eh, taking a page out of the Democratic playbook...

GEORGE BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE!!!
IF STEM CELL RESEARCH WERE LEGAL, CHRISTOPHER REEVE WOULD BE ALIVE!!!
and let's not even get into the democratic rally at a guy's fucking FUNERAL

8/28/2010 12:37:50 PM

8/28/2010 1:00:56 PM

got the report back from the pathologist and it showed clear borders. Great news. We still have to meet the surgeon and oncologist, but it looks like they got it all.

9/3/2010 10:03:15 PM

good to hear

9/3/2010 10:19:49 PM

Good luck with that, man. Seriously. Tell her teh wolf webz are hoping for the best for her.

9/4/2010 12:10:33 AM

Thanks guys. We will be able to relax a little this weekend now. You guys enjoy the game, I hate im missing it, just have more important things to take care of here.

9/4/2010 9:06:50 AM

Pawlenty Rejects "Obamacare" Funding for Minnesota
August 31, 2010

Quote :

"Attacking President Obama's health care reforms from all angles, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty today issued an executive order directing state agencies to turn down any discretionary funding from the legislation."

Quote :

"The governor will step down after his second term ends in January. He won't be in office when most of the federal health care reforms are enacted in 2014 and cannot prevent his state from participating in the new federal programs at that point."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015239-503544.html

Symbolic--but many things in politics are.

[Edited on September 5, 2010 at 7:34 PM. Reason : Typical liberal response: BUT HE STILL TAKES MEDICAID MONEY, RIGHT? RAWR!!!1]

9/5/2010 7:33:02 PM

Awesome, I encourage any republican politician to turn down public funding.

9/5/2010 8:20:24 PM

^^

Quote :

"the potential Republican presidential candidate wrote in the executive order."

Glad to see he has declared his intent to run, at least symbolically.

9/5/2010 9:30:05 PM

Democrats run away from health care
Sept. 5, 2010

Quote :

"At least five of the 34 House Democrats who voted against their party's health care reform bill are highlighting their 'no' votes in ads back home. By contrast, party officials in Washington can't identify a single House member who's running an ad boasting of a 'yes' vote — despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favor of final passage in March. One Democratic strategist said it would be 'political malfeasance' to run such an ad now."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41777.html

I guess this legislation isn't so great after all.

[Edited on September 9, 2010 at 6:14 PM. Reason : 'CAUSE PEOPLE ARE STUPID! RAWR!!!1 ]

9/9/2010 6:13:38 PM

heard this on NPR this morning. Don't know much about the Ozark website, but it simply mirrors what was told on NPR

Quote :

" (Washington, DC) -- New numbers out today show the U.S. reform law will only boost healthcare's bottom line a smidge. The survey conducted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, found healthcare spending will increase by $6.3-percent a year through 2019. Before the reform, the projection was 6.1-percent a year. ..."

http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=324095

9/9/2010 6:20:51 PM

Like this one better, it factors in later spending:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/09/news/economy/cms_healthcare_spending_estimates/

9/9/2010 6:44:39 PM

Quote :

"The report said many employers will lower the value of their plans in 2018 to avoid the tax on high-cost insurance plans."

this is absolute bullshit. They use this to show that "costs will decrease," which is absurd. That's not "costs decreasing." That's people getting less than they would have if the law hadn't been passed!

9/9/2010 7:03:36 PM

employers providing healthcare isn't really the most cost effective system, put those costs on either the consumer or the government, businesses are good at paying employees cash for their work, the same way they pay cash for anything else, they're not as good at paying in some complicated health plan, costs just don't make it through.

9/9/2010 7:14:30 PM

i don't disagree. but to say that employers reducing coverage is a "decrease in costs" is wholly disingenuous. Surely you can agree with that.

9/9/2010 7:18:11 PM

It's accurate, but I think you're reading it for more than it says, and you may be correct that it is a bit misleading, but by definition, it is correct. I do agree with you and think that it should mention the decrease in benefits that would go along with the lower costs.

9/9/2010 7:25:04 PM

how am I "reading it for more than it says?" It is specifically listed as a way "spending will slow." Right there in the article! The next two sentences:

Quote :

"Ginsberg flagged the 2018 excise tax provision as the most significant factor to slow the cost increases. "But the report only factors in two years worth of impact [in health spending] from the tax," he said. The cost savings from the tax could extend beyond 2019."

Clearly they are touting this as a gain from the bill, which it absolutely is not!

Being right in definition is absolutely meaningless when the net effect is a REDUCTION in coverage.

9/9/2010 7:29:34 PM

Quote :

"how am I "reading it for more than it says?" It is specifically listed as a way "spending will slow." Right there in the article! The next two sentences:"

If employers buy less, spending will slow. Demand decreases, you know what happens to price.

Quote :

"Clearly they are touting this as a gain from the bill, which it absolutely is not!"

I don't know that's what CMS is trying to do.

Quote :

"Being right in definition is absolutely meaningless when the net effect is a REDUCTION in coverage."

I explained earlier why lower coverage provided by employers is good for the system as a whole.

9/9/2010 7:35:06 PM

Quote :

"I don't know that's what CMS is trying to do."

The article most certainly is trying to say that. And, given that the guy that was quoted was from that group, their president even, I'd say that's what they might be trying to say, too...

Quote :

"I explained earlier why lower coverage provided by employers is good for the system as a whole. "

Yes, but the intent of this bill never was to move us away from insurance.

Quote :

"If employers buy less, spending will slow. Demand decreases, you know what happens to price."

Or the cost just gets shifted elsewhere, something which is NOT accounted for in this survey. Or, people just go without, also possible...

9/10/2010 1:51:50 AM

Quote :

"The article most certainly is trying to say that."

Proof?

Quote :

"Yes, but the intent of this bill never was to move us away from insurance."

Then why will it reduce benefits?

Quote :

"Or the cost just gets shifted elsewhere, something which is NOT accounted for in this survey. Or, people just go without, also possible..."

It will be pushed somewhere where costs can be visible. Hopefully people will go without unnecessary things that have increased costs so much. This could *GASP* decrease costs.

9/10/2010 3:11:09 AM

Quote :

"Then why will it reduce benefits?"

maybe because it was a poorly thought out bill? Like plenty of people have been saying for a while now...

Quote :

"Proof?"

Already given. The mere quotes from the article and the lack of questioning such claims is proof of the article's intent.

9/10/2010 8:35:48 AM

Quote :

"maybe because it was a poorly thought out bill? Like plenty of people have been saying for a while now..."

The only way to fix this problem of employer provided healthcare is to REDUCE the amount of employer provided healthcare. How are you not understanding this.

Quote :

"Already given."

Ok. So no proof then.

9/10/2010 8:58:53 AM

Quote :

"The only way to fix this problem of employer provided healthcare is to REDUCE the amount of employer provided healthcare. How are you not understanding this."

Again, that was NEVER the intent of the bill. You know it. I know it. They know it. If the intent was to reduce employer-provided healthcare, then why the fuck did they mandate that employers provide health insurance? Seems like a bass-ackwards way of going about it, don't you think?

BTW, what do you want for proof? A sworn affidavit from the author? He wrote the fucking article! He's fucking responsible for its content. And he's the guy who didn't question such an asinine assertion.

9/10/2010 9:42:39 AM

Quote :

"Again, that was NEVER the intent of the bill. "

It doesn't matter what you think the intention of the bill is, it's working the way it was intented to work.

Quote :

"A sworn affidavit from the author?"

We're talking about the study.

9/10/2010 10:16:11 AM

Quote :

"We're talking about the study."

Would that be why I said the article was certainly trying to say this was a gain, to which you asked for proof. Nice try.

Quote :

"It doesn't matter what you think the intention of the bill is, it's working the way it was intented to work."

So, you are telling me that in order to get away from the employer-sponsored model we are going to mandate more use of the employer-sponsored model? That's like trying to help a drowning victim by throwing him back into the water unconscious. The only way that would make sense is if they were intentionally trying to destroy the entire private insurance market so as to make the people clamour for a state-run system. Again, NOT something that was explicitly stated as an intent.

9/10/2010 10:20:00 AM

Quote :

"Would that be why I said the article was certainly trying to say this was a gain"

I didn't notice when you slipped that in, I thought we were still talking about the study, but regardless, they didn't say it was a benefit, they merely stated facts.

Quote :

"So, you are telling me that in order to get away from the employer-sponsored model we are going to mandate more use of the employer-sponsored model?"

You're really trying your best not to understand this. I'm not going to forcefeed how the bill works down your throat. You can read the article again and try to understand why this will decrease healthcare spending.

9/10/2010 11:29:36 AM

so, you are going back to the previous argument, then. That the definition is all that matters. yaaay, we can go in circles and not actually defend a thing!

9/10/2010 11:35:33 AM

What is this I don't even?

What are you talking about?

9/10/2010 1:23:27 PM

the problem with employer based insurance is that it decreases competition in insurance. No competition = bad service high costs. moving to government insurance doesn't fix that.

And none of that matters in the slightest because insurance is the absolute worst way to manage healthcare costs.

9/10/2010 1:37:58 PM

I suspect high deductible insurance is the way to manage healthcare, the exact kind of insurance the overhaul is going to ban.

9/10/2010 1:55:29 PM

Kris, I'm sorry, but you're absolutely full of shit. The purpose of the bill was never to reduce employer provided insurance. Throughout the debate I was saying that third party was the problem, resulting from the tax code, but this issue was not dealt with in the bill. In fact, the problem was exacerbated by the legislation.

Just go back and read the damn thread.

9/10/2010 2:08:49 PM

i would ban all healthcare insurance. its fucking stupid and fucks up the cost of care. Mandate price controls or let the market handle service pricing and then add on medical cost allowances to welfare. Make all healthcare costs tax deductable.

9/10/2010 2:09:29 PM

rest of page tl;dr, but ...

Quote :

"I suspect high deductible insurance is the way to manage healthcare, the exact kind of insurance the overhaul is going to ban."

you are correct, sir!

the only (maybe) feasible option for health insurance/health care in america is a drastic change in payment structure. people need much more "skin in the game". direct payments, if widescale and from an hsa for example, could also hugely limit administrative burdens for practices. the combination of tax-free hsa's and full coverage above a high spending limit, say 10K/year, has been successful in indiana.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704231304575091600470293066.html

unfortunately, i expect hhs to find a lawyerly way to gain control of all health insurance options, severely limiting possibilities to within the range government desires.

[Edited on September 11, 2010 at 9:21 AM. Reason : ]

9/11/2010 9:20:28 AM

How is it that some kids on a college message board can easily recognize the problems within the system, but the alleged "policy experts" in Washington can't? Are they really oblivious? Do they just not want to fix the problems? Will it not contribute enough to their re-election? Why is Congress only willing to deal with symptoms, and never the root cause?

9/11/2010 10:20:02 AM

Quote :

"The purpose of the bill was never to reduce employer provided insurance."

Sure, it will provide an alternative. And regardless of what you think it's purpose is, that's what it's doing.

Quote :

"How is it that some kids on a college message board can easily recognize the problems within the system, but the alleged "policy experts" in Washington can't? Are they really oblivious? Do they just not want to fix the problems? Will it not contribute enough to their re-election? Why is Congress only willing to deal with symptoms, and never the root cause?"

This is a good question, I really wish you'd ask yourself things like this more often. I'll give you my answers. It's harder than it looks. Things like this are very complicated and fairly delicate and have to be dealt with softly and precisely.

9/11/2010 10:48:48 AM

Quote :

"You can read the article again and try to understand why this will decrease healthcare spending."

We could also drop nukes in the major US cities and that would reduce healthcare spending. Doesn't mean it's a good fucking idea

9/12/2010 8:45:09 PM

You can speak in hyperboles if you want, but this doesn't kill people, thus it will redirect healthcare spending.

9/12/2010 8:47:03 PM

Insurance company bailout.

9/12/2010 9:49:11 PM

Quote :

"I explained earlier why lower coverage provided by employers is good for the system as a whole."

Fining employers that don't offer minimum coverage is an odd way to reduce coverage provided by employers...

9/13/2010 1:46:23 AM

Not if the fine is cheaper than your current coverage.

9/13/2010 11:15:35 AM

But if the goal is to eliminate employer provided coverage, as you say, why have a fine at all? Especially $2,000 per employee per year. Some insurance can be had for less than that per year, nevermind the cost to your employees of securing their own insurance with post-tax income plus the fine.

9/13/2010 1:03:11 PM

Quote :

"But if the goal is to eliminate employer provided coverage, as you say, why have a fine at all? "

I didn't say it was a goal, only that this study is showing it to be a result.

9/13/2010 1:27:47 PM

Quote :

""How is it that some kids on a college message board can easily recognize the problems within the system, but the alleged "policy experts" in Washington can't? Are they really oblivious? Do they just not want to fix the problems? Will it not contribute enough to their re-election? Why is Congress only willing to deal with symptoms, and never the root cause?""

Congress (well, Democrats) has to sell its ideas to Americans; "Kids" on a college message boad don't.

9/13/2010 1:52:51 PM

Woops, ANOTHER fuck up in the healthcare bill. Apparently, small businesses now have to send a 1099 to COSTCO when they buy stuff from them. What a great fucking idea!

http://www.ajc.com/business/small-business-owners-fear-612559.html

Quote :

"Small-business owners fear 1099 paperwork ‘burdens' in health law By David Markiewicz The Atlanta Journal-Constitution For her Norcross business, Access Computers Inc., Pat Kaemmerling regularly shops for office supplies at Costco, buying everything from copy paper, pens and three-ring binders to toilet paper and garbage bags. Her purchases at the store add up to more than $600 a year, and that, she said, is going to be a real problem for her unless something changes in Washington. The problem is a provision in the new federal health care law that as of 2012 will require businesses to file 1099 tax forms for purchases of goods and services of more than $600 from any single vendor during the year. Kaemmerling and other small-business owners say if the law goes into effect, it will cost them time, money or both. The change is a major expansion of current reporting requirements. The government's goal is to unearth billions of dollars in tax revenue that might otherwise go unpaid by vendors, and use the money to help cover part of the cost of the health care plan. A concerted effort by small businesses to repeal the provision is set to hit Congress on Tuesday. The U.S. Senate is scheduled to consider two amendments. One would eliminate the 1099 requirement. The other would modify it, exempting businesses with fewer than 25 workers, raising the reporting threshold to purchases above $5,000, and excluding purchases made with a credit card. U.S. Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia are co-sponsors of the legislation to repeal. Kaemmerling said she will have to set up a separate account for each vendor and do the work herself, which would be time-consuming, or outsource it to an accountant, which would prove costly. "It's one more nail in the coffin," said Kaemmerling, who has owned the computer supplies and services business with her husband, David, for 21 years. "All the government does is make our jobs more difficult with all their rules and restrictions." The Kaemmerlings’ company has eight employees. Particularly troubling, she said, is that government leaders often say small-business development is the key to job creation and the linchpin in an economic turnaround. But regulations like the 1099 requirement make it that much harder to prosper and add workers, small-business owners and advocates said. "What we are hearing from our members is that the 1099 [requirement] creates tremendous new paperwork compliance burdens," said David Raynor, Georgia state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents 300,000 businesses nationally and 9,000 in Georgia. About 85 percent of those members, he said, have 25 employees or fewer, and those companies stand to be the most affected by the requirement because they can't afford the staffing to handle the reporting in-house. Just how much the additional tax work would cost depends on the size of the business and its number of vendors, Raynor said. David Martinez, co-owner of Bartow Powersports, a motorcycle dealership in Cartersville, has done some estimating of his potential costs. He now pays $300 monthly for outsourced accounting services to make sure there are no mistakes in his books that could cost him penalties and interest. He figures that sum will increase to about $1,000 a month if the new requirements stick. That's the kind of extra cost that can keep a $2 million-in-sales-a-year business like his from growing. As it is, he said, his industry has been in a recession for years, margins are thin, and he's not taking a paycheck himself. The company has eight employees. Business owners see the additional reporting requirement as largely redundant. Kaemmerling said that a vendor such as Costco records all its sales, which are reported as income. She said her company makes its purchases with an American Express card and that she records those in her books. "Then I'm done with it." If the new 1099 rule isn't changed, she added, that won't be the case."

there was an attempt to strip this provision from the bill today. Not surprisingly, politics reared its ugly head and defeated the attempts.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/the_senate_fails_small_busines.html

Quote :

"But here's the kicker: The votes were almost perfectly opposite. Look at the roll call for the Nelson amendment and the roll call for the Johanns amendment. Nelson's 56 ayes included zero Republicans. Johanns's 46 ayes included seven Democrats. So though both amendments were designed to do the same thing, there was very little overlap among their supporters. Most Democrats weren't willing to weaken the individual mandate or our public health infrastructure. No Republicans were willing to cut oil and gas subsidies to free small-business owners from a law they describe as ruinous. "

9/14/2010 7:32:33 PM

Quote :

"I didn't say it was a goal, only that this study is showing it to be a result."

Actually, you did.

Quote :

"The only way to fix this problem of employer provided healthcare is to REDUCE the amount of employer provided healthcare. How are you not understanding this. ... It doesn't matter what you think the intention of the bill is, it's working the way it was intented to work."

[Edited on September 14, 2010 at 9:22 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/14/2010 9:21:49 PM

oh, we're getting into semantics again.

9/14/2010 9:23:06 PM

Democrat Joins Health Care Repeal Effort
September 16, 2010

Quote :

"Democratic Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi is one of 172 congressmen who have signed [the petition of Rep. Steve King (R-Ohio)] for an up-or-down vote on King's bill to repeal the reforms. 'Adding Rep. Taylor to the discharge petition is a significant step towards repealing Obamacare,' said King said in a statement. 'Rep. Taylor is the first Democrat to sign the discharge petition, and it is my hope that his decision will pave the way for other Democrats who support repeal to break ranks with Speaker Pelosi and President Obama.' Taylor, a Blue Dog Democrat, was one of the 34 Democrats in the House to vote against the health care overhaul."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016680-503544.html

9/16/2010 4:34:04 PM

Jimmy Carter Blames Ted Kennedy for Health Care Reform Delays
Sept. 17, 2010

Quote :

"If not for the political maneuvering and delaying tactics of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Americans would have had comprehensive health care coverage decades ago, says Jimmy Carter in an interview with CBS' '60 Minutes.' The former president tells correspondent Lesley Stahl that Kennedy acted out of a political grudge to kill a health care bill pushed by Carter. 'The fact is that we would have had comprehensive health care now, had it not been for Ted Kennedy's deliberately blocking the legislation that I proposed,' Carter says. 'It was his fault. Ted Kennedy killed the bill.'"

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/16/jimmy-carter-blames-ted-kennedy-for-health-care-reform-delays/

9/21/2010 12:13:48 PM

as bad as O is, he still has a ways to go to reach Carter levels.

9/21/2010 12:26:32 PM

give it a rest jimmy. the guy is dead. you look like the one with a grudge. petty.

9/21/2010 4:41:44 PM