Palin is a birther...

Are you complaining about corporations charging high fees for supplies and services and calling that thievery?

I was working. Several shifts as a matter of fact. Had an opportunity for the big pay day before Christmas and took advantage of it. I love those double time and a half paying shifts.

Then you are really gonna luv it when Obamacare adds another 40,000,000, that's millions, to the "free healthcare rolls" because you will then be expected to work 360 days per year.

It is equipment companies, drug companies etc that overcharge for their products.

Now Andrea, maybe you think they overcharge for their products and I think they overcharge for their products ........ but the Government doesn't think they overcharge for their products. Hells bells, it is the Government that "sets the price" for their products.

So why in hell would you accuse those companies with thievery?

The actual fraud and thievery, other than the Government's theft of the working person's dollars, ........ is perpetrated by either real or bogus healthcare providers that submit fraudlent Medicare and Medicaid Billing.

Like the guy I read about down in Florida who was knocking on doors in those Senior Citizen communities offering a "free breast cancer test" for anyone with a Medicare or Medicaid Card.


.

Andrea Cristobal wrote: When I talked about equipment companies that wrongfully charge for things you didn't seem concerned in the least. Yet fraud in Medicare seems to give you apoplexy. Now why is it different when a business defrauds someone and someone with Medicare does? That's the problem with that old way to the right view. It only sees one side of things.

First off, unlike Medicare fraud where I can clearly show massive fraud, you cannot do the same with ‘equipment companies.’ And not only can you NOT show massive fraud on behalf of equipment companies, you can’t show how universal health care will stop any cases of independent fraud you claim consider it is the Government that sets the prices.

Now why don't you address the issue that brought this out. Other then the drivel of "it's a lot of money", how is an industry with a 2.5% profit margin greedy?

Aaron,

Will you be around the last week of the month? I need to collect and would love to meet you and anyone else in the Putnam/Kanawha County area who likes biscuits and gravy.

Yes Mike, I'll be around and as it's a short trip for me, less then 5 miles, I can meet you anytime.

The only question I have is will that be 1 biscuit, 2 biscuit’s or all you can eat?

And I’m sure Stephanie would love to join us as once she get’s out of the boondocks she’s only about 10 miles away.

And perhaps we could get Terry to come out as well. I know where he lives and it's not too far away but I've not had the opportunity to meet him.

I don't know if we could get Jimmy to come down from Wheeling or Sam to come from Burnsville but perhaps we could get Ziggy to come down from Ripley. I think it would be a fine time indeed. And they don't have to stick with B and G. Tudor's has a wide variety of country food including some pretty good burgers.

I'll be there!

Many times equipment and drug companies don't just overcharge they cheat. (Price grafting is a crime in some places by the way.) Like claiming something is 'custom' when it isn't. A pharmacy that adds someone's else's meds onto a Medicare receipient's to get them paid for. Labratories adding on charges that the customer never received. Therapists that charge for therapy hours they actually didn't give. Those kind of things happen all the time. Those are all theft. And they cost Medicare and Medicaid millions and possibly billions of dollars every year. That's not just overcharging.
Oh and Aaron when I was asking for sources weren't you the one who said this is an opinion forum, we don't give sources all of the time. No? That wasn't you? Must have been a doppleganger.

And oh yes , I love work. The more the better. Unfortunately my boss gave today's extra hours to someone with less of them in the OT column.

I'm not asking for sources, just answers. Seems you don't have any.

I'm afraid I haven't found you to have any either.

And your questions were?

Aaron wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:If you guys do not take it easy on you-know-who, you are going to chase you-know-who off--just like you did all the others.

Looks like we ran her off. As I don't think anyone was overly rude though, I'm pretty sure it was the her inability to answer questions but that's just my opinion.

The arrogance of this statement is astounding. As if the voracity and brilliance of your arguments chased me away. The conceit of that is over the top. You really do like Sam give me a good laugh. You would focus on 2% if it were trillions of dollars in profit. Because 2% sounds small and you use it to justify that a company isn't really profiting a great deal if it is only 2%. When in reality 2% could be huge. Yet the idea of business perhaps making a choice to be a good citizen like the rest of us are expected to be you ignore. Maybe giving up a tad of their profit to help their fellow Americans. I think the disease is called tunnel vision.

Why is it OK for Microsoft to make incredibly huge sums of money, but not acceptable for Pfizer to make a ton of money?

Why is it alright for movie studios and actors to make a mint, but Rite Aid and CVS can't? Why is it ok for Ortiz to make millions for swinging a bat, making a day at Fenway unaffordable to many families, yet the doctor that saves a young mother and her infant insist on a certain standard of living after years of hard work?

Why is it that the engineers and scientists that invent and create and discover the treatments that save and improve lives and the investors that support them can't enjoy wealth, but Oprah can become the wealthiest woman in America with a fluff talk show?

Creating and generating wealth is not a crime in the USA. It never has been and it is my sincere hope it never will be but with the cast of characters we have in DC now one has to wonder.

Is health care the same as swinging a bat? Is it the same principle? Is needed surgery the same as a talk show? Is a life saving drug the same as a movie? Or a movie star. Is it always all about the money? Or are there some things that the money should be secondary and the human need first?

Let me get this straight, the people who do the really important stuff for the rest of society, the people who cure our diseases and save our lives and ease our suffering, they can't enjoy an affluent lifestyle. That pleasure must be strictly reserved for the Tiger Woods and Barbara Streisands and the guy who invented Shamwow. Have I got that right?

Yet the idea of business perhaps making a choice to be a good citizen like the rest of us are expected to be you ignore. Maybe giving up a tad of their profit to help their fellow Americans.

Andrea, and maybe you will be a good citizen by giving up a tad of your OVERTIME profits by writing a personal check to a Charity or the Salvation Army to help your fellow Americans?

Huh, ...... HUH?

Andrea, you are catching so much hell because you are talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

Stephanie wrote:Why is it OK for Microsoft to make incredibly huge sums of money, but not acceptable for Pfizer to make a ton of money?

Why is it alright for movie studios and actors to make a mint, but Rite Aid and CVS can't? Why is it ok for Ortiz to make millions for swinging a bat, making a day at Fenway unaffordable to many families, yet the doctor that saves a young mother and her infant insist on a certain standard of living after years of hard work?

Why is it that the engineers and scientists that invent and create and discover the treatments that save and improve lives and the investors that support them can't enjoy wealth, but Oprah can become the wealthiest woman in America with a fluff talk show?

Creating and generating wealth is not a crime in the USA. It never has been and it is my sincere hope it never will be but with the cast of characters we have in DC now one has to wonder.

Hey Steph,

Wow. Awesome post.

If we are going to be engaging in confiscatory taxation and policies that come at the expense of certain people, why not start with the "non-essential personnel" like Ortiz, Woods, Oprah, and them? Great, great point. If we going to screw anyone over, best not the ones we actually need to survive.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:If you guys do not take it easy on you-know-who, you are going to chase you-know-who off--just like you did all the others.

Looks like we ran her off. As I don't think anyone was overly rude though, I'm pretty sure it was the her inability to answer questions but that's just my opinion.

The arrogance of this statement is astounding. As if the voracity and brilliance of your arguments chased me away. The conceit of that is over the top. You really do like Sam give me a good laugh. You would focus on 2% if it were trillions of dollars in profit. Because 2% sounds small and you use it to justify that a company isn't really profiting a great deal if it is only 2%. When in reality 2% could be huge. Yet the idea of business perhaps making a choice to be a good citizen like the rest of us are expected to be you ignore. Maybe giving up a tad of their profit to help their fellow Americans. I think the disease is called tunnel vision.

I hate to be the one to break it to you AC but 2% is 2%. Nothing changes that. If the profits are in the billions, that means they're SPENDING in the trillions, to the tune of 98% of every dollar they take in?

Do you live on 2% profit?

Stephanie wrote:Let me get this straight, the people who do the really important stuff for the rest of society, the people who cure our diseases and save our lives and ease our suffering, they can't enjoy an affluent lifestyle. That pleasure must be strictly reserved for the Tiger Woods and Barbara Streisands and the guy who invented Shamwow. Have I got that right?

Now let me clarify this. All of you seem to believe that the right to make profit and affluence comes before all other considerations, moral, ethical or rightness. No matter what your profession and what oath you took, money and profit ALWAYS come first. Did I get that right?

Oh and Sam. Yes I do give to charity. And it is considerable. Do you? Or is this just another case for your fellow needy WV citizens to 'fend for themselves and pay for their own goods and services?' Besides the typical Salvation Army, Catholic Charities and Boston Medical Center a group of us give a 'supply a Christmas for a family' in memory of someone who has passed away who was a philanthropist. Tree, presents, dinner, the works. A social worker picks the family we do the rest. Ho ho and it feels good. Like their won't be so many sad little faces on Christmas Day because they had to 'fend for themselves.' Or do you prescribe to the 'I believe in promoting self-sufficiency=really I don't want to give to anyone' belief system?

Scientists, including doctors & pharmacists, don't take vows of poverty. Neither do engineers or the investors who provide the funds for research and development. It may surprise you to know this, but not all priests take vows of poverty either.

Oprah Winfrey opens a school for girls in Africa somewhere and nearly every American knows it because every media outlet in the nation has told us about it. Whoopdee freaking do! She made damn good and sure they knew all about it by showing how wonderful and generous she is on her talk show and in her magazine.

Brian Williams and Mary what's her face from Entertainment Tonight aren't going to report in what ways and how much executives at Bristol Myers are giving to charity. People magazine isn't going to run a cover story on the doctor donating his time and expertise at a clinic. That doesn't mean he isn't doing it.

I believe money is important. It seems to me the people who restore our health are entitled to a good standard of living. I think they should be able to afford the best for their children. I think the surgeon that saved my mother-in-law's life is a hero and should be rewarded greatly, not berated because he can afford a nicer home many of the rest of us. I think there should be a statue placed on the White House lawn in honor of the good people that developed and manufacture Plavix because it's keeping her (and countless others) alive and well and contributing to society.

I also know that some of the best and brightest minds will no longer seek careers in research and medicine if they can't earn a comfortable living doing so. I know billions of dollars will no longer be invested in the search for cures if there will be no return. Folks will invest more in the entertainment industry and toy industry if that's the only place left to make money.

AC,

I think you mischaracterize people as putting money and profit first. What you see is people who believe that people should (as a moral proposition, I might add), be rewarded for the good and necessary work that they do.

For six years I lived up in the North Shore of Chicago and made twice what I do now. I halved my income, moved eighty miles southwest, bought a house that was one-fourth the value of the one that was provided me by my work in Evanston, and do not regret my decision for one moment.

I traded money for family and lifestyle, and while I believe my decision was good, we need doctors who have sacrificed their 20s to become experts, we need chemists and pharmacologists, we need electricians and plumbers, and we need to make sure such people are rewarded for their service.

We don't need a third as many lawyers as exist. We don't need a third as many politicians. When it is two am and the furnace doesn't work, we don't need Barack Obama. When it is two am and you cannot breathe, you do not need Harry Reid. You need someone to be available, well-trained, and motivated to help you start breathing again.

Say what you will about the immorality of profit, but I am convinced the immorality of depriving doctors of the upper class lifestyle they have done so much to attain is greater. I have no love for the insurance companies (who like the Senate version, it seems), either.

When a Canadian mother had a high risk pregnancy with triplets, she came to the United States. That speaks volumes. If universal health care is so wonderful, why would she do this?

Of course, in the UK and Canada one can "jump the queue" and pay cash, at least so far. So what universal health insurance really means is that the super rich can keep their health care, while everyone else goes on a really expensive form of Medicare and Medicaid.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:

Now let me clarify this. All of you seem to believe that the right to make profit and affluence comes before all other considerations, moral, ethical or rightness. No matter what your profession and what oath you took, money and profit ALWAYS come first. Did I get that right?

No, you didn't. You tried to make profit a dirty word, which is the standard response from the liberal party and it's just not right. Profit is not a dirty word regardless of how much you try to make it so.

And once again you didn't answer the question. Do you live on 2% profit?

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Oh and Sam. Yes I do give to charity. And it is considerable. Do you? Or is this just another case for your fellow needy WV citizens to 'fend for themselves and pay for their own goods and services?'

NO, I do not give to any charities. And I really don't care whether you do or not.

But I do care whenever someone is badmouthing someone else for doing or not doing something that the badmouther is guilty of themselves.

Or whenever someone thinks it is their right and obligation to tell another entity how much money they should be permitted to earn from their labors, ..... how much money they should be permitted to keep from their labor earnings ....... and/or where they should be spending their labor earnings.

So AC, until you start listening to and complying with the mandates of anyone on the streets telling you how much you can earn and were to spend it ..... then quit being a hypocrite.

SamCogar wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Oh and Sam. Yes I do give to charity. And it is considerable. Do you? Or is this just another case for your fellow needy WV citizens to 'fend for themselves and pay for their own goods and services?'

NO, I do not give to any charities. And I really don't care whether you do or not.

But I do care whenever someone is badmouthing someone else for doing or not doing something that the badmouther is guilty of themselves.

Or whenever someone thinks it is their right and obligation to tell another entity how much money they should be permitted to earn from their labors, ..... how much money they should be permitted to keep from their labor earnings ....... and/or where they should be spending their labor earnings.

So AC, until you start listening to and complying with the mandates of anyone on the streets telling you how much you can earn and were to spend it ..... then quit being a hypocrite.

You're the one Sam who asked me if I give to charity and I answered you. What did you think, the answer was no? I am not saying that profit is always wrong. But I do believe that there are some businesses and professions that know full well what they are choosing when they choose it. I don't know how many times I have heard 'athletes and celebrities know they are supposed to be role models and act accordingly.' In my opinion pharmaceutical companies, doctors, scientists, etc. know that they are supplying a good/service that involves people's well-being and sometimes even their lives. They take on a responsibility to place those individuals first and yes even before their own profit. I am not a hypocrite, I practice what I preach. Catholics don't typically tithe, but I do. I also give to Catholic Charities and the Saint Vincent DePaul Society. Now I have been called into work due to the blizzard and I will go and maybe stay a couple of days without sleep to care for the clients. See Sam I understand fully that when I chose this profession I chose to make sacrifices and I willingly fulfill my obligations. Do you?