or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 35

post #1361 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Dismissal, dismissal, dismissal. Time for you to go back on ignore. Back under the bridge for the troll.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #1362 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Dismissal, dismissal, dismissal. Time for you to go back on ignore. Back under the bridge for the troll.

Who they hell are you talking to trumpy? Me? If so how long will it last this time?

In the end trumptman runs out of ideas, stomps his feet, and calls someone a name. Very similar to others from the right wouldn't you say?

Quote:
Back under the bridge for the troll

Is that like being thrown under the bus like Rahm Emanuel?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #1363 of 2360
Everything following this line is a direct quote from the source linked at the bottom:

Declining employer sponsored health insurance: Tennessee and the U.S.

Since World War II, employer-based health insurance has been the foundation of private healthcare coverage. While this insurance still covers slightly over half (54.0 percent) of the population, its role continues to erode. The objective of this article is to document the decline in employer-sponsored health insurance, with a focus on the situation in Tennessee, and to discuss the implications of this shift. The issue that faces businesses and policy makers is: Can U.S. firms continue to remain globally competitive and also fulfill their long-held health insurance obligations to current and retired employees?

Employer-sponsored health insurance covers 159 million Americans under age 65 and an additional 15 million elderly persons, who either continue to work in covered positions or as a Medicare supplement. Thus, it remains the leading type of insurance coverage, despite the fact that the share of firms offering health benefits declined from 69.0 percent in 2000 to 66.0 percent in 2003 and to 60.0 percent in 2005 (Palosky & Levitt, 2005). Premiums rose 9.2 percent in 2005, the first year of single-digit increase since 2000, generating a 73.0 percent total increase since 2000. Employees contribute an average of $51 monthly for single coverage and $226 for family coverage (Gabel et al., 2006).

The national increase in uninsurance has occurred primarily due to the decline in employer coverage. Further, the steady erosion of employment-based health insurance appears likely to continue, if not to accelerate. Although the recent decline in the rate of premium increase is good news, employers still struggle with the declining affordability of health insurance. Continuing premium increases, high administrative costs, the likelihood of increased regulation, and the pressures of increased global competition are likely to continue to reduce employer willingness to provide healthcare coverage for workers, dependents, and retirees.

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejou...6959634_1.html
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #1364 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

I'm willing to concede that the statement is overly categorical, if you're willing to concede that doesn't mean that the healthcare system isn't measurably and obviously in worse shape now than it was 12 years ago.

It's not a negotiation. My concession (or lack of) doesn't change the nature of the statements you have made (or quoted).

Now, I am willing to concede that some things have undoubtedly worsened over the years. However I would not limit my time frame to 12 years ago (as you have) because I prefer to look at broader and longer term trends.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

1. Overall quality of care

I'm afraid you'll have to quantify this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

2. Overall and individual cost of care

You'll have to define "worse" here. Is higher always worse? Why?


Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

3. Number and percentage of employed Americans with coverage

This is kind of a loosey-goosey thing. First, the actual number and second, the reasons behind why some don't have insurance. Finally and fare more importantly, the focus on health insurance. Insurance is a means to an end. That gets lost quickly in this overall debate. I prefer to focus on the end: health care. People don't want health insurance, they want health care. In some ways one can easily argue that health insurance is actually part of the problem.


But let's take another look at the list. Let's take a few things as givens for a moment:

- costs are higher
- quality is down
- service is poorer (yes? no?)
- selection and options are fewer (yes? no?)

Is that a good summary?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1365 of 2360
Everything following this line is a direct quote from the source linked at the bottom:

Employer-provided insurance continues to decline

The percentage of people with health insurance through their employers — traditionally the way most people get coverage — is continuing to shrink, raising anxiety among workers and invigorating a debate about whether insurance should be tied to jobs.

The percentage of all employers offering health insurance in the past eight years peaked in 2000 at 69% and has fallen steadily since, hitting 60% this year, according to an annual survey of employers by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation. Among small firms of three to nine workers, the percentage offering insurance has dropped even more — from 58% in 2001 to 45% this year.

From 2001 to 2005, the number of uninsured U.S. workers rose by 3.4 million. Almost 19 million workers — 17% of all employees — were uninsured in 2005, according to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

Among people with health insurance, the Census reports that 59.7% got it through their jobs in 2006, down from 60.2% in 2005. And they're paying more for it.

The average amount workers pay toward the premium for a typical family policy rose from $129 a month in 1999 (about $160 in today's dollars) to $273 this year, a jump of 70% when adjusted for inflation, the Kaiser survey of employers shows.

The increases come mainly because premiums have soared, rising at several times the rate of inflation in most years. In many cases, cost-cutting employers have increased the share of the premiums that workers pay.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...cial-net_N.htm
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #1366 of 2360
And to add to that FormerLurker abortion too-

"Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies).

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.

I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).

Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.

How could this be? I see three contributing factors:

First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.

Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.

Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency - with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million - abortion increases."
~ http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action...issue=041013#5

And of course the amount that insurance companies pay out on claims dropped from about 95% with Clinton to often under 80% with Bush.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #1367 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge.

I'm sorta curious why one would expect that.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1368 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm sorta curious why one would expect that.

The article was written by a pro-lifer. I guess he thought that Bush being against abortion would have that effect.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #1369 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The article was written by a pro-lifer. I guess he thought that Bush being against abortion would have that effect.

Bizarre assumption (to me anyway). Shows how much weight people put in the Presidency. Too much!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1370 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Bizarre assumption (to me anyway). Shows how much weight people put in the Presidency. Too much!

Or not enough.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #1371 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Or not enough.

That's true sometimes too. The presidency has become way too powerful for my tastes.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1372 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Now, I am willing to concede that some things have undoubtedly worsened over the years.

Well, that's a good start….

Can you specify which things you think have worsened, and which (if any) things have NOT worsened? You've been rather demanding of specifics from me (which I've gone to some effort to provide) in several posts - don't you think it's fair of me to expect the same in return?

Quote:
However I would not limit my time frame to 12 years ago (as you have) because I prefer to look at broader and longer term trends.

I used 12 years because I was making a re-statement (or characterization, if you will) of the single line in my post that you were focused on dissecting. It used 12 years because it was making the point that it's been that long since Republicans defeated Democratic attempts at health care reform.


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker
1. Overall quality of care

I'm afraid you'll have to quantify this.

I'm not sure what you're expecting as a quantitative metric, but there is this from my previous citations:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Report: U.S. health care system is a liability
Americans spend a lot more than top countries, but aren’t as healthy
In a different twist, the report took those costs and factored benefits into the equation.
The results are not encouraging.

and

Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

The agency found an average decline of nearly 1 percent in its patient safety measurements over each of the last six years. Contributing to the drop were increases in the rate of accidental punctures and lacerations during procedures and of infections and other complications stemming from the placement of central venous catheters


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker
2. Overall and individual cost of care

You'll have to define "worse" here. Is higher always worse? Why?

I think it's abundantly clear that higher costs are a big problem. The entrepreneur.com citation mentioned a 73% increase over a 6 year period, so beyond that I won't bother re-quoting from my previous citations.

Perhaps you are trying to insinuate that it's not a bad thing if higher costs lead to higher quality, but the above citations provide evidence that this is not what is happening. It would be helpful if you could specify the conditions under which you would consider higher costs a good thing.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker
3. Number and percentage of employed Americans with coverage

This is kind of a loosey-goosey thing. First, the actual number and second, the reasons behind why some don't have insurance.

According to my previous citations (which also give both numbers and percentages):

Quote:
Over half of the decline in coverage rates experienced over the 1990s is attributable to the increase in health insurance premiums.

and

Quote:
The national increase in uninsurance has occurred primarily due to the decline in employer coverage

Thus it would seem to follow that the number (and percentage) of uninsured is constantly increasing because of increasing costs of both care and coverage, and decreasing employer coverage (of which cost is the major factor).

Quote:
Finally and fare more importantly, the focus on health insurance. Insurance is a means to an end. That gets lost quickly in this overall debate.

And what end is that, specifically?

Quote:
I prefer to focus on the end: health care. People don't want health insurance, they want health care. In some ways one can easily argue that health insurance is actually part of the problem.

What exactly would you propose as an alternative to health insurance as the primary method of payment for health care?


EDIT: I see you've edited in behind me, so to address your last bit:

Quote:
But let's take another look at the list. Let's take a few things as givens for a moment:

- costs are higher
- quality is down
- service is poorer (yes? no?)
- selection and options are fewer (yes? no?)

Is that a good summary?

Yes, it is - thanks.

Does this now put us in agreement that "the healthcare system is measurably and obviously in worse shape now than it was 12 years ago"?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #1373 of 2360
But, but, they's was four it befer they was agin it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_515743.html

Same article on CBS:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...3A+CBSNews.com)


Why the boisterous flip flop other than just to oppose Obama?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #1374 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Can you specify which things you think have worsened, and which (if any) things have NOT worsened?

I would say both the cost of health insurance and health care have increased quite a bit and this, accompanied with the same level of service or quality and, in some cases, worse is a problem. I'd say that there is an imbalance of use of health care services where some people are actually over using it and others are under using it. There is also misuse as in the cases where people go to the emergency room for basic care. There are no enough doctors, hospitals, clinics and some services are overly complicated and expensive to obtain (should I really have to go to a doctor and pay $150 to get a simply cholesterol test?) Medical technology and medicine have advanced and continue to advance and provide new and improved means of healing people. So that's good.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

I used 12 years because I was making a re-statement (or characterization, if you will) of the single line in my post that you were focused on dissecting. It used 12 years because it was making the point that it's been that long since Republicans defeated Democratic attempts at health care reform.

That's fine, but if we're really in searching of understanding of what's going on in this large and complicated marketplace we probably need to broaden the time frame. Let's look at how things have progressed over the past 50-60 years.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Perhaps you are trying to insinuate that it's not a bad thing if higher costs lead to higher quality, but the above citations provide evidence that this is not what is happening. It would be helpful if you could specify the conditions under which you would consider higher costs a good thing.

I think you got my point with your first sentence there. I was just checking to see whether or not you were simply assuming that because, in aggregate, the people of this nation are spending more it is automatically a bad thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

According to my previous citations (which also give both numbers and percentages):

Thus it would seem to follow that the number (and percentage) of uninsured is constantly increasing because of increasing costs of both care and coverage, and decreasing employer coverage (of which cost is the major factor).

I'd agree that this is some of it. But lets not assume that everyone who doesn't have health insurance a) doesn't have access to health care, and b) doesn't have health care involuntarily.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

And what end is that, specifically?

Can we at least agree that it is health insurance that people ultimately want but health care products and services?


Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

What exactly would you propose as an alternative to health insurance as the primary method of payment for health care?

I think we need to get a couple of things cleared up first. First would be the agreements mentioned above. Second an understanding of what insurance really is (a concept lost in the health care debate). Third, an understanding that insurance, in some cases, may actually be contributing to the rising cost of the ultimate desire...health care goods and services...and therefore might be part of the problem. Finally, that health insurance would be less necessary if the cost of health care goods and services were much lower.

Would you agree with any or all of these statements?


Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Yes, it is - thanks.

Given that summary, what do you think are the root causes? And...why don't we seem to have these same or similar problems with other things like food, clothing, housing, consumer electronics and computers, etc?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1375 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

I used 12 years because I was making a re-statement (or characterization, if you will) of the single line in my post that you were focused on dissecting. It used 12 years because it was making the point that it's been that long since Republicans defeated Democratic attempts at health care reform.

Does this now put us in agreement that "the healthcare system is measurably and obviously in worse shape now than it was 12 years ago"?

I'm going to beat on a couple of these points a bit. First though I do want to thank you FL for going back and actually citing information for what you are contending. As you can see, even if the person doesn't end up in agreement with you completely it persuades more than assumptions, and attacks which is what many around here have done so thanks.

Now to hit on an underlying assumption here. First just like now, Republicans alone were not responsible for the health care plan going down the tubes in 1992. It didn't have the votes then. It barely had them now if not for bribes and bullying. The debate both times was within the Democratic party because they were the group with large majorities. In 1992, just as now it came down to conservative Democrats and one of the parallels was the fact that the Dems holding all three branches forced a series of votes that basically made DINO's come out of hiding.

Is this starting to sound familiar? It should because if you were say, a Stupak who just sold out your pro-life constituency or you voted for things like stimulus, cap and trade, etc. and you claim not to be towing the party-line vote, then as a Democratic candidate, you have been revealed. The Obama argument came down to wouldn't you rather have an energetic 35% to go against the majority rather than an unenthusiastic but several knew they would end up walking the plank.

The Republicans ran on the Contract with America.
It was anti-dependency, pro-jobs, and anti-government growth. They did a pretty job job with that agenda getting us to a balanced budget, passing welfare reform three times until Clinton signed it, etc.

You can see that they did pretty good on what they declared they wanted to do but as is par for the course, they can't win them all. We do remember the government shut down happening in there and Clinton skillfully turning it against the Republicans.

As for being measurably worse now than it was 12 years ago of course health care is worse in terms of affordability. However there is no proof that government intervention has improved this, quite the opposite. Government already spends almost half of all health care dollars via Medicare/Medicaid and the various state agencies (in California it is Medi-Cal.) It is easy to see that every segment of the economy the government pushes itself into has rises in cost that outpace inflation and delivers returns on quality that are below average on a cost to benefit analysis. This isn't just true for health care but is also true for higher education, housing, etc.

So the only place we can look at health care where government isn't in control of half the dollars is elective care. In that area the gains are very, very clear. The cost of something like Lasik eye surgery and the equipment and care used are much better and the cost is lower as well. This is true for an array of plastic surgery procedures as well. It is sad that government has become so pervasive that we simply cannot find many example where it isn't involved but when we do, the outcome is pretty clear.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #1376 of 2360
Quote from story:

Quote:
WASHINGTON – Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

Republicans say Obama and the Democrats co-opted their original concept, minus a mechanism they proposed for controlling costs. More than a dozen GOP attorneys general are determined to challenge the requirement in federal court as unconstitutional.

New health insurance requirement ... was GOP idea

Party of No?
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #1377 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Quote from story:



New health insurance requirement ... was GOP idea

Party of No?

All of that for one provision in the bill. Looking at the bill overall and how it is to be implemented has yet to be done by these opinion pieces and news stories posted here. I, for one, would love to see a concise listing of all the points in the plan that will affect me and my family. Dollar values, how it will affect my employer provided coverage, and what it will change in that coverage due to new government involvement. I have seen some posts that have begun to post this and I appreciate them greatly. (From both sides. You know who you are.)
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #1378 of 2360
Any chance we will ever get away from the "Republicans did this! Nanner nanner nanner. Fucking hypocrites." or "Democrats did this! Nanner nanner nanner. Fucking hypocrites." and discuss this issue outside of the partisan views and talk about a) the rightness or wrongness of what's being, and b) what is going to work and what isn't?

Or am I being hopelessly idealistic here.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1379 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Any chance we will ever get away from the "Republicans did this! Nanner nanner nanner. Fucking hypocrites." or "Democrats did this! Nanner nanner nanner. Fucking hypocrites." and discuss this issue outside of the partisan views and talk about a) the rightness or wrongness of what's being, and b) what is going to work and what isn't?

Or am I being hopelessly idealistic here.

That would involve them stepping outside of the box.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #1380 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

That would involve them stepping outside of the box.

Speaking of 3rd parties and outside one's box.

I originally posted this on another thread but it fits here also :
Quote:
Nevada tea party candidate facing felony charges



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36059672...=MSNToolbar100

Sometimes outside the box isn't all that different.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #1381 of 2360
More fun with ObamaCare!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1382 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

More fun with ObamaCare!


ObamaCare ObamaCare ObamaCare ObamaCare ObamaCare ObamaCare ObamaCare ObamaCare ObamaCare ObamaCare

Another extreme-bias-with-intent hit piece from the Wall Street Urinal. Go figure.

Oh, and $14B is like 0.1% of GDP.

Which means (to you and yours) that The Great Depression Part Deux will now ensue.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #1383 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Wall Street Urinal.

Cute.


Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Oh, and $14B is like 0.1% of GDP.

When it's someone else's money it's all okay. Got it.

Missed your snark about the article posted earlier (from CNN that time) about how some of the provisions of ObamaCare were likely to raise premiums for 2011. But it's not like its your money or anything.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1384 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Oh, and $14B is like 0.1% of GDP.

This attitude, in a nutshell, is precisely why your country is in debt up to its eyeballs.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1385 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

This attitude, in a nutshell, is precisely why your country is in debt up to its eyeballs.

Yeah thanks to people like Reagan, Bush (41), and Bush(43), who are not anything like me.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #1386 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Cute.




When it's someone else's money it's all okay. Got it.

Missed your snark about the article posted earlier (from CNN that time) about how some of the provisions of ObamaCare were likely to raise premiums for 2011. But it's not like its your money or anything.

I'd say W-H-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-H!

But your people are all Locked and Loaded.

Please don't kill us all with all your people's trillions and trillions of guns and all your people's quintillions and quintillions of bullets.

Health care passed and it is now the law of the land, until you all turn our country into a lawless state with all your religous fundamentalist militia thugs.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #1387 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I'd say W-H-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-H!

But your people are all Locked and Loaded.

Please don't kill us all with all your people's trillions and trillions of guns and all your people's quintillions and quintillions of bullets.

Health care passed and it is now the law of the land, until you all turn our country into a lawless state with all your religous fundamentalist militia thugs.

Are you available for children's birthday parties and bar mitzvahs?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1388 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Are you available for children's birthday parties and bar mitzvahs?

I asked Sarah The Clown and she said ...

YOU BETCHA!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #1389 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I asked Sarah The Clown and she said ...

YOU BETCHA!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #1390 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I asked Sarah The Clown and she said ...

YOU BETCHA!

Sarah who?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1391 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Sarah who?

The Clown. Tell me did you get your idea for your handle from SDW2001?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #1392 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Yeah thanks to people like Reagan, Bush (41), and Bush(43), who are not anything like me.

The Left blames the Right, the Right blames the Left. Yada. Yada. Yada.

Up here in Canada, we've had both Conservative and Liberal governments tackle our debt problem.
That's why we're in such good shape.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1393 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Sarah who?

Obviously referring to Palin...

Franksargent has a tendency to use dismissal, it is not any use to argue with him as he will simply refute the source and not the content. FYI
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #1394 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Obviously referring to Palin...

Franksargent has a tendency to use dismissal, it is not any use to argue with him as he will simply refute the source and not the content. FYI

Palin doesn't have any content. She couldn't even find Palinstine on a map.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #1395 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Palin doesn't have any content. She couldn't even find Palinstine on a map.

LOL, I see what you did there!
post #1396 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Palin doesn't have any content. She couldn't even find Palinstine on a map.

Can you find PALINSTINE?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #1397 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Can you find PALINSTINE?

You can see it from Alaska! You betcha! And it's one of the foreign countries I've been to. On a stopover to McCainada!
post #1398 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You can see it from Alaska! You betcha! And it's one of the foreign countries I've been to. On a stopover to McCainada!

Yes You Can!
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #1399 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Yes You Can!

Palin can see America from her house.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #1400 of 2360
More reality for ObamaCare:

Say it ain't so.

Quote:
Implementing the new laws will be a monumental task, and officials could face a few major pitfalls: Unexpected costs and ineffective cost controls, loopholes in the consumer protections and potentially weak or stalled enforcement of the new rules.



There couldn't be any unintended consequences could there?

Quote:
"Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions," the president said at the Virginia rally.

However, insurers say that they are not obligated to cover children with pre-existing conditions until 2014, when the rule kicks in for adults as well, the New York Times reports.

"The fine print differs from the larger political message," William Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, told the Times.

He and others argue an insurance company would be obligated to cover pre-existing conditions in any policy offered to a child -- but that the insurer is not obligated to sell insurance to that child in the first place.

Currently, insurers may choose to cover an entire family, including a child with a pre-existing condition, but choose to exclude coverage for that condition from the policy. Under the new rules, the Times reports, an insurer may opt to simply not cover that child at all rather than be forced to provide coverage for their condition.



What? You mean that when the government forces its way into a market there might a risk of regulatory capture?

Quote:
Meanwhile, some observers of the health care debate do not trust state insurance commissioners to properly enforce new regulations. David Dayen, a writer for the progressive Web site FireDogLake, said the commissioners are "long thought to be puppets for the industry."

"And if they are in charge of enforcing these vaunted regulations, I don't know how you would expect the regulations to be anything but conciliatory toward those industries," he wrote.



No way! That can't be.

Quote:
Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri, said last week that Democrats are "over promising" the benefits of reform, the Hill reports.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality