And So It Begins...

[dmac1]

Don't know how old you are, but I've been diabetic since 36, 21 years. Only in the last 3 years has it really started affecting me adversely. Of course different people react to things differently, but even if caught early if all a diabetic is doing is taking a minimal dose of metformin, and not being proactive with their diet and exercise, sooner or later it will get much more serious. As far as your crack about not caring about others, you don't know me or what I've done. I'm offering advice on diet because I do care, and modern medicine's diabetes treatment doesn't cure anything. It just manages it until you succumb to it, or to something else. Ask Penny Marshall. She just died from complications of diabetes, and she certainly had the wealth to be treated by the best physicians. And the question remains, do you just want to manage it, or do you want to reverse it?

You are probably the only person in the world to ever change your diet when informed you are sick.

Don't you think other people will change if notified early enough????? Those lives may be saved. Sure, some people will ignore, but does that mean we just give up on everyone because you don't want a single one of your tax dollars going to save them because some may not be helped????? That's just pure selfishness to most people. Mothers with small children, fathers who earn a living and others who can't afford insurance on their own should just hurry up and die according to conservatives. But those parents will cost a lot more without early care ON AVERAGE if even a few are saved by early intervention. The cost of early treatment of MANY chronic problems is going to cost less in tax dollars than putting them on SSDI 20 years early, and then providing them with medicare, where you will be paying when they have only contributed for a few years.

Let's do a little math for the people who do'n take advice and retire early
- $3000 annually for 40 years in premium subsidy add up to $120,000
Going on disability at age 45 and getting $15000 in SSDI PLUS maybe $5000 per year in medicare benefits adds up to $20,000 per year for 20 years until they are 65. That adds up to $400,000, and doesn't even include the greatly reduced lifetime contributions to Social Security and Medicare- probably at least another $60,000 at $3000 per year for the extra twenty years for a total tax cost of $460,000.

What this shows is that if only one out of three gets help and improves their life, you've saved $340,000, or enough to subsidize 30 people for 30 years, and this assumes than none of the rest delay the progression, even if they don't completely stop the progression of the disease, and it ignores any added costs, like amputaions or hospitalizations that might occur among those who don't follow advice.


How a conservative can deny care to those who need it is nothing but pure hypocrisy, even if it is the person's own fault for being sick. Wasting money because you don't like people getting something for nothing is just dumb.

 

[Fred's Myth]

Which suggests even more so that the healthcare in the country needs to change drastically.

You really want Big Brother dictating your diet and lifestyle in order to achieve 'health'?

 

[bbsam]

You really want Big Brother dictating your diet and lifestyle in order to achieve 'health'?

When has that EVER happened?

 

[vantexan]

You are probably the only person in the world to ever change your diet when informed you are sick.

Don't you think other people will change if notified early enough????? Those lives may be saved. Sure, some people will ignore, but does that mean we just give up on everyone because you don't want a single one of your tax dollars going to save them because some may not be helped????? That's just pure selfishness to most people. Mothers with small children, fathers who earn a living and others who can't afford insurance on their own should just hurry up and die according to conservatives. But those parents will cost a lot more without early care ON AVERAGE if even a few are saved by early intervention. The cost of early treatment of MANY chronic problems is going to cost less in tax dollars than putting them on SSDI 20 years early, and then providing them with medicare, where you will be paying when they have only contributed for a few years.

Let's do a little math for the people who do'n take advice and retire early
- $3000 annually for 40 years in premium subsidy add up to $120,000
Going on disability at age 45 and getting $15000 in SSDI PLUS maybe $5000 per year in medicare benefits adds up to $20,000 per year for 20 years until they are 65. That adds up to $400,000, and doesn't even include the greatly reduced lifetime contributions to Social Security and Medicare- probably at least another $60,000 at $3000 per year for the extra twenty years for a total tax cost of $460,000.

What this shows is that if only one out of three gets help and improves their life, you've saved $340,000, or enough to subsidize 30 people for 30 years, and this assumes than none of the rest delay the progression, even if they don't completely stop the progression of the disease, and it ignores any added costs, like amputaions or hospitalizations that might occur among those who don't follow advice.


How a conservative can deny care to those who need it is nothing but pure hypocrisy, even if it is the person's own fault for being sick. Wasting money because you don't like people getting something for nothing is just dumb.

Don't forget as a conservative I want dirty air and water, and I want to throw Grandma off the cliff. Dems never miss a chance to fearmonger when an election looms.

Why do you think Type 2 Diabetics go on insulin? Because the meds they take are no longer effective by themselves. Why is that? Because they kept eating the wrong things, assuming their meds will handle it. Millions, including myself, are in that boat. After many years of lousy numbers I was able to get my blood sugar to normal in 6 weeks with intermittent fasting and cutting out the bad for me foods. I hope your situation works for you but don't be a Bacha and think that diabetes is a progressive disease that can't be reversed.

 

[bacha29]

Don't forget as a conservative I want dirty air and water, and I want to throw Grandma off the cliff. Dems never miss a chance to fearmonger when an election looms.

Why do you think Type 2 Diabetics go on insulin? Because the meds they take are no longer effective by themselves. Why is that? Because they kept eating the wrong things, assuming their meds will handle it. Millions, including myself, are in that boat. After many years of lousy numbers I was able to get my blood sugar to normal in 6 weeks with intermittent fasting and cutting out the bad for me foods. I hope your situation works for you but don't be a Bacha and think that diabetes is a progressive disease that can't be reversed.

A lot depends too on how late in life you get it. Likewise preventative care is one of Obamacare's key objectives . Find it early and treat it much more economically Funny how you never mention Type1 juvenile . In most cases you're on insulin right from the get go. Yes, you might be able to get your numbers under control yourself but the disease will be in you until your final breath and the older you get the harder it will be to control.

 

[vantexan]

A lot depends too on how late in life you get it. Likewise preventative care is one of Obamacare's key objectives . Find it early and treat it much more economically Funny how you never mention Type1 juvenile . In most cases you're on insulin right from the get go. Yes, you might be able to get your numbers under control yourself but the disease will be in you until your final breath and the older you get the harder it will be to control.

Why funny? Totally different situation with Type 1. And reversed is reversed. That means off insulin and meds. And will remain so as long as you eat sensibly and exercise. That's Type 2, which is a dietary problem unlike Type 1.

 

[dmac1]

Don't forget as a conservative I want dirty air and water, and I want to throw Grandma off the cliff. Dems never miss a chance to fearmonger when an election looms.

Why do you think Type 2 Diabetics go on insulin? Because the meds they take are no longer effective by themselves. Why is that? Because they kept eating the wrong things, assuming their meds will handle it. Millions, including myself, are in that boat. After many years of lousy numbers I was able to get my blood sugar to normal in 6 weeks with intermittent fasting and cutting out the bad for me foods. I hope your situation works for you but don't be a Bacha and think that diabetes is a progressive disease that can't be reversed.

Yet you want to prevent a lot of people from being able to see a doctor who would make the changes because some won't. If you don't want coal power plants closed, they yes you are for dirty air and water. And if you support Trump's tax 'cuts' then you are for limiting help for 'grandma' because with the massive, quickly growing debt and deficit, your conservative' party has plans to reduce spending on 'grandma' and say it is necessary because of the debt. That is literally taking money from 'grandma' and giving mostly to wealthy individuals and corporations- LITERALLY.

So supporting your dear leader means you are for adding more poisons to the air we breathe and water we drink, and are in favor of making 'grandma' have a lower standard of living. Though the policies may not say that the intent is to poison air and water, and steal from grandma, the end result is that you support doing so.

 

[vantexan]

Yet you want to prevent a lot of people from being able to see a doctor who would make the changes because some won't. If you don't want coal power plants closed, they yes you are for dirty air and water. And if you support Trump's tax 'cuts' then you are for limiting help for 'grandma' because with the massive, quickly growing debt and deficit, your conservative' party has plans to reduce spending on 'grandma' and say it is necessary because of the debt. That is literally taking money from 'grandma' and giving mostly to wealthy individuals and corporations- LITERALLY.

So supporting your dear leader means you are for adding more poisons to the air we breathe and water we drink, and are in favor of making 'grandma' have a lower standard of living. Though the policies may not say that the intent is to poison air and water, and steal from grandma, the end result is that you support doing so.

Excuse me, most of that debt occurred under Obama. Where was he on grandma's future? If we can find a use for coal then yes I want folks in West Virginia and elsewhere who have no other means of a decent livelihood to have those jobs.

 

[bacha29]

Excuse me, most of that debt occurred under Obama. Where was he on grandma's future? If we can find a use for coal then yes I want folks in West Virginia and elsewhere who have no other means of a decent livelihood to have those jobs.

DMAC's right Bud. Dear Leader's very first budget proposal included significant budget cuts to Medicare and Medicaid along with every budget proposal since then. Right now 62% of all nursing home patients are on Medicaid because their savings were gone .In response one little trick nursing homes try to do is to trick family members (children grandkids etc) into accepting personal liability for paying for the continued care after their loved ones money is gone.

Yes, they have and will continue to try it even though it is flat out illegal .

 

[vantexan]

DMAC's right Bud. Dear Leader's very first budget proposal included significant budget cuts to Medicare and Medicaid along with every budget proposal since then. Right now 62% of all nursing home patients are on Medicaid because their savings were gone .In response one little trick nursing homes try to do is to trick family members (children grandkids etc) into accepting personal liability for paying for the continued care after their loved ones money is gone.

Yes, they have and will continue to try it even though it is flat out illegal .

If it's illegal they can't enforce it. So tell me, with such a large deficit under Trump were Medicare and Medicaid cut? Nope.

 

[bacha29]

If it's illegal they can't enforce it. So tell me, with such a large deficit under Trump were Medicare and Medicaid cut? Nope.

Because the states whom Dear Leader wanted to push the cuts onto pushed back. There are some nursing homes in some states
that are using old state laws going back generations to encumber children with the cost of care. The story was in a retirement report I subscribe to . I cut out the article and told my brother that when he admitted our mother to the nursing home to be on the lookout for it.....When they slid the acceptance of financial responsibility form across the desk for him to sign he slid the article back to them.

BTW did you see the sweet deal great leader is handing to the health insurance industry ? He giving employees of small businesses vouchers of up to $1800 to be used to buy short term health insurance. But when one of the non profit family foundations (think aluminum) evaluated such policies they determined that 43% pay no mental health coverage benefits. 62% pay nothing for opioid abuse treatment. 71% pay nothing for out patient prescriptions and all 100% pay ZERO maternity benefits. What a sweet deal and the health insurers are going to eat this up.

 

[vantexan]

Because the states whom Dear Leader wanted to push the cuts onto pushed back. There are some nursing homes in some states
that are using old state laws going back generations to encumber children with the cost of care. The story was in a retirement report I subscribe to . I cut out the article and told my brother that when he admitted our mother to the nursing home to be on the lookout for it.....When they slid the acceptance of financial responsibility form across the desk for him to sign he slid the article back to them.

BTW did you see the sweet deal great leader is handing to the health insurance industry ? He giving employees of small businesses vouchers of up to $1800 to be used to buy short term health insurance. But when one of the non profit family foundations (think aluminum) evaluated such policies they determined that 43% pay no mental health coverage benefits. 62% pay nothing for opioid abuse treatment. 71% pay nothing for out patient prescriptions and all 100% pay ZERO maternity benefits. What a sweet deal and the health insurers are going to eat this up.

Spin it anyway you want, but if it's illegal it can't be enforced. And Trump struck a deal with Democrats to get his first budget passed because too many Republicans didn't want to spend as much as he did on the military. Trump gave Dems spending they wanted in exchange for their support to get his military spending. People want to slam Trump for the spending but it was a bipartisan effort opposed by many Republicans. I honestly think at this point all we can do is watch it all go to hell with the spending. There not enough backbone in Congress to do what's necessary but there does seem to be a belief we can spend and spend without any negative repercussions.

 

[bacha29]

Spin it anyway you want, but if it's illegal it can't be enforced. And Trump struck a deal with Democrats to get his first budget passed because too many Republicans didn't want to spend as much as he did on the military. Trump gave Dems spending they wanted in exchange for their support to get his military spending. People want to slam Trump for the spending but it was a bipartisan effort opposed by many Republicans. I honestly think at this point all we can do is watch it all go to hell with the spending. There not enough backbone in Congress to do what's necessary but there does seem to be a belief we can spend and spend without any negative repercussions.

It's not up to the nursing home to make sure that patients and their families know how the law works. As for your spending worries you tell me just where do you want to begin cutting?

 

[vantexan]

It's not up to the nursing home to make sure that patients and their families know how the law works. As for your spending worries you tell me just where do you want to begin cutting?

Let's try an across the board 10% to start, then look at redundancy, waste, fraud, and abuse.

 

[bacha29]

Let's try an across the board 10% to start, then look at redundancy, waste, fraud, and abuse.

Call the Office of Management and Budget along with the CBO and tell them your plan. I'm sure they'll be all ears. LMAO

 

[vantexan]

Call the Office of Management and Budget along with the CBO and tell them your plan. I'm sure they'll be all ears. LMAO

In Bacha world no one can suggest anything because the government is always right and we must obey.

 

[bacha29]

In Bacha world no one can suggest anything because the government is always right and we must obey.

Wrong. If you've got a plan that will cut spending 10% across the board that can pass the muster of Congress the administration the CBO and OMB. by all means stand and deliver.

 

[vantexan]

Wrong. If you've got a plan that will cut spending 10% across the board that can pass the muster of Congress the administration the CBO and OMB. by all means stand and deliver.

Yes because they want to hear my opinion. Amazing to me how everyone sacrificed to help the war effort in WWII but Dems act like belt tightening now is impossible. Guess they really were the greatest generation.

 

[bacha29]

Yes because they want to hear my opinion. Amazing to me how everyone sacrificed to help the war effort in WWII but Dems act like belt tightening now is impossible. Guess they really were the greatest generation.

What if some of that belt tightening affects you personally? At 57 anything can happen to you now. Let's say you get laid off can collect UC and Dept of Labor says "Naw we have to cut your UC benefit 10% Or the Kansas Department of Revenue says "Our federal support has been cut 10% but mandated services are still in place so we have to raise our state income tax by 10%. or your local school district says "Due to cuts in federal funding support we have to raise your school property taxes by 10% .If this were to happen you'd be screaming like a banshee. There's never truly a cut in spending. It's just passed down to the states and local municipalities After the Brownback debacle you would think you would learned that by now.

 

[vantexan]

What if some of that belt tightening affects you personally? At 57 anything can happen to you now. Let's say you get laid off can collect UC and Dept of Labor says "Naw we have to cut your UC benefit 10% Or the Kansas Department of Revenue says "Our federal support has been cut 10% but mandated services are still in place so we have to raise our state income tax by 10%. or your local school district says "Due to cuts in federal funding support we have to raise your school property taxes by 10% .If this were to happen you'd be screaming like a banshee. There's never truly a cut in spending. It's just passed down to the states and local municipalities After the Brownback debacle you would think you would learned that by now.

The problem is that government spends too much, throws money at problems, and I suspect sticky fingers take a cut. What did people ever do before all of these programs? I fully expect Social Security benefits to be cut someday. If there's no money, there's no money.