John Adams Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 Yes you do. That's why you make posts declare you are this, or are that. You have a real inferiority complex. It's obvious You're a message board coward. You'll attack a weakling like ACor but won't dare attack me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 You're a message board coward. You'll attack a weakling like ACor but won't dare to it to me. Weakling? Kiss my @ss JA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 Weakling? Kiss my @ss JA. See: he responded to you every 3 minutes. He won't have the balls to respond to me because he knows I own him. He does that to you because you're not as much of a man as me. I'm not insulting you. Just stating a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 In defense of the soda tax: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/opinion/...amp;ref=opinion Brought to you by the fake sugar industry of whom is one of Chuck Schumer's and many of NYs politicians biggest campaign contributors... I don't buy this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 The Huffington Post you are in a fantasy world. "conservative advocates of unlimited homeownership" , Who were they? Actually they were most likely libertards.And while we are at it did not your girlfriend Barney say Fannie and Freddie were in good shape. He was probably busy in his basement apartment. Naw, just your good old down low banker buddies in the midwest who never met a sheep or a young heffer they didn't liyake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 Brought to you by the fake sugar industry of whom is one of Chuck Schumer's and many of NYs politicians biggest campaign contributors... I don't buy this one. The writer said in his article he would love to see a “Twinkie tax” . Must be he had Barney in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 The writer said in his article he would love to see a “Twinkie tax” . Must be he had Barney in mind. LOL, but you protest too much, better not drop the soap any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 LOL, but you protest too much, better not drop the soap any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 The writer said in his article he would love to see a “Twinkie tax” . Must be he had Barney in mind. That would be a" fruitcake tax". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 He does that to you because you're not as much of a man as me. I'm not insulting you. Just stating a fact. Now you are questioning my manhood. Ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Now you are questioning my manhood. Ouch. No. You're a man. Molson is afraid to confront me. See how he isn't responding? He's afraid to attack me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 No. You're a man. Molson is afraid to confront me. See how he isn't responding? He's afraid to attack me. Doesn't he have to sign on from a subsidized computer at the library? Maybe that is why he hasn't confronted you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Doesn't he have to sign on from a subsidized computer at the library? Maybe that is why he hasn't confronted you. The guy has 100 posts a day and now he's afraid to pop out of his hole. He's not a man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 And spending is so far up. I am really disappointed by Patterson here. This budget is a joke. Two quick fixes... Public employees are currently required to contribute 3% of their annual income toward their pensions...but only first the first 10 years of employement. WTF? Who even comes up with that? Make the 3% for the term of employment, save billions. Medicaid eligibility thresholdss make NYS the largest state spender on Medicaid nationally, spending approximately $45.4 billion. By contrast, California (certainly not a conservative state), a state with twice the population of NY, spends $39 billion. Adopt California's eligibility thresholds, save billions. Budget crisis solved for years. This will never happen. Never. Why? Because far too many people in state government brag that NY is NY and we are therefore "better" than the rest of the 49 states. Yes, they are proud of the fact that they "serve prime rib where the rest of the states serve mac and cheese" when it comes to Medicaid. But think about it for a sec. Weren't we all raised to think that NY is a better state than the others, in general? But that was about: smarter people, harder workers, etc. Hint: It was never meant to apply to "bigger bloated programs". This mindset is killing our state, and it doesn't end with Meidcaid spending. The real trouble is: NYS doesn't actually end up serving "prime rib". By the time the money actaully makes it down to the patient/provider, we serve Ramen noodles. So there's nothing to be proud about at all. The average medicaid patient gets a hospital, nursing home, or home health care provider a whopping $18-25 a day. So how does 45.4 BILLION turn into $18-25 dollars a day? Easy. 1. Ridiculous quality regulations that have no chance of ensuring actual quality, reimbursement schemes that make the simple complex and over-simplify or ignore costs that are real, paying for government employees that must manage the other government employees, who need still more government employees to help them do their jobs, who then require more managers......all of which has exactly 0 chance of improving care, but that require extra staff on both sides of the equation. 2. We are "helping" health care providers by forcing them to hire multiple nurses, that don't provide one hour of care in a year, contrary to the stated objective of a "health care provider". They instead are filling out the endless forms that the legions of state/federal employees must continue to come up with in order to justify their existence, and of course you need to let multi-million $ contracts to "hired gun" regulators who get paid on how much they find that is "wrong" with the paperwork. Thereby adding additional stress and cost to an already over-stressed and cash-strapped environment. 3. Because of 2, nobody wants to work as an RN, DON, or Administrator, regardless of how much you pay, because it sucks, thereby exaggerating the demand for nurses = the salaries go up across the board = the cost for providers goes up even though the market is not supporting this increase. The average nursing home administrator lasts 2 years on the job. The average Director of Nursing? 1.5. The HR problem alone costs providers dearly in terms of replacing their staff over and over. So you have an inefficient government program, that gets meddled with by even more government people, and it causes massive costs that ultimately filter the amount of $$$ that gets to the people it's supposed to help. This is directly due to states and municipalities all getting their "taste", in terms of government jobs, before it gets to the blind, elderly, etc. person it's supposed to be helping. Great. No amount of added spending on Medicare or Medicaid will fix this problem because??? The governments, Fed, State, and Local, will end up stealing it/re-directing it for their own purposes, and the providers will still end up with $18-25 a day. Until you get rid of government's regulation "profit motive", this will always be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts