Gov. Scott asks President Obama for disaster declaration

[MirrorMan]

Mr Logic in Jax wrote:

Thank God he killed the black hole called “high speed rail”....
....High-speed rail is supposed to take polluting cars off the highways by enticing people to take the train when traveling, a goal of the environmental movement....
....As for Obamacare or the Largest “Tax increase” in the History of the world that will lead to less care at higher cost (Note the facts of Government Budget predictions) then again if one does not say “No” then they are saying “YES”, I say HELL NO to Obamacare!

I said the governor did not review the studies.
I did not say I was for high speed rail. It would be an enormous mistake that state and local governments wasted waaay too much money trying to ram down our throats. If it were practical anywhere, it would not be central CA or FL. Its best chance of success would be in population dense areas such as the northeast - possibly between New York and Chicago, and I suspect it would be marginal even then.
Most environmentalists do not understand engineering. You don't "save the environment" by shifting pollution from a vehicle to a power plant, and the energy required to move a passenger at 200 mph on a bullet train is significant.
As for Obamacare and Romneycare, forecasts indicate that over the long term the plans will reduce costs and increase availability of coverage. These programs were not conceived to fatten insurance company wallets or to inflict a burden on the taxpayers, but to address a looming crisis. The majority of controversy is fueled by political figures, not fiscal figures, so it doesn't surprise me that partisan conservatives who usually champion privatization of government services are so vehemently opposed to this.
Ironically, the solution to rising health care costs is both ignored and touted by the Tea Party - personal responsibility. The ages old adage "Eat right and exercise" is inconvenient, so we are stuck with treating the results instead of practicing the prevention.

[noshellswill]

MirrorMan wrote:

<quoted text>
He did what he thought best for Columbia HCA, too. Trying to get a drug database was like pulling teeth. The high speed rail was killed because he didn't review the ridership studies. He opposed the economic stimulus package, but took it anyway. His opposition to Obamacare is 75% partisanship. Just say "No" is not an action plan.

When all Fed monies spend on frivolous public works is money borrowed from our chi.com enemy the state answer ought to be automatically **NO**!

I wonder .. would the steel rails in the Florida hi-speed system have been imported from China, the same way steel-beam additions to the Golden Gate Bridge were imported from China?

Feckin-A traitorous son-of-a-hoe .....

[MirrorMan]

noshellswill wrote:

<quoted text>
When all Fed monies spend on frivolous public works is money borrowed from our chi.com enemy the state answer ought to be automatically **NO**!
I wonder .. would the steel rails in the Florida hi-speed system have been imported from China, the same way steel-beam additions to the Golden Gate Bridge were imported from China?
Feckin-A traitorous son-of-a-hoe .....

Agreed, except for that last part. You know that we didn't embargo scrap steel to Japan until 1940? As I said before, I was never in favor of HSR in Florida OR California. I didn't and don't see it as anything but a pork barrel bribe that every state should have flatly refused. I'm glad Gov. Scott saw through it, I just said he didn't read all the reports. You think that expecting the Governor to glance over a multimillion dollar study makes me a "Feckin-A traitorous son-of-a-hoe"?
As far as being against borrowing foreign monies, I'd start with 1980, wouldn't you?

[So ignorant]

http://signon.org/sign/floridians-deserve-the...

[Mr Logic in Jax]

MirrorMan wrote:

<quoted text>
I said the governor did not review the studies.
I did not say I was for high speed rail. It would be an enormous mistake that state and local governments wasted waaay too much money trying to ram down our throats. If it were practical anywhere, it would not be central CA or FL. Its best chance of success would be in population dense areas such as the northeast - possibly between New York and Chicago, and I suspect it would be marginal even then.
Most environmentalists do not understand engineering. You don't "save the environment" by shifting pollution from a vehicle to a power plant, and the energy required to move a passenger at 200 mph on a bullet train is significant.
As for Obamacare and Romneycare, forecasts indicate that over the long term the plans will reduce costs and increase availability of coverage. These programs were not conceived to fatten insurance company wallets or to inflict a burden on the taxpayers, but to address a looming crisis. The majority of controversy is fueled by political figures, not fiscal figures, so it doesn't surprise me that partisan conservatives who usually champion privatization of government services are so vehemently opposed to this.
Ironically, the solution to rising health care costs is both ignored and touted by the Tea Party - personal responsibility. The ages old adage "Eat right and exercise" is inconvenient, so we are stuck with treating the results instead of practicing the prevention.

I will agree that better living will help reduce the need for some medical services. Living healthy is an important part of reducing our need for healthcare, especially extended care for things like Diabetes. However, Living Healthy will not reduce the cost of healthcare. Correct me if I am wrong I just don’t see how living healthy will reduce the cost of an MRI or the cost for delivering a newborn.

Back to the HSR, it would seem that you and I are on the same side of this debate. I have not seen nor read the reports that Gov. Scott did not reed however, it would appear that you and I agree that HSR would have been a huge waste of Taxpayer money. One other thing why is it that Government just loves to waste Billions of dollars on study, after study, after study including the one in the Pentagon about how much studies cost.

One last items, I did not imply you were a "Feckin-A traitorous son-of-a-hoe" and I would hope you did not take anything I stated in that context.

[MirrorMan]

Mr Logic in Jax wrote:

<quoted text>
I will agree that better living will help reduce the need for some medical services. Living healthy is an important part of reducing our need for healthcare, especially extended care for things like Diabetes. However, Living Healthy will not reduce the cost of healthcare. Correct me if I am wrong I just don’t see how living healthy will reduce the cost of an MRI or the cost for delivering a newborn.
Back to the HSR, it would seem that you and I are on the same side of this debate. I have not seen nor read the reports that Gov. Scott did not reed however, it would appear that you and I agree that HSR would have been a huge waste of Taxpayer money. One other thing why is it that Government just loves to waste Billions of dollars on study, after study, after study including the one in the Pentagon about how much studies cost.
One last items, I did not imply you were a "Feckin-A traitorous son-of-a-hoe" and I would hope you did not take anything I stated in that context.

Noshellwill called me that. Healthy living would decrease the usage of MRI's and other diagnostic procedures, so would decrease the number of machines in use and dependence lab resources. The downside is that upgrades are still necessary and costly. Then there would be reduction of prescription maintenance drugs, and the pharmaceutical companies would try to recoup their profits in some way. Expectations that market driven economics of healthcare will decrease patient costs is foolish. Just as Blitz USA is shutting down due to liability insurance costs, the ancillary healthcare industries make up a large part of what is milking the system dry. Indigent care is also a large part of hospital economics, and paying for it is part of why a vacu-formed bedside set costs $200.

[John]

Why do he use some of the money he robbed?

[John]

Why don't sorry mistake

[Mr Logic in Jax]

MirrorMan wrote:

<quoted text>
Noshellwill called me that. Healthy living would decrease the usage of MRI's and other diagnostic procedures, so would decrease the number of machines in use and dependence lab resources. The downside is that upgrades are still necessary and costly. Then there would be reduction of prescription maintenance drugs, and the pharmaceutical companies would try to recoup their profits in some way. Expectations that market driven economics of healthcare will decrease patient costs is foolish. Just as Blitz USA is shutting down due to liability insurance costs, the ancillary healthcare industries make up a large part of what is milking the system dry. Indigent care is also a large part of hospital economics, and paying for it is part of why a vacu-formed bedside set costs $200.

It is my opinion that one reason Healthcare cost is so screwed up right now is simple. The user of healthcare does not pay the bill and the Doctor does not set the rates the patient will be paying. The two people that provide and use the service have the least to do with how the cost of service is determined. Is there any other part of our economy that works like this???? Better yet works well????

[Anonymous]

jenny623 wrote:

Why should Gov. Scott ask Obama for anything? He rejects healthcare while Florida has one of the highest rates of uninsured. Hospitals and doctors are flooded with people who can't pay, but he wants nothing with Obama's name on it. Now Florida has a disaster and he wants the federal government involved? Well you can't have it both ways.

"What a fool believes, but a wiseman has the power"

[MirrorMan]

Mr Logic in Jax wrote:

<quoted text>
It is my opinion that one reason Healthcare cost is so screwed up right now is simple. The user of healthcare does not pay the bill and the Doctor does not set the rates the patient will be paying. The two people that provide and use the service have the least to do with how the cost of service is determined. Is there any other part of our economy that works like this???? Better yet works well????

Insurance is an odd duck. With your premiums you bet that you will get into an accident and the insurance company bets you won't with its coverage.
With medical insurance, we have a skewed form of privatized socialism. A doctor gets a bloc of patients for whom he receives payment to offset the costs of individual visits. The copay is just a token fee to discourage patients from abusing visitation. As far as the doctor setting the fees, most doctors defer the books to an office manager, whose job is largely to take care of the doctor's schedule and patient billing.

A large part of what screws up the costs are not the MD, health insurance and the patient, but the malpractice insurance, tests, specialists and pharmacology.

[Mr Logic in Jax]

MirrorMan wrote:

<quoted text>
Insurance is an odd duck. With your premiums you bet that you will get into an accident and the insurance company bets you won't with its coverage.
With medical insurance, we have a skewed form of privatized socialism. A doctor gets a bloc of patients for whom he receives payment to offset the costs of individual visits. The copay is just a token fee to discourage patients from abusing visitation. As far as the doctor setting the fees, most doctors defer the books to an office manager, whose job is largely to take care of the doctor's schedule and patient billing.
A large part of what screws up the costs are not the MD, health insurance and the patient, but the malpractice insurance, tests, specialists and pharmacology.

WOW, very good job on bringing up the “Copay” issue. I agree that at best it is a token fee that creates (for the ignorant) a falsity of what the medical services actually cost. When I was a much younger man my parents did not run us to the doctor for every runny nose of scrap, why, because they had to pay the understood that alcohol, hydrology peroxide and a band aide was all that was needed in many cases. Also you are correct malpractice insurance is a huge part of the problem. This also goes to the insurance required by pharmaceutical companies who produces all these drugs that everyone what’s even with the “KNOW” side effects (that they later sue because of).
Get the patient and doctors directly involved again and the healthcare cost issue will be solved correctly.

[noshellswill]

Mr Logic in Jax wrote:

<quoted text>

<clip>

One last items, I did not imply you were a "Feckin-A traitorous son-of-a-hoe" and I would hope you did not take anything I stated in that context.

Neither did I.

My comment applies to those who borrowed enemies money to produce infra-structure using parts **imported** from the country making the loan. Cultural/financial insanity coming and going if it were not simple thieving.

Apology to you if I mis-spoke.