Obama is giving himself a pay cut

Hmmm.. the more I read about cutting NPR funding, the sillier it seems.

Couldn't they cut more than 400million in waste by streamlining current government programs?
 
just trying to take the sting out of O'Care when it hits... But congrats on pointing out O'dogz is running the lowest deficit sine HE took office after 4 years in a row of 1 trillion plus...

Good deflection though, so will bazza's paycut coincide with sequestration on the first lady purse?

Health care in Australia is provided by both private and government institutions. The Minister for Health and Ageing, currently Tanya Plibersek, administers national health policy, elements of which (such as the operation of hospitals) are overseen by individual states.
In Australia the current system, known as Medicare, was instituted in 1984. It coexists with a private health system. Medicare is funded partly by a 1.5% income tax levy (with exceptions for low-income earners), but mostly out of general revenue. An additional levy of 1% is imposed on high-income earners without private health insurance. As well as Medicare, there is a separate Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that considerably subsidises a range of prescription medications.

Health care in Australia is universal. The federal government pays a large[SUP][quantify][/SUP] percentage of the cost of services in public hospitals. This percentage is calculated on:

  1. Whether the government subsidises this service (based on the Medicare Benefits Schedule. Typically, 100% of in-hospital costs, 75% of General Practitioner and 85% of specialist services are covered.
  2. Whether the patient is a concession or receives other benefits[SUP][5][/SUP]
  3. Whether the patient has crossed the threshold for further subsidised the service (based on total health expenditure for the year)[SUP][5][/SUP]
Where the government pays the large subsidy, the patient pays the remainder out of pocket, unless the provider of the service chooses to use bulk billing, charging only the scheduled fee, leaving the patient with no extra costs. In some countries, this is commonly referred to as a copayment. Where a particular service is not covered, such as dentistry, optometry, and ambulance transport,[SUP][6][/SUP] the patient must pay the full amount (unless they hold a Low Income Earner card, which may entitle them to subsidised access).
Individuals can take out private health insurance to cover out-of-pocket costs, with either a plan that covers just selected services, to a full coverage plan. In practice, a person with private insurance may still be left with out-of-pocket payments, as services in private hospitals often cost more than the insurance payment.
The government encourages individuals with income above a set level to privately insure. This is done by charging these (higher income) individuals a surcharge of 1% of income if they do not take out private health insurance, and a means-tested rebate. This is to encourage individuals who are perceived as able to afford private insurance not to resort to the strained public health system.
In addition, citizens of Australia are also often encouraged to use the private insurance system as a matter of convenience since "public hospitals may have long waiting lists [for elective surgery], whereas you could get your treatment more swiftly in the private system."


SO Tell me about how Obamacare is working in Australia you fucking Twit
 
Health care in Australia is provided by both private and government institutions. The Minister for Health and Ageing, currently Tanya Plibersek, administers national health policy, elements of which (such as the operation of hospitals) are overseen by individual states.
In Australia the current system, known as Medicare, was instituted in 1984. It coexists with a private health system. Medicare is funded partly by a 1.5% income tax levy (with exceptions for low-income earners), but mostly out of general revenue. An additional levy of 1% is imposed on high-income earners without private health insurance. As well as Medicare, there is a separate Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that considerably subsidises a range of prescription medications.

Health care in Australia is universal. The federal government pays a large[SUP][quantify][/SUP] percentage of the cost of services in public hospitals. This percentage is calculated on:

  1. Whether the government subsidises this service (based on the Medicare Benefits Schedule. Typically, 100% of in-hospital costs, 75% of General Practitioner and 85% of specialist services are covered.
  2. Whether the patient is a concession or receives other benefits[SUP][5][/SUP]
  3. Whether the patient has crossed the threshold for further subsidised the service (based on total health expenditure for the year)[SUP][5][/SUP]
Where the government pays the large subsidy, the patient pays the remainder out of pocket, unless the provider of the service chooses to use bulk billing, charging only the scheduled fee, leaving the patient with no extra costs. In some countries, this is commonly referred to as a copayment. Where a particular service is not covered, such as dentistry, optometry, and ambulance transport,[SUP][6][/SUP] the patient must pay the full amount (unless they hold a Low Income Earner card, which may entitle them to subsidised access).
Individuals can take out private health insurance to cover out-of-pocket costs, with either a plan that covers just selected services, to a full coverage plan. In practice, a person with private insurance may still be left with out-of-pocket payments, as services in private hospitals often cost more than the insurance payment.
The government encourages individuals with income above a set level to privately insure. This is done by charging these (higher income) individuals a surcharge of 1% of income if they do not take out private health insurance, and a means-tested rebate. This is to encourage individuals who are perceived as able to afford private insurance not to resort to the strained public health system.
In addition, citizens of Australia are also often encouraged to use the private insurance system as a matter of convenience since "public hospitals may have long waiting lists [for elective surgery], whereas you could get your treatment more swiftly in the private system."


SO Tell me about how Obamacare is working in Australia you fucking Twit

really fucking well you copy and paste cunt...

Don't confuse REAL universal healthcare with Obamadon'tcare that just proves how stupid you really are...

Do you have a point or are you just trying to deflect from the hypocrisy and stupidity of the OP?
 
really fucking well you copy and paste cunt...

Don't confuse REAL universal healthcare with Obamadon'tcare that just proves how stupid you really are...

Do you have a point or are you just trying to deflect from the hypocrisy and stupidity of the OP?

NUHH UHH!!

what he copy/pasted looks exactly like Bwana Obama's "Hope and Change" bill, except for the private insurance mandate, the 4% tax, the lack of any universal coverage, the dearth of any method of delivery save throught he same old shit, and of course the fact that having Medical Insurance Coverage is now EXACTLY the same thing as seeing a doctor. apparently those insurance cards have magical healing powers all their own now, so acquiring one eliminates the need to actually see a doctor. i guess it's like Freudian-ism PAYING FOR IT is the mechanism of cure, not the actual treatments.
 
Here's a hypothetical - just say you're suffering from kidney stones (but don't know it) and you take yourself down to the hospital to find out what the go is...

You're there for around 4 hours and a heap of tests are run from blood work to ultrasounds etc... The resident and his boss spend a good hour with you all up and you're given the all clear and a months worth of antibiotics and discharged...

How much would that cost someone who is uninsured in the US? Furthermore under O'Care how much would it cost?
 
Bwa ha ha ha ha....

It's funny because it costs millions to be president and no president since before or since Carter ever actually needed the $400K per year to live on.

He could give all of it back and still have several orders of magnitude more money than I'll ever have.

Elect me president and I'll give $380,000 back. Hell I can live on $20K if my house and helicopter comes with it.

He could take a lesson from the president of Ecuador.
 
Bwa ha ha ha ha....

It's funny because it costs millions to be president and no president since before or since Carter ever actually needed the $400K per year to live on.

He could give all of it back and still have several orders of magnitude more money than I'll ever have.

Elect me president and I'll give $380,000 back. Hell I can live on $20K if my house and helicopter comes with it.

He could take a lesson from the president of Ecuador.

And yet he advocates that people that make his kind of income pay more in income taxes
Bwahahaha

Twit
 
Ya, Ron Paul has given his entire salary back since his first year in politics. When you make a mil a year in stocks, another mil in other investments and a few more mil doing who the fuck knows what, not even counting the millions he will make as a speaker after his second term, it really doesn't matter and is in fact more of an insult to me than anything. It's a strategy, a attempt to look human, something he and most politicians are not.
 
his entire salary back since his first year in politics. When you make a mil a year in stocks, another mil in other investments and a few more mil doing who the fuck knows what, not even counting the millions he will make as a speaker aYa, Ron Paul has given fter his second term, it really doesn't matter and is in fact more of an insult to me than anything. It's a strategy, a attempt to look human, something he and most politicians are not.

BULLSHiT

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...cle-about-Paul-giving-back-part-of-his-salary
 
[h=1]Ron Paul should return 92 percent of his congressional salary to the Treasury[/h]
By Brent Budowsky - 04/06/12 03:22 PM ET


Excellent reporting by The Hill reveals that Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R) has missed 92 percent of the votes in the House of Representatives in 2012. He should therefore return 92 percent of his 2012 salary to the federal Treasury. In another example of the rampant hypocrisy of Republicans, it is ludicrous for Ron Paul to expect American taxpayers to subsidize his campaign speeches where he quotes Austrian economists and complains about the deficit at taxpayer expense. This is as hypocritical as Ron Paul supporting earmarks while Rick Santorum lobbies for earmarks, while both claim to be fiscal conservatives.



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...essional-salary-to-the-treasury#ixzz2PSI3IBho
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
 
Wow 5 fuckin %. Just another dumbass pointless move to appease the teabaggers. I would've thought he would've learned his lesson by now. The only way those morons will stop bitching about him is if he suddenly changed races and put an (R) next to his name.
 
Here's a hypothetical - just say you're suffering from kidney stones (but don't know it) and you take yourself down to the hospital to find out what the go is...

You're there for around 4 hours and a heap of tests are run from blood work to ultrasounds etc... The resident and his boss spend a good hour with you all up and you're given the all clear and a months worth of antibiotics and discharged...



How much would that cost someone who is uninsured in the US? Furthermore under O'Care how much would it cost?

Didn't catch the beginning conversation nor do I want to being I'm politicaled out for the day but I pay "out of pocket" for my health care and just this week alone I spent. 600 to get my teeth cleaned, some old resin from an old brace ground off two teeth, one cavity filled along with full x-rays. Yesterday I had a cholesterol blood test along with a second blood test for colon cancer, thyroid and something else, a basic 10 minutes exam with a EKG test. That cost 1,000. And Friday I'm doing a stress test with a EKG, some other image device while walking on a stair master type machine, that will cost another 1,000. If I would of requested a nuclear option which is just radioactive dye drink and another image scanner fro a more detailed look at and around my heart that would of been about 1,900.

So currently it costs a shitload, under Obamacare I have no clue, under single-payer it would cost me about 50 bucks and a 1% increase on my taxes. I'd opt for single-payer if I could but if I remember correctly you are the "just die quicker" kind of health care guy so I imagine you are just fine with the current rip=off system we have.
 
Didn't catch the beginning conversation nor do I want to being I'm politicaled out for the day but I pay "out of pocket" for my health care and just this week alone I spent. 600 to get my teeth cleaned, some old resin from an old brace ground off two teeth, one cavity filled along with full x-rays. Yesterday I had a cholesterol blood test along with a second blood test for colon cancer, thyroid and something else, a basic 10 minutes exam with a EKG test. That cost 1,000. And Friday I'm doing a stress test with a EKG, some other image device while walking on a stair master type machine, that will cost another 1,000. If I would of requested a nuclear option which is just radioactive dye drink and another image scanner fro a more detailed look at and around my heart that would of been about 1,900.

So currently it costs a shitload, under Obamacare I have no clue, under single-payer it would cost me about 50 bucks and a 1% increase on my taxes. I'd opt for single-payer if I could but if I remember correctly you are the "just die quicker" kind of health care guy so I imagine you are just fine with the current rip=off system we have.

That sux, but i'd only apply the "just die quicker" form of healthcare to a handful of libtards, not you in particular. If you had the same tests here it would cost you nothing unless you had private cover, which would only cost you in the form of premiums. I'm not sure how O'care will work out with insurance companies still running the show...
 
And yet he advocates that people that make his kind of income pay more in income taxes
Bwahahaha

Twit

"Income Income Income Income"

what you IMPLY is wealth but what you SAY is Wage.

barry doesnt make "Income", nor does donald trump, nor does bill gates, nor does ANY of the "wealthy" the "1%" nor any of the people you hate because they have more than you, they get it all through ""Capital Gains" (profit on investments) Annuities (investments in long term bonds with a set payout) and other NON-INCOME sources.

you use the words so carefully selected for their psychological value, and counter-intuitive meaning.

barry can call for higher taxes on higher "INCOMES" at his leisure, but it will NOT effect him, since he doesnt actually get any "INCOME" which despite it's implication (things coming in) has NO RELATION to wealth, not even standing wealth.

if you actually believe the bullshit youre spouting, i feel bad for you. the people who have money do NOT place themselves in a position to have less of it untill they are on their deathbeds. not even your sainted heroes of the hoi polloi like Barry O.
 
2 hours agoObama will give up portion of his salary


Posted by
CNN White House Producer Becky BrittainWashington (CNN) – President Barack Obama will put 5% of his paycheck back into the federal government's coffers in a show of unity with furloughed federal workers, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
Obama, whose $400,000 annual salary is set in law and can't officially be changed, will write a check made out to the U.S. treasury every month beginning in April. Since the mandatory across-the-board spending cuts went into effect March 1, his payment for last month will be paid retroactively.


Spends over a billion on campaign donates 5% nuthuggers rejoice. Romney donates 30% of income to charity is rich bastard that has to. No irony at all in this post.bongsmilie
 
is the shrinking deficit everyone's fault but his?

Shrinking the deficit with borrowed money and time within 7 years as the interest raises our debt will be one of our biggest government costs while fucking retirees and the poor with stagflation.
 
Back
Top