish the Soviet Union and other socialists countries were in vain. In vain, because past their lives, communist/socialist leaders did not follow the "road map" to Utopia. While others had to sacrifice, starve, spend time in Gulags and torture, be under the thumb of government and the "state", the leaders had magnificent homes, cars, succulent foods and wealth. Hardly walked in anyone's shoes, I'd say. Such is like what America and Louisiana would face when under total socialism--eliminating the middle class, keeping the elite and those who can benefit and everyone else gets the S_ _ _ end of the stick. If we allow it, we deserve it. --jer-- From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 21:37:40 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:37:40 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] How the liberal Democrats deceive on healthcare Message-ID: <0acf01ca6665$c4c8e270$4e5aa750$@com> Jim, I think if everyone was able to get health insurance on their own without going through their employer, health insurance would be a lot cheaper. Think about it. Look at the "non-essential" medical field and how prices have come down. Lasik eye surgery. Plastic surgery, especially the weight loss ones like lap band and gastric by-pass. None of these are essential, so the doctors have to be competitive to gain the business. I often laugh at how Walgreens, Walmart, and CVS run ad after ad trying to entice folks with lower cost prescriptions. I know for me, it doesn't make any difference which one I go to since my insurance determines the price I am going to pay. Right now Walgreens wins because of their 24-hour service and the fact that I can get a refill from any Walgreens. If CVS were to start doing these two things, I would look at them also. The problem is there is a big disconnect between those receiving the service and who's paying the bill. And with government regulations the way they are, it is really hard to do any type of price comparison for something that is covered by insurance. Especially since, lord forbid, I was to make a deal with my local pharmacy and I was able to get a bigger discount than my neighbor. The horrors and injustice such a scenario would portray is just too much for many people to even consider. By the way, just read an article in Forbes FYI magazine about a couple of awesome resorts in St. Lucie that start at $600 night. For all expenses paid, one week a year, round-trip airfare for the rest of my life, I might consider Obamacare. Westley -----Original Message----- I started to bring you up Westley as a hypothetical since I remembered reading how you had your health ins. via your wife's teaching job and ask how you would handle it if you **didn't** have health insurance through that. And honestly, I don't think you'd find a policy that would cover you, your wife and the kids for that $650/month. If you did, it would most likely be one of those high deductible policies or something tied into the HSA thing (Health Savings Account). With a child (or do you all have a couple?) the high deductible thing might put you in the poor house before you met those deductibles. I've hardly ever seen a parent with children who didn't have to use an E.R. at one time or another with falls, bike accidents or something similar. JY From Westley at da-parish.com Sun Nov 15 21:38:34 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:38:34 -0600 Subject: [StBernard] How the liberal Democrats deceive on healthcare Message-ID: <0ad001ca6665$e4f17580$aed46080$@com> "Jer, it wasn't me...unless it's the other John. I don't think I've ever used the word "elitist" in my commentary here...besides the fact that I don't think I've ever criticised you. That might have Jim, who is JY. --John" Absolutely, Correct: It is JY. (Yorkshire). This part of the disagreement was not intended for you. Sorry. There are times I've spit in the wind. Sometimes it comes back to hit me in the forehead while other times, it just misses me and catches others. But, it must be acknowledged that I rarely spit because it's so nasty and uncouth. -- Jer Ps. These are discussions of opinions and discussions. We should never intend them to be played on the battlefield.