Quote :

"Obama is on tape admitting he wants single-payer, and it might take 10-20 years to get there...but that's his goal. So I would assume everything he is doing regarding health-care is to that end. Most gov't plans designed to help us eventually expand and take away more and more of our money & freedom. Why would this Health-care bill be any different?"

8/7/2009 12:09:43 PM

SEIU member attacks a black conservative at a town hall meeting on health care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWnxlFbYjVY

8/7/2009 12:16:50 PM

Quote :

"Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon has sued the state of Oregon after losing the state employee health plan business to a key competitor. In a lawsuit filed in July in Multnomah County Circuit Court, Regence accused a state benefits oversight board of violating its own bid procedures in awarding a $30 million administration contract in April to Providence Health System. Regence also said the state based its choice on incorrect cost comparisons and unfair conclusions. ... Regence protested the board's decision on May 1. But the board refused to reconsider, in part because Regence did not complain about the state's selection process until it lost. ["Regence cannot now complain about having placed second in a race that it set in motion and in which it participated voluntarily every step of the way," board administrator Joan M. Kapowich wrote in her May 20 response to Regence's protest."

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2009/08/regence_sues_oregon_after_losi.html

Insurance companies love the free market as long as they're on top.

8/7/2009 12:18:03 PM

Uh oh, the person who hosted this on youtube also has links to http://newsbusters.org/ in the summary of the video.

Should I comment on the youtube clip or attack the website that has this story hosted?

I guess I'll comment on the video, by saying there are idiots everywhere and on both sides of any debate. Go figure...

[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 12:20 PM. Reason : x]

8/7/2009 12:18:43 PM

^ Yeah, and there are idiots in the middle, too--lording above it all.

8/7/2009 12:22:38 PM

Look, I just don't see how posting a video like that has anything to do with the issue itself. It's solely meant to be an attack on one side or the other with no real discussion about the issue.

I personally think a centralized healthcare system run by the government is a terrible thing for this country. I just don't see how posting a video about some idiots in St. Louis using violence because they disagree with protesters does ANYTHING to help prove that point.

Am I off base here?

V yours was the closest one. I only check TSB at work and didn't see when those were posted... I'll try harder, sir.

[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 12:29 PM. Reason : x]

8/7/2009 12:25:28 PM

^ Then, godammit, why didn't you spout your objections to this bullshit post on the previous page--or do you only object to mine?

Quote :

""

message_topic.aspx?topic=570926&page=9


[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 12:33 PM. Reason : Posted by thegoodlife3.]

8/7/2009 12:28:17 PM

lol

8/7/2009 1:18:43 PM

Quote :

"Insurance companies love the free market as long as they're on top."

What free market?

8/7/2009 1:20:14 PM

^
Beat me to it.

This is the fucking MO of the democrat-socialists. Tamper with the market until it is no longer free. Let it then fuck up, because it's no longer free. Then scream to the dumb americans, "Hey look! The free market failed!"

You fuckers will not win.

8/7/2009 1:29:37 PM

Anyone who says health insurance isn't a free market isn't paying attention.

8/7/2009 1:32:03 PM

^

8/7/2009 1:43:54 PM

As much as I myself do not agree with the liberal congress's healthcare plan and as big of a boondoggle in frivolous spending and negative market manipulation this will be; I still do not understand the correlation to nazism, fascism, or tyranny that some of your nutjob moonbat Republicans are having a stroke over.

A teenager overspending mommies credit card sure but declaring the american tax payers as the "jews to Obama's ovens" cut me a fucking break.

Where were these boohooers when Darth Cheney and Lord Bush took a giant shit all over the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments last administration.

Mandating one pay for health coverage and wasting my tax dollars on inflated health care for welfare queens SURELY rivals unwarranated wire taps, gross expansion of CCTV survaillance, waterboarding "suspected" terrorists, and making controversal executive cabinet meeting records sealed off from congressional review via Executive Decree. Lets not forget the Cheney 4th branch of gov't.

8/7/2009 1:57:38 PM

Quote :

"no one should actually disagree with socialized healthcare. Anyone that says they do is just paid off duped by the insurance companies!"

[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 2:17 PM. Reason : ]

8/7/2009 2:13:34 PM

^^ I don't get the 'ovens' comment, but they are pointing out a historical coincidence that the economic policies being favored by the political classes (both republican and democrat) tend to resemble the cartellization imposed by the fascists of the 1930s (Mussolini, FDR, etc). It is nothing more than a coincidence, but the coincidence does exist and they are trying to use it to rally their flocks. As such, since they are technically right, just ignore them.

[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 2:14 PM. Reason : ^]

8/7/2009 2:13:51 PM

Quote :

"Anyone who says health insurance isn't a free market isn't paying attention."

Please explain how the insurance market is a free market.

8/7/2009 2:37:27 PM

Nah dog, you tell me how it isn't. And if you can do it without getting all retardo libertarian on us, that would be good.

[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 2:43 PM. Reason : .]

8/7/2009 2:43:02 PM

Quote :

"...tend to resemble the cartellization imposed by the fascists of the 1930s (Mussolini, FDR, etc)."

...

8/7/2009 2:59:44 PM

I'll get you started:

Quote :

"free market n. An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions."

Quote :

"A free market is a term that economists use to describe a market which is free from economic intervention and regulation by government, other than protection of property rights (i.e. no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system, and no governmental monopolies)."

8/7/2009 3:01:13 PM

Quote :

"minor restrictions."

winner winner chicken dinner!

Quote :

"without getting all retardo libertarian on us"

fail

[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 3:12 PM. Reason : .]

8/7/2009 3:11:12 PM

Right, but we're not talking about free markets. We're talking about fascism. But if you want to talk about cartelization, I'd be happy to discuss at length the effects of over-deregulation, which allows entire industries to be controlled and manipulated by a small handful of companies in collusion with one another.

[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 3:21 PM. Reason : added: "over-"]

8/7/2009 3:13:08 PM

^^

Quote :

"fail"

How is quoting the dictionary and wikipedia definition of the term "getting all retardo libertarian"?
(You fail, not me.)

8/7/2009 3:27:02 PM

^^^^^^, to think there is a free market in health insurance requires a very creative definition of the work "free." Here are just a few ways in which the market for health insurance is anything but free (by standard definitions of the term).

* Plans in the individual market are mandated to have a laundry-list of services, often defeating the purpose of insurance as a means of covering low-probability events (e.g. some states mandate in-vitro fertilization, acupuncture, pastoral counseling, chiropractic care, ect) This can significantly raise the cost of insurance given each added benefit must be paid for. Many mandates are not the wishes of the people, but those of lobby groups representing those providing the services.

* Consumers are forbidden from purchasing insurance plans across state lines, allowing insurers to entrench themselves from competition – leading to state-level oligopolies.

* The tax code favors benefits over cash compensation and therefore decreases the mobility of health insurance (e.g. when one becomes unemployed, they lose their health insurance). It also decreases choice given consumers are stuck with whatever plan their employer picked out for them. Additionally, it decreases innovation as insurers are providing one-sized-fits-all plans and catering them to HR departments rather than offering a wider range of tailored products to meet individual needs. Lastly, the tax benefit favors more luxurious plans with low deductibles (by the way, the wealthy get the most benefit from these subsidies). If you think this is a good thing, see the following from former NEC director, Keith Kennessey http://keithhennessey.com/2009/05/14/third-party-payment-in-health-care-part-2/.

* Medicare’s largess allows it to dictate, rather than negotiate, prices. There is a lot of evidence that this results in cost shifting, where providers negotiate higher rates with private insurers to make up the shortfall.

[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

8/7/2009 3:48:25 PM

Quote :

"This is the fucking MO of the democrat-socialists. Tamper with the market until it is no longer free. Let it then fuck up, because it's no longer free. Then scream to the dumb americans, "Hey look! The free market failed!"

The exact same argument can be made about the conservative agenda: underfunding and undermining public services so that they have to be privatized.

How about this...you give us healthcare (and enough money to fund it), and we'll give up on public schools.

8/7/2009 3:52:44 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinion/07krugman.html

Quote :

"There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands."

8/7/2009 3:55:03 PM

^haha. i swear half of these people are so terrified of the word "socialism" that they don't even bother to figure out what it means.



raaahhhh, rahhhh....socialism.....rahhh rahhhh that's kinda like communism. that's kinda like hitler. and that's bad.....rabble, rabble, rabble. noBAMA!

[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 4:07 PM. Reason : ]

8/7/2009 4:04:16 PM

Quote :

"The exact same argument can be made about the conservative agenda: underfunding and undermining public services so that they have to be privatized."

That's not the same argument, dear...
It's simply returning to the way things are supposed to be done -- they way they actually work.
You dirty fucking liberals are intentionally being deceptive. We're not. We openly oppose public services in favor of private ones. You, however, have to misrepresent what is and isn't a free market in order to slander the idea of private sector rule.

Quote :

"How about this...you give us healthcare (and enough money to fund it), and we'll give up on public schools."

If only that were possible, I might consider it. Perhaps if you also gave up your nanny-state bullshit, we'd have a deal.

(Why do I even respond to you?.... you're the bat-shit crazy apologizer for personal irresponsibility...)

8/7/2009 4:10:01 PM

DIRTY
FUCKING
LIBERALS

8/7/2009 4:17:07 PM

Dear Democrats: Please do what I elected you to do, and that is give me a public option. If you squander this opportunity just b/c a bunch of retards scream 'Hitler' at you, then I will have to vote you spineless pieces of shit out in 2010. Thanks in advance.

8/7/2009 4:21:05 PM

Quote :

"give me"

Quote :

"give me"

Quote :

"give me"

Quote :

"give me"

Quote :

"give me"

8/7/2009 4:30:46 PM

^ Cute, but the irony is you think your opinion matters. My party controls things. Whatever yours is doesn't.

I just wish my party would wake up and realize this.

8/7/2009 4:37:52 PM

Quote :

"fuck you got mine"

Quote :

"fuck you got mine"

Quote :

"fuck you got mine"

Quote :

"fuck you got mine"

Quote :

"fuck you got mine"

Quote :

"fuck you got mine"

Quote :

"fuck you got mine"

Libertarians are intellectual children who think that their "right" to personal wealth is more important than poors getting health care.

8/7/2009 4:44:10 PM

yeah. of course, if we actually listened to libertarians, then the poor would probably be able to afford healthcare. oh, shit!

8/7/2009 4:59:57 PM

^ OR the gears of capitalism would be oiled by the blood of the workers. One or the other.

8/7/2009 5:04:13 PM

lol, yeah. If we listened to the libertarians, poor people would get to purchase their $1,000 a pop medical treatments tax free! Yippee!

8/7/2009 5:05:38 PM

Quote :

"If we listened to the libertarians, poor people would get to purchase their $1,000 $20 a pop medical treatments tax free"

8/7/2009 5:07:14 PM

out of curiosity, how is not listening to libertarians working in the healthcare sector right now? Oh, right, it aint working too well

8/7/2009 5:09:26 PM

If we listened to libertarians, we could all pull shit out of our ass.

8/7/2009 5:14:01 PM

kinda like we are now

8/7/2009 5:15:00 PM

Do explain how libertarians intend to cut medical expenses by 98%.

8/7/2009 5:23:03 PM

no, do explain how trying to let the gov't run something will somehow do the exact opposite of what has happened with every other government takeover

8/7/2009 5:24:55 PM

Quote :

"Libertarians are intellectual children who think that their "right" to personal wealth is more important than poors getting health care"

I like economist, Arnold Kling's response to this assertion:

Quote :

" In the comments on my health care rationing post, I received many standard attacks as being cold-hearted and willing to deny health care to people who need it. From a libertarian perspective, your generosity is reflected in what you do with your own money, not in what you do with other people's money. If I give a lot of money to charity, then I am generous. If you give a smaller fraction of your money to charity, then you are less generous. But if you want to tax me in order to give my money to charity, that does not make you generous. I believe that some health care ought to be provided collectively. I would like to see people who are very poor or very sick receive health care. Are taxes required in order to get this result? Perhaps. But perhaps not. Think of government as a charity. From a libertarian perspective, it is a charity run by the Mafia, which will break your knuckles if you don't make your donations. It is also a badly mismanaged charity. It funnels lots of money into questionable causes, and even when the causes are good the programs that it funds tend to be very wasteful. I would like to see government have to compete with other charities on a level playing field. I often say that government should have had to fund the financial bailouts by holding a bake sale. In an environment with a level playing field, perhaps charities that provide health care to the very poor and the very sick would be better funded and more effective than the existing government programs. If that did not happen in practice, then I might support the Mafia-run charity that we call government. But being libertarian does not mean you have to have a cold heart. You can be a bleeding heart, but you show it by what you do, not what you advocate forcing other people to do. "

8/7/2009 5:39:54 PM

^
Exactly.
I donate, volunteer, and support charities.... with my money, not other's peoples money.

Quote :

"From a libertarian perspective, your generosity is reflected in what you do with your own money, not in what you do with other people's money. If I give a lot of money to charity, then I am generous. If you give a smaller fraction of your money to charity, then you are less generous. But if you want to tax me in order to give my money to charity, that does not make you generous. ... But being libertarian does not mean you have to have a cold heart. You can be a bleeding heart, but you show it by what you do, not what you advocate forcing other people to do"

The biggest tragic flaw of the democratic party is that it supports forced charity.

8/7/2009 6:01:33 PM

People have to be forced. Unless you like stepping over dead bodies on the street on your way to work. And BTW, we don't have any tax dollars to pay people to scoop up their rotting carcasses.

8/7/2009 6:23:51 PM

You have got to be an alias.

8/7/2009 6:25:16 PM

Quote :

"People have to be forced"

Wow.
Just.... wow.

8/7/2009 6:29:52 PM

^^^ I know. there sure is an amazing lack of charities in this country. Man, there are no homeless shelters. No animal shelters. No one feeds the hungry. it sure sucks, doesn;t it

8/7/2009 6:31:22 PM

Yes and they would pick up the hundred billion dollar-plus slack of the government benefits if they were ripped away.

8/7/2009 6:36:44 PM

Quote :

""There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands." "

A disingenuous question, and a logical fallacy at the same time. First, in order for one to collect their Social Security benefits (you know, the money promised them in exchange for the taxes they are forced to pay) they must also be enrolled in medicare.

http://www.medicarelawsuit.org/about_the_lawsuit.html

In addition the enrollment of these people in medicare in no way changes the validity (or lack thereof) of their arguments for or against government run healthcare anymore than an admonishment not to kill is made invalid if it comes from a murderer.

Quote :

"Do explain how libertarians intend to cut medical expenses by 98%."

Competition. See LASIK.

How does the government plan to do so?

Quote :

"Yes and they would pick up the hundred billion dollar-plus slack of the government benefits if they were ripped away."

I imagine they most certainly could. Imagine if instead of 3% of your income going first to the government, passing through a few middle men and then being used to underpay physicians if it went straight to your local hospital's charity fund. Now imagine that for every american across the country.

[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 6:45 PM. Reason : asdf]

8/7/2009 6:38:50 PM

^^^^^^, how do you explain how millions of european immigrants were able to prosper in America by starting out with little else than the clothes on their backs and without the forced, government charity you speak of? I have yet to see photos of these people dying in the streets during this period.

[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 6:43 PM. Reason : /]

8/7/2009 6:43:04 PM