6:39 pm, March 1, 2015

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 56
       

  • Health Premiums
    Bud
    I have BCBS Basic Self only.My premiums have risen 43% in 4 years.In addition the copays have risen over 50%.Prescription copays by 40%.In '12,we now have a $75 copay from zero for CT/MRIs,Xrays now are $25 vs.zero previously.So even if the premiums don't rise,I'm sure the copays will which is a back door cost hike.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Abuse???
    Jimmac
    Since I am an adult,I feel that on a good day I can recognize abuse. Being a Federal employee I have an up close and personal relationship with abuse. I have read posts by Rob and Contrarian over the past several months. Although I did not agree with several of them at no time did these gentlemen demonstrate any behavior that could be classified as "Abuse". If you are offended by a post, breathe in breathe out and move on. Remember the First Amendment applies even if you don't agree.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Censorship?
    Moderate
    Please contact Mr. Causey and get the alleged abusive posts. Then read them. I have asked Mr. Causey for these posts so I can make up my mind about them. I will not and hope you do not let political views get in the way of the determination. Censorship should not be taken lightly, but the issue is whether they violated the rules as prescribed by the people who run this board.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Posts are back
    Linda
    I read the so called abusive posts, as they are back, and didn't find them abusive. Just opinions. I will only hit the abuse button for spam, really really bad language or a personal insult to myself, or occasionally if I feel a post is horrible sexist or racists. Never seen any of those on this blog.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Lack of health care surprise
    celiaminer
    One way to keep premiums down is to cut services. BCBS didn't raise premiums this past year as much as other plans, but it was a surprise to me when they refused to pay for a routine mammogram.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Hey ROB
    MDBBALL02
    Rob....You really need to get educated and to help you, I suggest you find former President Bill Clinton's convention speech from last night. It should be required listening for every voter, he spoke in such clear language every American could learn something. BTW--PRESIDENT Obama did not eliminate the requirement to work for Welfare. THAT is a lie. Several Republican Governors asked for a waiver to pursue options that would still get people off welfare and back to work, and PRESIDENT Obama only allowed it IF THEY INCREASED THE # OF FOLKS MOVED OFF WELFARE BY AN ADDITIONAL 20% over an above what the welfare program requires them to do per year ... and the waiver could ONLY be extended IF THEY CONTINUED to reach 20% MORE people off Welfare. Stop watching FOX...PLEASE... It's making you appear really ignorant of the facts.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • I watched Bill and....
    Rob
    Hopefully Obama watched as well. Bill Clinton is a Democrat to the core. He's not about to get up there and lecture Obama on how to govern. The fact of the matter is he and Obama, although both democrats, are complete opposites. Don't forget, Clinton was governor of a red state, Arkansas. He understood how to work with the GOP to get things done. Obama was never a governor. He was a community organizer. There's nothing wrong with that. We need more community organizers. I think what we've seen over the past 4 years is a guy way out of his league. Obama never had the executive experience to lead this country PERIOD. Great speaker, but terrible leader. He'll certainly awe folks tonight with his speech. I ain't buying!!!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Republican nonsense
    Moderate
    First Clinton worked with Republicans who were bad, but not this bad. Present day Republicans either want their way or will bring the country down. The Republicans of 1994-1995 learned to compromise because they found that shutting down the country hurt them more than Clinton.----Nice try about governor as Romney was one, but Obama was not. So was Palin, but I would not recommend her over even a dog catcher.----Reality is that most of the national Republicans are for the wealthy while more Democrats are for the rest of the country. Otherwise, the Repubs would allow the Bush tax cuts to continue for most of the country instead of letting them expire because the wealthy should not get them. I will agree that $250000 is too low a threshhold for that. In any case I would keep the tax cuts even if that threshhold stays.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • round hole/square peg
    Rob
    I think most Americans, Repubs and Dems, want our leaders to work together to move this country forward. I for one would like to see some compromise, but just because someone wins an election doesn't mean the other side has to abandon its principles. We have a president who is trying to force a far left agenda down the throat of a center right country. It's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Clinton was, and still is, a master politician. He recognized he had to govern from the center after the '94 midterm and he did. Obama ignored the message sent to him after the 2010 midterm. He dug in even deeper. Obama is unwilling to govern from the center. I believe his lack of executive experience is the problem. Clinton had to work with the GOP in the red state of Arkansas. Romney had to work with the Dems in the blue state of Massachusetts. I doubt very seriously that Romney will be as rigid as Obama. He has the executive experience.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Repubs do not compromise
    Moderate
    I agree that compromise is necessary. This was done in the past. Just like you think the Repubs should not give up their principles, the Dems should not give up their principles. This is why you have this conflict. Both sides have to compromise. It sounds like you want compromise as long as the Repubs get all they want. You also forget that Obama won a landslide in 2008.----The problem with your comments is that your center is well to the right of the center. Therefore, you will never consider Obama as a compromiser.---Romney also passed Romneycare as a governor. He wants to repeal Obamacare but has not proposed a Romneycare type of product. He sounds like he will be held back by the tea partiers.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Yes, educate yourself
    Putt-Putt
    It's true that President Obama, through HHS, didn't eliminate the work for welfare provision, but he did change the definition of "work" and the method of computing compliance. But, GAO looked at the President's plan and determined it was illegal as the interpretation of work requirements and computation of work removals (people who have left the welfare rolls by finding work) could only be made by Congress. So President Obama illegally changed the rules. And this isn't from Fox - it's from the GAO (http://www.gao.gov/products/B-323772#mt=e-report). It is a worthy goal to get people to work, but it's unworthy of the office of the President to make oneself look good through illegal means.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • GAO
    Moderate
    Did GAO eliminate obama's position? If not did the head of GAO take it to court?
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Putt Putt
    Moderate
    First, I will admit that I only scanned the GAO report. The scan was fairly close. I did not read it word for word. It does not say anything about any change of rules being illegal per say. It does say that obama must submit the rules to both Houses of Congress. Instead of being totally negative about what happened, it is strictly a technical legal interpretation.---- This is very common in government. I amke technical determinations all of the time. Some are overturned on appeal. Most are not. That does not make my work illegal. Same concept applies to Obama and has subordinates. So, please educate yourself Putt Putt
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Illegality
    GR82BMRA
    Putt-putt is correct in stating the GAO report points out an illegality in the waivers planned by HHS. As a point of law, illegal is an action in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance, which may be criminal or merely not in conformity (i.e., civil). The GAO points out atatutory authority for waivers belongs solely with Congress. Accordingly, the Administrative branch, by issuing waivers, is not in conformity with the statute, and thus has taken an illegal action. It appears you're confusing a determination of illegal action with a judicial determination; all branches of governmet make determinations about illegal actions, but the fact remains there were illegal (as determined under various statutory authority) actions.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Illegal
    Moderate
    Unfortunately, Putt Putt and others were using illegal as a horrible thing. The way you expressed it is reasonable. The way they said it is totally out of line.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Why are premiums so high
    Linda
    Premiums continue to go up, although not as fast as they were in the past, in general. Why is health insurance so expensive, part is the fault of the insurance company. Insurance companies originally set co-pays low so people would seek medical care and not wait until they need hospital care. But, people started going to the doctor for everything whether they really needed to go or not, and wanting drugs for everything whether they need them or not (for example antibiotics for laryngitis). This created more demand. More demand creates scarcity and that creates higher costs. The secret is to know how to set the co-pays and deductibles so people go to the doctor when needed for example when they have strep throat so it doesn't turn into rumatic fever. But they don't run to the doctor for every cough and cold that a day off would treat better than a doctor visit. And the cost of medical mal-practice insurance is also high. Torte reform would help that. OPM has some sway in premiums due to the huge number of federal employees past and present buying the insurance. You can get inexpensive health insurance if you don't mind a high deductible. Health insurance is supposed to be for catestrophic events, Which preventive can help deter, not every little expense.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Some good points
    Moderate
    Be very careful with tort reform. yes, it may be needed, but do not discourage lawsuits where warranted. And do not set maximum dollar amounts (percentage of medical costs may be okay) for pain and suffering. I agree with you about drugs. Certain antibiotics are good for bacterial infections but do nothing for viral infections. How about allowing drug imprts instead of alloing the drug companies to keep their prices artificially high.----You do make some very good points.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Tort Reform
    Linda
    If a medical malpractice case is won in court, I would allow all related medical expenses now and in the future as best estimated. I would allow for compensatory damages to the point the possible work changes. Someone with a highschool education working minimum wages is not entitled to a top CEO salary from a law suite. All Punitive damages will go to a related research project (these are funded by the government anyway). Lawyers are allowed their percentage based on the medical and compensation damages, and it can be taken from the punitive award, unless specifally awarded by the court. Lawyers do not get paid until after the victim does. The victims award is put into a trust or annuity so they cannot spend all the money at once, and it is there to pay their bills. If the victim dies before all the money is paid out, then their heirs can receive what ever is left.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Tort reform
    Moderate
    So, you are eliminating compensation for pain and suffering? I do not agree with that. Also lawyers should not wait for punitive damages as I do not think they are asserted often. They are entitled to fees.-----Otherwise, I like your comments.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }