chuckakers

Well put, but the Palin reference still doesn't fly with me. That's a story for another thread, and I will gladly debate it on its own merit. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Bill - this is for you and the other replies downplaying my "outrage". I have as much a sense of humor as the next guy - maybe more. I enjoy all kinds of humor, much of which many would consider very offensive (ask me about being part of the Stevens and Pruett Radio Show sometime). However, this wasn't a joke passed around on the plane or around the fire over a beer. This was the president, the most watched and listened to man on the planet, and the man who is THE representation of the American people. I was not offended that Mr. Obama said what he said. I was offended that my president said it, and even did so on worldwide television. And by the way, I loooove the way the libs are downplaying this. It shows more than Obama's colors. If a republican did the same thing, he'd be getting barbecued here today and you know it. Class isn't throwing white house parties and jetting off to Chicago for Valentine's Day dinner. It's knowing how to carry yourself. Mr. Obama's actions were classless. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Yep, I knew it - it took less than 5 minutes for someone to respond, running to Obama's rescue. If you want to talk about Gov. Palin, start a thread and let's discuss it. That has nothing to do with this and should stand on its' own if you take issue with it. And of course he apologized. That's called damage control and may or may not have any sincerity connected to it. Once again, the libs don't debate on merit. They just try to divert the conversation. Mr. Obama showed last night just what an absolute mindless, rude asshole he is. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I am stunned, shocked, and horribly disappointed that our president would make such a blatantly ignorant and offensive remark about children with mental retardation and disabilities. You've probably heard by now that Mr. Obama was on Leno last night and compared his recent bowling game (where he bowled a 129) to being like "special olympics or something", while laughing about it. Obama supporters, don't bother with excuses - there are none. He is our president, not some f*cking comedian or typical loudmouth celebrity. His remark was in the worst possible taste and a shining example of a man showing his true colors, no pun intended. I guess he thinks watching kids with unfortunate life situations is humorous. Mr. Obama, you are a first rate asshole. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

All I needed here was "Rantoul" and "thunderhead growing under us". The rest was predictable. Nice post, BTW. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Doesn't matter. The idiots in Washington will just print the damn money to cover it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

No need for the cash handout. We have Medicaid, S-Chip, state and local aid, and free services with the tab picked up by any number of charity organizations, hospital systems, and private assistance. Only 18% of Amersicans don't have health insurance (according to The National Coalition on Health Care). There's a program listed above for the vast majority of them. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Medicare's administration costs are, at 2 - 8% of total costs.... $60 billion a year in fraud will do that to percentages. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

There are a number of reasons for the cost. A smart approach would try to determine the impact of each of the reasons that we can figure out, and how to minimize the ones that are the biggest impact. Fraud is big, but the impact of life choices and overall age are probably bigger, along with, yes, administrative costs. I believe that administrative costs are greater for private insurers, mainly because with Medicare it's one set of rules, all the time, but with others, the provider has to find out what they cover, and then make sure that what they do is billed appropriately, on the right forms, etc. And remember that preventing fraud carries its own cost -- you don't want the cost of preventing and catching fraud to be more than the savings. So, anyway, my point is that "the" problem in health care probably needs to be a little better defined than "cost." Wendy W. I wasn't trying to define the problem as cost, per se. That's why I included the disclaimer that people bitch about the cost of everything. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

One reason is that simply paying for it doesn't address one of the primary problems, that being that it's too expensive. More than $0.25 on each health care dollar goes to administrative expenses. Taking that into consideration let me ask everyone a question. In your experiences with health care, what aspect of it would you complain about most? Don't get me wrong - I disagree with much of the current medical give-aways. I'm an "everyone carries their weight" guy, and I agree with you that the problem in the health care realm is the cost. I won't argue with your 25% admin cost figure, but will add that 25% isn't out of line in some industries, especially something like medicine that requires paperwork in mountains thanks to the insurance jungle and legal prudence. I suggest that the primary causes of high health care costs are the third party payer system, lawsuits, and zero revenue treatment. Speaking of costs, Medicare loses $60 billion annually from fraud alone. Who knows how much more from waste, red tape, attrition, and all the other silly shit the government throws into the mix. Is that the system we running the entire health care business? As for my personal experience with the health care system - I don't really have a complaint beyond cost, but people complain about the cost of everything. That's nothing new and will never change until it's free. Even then, people will bitch that it's not free enough. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

A "friend of mine" always seem to pop up in your posts. If the hospital you speak of was so bad, I'll bet it made a newspaper somewhere. Care to provide a reference to the facts? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You mean the government run (i.e. socialized, or if you prefer, "National Health Service") hospital? I think you're making the original poster's point far more eloquently than he did. Did you forget already that just yesterday there was an outcry on here about privatizing verterans' healthcare? Did you forget that the Walter Reed scandal was due to "local" mismanagement and not a systemic problem? Funny how the tune changes to suit the agenda. While I wasn't part of the previous outcry you speak of, I remind you that "local" management or not, the blame still goes to the top. Whoever was participating in causing the problems had supervisors that didn't do their jobs, and those supervisors had managers that failed to monitor their system. Local problems aren't local once the higher-ups fail to act. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Wow. Nerdchicky and I actually agree. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Numbers dictated by some government agency. That's why I say the government should stay the hell out of health care. If the government wants to make sure *everyone* gets health care, why not simply do more of what they already do and just give it to people who can't afford it on their own. There's no need for the government to dictate health care to the rest of us. Unless of course, they want to control that too. Hmmm Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You mean the government operated Walter Reed? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I have no idea what caused the conditions, but it's no leap to say the conditions were suck-ass and the government runs the place. It is what it is. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

From the story linked below: "What we saw in those eight weeks will haunt us for the rest of our lives," said the 47-year-old. "We saw patients drinking out of flower vases they were so thirsty. "There were patients wandering around the hospital and patients fighting. It was continuous through the night. Patients were screaming out in pain because you just could not get pain relief." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.09affc88c9815310300a92378aed0564.2f1&show_article=1 This is gonna be great! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The casings involved are suitable for re-manufacturing and have been sold for that purpose for many years. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

It was YOU that brought up China as being the largest buyer of this material. Not I. I again suggest you read more carefully. I didn't say China is getting our shell casings. They buy our SCRAP brass, which is what the new regulation requires the casings to be turned into. My point was that while the regulation will increase ammo prices to Americans, it will also increase the supply of raw brass to our biggest buyer of the stuff - China. And since you mentioned it, China may indeed turn the new, larger supply of brass into ammo for their armed forces. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The article you linked to certainly did. They even tried to tie it into an ammo shortage at Walmart stores. Seriously? Does Walmart sell ammo that was reloaded? That's news to me. Any proof that this change is the result of the current Administration rather than say, just a better interpretation of current regulation to demil surplus being sent to our potential enemies? You should read more carefully. The article does refer to an ammo shortage, and also mentions a Wal-Mart customer having trouble finding ammo there. The article does not say, imply, or suggest that the new DOD regulation has anything to do with the existing shortage. What it does say is that said shortage is about to get worse because of the new regulation, and that is very likely. "Better interpretation of current regulation to demil surplus being sent to our potential enemies?" Man, what a stretch. No wonder you posed that as a question. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I never mentioned the ammo shortage as it stands now, nor did I suggest that this new regulation (which is very new) has anything to do with it. As for this issue, I'd like to hear a valid argument for doing this if it's not the first step toward overall ammo reduction. Under this regulation, nobody wins. 1. The government will get 10 or 20 cents on the dollar selling brass as scrap rather than as shell casings. 2. The cost to ammo re-manufacturers will increase significantly as they will have to buy new casings rather than re-manufacturing spent ones. 3. The cost to the end consumer will skyrocket from dramatically increased manufacturing costs and the affects of supply vs demand. It makes no sense to force the destruction of an otherwise renewable product (and a system that has been working very well), especially when the government will take a big cut in sales dollars during the "worst financial crisis since the great depression". Plus, it can only lead to much more mining of brass - something the current administration should be holding firmly against for eco reasons. And by the way, guess who is THE BIGGEST buyer of scrap brass from the U.S. China! Change you can absolutely believe in! And he's just gettin' started. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Just regulate ammo out of existence. http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d16-Atlanta-ammunition-supply-is-severely-constrained. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Where do you get civil and honest out of "social conformity is valued, standing out too much is a no-no"? People can be civil and honest without conforming or refraining from standing out too much. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Oh, you mean socialism. You know, you really should Google 'Socialism' sometime. I am fully aware of the definition of socialism. In this case, I'm commenting on the typical behavior of people who live under socialist rule. Socialism is communism disguised as democracy. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Evidence, please. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX