Riddle me this Lib’s

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It's interesting to see who uses namecalling and insults here. Not what you'd expect, to hear others describe it.

On point...

Who's hysterical? Not Petey, not even with a direct shot at the Union...

 

[Pookie]

If the government came out with a plan that was more expensive or had more coverage restrictions, it would be "worse" then existing plans, and so would not help anybody. Nobody uninsured today would get any benefit. Tell me if you really can't understand that.

Oh, I understand you're wanting to define now what "worse" is. Just because something has more coverage restrictions doesn't mean it is of "no help" to someone with no coverage at all, does it? Nobody uninsured today would get any benefit?

Do you seriously not see how nonsensical your argument is?

 

[Saint Peter]

It's interesting to see who uses namecalling and insults here. Not what you'd expect, to hear others describe it.

Give me a fucking break. The first post of yours addressed to me in this thread set the tone. And for the record I have never used full service gas.

I buy my stuff where I choose to buy it. WalMart is just another retail giant supplying the masses with crap. Target is the same. I do not mind paying twice the price for a shower curtain liner made with stainless steel grommets as long as they are stainless on both sides. Rusty shower curtains suck. The all plastic liners without the rusty donuts work even better. They have those at Target.

Enough crap already.

 

[Saint Peter]

You mean the diced tomatoes in a can?

No self-respecting chef uses that crap!

I worked around Jets and Rock'n Roll, all A/V equipment sounds like crap to me...

If you ever make it to Denver be sure to stop by. I will let you hear how all the music you quote was intended to sound like.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

If you ever make it to Denver be sure to stop by. I will let you hear how all the music you quote was intended to sound like.

You got Robert Johnson without the scratches?

I heard most of it live, which is why we got what we got here...

 

[Saint Peter]

You got Robert Johnson without the scratches?

I heard most of it live, which is why we got what we got here...

I have him on the wire recorder.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I have him on a clay pot that was being turned at the time...

 

[firespin]

Oh, I understand you're wanting to define now what "worse" is. Just because something has more coverage restrictions doesn't mean it is of "no help" to someone with no coverage at all, does it? Nobody uninsured today would get any benefit?

Do you seriously not see how nonsensical your argument is?

It was an abstract argument, to be sure...perhaps too much so.

The idea was / is: Consider all the possible health plans the government could offer. ("public options".)

All the ones that don't offer anybody any benefits over existing options, put in the "worse" pile, since they are worse. That's the only criteria for being in the worse pile...nobody wants them.

My point was that you'd expect precisely zero plans over there. I have no earthly idea why you are trying to insist that some "worse" plans would in fact be better for somebody, since if they were, they wouldn't be in the "worse" bucket to begin with.

There wouldn't even be many in the "about the same" bucket...if the public plans were just the same, then we haven't helped anybody very much. (If somebody WAS helped a lot, then the plans wouldn't be "about the same".)

So...the goal of the public option is to help some people a lot...lower costs, fewer restrictions, yes? The only way to offer these plans is to subsidize them with taxes....there are already many non-profit health plan issuers, including many of the Blue Cross family, so you can't do much better just by eliminating profits. You have to throw money at it.

It doesn't make economic sense to have the government go in the business of offering better health plans than the free market can support, on the basis of taxpayer subsidies. At a minimum, that would drastically affect the market for private insurance.

 

[firespin]

Give me a fucking break. The first post of yours addressed to me in this thread set the tone. And for the record I have never used full service gas.

Uh huh. You can read what happened, it's right in the thread. Anybody who gores the sacred cow must not be using their brain.

Opinion polls show a lot of people say they support unions. They just aren't willing to pay higher prices to support unneeded employees, or exaggerated benefits for workers. Full-service gas is an extreme case, but it could have been low-cost airlines or imported cars.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I didn't put words into your mouth because if I did, MissDownSouth, I would have gotten straight and truthful answers instead of defensive screeching...

Eunuch, you reflexively put words in the mouths of people you don't agree with so often that I honestly don't think you're even aware you're doing it anymore.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Of course, you do. Appeal to authority is for the weak minded, AJ. Don't be weak minded.

Sure, it pays for them when they're in the emergency room. When they could've been treated for a whole lot less if they'd been seeing a doctor for preventive care. And guess who pays for that expensive care through higher premiums.

AJ, this isn't rocket science. Even you can do the math. Heh.

So, let's talk logic.

Let's talk weak minds.

Let's talk false cause.

Recent studies have shown preventative care to have little or no effect. Thus is we started handing out "Free preventative care" it would not lower the cost but it would raise taxes. The only possible benefit would be to make some voters feel good about their nobility and largess (with other people's money) and to enable government to dicitate lifestyle though insurance.

If you want to do the math, then begin with government. The Democrats are refusing to touch tort reform, something which raises costs. They are refusing to allow the competition they talk about by telling states to stop dictating what will be covered and to allow insurers to compete nationally, as we do with auto insurance. The Democrat administration is not putting low-cost catastrophic and medical savings accounts into play to reduce costs.

Now if the Democrats want to do something about getting cash to the slightly over 10% of the country this issue is focused on, then let them save the money that they say is in fraud and waste and then balance the budget and get the economy on track so that the math makes sense in the face of the baby-boomers about to smash the system we created for our benefit, and trust me, it's time to start paying benefits...

The poor are ALWAYS going to be there and we have created safety-net after safety net but the altruistic politicians who get elected go do good in the name of the people are suffering mission-creep.

In the words of Andrew Lloyd Webber,

There will be be poor always, pathetically struggling,
Look at the good things that you've got...

 

[RobDownSouth]

Recent studies have shown preventative care to have little or no effect.

Prove it.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Dumbass

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Double Dumbass Fucking Troll like most Democrats:




http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...preventive-care-will-raise-not-cut-costs.html




Sound, fury and lies.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It's easier to scree than to read first, eh dumbass?


http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/02/preventive_heal.html

 

[RobDownSouth]

Double Dumbass Fucking Troll like most Democrats:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...preventive-care-will-raise-not-cut-costs.html
Sound, fury and lies.

Hey AJ, From your own fucking link and I quote:

Obviously successful preventive care can make Americans healthier and save lives.

Who is the "dumbass" now, eunuch?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Dumbass

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661

Hey AJ, From your own fucking link and I quote:

Indeed, some evidence does suggest that there are opportunities to save money and improve health through prevention.

Who is the "dumbass" now, eunuch?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Recent studies have shown preventative care to have little or no effect.

It's easier to scree than to read first, eh dumbass?
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/02/preventive_heal.html

Nothing in your link backs up your claim, eunuch. Who is the "dumbass" now?

 

[radepor]

Stop it TikkaT3

If I wanted to make my head hurt I'd go elsewhere.

I admit I've been guilty of "pushing" an agenda in some of my posts but I've almost always been able to tie it back to some sexual topic.

Unless there's a doable intern or something, whoa-back on the politics.

Dems first said it will take $1 trillion to set up and run a universal healthcare program.


Then Max Baucus, a Dem, comes up with a plan that has no public option and still costs $856 Billion.


1. He is going to get about $409 billion of that by cutting out wasteful spending in Medicare.


So here are my questions

1. Why are they waiting to pass this bill to stop the approx $409 billion in wasteful spending in Medicare?


2. $1 trillion – $865 billion is $144 billion. So why are we talking about a $1 trillion plan that, according the numbers the Dems are using, could be paid for by fixing the waste in Medicare and still leave $265 billion ($409 billion-$144 billion=$265 billion) in savings ?


3. If according to your own parties numbers, a public option can be funded with $144 billion what was the rest of the money for?


???????

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Hey AJ, From your own fucking link and I quote:


Who is the "dumbass" now, eunuch?

Did we stop readin, er, uh, I mean, moving our lips once we saw what we wanted troll?

Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching. Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs.3 For example, screening costs will exceed the savings from avoided treatment in cases in which only a very small fraction of the population would have become ill in the absence of preventive measures. Preventive measures that do not save money may or may not represent cost-effective care (i.e., good value for the resources expended). Whether any preventive measure saves money or is a reasonable investment despite adding to costs depends entirely on the particular intervention and the specific population in question. For example, drugs used to treat high cholesterol yield much greater value for the money if the targeted population is at high risk for coronary heart disease, and the efficiency of cancer screening can depend heavily on both the frequency of the screening and the level of cancer risk in the screened population.4

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You answered my question; it's easier to scree...

 

[RobDownSouth]

Did we stop readin, er, uh, I mean, moving our lips once we saw what we wanted troll?

We didn't stop reading, dumbass.
We're still waiting for you to back up your claim
"Recent studies have shown preventative care to have little or no effect. "

None of the links you've linked to so far backs up your claim, dumbass.

Speakin' with forked tongue today, AJ?

 

[RobDownSouth]

You answered my question; it's easier to scree...

Be a man, AJ. Admit you lied. Make your daddy proud for a change.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Scree...

 

[RobDownSouth]

Scree...

Be a man, AJ. Show your daddy you've changed over the years, you're not the lying sack of guts he kicked to the curb those long years ago.