Patterico's Pontifications

3/15/2010

Telling the Truth About Health Care

Filed under: Health Care,Obama — DRJ @ 6:14 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Today in Ohio, President Obama decried the false and insidious claims about health care.

Was he talking about his false suggestion that cancer survivor Natoma Canfield is a victim of America’s heartless health care system? Or the New York Times’ manipulation of his photo to suggest the image of a Messiah in an article about health care reform? No, nor was he talking about his own over-the-top claim that employer health care premiums could “fall by as much as 3000% which means they could give you a raise.” (One guess who Obama wants to get the blame if employees don’t get raises in the coming years.)

So what does Obama think is false and insidious? Republican criticisms that health care reform would make dangerous cuts in Medicare.

Don’t believe the Republicans? Then try Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, the LA Times, and CNN, to name just a few, because all have reported the possibility of Medicare cuts. And last September, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified that, under a version of the health care plan, current Medicare Advantage subscribers would receive about half the benefits they receive today.

Finally, according to FactCheck.org, Obama has a history of telling falsehoods about Medicare cuts. So why should we trust him this time?

— DRJ

149 Responses to “Telling the Truth About Health Care”

  1. Isn’t about $500,000,000,000 in cuts to Medicare one of the ways they try to claim this fiasco is deficit neutral?

    JD (6864d5)

  2. Obama lies and Seniors die.

    Jim (0c993b)

  3. Factcheck, in my experience, likes to point out Repub issues more than Dems. Obama must be making it really outrageous to get called on it

    MD in Philly (70a1ba)

  4. I’m fascinated that the GOP has turned out to be such stalwart defenders of Medicare. We were promised Change and it looks like we got it.

    imdw (603c39)

  5. I disagree, imdw. I’m a Republican and I think we need to cut entitlements including Medicare. What I and others object to is lying about it.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  6. What demagoguery! Jeez! Republicans want to deregulate insurance companies, do they? WTF! Next we’ll hear that Republicans chortle every time some poor black child gets cancer.

    What a dishonest bastard, and the press is probably all off going through Palin’s daughter’s trash cans.

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  7. I agree, MD in Philly.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  8. March 15 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. and the U.K. have moved “substantially” closer to losing their AAA credit ratings as the cost of servicing their debt rose, according to Moody’s Investors Service…

    Under the ratings company’s so-called baseline scenario, the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K., and will be the biggest spender from 2011 to 2013, Moody’s said today in a report. “We expect the situation to further deteriorate in terms of the key ratings metrics before they start stabilizing,” [Managing Director of sovereign risk at Moody’s in London] Cailleteau said. “This story is not going to stop at the end of the year. There is inertia in the deterioration of credit metrics.”

    Yep. Real brilliant of the Democrats to propose a bill that will add more than a trillion dollars to our debt over ten years – if you believe the horse manure analysis that the CBO put out – and obviously even the CBO does not believe their assumptions are valid …

    SPQR (26be8b)

  9. And does anyone else have a problem with a president who’s innumerate? Premiums down 3000%? Health care so cheap THEY PAY YOU!

    %DIVIDE-BY-ZERO-ERROR%

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  10. “Telling the Truth About Health Care”

    DRJ – Why the hell would Obama want to start now, at this late date?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  11. Obama thinks money grows on government owned trees in price controlled orchards.

    He has less than zero experience in making a payroll, much less *gasp* a profit

    SteveG (11baba)

  12. “She may be eligible for state Medicaid … and/or she will be eligible for charity (care) of some form or type. … In my personal opinion, she will be eligible for something,” he said, adding that Canfield should not be worried about losing her home.

    “Cleveland Clinic will not put a lien on her home,” he said.

    So, DRJ: Because of of the charity of Cleveland Clinic, which may or may not be extended, and Medicaid, a program I assume conservatives would oppose on principle, you use this as a basis to challenge the president’s assertions?

    My question for you is this: If you back Medicaid, a big government program, aren’t you in principle supporting a program that is more of an example of big government than the health care bill, which leaves insurance in the hands of private insurers?

    During this whole debate, I have quite enjoyed hearing Republicans fiercely “defend” Medicare against the party most responsible for its existence, the Democratic Party.

    I think at some point, maybe soon, Republicans and their backers will figure out that backing Medicare illustrates that progressives and liberals have already won the part of the long war that matters, i.e. the battle for the mind, whether this bill passes this week or not and no matter what happens in one election.

    You’re passionately battling for our ideas (Medicare, Medicaid), even when you’re battling against them (health care). Of course, Medicare came out of a past failed effort at universal care, which is an eventuality.

    You will never find our side in the main defending trickle-down, which Republicans always push in various forms. We thought it was bunk then; we think it is bunk now.

    Myron (a79d53)

  13. So, DRJ: Because of of the charity of Cleveland Clinic, which may or may not be extended, and Medicaid, a program I assume conservatives would oppose on principle, you use this as a basis to challenge the president’s assertions?

    I challenge his assertions because the Cleveland Clinic says they aren’t true.

    As for Medicaid, it exists and I’m glad it does for those in need. However, I am curious why the report says this individual hasn’t been able to work in 12 years, apparently since she was in her 30’s. Maybe her need is real and if so I’m glad government can help her. But one of the problems with entitlements is how many people have forgotten the difference between need and want.

    [Released from filter.]

    DRJ (daa62a)

  14. Myron, your comments are obviously not serious. Especially when you write this: “My question for you is this: If you back Medicaid, a big government program, aren’t you in principle supporting a program that is more of an example of big government than the health care bill, which leaves insurance in the hands of private insurers?

    Medicaid is designed to address the needs solely of low income individuals who meet specific income requirements. The proposed plan federalizes everyone’s health insurance. Orders of magnitude more people, and the entire health care industry.

    Only an utterly non-serious troll would claim that the former is more of an example of big government than the latter. Oh, right, that describes you to a “T”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  15. I challenge his assertions because the Cleveland Clinic says they aren’t true.

    With the glare of the media spotlight, you think they would say they’d kick a sick person of her home?

    Myron (a79d53)

  16. That should be “out of her home.”

    Myron (a79d53)

  17. Right, Myron, everyone is a liar except Obama.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  18. Gee, its not like Obama has been caught making up stories before … oh, right, he has. The Otto Raddatz story.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  19. SPQR: Medicaid is a big-government program, period, and your name-calling does not disguise that.

    Myron (a79d53)

  20. Myron, your “logic” is hilarious and your trolling does not disguise that.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  21. “As for Medicaid, it exists and I’m glad it does for those in need. ”

    Health care reform expands it.

    imdw (603c39)

  22. That’s why it’s going bankrupt

    ian cormac (0a5527)

  23. “The proposed plan federalizes everyone’s health insurance.”

    How so? The exchanges are run state by state. Note that states can form regional groups, and allow insurance to be purchased ‘across state lines.’

    imdw (603c39)

  24. imdw gives us another example of the fraud Democrats are employing to sell “reform”. They make the CBO assume $500 billion in cuts to Medicare even as they claim to expand it.

    Pure fraud.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  25. SPQR: If my logic is hilarious and you can’t successfully challenge any point of it, what does it say about your “logic”?

    imdw: correct.

    What they don’t realize is that by accepting or advocating Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, they have conceded the key point.

    Once they acknowledge a government role in lending a helping hand to a struggling family or individual, they are basically on the same spectrum as Democrats on entitlements, just at a different point. (I would argue an earlier point; they will catch up, just like with Medicare.)

    Myron (a79d53)

  26. imdw:

    Health care reform expands it.

    So because we want to help people in need, now we have to pay for everyone?

    Using that logic, where’s my new car?

    DRJ (daa62a)

  27. Only imdw would claim that a bill that sets federal minimum requirements for health care insurance, creates federal boards to analyse the economics of health care providers, creates federal subsidies for its purchase, sets federal standards for what state law can and cannot do to reform malpractice tort law and federal penalties for not purchasing does not in fact federalize the health care industry.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  28. Myron, I directly challenged your logic. That you and imdw like to pretend not to understand others points in order to pass off your non sequiturs as deep thoughts fools no one but Jack Handey.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  29. Myron,

    Deciding where to set limits is government’s role. The problem with Democrats is they rarely see the need for limits when government funding is involved. They do like gun control, though.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  30. So because we want to help people in need, now we have to pay for everyone?

    DRJ: Because everyone, sooner or later, will have a health care need, even if its maintenance care. I believe you understand this?

    Myron (a79d53)

  31. DRJ, you are partly correct. They just plain like control.

    And the part that is so ironic is how much they hate control exerted by people with whom they disagree—yet they would give up so much for a bill that is an empty shell, that as Nancy Pelosi put it, should be passed so that the public can see what is in it.

    I think we should cue the theme from “The X-Files” and have “I Want To Believe” under their posts.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  32. “They make the CBO assume $500 billion in cuts to Medicare even as they claim to expand it.”

    I said Medicaid. Not Medicare. Do you know that there is a difference?

    ” So because we want to help people in need, now we have to pay for everyone? ”

    This bill does not expand medicaid to “everyone.”

    imdw (2c1194)

  33. Having to pay for things is what makes us work so we can provide for ourselves. If health care is a right, why isn’t housing, transportation and food?

    DRJ (daa62a)

  34. DRJ: If Republicans wanted to have a debate over limits, they could have had that debate with this bill. But they did not want to seriously have a debate, deciding the politically advantageous move would be to oppose the Obama agenda. I still think, because of the Blue Dogs in the Senate, it wound up being a much more conservative bill than otherwise.

    As for gun control, you may not have noticed: It’s dead. There’s a case where you guys won, utterly.

    Myron (a79d53)

  35. DRJ: With the exception of transportation, those things are treated as rights by local, state and the national government. There is a whole social safety net, albeit an imperfect one, to make sure people can have a home and food if they can’t afford one.

    Myron (a79d53)

  36. “This bill does not expand medicaid to “everyone.””

    imdw – What does it expand to everyone or “federalize”?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  37. DRJ: With the exception of transportation, those things are treated as rights by local, state and the national government. There is a whole social safety net, albeit an imperfect one, to make sure people can have a home and food even if they can’t afford it.

    Myron (a79d53)

  38. Sorry for the double-post.

    Myron (a79d53)

  39. Myron:

    DRJ: With the exception of transportation, those things are treated as rights by local, state and the national government. There is a whole social safety net, albeit an imperfect one, to make sure people can have a home and food if they can’t afford one.

    You are conflating a social safety net limited to needy people with a right available to all. Currently all people are entitled to emergency care but this provides for universal health care for everyone, to be paid for with taxes, subsidies, and required purchases of insurance.

    Using this logic, we should have communal grocery stories, federal housing, and nationalized transportation for everyone.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  40. Someday I will need a new Lexus, Myron.

    I am still curious as to what will happen to plans that are grandfathered in when they need to change their coverage or increase premiums a year or two down the road.

    Accounting gimmicks, legislative gimmicks, argument by anecdote, and sophistry seems to be the foundation of this fiasco.

    JD (51cca5)

  41. I think the argument is about how much wider the safety net is stretched… to people who can and could pay, but who have chosen not to so they can pursue their careers in womyn’s poetry and in painting ANARCHY on McDonald’s franchises

    SteveG (11baba)

  42. OK, Myron, I’ll take your bait.

    Many months ago, on this very board, I made the point that the drive for universal health care started with the passage of Medicare (actually, the drive started much sooner, but Medicare was the first major legislation to nationalize health care. Also, history is so easy to research now, and I don’t want to be even more boring. I was much too young at the time to understand it or care one way or another whether it passed.

    But years go by and now we have we have an entitlement program that is quickly going bankrupt, that monitors and metes care based on bureaucratic formulas and the whims of Congresspeople intent on re-election from their districts and states with little regard of the legislative effect on the body politic as a whole.

    All of the Great Society programs, as well as the New Deal programs, are abject failures. Almost everything the government does now is devoted to trying to plug holes in a federal system that is stretched too far by well-meaning programs that can’t do what they’re expected and incapable of correction because of entrenched interests.

    There’s no getting around it. The wealth of any nation can only go so far as the productive people who inhabit it are able to feed the federal maw while maintaining a semblance of a worthwhile life. And we’ve about reached the point where the maw can’t be fed.

    Myron, you and your fellows, have been very successful at establishing standards — goalposts if you will — which are very appealing and quite impossible to reach.

    And when you disagree with those standards, the status quo is that you are hateful or uncaring.

    No politician can oppose Medicare or Social Security now, because there is nothing to compare them to except nothing. They are entrenched entitlements that people expect. There’s not much to be done about them now.

    But the very programs you espouse are nothing but ill-thought Ponzi schemes that require the perpetual sacrifice of people who had no voice in the matter.

    You will hear from Republicans that these are sacred programs that must be maintained. But they were bunk when they were created and they are bunk now.

    And you want to add more bunk and I’m supposed to smile about it.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  43. DRJ:

    “…Using this logic, we should have communal grocery stories, federal housing, and nationalized transportation for everyone….”

    Why, give them time! There have to be enough rich people to bleed to allow this!

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  44. DRJ and SteveG: Are y’all under the impression that the 30 million people who will be covered will not have to pay for coverage? That is not correct. The ones who can afford to pay will have to pay.

    Myron (a79d53)

  45. “…The ones who can afford to pay will have to pay….”

    Whoops. He tripped over the fly in the ointment.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  46. People will pay according to their ability.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  47. This is one of Myron’s favorite memes. Because conservatives don’t demand the immediate repeal of entrenched entitlement programs, that means liberals have WON!!!!!!11ty!!!!!!

    Go with that Myron if it makes you happy, your fan base will applaud!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  48. And I wasted all that time on my post.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  49. daleyrocks: I don’t know who you think you’re being cute for, but I’m not impressed. I might be more impressed if you were actually able to challenge my “meme.”

    Myron (a79d53)

  50. Eric: People paying for coverage is a fly in the ointment? Do you want people to pay or do you want it to be a handout? I don’t even get your beef.

    Myron (a79d53)

  51. Don’t insult me.

    Clearly they will have to pay at a heavily subsidized rate… and if they don’t file a tax return or elect not to contribute their “share” I assume we’ll give them a ticket to venezuela or maybe treat them anyway… I mean what are you going to take away from someone that could pay, but elects not to? Their home?… oh wait… that is todays meme

    SteveG (11baba)

  52. No politician can oppose Medicare or Social Security now,

    Ag80: A principled politician can. I think a more accurate thing to say is that no politician can support Medicare or Social Security and make a straight-faced argument that health care reform is a government take-over. They’re all of a stripe.

    And further, back to my original point, if Republicans over time come to champion our ideas, then liberals and progressives have won the war — no matter who is in power at the moment.

    Myron (a79d53)

  53. Hey, Myron, here is an idea: why don’t you pay my extra taxes to support this program? I mean, you don’t mind politicians taking money from my pocket. How about you just giving more money yourself.

    A lot more.

    I mean, since it is such a great idea and everything.

    Oh wait. You will pay a lot more. And so will I. The best part is how efficiently and cost effectively it will run! No, the best part is how all of the people like yourself will play the limbo-Twister to argue that we aren’t actually paying more when the bill comes through. It’s like “dollars created or saved” or something.

    But all the nutty shenanigans you think are perfectly okay in pursuit of this statist dream? Don’t be alarmed when Republicans use the tools that are under way, right now, to do things with which you don’t agree. You won’t be able to squeal then, because it is okay with you now.

    I swear to God. It’s like none of the Leftoids actually read “Animal Farm.”

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  54. Ag80: And yes, sustainability of the programs is a serious issue, which is why I am glad Republicans, now recognizing the value of Medicare, Social Security etc., can maybe help to save them, as opposed to sitting on the sidelines and throwing darts.

    Myron (a79d53)

  55. Myron, speaking of being cute, don’t bother. It doesn’t become you. You know perfectly well what businesses will do about all this, with that statement about “being able to pay.”

    And you want government run health care, for reasons that seem bizarre to me.

    No use talking to a statist. They are just so sure that the government does such a great job. Like the DMV, writ impossibly large.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  56. Eric: Adults realize that much of their tax money goes to things they don’t support.

    For me, it’s the Iraq War, just to name one huge boondoggle.

    So, let’s swap, chuckles: The $2 trillion we’ll have sunk into a war we didn’t have to fight vs. the health care bill.

    Myron (a79d53)

  57. “…as opposed to sitting on the sidelines and throwing darts…”<

    /i>

    Yep. It’s so much better to pass the bill so that we can find out what is in it. Even if the machinations are unconstitutional. Besides, Pelosi says that you don’t have to have any Republican input for things to be bipartisan.

    Just remember: what goes around comes around.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  58. Eric: And at least with the health care bill we’re trying to take care of our own damn people for a change. I don’t know why that is absolutely the worst thing in the world to some Republicans. Geez.

    Myron (a79d53)

  59. Barcky told us earlier this year that Medicare and Medicaid were the biggest drivers of government debt, and their costs were out of control. Solution? Cut their budgets and insure another 30,000,000 people. Were they able to show that they could manage the existing programs, this would be a little less noxious. They can’t. Add to that the accounting tricks/lies, coupled with the lack of anything to help control costs, and will in fact increase costs to the consumer, and this is a travesty. Let’s not even get in to governments demonstrated inability to project future costs, off by orders of magnitude on their good days. Nor should we mention that mandates and government care have been epic failures in places like NJ, MA, and Hawaii.

    Bend over. Myron and his ilk want to cornhole you because they can.

    JD (51cca5)

  60. “…So, let’s swap, chuckles: The $2 trillion we’ll have sunk into a war we didn’t have to fight vs. the health care bill…”

    Really? Have you actually read the OMB reports, “chuckles”?

    You know what? I am getting pulled into more troll crap. You are just a reflexive statist which religious delusions about your politicians.

    Again, I look forward to you carrying on about “the rule of law” in the future, when Republicans take advantage of the precedent your leaders are setting right now. Because they will.

    You don’t get it, and you never will: the only law that is ever fair and democratic is the one that you don’t mind in the hands of your worst enemy. You are just so sure that “your” government will do the right thing. Well, the left thing anyway.

    Go volunteer at a clinic or something instead of trying to pick other people’s pockets.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  61. Myron:

    And further, back to my original point, if Republicans over time come to champion our ideas, then liberals and progressives have won the war — no matter who is in power at the moment.

    There were times Republicans did champion the ideas of the left. Sometimes they still do.

    By the way, I’m not a Republican. Conservative, yes. GOPer, not so much. The Democrats left me and the Republicans don’t want me.

    So, from that perspective, the left has definitely won the war.

    You will, however, need much, much more than consent of the Republicans to sustain the economic travesties of the New Deal and Great Society.

    But those people are icky what with their money and all.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  62. “Having to pay for things is what makes us work so we can provide for ourselves. If health care is a right, why isn’t housing, transportation and food?”

    As your other thread shows, people will still be paying for health insurance.

    “All of the Great Society programs, as well as the New Deal programs, are abject failures.”

    Not even Skyline Drive in the Shenandoah?

    imdw (8f8ead)

  63. Moronic Convergences of the sort when imdw and Myron show up together are object lessons in what the left thinks of everyone else. They believe they are superior, believe they are righteous, and believe they know better what is good for you than you ever could. They embody the eternal leftist conceit.

    JD (51cca5)

  64. The WPA still exists? Wow, I was so wrong.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  65. “…we’re trying to take care of our own damn people for a change..”

    But you aren’t. You are trying to take money from people who don’t want the bill passed (you did check those polls, right?), because you and your cronies think you know better.

    About a bill the contents of which are still unknown. Remember, the bill needs to be passed—even by unconstitutional maneuvers—in order to find out what is in it. And that isn’t made up. The Speaker of the House said that.

    Let’s keep it simple: let’s trust Reid and Pelosi. You trust them to know what is best for everyone else, to have planned carefully, and to have thought about outcomes.

    The Left is getting scary.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  66. The worst thing about Medicare and all other government entitlements is that long after these disatrous plans pass and destroy the free enterprise alternatives the Democrat Corruptocrats (but I repeat myself) come along an tell you, “Oops we need that money for something else. Sucks to be you!” Leaving you with no alternative.

    Myron is a thief without the guts to wield the gun himself.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  67. #62

    From a fiscal standpoint…

    Skyline drive has wonderful aesthetics.

    Welfare programs have a great feel good component.. and they feel even better when you realize someone else is paying.

    How much is your obligation going to cost you annually?
    Please include your personal coverage plus your part of the subsidy for others.

    What is the max dollar amount within your current budget you can give annually towards subsidizing someone else’s health insurance over and above the dollar figure you are willing to pay for your own coverage.

    Please break it down as follows:

    Personal.
    Monthly payment and max coverage

    Other.
    Amount you will contribute monthly towards subsidy

    SteveG (11baba)

  68. If you have health insurance now, it isn’t going to change. Unless your coverages change, or your premiums change, or if your plan is subject to the cadillac tax, or your employer finds it is more cost effective to pay the penalty than provide insurance.

    JD (7cdb18)

  69. And further, back to my original point, if Republicans over time come to champion our ideas, then liberals and progressives have won the war — no matter who is in power at the moment.

    It depends on what “war” you’re fighting. Every debtor thinks things will work out, right up until they have to file bankruptcy.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  70. If Republicans don’t fight against programs that Democrats support then the Democrats have won.

    What does it mean if Demcrats champion programs promoted by Nazis, Communists and eugenicists?

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  71. DRJ – these are the people that think you can spend your way out of bankruptcy.

    JD (7cdb18)

  72. Heh. A lot of debtors think that, too, JD.

    Ag80 – I liked your comment 42, and I’m glad you wrote it.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  73. The real popularity of politicians – last year Palin visited Auborn, NY and drew a crown of 22,000 people. Obama visited a large city in Ohio and had an audience of fewer than 500 and half of the people outside were protesting against his policies.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  74. “And further, back to my original point, if Republicans over time come to champion our ideas, then liberals and progressives have won the war — no matter who is in power at the moment.”

    As I said, one of Myron’s favorite memes. Wait, didn’t Bush try to reform Social Security? Holy smokes, I’m right. Preserve but reform, does that make him a progressive? I don’t think so.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  75. Obama – I am not a socialist, I am a confiscatory redistributionist. You dumb beyotches do not know what is good for you.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  76. “DRJ – these are the people that think you can spend your way out of bankruptcy.”

    JD – The Democrats think you can tax your way to greatness. More discredited Keynesian economics, plus the CBO does not score the same way anymore and now notices the money taken out of the private sector from the taxes.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  77. Myron:

    I won’t argue with you about whether the Iraq war was a $2 trillion dollar boondoggle.

    No matter the amount, it was a cost, not an entitlement.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  78. So-called healthcare reform from the usual-suspect dolts of the left will end up being symbolically and technically not too different from, say, Al Gore huffing and puffing about the dangers of global warming while living the high life in his big energy-hog mansion in Tennessee.

    Or to illustrate how as much as things change, some things never change, Franklin D Roosevelt in the 1930s raising the taxes on pretty much everybody, particularly more affluent Americans — not long after many people already had been pummeled by the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929 — and then having the gall to tell the IRS his own upper-level income shouldn’t be taxed at the increased rate he and Congress had mandated into law.

    Speaking of which, the IRS will have to become an even bigger buttinsky — a bigger snoop and pain-in-the-ass — if proof of health insurance becomes a required portion of everyone’s tax forms and records. Of course, when it comes to that, all the flakes, frauds, scofflaws and certainly illegal aliens — meaning a good part of the Democrat Party’s base — will have a field day doing their impersonation of FDR.

    Mark (411533)

  79. “…Using this logic, we should have communal grocery stories, federal housing, and nationalized transportation for everyone….”

    “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us!”
    -derisive comment by the Proletariat re the Soviet system.

    AD - RtR/OS! (913281)

  80. The Democrats think you can tax your way to greatness.

    the dems have no plans for greatness, only mass, forced mediocrity in the name of “equality”….

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  81. “Dumbing deviancy down!”

    AD - RtR/OS! (913281)

  82. No matter the amount, it was a cost, not an entitlement.

    Ag80: My point was that it was something our country paid for, in both blood and treasure, and I didn’t think it was worth it. But I’m not going to go chasing down everyone who supported the war and asking for my money back, a la Eric Blair, re: health care. I think that’s silly.

    Myron (a79d53)

  83. Myron – Your immaturity is showing, again.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  84. When the fury’s of Hell are unleashed, they do not discriminate between those that they wreck their vengeance upon;
    but, certain people, certain life-forces, draw upon themselves the wrath of the gods.

    AD - RtR/OS! (913281)

  85. Wait, didn’t Bush try to reform Social Security? Holy smokes, I’m right. Preserve but reform, does that make him a progressive? I don’t think so.

    Daley: I actually don’t get your point. This seems to prove me right. Bush should have been trying to abolish Social Security, the way his party once fought against it. But of course, he turned out to be truly big government, pushing through Medicare Part D, which unlike the Democrats’ health care plan, was completely not-paid-for. Another mess Dems will have to clean up.

    All these posts, all the huffing and puffing, all the talk about the “big payback” I guess you guys think is coming, by which I assume you mean a single election — yet no one outside of Ag80 has attempted to explain the following fact, in part b/c I think y’all find it troubling: Republicans of olden times once fight against Medicare and other entitlements just as vigorously as they’re now fighting against the health care bill. Now, decades later they are supporting the SAME programs they once fought.

    Were they wrong then, or are they hypocrites now? If it was so bad for the country, how can they have had a “change of heart?” Are they saying, “It’s OK to destroy the country now b/c people like the programs”? Should we truly elect leaders who would be so craven, so low?

    You guys do the short bursts of anger well and the fear-mongering. That can often be enough to grab the White House. But what your leaders lack is implacability, and that comes from believing in something over the long haul besides money. In other words, you will sell out over time: It’s been proven.

    Myron (a79d53)

  86. “as they’re now fighting against the health care bill”

    Myron – Why is troubling at all that Republicans want a different health care reform bill? When you present it as the false choice Obama does of no reform at all, then you might see a troubling contradiction.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  87. Myron – I guess we should not call your meme a meme because it gets you so agitated.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  88. Daley: If Republicans wanted a different reform bill, they had more than a decade of absolute power to push for one. Instead, they went for an unfunded sop to seniors and tax cuts for the wealthy.

    I took their behavior to mean they’re not serious about reform.

    There is other evidence: Three Republicans took part in the Gang of Six negotiations that went on for 100+ meetings. That, by my math, is 50 percent input in a key Senate Finance Committee meeting. The negotiations conclude, then two of the three immediately repudiate their own work and one of them, Grassley, starts talking death panel crap. The third, Snowe, plays footsie with the Dems for a while then puts out some vague feeler that she might be willing to vote for some bill at some point in time, just not now

    Sum total: Not serious. Move on, Dems. Pelosi has understood the state of play from the get-go. The state of play is Jim DeMint’s “waterloo.” That’s the GOP strategy, in a word. We’ll see this week if it goes.

    Myron (a79d53)

  89. Myron,

    Talking about abolishing all entitlements is as fruitless as talking about making all abortions illegal — plus I doubt most Republicans want those things to happen anyway. In my experience, Republicans are more interested in debating and setting reasonable limits that promote desirable social and economic results.

    To claim that the GOP defaulted on health care because we wouldn’t debate whether health care should be a universal public option or a universal private pay option is ridiculous. It would be like asking you to debate whether abortion should be illegal or simply banned.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  90. It would be like asking you to debate whether abortion should be illegal or simply banned.

    There are many pro-lifers who think abortion is murder and should be banned. They don’t think their position is ridiculous.

    Myron (a79d53)

  91. Please specify in the GWB tax-cuts where you find the income floor for them, restricting them to only “the rich”.

    AD - RtR/OS! (913281)

  92. Muron whining about something being unfunded shows the depths of his sophistry, as the only real objection the Dems had was that Part D did not spend enough. Additionally, that is an object lesson in how government cannot even remotely accurately predict the likely cost of healthcare plans, as the costs are significantly higher than predicted. Were Myron serious or honest, his stated objections to that would cause him to burst into flames at what the Dems are trying to do now. As always, it is about his desires to pass something, because they can.

    Absolute power for a decade? Absolute bullpuckey. The Republicans never had the majorities that exist today in the Senate, and for a period, shared power. Outright mendacity, Myron.

    JD (5b977c)

  93. Stupid is, as Stupid does!

    AD - RtR/OS! (913281)

  94. …But I’m not going to go chasing down everyone who supported the war and asking for my money back, a la Eric Blair, re: health care. I think that’s silly…”

    Um. What’s silly is getting on a metaphorical bus with Pelosi and Reid, and somehow calling it fine policy. You can shuck and jive all you want, Myron, but you are agreeing with Pelosi and Reid, and the way they are making law. Try to change the subject, and it will come back to what they are doing. Each time. Every time.

    I love how you start counting votes and discussing strategies and talking about failed Republican policies…when the head of your party is asking legislators to vote for a bill that the majority of Americans oppose, for which there is no price tag, and no guarantee it will accomplish anything other than burnish the reputation of the current occupant of the White House. But it has to be done right now or awful things will happen. Oh, and in order to pass it, you have to bribe several legislators. Sound good? And if you say “Republicans do that,” why are you defending such policies?

    I thought you dudes and dudettes were all pure and clean and above all that. From Chicago.

    So…tell you what. Before you criticize the Republicans? How about cleaning up the—what was it again?—most ethical, open, and honest Congress in history?

    Oh, and by the way? I think we should raise taxes on you personally. I won’t tell you by how much, nor is the bill fully written. But you are an awful obstructionist person for not wanting to help others, and for daring to ask a question about how the law gets passed. You know? Besides, it will end up saving you money, despite the taxes, because we will save all kind of money through…increased efficiency.

    What, don’t you trust me?

    Oh, but that is different, of course. I keep forgetting: you trust Pelosi and Reid to do what is not only correct, but ethical as well.

    Such a partisan hack you are.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  95. If you have health insurance now, it isn’t going to change. Unless your coverages change, or your premiums change, or if your plan is subject to the cadillac tax, or your employer finds it is more cost effective to pay the penalty than provide insurance.

    Or if you use an FSA (halved and limited), or catastrophic coverage (outlawed), or your company wants to ADD something to your plan (need to requalify all of it), or …

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  96. “Wait, didn’t Bush try to reform Social Security? Holy smokes, I’m right. Preserve but reform, does that make him a progressive? I don’t think so.”

    I don’t think anyone is under the illusion that bush’s carve-out and privatization was “progressive.”

    imdw (d472cb)

  97. There is no doubt that illusions play a significant role in your life, imdw.

    JD (57d75b)

  98. Changing the subject….did anyone read or hear about this 62 year old guy who had to sue his insurance company to get the paid for an operation he needed?

    I don’t get the opponents of health insurance reform. You complain about “delays” in Canada, about “unelected bureaucrats,” and about your doctor not getting to choose your best care. ALL OF THAT IS ALREADY HAPPENING.

    This guy’s doctor told him to go somewhere else for surgery, because of delays at the hospital his insurance chose. A bureaucrat at Wellpoint denied payment for his operation (after he paid premiums no less), another one denied his appeal, and a third denied another appeal.

    Everything you people claim to be afraid with healthcare already happens, so why are you against it?

    Because it’s better to have no recourse, no Congresspeople to elect, etc and let a private company ruin your health and finances than let Obama win one?

    Oh, and DRJ, that link to Hoff is b.s. You can’t call the woman’s fear and the President’s discussion of that fear “false,’ based on some guy at the Cleveland saying “maybe something will done” and “I imagine she’ll qualify for aid.” Not exactly definite.

    For a year, this Frank Luntz campaign against this stupid little plan has just baffled me. It’s as if most of you don’t know what happens today with insurance and, worse, could give a crap to learn. I could some whining if this plan were my cherished single player or at least had a “public option.” But, this plan, this gift to health insurance companies of millions of new customers? This offends you? Kucinichs, you are not.

    timb (449046)

  99. timb – If some utilization review board under ObamaCare had told the patient no in the first place, where would he have turned? What does ObamaCare magically change with your anecdotes?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  100. Argument by anecdote is so very compelling.

    JD (57d75b)

  101. Both parties have plenty of Congressmen who lead us down this path. The only major difference today, is that the Dems have enough control to do as they please without Rep buy-in. The only reason more has not gotten done is due to in-fighting with the Dem party.

    Is Obama lying about this reform? Absolutely. And he knows it. And most of us know it. And many, even on the left, know it but still want to pass it.

    Government control or control via special interests. That has been the battle. But neither is the answer. Too much government control AND special interest legislation has gotten us to this point.

    Only a major reduction in both government and special interest control can get us back on the right path.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  102. Timb, you complain about Insurance company bureacrats – they are there because of the upteen amounts of control the government and special interests have placed on that industry. There has never been a completely free market for Hospitals, Insurance companies, etc. to conduct business within. States require this, the Feds require that, some pushed by Unions and other groups. It’s a cluster@#$%.

    This reform is nothing more that added @#$% on top of @#$%. You think it will get better when you add more @#$%?

    Corwin (ea9428)

  103. Daley: I actually don’t get your point. This seems to prove me right.

    Moron’s Mad Hatter logic has grown old, worn – out and tired. Time for the senior home.

    Dmac (ca1d8c)

  104. Which we’ll all be paying for, since Moron wants it that way.

    Dmac (ca1d8c)

  105. “timb – If some utilization review board under ObamaCare had told the patient no in the first place, where would he have turned? What does ObamaCare magically change with your anecdotes?”

    After obamacare, anything that happens wrong is the fault of the Kenyan usurper.

    imdw (034b9e)

  106. I don’t get the opponents of health insurance reform. You complain about “delays” in Canada, about “unelected bureaucrats,” and about your doctor not getting to choose your best care. ALL OF THAT IS ALREADY HAPPENING.

    So your solution is to make it the law of the land? That makes sense.

    Tim, you and the rest of the left never gave a crap about “health insurance reform” to begin with. You didn’t give a crap about lowering costs, or reducing the deficit, or eliminating the fraud and inefficiencies that have plagued the medical system since Medicare was first instituted.

    ALL you and your fellow travelers have cared about is getting a third party to pay for all of your expenses (regardless of the issue), period. That’s it.

    You don’t care whether or not it’s financially sustainable. You don’t care whether it will actually help to lower the true cost of medical care. The only thing you’ve cared about is getting someone else to pay your bills.

    You’re too lazy to actually take responsibility for your own life, so you start promoting your glorified slave philosophy in order to justify that laziness.

    For once in your entire miserable life, take some responsibility for your own life and stop putting that burden on the rest of society.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  107. Comment by imdw — 3/16/2010 @ 6:43 am

    And again, imdw trolls with an insinuation of racism and Birtherism for no reason other than that’s how trolls roll.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  108. Obama stated in Ohio that:

    You know, the most insidious argument they’re making is the idea that somehow this would hurt Medicare. I know we’ve got some seniors here with us today — I couldn’t tell; you guys look great. (Laughter.) I wouldn’t have guessed. But want to tell you directly: This proposal adds almost a decade of solvency to Medicare.

    Cutting $500 billion from Medicare adds a decade of solvency.

    That’s the kind of fraud that Myron and imdw flog. Fraudulent claims seem to be the only tool Obama and the Democrats have.

    If reform is so great, why are they lying so much?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  109. Plus, he will decrease your premiums by 3000% !

    JD (8f6cc0)

  110. Cutting $500 billion from Medicare adds a decade of solvency.

    Medicare’s just as broke as Social Security, which Obama and other leftists were telling us wasn’t going to run out of money until 2050, or 2030, or whatever year way down the road–far after the current Dem legislators would be out of office and in their graves.

    The math was going to catch up with these programs sooner or later; politicians just kept trying to kick the can down the road until they felt they didn’t have to be accountable for it anymore. They’re finally running out of room to kick the can because the financial obligations can no longer keep up with the accepted standard of living in this country, but instead of acknowledging the problem, they pretend as if it doesn’t exist and go merrily along proposing more spending programs.

    Tax revenues have cratered because the U3 has been at or near double digits for several months now. Passing tax increases won’t help the situation at this point because the debt ceiling is 100% of GDP, and combined with our other liabilities and obligations, is running about 500%. The ONLY way to get the economy even close to recovery from this debt-based bubble is to slash government spending to the bone and wait for unemployment to improve enough to bring in revenue to close budget gaps and pay off current debt obligations.

    But ultimately, it won’t even matter–what little indications of “recovery” we are seeing isn’t the end of the storm, it’s the eye of the hurricane. Once the Alt-A and OptionARM loans reset next year, it’s going to cause another banking crisis because the banks (and the government via Fannie and Freddie) have been hiding much of that debt off their books. This is Enron-style accounting, and it’s going to make things worse.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  111. ALL you and your fellow travelers have cared about is getting a third party to pay for all of your expenses (regardless of the issue), period. That’s it.

    You don’t care whether or not it’s financially sustainable. You don’t care whether it will actually help to lower the true cost of medical care. The only thing you’ve cared about is getting someone else to pay your bills.

    Hey, Chris, didn’t know you were my accountant….actually, I already have insurance, sorry the cartoon in your head is as inaccurate as your politics.

    As for me, I tend to care about my fellow man. You tend to be the kind of guys who sits on his porch and growls at passers by to “get away from me ‘n’ mine.” That’s the difference.

    I worked for years going over medical records and seeing poor people not be able to afford to go see the doctor. I freely admit I felt sorry for them and wished, like every industrialized country in the world, they could see a doctor too. Then again that’s what they get for being poor, eh? Should have known better.

    Until you show more care for Joe the trailer park guy than you do for Joe the Wellpoint’s executive’s private plane, you could just kiss off or, you know, address any actual point I made. Then again, if raging against cartoons makes you happy, I can’t stop you. After all, I’m nothing if not tolerant.

    timb (449046)

  112. As for me, I tend to care about my fellow man. You tend to be the kind of guys who sits on his porch and growls at passers by to “get away from me ‘n’ mine.”

    The eternal leftist conceit, in all its glorious feeling.

    JD (383127)

  113. Not to be difficult, but:

    “…I tend to care about my fellow man….”

    So…how much of your income, percentage-wise, do you give to charity? Do you have any “cool toys” that cost money? Drink fancy lattes? If so, why? People need help, as you say.

    Sure, those are your choices. But that’s the point: choice.

    Just asking, not being rude. It’s one thing to want to help other people, it is another entirely to demand that other people help others. Right?

    Walk the walk, particularly if you are going to sneer at how other people show their concern for the needy.

    And if you tithe, I withdraw all objection. Do you tithe to charity?

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  114. Also:

    “…You tend to be the kind of guys who sits on his porch and growls at passers by to “get away from me ‘n’ mine.”…”

    I suspect that, if the government taxed the heck out of your car, or something else you enjoy, that you yourself might indeed growl a bit at others taking from “you and yours.”

    I urge you think about it. The Democrats have big plans, and unless you are very low income, you will feel some serious pain.

    Again, check out Pelosi’s happiness about passing a bill without votes. This is okay with you? These are your party leaders. If I were a Democrat, I would worry about the precedent being set, because no party is in power forever, no matter what silly books were written fifteen months ago.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  115. You don’t care whether it will actually help to lower the true cost of medical care. The only thing you’ve cared about is getting someone else to pay your bills.

    That’s a pretty stark accusation. Do you have any evidence to support it, besides the fact that timb disagrees with you on policy?

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  116. Hey, Chris, didn’t know you were my accountant….actually, I already have insurance, sorry the cartoon in your head is as inaccurate as your politics.

    Which is why you keep arguing for us to pay your healthcare bills. That “cartoon” isn’t as inaccurate as you want us to believe.

    As for me, I tend to care about my fellow man. You tend to be the kind of guys who sits on his porch and growls at passers by to “get away from me ‘n’ mine.” That’s the difference.

    Baloney. Your “care for your fellow man” only extends as far as the government forces you to do so. Your whole political philosophy revolves around forcing your fellow citizens at the point of a gun to do what you “feel” is right.

    I worked for years going over medical records and seeing poor people not be able to afford to go see the doctor. I freely admit I felt sorry for them and wished, like every industrialized country in the world, they could see a doctor too. Then again that’s what they get for being poor, eh? Should have known better.

    Then why didn’t you pay for their medical bills, Tim, if you felt so sorry for them? Charity begins at home after all. Put your money where your big flappy mouth is and lead by example.

    Go to opensecrets and look at how much money organizations like MoveOn donated for left-wing agitprop just in the last four years. How much medical care for the poor would those tens of millions of dollars have provided?

    And like it or not, the poor can see a doctor. It’s called being responsible for your circumstances and searching for an institution that will offer them care at the most reasonable cost. That is what adults do, after all.

    Your problem is that you think health insurance should equal free healthcare. Nothing is free, even in your concocted Smurf-village fantasy of how society should be.

    Until you show more care for Joe the trailer park guy than you do for Joe the Wellpoint’s executive’s private plane, you could just kiss off or, you know, address any actual point I made.

    Until you show more restraint from trying to rob American citizens to placate your admitted guilt complex, you’re welcome to step in front of a speeding truck. You haven’t made any actual point this entire time, except “I need the government to rob from people because I’m too much of a coward to do so myself.”

    You’re not a fellow citizen, Tim, you’re the enemy.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  117. Added into this mix is the very real threat that private insurance companies will find other work – if the situation becomes quickly untenable for them – there’s no law requiring them to conduct operations in a losing market

    EricPWJohnson (44bba4)

  118. That’s a pretty stark accusation. Do you have any evidence to support it, besides the fact that timb disagrees with you on policy?

    If tim or any other leftist had proposed a policy that didn’t involve the government spending yet more money and would actually lower the cost of healthcare, then I’d retract the accusation.

    When Medicare was passed, its proponents said that having it in place would lower the cost of healthcare for everyone else. They’ve been wrong by several orders of magnitude. Why should I believe their philosophical descendants when they make the same claims now?

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  119. Another Chris – there’s no reason you should believe that anyone’s prediction of what will happen if bill [x] passes is true.

    That said, assuming that anyone who supports socialized medicine is just trying to get his bills paid for because he can’t pay for them is very different from believing that supporters of socialized medicine are wrong about what will happen if their program passes.

    The former is the equivalent of assuming that anyone who opposes President Obama’s policies is a racist, and is every bit as obnoxious.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  120. That said, assuming that anyone who supports socialized medicine is just trying to get his bills paid for because he can’t pay for them is very different from believing that supporters of socialized medicine are wrong about what will happen if their program passes.

    If this were simply a question of the effect of specific policy debates, that would be one thing.

    But socialized medicine supporters have been quite clear from the beginning that the whole point of such a program is to get a third party to pay for what should be a private transaction. It’s been shown throughout history, time after time, that when the government gets involved in subsidizing private transactions, costs tend to go up, not down, because there’s little incentive to limit them with the perception of an unlimited piggy bank.

    Given these facts, it’s difficult to take people’s like tim’s self-professed magnaminity seriously. Take away the BS, and every time their argument boils down to–“Make someone else pay for free stuff for me!”

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  121. socialized medicine supporters have been quite clear from the beginning that the whole point of such a program is to get a third party to pay for what should be a private transaction.

    I think that mischaracterizes the debate.

    As far as I can tell, the position of socialized medicine supporters is that the procurement of health care should not be a private transaction.

    Basically, socialized medicine supporters say “hey, health care ought to be a public good just like the common defense is a public good.” Meanwhile, socialized medicine opponents say “no, health care is a private good just like food is a private good”; meanwhile, a bunch of people concede the point that health care is a public good but wonder about how to pay for it.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  122. I see no one is answering my question. If reform is so great, why are Democrats lying so much?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  123. I worked for years going over medical records and seeing poor people not be able to afford to go see the doctor.

    they have medical records, but they aren’t seeing a doctor? how does that w*rk?

    and, while we’re at it, how were you getting paid if the patients, who weren’t getting care, even though they had medical records, didn’t have any money to pay for the cost, including your salary?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  124. the whole point of such a program is to get a third party to pay for what should be a private transaction.

    the procurement of health care should not be a private transaction.

    You can tell these are different things because the words are different and stuff.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  125. Dustin: I’m saying that the debate is about the question should health care be a private transaction?

    Characterizing socialized medicine supporters as wanting to get someone else to pay for what should be a private transaction essentially portrays them as accepting the premise that it’s a private transaction and wanting to shift the cost. But it’s more accurate to say that they reject the premise.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  126. I see no one is answering my question. If reform is so great, why are Democrats lying so much?

    Comment by SPQR

    The people are too stupid to know what’s good for them because they are racists who won’t give Obama a fair shake and are so greedy and extreme they think we shouldn’t spend money when we don’t have any money.

    The *right* people think this is a good idea, and it doesn’t matter what the rest of the people think. They can be lied to, sloganed, MSM bombarded with GE movies about the Green Zone and $2 plates at Big Lots with Obama’s picture on it. They don’t deserve an honest explanation of what the bill is doing. They don’t even deserve access to the bill before it’s voted on (they are still working on it, so don’t tell me we have access to it because some impossible to read bullshit was posted).

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  127. there’s no reason you should believe that anyone’s prediction of what will happen if bill [x] passes is true.

    yes there is: historical precedent.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  128. aphrael, I’m just teasing you, but really, when someone characterizes something as ‘the government forcing others, via taxation, to take over private transactions’, that’s similar to saying something is no longer a private transaction.

    It IS a private transaction. If you’re rejecting that premise you’re simply wrong. You may think it shouldn’t be one anymore, which is exactly like saying the government should force rich people to pay for health care for poor people (in this context).

    You may think the motivation is different… the normative idea that health care for ‘free’ is a human right. But that’s not a rebuttal to the fact that people will get subsidized care… it’s just explaining the consequences and forced realities surrounding ‘human right’ or subsidized health care. It’s the very same thing, even if we try to whitewash it.

    I don’t understand why health care shouldn’t be a private transaction. That’s very extreme and I wish the democrats were honest enough to sell their view this way. Instead, they sell an even more fuzzy label… a hypothetical and idealized and unrealistic result.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  129. Characterizing socialized medicine supporters as wanting to get someone else to pay for what should be a private transaction essentially portrays them as accepting the premise that it’s a private transaction and wanting to shift the cost. But it’s more accurate to say that they reject the premise.

    If they rejected the premise, they’d be proposing actual policies that would reduce the cost of healthcare to begin with, since that burden ends up falling on everyone else’s shoulders rather than just the individual and the healthcare provider. There’s plenty of ways to use market forces to reduce the actual cost of healthcare without the government spending a dime.

    But they haven’t. Their proposals all end up at the same place–a third party ultimately pays for the transaction in an effort to shift costs, an effort that fails nearly every single time thanks to bureaucratic inefficiencies, over-estimated budgets, and cronyism. Can anyone really look at the last 50 years of increasing government corporatism and moral hazard and say with a straight face that it’s made our economy more stable?

    Leftists like tim constantly complain that middle-class conservatives have been tricked into “going against their own best interests”–a reflection of the leftist’s own self-involved philosophy. So why should anyone buy the notion that leftists are proposing these policies out of any sense of common good for society?

    Their own criticsm and bafflement at those who don’t buy into socialistic philosophies betrays the very inward-looking worldview that reflects the support of policies like “universal healthcare–after all, the leftist thinks that someone else should pay for all of his healthcare; that can’t possibly fathom why anyone would disagree with the idea of “free” anything, irrespective of whether it’s even sustainable or not.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  130. “get a third party to pay for what should be a private transaction.”

    Isn’t that what happens now when my insurance company pays my doctor or the lab? A third party (the insurance company) pays for the transaction between me and my doctor.

    imdw (de7003)

  131. Isn’t that what happens now when my insurance company pays my doctor or the lab? A third party (the insurance company) pays for the transaction between me and my doctor.

    nope.

    think about what you wrote for a minute or two, and you might see why you’re wrong.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  132. 131, red, you are talking to imd-dumbass. He understands nothing but what he wants, and he is willing to lie incessantly to get it.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  133. There’s also what my employer pays the insurance company. And my co-pay.

    imdw (8f8ead)

  134. That’s just another imdw troll.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  135. What! Not one word about Dumbo saying that this bill will drop employer healthcare costs 3000%! I can see imd-dumbass, timb, moron,… demanding their raises right now.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  136. 132: i understand that…. hence the qualifying “might”.

    i just like watching it squirm. 😀

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  137. Does your insurance company pay for the oil changes on your car?
    Then why should it pay for a Doctor’s visit?

    AD - RtR/OS! (02b3ae)

  138. “Does your insurance company pay for the oil changes on your car?”

    nope

    “Then why should it pay for a Doctor’s visit?”

    I wouldn’t take insurance that didn’t cover a visit to the doctor. I’m just conservative and risk averse that way.

    imdw (05d41e)

  139. PCD and don’t forget that cutting Medicare funding makes it more financially sound!

    SPQR (26be8b)

  140. […] Patterico’s Pontifications: Telling the Truth About Health Care and Pelosi: I Like This Unconstitutional Sleight of Hand for Passing ObamaCare and The […]

    Obama’s Math Lie: Health Care Premiums Will Decrease 3,000%, So You Should Get a Raise When/If ObamaCare Is Passed (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  141. Comment by imdw — 3/16/2010 @ 11:43 am

    Another demonstration of its’ total obliviousness.

    AD - RtR/OS! (02b3ae)

  142. I wouldn’t take insurance that didn’t cover a visit to the doctor. I’m just conservative and risk averse that way.

    so you don’t have homeowner/renters insurance, eh?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  143. […] And So it Goes in Shreveport: Pushback Against Obamacare Today Patterico’s Pontifications: Telling the Truth About Health Care and Pelosi: I Like This Unconstitutional Sleight of Hand for Passing ObamaCare and The […]

    Priceless: Phone Meltdown in DC Against ObamaCare, DC Tea Party Protest Rally Inspiring… Keep It Up, America! (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  144. […] And So it Goes in Shreveport: Pushback Against Obamacare Today Patterico’s Pontifications: Telling the Truth About Health Care and Pelosi: I Like This Unconstitutional Sleight of Hand for Passing ObamaCare and The […]

    Priceless: Phone Meltdown in DC Against ObamaCare, DC Tea Party Protest Rally Inspiring… Keep It Up, America! (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  145. But socialized medicine supporters have been quite clear from the beginning that the whole point of such a program is to get a third party to pay for what should be a private transaction. It’s been shown throughout history, time after time, that when the government gets involved in subsidizing private transactions, costs tend to go up, not down, because there’s little incentive to limit them with the perception of an unlimited piggy bank.

    of all the moronic, Ayn Randian bs that appears on this site, the above paragraph is the worst. Not only is it morally bankrupt, it is factually incorrect. Government intervention in healthcare in France, Canada, and Britain, hell, even the one we created in Iraq, costs less, as a percentage of GDP, than the US and, generally, delivers a better standard of care.

    Not only that, but as has been pointed out to this Luntz-ian moron several time, this is not government in healthcare. It’s insurance reform and, since any insurance dude can tell you, insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industries in America, your reactionary, antiquated, opinions are about as informed as a Lindsay Lohan position paper. Regulating insurance is what government does, nimrod, and, still, insurance companies are amongst the ten most profitable industries in America.

    You wouldn’t know good public policy if you saw it, since sewers, Social Security, National Defense, the FCC, and roads are all paid for by “government…rob[bing]…people because I’m too much of a coward to do so myself.”

    Buy your own tank, Chris, get the f*ck off the collective electrical grid you didn’t pay for, and move somewhere with no government. I hear Somalia is nice and they don’t have a pesky government there. Should be heaven for you.

    PS Oh, and as a general plea, could various jackasses on this site stop wishing for the death of people whose POLITICAL opinions they don’t agree with. Like any of us have power. We’re just debating and death threats and wishes are a bit over-the-top, IMHO.

    timb (449046)

  146. Compassionate, non-judemental, and oh-so-polite!

    What more could one ask?

    AD - RtR/OS! (bdaa22)

  147. “Regulating insurance is what government does”

    Oh, I thought the government was to protect our rights.

    (I thought I would play-act like imdw)

    Corwin (ea9428)

  148. Not only that, but as has been pointed out to this Luntz-ian moron several time, this is not government in healthcare. It’s insurance reform and, since any insurance dude can tell you, insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industries in America, your reactionary, antiquated, opinions are about as informed as a Lindsay Lohan position paper. Regulating insurance is what government does, nimrod, and, still, insurance companies are amongst the ten most profitable industries in America.

    LOL–so your solution to fixing one of the most heavily regulated industries in America–which has clearly resulted in the real costs of healthcare going through the roof–is an even larger version of the same, and you’re calling ME a moron?

    And anyone who’s actually read this bill knows that it’s nothing more than a sop to the AMA and Big Pharma, providing “one of the ten most profitable industries in America” with a profit margin even greater than the relatively measly 2.2% they are running now.

    This bill doesn’t “reform” jack squat, and certainly won’t lower the real costs of healthcare, but that won’t stop people like you from praying that it gets passed anyway.

    You’re barely two paragraphs into your little hissy fit and you can’t even keep your indignations straight.

    You wouldn’t know good public policy if you saw it, since sewers, Social Security, National Defense, the FCC, and roads are all paid for by “government…rob[bing]…people because I’m too much of a coward to do so myself.”

    Sorry, tim, I don’t have a problem with public infrastructure. I have a problem paying for your doctor visits. Take care of that sh*t yourself, you lazy toad.

    Bringing up Social Security is a laugh–you do realize that program is broke and the problem will just get worse, right? Sniff all you want, neither you nor Social Security can outrun the math.

    Providing for the national defense is a specifically mandated part of the Constitution, and I have no problem having taxes collected for that purpose, although its beyond question that our overseas operations at this point are a fiscal burden that needs to be scaled back–just like any other government program when real revenues are falling off a cliff. Or perhaps you don’t have a problem with our national debt being over 100% of GDP when the toxic crap being housed in Fannie and Freddie are added into the mix? (And here Obama and his supporters told us he was going to account for “all” of our debt and put it on the books. How droll–I guess Obama saw that $6 trillion obligation and had a change of heart.)

    Buy your own tank, Chris, get the f*ck off the collective electrical grid you didn’t pay for, and move somewhere with no government. I hear Somalia is nice and they don’t have a pesky government there. Should be heaven for you.

    Sorry, I’m not an anarchist. And since my tax dollars and utility bills go towards paying for the upkeep of that electrical grid, I’ll stay on it all I like, thank you very much. You can always f*ck off right to Europe or Canada and get the welfare state you so desire–except they’re going broke and are over-leveraged to the hilt, too, in case you hadn’t noticed.

    PS Oh, and as a general plea, could various jackasses on this site stop wishing for the death of people whose POLITICAL opinions they don’t agree with. Like any of us have power. We’re just debating and death threats and wishes are a bit over-the-top, IMHO.

    Your arguments drip with utter contempt for the people on this forum. Don’t be surprised when you get that back and worse.

    People tease Leviticus, but ultimately he’s a respected contributor to this forum. You’re considered pond scum. You might want to think about the reasons for that.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  149. AC, could you dispense with this politeness, and tell us what you really think of “dense wood” (timb)?

    AD - RtR/OS! (bdaa22)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1536 secs.