Teachers Spending Your Taxdollars on Cosmetic Surgery

The federal government spends only $54 million on Education a year and that goes to the Department of Education

no thats wrong and its so wrong i don't know really what to say.

www2.ed.gov...

ED currently administers a budget of $63.7 billion in FY 2010 discretionary appropriations (including discretionary Pell Grant funding) and $96.8 billion in discretionary funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009—and operates programs that touch on every area and level of education.

still don't believe those figures.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by neo96
The hard earned cash that you earn everyday is being used to pay for school and your child's education are being used to pay for of all things COSMETIC SURGERY and to the tune of $ 9,000,000. 00 in 2009.

www.myfoxny.com...

BUFFALO, N.Y. - The state-appointed authority overseeing Buffalo public school finances says taxpayer-covered cosmetic surgery rung up by the city's teachers totaled nearly $9 million in 2009.

related link

www.foxnews.com...

On Aug. 5, the Senate approved a bill (HR 1586) that would increase Medicaid funding to states and provide funds to states to prevent layoffs of teachers. The bill includes $10 billion for teachers and $16.1 billion for Medicaid reimbursements to states. Republicans call the bill a political payoff to teachers' unions. The House passed the bill and President Obama signed it on Tuesday.

so teachers,unions,their own healthcare,medicaid and someone tell me why now if they already have their own healthcare do they even get medicaid?

union payoffs never end and you are footing the bill those people get the "free cosmetic surgery" at your expense while you have to save and work if you wanted to get it.

people doesn't this infuriate you? this is the progressive left at the top is idiocy when are we going to stand up to big union and big government stupidity?


relate links:

news.yahoo.com...
taxdollars.ocregister.com...
www.syracuse.com...

edit on 1-11-2010 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

The article you linked at myfoxny.com went on to state that the teachers union has agreed to give up that benefit in the next contract.

In the article you linked at yahoo.com, the president of the teachers union stated that he suspects teachers know the benefit will disappear and are using it while they still can.

I don't dispute the fact that there has to be some abuse going on here but I don't believe that all cosmetic surgery procedures should be eliminated from coverage either. I think that the term "selective surgery" should be the deciding factor. There are many cases in which cosmetic surgery is necessary and should be covered like reconstructive breast surgery after cancer. Cosmetic surgery is sometimes necessary for burn victims with scar tissue that restricts their abilities.

I agree that "skin peels" should be off limits and it appears that this is the current procedure of choice. Just makes me wonder, "who the hell negotiated this contract with the union?"

I'm a retired union longshoreman who served as a union official for over 20 years and I negotiated quite a number of contracts and port agreements with the owners of over 14 different stevedoring companies and during that time, I dreamed of facing off with a negotiator who would be willing to agree to such policies, but I never had such luck.

In this case, I have to blame the person representing the school district that agreed to or approved the contract which allowed for selective cosmetic surgery on this scale.

I've always been told not to be afraid to ask for something because the worst that can happen is that you'll be told no. In this case, some idiot representing the taxpayers who was probably elected to their position, said yes!

My guess is, that the union president gets re-elected and the school board negotiator doesn't.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by fraterormus
It is not your federal Tax dollars that go to Education, but your State and Local Municipal Taxes that do.

...you very well may be right there - but - its my understanding that none of our taxes (fed or state) goes to anyone but the federal reserve and what we pay in doesnt even pay the interest we owe... so, the federal reserve lends our federal government operating capital and that is re-allocated to states after certain "areas" get their allocation...

...have you ever heard that?...

Nope... in fact, on my escrow statement every year, there's an annotation for school taxes, which go based on the county assessing my property's value, which goes from the county to the district in question. None of that ever goes to the federal gov't.

In fact, my home district is Northside ISD, the 4th largest in texas. We had to pass a half-billion dollar bond to finance new school building for our rapidly expanding school district. That is all local taxes, not state or federal.

Your view on taxes is a little inaccurate...

reply to post by Flatfish


we are going to disagree here man elective surgeries have no place in union contracts it should have never been there to begin with.

cosmetic surgeries since they are elective and not life threatening need to be paid for out of pocket the responsibility should not fall on the employer and since the state is the employer you are paying for it.


so i agree to disagree here:p

reply to post by neo96


You don't necessarily have to sew up a deep cut or properly set a broken bone either, most will eventually heal on their own, it's just common practice to treat these injuries.

35 years ago my wife suffered third degree burns and she underwent extensive skin grafting procedures in order to necessitate her healing process and even though many of those procedures would be classified as "cosmetic surgery," not a one of them should ever be considered "elective."

The best burn specialist in Corpus Christi at the time told us that she would permanently lose all use of her right hand. Well, after spending more than 30 days in the hospital and thanks to the very special surgeons and medical staff at the John Sealy Burn Unit in Galveston, TX., my wife has enjoyed full range of motion in her hand to this day.

By the way, she never had one "skin peel" while in the hospital, or outside of it either. Instead, we just decided to grow old together.

Originally posted by neo96
cosmetic surgeries since they are elective and not life threatening need to be paid for out of pocket the responsibility should not fall on the employer and since the state is the employer you are paying for it.

...what about cosmetic surgery to fix injuries due to an auto accident or being burned or being shot?... or due to having a mole removed from your ear that includes a disfiguring biopsy?... or a mastecomy?... point is, theres more to cosmetic surgery than having fake boobs installed or a facelift...

reply to post by Flatfish


that is different than someone healthy and not hurt her injury there dictated the course of treatment.

i am trying to distinguish cosmetic elective surgery the point i am trying to make is that there are some things that

should be paid out of ones own pocket and while your wifes injury is clearly different.


things like botox,skin peels is the things that concern me and the taxpayer should not be footing the bill.

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


auto injuries should be covered underneath the auto owners policy not health insurance.

being burned depending on how they got burned should be covered by either the employers insurance if at work and if they are home the home owners insurance.

is a mole life threatening? or cancerous? if neither then no it shouldn't again thats elective..

mastecomy should already be covered under the health coverage that is not an elective surgery

there are so many forms of insurance here that can cover the redundancy

Is there a breakdown of what plastic surgery has been paid for as in medical verses elective? I see breast implants listed as a big one and it makes me curious how many of those were the results of mastectomies.

reply to post by neo96


This is probably the closest we've ever come to agreement with one another as I too believe that "skin peels" and "botox injections" should not be covered. Although I will say that you have to be wary of labels especially when it come to medical terminology.

My step father has had terrible vision since I was a kid and he always wore really thick glasses. As I grew older, I ask him why he didn't elect to have lasik surgery when it became available and he told me that it was not covered due to the fact that it was labeled as an "elective" procedure. He went on to inform me that his eye examinations and glasses were covered and that he could get a new pair every year. A few years ago he had to undergo cataract surgery and as it turned out, the insurance policy paid for the lasik procedure so long as it was being done along with the cataract treatment. He no longer wears coke bottle bottoms for glasses and he has great vision. On top of that, the insurance company no longer gets annual bills for eye examinations and replacement glasses.

When a young woman decides to get her tubes tied to prevent future pregnancies, it's an "elective" procedure that most, if not all, insurance companies are more than willing to include as a covered procedure because it saves them money in the long run.

I guess what it really boils down to is, who is deciding which labels belong on what procedures and is the decision being made for purely monetary reasons or are the health interest of the patient at the heart of the decision?

Originally posted by MagoSA
on my escrow statement every year, there's an annotation for school taxes, which go based on the county assessing my property's value, which goes from the county to the district in question. None of that ever goes to the federal gov't.

...but how do you know that for sure?... statements dont show the "big picture" money trail... it just shows us what they think we need to see...

Originally posted by MagoSA
We had to pass a half-billion dollar bond to finance new school building for our rapidly expanding school district. That is all local taxes, not state or federal.

...saisd did the half-billion dollar bond thang too cuz we're BIGGER THAN DALLAS, lol - but - none of that has anything to do with where the money comes from... you say local taxes... i dont believe thats possible...

Originally posted by MagoSA
Your view on taxes is a little inaccurate...

...maybe...

reply to post by Flatfish


government regulations decide those for the most part i feel

while most people will blame the insurance companies themselves

i think its misplaced.

the government dictates what health insurance companies can and can not do.

Originally posted by neo96
the government dictates what health insurance companies can and can not do.

...insurance companies have lobbyists just like the pharmacuetical companies... money dictates what gets legislated and our government has no money...

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


and who are they lobbying?

they get on their knees to government

they beg them to let them stay in busness

please do not raise our taxes

please do not make us get more lawyers

please do not add more regulations that kills coverage or dictate when you get one treatment you have to make them get another.

one thing the majority of people are forgetting is inflation and the federal reserves manipulation of the dollar

there's a reason this saying exists " the dollar doesn't buy what it use to" and that's never been more true

the government is the problem here right along with lawyers and so forth.
government is part of the problem

Originally posted by neo96
no thats wrong and its so wrong i don't know really what to say.
www2.ed.gov...

I stand corrected. The figure I quoted, from the same FY2011 Proposed Budget was the only line item listed specifically for Education. If I had read the top of the page more carefully, rather than just the line item I would have seen that it was listed as "Changes in Deficit (+) or (-), in millions of dollars". The FY2011 Proposed Budget Summary apparently lumps the actual figure spent in with "Other Departments" rather than a line item.

I guess I need a remedial Financial Accounting 211 course...although it would have been nice had Education been itemized on the budget instead of being lumped into "Other Departments".

reply to post by fraterormus


nah man we all have misread at one time or another

i do not hold anything against anyone

peace

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


I actually asked the escrow company, and they stated that they paid my school taxes to the county, who then forwards the money to the school district.

In regards from there, I suppose the cash could go to the Fed, then back to the school district, but that would be like sending a letter across the street that had to go to Mars first... entities entitled to money are scrupulous about where and how their payout gets handled.

As I said, the school district does not get the school tax allotment from the federal government. They get Title I, Title IX, and other Title money from the fed.

Title money and taxes are apples and oranges...

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Wyn Hawks

 

and who are they lobbying?
they get on their knees to government
they beg them to let them stay in busness

...uh, no... you've got it backwards...

Originally posted by neo96
one thing the majority of people are forgetting is inflation and the federal reserves manipulation of the dollar

...majority?... uhm, my first inclination was to think no - but - after the onslaught of petty ignorance about last nights voting - yeah, you may be right - the majority are clueless...

Originally posted by neo96
there's a reason this saying exists " the dollar doesn't buy what it use to" and that's never been more true

...never been more true?... uh, no... it was true during the great depression and its been true every single day since then...

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Flatfish

 

government regulations decide those for the most part i feel

while most people will blame the insurance companies themselves

i think its misplaced.

the government dictates what health insurance companies can and can not do.

I would sure like to see some evidence of any government regulation that prohibits an insurance company from including anything as a "covered procedure." The only government regulations that I know of mandate that an insurance company must cover something despite their desire not to and more often than not, we're talking about state government and not federal. That's why the insurance policies in some states are cheaper than those of other states, because of different regulations from state to state.

Those who demand to be able to purchase insurance across state lines, usually don't realize that the reason the insurance is cheaper in another state which has less regulation, is due to the fact that you're getting a policy of lesser value because it covers fewer procedures.

I would imagine that most insurance regulation put in place by the federal government, (prior to the new health care reform bill) would have primarily dealt with insurance companies which offer policies to government employees. Although, I could be wrong.

National health care reform didn't come a minute too soon. Now, insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick or deny coverage because of "pre-existing" conditions etc... I saw a news report where the parents of a newborn, who even though the birth was covered, were denied coverage for the repair of a cleft palate which the baby had at birth, stating that it was a pre-existing condition. Now you tell me, what kinda crap is that?