Letters to the Editor

Monday, September 14, 2009 at 12:04am

 

No shirt off their backs

Upon release from prison, the Lockerbie bomber of Pam Am flight 103 is applauded by Libyans, given a hero’s welcome, and Omar Qaddafi himself hugs and kisses him.

He only killed 270 Americans.

Now, the President Bush “shoe thrower” is let out of jail early and given ‘gifts’ by the Iranian government. He didn't kill G.W. Bush, just humiliated him.

When will the United States wake up and realize many parts of the world hate us? Why spend over a trillion dollars and seven years and 4,350 lives "freeing the Iraqi people" when their elections are bogus?

And 54 soldiers were killed in Afghanistan in August alone.

This just isn't worth the time, energy and lives to save these people who wouldn't give you the shirt off their backs.

Paul D'Argent, 37209

Send comments via e-mail to letters@nashvillecitypaper.com

 

157 Comments on this post:

By: pandabear on 9/14/09 at 11:40

Yeah chief, Fox News.

...we all listen to that...(right...)

"Don't let the kids listen to the black president..."

What a joke.

By: dargent7 on 9/14/09 at 11:52

Fun: I kinda thought you were kiddin' w/ me. But, here, who know's? West has 'Crop Circles" embroidered in his head. He's certifiable. His antics will only put Swift into the spotlight. She'll be on the A-List for all talk shows for a week.
He should get a commission.

By: Dragon on 9/14/09 at 11:53

Blanket,
Re: Single Payer System.

Tennessee is waivered from the current Medicare system and uses TennCare. TennCare is not an insurance company. It hired Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee to administer that program.

If the nation went to a "single payer", who would the states hire to administer the program? BCBST is a private company. Do you suggest the Feds pull a Chavez and "nationalize" the health insurance industry?

By: house_of_pain on 9/14/09 at 11:54

Thanks for the compliment, d7.
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were coming on to me.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...

By: dargent7 on 9/14/09 at 11:56

"House"...Naw, I'm not gay. (that I'm aware of). But, living in Tenn for the past 2 years I'm beginning to favor Men's airport bathrooms and Donny Osmond songs. Any connection?

By: Blanketnazi2 on 9/14/09 at 11:57

pull a Chevez. oh, please. i'm sure BCBS has your best interests at heart.

By: chiefpayne568 on 9/14/09 at 11:57

Blanket,

"a single payor system would do away with the subsidies paid to insurance companies for processing Medicare/Medicaid. that is where the savings to pay for it would come into play."

And create far more bureaucracy involved, cause more to have to be hired to deal with it. And also a new computer system to be required to deal with it. And also it will cause the government to become involved in who will get which drugs, medical care, etc which will not resolve that part of the problem as insurance companies do that now.

So I ask, why not fix the system currently in place, shore up the bureaucracy in place, update the computer system as needed, and increase the parameters of the system in place to cover those who are not covered now?

By: chiefpayne568 on 9/14/09 at 11:59

Panda,

"...we all listen to that...(right...) "Don't let the kids listen to the black president..."
What a joke."

Hey, I report, you decide. LOL

By: Dragon on 9/14/09 at 12:02

Blanket, the point is that Medicare is administered by private insurance companies. Would your single payor system also be administered by private insurance companies?

By: Blanketnazi2 on 9/14/09 at 12:03

actually, chief it would streamline the process, not "add" bureaucracy. part of "fixing the system in place" would be to go back to the way it was administered prior to 2003.

By: house_of_pain on 9/14/09 at 12:03

d7, I've always wanted to ask Donnie Osmond a question:
What was it like having sex with Marie?

By: chiefpayne568 on 9/14/09 at 12:07

Blanket,

And what is wrong with the way it was administred in 2003? I have to pled ignorance on this aspect.

I still say it would be much more economical to fix what is already in place in the long run.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 9/14/09 at 12:08

why are you so opposed to the government running it? i bet there would be less abuse of the system if it were not run through private insurance.

By: chiefpayne568 on 9/14/09 at 12:08

House,

You are a sick puppy!

By: Blanketnazi2 on 9/14/09 at 12:08

chief, read the article that i posted.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 9/14/09 at 12:09

what happened in 2003 was a huge coup for the insurance industry (no surprise there)

By: chiefpayne568 on 9/14/09 at 12:10

Blanket,

Because I have been alive for almost 50 years and I have never seen a government run program that DIDN'T cost more money than it was supposed to save!

By: Kosh III on 9/14/09 at 12:12

Tsk Tsk d7
We all know Chekov was the stud.

By: chiefpayne568 on 9/14/09 at 12:16

Blanket,

So why not go back to 2003 level of insurance then?

By: Blanketnazi2 on 9/14/09 at 12:19

well, that's an option. administer it the way it used to run and allow more people to be eligible.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 9/14/09 at 12:22

also raise the cap for FICA payroll deductions to help fund it.

By: house_of_pain on 9/14/09 at 12:26

Raise the cap for everyone?

By: chiefpayne568 on 9/14/09 at 12:27

Blanket,

I think that option would have FAR more chances of passing than the current bill does now, IMO anyway.

But WHY do we need to raise the cap for FICA payroll deductions to fund it, if the savings involved would pay for it???

By: Funditto on 9/14/09 at 12:33

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

By: Blanketnazi2 on 9/14/09 at 12:33

it would help fund it and it would still be cheaper than the way things run now (rates jacked up because of people using the ER instead of receiving preventative care)

By: house_of_pain on 9/14/09 at 12:35

Uh-oh, now Fun's keyboard has been hijacked by a banker.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 9/14/09 at 12:35

chief, do you make over $102K per year?

By: Blanketnazi2 on 9/14/09 at 12:37

While poor working Americans pay nearly 8% for FICA and Medicare, those with "huge" earnings, including capital gains profits, pay the same amount, 8%, and then get a big TAX BREAK for earnings above the limit, close to what you mentioned in your question.

It does go up with inflation, but is way too low, IMO. Barrack Obama proposes to "fix" the social security program, so it won't run out of money, and can continue to be a "safety net" for the old, and disabled. He will fix it by continuing FICA tax on the richman's earnings above $ 250,000.

So, for the great majority of Middle Class, those earning under $250,000, they will see no FICA increase, but those over 250,000, they'd have to kick in the same 8% that everyone else pays on their "total" income.

By: chiefpayne568 on 9/14/09 at 12:39

blanket,

"chief, do you make over $102K per year?"

Ms. Chief and I do combined...why?

By: Blanketnazi2 on 9/14/09 at 12:41

no, not combined.....that's not what i asked. $102K is the current cap for SS payroll deductions. if you make less than $102K it won't affect you anyway.

By: chiefpayne568 on 9/14/09 at 12:41

Blanket,

"it would help fund it and it would still be cheaper than the way things run now (rates jacked up because of people using the ER instead of receiving preventative care)"

You're talking about the long run...which might be true (haven't looked at that myself) but right now we are struggling financially as a country and if too great an investment is required, we could conceivable spend ourselves into a large depression.

So...depending on how much we're talking about, this might be something we'll have to revisit at a another time. Depends on what we're talking about here.

By: house_of_pain on 9/14/09 at 12:42

You're pretty good with numbers, Blanket...you should be an accountant.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 9/14/09 at 12:48

chief, we can no longer afford to "revisit." that's the point. this is part of what is causing our economy to struggle.

lol, house!

By: pandabear on 9/14/09 at 12:54

It's not a cap we need.
It's accountability for the FICA they collect now.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 9/14/09 at 12:54

that too, panda.

By: chiefpayne568 on 9/14/09 at 12:55

Blanket,

Sorry but I don't agree entirely with that. I think it's part of the problem, to be sure...but the biggest issue is the economy right now. We need to jump start that and then look at the other things, IMO.

But then, I just don't think it's as big an issue as getting people back to work is right now.

By: house_of_pain on 9/14/09 at 12:55

I hope the gov't. understands that a pre-exam martini is a medical necessity.

By: chiefpayne568 on 9/14/09 at 12:57

Panda,

AGREED! The fact previous Congresses put the FDIC into the General Fund so they could get into it, shows how little monitored and maintained it is. We need that fund put into a hand-off fund that Congress can't tap into whenever they want to.

By: chiefpayne568 on 9/14/09 at 12:58

House,

"I hope the gov't. understands that a pre-exam martini is a medical necessity"

Given that it's you, I would expect the government to understand the medical necessity of a three martini pre-exam requirement!

By: Blanketnazi2 on 9/14/09 at 1:00

the #1 reason for bankruptcy right now is medical bills and that includes people who already have insurance. so there is a direct link between healthcare and the state of our economy.

By: pandabear on 9/14/09 at 1:03

Blanket:
Thanks, that was an interesting link.

chief:
We agree on something besides weapons !?!
Bring out the band !

This news just in ...(takataka....takata...)
My new GLOCK 19 shoots like dream and my
new Ruger Mark III is gonna take some getting use to.
Shoots great though.

By: pandabear on 9/14/09 at 1:05

Amen to that Blanket.
It's a little known fact that needs to be shouted out as often as possible.

People who planned their finances and did everything "right"
are losing it all because of run away health care costs.

By: pandabear on 9/14/09 at 1:06

Do you realize how embarrassing it's going to be to D7 when it
comes to light that his topics can't even generate 4 pages of comments ?

...oh, the shame...

By: house_of_pain on 9/14/09 at 1:07

Whatever you say, man...I'm not looking to pi$$ off a well-armed panda.

By: chiefpayne568 on 9/14/09 at 1:07

Blanket,

"the #1 reason for bankruptcy right now is medical bills and that includes people who already have insurance. so there is a direct link between healthcare and the state of our economy."

Hummm...sorry but I think people overspending and losing their jobs would be the number one reason.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 9/14/09 at 1:09

not true, chief. do some research.

By: chiefpayne568 on 9/14/09 at 1:09

Panda,

"People who planned their finances and did everything "right"
are losing it all because of run away health care costs."

True enough...but I still say getting people back to work should be priority number one. After all, what good would it do if people had health insurance but the government couldn't collect enough tax money to pay for it?

By: slacker on 9/14/09 at 1:11

chief, are you saying we need to put FDIC, in an Al Gore lock box?

By: Blanketnazi2 on 9/14/09 at 1:11

well, people would spend more if they were not going bankrupt....spending more would create jobs....

By: chiefpayne568 on 9/14/09 at 1:13

Well, all I can say is, there are quite a few who agree with me, given the last march.

Anyway, I like the idea of using the current system to fix the problems. I thought it was a pretty good idea, since the structure is already in place...besides, I still think it would be easier to pass than what Pelosi is pushing.

BTW, anyone find the exact figures for the protest that was in DC on 9-12? I've heard anywhere from tens of thousands to over a million.