Did you vote today?

Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,342 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Level 1

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#13864 Aug 14, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>You may want to get some more "up to date" facts.
http://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/n...
http://www.physiciansforreform.org/hcr08medi....
http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx...
"Thirty-six percent of doctors say they are no longer accepting new Medicaid patients due in large part to declining reimbursements, a new national survey has found.
The survey of 2,232 physicians across all specialties conducted in late April by Jackson Healthcare in Atlanta — the fourth-largest health care staffing company in the U.S."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/survey-more...
According to Richard L. Jackson, chairman and CEO of Jackson Healthcare, the low reimbursement rate paired with the large influx of new Medicaid patients will be a problem.
“This is creating the perfect storm that will make it very difficult for the poor and elderly to access a doctor,” Jackson said.“Physicians say they just can’t afford to be part of a system that generates so many patients for so little compensation.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/survey-more...
The topic was MEDICARE, NOT MEDICAID patients.

Two different programs.

Level 1

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#13865 Aug 14, 2012
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
You are cherry picking again. For example, the unemployment rate in N. Dakota is 3.8% but you can't take that and say that America is doing just fine because we are not. That is exactly what you are doing. I never said that no doctors are taking new medicare patients. I said that the number of doctors not taking new medicare patients is on the rise. Let's assume your argument is correct that payments have increased 10%. On Feb. 26, 2010 Congress failed to stop a 21% decrease in payments doctors already considered to be too low so that means that a 10% increase still keeps reimbursement payments too low. Besides, the stats you quote are irrelevent because they were pre-Obamacare and about half of them were pre-Obama. That makes a huge difference. The stats I quoted were there because of Obamacare and Obama's policies. What you just essentially did is give Bush credit for a healthier medicare program than under Obama. I didn't think you had that in you.
"What you just essentially did is give Bush credit for a healthier medicare program than under Obama"

LMAO-Sure I did, read on.......

March 4, 2010 – The legislatively mandated cut in Medicare’s pay to physicians of 21.2 percent has been delayed until at least April 1 by a bill passed by the Democrats late Tuesday and signed by President Obama.
guest

Blytheville, AR

#13866 Aug 14, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
The topic was MEDICARE, NOT MEDICAID patients.
Two different programs.
What? Don't the poor count in your world anymore? You expose a darker liberal side to yourself everyday. Besides, read the text, the Jackson Health survey was for MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.
guest

Jonesboro, AR

#13867 Aug 14, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"What you just essentially did is give Bush credit for a healthier medicare program than under Obama"
LMAO-Sure I did, read on.......
March 4, 2010 – The legislatively mandated cut in Medicare’s pay to physicians of 21.2 percent has been delayed until at least April 1 by a bill passed by the Democrats late Tuesday and signed by President Obama.
Cutting the pay to the employees of the healthcare system is something to brag about?
guest

Blytheville, AR

#13868 Aug 14, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"What you just essentially did is give Bush credit for a healthier medicare program than under Obama"
LMAO-Sure I did, read on.......
March 4, 2010 – The legislatively mandated cut in Medicare’s pay to physicians of 21.2 percent has been delayed until at least April 1 by a bill passed by the Democrats late Tuesday and signed by President Obama.
Watch out, Realy Check, oppressive slave master BARNEYII will no try to claim ownership over your ass because you did not live up to standards expected of you but not of himself.

Level 1

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#13869 Aug 14, 2012
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
You are cherry picking again. For example, the unemployment rate in N. Dakota is 3.8% but you can't take that and say that America is doing just fine because we are not. That is exactly what you are doing. I never said that no doctors are taking new medicare patients. I said that the number of doctors not taking new medicare patients is on the rise. Let's assume your argument is correct that payments have increased 10%. On Feb. 26, 2010 Congress failed to stop a 21% decrease in payments doctors already considered to be too low so that means that a 10% increase still keeps reimbursement payments too low. Besides, the stats you quote are irrelevent because they were pre-Obamacare and about half of them were pre-Obama. That makes a huge difference. The stats I quoted were there because of Obamacare and Obama's policies. What you just essentially did is give Bush credit for a healthier medicare program than under Obama. I didn't think you had that in you.
Would you mind giving me the post number for the "stats" you say you quoted.

"The stats I quoted were there because of Obamacare and Obama's policies"

Level 1

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#13870 Aug 14, 2012
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
You are cherry picking again. For example, the unemployment rate in N. Dakota is 3.8% but you can't take that and say that America is doing just fine because we are not. That is exactly what you are doing. I never said that no doctors are taking new medicare patients. I said that the number of doctors not taking new medicare patients is on the rise. Let's assume your argument is correct that payments have increased 10%. On Feb. 26, 2010 Congress failed to stop a 21% decrease in payments doctors already considered to be too low so that means that a 10% increase still keeps reimbursement payments too low. Besides, the stats you quote are irrelevent because they were pre-Obamacare and about half of them were pre-Obama. That makes a huge difference. The stats I quoted were there because of Obamacare and Obama's policies. What you just essentially did is give Bush credit for a healthier medicare program than under Obama. I didn't think you had that in you.

The fact is, this decrease in payments to doctors, began long before the H.C.R.A. was ever thought of.

“In 1992, Congress adopted Hsiao's physician-payment scale, and it worked - but only for a few years.

There are different explanations for what happened. Hsiao blames lobbyists. Lobbyists and doctors say health care is just expensive, and most of the time Medicare actually underpays doctors.

“Congress tried to slow the growth of doctor pay by saying total payments to doctors could not grow faster than the overall economy. When the total amount Medicare was paying to doctors grew faster than the overall economy, the rates for each procedure and service were supposed to be cut.

“But doctors, naturally, lobbied against letting those cuts take effect. And Congress passed short-term measures, again and again, blocking the planned cuts. That's where things stand now — cuts about to kick in, doctors lobbying Congress to block the cuts and no clear answer for the best way to pay them.

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2010/2...
Reality Check

Warren, AR

#13871 Aug 14, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is, this decrease in payments to doctors, began long before the H.C.R.A. was ever thought of.
“In 1992, Congress adopted Hsiao's physician-payment scale, and it worked - but only for a few years.
There are different explanations for what happened. Hsiao blames lobbyists. Lobbyists and doctors say health care is just expensive, and most of the time Medicare actually underpays doctors.
“Congress tried to slow the growth of doctor pay by saying total payments to doctors could not grow faster than the overall economy. When the total amount Medicare was paying to doctors grew faster than the overall economy, the rates for each procedure and service were supposed to be cut.
“But doctors, naturally, lobbied against letting those cuts take effect. And Congress passed short-term measures, again and again, blocking the planned cuts. That's where things stand now — cuts about to kick in, doctors lobbying Congress to block the cuts and no clear answer for the best way to pay them.
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2010/2...
What are you trying to say? 1992? Really? I am talking about 2012 and doctors reimbursement rates dropping and you are trying to pin it on the 1992 Congress. Is there nothing that you will blame this president for? There is a lot to choose from in that category and none of it good besides his war on terror. Why don't I just say that Lyndon Johnson cut doctors medicare reimbursements to $0 in 1963 and that means the Democrats want to cut out medicare. It shouldn't matter that there was no medicare in 1963. We are just trying to find a party to blame by any means neccessary. You are impossible.

Level 1

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#13872 Aug 14, 2012
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you trying to say? 1992? Really? I am talking about 2012 and doctors reimbursement rates dropping and you are trying to pin it on the 1992 Congress. Is there nothing that you will blame this president for? There is a lot to choose from in that category and none of it good besides his war on terror. Why don't I just say that Lyndon Johnson cut doctors medicare reimbursements to $0 in 1963 and that means the Democrats want to cut out medicare. It shouldn't matter that there was no medicare in 1963. We are just trying to find a party to blame by any means neccessary. You are impossible.
OMG, you are as dense as a brick, where/when do you think the mandate to cut reimbursements came from?
guest

Jonesboro, AR

#13873 Aug 14, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG, you are as dense as a brick, where/when do you think the mandate to cut reimbursements came from?
Twenty years and you still can't get it done, he might not be the dense one.
Reality Check

Conway, AR

#13874 Aug 14, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Twenty years and you still can't get it done, he might not be the dense one.
Liberals will fail miserably 100 times and then get one small thing right and claim total success. It appears we are somewhere in the middle of the 100 epic failures and Barney just doesn't realize it.
Super Troll

United States

#13875 Aug 14, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Twenty years and you still can't get it done, he might not be the dense one.
Do you have a political opinion any more, or is out gonna be screw with Barney day every day?
guest

Jonesboro, AR

#13876 Aug 14, 2012
Super Troll wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have a political opinion any more, or is out gonna be screw with Barney day every day?
No need to screw with Barney, he screws himself. There was a political point there, does everything have to be spelled out for you to understand the point? He was referring to a twenty year old piece of legislation that evidently is still unresolved, that was the point of the statement. I am not used to non objective people, sometimes your side is wrong,vsometimes mine is, no need to defend bad policy, some on here ignore reality, that doesn't bother me as much as they are voters.
Dohbama is killing you

Amsterdam, Netherlands

#13877 Aug 14, 2012
August 14, 2012 5:00 am

A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

It is only the second time since 2009 that a Russian attack submarine has patrolled so close to U.S. shores.

The stealth underwater incursion in the Gulf took place at the same time Russian strategic bombers made incursions into restricted U.S. airspace near Alaska and California in June and July, and highlights a growing military assertiveness by Moscow.

The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities—forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years.

The Navy is in charge of detecting submarines, especially those that sail near U.S. nuclear missile submarines, and uses undersea sensors and satellites to locate and track them.

The fact that the Akula was not detected in the Gulf is cause for concern, U.S. officials said.

The officials who are familiar with reports of the submarine patrol in the Gulf of Mexico said the vessel was a nuclear-powered Akula-class attack submarine, one of Russia’s quietest submarines.

A Navy spokeswoman declined to comment.

One official said the Akula operated without being detected for a month.

“The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews,” said a second U.S. official.

“It’s a very stealthy boat so it can sneak around and avoid detection and hope to get past any protective screen a boomer might have in place,” the official said, referring to the Navy nickname for strategic missile submarines.

The U.S. Navy operates a strategic nuclear submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia. The base is homeport to eight missile-firing submarines, six of them equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles, and two armed with conventional warhead missiles.

“Sending a nuclear-propelled submarine into the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean region is another manifestation of President Putin demonstrating that Russia is still a player on the world’s political-military stage,” said naval analyst and submarine warfare specialist Norman Polmar.

“Like the recent deployment of a task force led by a nuclear cruiser into the Caribbean, the Russian Navy provides him with a means of ‘showing the flag’ that is not possible with Russian air and ground forces,” Polmar said in an email.

The last time an Akula submarine was known to be close to U.S. shores was 2009, when two Akulas were spotted patrolling off the east coast of the United States.

Those submarine patrols raised concerns at the time about a new Russian military assertiveness toward the United States, according to the New York Times, which first reported the 2009 Akula submarine activity.

The latest submarine incursion in the Gulf further highlights the failure of the Obama administration’s “reset” policy of conciliatory actions designed to develop closer ties with Moscow.

Instead of closer ties, Russia under President Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB intelligence officer who has said he wants to restore elements of Russia’s Soviet communist past, has adopted growing hardline policies against the United States.

Of the submarine activity, Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said,“It’s a confounding situation arising from a lack of leadership in our dealings with Moscow. While the president is touting our supposed ‘reset’ in relations with Russia, Vladimir Putin is actively working against American interests, whether it’s in Syria or here in our own backyard.”
Dohbama is killing you

Amsterdam, Netherlands

#13878 Aug 14, 2012
The Navy is facing sharp cuts in forces needed to detect and counter such submarine activity.

The Obama administration’s defense budget proposal in February cut $1.3 billion from Navy shipbuilding projects, which will result in scrapping plans to build 16 new warships through 2017.

The budget also called for cutting plans to buy 10 advanced P-8 anti-submarine warfare jets needed for submarine detection.

In June, Russian strategic nuclear bombers and support aircraft conducted a large-scale nuclear bomber exercise in the arctic. The exercise included simulated strikes on “enemy” strategic sites that defense officials say likely included notional attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Alaska.

Under the terms of the 2010 New START arms accord, such exercises require 14-day advanced notice of strategic bomber drills, and notification after the drills end. No such notification was given.

A second, alarming air incursion took place July 4 on the West Coast when a Bear H strategic bomber flew into U.S. airspace near California and was met by U.S. interceptor jets.

That incursion was said to have been a bomber incursion that has not been seen since before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

It could not be learned whether the submarine in the Gulf of Mexico was an Akula 1 type submarine or a more advanced Akula 2.

It is also not known why the submarine conducted the operation. Theories among U.S. analysts include the notion that submarine incursion was designed to further signal Russian displeasure at U.S. and NATO plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe.

Russia’s chief of the general staff, Gen. Nikolai Makarov, said in May that Russian forces would consider preemptive attacks on U.S. and allied missile defenses in Europe, and claimed the defenses are destabilizing in a crisis.

Makarov met with Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in July. Dempsey questioned him about the Russian strategic bomber flights near U.S. territory.

The voyage of the submarine also could be part of Russian efforts to export the Akula.

Russia delivered one of its Akula-2 submarines to India in 2009. The submarine is distinctive for its large tail fin.

Brazil’s O Estado de Sao Paoli reported Aug. 2 that Russia plans to sell Venezuela up to 11 new submarines, including one Akula.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow’s military is working to set up naval replenishment facilities in Vietnam and Cuba, but denied there were plans to base naval forces in those states.

Asked if Russia planned a naval base in Cuba, Lavrov said July 28:“We are not speaking of any bases. The Russian navy ships serve exercise cruises and training in the same regions. To harbor, resupply, and enable the crew to rest are absolutely natural needs. We have spoken of such opportunities with our Cuban friends.” The comment was posted in the Russian Foreign Ministry website.

Russian warships and support vessels were sent to Venezuela in 2008 to take part in naval exercises in a show of Russian support for the leftist regime of Hugo Chavez. The ships also stopped in Cuba.

Russian Deputy Premier Dmitri Rogozin announced in February that Russia was working on a plan to build 10 new attack submarines and 10 new missile submarines through 2030, along with new aircraft carriers.

Submarine warfare specialists say the Akula remains the core of the Russian attack submarine force.

The submarines can fire both cruise missiles and torpedoes, and are equipped with the SSN-21 and SSN-27 submarine-launched cruise missiles, as well as SSN-15 anti-submarine-warfare missiles. The submarines also can lay mines.

The SSN-21 has a range of up to 1,860 miles.

Level 1

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#13879 Aug 14, 2012
Super Troll wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have a political opinion any more, or is out gonna be screw with Barney day every day?
Correction- try to screw with Barney.

Level 1

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#13880 Aug 15, 2012
John McCain says that Mitt Romney absolutely did not pay taxes, and then corrects himself to say that Romney did pay taxes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...
Old Army

Greenbrier, AR

#13881 Aug 15, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
John McCain says that Mitt Romney absolutely did not pay taxes, and then corrects himself to say that Romney did pay taxes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...
Despicable Barney. Calling Romney a tax cheat, murderer and slave trader aint gonna work.
HandyRandy

Searcy, AR

#13882 Aug 15, 2012
Balls
Reality Check

Las Vegas, NV

#13883 Aug 15, 2012
Old Army wrote:
<quoted text>
Despicable Barney. Calling Romney a tax cheat, murderer and slave trader aint gonna work.
He's mad because the "Hope and Change" train he has been riding is about to come to a screetching halt and he knows it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Paragould Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
anybody know josh Breckenridge 15 min whocares 4
Where's good ol Britt Montgomery at lately 31 min lil bit 5
Life is backwards 53 min Stoned on old age... 1
Repair @ Fletcher Dodge, Jonesboro 58 min Sharing my experi... 7
Keep A Word - Drop A Word (Dec '09) 1 hr Not Of This World... 17,423
Listen 1 hr Stryfe 9
Why Republicans don't discuss the economy 2 hr Feel The Burn 73
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Paragould Mortgages