actually no, if you knew anythign about medical billing Medicare/Medicaid completely rip off doctors.
That's why you dont see many offices accepting the insurance because dealing with the govt isnt worth losing money for services over. there are plenty of people on insurances that will pay the correct amount.
now that the govt has pushed these places to go to electronic billing, they are billing correctly and more often since it's easier. it doesnt mean they are overcharging for services, they are just billing more "efficiently"
Medical--one of the biggest expenses in your family's budget. Yet, how many people have seen a doctor's price list? How many give a thought to drug prices, or the multiple drug options for the same malady?
Heck, the government feeds the kids in the morning and is their baby-sitter all day long. Why shouldn't they be making parenting decisions instead of the actual parents, right? Catholics, you lost your religious rights a few months ago.
Speaking to Boston's 96.9 FM radio program "Jim and Margery" on Monday, Democratic Senate challenger Elizabeth Warren admitted that she is not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts.
According to reports from listeners, she claimed that she does not maintain a law practice. She also "said that she gave up her New Jersey license because she could not keep up with the Continuing Education requirements," according to one listener who commented on Breitbart's Monday story, "Does Elizabeth Warren Have a Law License Problem?".
Ms. Warren's statement comes as a surprise to the many clients she's provided legal services to over the past decade, including the law firm of Simpson, Thacher, and Bartlett, which listed her as "of counsel" in the 2009 brief they submitted to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of their client, Travelers Insurance.
This is the unfortunate new way to gauge the economy. I used to count the "going out of business" or "for lease" signs on businesses while driving home, but almost got in a car accident there were so many. Hmmm.
I don't understand why the media is letting this information out...
too busy doing stuff like this:
CBS aired a 60 Minutes interview with President Obama and did not air a clip of Obama admitting that some of his campaign ads contain mistakes and have "go overboard." Only later did 60 Minutes post the clip online.
Tom Blumer of NewsBusters caught the AP in the lie, building on an article at Breitbart News that showed that both Politico and the Wall Street Journal had reported turnout for Obama at the Sep. 21 event as 18,000--at an arena that only held 5,000 people.
Though the arena was nearly full--and local media reported that more were outside the arena--there is no evidence whatsoever that the 13,000 people needed to make up the difference actually showed up. No images of that crowd have yet been produced.
The AP's take: "The crowd of about 18,000 in a steady drizzle was the largest yet of Obama's reelection campaign." And yet the AP did not count the audience. Nor did the Wall Street Journal. Nor did Politico.
So where did the official-sounding number come from? The Obama campaign, according to Politico--which was the only one of the three that had the minimal integrity to report the source of the estimate (though not to challenge it).
When the mainstream media calls a crowd is "the largest yet," but overestimates it by a factor of three or even four, you have a pretty good idea of how far they are willing to go to re-elect their patron saint.
CNN, in an effort to protect the Obama administration while still getting a scoop, hid the fact that they were in control of the diary of the Ambassador to Libya from September 15 to September 21. According to CNN, they found Ambassador Chris Stevens’ diary “four days after he was killed.” They then told Stevens’ family about the diary, and spent the next few days “corroborating” what they considered “newsworthy tips” in the diary.
A letter from auditors at Price Waterhouse Cooper states unequivocally that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid taxes every year between 1990 and 2009. This puts an end, once and for all, to irresponsible left-wing media speculation started by Sen. Harry Reid and the Huffington Post back in July.
Romney's campaign released the letter Friday, revealing a 20-year span of Romney's taxes and finding the average amount paid during that period was 20.20 percent. The letter also states the lowest annual tax in a single year was 13.66 percent.
This new information contradicts a malicious claim about Romney's taxes made by Harry Reid during an interview with the Huffington Post. In the interview, Reid claimed someone with close connections to Bain Capital had told him "Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years." Reid doubled down on the claim a few days later, saying his source was "extremely credible." Reid also repeated the claim on the Senate floor, saying, "The word is out that he hasn't paid any taxes for ten years. Let him prove that he has paid taxes because he hasn't." Nancy Pelosi jumped on the Reid bandwagon a week after the story got started,saying, "Harry Reid made a statement that is true. Somebody told him. It is a fact."
Did you know that the law in the state of Florida requires two-party consent? This means that both the person recording video and the person being recorded must consent to being recorded when either person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. You know, like at a private fundraiser where the media isn’t allowed.
Furthermore, did you know that the secret video of Mitt Romney the media is currently using to try and destroy his campaign was recorded in Florida … without Mitt Romney's consent, and when he obviously had a reasonable expectation of privacy?
The reason you don’t know that is because when it comes to protecting Barack Obama, the corrupt media doesn't get all that wrapped up in the details of what is and isn't legal or ethical. The Romney video is news; it's a revealing moment from The Man Who Might Be President, and as a result we're entering day four of the super-loop the media's put the video on across every news outlet in America.
While I personally have a number of issues with the way in which the media is hyping the video and using it as a partisan weapon to protect Their Precious One, I do agree with the decision to broadcast the video. The video is news, it is revealing, and the man we're learning about is pursuing the most powerful office in the world.
You see, in my heart, I'm a small "l" liberal who, above all, cherishes the First Amendment and believes that the media should not be restricted in any way other than the obvious surrounding national security and libel. There's a bigger moral and ethical world than two party consent, especially when it comes to vetting a potential president.
I hate how the media is using the video, but regardless of the law, agree wholeheartedly that the media made the right decision in making the video public.
Which brings me to the Khalidi tape, where it seems a source is telling the media, specifically the L.A. Times, what can and can't be told about a 2003 dinner Obama attended celebrating his longtime friend, Rashid Khalidi, a one-time spokesman for terror-leader Yasser Arafat
In an article written by Peter Wallsten during the 2008 election titled, "Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama," we learned of the event, that there was video of the event, and that some of the night's speakers accused Israel of terrorism and compared Jewish settlers to terror mastermind Osama bin Laden.
There's also speculation Obama lavished praise on the terror-apologist Khalidi and that Bill Ayers was in attendance. You know, the domestic terrorist Obama says was "just a guy in the neighborhood."
According to Wallsten, Obama was not one of the speakers hurling hate at the Jews and Israel, but I'd like to see that for myself. And with the Middle East on fire and the President seemingly indifferent to Israel's upcoming showdown with Iran, the people and influences a then-41 year-old Obama marinated himself in just a year before launching a national political career, is as relevant today as it was in 2008.
And yet, the same media, that as I write this is replaying the illegally obtained and selectively edited '47 percent' video of Mitt Romney for the gajillionth time, refuses to release the full Khalidi tape or provide a full description of what the tape shows.
Suddenly the L.A. Times (and the rest of the media that refuses to press the L.A. Times to release the video) is concerned with laws and ethics based on a convenient standard involving journalistic sources. Which makes one wonder if the source involved only allowed the L.A. Times access to the video if in exchange they agreed to write an article complimentary to Obama.
The undercover video of Mitt Romney was taken and disseminated and broadcast illegally. The release of the Khalidi tape, however, would violate no laws and the idea that a source can hand over something and demand that only certain portions be reported upon is the only thing that's unethical here.
Let me put it this way…
Exact same situation, but instead the video is of Mitt Romney at a celebratory dinner for David Duke.
Tell me we wouldn't have seen that by now.
The media is covering for, fighting for, and through sins of omission and commission, propagandizing for Barack Obama. This is why Breitbart News is offering a $100,000 reward for the video -- in the hopes that someone who believes in the public's right to know will come forward with the video.
In today's media environment, there is no greater career sin than violating the left-wing narrative. Therefore, anyone willing to do such a thing deserves to be rewarded.
Ahmadinejad To Meet With Occupy on US Soil
According to Iranian news sources, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will spend time in New York meeting with members of Occupy Wall Street. The Occupy movement has long been filled with anti-Semitic undertones and overtones; back in April 2012, professors from Occupy Wall Street headed to Tehran to hang with Ahmadinejad and discuss the glories of their populist, Obama-backed movement.
God bless them," Pelosi said, "for their spontaneity. It's independent ... it's young, it's spontaneous, and it's focused. And it's going to be effective."
He wants to see the 2009 return for the same reason I do. To see if the average of 20% comes from all the money he had to pay back if he was implicated in the UBS scandal.
Reid lied. He's the most powerful Democrat in Congress and he lied. Lying during a presidential campaign is lying to the American people in order for your "side" to win. That's a smear on the American people and a smear on our political system.
Trent Lott got tossed out of his post for not choosing his words carefully during a birthday party. Reid chose his word carefully.