[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

How can you complain about the media when not even you can get the facts straight?

I guess, if your assertion were true, I would ask how you can complain without contributing to any of the "facts" at all.

All I see are baseless, unsupported assertions.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And precisely how do you propose to JUST FIX IT? By passing a new trillion dollar entitlement when we can't fund the Entitlement State we currently have? Tinkerbell isn't going to be able to sprinkle fairy dust on many trillions of debt and make it disappear. What will disappear first is the value of the dollars we have in our bank, investment and retirement accounts, just like the Weimar Republic experienced.

I can't debate a person who completely fails to think critically.

But you know ort, on the bright side, you come off just as well reasoned as many of our Democratic Congressmen. Have you thought about a career in politics?

You are such a combative goober.

It's not my job to come up with a plan to fix it. It's my job to be a responsible hardworking citizen, and to raise my children right. I'm not an elected official. I elect my officials to come up with plans to fix it.

Did you notice that I didn't say that I had a plan? When did I claim to have a plan? What I want is for the government to regulate the health care in such a fashion that they are no longer allowed to completely screw us. That's my genius plan. Now the government needs to figure out the details.

Because this whole completely free market healthcare thing we have now is screwing us over. All I have to do is look out of my office building window and see the mammoth 18 story tower of complete excess that a healthcare company is building in the middle of the worst economic crisis in 80 years to know that something is wrong.

How could I even begin to formulate a plan? How can you? What do you do for a living that makes you the expert on how to fix something as bloated massive and ridiculously complicated as our nations health care system?

If you even think you have any idea how any of this works you are kidding yourself. You could dedicate your entire life to the study of America's health care system and you probably couldn't really come up with a plan. It's just too damn complicated. Stop pretending like you have all the answers. You know nothing. I know nothing. We all know nothing about any of this stuff. Everything we think we know is based on preconceived bias and speculation. Everyone thinks it works however we want it to work in our heads.

Here is what I claim to know...

I PAY WAY TO MUCH MONEY for health care.
The Health Insurance system we have now makes it very hard for many hardworking and honest people to get coverage.
I believe that basic healthcare should be a right afforded to all people. If education is a right, then healthcare is a right. It's just common human decency.

Here's what I don't know...

If any of the current plans will actually work.
If anyone in Washington is actually looking out for our best interests.
What will work.

And last but not least, I don't know what the **** your problem is. Why are you hostile?

[Uncle Skeleton]

So you're saying you want some government time-card jockey to do what you just stated is impossible for mere mortals like you and Big Mac to do? How do you know the government guy who's in charge of this (who by the definition you just gave, is incapable of actually doing it) won't just take a thinly-disguised bribe from an industry lobbyist and then turn in whatever the lobbyist gives him, without even reading it first? Then all you've done is give them (the industry) the tools of police, military and tax collection in addition to the monopolistic market forces they were already using to screw you.

[ort888]

I don't. I consider us completely ****ed at this point. The health care industry has it's tentacles in too deep for anything to ever happen.

Who do you think is going to fix it? Competition between the Insurance companies? That's working out so well for everyone.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ort888 

And last but not least, I don't know what the **** your problem is. Why are you hostile?

Because Obama won. He's turned up the hostility up a few notches ever since his prediction that Obama and the Democrats would lose failed to pass.

[ort888]

He's even been a douche to me on other boards. He just doesn't like me.

I think I might cry.

[The Final Dakar]

Half my friends (it feels like) work in the health industry. I had the misfortune of being stuck with a few while they were talking shop one night, and its a nightmare. Talking about billing insurance companies well in excess of cost because in general they will only pay a 1/3rd of what's quoted.

[Chongo]

I just discover my health plan will be subject to the 40% "Cadillac Plan" surcharge tax if passed. I'm not a CEO nor do I make anywhere near a six figure salary.

[BadKosh]

Removing the lawyers high fees might be a start. Torte reform. What would the cost be to subsidize the 37 million who don't have/can't afford health care within the current insurance system?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I guess, if your assertion were true, I would ask how you can complain without contributing to any of the "facts" at all.

I already contributed, but you failed to comprehend simple addition and subtraction. Here it is again: If you pay $25 out of your pay cheque every month for universal healthcare, but the premium for your private insurance is $1000 cheaper year over, you will be paying less than you are now even if you choose the private insurance while still paying for the universal healthcare.

That is the basic premise behind the healthcare bill. When everyone is insured, premiums go down.

However, the current bill as it exists has moved so far away from that basic premise. There is so much pork in that thing, they could grease the entire fleet of the Spanish armada.

I initially supported the bill, now I oppose it.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

How can you complain about the media when not even you can get the facts straight?

Do you have facts? Are you sure they are correct? How do you actually know they are correct?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I don't. I consider us completely ****ed at this point. The health care industry has it's tentacles in too deep for anything to ever happen.

Who do you think is going to fix it? Competition between the Insurance companies? That's working out so well for everyone.

I'll fix it right now: don't pay it. Who says you need health insurance? Sure insurance was a nice idea, but if the providers are all going to get greedy and ream you out the ass, well, they had their chance.

If you want them to feel market forces again, you don't need a colossally costly public option for them to compete against. All you need is to make them compete against the no-plan option. Pay your doctor in cash. You can talk him down from the mark-up he added on just because of insurance company shenanigans. You don't really lose anything, because if you run into a catastrophic health problem, your insurance company would have dropped you before paying out anyway.

The only reason insurance companies are able to name their price is because everyone has mysteriously bought in to the notion that we can't live without the service they provide. As with any product, if you're too afraid to walk away from the bargaining table, they're going to win and there's nothing you can do about it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Also, I can't believe more people aren't talking about this: if the government isn't willing to exercise the tools already enacted to combat this problem (anti-trust laws), then giving them more tools which they won't use is an exercise in futility.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I already contributed, but you failed to comprehend simple addition and subtraction. Here it is again: If you pay $25 out of your pay cheque every month for universal healthcare, but the premium for your private insurance is $1000 cheaper year over, you will be paying less than you are now even if you choose the private insurance while still paying for the universal healthcare.

That is the basic premise behind the healthcare bill. When everyone is insured, premiums go down.

However, the current bill as it exists has moved so far away from that basic premise. There is so much pork in that thing, they could grease the entire fleet of the Spanish armada.

I initially supported the bill, now I oppose it.

Fair enough.

I was opposed to it from the beginning because the "pork" you speak of is inevitably intertwined with anything the federal government touches.

Nonetheless, I retract my previous statement.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by uncle skeleton 

also, i can't believe more people aren't talking about this: If the government isn't willing to exercise the tools already enacted to combat this problem (anti-trust laws), then giving them more tools which they won't use is an exercise in futility.

: +1

[BadKosh]

The health care bill is shaping up to be as hideous as the Federal Tax regulations, and with as much contradictory BS as well.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Do you have facts? Are you sure they are correct? How do you actually know they are correct?

I'm fairly certain that 2.5 trillion is not five times larger than 4.3 trillion. Even if you factor in the $12.2 trillion the government has promised (but not yet payed out), it is still not five times larger.

My data is only as accurate as the numbers reported by the Department of the Treasury.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Because Obama won. He's turned up the hostility up a few notches ever since his prediction that Obama and the Democrats would lose failed to pass.

If you're talking about me, I don't think that's a particularly fair assessment. I am less angry over Obama than I was before the election because at least then there was a chance he wasn't going to win. I came to terms with his victory, and I haven't been that harsh in criticizing him, relatively speaking. I said that if Obama's health care vision as articulated in one of his speeches sounded really good, although I did not think it was possible for him to deliver on his promises. I was even praised by one of the left-wing members here for saying Sotomayor deserved to be confirmed. I still think his presidency will be hugely negative for the country and that he's sending us further and faster down the path toward national bankruptcy, but my critiques of the Obamanation are based on my objective outlook.

as for ort, I don't even know what he's talking about if he seriously thinks I antagonize elsewhere online - I don't know him from other forums, and besides, our interactions in the PWL are minimal.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Also, I can't believe more people aren't talking about this: if the government isn't willing to exercise the tools already enacted to combat this problem (anti-trust laws), then giving them more tools which they won't use is an exercise in futility.

Obama is threatening this now in response to the "industry's" ad campaigns against Obamacare. Perhaps if any meaningful reform comes to pass, this should be it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If you're talking about me, I don't think that's a particularly fair assessment. I am less angry over Obama than I was before the election because at least then there was a chance he wasn't going to win.

I find you rant more about entitlements and leftist things now than ever before. At the very least, everything seems to elicit more emotion from you.

I'd post an example, but the one I was thinking of got edited, which makes me notice you edit your posts a good amount.

[Big Mac]

I do despise almost all Entitlements (all except for the destitute on a limited basis). I think they're a cancer on the Republic that simultaneously make people dependent on big government handouts and threaten our economic survival and competitiveness. I disagreed strongly with Bush's expansion of Medicare, supported his aborted effort to reform Social Security, and I now vehemently oppose Obama's plan to expand them substantially. He's a believer in immense government and wealth redistribution - being perhaps the most left-wing president we've had in 50 years or maybe ever - so I will oppose him on those and similar issues with passion. I will give him credit where it is due. However, I don't think my opposition is really that much stronger or more passionate than what I exhibited against Gore or Kerry.

As for editing my posts a lot, I have to disagree with you there as well. I do often edit posts but usually to expand on them and not to back off on my position. Unless a mod edited the post you saw, I think you may be confusing me with someone else.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I disagreed strongly with Bush's expansion of Medicare, supported his aborted effort to reform Social Security, and vehemently oppose Obama's plan to expand them substantially. He's a believer in immense government and wealth redistribution - being perhaps the most left-wing president we've had in 50 years - so I will oppose him on those issues with passion. But I don't think my passion is really that much stronger than the passion I exhibited in opposition to Gore or Kerry.

With your level of conservatism, there should be virtually no one in government that pleases you. However the majority of the outrage you display seems to be limited to guys with (L) after their name (In retrospect, I don't know why I should be surprised you're just as partisan as everyone else in here). You've also become decidedly condescending about your "obvious" insight into how liberalism is ruining the country the past year.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

As for editing my posts a lot, I have to disagree with you there as well. I do often edit posts but usually to expand on them and not to back off on my position. Unless a mod edited the post you saw, I think you may be confusing me with someone else.

I've seen you reword some inflammatory statements before. I'm not saying this is a once a day thing. Just that I've noticed it more the past year or so.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm fairly certain that 2.5 trillion is not five times larger than 4.3 trillion. Even if you factor in the $12.2 trillion the government has promised (but not yet payed out), it is still not five times larger.

My data is only as accurate as the numbers reported by the Department of the Treasury.

The track record of the fedGov is that the programs always end up costing more than planned.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The track record of the fedGov is that the programs always end up costing more than planned.

Yes, but that doesn't validate what you previously said about the Obama Administration spending five times as much in a few months as Bush did in eight years.

[Chongo]

CBO vs WH estimates

[BadKosh]

MORE LIES:

Senate Finance ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is raising concerns that a Department of Health and Human Services Web site that urges visitors to send an e-mail to President Barack Obama praising his health care reform plan may violate rules against government-funded propaganda.

The Web page is accessed through a “state your support” button featured prominently on the HHS Web site and carries a disclaimer that the Web site is maintained by HHS.

In a letter sent to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Tuesday, Grassley warned that “any possible misuse of appropriated funds by the executive branch to engage in publicity or propaganda in support of an Administration priority is a matter that must be investigated and taken seriously,” noting that in 2005 Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) argued that “the use of official funds for similar activities were 'underhanded tactics' and that these tactics 'are not worthy of our great democracy.'”

LINK:

Grassley Warns HHS Web Site May Be ‘Propaganda’ - Roll Call

Why should we trust the current administration?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm fairly certain that 2.5 trillion is not five times larger than 4.3 trillion. Even if you factor in the $12.2 trillion the government has promised (but not yet payed out), it is still not five times larger.

My data is only as accurate as the numbers reported by the Department of the Treasury.

2.5 trillion times 5 is 12.5 trillion.

4.3 trillion + 12.2 trillion is 16.5 trillion.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Because Obama won. He's turned up the hostility up a few notches ever since his prediction that Obama and the Democrats would lose failed to pass.

You've got it wrong. He's acting bitchy because his testosterone levels dropped

[ort888]

Adding up the bills now, early estimates are that it will cost about $3000 out of pocket for a vaginal birth of a perfectly healthy baby. Nice way to start off. Thanks.

[BadKosh]

Here is why I don't buy any estimates the Obama admin gives for their programs.

American taxpayers doled out $24,000 per vehicle sold under the government's "Cash for Clunkers" auto program, according to a study released Wednesday.

The report, conducted by the automotive information firm Edmunds.com in Santa Monica, Calif., found that of the nearly 690,000 vehicles sold under the program, only 125,000 of the sales could be credited directly to the Cash-for-Clunkers program.

The rest of the sales would have happened anyway, despite the government program, the report said -- raising questions over its effectiveness.

The report also said that the average cost for a vehicle in August 2009 was only $26,915 -- minus an average cash rebate of $1,667.

Cash for Clunkers -- officially known as the Car Allowance Rebate System -- was a $3 billion program intended to provide economic incentives to Americans to purchase a new, more fuel efficient cars when they traded in an older, less efficient vehicle.

The program was touted for giving a boost to auto sales while increasing the sales of more fuel-efficient vehicles.

LINKY:
Report: Cash for Clunkers Auto Program Cost Taxpayers $24,000 Per Vehicle - Political News - FOXNews.com

[Chongo]

Depending on which state you live in, the Cash for Clunkers" rebate is treated as income.
snopes.com: Cash for Clunkers Incentives Are Taxable?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

MORE LIES:

Senate Finance ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is raising concerns that a Department of Health and Human Services Web site that urges visitors to send an e-mail to President Barack Obama praising his health care reform plan may violate rules against government-funded propaganda.

The Web page is accessed through a “state your support” button featured prominently on the HHS Web site and carries a disclaimer that the Web site is maintained by HHS.

In a letter sent to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Tuesday, Grassley warned that “any possible misuse of appropriated funds by the executive branch to engage in publicity or propaganda in support of an Administration priority is a matter that must be investigated and taken seriously,” noting that in 2005 Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) argued that “the use of official funds for similar activities were 'underhanded tactics' and that these tactics 'are not worthy of our great democracy.'”

LINK:

Grassley Warns HHS Web Site May Be ‘Propaganda’ - Roll Call

Why should we trust the current administration?

Do you have a link to the DHS site?

Nevermind:

http://www.healthreform.gov/support.html

...words fail me.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

but my critiques of the Obamanation are based on my objective outlook.

The scariest type of person is one that believes he or she is objective and perfectly logical. I believe it was G. K. Chesterton that said "The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. He is the man who has lost everything except his reason."

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

The scariest type of person is one that believes he or she is objective and perfectly logical. I believe it was G. K. Chesterton that said "The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. He is the man who has lost everything except his reason."

What does that even mean? You're only sane if your thoughts are completely irrational?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What does that even mean? You're only sane if your thoughts are completely irrational?

[BadKosh]

Pelosi must be embarrassed about the nearly 2000 pages of expensive crap they are forcing down our throats. She had special invitations, only give to the paid for press, and not even all of them were able to see it. The regular press, etc were excluded, and kept out of camera range to give the illusion of transparency. 2000 pages of crap that won't be read either.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Pelosi must be embarrassed about the nearly 2000 pages of expensive crap they are forcing down our throats. She had special invitations, only give to the paid for press, and not even all of them were able to see it. The regular press, etc were excluded, and kept out of camera range to give the illusion of transparency. 2000 pages of crap that won't be read either.

Capitol police blocking reporter.
YouTube - Speaker Pelosi Denies Public Access to Health Care Public Plan Announcement

[BadKosh]

Try this one.

YouTube - Public Unveiling of the Public Option Closed to the Public in a Public Place

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

2.5 trillion times 5 is 12.5 trillion.

4.3 trillion + 12.2 trillion is 16.5 trillion.

You're adding together the wrong numbers. Plus, why in hell are you multiplying 2.5 trillion by 5?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

2000 pages of crap that won't be read either.

Why not? Isn't that what we pay them to do?

[BadKosh]

The stock market is really endorsing the tax neutral, big savings tax plan the Dems have pooped out. I guess since the depression is over, we'll all have money to burn.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm fairly certain that 2.5 trillion is not five times larger than 4.3 trillion. Even if you factor in the $12.2 trillion the government has promised (but not yet payed out), it is still not five times larger.

What did you mean by this?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

What did you mean by this?

Obama has spent 2.5 trillion dollars so far, with a promise of a total of 12.2 trillion to be payed out.

Bush spent 4.3 trillion. 4.3 trillion times 5 is 21.5 trillion. Even if you add the 12.2 trillion to be payed out to the 2.5 trillion already spent, it is not larger than 21.5 trillion. Ergo, Obama has not spent 5 times as much as Bush.

To be clear, I'm as upset as anyone else in regards to the amount of money being handed out, I'm just pointing out that it is not 5 times as much as Bush.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Try this one.

YouTube - Public Unveiling of the Public Option Closed to the Public in a Public Place

They didn't want to name any names, but they were actually just trying to keep Joe Wilson out. He's such a buzzkill.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Why not? Isn't that what we pay them to do?

IMO, because it's 2,000 pages of legalese. The odds of finding reprehensible things increases with every page. It's a good thing the government claims they're not intending to take over the entire US health care system because at this rate they'd need almost 21,000 pages of healthcare bill.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

IMO, because it's 2,000 pages of legalese.

If you're complaining about legalese and you're a senator, you're in the wrong job.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The odds of finding reprehensible things increases with every page. It's a good thing the government claims they're not intending to take over the entire US health care system because at this rate they'd need almost 21,000 pages of healthcare bill.

There are 49 Republican senators, each with 2 or 3 legal aides (or more.) It's nothing. They're complaining because they actually have to do their job.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If you're complaining about legalese and you're a senator, you're in the wrong job. There are 49 Republican senators, each with 2 or 3 legal aides (or more.) It's nothing. They're complaining because they actually have to do their job.

This of course assumes that everyone's in the right job. I'd be more comfortable with the thought of senators reading and understanding lengthy bills if the thought hadn't just been proven naive by the stimulus bill. Writing this long-winded a document that proposes to address health insurance for 10% of the US population is ludicrous. Reading it is brutal. Hell the King James Bible is only 1,888 pages. The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire is 1,312 pages, War and Peace- 1,296. The US Constitution is only 150 pages for the love of Pete. Please don't misunderstand me, the length of this bill is the least of its caveats, but a good illustration of government efficiencies. If it appears bureaucratic as hell, it likely is.

It's not about having to do their jobs. It's about having to fight a whole bunch of muck and mire before they even get to the meat and potatoes of the "crisis".

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If you're complaining about legalese and you're a senator, you're in the wrong job.

If you're not complaining about legalese and you're a senator, you're in the wrong job.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Obama has spent 2.5 trillion dollars so far, with a promise of a total of 12.2 trillion to be payed out.

Bush spent 4.3 trillion. 4.3 trillion times 5 is 21.5 trillion. Even if you add the 12.2 trillion to be payed out to the 2.5 trillion already spent, it is not larger than 21.5 trillion. Ergo, Obama has not spent 5 times as much as Bush.

To be clear, I'm as upset as anyone else in regards to the amount of money being handed out, I'm just pointing out that it is not 5 times as much as Bush.

OK! I got it. Sorry, I wasn't thinking clearly... Obviously, I shouldn't respond to stuff after a few shots of the old Smirnoff 57.

[BadKosh]

I think the stock market tumbled more because the Pelosicare bill is such a piece of crap, and helps to drive the dollar down even more. I really don't think the conclusion of Consumer spending is correct. When it looked like the bill was stalled earlier this year we saw a little life in the markets.

Funny that the bill doesn't start taking effect until after the next presidential election, so it will either help Obama or get any conservative elected, and if enough con's get in because of the backlash from the current tax-n-spend admin, they can repeal the entire thing.