What’s a ‘heath’ plan? Is Uncle Warren laughing at the typo?
What’s holding Uncle Warren back from paying 100% of his income to the US Treasury? Answer: Republicans are in control and he’d hate for them to get any more of his money to spend on things he doesn’t like, such as pushing through the XL pipeline, which takes oil transport revenue away from his railroad biz. Also, Republicans will spend tax revenues on things Uncle Warren doesn’t like, such as rebuilding the mil in lieu of spending money to support NPR, PP, NATO, etc. Finally, he loathes the idea of building a WALL to shut off the supply of cheap labor to help the companies whose stock he owns, and for more ILLEGALLY CAST Democrat votes.
Bottom line: Uncle Warren is a typical Socialist hypocrite masquerading as a capitalist.
Great reply! Your BOTs are now ineffective due to new IJ software. Frustrated and unable to respond? Ask George Soros for help with new super-BOTs to defeat the IP checkers.
I love how you mock UW for his reply and then turnaround and literally reply to my comments, “durrrrr”. The hypocrisy from you continues to impress! Keep up the act, Polar! Your performance is improving! Also, I believe Yates testifies today. Be excited!!!! =)
You have NOTHING to contribute to the comments on the article. You are a troll.
May 9, 2017 at 8:59 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
7
5
PolarBeaRepeal,
It is so incredibly ironic that you made those last 2 posts. That is exactly how most of us feel about you and your posts.
May 9, 2017 at 9:13 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
Yogi – you have railed on others for this, so I would ask the same of you….stay on topic. This article is about the AHCA not something that happened at the airport. Try to stay on topic.
May 9, 2017 at 9:20 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
11
RE-POSTED:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 7
Thumb down 17
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Great reply! Your BOTs are now ineffective due to new IJ software. Frustrated and unable to respond? Ask George Soros for help with new super-BOTs to defeat the IP checkers.
Reply
You are calling the most successful capitalist in the country a socialist. You are claim the man who has done better in this economy than 99% of the country, doesn’t understand economics as well as you do. Why don’t you give batting tips to Mike Trout while you’re at it. “PhD scientists don’t understand science” and now “successful, wealthy businessmen don’t understand economics and capitalism, except Trump.” Could you be more transparent? I don’t drink the liberal kool aid by any means, but when Jeff Gordon tells me to get my brakes checked, I’m gonna hear him out.
Instead of spouting empty criticism, with hyperbolic statements offered to support it, why not state why B & M are smart guys but didn’t see the TrumPresidency and invest in the XL pipeline instead of doubling down on their RR holdings?
Show us all how smart you are by pointing out the implication of a 50.1% discount factor in relation to the AIG portfolio they took on. What is their implied rate of return? Duration of the loss portfolio? Define duration; i.e. McAuley duration. Explain it’s significance to the change in the White House in Janaury 2017. Then explain why the implied discount factor is slightly larger than 50%. Ready, steady, …. GO!
There are more documented cases of illegal votes for Dumb Donnie Doll Hands than there were for the Democratic candidate. And, if you want to stop illegal immigration, try punishing the employers who hire illegals. A strict and stiff penalty, that’s how you really solve for that issue.
Polar, I wonder where Andrew is today, vacation? Thought the multi moniker guys were not able to hide the comments anymore. They must do a lot of changing on monikers to hide the comments of a Conservative with an opinion. They are the children who fall down and have a tantrum.
They use Tor and other IP masking sites to do multi-votes. Slower than their outlawed BOTs, but they have no work to do all day so it doesn’t much matter. Paid trolling here is wasted Soros money.
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 2
Thumb down 12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
REPOSTED:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 13
Thumb down 23
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
What’s a ‘heath’ plan? Is Uncle Warren laughing at the typo?
What’s holding Uncle Warren back from paying 100% of his income to the US Treasury? Answer: Republicans are in control and he’d hate for them to get any more of his money to spend on things he doesn’t like, such as pushing through the XL pipeline, which takes oil transport revenue away from his railroad biz. Also, Republicans will spend tax revenues on things Uncle Warren doesn’t like, such as rebuilding the mil in lieu of spending money to support NPR, PP, NATO, etc. Finally, he loathes the idea of building a WALL to shut off the supply of cheap labor to help the companies whose stock he owns, and for more ILLEGALLY CAST Democrat votes.
Bottom line: Uncle Warren is a typical Socialist hypocrite masquerading as a capitalist.
Reply
Reply
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 13
Thumb down 23
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
What’s a ‘heath’ plan? Is Uncle Warren laughing at the typo?
What’s holding Uncle Warren back from paying 100% of his income to the US Treasury? Answer: Republicans are in control and he’d hate for them to get any more of his money to spend on things he doesn’t like, such as pushing through the XL pipeline, which takes oil transport revenue away from his railroad biz. Also, Republicans will spend tax revenues on things Uncle Warren doesn’t like, such as rebuilding the mil in lieu of spending money to support NPR, PP, NATO, etc. Finally, he loathes the idea of building a WALL to shut off the supply of cheap labor to help the companies whose stock he owns, and for more ILLEGALLY CAST Democrat votes.
Bottom line: Uncle Warren is a typical Socialist hypocrite masquerading as a capitalist.
Reply
Yes, a “tax cut” (not really, but to avoid your moronic rants I’ll pretend) to middle income people, with a massive increase in costs combined with less coverage. And for thousands of unlucky people, death.
The Republicans are taking away health care from millions, perhaps BILLIONS of Americans. OK, maybe only tens of millions. And tens of thousands of millionaires will be enriched by BILLIONS.
…I wish Huff and Puff POSt would correct their numeric details in their posted talking points before I copy and paste them everywhere and make it look like I don’t know what the facts are about the matter.
RE: rising Health Care costs in the US: it is due to the waste and fraud in Medicare & Medicaid, and the influx of ILLEGAL Immigrants using ERs as free clinics, thus costs charged back to those who pay, without averaging them over a broader base of payers.
Disprove my statement. It is a well-known fact, and has been discussed for DECADES by many people. The fraud & waste costs infused in the HI system by Medicare/ Medicaid are included in /covered by the charge-backs and fees by medical care providers.
Tell us the Govt Health Care / Insurance Welfare system is perfect and without fraud and waste. I’ll wait. We’ll all wait for your ‘joke’.
Your responses lately have been largely confined to baseless, vile, rude, vindictive judgements, rather than rebuttals or factual statements. Your BOTs can no longer censor Conservative viewpoints as they did when dozens of down votes appeared within hours of a conservative view posting. Now, maybe a dozen down votes appear a day after a conservative view is posted. You lose.
Try participating on another comment board with lower information participants.
Post again when you sober up. It MAY be more intelligible than that ^. But I’m not betting on it.
May 9, 2017 at 8:56 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
9
ANOTHER Straw Man Argument leading down a rabbit hole I shall not enter…
Please show everyone reading this thread where I said ‘all’.
Ready, steady, …GO!
May 9, 2017 at 9:28 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
8
RE-POSTING of “moronic to the core” post …
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 6
Thumb down 17
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
RE: rising Health Care costs in the US: it is due to the waste and fraud in Medicare & Medicaid, and the influx of ILLEGAL Immigrants using ERs as free clinics, thus costs charged back to those who pay, without averaging them over a broader base of payers.
Reply
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 6
Thumb down 16
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Disprove my statement. It is a well-known fact, and has been discussed for DECADES by many people. The fraud & waste costs infused in the HI system by Medicare/ Medicaid are included in /covered by the charge-backs and fees by medical care providers.
Tell us the Govt Health Care / Insurance Welfare system is perfect and without fraud and waste. I’ll wait. We’ll all wait for your ‘joke’.
Your responses lately have been largely confined to baseless, vile, rude, vindictive judgements, rather than rebuttals or factual statements. Your BOTs can no longer censor Conservative viewpoints as they did when dozens of down votes appeared within hours of a conservative view posting. Now, maybe a dozen down votes appear a day after a conservative view is posted. You lose.
Try participating on another comment board with lower informati
Re-posted because Cowardly UW cannot reply so censorship was used:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 6
Thumb down 17
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Disprove my statement. It is a well-known fact, and has been discussed for DECADES by many people. The fraud & waste costs infused in the HI system by Medicare/ Medicaid are included in /covered by the charge-backs and fees by medical care providers.
Tell us the Govt Health Care / Insurance Welfare system is perfect and without fraud and waste. I’ll wait. We’ll all wait for your ‘joke’.
Your responses lately have been largely confined to baseless, vile, rude, vindictive judgements, rather than rebuttals or factual statements. Your BOTs can no longer censor Conservative viewpoints as they did when dozens of down votes appeared within hours of a conservative view posting. Now, maybe a dozen down votes appear a day after a conservative view is posted. You lose.
Try participating on another comment board with lower information participants.
Reply
Re-posted because Cowardly UW cannot reply, so censorship was used.
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 6
Thumb down 18
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
RE: rising Health Care costs in the US: it is due to the waste and fraud in Medicare & Medicaid, and the influx of ILLEGAL Immigrants using ERs as free clinics, thus costs charged back to those who pay, without averaging them over a broader base of payers.
Reply
The above isn’t nonsense, and now that I have seen many of my posts deleted, even one where I simply thanked polar for thanking me, and told him to feel free to use my info, and that I had a dream of people being unified and debating openly, you can see it isn’t silly for conservatives to think they need to repost.
What he said above is something you disagree with. Why not make the case against it? Put him in his place.
I don’t believe Polar has the available resources to prove his point. If you did this, you would win the debate with him. But instead, you said the above…
On this one, I would prefer you shut him down with facts until he backs up his argument.
May 12, 2017 at 7:34 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
If you didn’t catch by my sly wording, I know he can’t prove himself here, and there’s an obvious reason behind that, which shows my position.
Medicare fraud can’t drive up the cost of basic health care. I let him know how medicare and Medicaid can, in certain scenarios, giving an example of over regulation of the health industry, combined with caps or over payment by a medicare/Medicaid policy, or lower than needed payments vs supply and demand, which then would be restricted, and showed how LASIK was mucked up by this, but I did not support his narrative. Giving him that information was not by accident. It was intentional.
Can you guess the intent, and based on what I just told you above to do, where my position is?
May 17, 2017 at 5:07 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Polar, the reason you get all the down votes is that you hit these trolls in the gut and they have nothing and I mean nothing for rebuttal except for insults. That is how Progressives think and free speech is not free speech unless you spout the Progressive line. It is a mental disease by the way. Keep up the good work. You can handle them.
It may be a gross oversimplification, but it is the truth. Basically, anyone who comes to the ER must be treated without regard to their ability to pay. Since they do not have insurance, the hospitals bill it back through Medicaid.
So how much of a drain are illegal immigrants on our society, especially in health care costs? BILLIONS!!
Let’s think about this. All you single payer fans want to have healthcare like the VA and our Veterans? They wait for 6 months an appointment? Then, it is a “checkup” from an overworked and underpaid doctor?
WhenEVER the govt gets involved, the costs skyrocket and the efficiency is non-existent. We can see that just looking at any historical govt work?
NObody cares when they get to the govt level. IT is OPM. Other people’s money.
I want COMPETITION. I do NOT want to pay for everyone else’s healthcare like maternity for the illegal alien pumping out one child per year so she gets a raise from some govt dept each year.
I am tired of the Obama way of thinking.
Control healthcare, (Obamacare) FOOD (food stamps) and all the other Saul Alinsky ways of thinking.
Socialism does not work. We have seen enough failed experiments from other countries.
WHY would it work better now and HERE? It will not.
America was founded on HARD work and large reward for that work.
When Obama pays people more to stay home than they can make due to low or no skills, there SHOULD be a tax break for the wealthy.
The WEALTHY ARE THE ONLY ONES PAYING ANY TAXES!!!
Based on your post, you have little or no understanding of how Single Payer works. The VA is, as are Medicaid and Medicare, government administered health care, whereas Single Payer actually eliminates that.
Single Payer is NOT socialized medicine. You can equate it to defense and infrastructure contractors.
I hope this helps.
May 9, 2017 at 9:31 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
8
No, Ron, his post is spot on. YOU are the clueless one who is parsing words and defining things to fit your agenda.
Government control need not be called ‘Single Payer’, but it is a situation where a Single entity controls Health Care decisions.
Straw Man arguments will not be overlooked and dismissed without you being called out for such tactics.
May 9, 2017 at 10:09 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
PBR – please post the actual definition you use when talking about ‘Single Payer’ and also post which lexicon you used to determine the meaning of that phrase. In your lexicon, is a chickpea both a chick and a pea and is Rhode Island an island?
May 9, 2017 at 11:42 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
6
Enjoy your journey down a rabbit hole.
I’m not parsing words…. I explained my point about GOVT CONTROL without using the SP trick / Straw Man argument.
May 9, 2017 at 1:28 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Okie dokey artichokey. Good talk Yogi.
May 12, 2017 at 8:22 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
@Confused:
HERE is the ONLY “definition” that Libitterals will accept as ‘true’; i.e. from a Libbiteral controlled source:
Read it and compare it to what people are discussing, then make all the comments you want about side issues. But don’t expect to drag the conversation down your meaningless rabbit holes to divert attention from Conservative viewpoints that are edifying people to the LIES of the proponents of the ACA, such as Jonathan ‘Mr. Hubris’ Gruber, Vallerie Jarret, Nancy Pelosi Galore, and Ezekiel ‘In-Denial’ Emmanuel.
May 12, 2017 at 7:28 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Polar,
I really believe you should stop the use of slang words based on leftist ideology.
Just say liberals and what they believe. It’s no different than republicons, neo cons, etc.
May 8, 2017 at 12:09 pm
SWFL Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27
0
I thought rising costs were due to people living longer, treating diseases & medical conditions that were once not treatable, the development of new medical technologies that, while effective, are more costly, and the development (and use) of new pharmaceuticals that treat previously untreatable conditions. And lastly, our economy and industries, including the medical industry, operate in a market based system that allows for profits when demand is high, extraordinary innovation occurs, and a specific skill set is required to administer services. Which pretty much describes the medical industry doesn’t it?
Spot on, SWFL. But, the real reasons costs are increasing as you have noted above do not fit the Faux News narrative. They don’t sound as good as the 8 second soundbite coming from Hannity blaming brown people and liberals.
SWFL Agent – There are several contributors to the rising health care costs. Lack of competition, litigation and insurance costs, fraud, Medicaid supplements for illegal aliens, etc. Your list are also contributors, but not the “drivers”.
Some of the increases are due to what you listed. They would exist in completely private insurance markets. The WASTE and FRAUD exists in private markets, but NO WHERE near the degree it is in government controlled health care; e.g. The VA.
I’m waiting to read the Libitteral trolls ingenious replies such as “No it’s not, you {insult of choice for the day}!”
As someone who actually uses the VA healthcare system, I can say with actual experience that the VA system is the best. Sure, there are problems, but the private sector is much worse. You are much more likely to die using the private sector. Furthermore, one of the main problems with the VA is that the Republicans are constantly trying to sabbotage it, with the hopes of eventually funneling the money into the pockets of their rich donors.
Neither side of this argument is offering the perfect solution or a compelling argument as to why their solution is the better choice. Senators and Congressmen have no skin in this game. Their decisions won’t affect them or their immediate families. I’m surprised that everyone is ok with them enjoying a “platinum healthcare plan” the we all pay for. They have no worries about preexisting conditions, no deductibles, no co-pays. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I pay a massive amount for healthcare with high deductibles, co-pays etc. Whatever plan is implemented, all Senators and Congressmen should be required to be on that plan that they choose for the rest of the country. No exception.
There is no perfect plan. However, Single Payer, where the government’s sole responsibility is to collect premiums, in the form of taxes, then pay the private insurance administrators will solve nearly all of the issues with health care/insurance. Everyone, including all politicians, are on the same plan.
As discussed in previous posts, adding the govt as a middle man does nothing but increase expenses to a system that is already burdened. If necessary, let the govt buy a group policy for everyone under the poverty line to replace Medicaid. They can be a single payer for that group of people, but allow individuals and employers purchase directly from the carriers.
I totally agree that the politicians should be on the same healthcare plan or be required to purchase from the standard market like the common citizen.
I do not disagree that the government runs efficiently. I have also never stated that Single Payer is perfect. However, the free market has had decades to come up with a solution and has failed, as has the PPACA. We need to try something new.
You said, “I totally agree that the politicians should be on the same healthcare plan or be required to purchase from the standard market like the common citizen.” How would you accomplish this in the free market? The politicians would trade their votes for free or significantly discounted health care, giving health care companies huge breaks and pushing additional costs onto the taxpayers.
I believe in the free market for nearly all industries. However, there are some that cannot function within the free market such as the military, police, schools, infrastructure and health care because nearly every citizens needs and/or utilizes these.
There ARE much better proposals, which are slowly surfacing as Congressional factions force them to be adopted in legislation. Witness the failed first attempt by Paul Ryano and the subsequent changes that narrowly passed last week.
Now, ponder how that bill will change when smarter Senators force adoption of more free market solutions and complete abandonment of Socialist policies currently embedded in Ryano Care.
May 9, 2017 at 10:49 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
I’m glad there are much better Republican proposals out there than the one they voted on! Do you think they’ll be released in the next 7 years?
May 9, 2017 at 11:13 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Ron,
The free market has had their hands tied with the state restrictions and with the tort laws. Those two items must be fixed for any real competition to surface. Additional underwriting needs to also take place.
The media and democrats are portraying that people with pre-existing conditions are going to have to pay more money. Duh!! Why should healthcare be any different than any other insurance? If you are greater risk or have more exposure to loss, you should expect to pay more for coverage or have higher deductibles.
That said, this is where the marketplace should be able to create a risk pool that provides excess coverage over a stated limit. Doing so would potentially allow the “pre-existing condition” people the ability to pay a reasonable cost for normal healthcare issues and purchase catastrophic care. There are ways for the free market to resolve most of these issues without govt intervention.
May 9, 2017 at 12:07 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
integrity matters,
This will lead to far more people going without health insurance who need it the most. They will then go to the emergency room for acute care, have far more expensive treatments compared to preventative or managed care, and drive up costs; or they will just choose to die.
You asked, “Why should healthcare be any different than any other insurance?” Answer: 1. It is the only insurance nearly everyone will need/use regardless of life choices. 2. It is also the only exposure for which you can receive benefits without paying the premiums up front. 3. Most importantly, we are talking about people lives, not just property.
If you can isolate those who have pre-existing conditions solely because of their own choices, then charge them more. I am fine with that. What I do have a problem with, is charging those with conditions that were inherited or brought upon by things outside of their control significantly more to add to their suffering. I would rather pay more as a healthy person to reduce their premiums than to go through what they are suffering. maybe it is the Christian in me and what I have learned from the teachings of Jesus.
Risk pools may work if properly funded. The ACHA, however, is only going to provide $8 billion of the $200 billion that would be required.
They are unsustainable.
May 11, 2017 at 1:12 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Ron,
As Ben Shapiro recently pointed out, the over regulated insurance industry is the problem. Health insurance has existed for some time before the 1965 crises that started, as this link points out:
It was not until the government got involved, and supply and demand got out of whack, and they regulated the insurance industry that costs exploded.
Ben Shaprio also pointed out that every aspect that stopped being covered by both the government and health insurance, such as laser eye surgery, which was roughly $30,000 not that long ago, and now, since the government dropped it as a covered item, it can be obtained through LASIK type surgery, and actually shot down in cost, to $2,075 in 2015, down from $2,500 in 2014, and one of the only aspects of healthcare that keeps going down in cost. A free market does this. The doctors positioned themselves based on the supply and demand. Regulating health care to charge X amount equally, or telling the doctors how much the health insurance company will pay them (which they often do) gets in the way, and removes how the market drives down costs.
So the answer to your question as to why we shouldn’t do single payer?
It’s easy, when the government gets involved, let’s say we did Medicare for all, things like laser eye surgery would cost 10 times more, and the cost would be shared by all. It would not be affordable by any means. Instead, if we had a combination of free market healthcare, and government assistance, then the market could bring down costs, and people who needed it could have government funds to assist. Single payer doesn’t do what you think it does. I know, you’ll reference some other country that has it, but you have no country to compare for a free market system as I am speaking, and many of those nations have tax rates that long term are much more crushing than if they could have a tax rate half that long term.
You just don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m sorry.
May 11, 2017 at 1:30 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
All too often the goal of the government is to create a reliant state Ron. This is why they want healthcare to not be affordable, and I can guarantee you, the ACA was made with that in mind, to further a crises and a push to single payer.
They do the same thing each time, to say only we the government can fix this, and freedom (the free market and choice) is bad. Do you not see an issue with this mentality? Can you honestly tell me you haven’t already seen people who follow it?
Here’s something that will blow your mind, on that note, and why I get ticked off at the global warming push, which is nothing other than government control efforts:
What do you notice about this chart? It’s not the only one of it’s kind. Recently, I finally said wait, I’ve only ever seen charts from the 1850’s, roughly. I thought to myself, why? Here is what is scary on this note: Have any of you pulled up long term global warming charts? NO! That’s how well they indoctrinated you, as well as me.
What do you notice in this chart? Read over what the two people who made it say. They say they are concerned with pollution from humans, note that they don’t weigh that much into man made global warming.
There is an ecologist, and an ex founder of Green Peace who was ousted, who believes in being green so to speak, who specifically points this out. Is he on mainstream media sites talking? No. He’s been out there trying to be heard, and who is shutting him down? The right? You might want to see what he says. This is a great video, and is why I wanted to see a chart of temperature history that went much further.
htt ps://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ
You constantly try to keep the right in check, ignoring completely the issues with the left that are out of control.
This isn’t even going over the bull crap Russia ties. Quiz question: Who did the report on the DNC hacked computer and alleged it was Russians? The FBI didn’t do it directly. In fact, the same DNC that is known to have sabotaged Sanders, the same DNC that refused to let the FBI review their servers first party because it would be biased (and for some reason insist they directly handle anything that can damage Trump, could it be they know the government can offer power in favor of a particular party? Could it be why Truman called the FBI a mob type of organization in the 50’s?) was the same company who hired Crowd Strike, which was funded by Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Technology. Oh look, more DNC corruption. So Hillary may as well have said I was hacked, and I myself have the proof, no one else can deny this, it’s a fact. Whereas, as of now it is alleged. Perhaps this is part of why Comey is gone by the way. He has taken the wrong position too much.
While you’ve been busy saying one liners? I’ve been busy doing research. You are completely amateur, you’re just a better speaker than agent. Get over yourself, and stop the blatant bias to the left, and attacks to the right.
Go do the research. Consider why you don’t know what I just put up, and really analyze it.
May 11, 2017 at 1:33 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
bob,
All I am going to say is that if you think Single Payer Medicare-for-all, you do not understand Single Payer. With Medicare, the health care administration and costs are controlled by the federal government whereas these things would be handled by private insurance companies with Single Payer.
Do you not see the significant difference? Until you do, we cannot have an honest debate on the merits of Single Payer.
As I have stated multiple times, there would be LESS government involvement in health care administration with Single Payer. In addition, it is the only way to satisfies President Trump’s promise, “We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
What is the free market solution that would satisfy his promise?
May 11, 2017 at 1:48 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
“All I am going to say is that if you think Single Payer Medicare-for-all, you do not understand Single Payer.”
As usual you try to argue semiotics. You know darn well what I meant, and this is the only area you could highlight on, phrasing? In the US Bernie Sanders constantly calls his plan Medicare for all, and compares it to a type of Single Payer. I have no words to direct your either sleazy behavior or stupidity here! Knock it off! I am referencing expanding our government healthcare to all, and how our healthcare has managed costs since 1965. Also, Single Payer systems don’t do what you think they do.
“With Medicare, the health care administration and costs are controlled by the federal government whereas these things would be handled by private insurance companies with Single Payer.”
This is blatantly untrue. For one primary reason, and a few secondary. Company or Companies? Single Payer systems do NOT have “Companies” and what I said still applies. One insurance company does not a free market make. A single payer system will always have troubles managing supply and demand, without a free market to compete with.
“Do you not see the significant difference? Until you do, we cannot have an honest debate on the merits of Single Payer.”
This again. This is not appropriate, and is sleazy. How about this, PNHP disagrees with you, professionals define it as follows:
Note that they call it “Medicare for all”. Also note: THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SINGLE PAYER. However, they all share one thing in common: SINGLE. As in one. As in a removal of competition in the insurance industry itself. This site above woefully misstates what such a system would do, for the same reason I mentioned with Lasik surgery.
“As I have stated multiple times, there would be LESS government involvement in health care administration with Single Payer.”
This is blatantly not true. You’re just too simple minded to see why. Proportionately the amount of room for free market would go down compared to government involvement. So it would be 0% free market in the insurance field, and 100% government pay.
“In addition, it is the only way to satisfies President Trump’s promise, “We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
This again is arguing semiotics and how people phrased things. And I might add, again, you’re again arguing style over substance, because you are a complete sleaze ball. I don’t care how people say things, got it bud? I care about policy. Also, moreover, what Trump said would technically be true, if we talk about receiving care, even before the ACA passage. No doctor can refuse treatment regardless of ability to pay. It’s a law. Trump meant he would give assistance to all people and would create paths for all people. Single payer is not the only way of doing this, and single payer harms everyone.
“What is the free market solution that would satisfy his promise?”
Irrelevant. Your debate style is completely controlling by the way. Work on it.
May 11, 2017 at 2:03 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I suppose you’ll refuse to debate the professionals on the matter, you better go write them an email about how they are calling it the wrong thing!
Maybe you should focus on your concepts instead of wording. How about that?
Maybe you didn’t spell out what type of system your Single Payer was recently, and maybe, your system for Single Payer still would not do what you think it would, and would harm how supply and demand were controlled. Maybe insurance would handle it better.
Maybe, one can make that case, and maybe, it doesn’t mean they don’t know their words or lack reading comprehension. You follow your liberal cohorts in the means to shut down debate. It’s hilarious really, while you say they don’t do it you follow it.
I don’t tolerate it, if it isn’t clear. As Andrew Briebart once said, the reply to someone who argues with you as if you are a racist, is not I am not racist, it is @%@ you! And in this sense, the reply to someone who numerous times said they wouldn’t debate unless someone said they phrased things improperly, before making their own argument a concept, is @%@#% you.
It will continue to be my reply each time you do it.
May 11, 2017 at 2:10 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
bob,
I have been ignoring you, but thought I would try again to engage in a civil debate. But there you go with the insults and bullying, ” I have no words to direct your either sleazy behavior or stupidity here! Knock it off!”, “You’re just too simple minded to see why.”, and “…because you are a complete sleaze ball.” Thank you for proving you have zero interest in such.
One rebuttal to your statement, “Also, moreover, what Trump said would technically be true, if we talk about receiving care, even before the ACA passage. No doctor can refuse treatment regardless of ability to pay. It’s a law. Trump meant he would give assistance to all people and would create paths for all people.” If that is what President Trump meant, he should have said that, but he didn’t. Stop making excuses for our president.
May 11, 2017 at 2:25 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
“bob,
I have been ignoring you,”
I’m aware and not surprised. It’s why you don’t have good arguments. You label how someone debates, and don’t argue content. I debate anyone. It’s why I know more on these topics and generally debate better.
“but thought I would try again to engage in a civil debate.”
That’s not the point of a debate, that’s your superiority complex, and you constantly talk down to those you debate. This is hypocrisy as well.
“But there you go with the insults and bullying,”
Ah yes, that’s civilized debate. No, this is your tactic. How did you start this debate? You said you wouldn’t even debate until I used the right words, and you were wrong about those words I might add. I do not bully. Insults are not synonymous with bullying. Deal with life. I picture you as a sheltered boy who looks to be offended instead of looking at his own works. This is a recipe for disaster.
“I have no words to direct your either sleazy behavior or stupidity here! Knock it off!”, “You’re just too simple minded to see why.”, and “…because you are a complete sleaze ball.” Thank you for proving you have zero interest in such.”
Really? Do you understand why I said this? Could it be an insult and degrading comment you made at me? While slyly playing it off as some roses you planted? Look inward, argue the concept at hand instead of who is offending who. From the perspective of everyone, everyone is offensive! Also, you did argue like a sleazeball. Deal with it.
“One rebuttal to your statement, “Also, moreover, what Trump said would technically be true, if we talk about receiving care, even before the ACA passage. No doctor can refuse treatment regardless of ability to pay. It’s a law. Trump meant he would give assistance to all people and would create paths for all people.”
“If that is what President Trump meant, he should have said that, but he didn’t. Stop making excuses for our president.”
Grow up you idiot. Excuses for what, precisely? You still haven’t argued plans. You took the things you thought you could call someone a hypocrite for and are tabloid style politics, and refused to defend the topic at hand, or argue against mine.
This is insanity Ron. Take the argument, and stop inserting crap to derail it. I didn’t bring up that quote, I defended it. Stop bringing up things that don’t matter for the conversation at hand.
May 11, 2017 at 2:43 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“Do you not see the significant difference? Until you do, we cannot have an honest debate on the merits of Single Payer.”
Address this immediately or we cannot have an honest debate on the merits of single payer.
You mocked my word use, insisted I make a commentary agreeing with you on it, or you would refuse to debate further.
Were you on a debate team? These methods exist to some capacity on debate teams, on better ones anyway, and the goal is to get someone to agree to a parameter you set up, in order to have them then contradict themselves or for you to be able to distance them from their argument in the conclusion of the parameter of what you have them agree with. It is in itself on debate, a tactic, but in real life, it would be a lot like tricking someone in an argument to make it appear they lost, and it is, the way you commonly use it, bullying. I immediately called you sleazy for it, or stupid, one of the two. And you are, either sleazy, or stupid for it, especially considering the parameter you used is FACTUALLY INCORRECT as I have evidenced.
May 11, 2017 at 2:58 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Also:
“Ben Shaprio also pointed out that every aspect that stopped being covered by both the government and health insurance, such as laser eye surgery, which was roughly $30,000 not that long ago, and now, since the government dropped it as a covered item, it can be obtained through LASIK type surgery, and actually shot down in cost, to $2,075 in 2015, down from $2,500 in 2014, and one of the only aspects of healthcare that keeps going down in cost. A free market does this. The doctors positioned themselves based on the supply and demand”
Explain how Medicaid simply paying the bill for LASIK is any bit different than what you mention, with a single payer entity whether private or public, simply paying the bill for Lasik?
The single payer system could not possibly just pay out the most expensive amount. It would have to place a cap. Why would the insured shop around to lower cast Lasik companies? They wouldn’t. The cap of payment would become the normal cost. If the government capped it too low, doctors might not target it. If they cap it too high, doctors might over target it at the expense of something else.
Without a competing company doing different caps and negotiations to bring down the cost and offer a lower cost, the cost won’t go down, and supply and demand won’t come into fruition.
In what way will your single payer system address this in which the Medicaid example I gave wouldn’t? How do they differ? How does your solution fix this problem?
May 11, 2017 at 4:23 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
“I do not disagree that the government runs efficiently. I have also never stated that Single Payer is perfect. However, the free market has had decades to come up with a solution and has failed, as has the PPACA. We need to try something new”
The free market didn’t break the system. Regulation did, starting in the 60’s. We do not have a free market. Before then my chart showed that medical costs and insurance went in line with standard earnings increases. The question is what changed that? The government. The solution is not to get the government more involved and to put them in control, while claiming the free market never worked. It did. Before the 60’s.
So as the democrats insist we regulate all markets out the kazoo, as they did in the 60’s and that crumbles everything, we will move to government control and solutions more and more won’t we?
This is why democrats need to be stopped. We don’t need to try something new for the sake of it, without knowing where we have been. They encourage people to think like you. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about, and think in vague terms all the time.
To prove it:
Prove your beginning statement:
“However, the free market has had decades to come up with a solution and has failed, as has the PPACA. We need to try something new”
And show how you have weighed this over time, with charts showing how regulated we were, and what premiums did.
I already gave a chart before we mucked it up in the 60’s, did you notice the line diverge and what it did before?
You have no evidence the free market is the problem, and as I said to others here, what is disturbing is what democrats aim to teach: That freedom is bad, free markets are bad, etc.
Republicans don’t have this in their party.
May 11, 2017 at 7:11 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
“I’m glad there are much better Republican proposals out there than the one they voted on! Do you think they’ll be released in the next 7 years?”
There have already been several, I’ve quoted them in the past by name, 4 in particular.
There have also been movements to deregulate the health industry that the democrats have killed.
Keep up with the times Confused.
May 12, 2017 at 8:45 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
@bob;
Thanks for all the detailed support. I admire your experience, knowledge, and resolve to seriously debate and point out the flawed logic of libs trying to twist the meaning of SINGLE-PAYER to fit their agenda. They all want to steer the conversation away from the topic of government control over health care and health insurance and put out Straw Man Arguments about ‘single-payer’ to defend govt control.
I also enjoyed your post about the beginning of the problem in health care costs associated with LBJ’s Medicare and Medicaid programs driving up costs by subsidizing them over the past half-century (a great over-simplification of your points). I’ll visit the link you provided later today or over the weekend.
The 4 plans you mention are almost always ignored or ‘hidden’ by Libitterals still trying to defend ACA.
Another plan, to which I refer often, may be published soon, if the US Senate’s version of the recently passed House bill converges toward said plan.
I doubt I will completely accept whatever bill the House and Senate finally agree on. In that regard, I am pessimistic that politicians know what is Constitutionally right for the public they represent, and whose best interests they are obligated to serve.
May 8, 2017 at 6:48 pm
AZ Ins Man says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
The congressmen and women and all U.S. Senators should be on the SAME healthcare as the public AND on Social Security with US.
Why fix something that has NO effect on you?
The reason ACA failed, the reason Trumpcare will fail, the reason every suggestion made here will fail, is because there are 100 factors impacting health care costs and everyone is focusing on just one. Yes, hospitals are forced under EMTALA to treat illegal aliens, even when they have no money. An illegal alien in a persistent vegetative state has to be treated for life by the hospital. The last hospital that tried to deport one to a hospital in his home country was sued and lost. (Funny that the family can get a lawyer to represent them pro-bono, but can’t look for ways to pay for the care of their dying family member.)
Along the same line is what ACA tried to do…since we force hospitals to treat you regardless of if they get paid, then we’re going to force you to buy health insurance or tax you if you don’t. It was a good concept…too bad they screwed it up. The loopholes just let sick people sign up for health insurance making insurance companies pay for what hospitals were stuck with. Since insurance companies don’t fund raise for donations the way hospitals do, they had costs that weren’t covered by income.
Next, we all know pharmaceutical companies charge multiples more than they need to. Part of this is funding future research, which is good, some is corporate greed which cannot be considered “free market” because they patent their drugs making it impossible to compete with them for years, until the generics come out.
Next we have an overly litigious society. The cost here is not just limited to settlements and liability insurance costs, but also forces doctors to run tests simply designed to cover their butts, even when they know it’s probably a waste.
And last, but not least, but the one we have the least control over, is that people are living longer and are being treated for diseases there were previously no cure for.
If you are only talking one or two of these issues, you don’t have a clue.
For the record (and I am not defending the pharmaceutical companies), they typically spend millions (if not billions) on research. Once approved by the FDA, the current laws give them a relatively short window to exclusively recoup the money they spent on R&D to potentially make a profit on that new drug. Generics are on the street the instant they are allowed to market the drug, without all the R&D expenses by the inventor.
Greed plays a part is some (maybe most) but not all situations.
I agree. My memory key, offered a few dozen times in the past, HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS, is a starting point of the plan to replace ACA through market driven approaches to a multi-faceted problem of costs, adverse selection, pre-exers, and inefficiencies in market info. But it requires dozens of details to each facet, and some less critical facets aren’t included in that ‘short list’.
I am not going anywhere. When we do finally get Single Payer, your iceberg may be the only place left with market based health care.
May 9, 2017 at 11:43 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Don’t forget to check your passport before you lock the door and leave your old key with the real estate agent / landlord.
May 8, 2017 at 3:50 pm
Industry Veteran says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
Buffet is part of a corrupt system, anyone who bows to the left can rob the bank through the back door. The left has allowed for this, just agree with their twisted agenda and get the moon. Many big company CEOs are doing this because it’s big bucks for them, any from promoting socialism to whatever the LGBT community asks for, they support it as they are the partner of crime.
I agree with the Agent who refers to finding Warren a padded cell.
Does he really expect us to believe his income taxes at his huge
income level would have reduced 17% when the total cost of his health insurance ( mind you, he is covered by Medicare!) for a
family would top out at $30-32,000.! No, he is pandering to his
supporters by using an absolutely bogus figure. How about going after some of the loopholes over the years that have allowed him
to make vast sums transferring losses to shelter income! Don’t pick on a tiny item in his cost structure as health insurance.
The wealthy like him ( and remember he is in Medicare) get their health insurance from their multiple entities “free of charge” so to speak.
Call it what you will, but I am at the very bottom of the “middle class” and Trumpcare will save me $100 per month. So what if it is a tax cut for the wealthy? It is also a tax cut for the poor
Perhaps it is from super secret CBO assessments that were leaked?
Preliminary estimates are available from the authors. Got connections to them, like some others have? If not, you’ll just have to wait for the final bill, like Nancy Pelosi and the other troll liberal media members who are being SHUT OUT of the discussions.
Did you find that CBO assessment for ACA, like I asked you to do? Please follow up on that assignment, pronto! Ready, steady, … GO!
How can there be an accurate CBO assessment of a bill that has not been finalized?
So, you complained that Republicans were shut out of the OPPACA negotiations, yet praise the Republicans for shutting out the Democrats now. And you have the nerve to call others hypocrites.
I am not doing your research. If you care so much about that, go find it yourself.
I really, really do not care about the PPACA or anything related to it. I want it gone and replaced with Single Payer.
And they originally said the republican plan would decrease premiums about 10%, and that the democrat plan would increase them about 10% over time. Let’s say that it compounds over time, not 10% a year per say, but that it annually has a cost reduction affect as a percentage of health insurance costs. Over time the differences would be substantial. If instead the CBO report for the republicans turned out true, unlike the one that turned out wrong from the CBO on the ACA, instead of $18,500, the republicans would have been $13,950. Then that reduction of government of supposedly like $5-$7k wouldn’t matter, especially considering we would actually need to translate the same ratio over 8 years. You can do math, I’ll leave that to you. We see that in the long run, the cuts are more than made up for in premium decreases, on the other hand, meddling like we did in the 60’s, will continue to spiral and there won’t be enough federal assistance to help anyone, because of your mentality.
We need a full free market. Competing insurance companies, deregulate the crud we did in the insurance industry so they can finally have a free market, and give assistance to those who need it.
Not a single payer system which will inevitably increase costs by comparison to this, which does not exist anywhere. We shouldn’t follow other nations. We should forge paths.
May 12, 2017 at 8:51 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
@Ron;
Post-facto reviews by CBO is DODGING THE QUESTION I POSED!
The projection of CBO at the TIME THE ACA WAS PASSED is the info I sought.
If you have it, post it.
ANYONE can ‘guess’ at outcomes AFTER some or all of a game is played or is in progress.
I am seeking the CBO report from LATE March (23), 2010.
Get to it, ASAP, Ron! Ready, steady, GO!… to Cana-duh!
May 12, 2017 at 8:54 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
@bob;
I am in 100% agreement with you on fully competitive, free market forces to drive down costs through innovation and cost control measures.
Liberals continue to try to obfuscate the effects of competition on costs and ignore the buttressing of costs of no competition situations; e.g. government control and taxation to cover increasing costs with no incentives for the payer to control them due to having no skin in the game.
May 12, 2017 at 9:59 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
So, you only looked at the first link? Here is the one you requested…again
Great! Now everyone can read the CBO’s assessment that projected DEFICIT REDUX over 10 years of $130 Billion.
LMAO at Ron, who has now been ‘boxed’ by my request for the CBO evaluation @ 2010, the sole purpose of which is to discredit CBO’s prognostication abilities.
Now, Ron; please tell everyone about the VALUE of the CURRENT CBO assessments of the TWO latest HI / HC proposals by Republicans.
I make my determinations on whether or not a law has value based on the law itself and the results.
May 9, 2017 at 9:02 am
Chris says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
My issue with taking a business leader’s public statements seriously is who truly knows what their agenda is? Warren Buffet could be making a statement he truly believes or he could be saying something that he thinks would benefit him commercially in any number of ways. Having spent a good deal of time around c-suite types I can tell you that most of them are very political personalities.
If I was being cynical I would interrupt his healthcare cost comments as a desire to not have American businesses compete with one for talent by their health benefits offerings. Wouldn’t many business owners rather have the government deal with healthcare then have it be a benefit the manage themselves? The question being, does that path lead to more competitive businesses, a better healthcare system, or both? Which is more important and what goal do you think Warren Buffet is looking to achieve?
Another complete lie from Yogi. My link is 100% legit and is not at all linked to anything porn related. Please quit blatantly misleading others out here, Yogi. Is there nothing too low for you?
I was indirectly keeping people from viewing your post… i.e. your youtube vid. That’s called censorship. Like it?
You can dish it out (first with BOTs – which have been neutered by IJ IT staff, so now, you can’t do anything but switch IP addys using Tor, etc.) but you can’t take it.
May 15, 2017 at 8:56 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Yogi,
I don’t use the voting buttons out here, so not sure what in the heck you are talking about. Sounds like paranoia to me. But, thank you for being honest about misleading others. I’ll give you kudos for that.
May 15, 2017 at 2:14 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
and yet bob still defends him and claims he was NOT misleading people with his post
May 15, 2017 at 6:28 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Moreover,
Exaggeration, sarcasm, and hyperbole to prove a point is not synonymous with what you’re accusing him of.
At no point when I read that post did I waiver in clicking the youtube link when he said another porn video.
I knew what he meant from the get go, and so should you.
Stop the behavior issues. This is not a topic to debate. The very fact you are focusing on it, is the real issue in debate in general.
May 16, 2017 at 1:59 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Yogi admitted his only intention was to misdirect people and stop them from clicking the link and, yet days laster, you STILL continue to defend him claiming his intent was something else.
May 16, 2017 at 2:00 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
edit:
…and yet, days later,….
May 16, 2017 at 3:28 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“Yogi admitted his only intention was to misdirect people and stop them from clicking the link and, yet days laster, you STILL continue to defend him claiming his intent was something else.”
Incorrect. I posted saying I don’t support his claim indefinitely, and that it is VERY clear he did that mocking the regressive left information control. When he admitted such he was throwing something BACK in the face of liberals. When he first posted, I don’t imagine he thought anyone would think it was porn. You don’t know how to identify hyperbole.
Your
“edit:
…and yet, days later,….”
Is wrong.
Several of my posts to you have been deleted, with no insults contained therein. I have replied. They have been deleted. Your comments haven’t. And I mean this, there were no insults. In one I simply thanked someone and said feel free to use my information, and said I have a dream of us all on this site sharing information and being unified instead of divisive. That was deleted too. I told Conserving the Truth I respected him back and answered his question. That was deleted, and yet my semi over the top ones are still here. Very odd.
I also said that his comment was only MINIMALLY an issue, that you over reacted regarding. You have no right to discredit him and brand him on one comment he throws back at you. I don’t support that either.
Now then, you will admit I am being reasonable, and stop trying to tarnish me based on your absurd comment I supported insanity here. I did not. I commented numerous times explaining I had a slight issue with what he said, in being over the top, but more of one with you.
Stop the absurd methods of calling people extreme to end their ability to debate. It is not ok.
May 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“So now that we have cleared this up from my point of view, and I have said I don’t support his post any longer, is that fair?”
You read this, and likely disliked it. It’s still there.
What are you aiming for me to do? I condemned the over the top nature, but called it a small issue.
Is it defending someone until I say they have no credibility?
What is your goal?
I’m raising eyebrows. I assumed you never saw this and it was one of the deleted posts, but it’s still there.
By what definition, and it was posted before you claimed I was still defending him, do you claim I did not call out what I perceived over the top?
The very fact that I did you as well?
Or is it that I allow his arguments to still have weight, and you want me to throw him under the bus forever for one comment?
and you consider yourself I bet, liberal (not using this as political right now, I mean open minded and forgiving, in this sense I consider myself to be liberal)
What you are asking of me, or appear to be, is completely unreasonable.
May 11, 2017 at 3:49 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
The error of the supply side Jesus Satire (and I must emphasize that last word) entails the following:
1. People are not Jesus. Jesus has unlimited supply. People don’t.
2. The world is not a utopia. Any system of delivering goods will have flaws.
3. Giving things for free when there is limited supply, actually can harm the production of goods. Without goods you can’t have taxes to give needed services.
4. Coming back to republicans going on a supposed Supply Side Jesus aspect (which different people interpret different ways, but I’ve made my interpretation fairly clear) they tend to go off of making a bigger pie for people to work to attain, and trying to stop the government from impeding the ability for people to provide for themselves.
Republicans are not just going around saying people don’t need help. They are saying the government when they get involved tend to encourage bad behavior. Republicans still give more to charity and time on average, though it isn’t substantial, if they truly believed the poor didn’t need help, they wouldn’t do this.
One example would be to see what has happened in the black community. We passed civil rights laws in 1964, we have constantly passed assistance for them, and all that has happened, is that the single motherhood rate has exploded. This is because they no longer have to be involved in personal responsibility. It is not due to a lack of availability of birth control or abortion.
htt p://blackdemographics.com/households/poverty/
When we look at black families, they have indeed improved, but the big issue here, is as a whole, from as far as we can track, their poverty rates were increasing over time as far back as we have it recorded.
h ttps://w ww.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-people.html
As a whole, not looking at families vs single, from the first year on document, 1974, it went from 39% to 45% in 1981. It stayed in the 40’s until just after the mid 90’s where it started to drop after we revisited welfare programs. Now it has gone up and done in the 30-40% since then which is basically dependent on recessions.
The government encouraged and financed those families separating.
That is but one area in which the government makes it actually good to make a bad decision.
I could go further, but it would take too much actual data and research…Instead of cliché lines.
Your supply side Jesus comment is old, annoying, and woefully under thought, just like it’s author, who I already said is someone I consider to be one of the worst politicians in office.
And on that note it’s not just that the government encouraged people to take the wrong action, it harmed the black population, and it harms those children who will be very likely to have hard lives.
They are not in any significant way better off now than 1964. With all we’ve passed, I fail to see how this is possible, unless the government is failing in these programs.
Have you discussed your theory with anyone outside this comment section? I have an extremely difficult time believing anyone who suffered through that era solely due to the color of their skin would actually say or think “yeah, we’re not significantly better off than we were 60 years ago.”
“Have you discussed your theory with anyone outside this comment section? I have an extremely difficult time believing anyone who suffered through that era solely due to the color of their skin would actually say or think “yeah, we’re not significantly better off than we were 60 years ago.””
Confused:
This is such an abstract to you because you yourself suffer from your first point made: You don’t go outside your normal bands of research or groups. I do. It’s why you think I don’t fit in. Think it through before you accuse me of the same.
Regarding what I said above: The government has done things which has broken apart the black family, has resulted in continued poverty, by the numbers, and has resulted in consistently lower rates of graduation, significantly higher rates of single motherhood, which also goes hand in hand with high school drop outs, crime, etc.
The black community is well aware of the crime issue, and are split on whether the police are the issue, or there is a real community issue with black folks. You clearly have only heard one side of that spectrum, I wonder which?
My point above, was by no general terms as you tried to convert them to be, that we have passed assistance in a multitude of areas for black folks and it has back fired, and has not boosted or helped any of the metrics I line itemized above. Instead, you took an anecdotal approach, literally. How in the world do you have no self realization to this degree?
May 11, 2017 at 5:02 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I understood what you said but that doesn’t mean I have to agree that “[African Americans] are not in any significant way better off now than 1964.”
You are a youngish white male making an assumption that things have not changed for a completely different race and age group.
It’s perfectly reasonable for me to ask if you validated your theory by actually speaking with the group of people of which you claim have not had any significant improvements in their lives since the 60’s.
May 11, 2017 at 5:20 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
And I really need to say this:
GET YOUR IDENTITY POLITICS OUT OF FACTS.
May 12, 2017 at 8:32 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Okay bob, I will. Now could you tell me if your ‘african americans aren’t better off now than they were in the 60’s’ theory has been disucssed with african-americans who were actually alive back then?
May 12, 2017 at 5:46 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
@Confused: your question indicates you are clueless about how to measure the ONGOING plight of black families… after several social welfare programs have FAILED for 50+ years.
OK, now argue with everyone about how AT LEAST ONE FAMILY has found opportunities due to the social insurance programs to show your stubbornness to be informed/ edified about the purpose of welfare programs to uplift the majority, or all, of those it is intended to serve.
bob need not discuss the issue with people ‘outside this comment page’ to understand the critical measures involved and the failures they indicate.
May 10, 2017 at 4:48 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Just telling the truth that you don’t like hearing Confused. Polar and I have been doing yeoman work on this site for several years and throw in Bob while we are at it. Nothing sinks in with you, does it (except your ideology?
I’ve said before, I’m snowballing in the right direction, and have the info to back it up.
Ron and Confused are not truly critical thinkers. They are essentially people who make decisions based on who sounds better or worse, or, make decisions based on what sounds like it is non partisan, and the metrics they have for that don’t work as is, since they both clearly have that ideal based on what the left thinks is non partisan.
The tilt in this country has got to go the other way, and fast, before the regressive left starts taking control in any way they can. Give an inch, they take a mile, and neither Ron nor Confused understand this. The right is not the issue right now.
Bo has been revealed. He just wants to please Agent by “dropping hammers” on those with whom Agent disagrees. maybe he is looking to take over Agent’s BOB when he retires.
Saying I dropped a hammer on someone’s argument, is not synonymous with saying that is my goal in debating. Have you ever said a similar phrase of crushing someone’s argument? It’s an expression. I don’t argue for Agent, I’m calling Agent’s attention to my arguments, because there is much to learn from what I put up in how to deal with people like you. By the way: Right after I said you guys don’t argue concepts and facts, and instead you argue how things are said, in a debate about healthcare you said:
““One rebuttal to your statement, “Also, moreover, what Trump said would technically be true, if we talk about receiving care, even before the ACA passage. No doctor can refuse treatment regardless of ability to pay. It’s a law. Trump meant he would give assistance to all people and would create paths for all people.”
“If that is what President Trump meant, he should have said that, but he didn’t. Stop making excuses for our president.””
Which is essentially arguing how Trump has said things, in an argument about healthcare in general, not about Trump. That was an attempt to derail the debate.
Grow up kid.
May 11, 2017 at 2:31 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
And I might add: AGENT DOES NOT AGREE WITH OR ARGUE LIKE ME.
He has similar conclusions, not even REMOTELY close to similar data.
Why don’t you point out some data he has shared that matches mine. Can you pull one link? Even one, where we have both used the same data?
If you want to debate healthcare then do it.
May 12, 2017 at 9:01 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Actually, Ron; you have been revealed to be lacking substantive facts and logic thought processes that cannot lead to critical thinking. Decision makers use those tools. Followers let others decide for them, and repeat the words of whichever follower they choose to follow. Your agenda doesn’t represent the best interests of the US, and much of my claim is supported by actual experience of nations that tried Nationalized Healthcare systems. I know from firsthand discussions with a healthcare worker in Cana-duh. MANY more examples of the failure of Socialism in general are available in ‘PIGS’ and other Socialist / communist nations.
PIGS = Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain.
May 10, 2017 at 4:50 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Chris, I certainly appreciate what our business leader President has to say, not a liberal dude like Buffet who bundled money, hosted fund raisers for the worst President in history. He appears to have beginning Alzheimers these days.
More likely when he heard about the subpoenas being issued. Does this not look suspicious to you? Trump fires the guy who is investigating him. How does that not alarm you?
And his followers all believe they have a valid license to intentionally mislead, purposefully misinform, and lie all the time now, too. #sad #veryverybadokay #3rdgradevocabulary
Good bye Aetna. See you later when the mess is resolved and you can actually offer plans people want instead of what the government wants you to offer.
Sorry Bob, it is all over the internet. Do you ever pull up FoxNews site? They are quitting the Obamacare fiasco all the way like so many carriers have done. By the way, they were for Obamacare before they were against it.
Aetna had pulled out of most state exchanges before withdrawing from their last TWO exchanges in which they (naively) participated.
Any insurers still involved in the exchanges are either punch-drunk from all of their losses, or anticipating some sort of ‘payback’ of prior losses by the repeal and replace bill. Fat chance of a Republican controlled Congress bail-out of HI cos.
I am wagging a single digit on my right paw at you for your insufficiently detailed post about Aetna that misled bob about Aetna coming to its corporate survival driven senses.
May 12, 2017 at 9:58 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Polar, $700 million in losses will tend to get someone’s attention except possibly Warren Buffet who is teetering on borderline Alzheimers. By the way, he doesn’t need Health Insurance to be treated for his condition. Just check into the Mayo Clinic and cut a check for services.
May 15, 2017 at 12:28 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Polar, so among the many nonsense statements made by Uncle Warren, he says that we don’t need tax reform for businesses in this country. I think he likes all his loopholes for himself and Berkshire-Hathaway in the Progressive Tax Code. He keeps a legion of tax attorney’s busy to avoid paying tax. Most corporations and small businesses cannot do that and that is why they need tax relief so they can grow and expand and create jobs.
May 11, 2017 at 3:19 pm
Long Time/First Time says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Bob constantly tells Ron and Confused they don’t debate fairly and has defended Agent many times. I have never ONCE seen Bob call out Yogi on ANY of his posts even when he falsely claims an on topic link redirects you to an adult website. I am begining to think Bob and Yogi are one in the same.
I find your request funny since you changed your moniker to Deplorables for a few months and kept denying Deplorables was Agent until you accidentally posted under the wrong name.
I think LT/FT is trying to ask if you have any issues with Polar responding to on topic links solely to say it directs the user to adult websites when those links clearly do not do that?
It happened once on this page and has happened before on topics you have posted yet I have not seen you write a single word to him about the way he debates or posts.
I think LT/FT is just trying to get across that you give Ron and I a lot of your time and effort to get us to debate properly yet you leave Polar completely out of the equation even when he’s clearly lying or intentionally misdirecting, such as “CBO is DODGING THE QUESTION I POSED!” when one of the two links Ron gave him covered the specific time frame he inquired about.
Tell me Confused, why should Bob and Polar continue to try to educate you on anything since it bounces off your head and never absorbed. Your record in 2016 is abysmal after Bob tried for at least 6 months. You are just an annoying Progressive brat that clearly cannot learn from life or reality.
I already replied to this. It got deleted. Could it be that someone is reporting our replies, so your mocking of Agent for saying oh no a post wasn’t deleted you better post again, was a bit out of line?
He is not lying or misdirecting. It’s called an error if anything.
The greater question is why you on the left don’t correct each other. UW has rarely been corrected here, if ever.
We don’t need to debate about it, it’s really a derailing tactic as it is.
You have specifically called me in to call Agent wrong, and I’ve done it before. People here just claimed we don’t. It’s tiring.
LT/FT said you are not calling out Yogi or Polar or whatever name he is using now — s/he did not say you are not calling out Agent, because you have. Now here you are defending him for “an error” but not saying he was lying or misdirecting. Explain how you think he “errored” but didn’t lie. After all
I can’t tell from that url if it’s an adult video, but I know youtube does not allow such content. If you do click the link it is not an adult video.
What “error” could he have made?
Did he read the website as www. (adultsite).com? No, because that’s not even close to the URL.
Did he click the link and get redirected to a dirty video? No, because that’s not where the link takes you.
Why can’t you admit he was lying about where the link took people?
Either he didn’t click the link and lied or he did click the link and lied. Calling it an “error” is absurd. Did he miscalculate math stuff? Did he say “a” but meant “b”? Did he misattribute a quote? No.
The only “error” he could have made was if he had adult videos opened on other tabs in his browser and accidently clicked a dirty video site he already had open.
Come on. You know if I replied to one of your links with “another adult video” you’d hand me my hat on that reply. He blatently LIED and was MISDIRECTING people away from clicking the link. You must know that’s true. It’s okay if you admit it. It will only lend further credibility to you calling out Ron and I in the future.
“LT/FT said you are not calling out Yogi or Polar or whatever name he is using now — s/he did not say you are not calling out Agent, because you have. Now here you are defending him for “an error” but not saying he was lying or misdirecting. Explain how you think he “errored” but didn’t lie.”
I’m going to come back here in a moment. Note that what you replied to, and what I replied to, while they have some over lap, it was reasonable for me to assume Polar’s error here, was on the topic him and Ron debated, in which he missed Ron already gave him the information he asked for. Here’s why:
“Bob constantly tells Ron and Confused they don’t debate fairly and has defended Agent many times. I have never ONCE seen Bob call out Yogi on ANY of his posts even when he falsely claims an on topic link redirects you to an adult website. I am begining to think Bob and Yogi are one in the same”
While this refers to a claim of an adult video, which by the way, was clearly him being very facetious, and is not lying or misleading, it is clear it is in jest. And you took it literal. That is your weakness here, and it deserves to be pointed out. This was not a means of dishonest debate, that is why I assumed the other section in which Polar debated horribly is what you and him were talking about. He was wrong there. This also shows I’m not biased to admitting such a thing on the right, disproving both of you that I don’t comment regarding Polar.
(See his comment which while over the top makes complete sense. Do you really believe he meant to do anything other than prove a point? I don’t)
I can’t tell from that url if it’s an adult video, but I know youtube does not allow such content. If you do click the link it is not an adult video.
What “error” could he have made?”
See above Confused, my God you act like a child. Get over it. His argument there was not whether or not a porn video made someone credible for example, or that Planet kept posting porn. On the other hand, the left does do the equivalent of this (accusing me of wanting Muslims to be killed, and innocent people tortured when I engage in debate on the topic, not just to make a clearly facetious comment to make a point.
“Did he read the website as www. (adultsite).com? No, because that’s not even close to the URL.
Did he click the link and get redirected to a dirty video? No, because that’s not where the link takes you.
Why can’t you admit he was lying about where the link took people? ”
Because using hyperbole for affect isn’t lying?
“Either he didn’t click the link and lied or he did click the link and lied. Calling it an “error” is absurd. Did he miscalculate math stuff? Did he say “a” but meant “b”? Did he misattribute a quote? No.”
Wildly over thought on all of this, you really need to admit you’re acting childish on this matter, just as much as him.
“The only “error” he could have made was if he had adult videos opened on other tabs in his browser and accidently clicked a dirty video site he already had open.”
Same as above.
“Come on. You know if I replied to one of your links with “another adult video” you’d hand me my hat on that reply.”
No I wouldn’t. I would assume you were making a point, because it isn’t a porn video. I generally assume people wouldn’t say something like that without it being hyperbole. I would likely say oh ha ha, this is relevant info buddy, and that would probably be verbatim my argument back, I would not instead fester on it and call someone a liar on that basis.
“He blatently LIED and was MISDIRECTING people away from clicking the link.”
Incorrect. Even though he says this:
“I was indirectly keeping people from viewing your post… i.e. your youtube vid. That’s called censorship. Like it?
You can dish it out (first with BOTs – which have been neutered by IJ IT staff, so now, you can’t do anything but switch IP addys using Tor, etc.) but you can’t take it.”
He was well aware people would know it wasn’t porn, he did it to make a point. And now that he has said that, whereas before I assumed it (and he had not yet said that, or rather I had not seen his reply) I can say yes. I think that his reply brings context to the original post that he took it too far. If he left it at the first, I probably wouldn’t have cared. However, you have taken it even further than him digesting this, and you need to look inward as to how much you called this lying, and over reacted. It might have something to do with why you are clueless on matters regarding Trump, and are missing what the left is doing that is far worse right now.
“You must know that’s true. It’s okay if you admit it. It will only lend further credibility to you calling out Ron and I in the future.”
As much as I hate to call you wrong here, because it bites me, and you can clearly see why in a moment…
I only say these things because you find them important, about calling people out. And, you matter in my arguments. I’m not sure that goes vice versa, but I would rather have some sort of code between us. However, in no way would me calling out one person make me more credible when I call you out, or vice versa. I’m not going to make an effort to call out Polar just to be credible when I say it of you. I might do it to make you feel better though, and to provide some justice in your head. I wouldn’t do it to gain credibility with you.
I edited this mid post and took something out vital which it doesn’t make sense without it:
“While this refers to a claim of an adult video, which by the way, was clearly him being very facetious, and is not lying or misleading, it is clear it is in jest AND IT WAS THE ENDING POINT OF “Bob constantly tells Ron and Confused they don’t debate fairly and has defended Agent many times. I have never ONCE seen Bob call out Yogi on ANY of his posts”. Before this ending point you have the context being that he hasn’t seen me call out yogi on any of his posts. This is untrue. I have.
So now that we have cleared this up from my point of view, and I have said I don’t support his post any longer, is that fair?
In other words I focused on the first half of that, you focused on the latter.
Just because I haven’t done the latter, doesn’t mean I haven’t done the former, saying the severity of the latter means I haven’t done the former, which is implied in the sentence, seems to suggest I don’t ever do it because I didn’t for the latter.
Now that we have resolved twice in one post, where I have revealed not just the Polar missed Ron’s data on the CBO rated plan (which is why I gave Polar some help and context there) and I’ve said he went over the top (And I’m one of the only people here who has admitted when I have)
Can you admit you went over the top, and can you admit I’m being fair, and can we just move on from this?
May 12, 2017 at 7:52 pm
Conserving the Truth says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Bob,
You coming to the defense of Agent of Polar is as baffling to me as the GOP essentially coming to the defense of Trump by not doing anything about his irrational behavior and actions. Do you also blindly support Trump? Be honest. Don’t respond with something about Democrats or Hillary or Obama. I don’t care about them. I want to know because you have said things on this forum I respect deeply. You have also said things that baffle me. Do you think Trump is the right man for this job?
May 15, 2017 at 4:52 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I answered your question and it was deleted.
Both sides of the aisle need to stop reporting each other on this site.
I believe my comment is being deleted because they don’t consider it to be on topic, there were no insults in it at all.
May 17, 2017 at 5:12 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
In keeping on topic Bob, please correct me if I am wrong that you gave up trying to reason with Confused and said enough was enough.
Also – adult content gets posted on youtube constantly. It also gets removed constantly. I have seen some pretty absurd things on that platform. It isn’t as ‘harmless’ as one might think.
Socialized medicine, single payer system, government sponsored healthcare, subsidized health insurance, called it what you wish. When half the people are forced to overpay for the same services that everyone enjoys as a “right” it is natural to take steps to avoid overpaying for what you are receiving. Politicians deciding which services everyone must receive and then spending other people’s money to provide those services is Socialism. This approach to governing didn’t work in the USSR, isn’t working in Venezuela and hasn’t worked anywhere it has been tried. Why do we believe it will work here?
I remember the days when most families had a disabled or senior family member living with them. This system worked well for my family on a number of levels. Now we have expanded Medicaid. Grandma grows old and goes to a nursing home where others care for her until she quickly runs out of money and then Medicaid picks up the tab. Free nursing home services have become a right. Turn 65 and you receive Medicare. Highly subsidized healthcare for seniors has become a right. Show up at the emergency room with no insurance and no money and get first class treatment, just like you were paying your own way. Emergency health care services have become a right. Warren Buffet is correct. If we want to give every American free nursing home services, highly subsidized routine medical services and free emergency healthcare services, someone will have to pay the taxes to fund these new and expanded “rights”. The problem is only half the working people pay income taxes now. The payroll taxes every working person pays are insufficient to keep the social programs these payroll taxes support adequately funded. There are less people willing and able to overpay so their fellow citizens receive the health care services they believe to be their right as an American. There are no free lunches. Paying more than half of our family income in state, federal and local taxes much of which go to fund generous social programs that benefit everyone is getting old. It is the reason Socialism hasn’t worked for others and won’t work for America. We are at a tipping point. You can only spend other people’s money up to the point they begin taking aggressive actions to avoid further abuse. I believe we are at or very near that point and the election of Donald Trump provided enough proof for me that our national purpose and direction must change or America’s best days are behind us.
Al, we survived 8 years of our former POTUS trying to impose his Socialist agenda on us, completely ruining our Healthcare system which has just about totally imploded. Enough of the lies, promises of the left and them arrogantly proclaiming they are smarter than everyone else and forcing their misguided agenda on us. Yes, we needed a big change and our new POTUS is the right agent of change. You are right, we don’t want to be Canada, Cuba or Venezuela. MAGA.
These gross misrepresentations of Socialism need to stop. Some level of Socialism has existed in this country since it beginning. Are you saying we should get rid of public schools, libraries, infrastructure, fire departments, politicians, etc.? How would we function without any Socialism?
I would argue that health care/insurance is one of a very few industries that should be publicly funded, not necessarily publicly administered.
We are the United States of America, the self-proclaimed greatest country in the world. If we cannot take care of our people’s health, especially the most vulnerable, how can we continue to be the shining beacon of light upon the rest of the world?
“Al,
These gross misrepresentations of Socialism need to stop. Some level of Socialism has existed in this country since it beginning. Are you saying we should get rid of public schools, libraries, infrastructure, fire departments, politicians, etc.? How would we function without any Socialism? ”
False equivalency. When you regulate a section of the economy into collapse, then say the government need to provide, the reason we call it socialism is because that is the goal. A socialist take over. My charts from 1965 show that once we did this, the costs spiraled out of control, whereas before then, insurance did exist and was in no such spiral. The goal of these people is to make it unaffordable, create a crises, and then take over.
Schools and fire stations are not the same thing. Though I might add: Why are liberals against vouchers to choose different schools that aren’t state controlled, or at very least are better state schools? It could have something to do with taking over the information flow, and moving toward socialism. The current generation is much more susceptible to it, and this isn’t coincidence. It was very much so intentional effort.
“I would argue that health care/insurance is one of a very few industries that should be publicly funded, not necessarily publicly administered.”
And you do so because you have been mislead. The explosion of care happened precisely because of Medicare setting pricing, and other clinics beginning to go off of those pricings, and certain things became simply unaffordable. The market could not set pricing any longer. Laser eye surgery, research it. It has consistently gone down. Ensuring a basic level of coverage is one thing, but taking away the insurance industry, after it was regulated into doom? And then taking away the free market’s proven lowering of costs and allowing the government to be the sole source of payment? That’s sheer insanity.
“We are the United States of America, the self-proclaimed greatest country in the world.”
Irrelevant, and childish point.
“If we cannot take care of our people’s health, especially the most vulnerable, how can we continue to be the shining beacon of light upon the rest of the world?”
Good question. So why do you insist on making a program that makes the overall cost go up plus be shared, making everyone worse off?
I don’t think you understand the republican point, and because you hate them (and you do or you would realize this)
You believe they want people to not get care and die.
WRONG.
They want what is best for the whole system. What you just said, is not.
Bob, how many years have you been pounding away at Ron without results? How about Confused? The Progressive Socialist ideology is all they know and no other facts or opinion matter to them. They just whine, whine, whine. Must be all those joints they smoke all the time.
By the way, if you get a chance to go on the internet, which you apparently don’t do often, go to Foxnews.com and read the story on Durango, Col which is being basically over run by dope heads in Recreational use Colorado. These people are coming from all over the country, panhandling, loitering and begging for money to continue their drug habit. It is very revealing.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Blah blah blah, so stupid.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Polar,
I love how you mock UW for his reply and then turnaround and literally reply to my comments, “durrrrr”. The hypocrisy from you continues to impress! Keep up the act, Polar! Your performance is improving! Also, I believe Yates testifies today. Be excited!!!! =)
You have NOTHING to contribute to the comments on the article. You are a troll.
PolarBeaRepeal,
It is so incredibly ironic that you made those last 2 posts. That is exactly how most of us feel about you and your posts.
Yogi – you have railed on others for this, so I would ask the same of you….stay on topic. This article is about the AHCA not something that happened at the airport. Try to stay on topic.
RE-POSTED:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 7
Thumb down 17
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Great reply! Your BOTs are now ineffective due to new IJ software. Frustrated and unable to respond? Ask George Soros for help with new super-BOTs to defeat the IP checkers.
Reply
You are calling the most successful capitalist in the country a socialist. You are claim the man who has done better in this economy than 99% of the country, doesn’t understand economics as well as you do. Why don’t you give batting tips to Mike Trout while you’re at it. “PhD scientists don’t understand science” and now “successful, wealthy businessmen don’t understand economics and capitalism, except Trump.” Could you be more transparent? I don’t drink the liberal kool aid by any means, but when Jeff Gordon tells me to get my brakes checked, I’m gonna hear him out.
Hahahaha, what a great closing sentence. That was hilariously apt.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Instead of spouting empty criticism, with hyperbolic statements offered to support it, why not state why B & M are smart guys but didn’t see the TrumPresidency and invest in the XL pipeline instead of doubling down on their RR holdings?
Show us all how smart you are by pointing out the implication of a 50.1% discount factor in relation to the AIG portfolio they took on. What is their implied rate of return? Duration of the loss portfolio? Define duration; i.e. McAuley duration. Explain it’s significance to the change in the White House in Janaury 2017. Then explain why the implied discount factor is slightly larger than 50%. Ready, steady, …. GO!
Duration = measure of what, UW?
There are more documented cases of illegal votes for Dumb Donnie Doll Hands than there were for the Democratic candidate. And, if you want to stop illegal immigration, try punishing the employers who hire illegals. A strict and stiff penalty, that’s how you really solve for that issue.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Polar, I wonder where Andrew is today, vacation? Thought the multi moniker guys were not able to hide the comments anymore. They must do a lot of changing on monikers to hide the comments of a Conservative with an opinion. They are the children who fall down and have a tantrum.
They use Tor and other IP masking sites to do multi-votes. Slower than their outlawed BOTs, but they have no work to do all day so it doesn’t much matter. Paid trolling here is wasted Soros money.
RE-RE-POSTED:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 2
Thumb down 12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
REPOSTED:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 13
Thumb down 23
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
What’s a ‘heath’ plan? Is Uncle Warren laughing at the typo?
What’s holding Uncle Warren back from paying 100% of his income to the US Treasury? Answer: Republicans are in control and he’d hate for them to get any more of his money to spend on things he doesn’t like, such as pushing through the XL pipeline, which takes oil transport revenue away from his railroad biz. Also, Republicans will spend tax revenues on things Uncle Warren doesn’t like, such as rebuilding the mil in lieu of spending money to support NPR, PP, NATO, etc. Finally, he loathes the idea of building a WALL to shut off the supply of cheap labor to help the companies whose stock he owns, and for more ILLEGALLY CAST Democrat votes.
Bottom line: Uncle Warren is a typical Socialist hypocrite masquerading as a capitalist.
Reply
Reply
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Yes, a “tax cut” (not really, but to avoid your moronic rants I’ll pretend) to middle income people, with a massive increase in costs combined with less coverage. And for thousands of unlucky people, death.
Attn: The ACA tax penalty is repealed by the EO on Day One of TrumPresidency.
Only insurance premiums are in play. I don’t expect trolls to understand, but others might get a chuckle out of your ignorance of the situation.
Death: it is avoidable if ACA remains in place.
Be immortal; support ACA!
Don’t let evil TrumPresident take away your immortality.
The Republicans are taking away my immortality and enriching the rich!
The Republicans are taking away health care from millions, perhaps BILLIONS of Americans. OK, maybe only tens of millions. And tens of thousands of millionaires will be enriched by BILLIONS.
…I wish Huff and Puff POSt would correct their numeric details in their posted talking points before I copy and paste them everywhere and make it look like I don’t know what the facts are about the matter.
– typical paid troll Libitteral
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
That’s moronic to the core. You think Medicare fraud is the reason for rising health insurance? Damn.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
EXAMPLES OF YOUR RESPONSES TO ME:
“durrrrrr”
“durrrr”
“durrrrrrrr”
Seriously.
Your statement was that all health care costs are increasing because of Medicare fraud, not may government costs, as you pivoted to here.
Post again when you sober up. It MAY be more intelligible than that ^. But I’m not betting on it.
ANOTHER Straw Man Argument leading down a rabbit hole I shall not enter…
Please show everyone reading this thread where I said ‘all’.
Ready, steady, …GO!
RE-POSTING of “moronic to the core” post …
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 6
Thumb down 17
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
RE: rising Health Care costs in the US: it is due to the waste and fraud in Medicare & Medicaid, and the influx of ILLEGAL Immigrants using ERs as free clinics, thus costs charged back to those who pay, without averaging them over a broader base of payers.
Reply
Re-POSTED:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 6
Thumb down 16
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Disprove my statement. It is a well-known fact, and has been discussed for DECADES by many people. The fraud & waste costs infused in the HI system by Medicare/ Medicaid are included in /covered by the charge-backs and fees by medical care providers.
Tell us the Govt Health Care / Insurance Welfare system is perfect and without fraud and waste. I’ll wait. We’ll all wait for your ‘joke’.
Your responses lately have been largely confined to baseless, vile, rude, vindictive judgements, rather than rebuttals or factual statements. Your BOTs can no longer censor Conservative viewpoints as they did when dozens of down votes appeared within hours of a conservative view posting. Now, maybe a dozen down votes appear a day after a conservative view is posted. You lose.
Try participating on another comment board with lower informati
Re-posted because Cowardly UW cannot reply so censorship was used:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 6
Thumb down 17
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Disprove my statement. It is a well-known fact, and has been discussed for DECADES by many people. The fraud & waste costs infused in the HI system by Medicare/ Medicaid are included in /covered by the charge-backs and fees by medical care providers.
Tell us the Govt Health Care / Insurance Welfare system is perfect and without fraud and waste. I’ll wait. We’ll all wait for your ‘joke’.
Your responses lately have been largely confined to baseless, vile, rude, vindictive judgements, rather than rebuttals or factual statements. Your BOTs can no longer censor Conservative viewpoints as they did when dozens of down votes appeared within hours of a conservative view posting. Now, maybe a dozen down votes appear a day after a conservative view is posted. You lose.
Try participating on another comment board with lower information participants.
Reply
Oh no! Your original post has 5 downvotes and is not hidden. Better repost the same nonsense again!
Re-posted because Cowardly UW cannot reply, so censorship was used.
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 6
Thumb down 18
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
RE: rising Health Care costs in the US: it is due to the waste and fraud in Medicare & Medicaid, and the influx of ILLEGAL Immigrants using ERs as free clinics, thus costs charged back to those who pay, without averaging them over a broader base of payers.
Reply
Oh no! Your original post has 3 downvotes and is not hidden. Better repost the same nonsense again!
The above isn’t nonsense, and now that I have seen many of my posts deleted, even one where I simply thanked polar for thanking me, and told him to feel free to use my info, and that I had a dream of people being unified and debating openly, you can see it isn’t silly for conservatives to think they need to repost.
What he said above is something you disagree with. Why not make the case against it? Put him in his place.
I don’t believe Polar has the available resources to prove his point. If you did this, you would win the debate with him. But instead, you said the above…
On this one, I would prefer you shut him down with facts until he backs up his argument.
If you didn’t catch by my sly wording, I know he can’t prove himself here, and there’s an obvious reason behind that, which shows my position.
Medicare fraud can’t drive up the cost of basic health care. I let him know how medicare and Medicaid can, in certain scenarios, giving an example of over regulation of the health industry, combined with caps or over payment by a medicare/Medicaid policy, or lower than needed payments vs supply and demand, which then would be restricted, and showed how LASIK was mucked up by this, but I did not support his narrative. Giving him that information was not by accident. It was intentional.
Can you guess the intent, and based on what I just told you above to do, where my position is?
Polar, the reason you get all the down votes is that you hit these trolls in the gut and they have nothing and I mean nothing for rebuttal except for insults. That is how Progressives think and free speech is not free speech unless you spout the Progressive line. It is a mental disease by the way. Keep up the good work. You can handle them.
Illegal immigrants get free Emergency Room visits? That’s a gross oversimplificaiton of the Emergency Medicaid provision, IMHO.
It may be a gross oversimplification, but it is the truth. Basically, anyone who comes to the ER must be treated without regard to their ability to pay. Since they do not have insurance, the hospitals bill it back through Medicaid.
So how much of a drain are illegal immigrants on our society, especially in health care costs? BILLIONS!!
Let’s think about this. All you single payer fans want to have healthcare like the VA and our Veterans? They wait for 6 months an appointment? Then, it is a “checkup” from an overworked and underpaid doctor?
WhenEVER the govt gets involved, the costs skyrocket and the efficiency is non-existent. We can see that just looking at any historical govt work?
NObody cares when they get to the govt level. IT is OPM. Other people’s money.
I want COMPETITION. I do NOT want to pay for everyone else’s healthcare like maternity for the illegal alien pumping out one child per year so she gets a raise from some govt dept each year.
I am tired of the Obama way of thinking.
Control healthcare, (Obamacare) FOOD (food stamps) and all the other Saul Alinsky ways of thinking.
Socialism does not work. We have seen enough failed experiments from other countries.
WHY would it work better now and HERE? It will not.
America was founded on HARD work and large reward for that work.
When Obama pays people more to stay home than they can make due to low or no skills, there SHOULD be a tax break for the wealthy.
The WEALTHY ARE THE ONLY ONES PAYING ANY TAXES!!!
AZ Ins Man,
Based on your post, you have little or no understanding of how Single Payer works. The VA is, as are Medicaid and Medicare, government administered health care, whereas Single Payer actually eliminates that.
Single Payer is NOT socialized medicine. You can equate it to defense and infrastructure contractors.
I hope this helps.
No, Ron, his post is spot on. YOU are the clueless one who is parsing words and defining things to fit your agenda.
Government control need not be called ‘Single Payer’, but it is a situation where a Single entity controls Health Care decisions.
Straw Man arguments will not be overlooked and dismissed without you being called out for such tactics.
PBR – please post the actual definition you use when talking about ‘Single Payer’ and also post which lexicon you used to determine the meaning of that phrase. In your lexicon, is a chickpea both a chick and a pea and is Rhode Island an island?
Enjoy your journey down a rabbit hole.
I’m not parsing words…. I explained my point about GOVT CONTROL without using the SP trick / Straw Man argument.
Okie dokey artichokey. Good talk Yogi.
@Confused:
HERE is the ONLY “definition” that Libitterals will accept as ‘true’; i.e. from a Libbiteral controlled source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare
Read it and compare it to what people are discussing, then make all the comments you want about side issues. But don’t expect to drag the conversation down your meaningless rabbit holes to divert attention from Conservative viewpoints that are edifying people to the LIES of the proponents of the ACA, such as Jonathan ‘Mr. Hubris’ Gruber, Vallerie Jarret, Nancy Pelosi Galore, and Ezekiel ‘In-Denial’ Emmanuel.
Polar,
I really believe you should stop the use of slang words based on leftist ideology.
Just say liberals and what they believe. It’s no different than republicons, neo cons, etc.
I thought rising costs were due to people living longer, treating diseases & medical conditions that were once not treatable, the development of new medical technologies that, while effective, are more costly, and the development (and use) of new pharmaceuticals that treat previously untreatable conditions. And lastly, our economy and industries, including the medical industry, operate in a market based system that allows for profits when demand is high, extraordinary innovation occurs, and a specific skill set is required to administer services. Which pretty much describes the medical industry doesn’t it?
Spot on, SWFL. But, the real reasons costs are increasing as you have noted above do not fit the Faux News narrative. They don’t sound as good as the 8 second soundbite coming from Hannity blaming brown people and liberals.
SWFL Agent – There are several contributors to the rising health care costs. Lack of competition, litigation and insurance costs, fraud, Medicaid supplements for illegal aliens, etc. Your list are also contributors, but not the “drivers”.
Some of the increases are due to what you listed. They would exist in completely private insurance markets. The WASTE and FRAUD exists in private markets, but NO WHERE near the degree it is in government controlled health care; e.g. The VA.
I’m waiting to read the Libitteral trolls ingenious replies such as “No it’s not, you {insult of choice for the day}!”
As someone who actually uses the VA healthcare system, I can say with actual experience that the VA system is the best. Sure, there are problems, but the private sector is much worse. You are much more likely to die using the private sector. Furthermore, one of the main problems with the VA is that the Republicans are constantly trying to sabbotage it, with the hopes of eventually funneling the money into the pockets of their rich donors.
Neither side of this argument is offering the perfect solution or a compelling argument as to why their solution is the better choice. Senators and Congressmen have no skin in this game. Their decisions won’t affect them or their immediate families. I’m surprised that everyone is ok with them enjoying a “platinum healthcare plan” the we all pay for. They have no worries about preexisting conditions, no deductibles, no co-pays. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I pay a massive amount for healthcare with high deductibles, co-pays etc. Whatever plan is implemented, all Senators and Congressmen should be required to be on that plan that they choose for the rest of the country. No exception.
interestingly enough,
There is no perfect plan. However, Single Payer, where the government’s sole responsibility is to collect premiums, in the form of taxes, then pay the private insurance administrators will solve nearly all of the issues with health care/insurance. Everyone, including all politicians, are on the same plan.
Ron,
As discussed in previous posts, adding the govt as a middle man does nothing but increase expenses to a system that is already burdened. If necessary, let the govt buy a group policy for everyone under the poverty line to replace Medicaid. They can be a single payer for that group of people, but allow individuals and employers purchase directly from the carriers.
I totally agree that the politicians should be on the same healthcare plan or be required to purchase from the standard market like the common citizen.
integrity matters,
I do not disagree that the government runs efficiently. I have also never stated that Single Payer is perfect. However, the free market has had decades to come up with a solution and has failed, as has the PPACA. We need to try something new.
You said, “I totally agree that the politicians should be on the same healthcare plan or be required to purchase from the standard market like the common citizen.” How would you accomplish this in the free market? The politicians would trade their votes for free or significantly discounted health care, giving health care companies huge breaks and pushing additional costs onto the taxpayers.
I believe in the free market for nearly all industries. However, there are some that cannot function within the free market such as the military, police, schools, infrastructure and health care because nearly every citizens needs and/or utilizes these.
There ARE much better proposals, which are slowly surfacing as Congressional factions force them to be adopted in legislation. Witness the failed first attempt by Paul Ryano and the subsequent changes that narrowly passed last week.
Now, ponder how that bill will change when smarter Senators force adoption of more free market solutions and complete abandonment of Socialist policies currently embedded in Ryano Care.
I’m glad there are much better Republican proposals out there than the one they voted on! Do you think they’ll be released in the next 7 years?
Ron,
The free market has had their hands tied with the state restrictions and with the tort laws. Those two items must be fixed for any real competition to surface. Additional underwriting needs to also take place.
The media and democrats are portraying that people with pre-existing conditions are going to have to pay more money. Duh!! Why should healthcare be any different than any other insurance? If you are greater risk or have more exposure to loss, you should expect to pay more for coverage or have higher deductibles.
That said, this is where the marketplace should be able to create a risk pool that provides excess coverage over a stated limit. Doing so would potentially allow the “pre-existing condition” people the ability to pay a reasonable cost for normal healthcare issues and purchase catastrophic care. There are ways for the free market to resolve most of these issues without govt intervention.
integrity matters,
This will lead to far more people going without health insurance who need it the most. They will then go to the emergency room for acute care, have far more expensive treatments compared to preventative or managed care, and drive up costs; or they will just choose to die.
You asked, “Why should healthcare be any different than any other insurance?” Answer: 1. It is the only insurance nearly everyone will need/use regardless of life choices. 2. It is also the only exposure for which you can receive benefits without paying the premiums up front. 3. Most importantly, we are talking about people lives, not just property.
If you can isolate those who have pre-existing conditions solely because of their own choices, then charge them more. I am fine with that. What I do have a problem with, is charging those with conditions that were inherited or brought upon by things outside of their control significantly more to add to their suffering. I would rather pay more as a healthy person to reduce their premiums than to go through what they are suffering. maybe it is the Christian in me and what I have learned from the teachings of Jesus.
Risk pools may work if properly funded. The ACHA, however, is only going to provide $8 billion of the $200 billion that would be required.
They are unsustainable.
Ron,
As Ben Shapiro recently pointed out, the over regulated insurance industry is the problem. Health insurance has existed for some time before the 1965 crises that started, as this link points out:
https://mises.org/blog/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
It was not until the government got involved, and supply and demand got out of whack, and they regulated the insurance industry that costs exploded.
Ben Shaprio also pointed out that every aspect that stopped being covered by both the government and health insurance, such as laser eye surgery, which was roughly $30,000 not that long ago, and now, since the government dropped it as a covered item, it can be obtained through LASIK type surgery, and actually shot down in cost, to $2,075 in 2015, down from $2,500 in 2014, and one of the only aspects of healthcare that keeps going down in cost. A free market does this. The doctors positioned themselves based on the supply and demand. Regulating health care to charge X amount equally, or telling the doctors how much the health insurance company will pay them (which they often do) gets in the way, and removes how the market drives down costs.
So the answer to your question as to why we shouldn’t do single payer?
It’s easy, when the government gets involved, let’s say we did Medicare for all, things like laser eye surgery would cost 10 times more, and the cost would be shared by all. It would not be affordable by any means. Instead, if we had a combination of free market healthcare, and government assistance, then the market could bring down costs, and people who needed it could have government funds to assist. Single payer doesn’t do what you think it does. I know, you’ll reference some other country that has it, but you have no country to compare for a free market system as I am speaking, and many of those nations have tax rates that long term are much more crushing than if they could have a tax rate half that long term.
You just don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m sorry.
All too often the goal of the government is to create a reliant state Ron. This is why they want healthcare to not be affordable, and I can guarantee you, the ACA was made with that in mind, to further a crises and a push to single payer.
They do the same thing each time, to say only we the government can fix this, and freedom (the free market and choice) is bad. Do you not see an issue with this mentality? Can you honestly tell me you haven’t already seen people who follow it?
Here’s something that will blow your mind, on that note, and why I get ticked off at the global warming push, which is nothing other than government control efforts:
ht tp://ww w.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
What do you notice about this chart? It’s not the only one of it’s kind. Recently, I finally said wait, I’ve only ever seen charts from the 1850’s, roughly. I thought to myself, why? Here is what is scary on this note: Have any of you pulled up long term global warming charts? NO! That’s how well they indoctrinated you, as well as me.
What do you notice in this chart? Read over what the two people who made it say. They say they are concerned with pollution from humans, note that they don’t weigh that much into man made global warming.
There is an ecologist, and an ex founder of Green Peace who was ousted, who believes in being green so to speak, who specifically points this out. Is he on mainstream media sites talking? No. He’s been out there trying to be heard, and who is shutting him down? The right? You might want to see what he says. This is a great video, and is why I wanted to see a chart of temperature history that went much further.
htt ps://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ
You constantly try to keep the right in check, ignoring completely the issues with the left that are out of control.
This isn’t even going over the bull crap Russia ties. Quiz question: Who did the report on the DNC hacked computer and alleged it was Russians? The FBI didn’t do it directly. In fact, the same DNC that is known to have sabotaged Sanders, the same DNC that refused to let the FBI review their servers first party because it would be biased (and for some reason insist they directly handle anything that can damage Trump, could it be they know the government can offer power in favor of a particular party? Could it be why Truman called the FBI a mob type of organization in the 50’s?) was the same company who hired Crowd Strike, which was funded by Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Technology. Oh look, more DNC corruption. So Hillary may as well have said I was hacked, and I myself have the proof, no one else can deny this, it’s a fact. Whereas, as of now it is alleged. Perhaps this is part of why Comey is gone by the way. He has taken the wrong position too much.
ht tp://w ww.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/06/dnc-russian-hacking-conclusion-comes-google-linked-firm/
By the way, while we are on listening to the top of the top of the capitalist food chain Warren Buffet,
Why don’t we see what John McAffee (A pioneer of anti virus software) has to say about this hack?
ht tp://w ww.express.co.uk/news/world/748523/john-mcafee-blasts-fbi-over-russian-hacking-claims
While you’ve been busy saying one liners? I’ve been busy doing research. You are completely amateur, you’re just a better speaker than agent. Get over yourself, and stop the blatant bias to the left, and attacks to the right.
Go do the research. Consider why you don’t know what I just put up, and really analyze it.
bob,
All I am going to say is that if you think Single Payer Medicare-for-all, you do not understand Single Payer. With Medicare, the health care administration and costs are controlled by the federal government whereas these things would be handled by private insurance companies with Single Payer.
Do you not see the significant difference? Until you do, we cannot have an honest debate on the merits of Single Payer.
As I have stated multiple times, there would be LESS government involvement in health care administration with Single Payer. In addition, it is the only way to satisfies President Trump’s promise, “We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
What is the free market solution that would satisfy his promise?
“All I am going to say is that if you think Single Payer Medicare-for-all, you do not understand Single Payer.”
As usual you try to argue semiotics. You know darn well what I meant, and this is the only area you could highlight on, phrasing? In the US Bernie Sanders constantly calls his plan Medicare for all, and compares it to a type of Single Payer. I have no words to direct your either sleazy behavior or stupidity here! Knock it off! I am referencing expanding our government healthcare to all, and how our healthcare has managed costs since 1965. Also, Single Payer systems don’t do what you think they do.
“With Medicare, the health care administration and costs are controlled by the federal government whereas these things would be handled by private insurance companies with Single Payer.”
This is blatantly untrue. For one primary reason, and a few secondary. Company or Companies? Single Payer systems do NOT have “Companies” and what I said still applies. One insurance company does not a free market make. A single payer system will always have troubles managing supply and demand, without a free market to compete with.
“Do you not see the significant difference? Until you do, we cannot have an honest debate on the merits of Single Payer.”
This again. This is not appropriate, and is sleazy. How about this, PNHP disagrees with you, professionals define it as follows:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer
Note that they call it “Medicare for all”. Also note: THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SINGLE PAYER. However, they all share one thing in common: SINGLE. As in one. As in a removal of competition in the insurance industry itself. This site above woefully misstates what such a system would do, for the same reason I mentioned with Lasik surgery.
“As I have stated multiple times, there would be LESS government involvement in health care administration with Single Payer.”
This is blatantly not true. You’re just too simple minded to see why. Proportionately the amount of room for free market would go down compared to government involvement. So it would be 0% free market in the insurance field, and 100% government pay.
“In addition, it is the only way to satisfies President Trump’s promise, “We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
This again is arguing semiotics and how people phrased things. And I might add, again, you’re again arguing style over substance, because you are a complete sleaze ball. I don’t care how people say things, got it bud? I care about policy. Also, moreover, what Trump said would technically be true, if we talk about receiving care, even before the ACA passage. No doctor can refuse treatment regardless of ability to pay. It’s a law. Trump meant he would give assistance to all people and would create paths for all people. Single payer is not the only way of doing this, and single payer harms everyone.
“What is the free market solution that would satisfy his promise?”
Irrelevant. Your debate style is completely controlling by the way. Work on it.
I suppose you’ll refuse to debate the professionals on the matter, you better go write them an email about how they are calling it the wrong thing!
Maybe you should focus on your concepts instead of wording. How about that?
Maybe you didn’t spell out what type of system your Single Payer was recently, and maybe, your system for Single Payer still would not do what you think it would, and would harm how supply and demand were controlled. Maybe insurance would handle it better.
Maybe, one can make that case, and maybe, it doesn’t mean they don’t know their words or lack reading comprehension. You follow your liberal cohorts in the means to shut down debate. It’s hilarious really, while you say they don’t do it you follow it.
I don’t tolerate it, if it isn’t clear. As Andrew Briebart once said, the reply to someone who argues with you as if you are a racist, is not I am not racist, it is @%@ you! And in this sense, the reply to someone who numerous times said they wouldn’t debate unless someone said they phrased things improperly, before making their own argument a concept, is @%@#% you.
It will continue to be my reply each time you do it.
bob,
I have been ignoring you, but thought I would try again to engage in a civil debate. But there you go with the insults and bullying, ” I have no words to direct your either sleazy behavior or stupidity here! Knock it off!”, “You’re just too simple minded to see why.”, and “…because you are a complete sleaze ball.” Thank you for proving you have zero interest in such.
One rebuttal to your statement, “Also, moreover, what Trump said would technically be true, if we talk about receiving care, even before the ACA passage. No doctor can refuse treatment regardless of ability to pay. It’s a law. Trump meant he would give assistance to all people and would create paths for all people.” If that is what President Trump meant, he should have said that, but he didn’t. Stop making excuses for our president.
“bob,
I have been ignoring you,”
I’m aware and not surprised. It’s why you don’t have good arguments. You label how someone debates, and don’t argue content. I debate anyone. It’s why I know more on these topics and generally debate better.
“but thought I would try again to engage in a civil debate.”
That’s not the point of a debate, that’s your superiority complex, and you constantly talk down to those you debate. This is hypocrisy as well.
“But there you go with the insults and bullying,”
Ah yes, that’s civilized debate. No, this is your tactic. How did you start this debate? You said you wouldn’t even debate until I used the right words, and you were wrong about those words I might add. I do not bully. Insults are not synonymous with bullying. Deal with life. I picture you as a sheltered boy who looks to be offended instead of looking at his own works. This is a recipe for disaster.
“I have no words to direct your either sleazy behavior or stupidity here! Knock it off!”, “You’re just too simple minded to see why.”, and “…because you are a complete sleaze ball.” Thank you for proving you have zero interest in such.”
Really? Do you understand why I said this? Could it be an insult and degrading comment you made at me? While slyly playing it off as some roses you planted? Look inward, argue the concept at hand instead of who is offending who. From the perspective of everyone, everyone is offensive! Also, you did argue like a sleazeball. Deal with it.
“One rebuttal to your statement, “Also, moreover, what Trump said would technically be true, if we talk about receiving care, even before the ACA passage. No doctor can refuse treatment regardless of ability to pay. It’s a law. Trump meant he would give assistance to all people and would create paths for all people.”
“If that is what President Trump meant, he should have said that, but he didn’t. Stop making excuses for our president.”
Grow up you idiot. Excuses for what, precisely? You still haven’t argued plans. You took the things you thought you could call someone a hypocrite for and are tabloid style politics, and refused to defend the topic at hand, or argue against mine.
This is insanity Ron. Take the argument, and stop inserting crap to derail it. I didn’t bring up that quote, I defended it. Stop bringing up things that don’t matter for the conversation at hand.
“Do you not see the significant difference? Until you do, we cannot have an honest debate on the merits of Single Payer.”
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer
Address this immediately or we cannot have an honest debate on the merits of single payer.
You mocked my word use, insisted I make a commentary agreeing with you on it, or you would refuse to debate further.
Were you on a debate team? These methods exist to some capacity on debate teams, on better ones anyway, and the goal is to get someone to agree to a parameter you set up, in order to have them then contradict themselves or for you to be able to distance them from their argument in the conclusion of the parameter of what you have them agree with. It is in itself on debate, a tactic, but in real life, it would be a lot like tricking someone in an argument to make it appear they lost, and it is, the way you commonly use it, bullying. I immediately called you sleazy for it, or stupid, one of the two. And you are, either sleazy, or stupid for it, especially considering the parameter you used is FACTUALLY INCORRECT as I have evidenced.
Also:
“Ben Shaprio also pointed out that every aspect that stopped being covered by both the government and health insurance, such as laser eye surgery, which was roughly $30,000 not that long ago, and now, since the government dropped it as a covered item, it can be obtained through LASIK type surgery, and actually shot down in cost, to $2,075 in 2015, down from $2,500 in 2014, and one of the only aspects of healthcare that keeps going down in cost. A free market does this. The doctors positioned themselves based on the supply and demand”
Explain how Medicaid simply paying the bill for LASIK is any bit different than what you mention, with a single payer entity whether private or public, simply paying the bill for Lasik?
The single payer system could not possibly just pay out the most expensive amount. It would have to place a cap. Why would the insured shop around to lower cast Lasik companies? They wouldn’t. The cap of payment would become the normal cost. If the government capped it too low, doctors might not target it. If they cap it too high, doctors might over target it at the expense of something else.
Without a competing company doing different caps and negotiations to bring down the cost and offer a lower cost, the cost won’t go down, and supply and demand won’t come into fruition.
In what way will your single payer system address this in which the Medicaid example I gave wouldn’t? How do they differ? How does your solution fix this problem?
“I do not disagree that the government runs efficiently. I have also never stated that Single Payer is perfect. However, the free market has had decades to come up with a solution and has failed, as has the PPACA. We need to try something new”
The free market didn’t break the system. Regulation did, starting in the 60’s. We do not have a free market. Before then my chart showed that medical costs and insurance went in line with standard earnings increases. The question is what changed that? The government. The solution is not to get the government more involved and to put them in control, while claiming the free market never worked. It did. Before the 60’s.
So as the democrats insist we regulate all markets out the kazoo, as they did in the 60’s and that crumbles everything, we will move to government control and solutions more and more won’t we?
This is why democrats need to be stopped. We don’t need to try something new for the sake of it, without knowing where we have been. They encourage people to think like you. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about, and think in vague terms all the time.
To prove it:
Prove your beginning statement:
“However, the free market has had decades to come up with a solution and has failed, as has the PPACA. We need to try something new”
And show how you have weighed this over time, with charts showing how regulated we were, and what premiums did.
I already gave a chart before we mucked it up in the 60’s, did you notice the line diverge and what it did before?
You have no evidence the free market is the problem, and as I said to others here, what is disturbing is what democrats aim to teach: That freedom is bad, free markets are bad, etc.
Republicans don’t have this in their party.
“I’m glad there are much better Republican proposals out there than the one they voted on! Do you think they’ll be released in the next 7 years?”
There have already been several, I’ve quoted them in the past by name, 4 in particular.
There have also been movements to deregulate the health industry that the democrats have killed.
Keep up with the times Confused.
@bob;
Thanks for all the detailed support. I admire your experience, knowledge, and resolve to seriously debate and point out the flawed logic of libs trying to twist the meaning of SINGLE-PAYER to fit their agenda. They all want to steer the conversation away from the topic of government control over health care and health insurance and put out Straw Man Arguments about ‘single-payer’ to defend govt control.
I also enjoyed your post about the beginning of the problem in health care costs associated with LBJ’s Medicare and Medicaid programs driving up costs by subsidizing them over the past half-century (a great over-simplification of your points). I’ll visit the link you provided later today or over the weekend.
The 4 plans you mention are almost always ignored or ‘hidden’ by Libitterals still trying to defend ACA.
Another plan, to which I refer often, may be published soon, if the US Senate’s version of the recently passed House bill converges toward said plan.
I doubt I will completely accept whatever bill the House and Senate finally agree on. In that regard, I am pessimistic that politicians know what is Constitutionally right for the public they represent, and whose best interests they are obligated to serve.
The congressmen and women and all U.S. Senators should be on the SAME healthcare as the public AND on Social Security with US.
Why fix something that has NO effect on you?
There’s not enough time in the day, or space on these comment pages, to submit a comprehensive reform plan. But, they exist in a few places.
The reason ACA failed, the reason Trumpcare will fail, the reason every suggestion made here will fail, is because there are 100 factors impacting health care costs and everyone is focusing on just one. Yes, hospitals are forced under EMTALA to treat illegal aliens, even when they have no money. An illegal alien in a persistent vegetative state has to be treated for life by the hospital. The last hospital that tried to deport one to a hospital in his home country was sued and lost. (Funny that the family can get a lawyer to represent them pro-bono, but can’t look for ways to pay for the care of their dying family member.)
Along the same line is what ACA tried to do…since we force hospitals to treat you regardless of if they get paid, then we’re going to force you to buy health insurance or tax you if you don’t. It was a good concept…too bad they screwed it up. The loopholes just let sick people sign up for health insurance making insurance companies pay for what hospitals were stuck with. Since insurance companies don’t fund raise for donations the way hospitals do, they had costs that weren’t covered by income.
Next, we all know pharmaceutical companies charge multiples more than they need to. Part of this is funding future research, which is good, some is corporate greed which cannot be considered “free market” because they patent their drugs making it impossible to compete with them for years, until the generics come out.
Next we have an overly litigious society. The cost here is not just limited to settlements and liability insurance costs, but also forces doctors to run tests simply designed to cover their butts, even when they know it’s probably a waste.
And last, but not least, but the one we have the least control over, is that people are living longer and are being treated for diseases there were previously no cure for.
If you are only talking one or two of these issues, you don’t have a clue.
Well said, Mr Opinion.
For the record (and I am not defending the pharmaceutical companies), they typically spend millions (if not billions) on research. Once approved by the FDA, the current laws give them a relatively short window to exclusively recoup the money they spent on R&D to potentially make a profit on that new drug. Generics are on the street the instant they are allowed to market the drug, without all the R&D expenses by the inventor.
Greed plays a part is some (maybe most) but not all situations.
I agree. My memory key, offered a few dozen times in the past, HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS, is a starting point of the plan to replace ACA through market driven approaches to a multi-faceted problem of costs, adverse selection, pre-exers, and inefficiencies in market info. But it requires dozens of details to each facet, and some less critical facets aren’t included in that ‘short list’.
I believe we will see Single Payer before anything that satisfies your HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS.
We already know you believe otherwise, so no response is required.
Partially correct; YOU will see Single Payer as soon as you migrate to Cana-duh. Buh-bye! Bon Voyage! Adieu, Monsieur!
I am not going anywhere. When we do finally get Single Payer, your iceberg may be the only place left with market based health care.
Don’t forget to check your passport before you lock the door and leave your old key with the real estate agent / landlord.
Buffet is part of a corrupt system, anyone who bows to the left can rob the bank through the back door. The left has allowed for this, just agree with their twisted agenda and get the moon. Many big company CEOs are doing this because it’s big bucks for them, any from promoting socialism to whatever the LGBT community asks for, they support it as they are the partner of crime.
I agree with the Agent who refers to finding Warren a padded cell.
Does he really expect us to believe his income taxes at his huge
income level would have reduced 17% when the total cost of his health insurance ( mind you, he is covered by Medicare!) for a
family would top out at $30-32,000.! No, he is pandering to his
supporters by using an absolutely bogus figure. How about going after some of the loopholes over the years that have allowed him
to make vast sums transferring losses to shelter income! Don’t pick on a tiny item in his cost structure as health insurance.
The wealthy like him ( and remember he is in Medicare) get their health insurance from their multiple entities “free of charge” so to speak.
Call it what you will, but I am at the very bottom of the “middle class” and Trumpcare will save me $100 per month. So what if it is a tax cut for the wealthy? It is also a tax cut for the poor
How could you possibly know since the final law has yet to be signed? Upon what are you basing your assessment?
Perhaps it is from super secret CBO assessments that were leaked?
Preliminary estimates are available from the authors. Got connections to them, like some others have? If not, you’ll just have to wait for the final bill, like Nancy Pelosi and the other troll liberal media members who are being SHUT OUT of the discussions.
Did you find that CBO assessment for ACA, like I asked you to do? Please follow up on that assignment, pronto! Ready, steady, … GO!
How can there be an accurate CBO assessment of a bill that has not been finalized?
So, you complained that Republicans were shut out of the OPPACA negotiations, yet praise the Republicans for shutting out the Democrats now. And you have the nerve to call others hypocrites.
I am not doing your research. If you care so much about that, go find it yourself.
I really, really do not care about the PPACA or anything related to it. I want it gone and replaced with Single Payer.
Just keep on trolling.
CBO’s assessment of ACA wasn’t finalized?
I suppose that’s one way to hide the fact they missed the Death Spiral.
Reading comprehension failure. Ron said the CBO wasn’t yet finalized for the AHCA.
I keep asking Ron for the CBO assessment on ACA… and HE CHANGES THE TOPIC…. for well known reasons.
Got it? Or are you intent on remaining stuck on Straw Man Arguments, Changing the Subject, Insults, IP change censorship, and Misdirection?
PolarBeaRepeal,
Here you go.
https://www.cbo.gov/topics/health-care/affordable-care-act
Enjoy.
And if you need more…
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41423
Just some commentary here:
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51130
Note they said the average cost would be $15,500 roughly. It is actually $18,500.
ht tp://w ww.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-premiums.aspx
And they originally said the republican plan would decrease premiums about 10%, and that the democrat plan would increase them about 10% over time. Let’s say that it compounds over time, not 10% a year per say, but that it annually has a cost reduction affect as a percentage of health insurance costs. Over time the differences would be substantial. If instead the CBO report for the republicans turned out true, unlike the one that turned out wrong from the CBO on the ACA, instead of $18,500, the republicans would have been $13,950. Then that reduction of government of supposedly like $5-$7k wouldn’t matter, especially considering we would actually need to translate the same ratio over 8 years. You can do math, I’ll leave that to you. We see that in the long run, the cuts are more than made up for in premium decreases, on the other hand, meddling like we did in the 60’s, will continue to spiral and there won’t be enough federal assistance to help anyone, because of your mentality.
We need a full free market. Competing insurance companies, deregulate the crud we did in the insurance industry so they can finally have a free market, and give assistance to those who need it.
Not a single payer system which will inevitably increase costs by comparison to this, which does not exist anywhere. We shouldn’t follow other nations. We should forge paths.
@Ron;
Post-facto reviews by CBO is DODGING THE QUESTION I POSED!
The projection of CBO at the TIME THE ACA WAS PASSED is the info I sought.
If you have it, post it.
ANYONE can ‘guess’ at outcomes AFTER some or all of a game is played or is in progress.
I am seeking the CBO report from LATE March (23), 2010.
Get to it, ASAP, Ron! Ready, steady, GO!… to Cana-duh!
@bob;
I am in 100% agreement with you on fully competitive, free market forces to drive down costs through innovation and cost control measures.
Liberals continue to try to obfuscate the effects of competition on costs and ignore the buttressing of costs of no competition situations; e.g. government control and taxation to cover increasing costs with no incentives for the payer to control them due to having no skin in the game.
So, you only looked at the first link? Here is the one you requested…again
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41423
Great! Now everyone can read the CBO’s assessment that projected DEFICIT REDUX over 10 years of $130 Billion.
LMAO at Ron, who has now been ‘boxed’ by my request for the CBO evaluation @ 2010, the sole purpose of which is to discredit CBO’s prognostication abilities.
Now, Ron; please tell everyone about the VALUE of the CURRENT CBO assessments of the TWO latest HI / HC proposals by Republicans.
I’ll wait.
PolarBeaRepeal,
How have I been “boxed”?
2010 deficit – $1.294 Trillion
2016 Deficit – $587 Billion
Looks like the CBO was WAY off.
Why? I DO NOT CARE WHAT THE CBO SAYS!!!
I make my determinations on whether or not a law has value based on the law itself and the results.
My issue with taking a business leader’s public statements seriously is who truly knows what their agenda is? Warren Buffet could be making a statement he truly believes or he could be saying something that he thinks would benefit him commercially in any number of ways. Having spent a good deal of time around c-suite types I can tell you that most of them are very political personalities.
If I was being cynical I would interrupt his healthcare cost comments as a desire to not have American businesses compete with one for talent by their health benefits offerings. Wouldn’t many business owners rather have the government deal with healthcare then have it be a benefit the manage themselves? The question being, does that path lead to more competitive businesses, a better healthcare system, or both? Which is more important and what goal do you think Warren Buffet is looking to achieve?
I think he is taking the true Christian position and not the Supply Side Jesus one most conservatives today support:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc-LJ_3VbUA
another porn vid.
His link is safe. Stop spreading misinformation!
Another complete lie from Yogi. My link is 100% legit and is not at all linked to anything porn related. Please quit blatantly misleading others out here, Yogi. Is there nothing too low for you?
I was indirectly keeping people from viewing your post… i.e. your youtube vid. That’s called censorship. Like it?
You can dish it out (first with BOTs – which have been neutered by IJ IT staff, so now, you can’t do anything but switch IP addys using Tor, etc.) but you can’t take it.
Yogi,
I don’t use the voting buttons out here, so not sure what in the heck you are talking about. Sounds like paranoia to me. But, thank you for being honest about misleading others. I’ll give you kudos for that.
and yet bob still defends him and claims he was NOT misleading people with his post
Moreover,
Exaggeration, sarcasm, and hyperbole to prove a point is not synonymous with what you’re accusing him of.
At no point when I read that post did I waiver in clicking the youtube link when he said another porn video.
I knew what he meant from the get go, and so should you.
Stop the behavior issues. This is not a topic to debate. The very fact you are focusing on it, is the real issue in debate in general.
Yogi admitted his only intention was to misdirect people and stop them from clicking the link and, yet days laster, you STILL continue to defend him claiming his intent was something else.
edit:
…and yet, days later,….
“Yogi admitted his only intention was to misdirect people and stop them from clicking the link and, yet days laster, you STILL continue to defend him claiming his intent was something else.”
Incorrect. I posted saying I don’t support his claim indefinitely, and that it is VERY clear he did that mocking the regressive left information control. When he admitted such he was throwing something BACK in the face of liberals. When he first posted, I don’t imagine he thought anyone would think it was porn. You don’t know how to identify hyperbole.
Your
“edit:
…and yet, days later,….”
Is wrong.
Several of my posts to you have been deleted, with no insults contained therein. I have replied. They have been deleted. Your comments haven’t. And I mean this, there were no insults. In one I simply thanked someone and said feel free to use my information, and said I have a dream of us all on this site sharing information and being unified instead of divisive. That was deleted too. I told Conserving the Truth I respected him back and answered his question. That was deleted, and yet my semi over the top ones are still here. Very odd.
I also said that his comment was only MINIMALLY an issue, that you over reacted regarding. You have no right to discredit him and brand him on one comment he throws back at you. I don’t support that either.
Now then, you will admit I am being reasonable, and stop trying to tarnish me based on your absurd comment I supported insanity here. I did not. I commented numerous times explaining I had a slight issue with what he said, in being over the top, but more of one with you.
Stop the absurd methods of calling people extreme to end their ability to debate. It is not ok.
“So now that we have cleared this up from my point of view, and I have said I don’t support his post any longer, is that fair?”
You read this, and likely disliked it. It’s still there.
What are you aiming for me to do? I condemned the over the top nature, but called it a small issue.
Is it defending someone until I say they have no credibility?
What is your goal?
I’m raising eyebrows. I assumed you never saw this and it was one of the deleted posts, but it’s still there.
By what definition, and it was posted before you claimed I was still defending him, do you claim I did not call out what I perceived over the top?
The very fact that I did you as well?
Or is it that I allow his arguments to still have weight, and you want me to throw him under the bus forever for one comment?
and you consider yourself I bet, liberal (not using this as political right now, I mean open minded and forgiving, in this sense I consider myself to be liberal)
What you are asking of me, or appear to be, is completely unreasonable.
The error of the supply side Jesus Satire (and I must emphasize that last word) entails the following:
1. People are not Jesus. Jesus has unlimited supply. People don’t.
2. The world is not a utopia. Any system of delivering goods will have flaws.
3. Giving things for free when there is limited supply, actually can harm the production of goods. Without goods you can’t have taxes to give needed services.
4. Coming back to republicans going on a supposed Supply Side Jesus aspect (which different people interpret different ways, but I’ve made my interpretation fairly clear) they tend to go off of making a bigger pie for people to work to attain, and trying to stop the government from impeding the ability for people to provide for themselves.
Republicans are not just going around saying people don’t need help. They are saying the government when they get involved tend to encourage bad behavior. Republicans still give more to charity and time on average, though it isn’t substantial, if they truly believed the poor didn’t need help, they wouldn’t do this.
One example would be to see what has happened in the black community. We passed civil rights laws in 1964, we have constantly passed assistance for them, and all that has happened, is that the single motherhood rate has exploded. This is because they no longer have to be involved in personal responsibility. It is not due to a lack of availability of birth control or abortion.
htt p://blackdemographics.com/households/poverty/
When we look at black families, they have indeed improved, but the big issue here, is as a whole, from as far as we can track, their poverty rates were increasing over time as far back as we have it recorded.
h ttps://w ww.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-people.html
As a whole, not looking at families vs single, from the first year on document, 1974, it went from 39% to 45% in 1981. It stayed in the 40’s until just after the mid 90’s where it started to drop after we revisited welfare programs. Now it has gone up and done in the 30-40% since then which is basically dependent on recessions.
The government encouraged and financed those families separating.
That is but one area in which the government makes it actually good to make a bad decision.
I could go further, but it would take too much actual data and research…Instead of cliché lines.
Your supply side Jesus comment is old, annoying, and woefully under thought, just like it’s author, who I already said is someone I consider to be one of the worst politicians in office.
And on that note it’s not just that the government encouraged people to take the wrong action, it harmed the black population, and it harms those children who will be very likely to have hard lives.
They are not in any significant way better off now than 1964. With all we’ve passed, I fail to see how this is possible, unless the government is failing in these programs.
Have you discussed your theory with anyone outside this comment section? I have an extremely difficult time believing anyone who suffered through that era solely due to the color of their skin would actually say or think “yeah, we’re not significantly better off than we were 60 years ago.”
“Have you discussed your theory with anyone outside this comment section? I have an extremely difficult time believing anyone who suffered through that era solely due to the color of their skin would actually say or think “yeah, we’re not significantly better off than we were 60 years ago.””
Confused:
This is such an abstract to you because you yourself suffer from your first point made: You don’t go outside your normal bands of research or groups. I do. It’s why you think I don’t fit in. Think it through before you accuse me of the same.
Regarding what I said above: The government has done things which has broken apart the black family, has resulted in continued poverty, by the numbers, and has resulted in consistently lower rates of graduation, significantly higher rates of single motherhood, which also goes hand in hand with high school drop outs, crime, etc.
The black community is well aware of the crime issue, and are split on whether the police are the issue, or there is a real community issue with black folks. You clearly have only heard one side of that spectrum, I wonder which?
My point above, was by no general terms as you tried to convert them to be, that we have passed assistance in a multitude of areas for black folks and it has back fired, and has not boosted or helped any of the metrics I line itemized above. Instead, you took an anecdotal approach, literally. How in the world do you have no self realization to this degree?
I understood what you said but that doesn’t mean I have to agree that “[African Americans] are not in any significant way better off now than 1964.”
You are a youngish white male making an assumption that things have not changed for a completely different race and age group.
It’s perfectly reasonable for me to ask if you validated your theory by actually speaking with the group of people of which you claim have not had any significant improvements in their lives since the 60’s.
And I really need to say this:
GET YOUR IDENTITY POLITICS OUT OF FACTS.
Okay bob, I will. Now could you tell me if your ‘african americans aren’t better off now than they were in the 60’s’ theory has been disucssed with african-americans who were actually alive back then?
@Confused: your question indicates you are clueless about how to measure the ONGOING plight of black families… after several social welfare programs have FAILED for 50+ years.
OK, now argue with everyone about how AT LEAST ONE FAMILY has found opportunities due to the social insurance programs to show your stubbornness to be informed/ edified about the purpose of welfare programs to uplift the majority, or all, of those it is intended to serve.
bob need not discuss the issue with people ‘outside this comment page’ to understand the critical measures involved and the failures they indicate.
Just telling the truth that you don’t like hearing Confused. Polar and I have been doing yeoman work on this site for several years and throw in Bob while we are at it. Nothing sinks in with you, does it (except your ideology?
Do you like the hammer I just dropped?
I’ve said before, I’m snowballing in the right direction, and have the info to back it up.
Ron and Confused are not truly critical thinkers. They are essentially people who make decisions based on who sounds better or worse, or, make decisions based on what sounds like it is non partisan, and the metrics they have for that don’t work as is, since they both clearly have that ideal based on what the left thinks is non partisan.
The tilt in this country has got to go the other way, and fast, before the regressive left starts taking control in any way they can. Give an inch, they take a mile, and neither Ron nor Confused understand this. The right is not the issue right now.
Bo has been revealed. He just wants to please Agent by “dropping hammers” on those with whom Agent disagrees. maybe he is looking to take over Agent’s BOB when he retires.
Saying I dropped a hammer on someone’s argument, is not synonymous with saying that is my goal in debating. Have you ever said a similar phrase of crushing someone’s argument? It’s an expression. I don’t argue for Agent, I’m calling Agent’s attention to my arguments, because there is much to learn from what I put up in how to deal with people like you. By the way: Right after I said you guys don’t argue concepts and facts, and instead you argue how things are said, in a debate about healthcare you said:
““One rebuttal to your statement, “Also, moreover, what Trump said would technically be true, if we talk about receiving care, even before the ACA passage. No doctor can refuse treatment regardless of ability to pay. It’s a law. Trump meant he would give assistance to all people and would create paths for all people.”
“If that is what President Trump meant, he should have said that, but he didn’t. Stop making excuses for our president.””
Which is essentially arguing how Trump has said things, in an argument about healthcare in general, not about Trump. That was an attempt to derail the debate.
Grow up kid.
And I might add: AGENT DOES NOT AGREE WITH OR ARGUE LIKE ME.
He has similar conclusions, not even REMOTELY close to similar data.
Why don’t you point out some data he has shared that matches mine. Can you pull one link? Even one, where we have both used the same data?
If you want to debate healthcare then do it.
Actually, Ron; you have been revealed to be lacking substantive facts and logic thought processes that cannot lead to critical thinking. Decision makers use those tools. Followers let others decide for them, and repeat the words of whichever follower they choose to follow. Your agenda doesn’t represent the best interests of the US, and much of my claim is supported by actual experience of nations that tried Nationalized Healthcare systems. I know from firsthand discussions with a healthcare worker in Cana-duh. MANY more examples of the failure of Socialism in general are available in ‘PIGS’ and other Socialist / communist nations.
PIGS = Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain.
Chris, I certainly appreciate what our business leader President has to say, not a liberal dude like Buffet who bundled money, hosted fund raisers for the worst President in history. He appears to have beginning Alzheimers these days.
The pic of Uncle Warren smiling could be what he looked like when he heard TrumPresident fired Comey today.
More likely when he heard about the subpoenas being issued. Does this not look suspicious to you? Trump fires the guy who is investigating him. How does that not alarm you?
Nothing about Dear Leader alarms his blind sheep.
NOW who is word parsing (with the negative connotation you kept implying was always associated with it)?
Agent,
Care to offer any criticism of the following?
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/11/news/economy/trump-prime-the-pump/index.html
Sounds like he is going Keynesian.
And his followers all believe they have a valid license to intentionally mislead, purposefully misinform, and lie all the time now, too. #sad #veryverybadokay #3rdgradevocabulary
Polar, the picture of Uncle Warren smiling was just as he was passing gas.
oops! Should read “remember J Edgar Hoover, anyone?” bear culpa.
Good bye Aetna. See you later when the mess is resolved and you can actually offer plans people want instead of what the government wants you to offer.
? What did I miss here. What happened with AETNA?
Something with you personally, or the company as a whole?
Sorry Bob, it is all over the internet. Do you ever pull up FoxNews site? They are quitting the Obamacare fiasco all the way like so many carriers have done. By the way, they were for Obamacare before they were against it.
Shame on you for your hysteria creating post!
Aetna had pulled out of most state exchanges before withdrawing from their last TWO exchanges in which they (naively) participated.
Any insurers still involved in the exchanges are either punch-drunk from all of their losses, or anticipating some sort of ‘payback’ of prior losses by the repeal and replace bill. Fat chance of a Republican controlled Congress bail-out of HI cos.
I am wagging a single digit on my right paw at you for your insufficiently detailed post about Aetna that misled bob about Aetna coming to its corporate survival driven senses.
Polar, $700 million in losses will tend to get someone’s attention except possibly Warren Buffet who is teetering on borderline Alzheimers. By the way, he doesn’t need Health Insurance to be treated for his condition. Just check into the Mayo Clinic and cut a check for services.
Polar, so among the many nonsense statements made by Uncle Warren, he says that we don’t need tax reform for businesses in this country. I think he likes all his loopholes for himself and Berkshire-Hathaway in the Progressive Tax Code. He keeps a legion of tax attorney’s busy to avoid paying tax. Most corporations and small businesses cannot do that and that is why they need tax relief so they can grow and expand and create jobs.
Bob constantly tells Ron and Confused they don’t debate fairly and has defended Agent many times. I have never ONCE seen Bob call out Yogi on ANY of his posts even when he falsely claims an on topic link redirects you to an adult website. I am begining to think Bob and Yogi are one in the same.
I find your request funny since you changed your moniker to Deplorables for a few months and kept denying Deplorables was Agent until you accidentally posted under the wrong name.
Agreed. Something is very fishy.
I think LT/FT is trying to ask if you have any issues with Polar responding to on topic links solely to say it directs the user to adult websites when those links clearly do not do that?
It happened once on this page and has happened before on topics you have posted yet I have not seen you write a single word to him about the way he debates or posts.
I think LT/FT is just trying to get across that you give Ron and I a lot of your time and effort to get us to debate properly yet you leave Polar completely out of the equation even when he’s clearly lying or intentionally misdirecting, such as “CBO is DODGING THE QUESTION I POSED!” when one of the two links Ron gave him covered the specific time frame he inquired about.
Tell me Confused, why should Bob and Polar continue to try to educate you on anything since it bounces off your head and never absorbed. Your record in 2016 is abysmal after Bob tried for at least 6 months. You are just an annoying Progressive brat that clearly cannot learn from life or reality.
Your reply has nothing to do with what I posted Agent.
I already replied to this. It got deleted. Could it be that someone is reporting our replies, so your mocking of Agent for saying oh no a post wasn’t deleted you better post again, was a bit out of line?
He is not lying or misdirecting. It’s called an error if anything.
The greater question is why you on the left don’t correct each other. UW has rarely been corrected here, if ever.
We don’t need to debate about it, it’s really a derailing tactic as it is.
You have specifically called me in to call Agent wrong, and I’ve done it before. People here just claimed we don’t. It’s tiring.
Let’s keep on topic.
LT/FT said you are not calling out Yogi or Polar or whatever name he is using now — s/he did not say you are not calling out Agent, because you have. Now here you are defending him for “an error” but not saying he was lying or misdirecting. Explain how you think he “errored” but didn’t lie. After all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc-LJ_3VbUA
I can’t tell from that url if it’s an adult video, but I know youtube does not allow such content. If you do click the link it is not an adult video.
What “error” could he have made?
Did he read the website as www. (adultsite).com? No, because that’s not even close to the URL.
Did he click the link and get redirected to a dirty video? No, because that’s not where the link takes you.
Why can’t you admit he was lying about where the link took people?
Either he didn’t click the link and lied or he did click the link and lied. Calling it an “error” is absurd. Did he miscalculate math stuff? Did he say “a” but meant “b”? Did he misattribute a quote? No.
The only “error” he could have made was if he had adult videos opened on other tabs in his browser and accidently clicked a dirty video site he already had open.
Come on. You know if I replied to one of your links with “another adult video” you’d hand me my hat on that reply. He blatently LIED and was MISDIRECTING people away from clicking the link. You must know that’s true. It’s okay if you admit it. It will only lend further credibility to you calling out Ron and I in the future.
“LT/FT said you are not calling out Yogi or Polar or whatever name he is using now — s/he did not say you are not calling out Agent, because you have. Now here you are defending him for “an error” but not saying he was lying or misdirecting. Explain how you think he “errored” but didn’t lie.”
I’m going to come back here in a moment. Note that what you replied to, and what I replied to, while they have some over lap, it was reasonable for me to assume Polar’s error here, was on the topic him and Ron debated, in which he missed Ron already gave him the information he asked for. Here’s why:
“Bob constantly tells Ron and Confused they don’t debate fairly and has defended Agent many times. I have never ONCE seen Bob call out Yogi on ANY of his posts even when he falsely claims an on topic link redirects you to an adult website. I am begining to think Bob and Yogi are one in the same”
While this refers to a claim of an adult video, which by the way, was clearly him being very facetious, and is not lying or misleading, it is clear it is in jest. And you took it literal. That is your weakness here, and it deserves to be pointed out. This was not a means of dishonest debate, that is why I assumed the other section in which Polar debated horribly is what you and him were talking about. He was wrong there. This also shows I’m not biased to admitting such a thing on the right, disproving both of you that I don’t comment regarding Polar.
(See his comment which while over the top makes complete sense. Do you really believe he meant to do anything other than prove a point? I don’t)
“In order to show he lied on that issue
After all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc-LJ_3VbUA
I can’t tell from that url if it’s an adult video, but I know youtube does not allow such content. If you do click the link it is not an adult video.
What “error” could he have made?”
See above Confused, my God you act like a child. Get over it. His argument there was not whether or not a porn video made someone credible for example, or that Planet kept posting porn. On the other hand, the left does do the equivalent of this (accusing me of wanting Muslims to be killed, and innocent people tortured when I engage in debate on the topic, not just to make a clearly facetious comment to make a point.
“Did he read the website as www. (adultsite).com? No, because that’s not even close to the URL.
Did he click the link and get redirected to a dirty video? No, because that’s not where the link takes you.
Why can’t you admit he was lying about where the link took people? ”
Because using hyperbole for affect isn’t lying?
“Either he didn’t click the link and lied or he did click the link and lied. Calling it an “error” is absurd. Did he miscalculate math stuff? Did he say “a” but meant “b”? Did he misattribute a quote? No.”
Wildly over thought on all of this, you really need to admit you’re acting childish on this matter, just as much as him.
“The only “error” he could have made was if he had adult videos opened on other tabs in his browser and accidently clicked a dirty video site he already had open.”
Same as above.
“Come on. You know if I replied to one of your links with “another adult video” you’d hand me my hat on that reply.”
No I wouldn’t. I would assume you were making a point, because it isn’t a porn video. I generally assume people wouldn’t say something like that without it being hyperbole. I would likely say oh ha ha, this is relevant info buddy, and that would probably be verbatim my argument back, I would not instead fester on it and call someone a liar on that basis.
“He blatently LIED and was MISDIRECTING people away from clicking the link.”
Incorrect. Even though he says this:
“I was indirectly keeping people from viewing your post… i.e. your youtube vid. That’s called censorship. Like it?
You can dish it out (first with BOTs – which have been neutered by IJ IT staff, so now, you can’t do anything but switch IP addys using Tor, etc.) but you can’t take it.”
He was well aware people would know it wasn’t porn, he did it to make a point. And now that he has said that, whereas before I assumed it (and he had not yet said that, or rather I had not seen his reply) I can say yes. I think that his reply brings context to the original post that he took it too far. If he left it at the first, I probably wouldn’t have cared. However, you have taken it even further than him digesting this, and you need to look inward as to how much you called this lying, and over reacted. It might have something to do with why you are clueless on matters regarding Trump, and are missing what the left is doing that is far worse right now.
“You must know that’s true. It’s okay if you admit it. It will only lend further credibility to you calling out Ron and I in the future.”
As much as I hate to call you wrong here, because it bites me, and you can clearly see why in a moment…
I only say these things because you find them important, about calling people out. And, you matter in my arguments. I’m not sure that goes vice versa, but I would rather have some sort of code between us. However, in no way would me calling out one person make me more credible when I call you out, or vice versa. I’m not going to make an effort to call out Polar just to be credible when I say it of you. I might do it to make you feel better though, and to provide some justice in your head. I wouldn’t do it to gain credibility with you.
I edited this mid post and took something out vital which it doesn’t make sense without it:
“While this refers to a claim of an adult video, which by the way, was clearly him being very facetious, and is not lying or misleading, it is clear it is in jest AND IT WAS THE ENDING POINT OF “Bob constantly tells Ron and Confused they don’t debate fairly and has defended Agent many times. I have never ONCE seen Bob call out Yogi on ANY of his posts”. Before this ending point you have the context being that he hasn’t seen me call out yogi on any of his posts. This is untrue. I have.
So now that we have cleared this up from my point of view, and I have said I don’t support his post any longer, is that fair?
In other words I focused on the first half of that, you focused on the latter.
Just because I haven’t done the latter, doesn’t mean I haven’t done the former, saying the severity of the latter means I haven’t done the former, which is implied in the sentence, seems to suggest I don’t ever do it because I didn’t for the latter.
Now that we have resolved twice in one post, where I have revealed not just the Polar missed Ron’s data on the CBO rated plan (which is why I gave Polar some help and context there) and I’ve said he went over the top (And I’m one of the only people here who has admitted when I have)
Can you admit you went over the top, and can you admit I’m being fair, and can we just move on from this?
Bob,
You coming to the defense of Agent of Polar is as baffling to me as the GOP essentially coming to the defense of Trump by not doing anything about his irrational behavior and actions. Do you also blindly support Trump? Be honest. Don’t respond with something about Democrats or Hillary or Obama. I don’t care about them. I want to know because you have said things on this forum I respect deeply. You have also said things that baffle me. Do you think Trump is the right man for this job?
I answered your question and it was deleted.
Both sides of the aisle need to stop reporting each other on this site.
I believe my comment is being deleted because they don’t consider it to be on topic, there were no insults in it at all.
In keeping on topic Bob, please correct me if I am wrong that you gave up trying to reason with Confused and said enough was enough.
Also – adult content gets posted on youtube constantly. It also gets removed constantly. I have seen some pretty absurd things on that platform. It isn’t as ‘harmless’ as one might think.
Really don’t care what Warren Buffet thinks.
Socialized medicine, single payer system, government sponsored healthcare, subsidized health insurance, called it what you wish. When half the people are forced to overpay for the same services that everyone enjoys as a “right” it is natural to take steps to avoid overpaying for what you are receiving. Politicians deciding which services everyone must receive and then spending other people’s money to provide those services is Socialism. This approach to governing didn’t work in the USSR, isn’t working in Venezuela and hasn’t worked anywhere it has been tried. Why do we believe it will work here?
I remember the days when most families had a disabled or senior family member living with them. This system worked well for my family on a number of levels. Now we have expanded Medicaid. Grandma grows old and goes to a nursing home where others care for her until she quickly runs out of money and then Medicaid picks up the tab. Free nursing home services have become a right. Turn 65 and you receive Medicare. Highly subsidized healthcare for seniors has become a right. Show up at the emergency room with no insurance and no money and get first class treatment, just like you were paying your own way. Emergency health care services have become a right. Warren Buffet is correct. If we want to give every American free nursing home services, highly subsidized routine medical services and free emergency healthcare services, someone will have to pay the taxes to fund these new and expanded “rights”. The problem is only half the working people pay income taxes now. The payroll taxes every working person pays are insufficient to keep the social programs these payroll taxes support adequately funded. There are less people willing and able to overpay so their fellow citizens receive the health care services they believe to be their right as an American. There are no free lunches. Paying more than half of our family income in state, federal and local taxes much of which go to fund generous social programs that benefit everyone is getting old. It is the reason Socialism hasn’t worked for others and won’t work for America. We are at a tipping point. You can only spend other people’s money up to the point they begin taking aggressive actions to avoid further abuse. I believe we are at or very near that point and the election of Donald Trump provided enough proof for me that our national purpose and direction must change or America’s best days are behind us.
Al, we survived 8 years of our former POTUS trying to impose his Socialist agenda on us, completely ruining our Healthcare system which has just about totally imploded. Enough of the lies, promises of the left and them arrogantly proclaiming they are smarter than everyone else and forcing their misguided agenda on us. Yes, we needed a big change and our new POTUS is the right agent of change. You are right, we don’t want to be Canada, Cuba or Venezuela. MAGA.
Al,
These gross misrepresentations of Socialism need to stop. Some level of Socialism has existed in this country since it beginning. Are you saying we should get rid of public schools, libraries, infrastructure, fire departments, politicians, etc.? How would we function without any Socialism?
I would argue that health care/insurance is one of a very few industries that should be publicly funded, not necessarily publicly administered.
We are the United States of America, the self-proclaimed greatest country in the world. If we cannot take care of our people’s health, especially the most vulnerable, how can we continue to be the shining beacon of light upon the rest of the world?
“Al,
These gross misrepresentations of Socialism need to stop. Some level of Socialism has existed in this country since it beginning. Are you saying we should get rid of public schools, libraries, infrastructure, fire departments, politicians, etc.? How would we function without any Socialism? ”
False equivalency. When you regulate a section of the economy into collapse, then say the government need to provide, the reason we call it socialism is because that is the goal. A socialist take over. My charts from 1965 show that once we did this, the costs spiraled out of control, whereas before then, insurance did exist and was in no such spiral. The goal of these people is to make it unaffordable, create a crises, and then take over.
Schools and fire stations are not the same thing. Though I might add: Why are liberals against vouchers to choose different schools that aren’t state controlled, or at very least are better state schools? It could have something to do with taking over the information flow, and moving toward socialism. The current generation is much more susceptible to it, and this isn’t coincidence. It was very much so intentional effort.
“I would argue that health care/insurance is one of a very few industries that should be publicly funded, not necessarily publicly administered.”
And you do so because you have been mislead. The explosion of care happened precisely because of Medicare setting pricing, and other clinics beginning to go off of those pricings, and certain things became simply unaffordable. The market could not set pricing any longer. Laser eye surgery, research it. It has consistently gone down. Ensuring a basic level of coverage is one thing, but taking away the insurance industry, after it was regulated into doom? And then taking away the free market’s proven lowering of costs and allowing the government to be the sole source of payment? That’s sheer insanity.
“We are the United States of America, the self-proclaimed greatest country in the world.”
Irrelevant, and childish point.
“If we cannot take care of our people’s health, especially the most vulnerable, how can we continue to be the shining beacon of light upon the rest of the world?”
Good question. So why do you insist on making a program that makes the overall cost go up plus be shared, making everyone worse off?
I don’t think you understand the republican point, and because you hate them (and you do or you would realize this)
You believe they want people to not get care and die.
WRONG.
They want what is best for the whole system. What you just said, is not.
Bob, how many years have you been pounding away at Ron without results? How about Confused? The Progressive Socialist ideology is all they know and no other facts or opinion matter to them. They just whine, whine, whine. Must be all those joints they smoke all the time.
By the way, if you get a chance to go on the internet, which you apparently don’t do often, go to Foxnews.com and read the story on Durango, Col which is being basically over run by dope heads in Recreational use Colorado. These people are coming from all over the country, panhandling, loitering and begging for money to continue their drug habit. It is very revealing.