Healthcare Disinformation: A Case Study

Ezra Klein links to some interesting polling today that shows a (slim) plurality saying Obama's health care reform proposals are a "bad idea," but a strong majority supporting the actual content of the bill when "when the interviewer read an accurate, neutrally phrased description of the main features of the plan."

The reason for the difference, of course, is the tremendous amount of lies, distortions and misinformation being thrown up by opponents of reform, the most extreme of which would be funny if they weren't so macabre: the government is going kill off the elderly! They'll mandate you give up your organs when you turn 67! You'll have to pay for gay married couples' abortions!

I recently got to see first-hand how this happens. A few weeks ago I was on Al Jazeera English debating health care reform with a conservative named Josh Trevino. Josh was a nice enough guy, genuine and polite, if extremely conservative. We went back and forth about the degree to which the current system is broken, whether healthcare is a right, and why it is that the US spends so much more per capita on healthcare than any other industrialized nation. When I noted that this year the US will spends more than 17% of GDP on healthcare, Josh shot back with a pretty amazing statistic. He said that, sure we spend a lot on healthcare, but 5.6% of GDP, or a third of all healthcare spending, is spent on pharmaceutical research. That's way more than any other country he said, and in fact, our research dollars find the drugs the rest of the world uses. If you take away all that high-minded spending on research, then US healthcare costs are totally in line with the rest of the world.

At the time I heard this I was surprised I'd never encountered the stat before. It certainly didn't sound right: one out of every twenty dollars in the US economy is spent on drug research? So I tweeted Josh and asked for a citation. To his great credit, Josh went looking and realized he'd made an error. Actually, biomedical research accounts for 5.6% of all healthcare spending. That means it's less than 1% of GDP. Josh was off by a factor of six.

Now, Josh made the error in good faith and he had the integrity to fess up and post a correction on his blog. And we were talking on Al Jazeera which, ahem, doesn't exactly have a wide domestic audience. But it goes to show just how easy it is for misinformation, particularly about a technical and complicated subject like healthcare, to get out to the public. Presumably I could just go on TV and start saying that Republicans want to raise the Medicare eligibility age to 85 or that health care premiums will go up 30-fold in the next year, and however many readers there at conservative blogs that call me out for my falsehoods, it will be a tiny fraction of the TV audience that saw me utter it in the first place.

Comments (314)

1. chris hayes--those supporting public option (including all articles/blogs by The Nation writers/contributers) have made no factual mistakes in their debates?

   Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2009 @ 2:36pm

2. Seems a point to scare people out of something....and not convince them that an alternative is better, doesn't it?

   Posted by Mask at 08/06/2009 @ 2:53pm

3. Public option? Keep HC in the hands of the profiteers. Give fleece a chance.

   Posted by Sorelish at 08/06/2009 @ 4:14pm

4. Bullseye Christopher! Disinformation and the amount of it on both sides of the issue clearly indicate the stakes.

   But you seem to want to characterizze all distortions as occuring on the opposition's side - and your examples are funny as heck. My favorite was, "They'll mandate you give up your organs when you turn 67!"

   What I think you should focus on is the volume of information in the bill and the Administration's and Congress' clear rush to get this signed without proper debate.

   Didn't we learn a good lesson in our rush to war in 2002? What's the hurry? Unless maybe your examples are too close to the truth?

   Posted by freiheit1 at 08/06/2009 @ 4:30pm

5. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/06/2009 @ 4:30pm

   I hate to say it but the hurry is that in this country, if it isn't done fast it isn't done. You have a brief window to strike when the fire is hot and then it is gone. And this is not lost on either side. We all know it. The opposing side just doesn't admit to it when it isn't in their favor.

   Posted by !immutable at 08/06/2009 @ 4:58pm

6. Posted by !immutable at 08/06/2009 @ 4:58pm

   I beg to differ. "If it isn't done fast [in this country], it isn't done?" How do you conclude that? There's miles of black and white footage of a young Teddy Kennedy pledging health care reform... Even more compelling, how can you support that doing something fast is validation for any action of this gravity?

   The only rush here as far as I can tell is because 2010 is a Congressional election year and Democrats are worried people are taking time to read and question the details of the bill.

   Being rushed by politians and their special interests is a sourse of national dysfunction, not a characteristic of what our nation is about.

   Posted by freiheit1 at 08/06/2009 @ 5:18pm

7. Chris Hayes is a Genius! We can reduce healthcare spending by 6% of GDP just by CEASEING to do any research to find better procedures, medicines, and any and all advances in bio medical ! We don't need them or any new improved drugs!

   Like Forrest says; "stupid is as stupid does".

   Posted by BigPasture at 08/06/2009 @ 5:41pm

8. Posted by BigPasture at 08/06/2009 @ 5:41pm

   Sorry, I missed where Christopher suggests that...

   Posted by freiheit1 at 08/06/2009 @ 5:45pm

9. freiheit1, we have been rushing to get health care for 60 years, lets just get it done.

   Posted by Denise29 at 08/06/2009 @ 5:51pm

10. Posted by Denise29 at 08/06/2009 @ 5:51pm

    I surmise you mean we've been rushing to nationalize the health insurance industry for 60 years, let's just get it done. Right?

    You do know that health insurance is not health care?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/06/2009 @ 6:10pm

11. Yes, thats exactly what I mean, sorry about not being clear. But 64 years, to be exact, is a long time to wait. We need to do it now.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/06/2009 @ 6:27pm

12. Posted by Denise29 at 08/06/2009 @ 6:27pm

    Why?

    I wish we could agree. I believe excessive government is the cause of most existing health insurance problems, not the solution. I know of no good example anywhere in history where nationalization of a private industry has led to an improvement in the human condition.

    What's worse, we won't even have a nationalized system. Politicians will enable a health insurance industry cartel that will leverage the force of government to control the marketplace, eliminate competition and supress competitive innovation. Cost controls get really interesting when supported by government fiat. That your idea of "freedom"?

    What has happened to our country? How can you on the left be so eager to hand the health insurance industry to the same politicians who keep us in Iraq and Afghanistan and print trillions of dollars to feed the other cartel they protect, the Federal Reserve/Wall Street cabal? What in the world are you thinking?

    Do you really think that is in any of our best interests? This whole debate is like watching the Invasion of the Body Snatchers sometimes...

    Why do americans believe the government is the solution when our very Constitution is a document on the limitation of government?!!!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/06/2009 @ 6:48pm

13. Stop pointing at me with your mouths open! ;-)

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/06/2009 @ 6:55pm

14. freiheit1, you talk to anyone on medicare and they LOVE it, something has to be done in a similar vein for the rest of us. I have to agree with mask though, we will get something less and hopefully be able to build on it more slowly. But we have to get it started now or it may not happen.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/06/2009 @ 7:03pm

15. Yes, thats exactly what I mean, sorry about not being clear. But 64 years, to be exact, is a long time to wait. We need to do it now.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/06/2009 @ 6:27pm

    Sorry Denise, but conservatives like myself will continue to fight with all I have against this plan to nationalize health care.

    People like myself will be hit with thousands of dollars in tax increase as I am forced to participate. I only earn about 28-30k per year. And you and your fellow libs want to bankrupt me into this plan?

    You will bankrupt 100's of thousands if not millions of small businesses with the requirement that if they don't provide health care coverage to their employees, they have to pay a penalty tax of 7% of earnings. How many small businesses can absorb that? Very few that I know of.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/06/2009 @ 7:04pm

16. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/06/2009 @ 6:48pm

    An idea. How about giving all the uninsured specially labeled tin cans & placards stating, "Turn all Federal Reserve branch offices over to the HMOs-NOW!" Post these unfortunates around every facility & get some use out of these deadbeats. Fast food that isn't ammonia soaked before disposal could be donated for sustenance during the vigils. Portable toilets adorned with logo ads of prospective insurer tenants placed alongside curbs would pay for themselves.

    Takeover of the onerous Fed by insurers would reduce corporate overhead & allow for greater executive bonuses. Cool, huh?

    Posted by Sorelish at 08/06/2009 @ 7:32pm

17. freiheit1, you talk to anyone on medicare and they LOVE it, something has to be done in a similar vein for the rest of us. I have to agree with mask though, we will get something less and hopefully be able to build on it more slowly. But we have to get it started now or it may not happen.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/06/2009 @ 7:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    They're not interested in the truth....plain and simple, they don't care. They care about two things and two things only, money and power. We are witnessing the awesome power of the corruption that is, tragically, a byproduct of free and unregulated capitalism and of the supposed "free speech" tag attached to the money that is the backbone of the corruption. When will it be stopped? I don't know...I just hope it's not too late already.

    Posted by jarshadow at 08/06/2009 @ 8:48pm

18. You will bankrupt 100's of thousands if not millions of small businesses with the requirement that if they don't provide health care coverage to their employees, they have to pay a penalty tax of 7% of earnings. How many small businesses can absorb that? Very few that I know of.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/06/2009 @ 7:04pm

    Larry,none of the obove is true of course. But for the sake of argument let's say everything you said was true.

    If so, why are you not in favor of single payer? As it is now health care is generally part of a compensation package that employers provide to their employees. Often at great expense. This expense is also shared by the employee in the form of lower hourly wages. Single Payer would reduce health insurance costs for employer and employee. Especially for small business

    What do you have against simplicity?

    Read this:

    http://www.businesscoalition.net/

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/06/2009 @ 9:58pm

19. "You will bankrupt 100's of thousands if not millions of small businesses with the requirement that if they don't provide health care coverage to their employees, they have to pay a penalty tax of 7% of earnings. How many small businesses can absorb that? Very few that I know of."

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/06/2009 @ 7:04pm

    Anti,

    Talk about disinformation. The House bill says employers must provide insurance to their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll. Companies with payroll under $250,000 annually are exempt.

    That's payroll, not earnings.

    Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 10:30pm

20. I have to tell all you lunatics that I'm absolutely overjoyed at what YOUR representatives are going through at these town hall meetings. It's just the tip of the iceburg, YOUR party/side is panicked and all of a sudden they're against "dissent", and now YOUR side is trying to marginalize these people as a "mob" or "manufactured" which is only going to fan the flames of the "dissent" that YOUR side dismisses. It's all over you losers. Blog all you want, whine all you want, even the ultra-liberal MSM cannot stop this because in the end it just fans the flames of your demise and I'm going to love every minute of it! It's over, and that marxist/racist/cradle-to-grave, low-life loser, Obama, is a 1 term pres. It's over, HA HA!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/06/2009 @ 10:38pm

21. Flaim, you're about to flame-out, "flamer" or "fluffer", or whatever you do for a paycheck! It's over, and you can count on me to be here to rub it in, loser!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/06/2009 @ 10:41pm

22. "Flaim, you're about to flame-out, "flamer" or "fluffer", or whatever you do for a paycheck! It's over, and you can count on me to be here to rub it in, loser!"

    Posted by barry25 at 08/06/2009 @ 10:41pm

    Barry, try to stay off the meth. Remember, speed kills.

    Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 10:47pm

23. It's over, and you can count on me to be here to rub it in, loser!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/06/2009 @ 10:41pm

    If my math is correct the Democrats still have an administration in power for at least 3 years 5 months. And if I remember correctly the Democrats won the last 2 elections. Not to mention that on the latest political map, only 7 states remain Red. And some of those are teetering on going Blue, like Texas.

    And these hysterical screaming meemies that are showing up at town hall meetings are only marginalizing the right even more.

    So, who is the loser now?

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/06/2009 @ 11:14pm

24. "Freedomworks" the corporate arm and the current organizer for the teabagger fringies was just on MSNBC and the spokesman just admitted that they have an e-mail list of 400,000 which they draw on to ship in protestors from around the country.

    That's 400,000 nutbags out of a population of 305 million. Thats about .14% of the population. So we are letting .14% of the population influence anything?

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/06/2009 @ 11:31pm

25. Thats like letting one hair on the very tip of the tail wag the entire dog..

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/06/2009 @ 11:42pm

26. I watched footage from one of those town meetings in which some congressman was being assailed by the locals.

    It reminded me of that classic scene from the Frankenstien movies where the villagers assault the castle with torches and pitchforks.

    Some of the people screaming the loudest were elderly and probably on medicare. Some of the people yammering against reform didn't even have coverage.

    But it's not just the wackos and ignorant who are against health reform. Some Americans have good health insurance and don't want to provide for anyone else.

    It's like the Titanic, where the rich people got lifeboats while the stewards locked the third class passengers below decks and politely asked them to drown.

    Posted by koroviev at 08/06/2009 @ 11:52pm

27. But it's not just the wackos and ignorant who are against health reform. Some Americans have good health insurance and don't want to provide for anyone else. Posted by koroviev at 08/06/2009 @ 11:52pm

    Yes, the wackos and the ignorant are just the tools of the people who profit from the healthcare industry. Those who profit from misery don't want the truth of what they are doing and the people they are killing to see the light of day.

    So they spread disinformation and outright lies. They enlist the gullible to try and give the appearance of legitimacy. They will stop at nothing.

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/07/2009 @ 12:03am

28. Some of these people are genuine fanatics who don't care what the facts are, but most of them are just ignorant.

    Isn't that a little more than pathetic? One thing that people should feel compelled to learn about, should be the health care issue. Because whether you are young or old, have insurance or don't, this law, or the failure of it, will affect you.

    Posted by koroviev at 08/07/2009 @ 12:14am

29. Because whether you are young or old, have insurance or don't, this law, or the failure of it, will affect you. Posted by koroviev at 08/07/2009 @ 12:14am

    Very true, and what puzzles me is that there are numerous examples of National Healthcare all over the world in 35 to 38 countries and even our closest neighbor Canada. It's not like this is some sort of radical experiment.

    No country who has established a national healthcare system has gone back to the for-profit model, that I know of.

    And all of them spend much less on Healthcare than we do. People are fond of saying that the U.S. has the best healthcare in the world. If that is true then why are we ranked 36th overall?

    I think the American people don't get out in the world enough..

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/07/2009 @ 12:31am

30. It's no real mystery why newspapers are going out of business in America. News that is presented with integrity is running out of consumers.

    A lot of Americans are so disaffected that they don't even vote.

    And then there are those who would rather be spoonfed drivel by the propagandists than read a newspaper.

    Posted by koroviev at 08/07/2009 @ 01:11am

31. That's 400,000 nutbags out of a population of 305 million. Thats about .14% of the population. So we are letting .14% of the population influence anything?

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/06/2009 @ 11:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You are funny, that is equal to the total representation of the homosexual lobby whom the secular humanistic liberal leftwingers think deserve recognition for their perversions!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/07/2009 @ 02:55am

32. "Top White House officials counseled Democratic senators Thursday on coping with disruptions at public events on health care this summer, officials said, and promised the party and allies would respond with twice the force if any individual lawmaker is criticized in television advertising."

    Get ready for the nazis leftist STORMTROOPERS coming your way soon! The Unions, Code Pink, ACORN, and all the others are coming!

    They will be fully equiped to take on the 15,000,000 unemployed, grandma and grandpa, and all those filthy Veterens and American taxpayers that are against the socialist federal takeover of healthcare by the Obamanation and the Demoncrats!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/07/2009 @ 03:15am

33. Via Fox TV, Ron Paul & his pol/dr son Rand are now shilling v. the Obama public option with reams of dis- & misinformation ... & with gushing approval from Fox interviewers following a script.

    The fix is always in at Fox & the Paul family are now cashing in on it. Son Rand is running for the Senate from KY ... interesting to see who his major donors will be.

    Posted by sloper at 08/07/2009 @ 04:13am

34. Via MSNBC TV disinformation is being spread about the uprising in America. These are Americans wanting to be heard and are being silenced by Obama's SEIU army. But then the fix is always in at MSNBC!

    Hear our voice! Hear our Voice! Stand up Americans and take back your country!

    Posted by abell12ct at 08/07/2009 @ 08:08am

35. Right-wingers won't mind if I quote Arthur Laffer on health care reform will they?

    "[J]ust wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid ... done by the government"

    ((yes, yes...used it on the other thread...but it's just too good!...LOL))

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 08:16am

36. I'd love to hear from the conservatives how the government is responsible for insurance companies charging million dollar surcharges for an insured employee getting cancer. Or how the government is responsible for my employer deciding to change my doctor (by dropping the insurance I had). Or how the government is responsible for insurance companies charging small businesses higher rates than large companies.

    Posted by jsb16 at 08/07/2009 @ 08:43am

37. The is the smell of panic in the air on the part of the dems. I see they are calling out the troops...lets see now, SEIU/ACORN....take the first letters of the acronym and you have SA (sturmabteilung), storm troopers I believe. I wonder how long before "Kristallnacht"... after seeing those union goons at that meeting, it may not be long.

    Posted by pyeatte at 08/07/2009 @ 10:02am

38. Posted by abell12ct at 08/07/2009 @ 08:08am

    Moron shill 'bubs are "rising up" like suicidal lemmings on the march to "take back their country"? You are rich with the milk of human stupidity.

    Posted by Sorelish at 08/07/2009 @ 10:11am

39. "I wonder how long before "Kristallnacht"... after seeing those union goons at that meeting, it may not be long."----Posted by pyeatte at 08/07/2009 @ 10:02am

    Seems a constant ratcheting up of the "Obama=Hitler, Dems=Nazis" Godwin's Law violations by the Right...

    is a good indication of panic, pyette.

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 10:44am

40. Fact is that disinformationis being spread both by the right wing/Republican/insurance companies on the health care issue AS WELL AS by the Obamacrats. For a different perspective, a true progressive perspective, see my blog replys on the Katrina vanden Heuvel article Rep. Ryan's Plan to Make Your Healthcare Worse on this website. You will be glad you did.

    Posted by perryfellwock at 08/07/2009 @ 11:21am

41. It is funny, all these cons screaming "Nazi", "fascist", etc.

    Those labels are more appropriate for the mindless minions and their handlers... Gotta love projection!

    Posted by BlackFrancis at 08/07/2009 @ 11:23am

42. It's interesting that this discussion doesn't talk about the central issues -- the nature of the "debate" and western style "democracy".

    Anyone see a problem in having people like Christopher Hayes or Josh Trevino "informing" other citizens on the health care issue? Anyone see a problem in assholes coming out to community gatherings to out shout the opposition or make it impossible for other people to present their case?

    The problem is the debate itself. Why is Josh Trevino, and Christopher Hayes for that matter, in the position to share his ideas in a limited media landscape instead of people that actually might know what they are talking about.

    But, it's not just a talking head problem. It extends to the citzenry that calls up their representatives and offers up their opinion based on whatever Josh, Christopher or their favorite astro-turf organization tells them to come down on the issues. This is why we have a republic and this is why the Founding Fathers hated the idea of democracy.

    A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. -Thomas Jefferson.

    Worse, an ignorant citizenry cajoling their corrupt representatives combines the worse qualities of "democracy" and a "republic" and is an exercise is dysfunction.

    The current discussion of healthcare is merely a symptom of large problems of governance that include elections, restrictive media and the absurd notion that our "democracy" isn't a ochlocracy.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/07/2009 @ 11:54am

43. "You will be glad you did."-----Posted by perryfellwock at 08/07/2009 @ 11:21am

    Absolutely agree.

    Some of the funniest paranoia you'll ever read.

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 11:58am

44. I can't beleive some of the bull you righties come up with, especially the hitler stuff, as soon as you guys write this stuff, many here just take you for kooks, and your point (if there is one)gets lost.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 12:02pm

45. "You will be glad you did."-----Posted by perryfellwock at 08/07/2009 @ 11:21am

    Absolutely agree.

    Some of the funniest paranoia you'll ever read.

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 11:58am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --yeah perry, how dare you state your position?

    don't you know mature way to participate on an anonymous blog is to insult people who give their position, while never stating yours, and, if your really want to step up your game, make sure you save posts from months or even years ago adn try to catch people in "gotcha" moments where they might have contradicted themselves. oh, and there's no hypocrisy in not giving your own position on an issue while playing the gotcha game.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2009 @ 12:10pm

46. Larry,none of the obove is true of course. But for the sake of argument let's say everything you said was true.

    If so, why are you not in favor of single payer? As it is now health care is generally part of a compensation package that employers provide to their employees. Often at great expense. This expense is also shared by the employee in the form of lower hourly wages. Single Payer would reduce health insurance costs for employer and employee. Especially for small business

    What do you have against simplicity?

    Read this:

    http://www.businesscoalition.net/

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/06/2009 @ 9:58pm

    1. I am right. here is the Senate pending legislation

    http://tinyurl.com/l4kz4a

    2. I remain strongly against this unconstitutional govt intrusion into a service.

    I don't want the govt involved in it and I don't want businesses to have to offer it even as many do now. It should strictyly be between families, individuals, healthcare providers, and insurance companies if people desire to use them.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/07/2009 @ 12:22pm

47. Again Anti, what are you afraid of? No one is going to take gazillions in taxes from you, and what is wrong with a tax to help the people? By the way Anti I make less than you do and I'm more than willing to pay my fair share in taxes if it means some sort of health care coverage.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 12:29pm

48. It's like the Titanic, where the rich people got lifeboats while the stewards locked the third class passengers below decks and politely asked them to drown.

    Posted by koroviev at 08/06/2009 @ 11:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Perhaps the most accurate description I've read of what is occurring (and has occurred over the past 10 years).

    Posted by jarshadow at 08/07/2009 @ 12:53pm

49. Posted by antisocialist at 08/07/2009 @ 12:22pm

    I'm game. Care to talk about how I, as an individual, can negotiate with my physician and his hospital? Care to talk about my negotiating power after I've been in an auto accident or have been diagnosed with cancer?

    Oh yeah, there's no way to profitably treat terminal illness. So, care to discuss alternatives like euthanasia? It might become profitable if we could turn old people into glue or some useful product.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 12:29pm

    The problem is that most people making less than antisocialist aren't paying any federal taxes, much less their fair share.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/07/2009 @ 1:04pm

50. 2. I remain strongly against this unconstitutional govt intrusion into a service. I don't want the govt involved in it and I don't want businesses to have to offer it even as many do now. It should strictyly be between families, individuals, healthcare providers, and insurance companies if people desire to use them. Posted by antisocialist at 08/07/2009 @ 12:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I finally see where you are coming from. It has nothing To do with being constitutional (which it is). It is only about you being selfish and not wanting to share with anyone. Ever read Dickens? You remind me of Ebenezer Scrooge ...

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/07/2009 @ 1:12pm

51. Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2009 @ 12:10pm

    urmy of course always engages in Harvard Debate Tournement rules on this blog....

    unless of course he's "pointing out Mask's hypocrisy by doing what he does but only to prove a point"...

    which seems to be happening a LOT lately, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 1:28pm

52. 1. Don't mess with Medicare and Medicaid except to shore them up.

    2. Stop all the insane distortions coming from both sides. The fact is that there IS a need for health care reform, but no need to completely overhaul the system and allow the government to displace private insurers.

    I believe that the factions can compromise. A bill needs to be written AND read that provides for tort reform, catastrophic illness insurance, elimination of 'prior condition' denials and further funding of M/M.

    The democrats are asking for too much and the republicans are willing to give too little. Fortunately for the democrats, they have the power right now. Fortunately for the republicans, they have the people engaged enough to force the dems to slow down. This is too important an issue to ram it down anyone's throat. President Obama should appoint a commission of legislators with equal representation based on the country's demographics and have them come up with a bill that is actually responsible to the people. Then he should get the hell off the tube and let the commission do it's work.

    Unfortunately for politicians, the people are up in arms over this issue and are talking about it everywhere. People who are comfortable with their health insurance aren't looking for changes. People who don't have health insurance qualify for medicaid and are treated in ER's for free. Take care of the proposals I've listed above and at several other times now and a compromise should be had.

    No one except for Mask has commented on my proposals yet. I wonder why not.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/07/2009 @ 2:45pm

53. No one except for Mask has commented on my proposals yet. I wonder why not.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/07/2009 @ 2:45pm

    OK, I'll comment.

    Would your proposals do anything for people who have no insurance? What about people currently covered by employers who lose their jobs? Prevent insurance companies from dropping people with severe illnesses? Would tort reform actually mean a reduction of the cost of malpractice insurance to medical providers or would the companies simply pocket the additional profits? Since people without insurance tend to use the emergency room, at a higher cost to you and me, how does your proposal bring down the overall cost?

    Posted by FLaim at 08/07/2009 @ 3:01pm

54. HHS had an interesting town hall meeting this afternoon. Their health care reform ideas are brilliant and hopefully America will be better off when a bill is put together and passed. I hope everyone will just relax, listen and study the facts then make up your own mind as to what is the truth and what is a myth. People need to think for themselves rather than listening to comedians and commentators on any news or radio program. If you really want to get the best news, BBC America does a better job than CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, NBC or CBS. Google HHS and read for yourself what their goals are. If you are one of the 187 million who already have health care insurance and are happy with it, keep it. You don't have to do anything but pay more every year for the insurance and pay more in those deductibles. If you have Medicaid or Medicare, nothing is going to change except you may see more efficiency in paper work and quality of care. If you aren't happy with what you have take a look at the public option, it's your choice. Having competition will most likely cut double digit increases every year in those health care insurance premiums to lobby congress with your money, not to pay for your health care, plus if you loose your job, or have a pre existing condition those rich insurance companies can no longer drop your coverage or deny you health care when you need it most. In other words, they can't ration your health care anymore if a bill gets passed. Rick Boucher voted no on HCR because he's worried about hospital survival. He is well aware of the acceptable standards of health care in this rural area and is more concerned about the big corporate profit machine surviving than you, his constituents. I don't think he is in touch with health care reform at all becaus

    Posted by tmullins at 08/07/2009 @ 3:19pm

55. Well well well, members of the obamanation attacked an african-american, beat him while yelling racist epithets like the "n" word, you know, the very kind of hate crime you low-life loser liberals claim to be against. Yet, no outrage from the MSM, thenation, or anywhere else. I wonder how this could happen? Could it be that the left is only against racism against liberals? Because anyone, with an ounce of honesty in thier soul, would know that the reaction from the msm (state run media), white house, and thenation would have been swift and the outrage would have gone off the charts had this been a case of teabaggers committing a hate crime against a "liberal" black man. State-run media, the obama admin. and the far left are truly evil, they have no interest in fairness, they just want power and they'll sacrifice their souls for it. I truly hope that Obama fails at everything he does, has non-stop bad luck, and is eventually shamed into hinding for creating such a horrible dividion within this country based on race and socio-economics. This is no surprise to those of us who know about his hero "Saul", and the techniques of how to destroy capitalism Obama learned from him. Obama voter has committed treason, and all family friends and fellow americans who still support will hear my wrath and are officially not allowed on our property. The e-mails have already been sent. Have a horrible day losers!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/07/2009 @ 3:21pm

56. srjenkins your wrong, I pay taxes daily, weekly, monthly and yearly. How do you guys do it, say we, people with my income,don't pay taxes? Huh? Its mind boggling how you guys come up with the most inane gibberish about how you guys will be hurt by taxes or some such BS. Quit thinking about yourselves for once and think about what is good for your country.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 3:21pm

57. barry25, your NUTS, get into rehab quick!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 3:26pm

58. Denise, your problem is that you think that more money, given to the gov't, will actually help the american people. You idiot! The gov't is the most corrupt, inept corporation on the planet!!!!!! Furthermore, history has proven that TAX CUTS increse fed. revenue. You are soooo uninformed. In recent years the fed gov't, state and local govt's have seen HUGE increases in revenue due to the housing boom and gas prices/taxes. Their revenues tripled from what they had been recieving before the boom. WHERE IS ALL THAT MONEY YOU MORON? They were'nt expecting those windfalls, so when they got them, you'd think they'd put some in a "rainy day fund", but of course they didn't! You know why? Because they don't have to when idiots like you will just keep wanting the rich to support their theft of the american taxdollar JACKASS! The fed. gov't, unlike you and I, can bankrupt itself, and all the liberal cradle-to-gravers get to keep thier jobs, homes etc. but you and I would lose everything, because we live in the "real" world. And furthermore, dumbass, a 10 year study by a renowned Clemson prof, a self-avowed liberal, found/proved that conservatives are "FAR" more CHARITABLE ( generous ) with their money than their hypocritical liberal counterparts, so your implication that conservatives are selfish is dead-flat wrong, and you're and embarrassment!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/07/2009 @ 3:31pm

59. Hey Bar its hard to take you seriously when you when you come off as a complete jerk wad, conservatives generous? Oh please, wheres Darlaloon when you need her, "conservatives generous", quote of the week.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 3:42pm

60. Denise, can you read? Are you going to claim that a 10 YEAR STUDY FROM A SELF-AVOWED LIBERAL, WHO ADMITTED THAT HE WAS SURPRISED AND SADDENED BY THE OUTCOME OF HIS 10 YEARS STUDY, WAS FRAUDULENT? you cn't get youself out of this one! Once again the great barry25 has cornered an ignorant cradle-to-grave, sponging liberal! Man I'm good!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/07/2009 @ 3:49pm

61. Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 3:21pm

    First, I'm going to suggest Denise that you stop acting like an asshole. Just because some people in this forum act like assholes, it doesn't mean you are entitled to join them.

    Second, you'll notice that I was specific. I said federal income taxes, not just taxes. Now, you may pay payroll taxes, sales tax and the various and sundry other taxes that your local, state and federal governments impose on you and all of us to support various programs such as Medicare.

    But, I said federal income taxes. If you go to the IRS website, you can work it out for yourself. But, I like to make it easy. You can go to the Tax Policy Center and look at a simple chart that states that of 151 million tax filers, 65.6 million (43.6%) either have zero tax liability or receive a refund.

    If you don't like the Tax Policy Center, how about the Tax Foundation:

    "The IRS data below include all of the 141.1 million tax returns filed in 2007 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earned enough to owe taxes. These figures exclude those tax returns filing a tax return merely to receive a stimulus check. From other IRS preliminary data, we can see that in 2007, around 47 million tax returns were filed with either positive or negative AGI that used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability."

    So, we have 33% of people filing returns who are paying zero tax. When you include people filing a return to receive a stimulus check or those not earning enough to be taxed, we start creeping back to ~40%+.

    Want to speculate how many are in your tax bracket?

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/Content/ PDF/T09-0202.pdf http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/ show/250.html

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/07/2009 @ 4:23pm

62. Where is Darla-loon? She's been in hiding, feeling shame and confusion, ever sicne barry25 cornered her just like I cornered you! LOL

    Posted by barry25 at 08/07/2009 @ 4:26pm

63. I finally see where you are coming from. It has nothing To do with being constitutional (which it is). It is only about you being selfish and not wanting to share with anyone. Ever read Dickens? You remind me of Ebenezer Scrooge ...

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/07/2009 @ 1:12pm

    1. It is unconstitutional and many constitutional scholars continue to make that assertion.

    2. it is not about selfishness either. I don't believe in the medical care system whether private or govt. I don't like doctors and don't use them.

    I didn't have healthcare for my family when my kids were young. I paid lay away for my kids deliveries, making payments each week to the doctor and the hospital during my wife's pregnancy.

    3. I don't believe that healthcare is a right, it is just a service. Therefore there is no social obligation for me to pay for this service for others.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/07/2009 @ 4:35pm

64. Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 3:21pm

    "Its mind boggling how you guys come up with the most inane gibberish about how you guys will be hurt by taxes or some such BS. Quit thinking about yourselves for once and think about what is good for your country."

    My household currently pays about 60% of our income in some form of tax. We've had a six figure federal tax bill for several years.

    I generally don't have a problem with paying taxes - other than the fact that this system allows people like George Bush to use my hard earned money to conduct wars of aggression on the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, create a system of secret prisons, and so forth and so on.

    I'd would have much rather this money went to Medicare or paying off the federal debt. But, it didn't break that way.

    I also have a problem with a system that forces people to take out huge debts to get the education and training to do high paying jobs, and then, after working 12-18 hour days, 7 days a week, being on call 24/7 and so forth, the government comes in and now says its an equal partner - taking half and then using it for purposes I don't approve of like creating tactical nuclear weapons.

    So, we need to have a slightly more sophisticated discussion beyond the "you're just a greedy bastard" argument. It is not "good for my country" to give even greater power to the federal government to do as it pleases, and even if you support single payer healthcare (as I do), there is a discussion to be had about what level of government it should be implemented and what kind of checks will be placed on government power.

    But, you can reduce this conversation to name calling. It is certainly the standard of discourse in forums such as this one, but it's not particularly useful.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/07/2009 @ 4:37pm

65. WOW, and I pay federal taxes too, seems like I touched a nerve, Cool!

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 4:44pm

66. P.S. I didn't call anyone an @#*hole Thats reserved for people like you and barry25.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 4:46pm

67. 2. it is not about selfishness either. I don't believe in the medical care system whether private or govt. I don't like doctors and don't use them.

    I didn't have healthcare for my family when my kids were young. I paid lay away for my kids deliveries, making payments each week to the doctor and the hospital during my wife's pregnancy.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/07/2009 @ 4:35pm

    Anti,

    Other than the obvious contradiction in these two statements, I'd like to ask, are you a Christian Scientist?

    If not, what would you do if you contracted an easily treatable, but deadly disease?

    By the way, I don't like the medical system either.

    Posted by FLaim at 08/07/2009 @ 4:46pm

68. OK, I'll comment,

    Would your proposals do anything for people who have no insurance? What about people currently covered by employers who lose their jobs? Prevent insurance companies from dropping people with severe illnesses? Would tort reform actually mean a reduction of the cost of malpractice insurance to medical providers or would the companies simply pocket the additional profits? Since people without insurance tend to use the emergency room, at a higher cost to you and me, how does your proposal bring down the overall cost?

    Posted by FLaim at 08/07/2009 @ 3:01pm

    First question. If you are referring to people who are able to work and pay for their own insurance but don't, my position is that we, as a people in a capitalistic society, have no obligation to use the money we earn to provide health care to those who don't. We already provide Medicaid and free ER treatment for the poor. Also, if you think waiting rooms are crowded now, provide government health care for all and expect to wait a month or more for an appointment.

    Next Question. What did people do for health care BEFORE they got their jobs? The answer is to find a new job, or two, like the rest of us. Provinding government run health care would just give lazy people who have grown up on welfare and handouts, (two generations worth),just another reason not to go to work. Don't even think about reducing care for the elderly who have built this country just to pay for those who think they are entitled. Those are people you are seeing up in arms.

    Catastrophic insurance at a modest premium, run parallel to private coverage answers your next question.

    Tort reform saves a trillion in ten years just on unnessary testing to protect against frivilous mal-practice lawsuits alone.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/07/2009 @ 4:48pm

69. Oh, and the last part about the ER's and their cost. The people who use the ER now will be herded into doctor's offices of the governments choosing, clogging them up with every little sniffle. This is no way to save money or to get these people the care they need. The present system is less costly but does need the reforms I've noted.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/07/2009 @ 4:51pm

70. Posted by srjenkins at 08/07/2009 @ 4:37pm

    Wow, a thoughtful, intelligent post! And I only had to read through a pile of crap to get to it.

    Posted by FLaim at 08/07/2009 @ 4:51pm

71. Posted by antisocialist at 08/07/2009 @ 4:35pm

    Roads? Service. Potable water? Service. Education? Service. Trash removal? Service. Street cleaning? Service. Animal control? Service. Restaurant health inspection? Service. Fire Department? Service. Libraries? Service.

    You seeing a problem here, antisocialist? I might not like restaurants or eat at them, but I can see the value in making sure they aren't serving up typhoid to my neighbors. Same can be said of all of the services above.

    There is clearly a Constitutional argument under a broad interpretation of federal power and the Constitution that is consistent with our history and with the rulings of the Supreme Court. It may not be about selfishness, but your comment at (2) certainly suggests it. As for (3), I think the above illustrates that that the government is involved in many services, including health care. So, you really can only argue on degree at this point.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/07/2009 @ 4:51pm

72. Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 4:44pm

    Congratulations on being among the bare majority that actually pays federal taxes. Perhaps, since you have some skin in the game, you might be a little more thoughtful about how you advocate that the federal government spends that money.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 4:46pm

    Comparing me and Barry25 suggests to me that you just might be a little dim. Whatever your issue, I think I've established that your posts aren't worth reading. So, I'll add you to my ignore list for now. Perhaps one day I'll see other people responding to your posts in a way that suggests a thoughtful discussion that will make me interested in reading what you have to say, but I must say, I think the chances are pretty slim.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/07/2009 @ 5:06pm

73. Gun,

    1. "If you are referring to people who are able to work and pay for their own insurance but don't..."

    -Everyone currently out of work is just lazy and just used to that monthly welfare check?

    2. "We already provide Medicaid and free ER treatment for the poor."

    -It's not free, Gun. You and I pay for that. If people with colds weren't using the ER, but had a primary care physician, it would bring down overall costs.

    3. "What did people do for health care BEFORE they got their jobs? The answer is to find a new job, or two, like the rest of us."

    -Well, I was covered under my father's employer-provided insurance before I started working. I believe that's been the traditional way most people in this country were covered.

    4. "Don't even think about reducing care for the elderly who have built this country just to pay for those who think they are entitled. Those are people you are seeing up in arms. "

    -Do you honestly think that everyone on Medicare paid into the system? I'm seeing quite a few old ladies that probably never worked outside the home their entire lives? So they don't deserve to be receiving medical care?

    5. "Catastrophic insurance at a modest premium, run parallel to private coverage answers your next question. "

    -If you've lost your job and have kids to feed, do you want to decide between how much milk you can buy and your premium? You are aware that most of the middle-class lives paycheck to paycheck, yes?

    6. "Tort reform saves a trillion in ten years just on unnessary testing to protect against frivilous mal-practice lawsuits alone."

    And my question was, where will that trillion go? To reducing the cost of malpractice insurance, or to the bottom line of UnitedHealth?

    Posted by FLaim at 08/07/2009 @ 5:07pm

74. srjenkins, sticks and stones and all that, you were the one to call me an ahole,right after berry25's tirade. Sorry you no longer want to play, I enjoyed it myself, oh well.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 5:24pm

75. Posted by FLaim at 08/07/2009 @ 5:07pm

    1. Never said everyone. You know who I'm referring to.

    2. It's free for the people who use it. We'll pay either way.

    3. And your father's father before him?

    4. You're probably talking about all the Rosie the riveters out there who are now in their eighties if they are still alive. This is the generation who flooded the factories during WWII with their labor and helped their men win a war. Then they, for the most part, married and raised families of productive Americans who built this country. After and during in some cases, they worked to help support themselves to supplement their husbands retirement. These women didn't sit back and have baby after baby, out of wedlock and recieve a bigger and bigger check for every kid they gave birth to. Those people recieved untold billions in free health care, again, for THEM and their flock.

    5. I'm well aware of people who live paycheck to paycheck. At least they're working. Government can and SHOULD provide catastrophic health insurance. No-one should ever have to be financially ruined because of a catastrophic illness in the family.

    6. Hopefully that trillion will go into M/M to take care of the baby-boomers who've worked for it.

    Sorry, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. At least Bill Clinton used to say that everyone who works hard and plays by the rules is entitled to a seat at the table. President Obama seems to think that just because you are an American, and in some cases not even, that you are entitled to a seat at the table. That is not the American way. Sound bitter? Sorry. But I've worked for everything I have and the family I've raised and I'm proud of that. I don't care to pay someone else's way. I've worked too hard.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/07/2009 @ 5:33pm

76. Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/07/2009 @ 5:33pm

    Cool, I can agree to disagree.

    I also agree that if someone can work and can find a job, they should not receive free benefits or a welfare check from the government.

    I'd rather pay less than I'm paying now. People using a primary care physician instead of the emergency room would make that happen.

    My father's father? I don't think there were health insurance companies back then.

    The point was, they didn't pay into the system from which they are receiving benefits. And I propose that the GI Bill did more to build this country than Rosie's kids.

    Hopefully that trillion will go to M/M? You make defintive statements about rationing and long lines, but are only "hopeful" that companies won't just pocket the savings?

    I'm in the same boat as SR, paying six figures in federal income tax year after year, and I'd really like it to be used to help those less fortunate. But that's what makes America great. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

    Posted by FLaim at 08/07/2009 @ 5:47pm

77. Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 5:24pm

    Denise, there is a difference between saying someone is acting like an asshole and someone is an asshole. Even Barry25 is probably a decent guy, when he's not acting the fool on the Internet as a grief troll. He has even had a lucid post or two in this forum, but certainly, it's not enough for me to want to read anything he writes. I simply ignore him.

    But the problem, in this instance, is you were "playing" with Barry and then started making some assumptions about other people because different posts happen to fall chronologically on your screen. That's a mistake.

    It's also a mistake to allow a grief troll to wind you up to the point that you start acting like an asshole yourself while rationalizing that you are just "playing" or that the people you are communicating with on the Internet somehow aren't real people.

    Don't like being called an asshole? Then, don't act like one, just like you do in "real life" with "real people" who you presumably don't tell yourself you are "playing" with.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/07/2009 @ 5:58pm

78. ya know srjenkins, I'v said this before, and I'll repeat myself, you don't know me, yet you call me names, dim, asshole ect., than tell me you are going to put me on ignore, I've read your posts, and realize your thoughtful, smart, and a tad full of yourself. I'm glad you make six figures and have a good job and all, but I work very hard and pay my taxes too, and I also have a right to be on this blog. You want to ignore me, fine, but I'm not going to stop giving my opinion just because you say so, maybe I'm not as smart as you or make as much money, but I know what I believe. I'm allowed to express it.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 6:35pm

79. Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 6:35pm

    Well said. Maybe someone should have called me an asshole. Maybe someone just did. Thanks.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/07/2009 @ 6:49pm

80. Roads? Service. Potable water? Service. Education? Service. Trash removal? Service. Street cleaning? Service. Animal control? Service. Restaurant health inspection? Service. Fire Department? Service. Libraries? Service.

    You seeing a problem here, antisocialist? I might not like restaurants or eat at them, but I can see the value in making sure they aren't serving up typhoid to my neighbors. Same can be said of all of the services above.

    There is clearly a Constitutional argument under a broad interpretation of federal power and the Constitution that is consistent with our history and with the rulings of the Supreme Court. It may not be about selfishness, but your comment at (2) certainly suggests it. As for (3), I think the above illustrates that that the government is involved in many services, including health care. So, you really can only argue on degree at this point.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/07/2009 @ 4:51pm

    <Roads? Service. Potable water? Service. Education? Service. Trash removal? Service. Street cleaning? Service. Animal control? Service. Restaurant health inspection? Service. Fire Department? Service. Libraries? Service.>

    All of those are state and local issues and have nothing to do with the US Constitution. I have no qualms with the right of state and local govts to be the proper authorities to deal with these issues as their citizens desire.

    I still don't see the selfishness is not believing in paying for a service that should be strictly between individuals and healthcare providers.

    As to the last, just because they are involved in services doesn't make it either right or constitutional.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/07/2009 @ 6:50pm

81. Your welcome, couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you too, I was being a bit sensitive. I gotta admit though, I love reading the threads here, left and right and everything in between. Fascinating, informative and a whole lot of fun, as you can tell I have no life. Ha Ha

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 6:57pm

82. 2. it is not about selfishness either. I don't believe in the medical care system whether private or govt. I don't like doctors and don't use them.

    I didn't have healthcare for my family when my kids were young. I paid lay away for my kids deliveries, making payments each week to the doctor and the hospital during my wife's pregnancy.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/07/2009 @ 4:35pm

    Anti,

    Other than the obvious contradiction in these two statements, I'd like to ask, are you a Christian Scientist?

    If not, what would you do if you contracted an easily treatable, but deadly disease?

    By the way, I don't like the medical system either.

    Posted by FLaim at 08/07/2009 @ 4:46pm

    1. No contradiction. Just because I don't use doctors and the healthcare system, it doesn't mean that my wife and children don't have the right to do so. It's a personal choice for me. If my wife had wanted to use a midwife instead, I would have been fine with that also. It was her choice.

    2. I'm not a Christian scientist. I'm just a practitioner of natural or holistic health. I was raised by my parents to not rely upon doctors. My father was a genius with a 180 IQ and believed in self help.

    Even for dentistry, I practice self help. If I have an infected tooth, rather than the pain (and expense) of a root canal, I use Tea Tree oil which both counters the infection and provides a natural numbing effect. I also use Green tea for it.

    I use garlic, red wine, olive oil, green tea, my Monavie Juice and an 11 grain hot cereal to control hypertension and cholesterol.

    I have many natural remedies that allow me to not poison my bodies with prescription drugs.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/07/2009 @ 6:57pm

83. Hey Anti, do you have more than one body? Just kidding, just kidding, gotta go, TGIF.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 7:00pm

84. Antibody HaHa

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/07/2009 @ 7:03pm

85. "It was her choice."

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/07/2009 @ 6:57pm

    Ah, I see, makes sense then.

    I actually also use all the things you mentioned, although my cholesterol is fine and my last blood pressure reading was 116/60. Thanks for reminding me, I'm down to my last bottle of Mona-Vie.

    But, bear with me, would you treat a deadly disease that was easily treatable by "accepted" Western medical methods by yourself? How about surgery? Appendicitis for example?

    Posted by FLaim at 08/07/2009 @ 7:12pm

86. I actually also use all the things you mentioned, although my cholesterol is fine and my last blood pressure reading was 116/60. Thanks for reminding me, I'm down to my last bottle of Mona-Vie.

    But, bear with me, would you treat a deadly disease that was easily treatable by "accepted" Western medical methods by yourself? How about surgery? Appendicitis for example?

    Posted by FLaim at 08/07/2009 @ 7:12pm

    Glad to hear you use Monavie, it's a great natural product.

    I have instructions not to operate on me. I have no qualms about death and see it as a natural part of the life journey. When you have confidence in your destination after death, then death is nothing to fear.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/07/2009 @ 7:24pm

87. "I have instructions not to operate on me. I have no qualms about death and see it as a natural part of the life journey. When you have confidence in your destination after death, then death is nothing to fear."

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/07/2009 @ 7:24pm

    Then I admire your position. I also have no fear of death even though I am uncertain as to my "destination" after death. But still believe certain methods of prolonging my life are acceptable.

    Posted by FLaim at 08/07/2009 @ 7:41pm

88. Then I admire your position. I also have no fear of death even though I am uncertain as to my "destination" after death. But still believe certain methods of prolonging my life are acceptable.

    Posted by FLaim at 08/07/2009 @ 7:41pm

    I believe it is something that should be left solely to the individual.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/07/2009 @ 7:59pm

89. Don't like being called an asshole? Then, don't act like one, just like you do in "real life" with "real people" who you presumably don't tell yourself you are "playing" with.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/07/2009 @ 5:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Self-examination wouldn't hurt you, but it would be fruitless without a conscience.

    Posted by jarshadow at 08/07/2009 @ 9:08pm

90. Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/07/2009 @ 2:45pm:

    I have no problem with your plan - it would be a great start in healthcare reform. As years go by it will evolve as peoples needs change and technology advances. The problem with the dems is they are control freaks and too rigid their quest for a complete system that will not work, few actually want and no realistic way to pay for it. People want control over their own lives and have medical decisions between them and their doctor. The dems, of course, are completely incapable of dealing with tort reform, being in the pocket of the tort Bar as it were, but it must be addressed or nothing will ever happen.

    The dems are so freaky they have enlisted their own army of thugs for protection from seniors and providing for enforcment - hense the new SA. The President himself sent them out - the first beatings have occured, and now things are in danger of spinning out of control.

    Posted by pyeatte at 08/07/2009 @ 9:49pm

91. Furthermore....before you get too excited by the loose reference to Nazi images, remember what you guys did on a daily basis in your references to the Bush administration. A little perspective, please.

    Posted by pyeatte at 08/07/2009 @ 10:29pm

92. Furthermore....before you get too excited by the loose reference to Nazi images, remember what you guys did on a daily basis in your references to the Bush administration. A little perspective, please.

    Posted by pyeatte at 08/07/2009 @ 10:29pm

    If the shoe fits...

    If you want to talk about a preemptive war...

    That's what the Nazis did in 1939.

    That's what the communists did in 1979.

    Posted by koroviev at 08/07/2009 @ 11:38pm

93. SRJ

    Yeah, have to agree with you. Those convenience store clerks have it way too easy. Standing there bs'n with the public, ringing up sales, eating store items out of sight of the surveillance camera, waiting for the appearance of early middle aged female flashers next to the beverage cases, picking up loose change off the floor that they've been instructed to ring up on the register & pocketing it, giving free coffee to bullet proof jacket wearing patrolmen & trying to avoid smiling because they walk so much like the tin-man, etc.

    Tax the bastards! Makem pay FEDERAL TAXES. These prima donnas don't even have to take store inventory! Why? Because they're not trusted! Tax the bastards.

    Posted by Sorelish at 08/08/2009 @ 01:36am

94. "The mainstream media were quick to jump all over conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh when he likened President Barack Obama's healthcare logo to a swastika and compared the Democrats to the Nazis.

    They were much quieter about Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's reference to a swastika when she claimed that hecklers at a pro-Obamacare town hall meeting were carrying swastikas.

    During her recent visit to a San Francisco hospital, a San Francisco Chronicle reporter asked her whether there is "legitimate grass-roots opposition" to the Democrats' healthcare plan.

    "I think they are Astroturf," she responded.

    Then she referred to hecklers at a town hall meeting: "They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."

    ===========

    This is what the Demoncrats in the House and Senate actually think of grandma, grandpa, American taxpayers, and our Veterans protesting against socialist Obamanation and the socialistic Demoncrats nanny state socialist takeover of the healtcare and health insurance industry!

    Get ready for their blackbooted stromtroopers and televised townhall meeting with fully PLANTED questions and answers! This is something the left and Demoncrats excell at, squashing all dissenting voices!

    Liberty and freedom of choice never mean anything to these people!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/08/2009 @ 06:59am

95. "The state guides healthcare for our two closest allies: Great Britain and Canada. Like us, these are prosperous, industrial, Anglophone democracies. Nevertheless, compared to America, they suffer higher death rates for diseases, their patients experience severe pain, and they ration medical services.

    Look what you're missing in the U.K.:

    *Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain, the Vatican of single-payer medicine, breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.

    *Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its American patients. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that it kills 57 percent of Britons it strikes.

    *Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data show that the UK's 2005 heart-attack fatality rate was 19.5 percent higher than America's. This may correspond to angioplasties, which were only 21.3 percent as common there as here.

    *The UK's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) just announced plans to cut its 60,000 annual steroid injections for severe back-pain sufferers to just 3,000. "The consequences of the NICE decision will be devastating for thousands of patients," Dr. Jonathan Richardson of Bradford Hospitals Trust told London's Daily Telegraph. "It will mean more people having spinal surgery, which is incredibly risky, and has a 50 per cent failure rate."

    Things don't look much better up north, under Canadian socialized medicine.

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/08/2009 @ 07:17am

96. *Canada has one third fewer doctors than the OECD average. "The doctor shortage is a direct result of government rationing, since provinces intervened to restrict class sizes in major Canadian medical schools in the 1990s," Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian physician and Manhattan Institute scholar, told the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee on June 24. Some towns address the doctor dearth with lotteries in which citizens compete for rare medical appointments.

    • *"In 2008, the average Canadian waited 17.3 weeks from the time his general practitioner referred him to a specialist until he actually received treatment," Pacific Research Institute president Sally Pipes, a Canadian native, wrote in the July 2 Investor's Business Daily. "That's 86 percent longer than the wait in 1993, when the [Fraser] Institute first started quantifying the problem."

    •*Such sloth includes a median 9.7-week wait for an MRI exam, 31.7 weeks to see a neurosurgeon, and 36.7 weeks to visit an orthopedic surgeon.

    *Thus, Canadian Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps wrote in her 2005 majority opinion in Chaoulli v. Quebec, "…this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care."

    This is what the Demoncrats and Obmanation want you and I to have and the kind of future they want to build!!!!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/08/2009 @ 07:19am

97. Posted by Sorelish at 08/08/2009 @ 01:36am

    I'm sorry, but when the number of people not paying federal taxes gets to 40 to 50%, the little fable that all of these folks work in retail or some minimum wage job doesn't work anymore. The median income is $50,233 in 2007 that means you have people making $40,000, people that are not by any objective measure "poor" not paying taxes. I have a problem with that.

    I don't have a problem with progressive taxation. But, I do have a problem when only half the population is being taxed. I'd argue that it's a lot easier to want war in Iraq or to carry your child to term that has a genetic problem and not get an abortion when you know someone else is going to pay for it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 08:11am

98. I'm sorry, but when the number of people not paying federal taxes gets to 40 to 50%, the little fable that all of these folks work in retail or some minimum wage job doesn't work anymore. The median income is $50,233 in 2007 that means you have people making $40,000, people that are not by any objective measure "poor" not paying taxes. I have a problem with that. Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 08:11am

    You are the victim of misleading information and common misconceptions.

    The first bit of misleading information is that 40 to 50% of people do not pay federal taxes. Just one example of how that is untrue is that everyone who drives a car pays federal taxes of 18.4 cents per gallon, telecommunications (phones) carry a 3% excise tax and things like tobacco and electric bills. That is just a few examples. Just about everyone pays federal taxes in one form or another.

    As far as federal income tax goes, the largest group of people that don't pay federal income taxes are those that file "single" or single head of household. 33.1% of single people pay zero federal income tax. The reason for this is because single filers tend to be young people and earn lower incomes.

    In the single head of household category, 65.7 pay zero income tax. The explanation for that should be self evident. It now costs over $200,000 dollars to raise a kid to age 18.

    Both of these categories account for about 98.8% of all the people who pay zero income tax.

    And both categories generally spend 100% of their income just to stay alive.

    So, your wingnut statement holds no water...

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/08/2009 @ 08:54am

99. 52% of Americans now oppose Obama's healthcare plan. While 43% favor it.

    The right wing dingers like to try and spin this Rasmussen Report. The fact is many of the people polled (including me) expressed dissapointment with the so called "Obama Plan".

    A large percentage of the people in this poll are, what used to be Obama's base. The efforts of the left (including me) is what got Obama elected in the first place. We are pissed. We know that a single payer system is the only program that will solve this nations healthcare crisis.

    But if you listen to the MSM and the copororate fascist oligarchs, one might think that this opposition is from the supposed (grassroots) teabagging minions of these corporatist freaks.

    Nothing could be farther from the truth. And Obama better realize that the real left that got him elected, can just as easily take him down.

    Single Payer Healthcare And Medicare For All!!!

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/08/2009 @ 09:11am

100. I believe excessive government is the cause of most existing health insurance problems, "-FREIHEIT

     What do you base this assumption on? What over burdensome regulations are causing problems for insurance companies?

     ----

     "It's no real mystery why newspapers are going out of business in America. News that is presented with integrity is running out of consumers. "KOROVIEV

     I will let you in on a secret.... Newspapers are going out of business for two main reasons, neither have anything to do with "liberal bias" or lack of integrity in the editorial staff. It also has less to do with circulation than you would probably think.

     1: Craigs list. It removed the cash cow of classified advertising.

     2: It's the economy, stupid. Advertisers are not spending money on newspaper ads. Plus, many Big Box stores have gone out of business all together. Circuit City and Linen's and Things closing meant hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue for any paper that had one of their stores in their market.

     Both of these revenue losses mean less money for actual news. That means the paper shrinks, people stop buying it, revenue shrinks because the paper cannot charge as much for ads. revenue drops, editorial staff gets cut..... until the doors close.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/08/2009 @ 09:46am

101. These misguided Dupes and corrupt Schills, that are being led by the corporate pied pipers to disrupt public debate are only a very small minority of the people that oppose and are disenchanted by this sellout of the Obama administration on the issue of Healthcare.

     But listen to MSNBC. One commentor just couldn't understand how there could be so many Republican "just folks" that would account for the polls. He even cited the statistic that only 1 in 5 Americans declared themselves to be Republican. And Pat Buchanan explained that the majority of Americans were just unhappy with changes to their Healtcare, and that that is what accounted for all these protests at the Town Hall Meetings.

     Both are cluless. Lefties like me are not yet protesting publicly. We don't go to town hall meetings and yell and scream like little children.

     We hide and watch. See where things are going, and what we are going to do about it.

     When we act. You will know.

     The latest real news is that the Obama Administration has cut a deal with Corporate for profit Healthcare companies and Big Pharma. That means that some sort of Public Option will pass both Houses of Congress. But apparently the deal is, it will be so watered down that it will require supplemental insurance policies. Just like current Medicare. And will keep huge profits flowing into the coffers of the Vampiric Insurance Companies.

     With the included mandate that all Americans have Health Insurance or face fines and other "punishment", it will insure a steady stream of revenue into the pockets of the greedy.

     Believe me, things will get ugly, right around here, if this happens.

     Nuff said..

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/08/2009 @ 09:49am

102. I'm sorry, but when the number of people not paying federal taxes gets to 40 to 50%, the little fable that all of these folks work in retail or some minimum wage job doesn't work anymore. The median income is $50,233 in 2007 that means you have people making $40,000, people that are not by any objective measure "poor" not paying taxes. I have a problem with that.

     I don't have a problem with progressive taxation. But, I do have a problem when only half the population is being taxed. I'd argue that it's a lot easier to want war in Iraq or to carry your child to term that has a genetic problem and not get an abortion when you know someone else is going to pay for it.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 08:11am

     We're totally in synch on this.

     Problem has always been, the folks who do work in min. wage jobs, a tiny slice of the work force, are held up as the `norm' by most Dem pols and Lefties.

     Conservatives like me have no problem with <$20k workers ...NOT having to pay Fed. income taxes, but I at least, do think they should pay, say 5 to 10%, to receive heavily subsidized health insurance for either single or family coverage with some modest co-pay elements to moderate usage and living healthier.

     Posted by Happy at 08/08/2009 @ 10:13am

103. Get ready for their blackbooted stromtroopers and televised townhall meeting with fully PLANTED questions and answers! This is something the left and Demoncrats excell at, squashing all dissenting voices!

     Liberty and freedom of choice never mean anything to these people!

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/08/2009 @ 06:59am

     Liberty and freedom of choice? Blackbooted? Stormtroopers?

     If you only knew how ridiculous you sound. For one thing most of us on the left would probably never be caught dead blackbooted, (although we might have a pair for bedroom fantasy use) Lol. Birkenstocks or the like, perhaps.

     Stormtroopers? Hardly. I can't speak for everyone, but many of us occasionally partake of a bit of the herb. And "stormtrooping" is better left to the rightie tighties. We would more likely be watching an old movie, reading a book, or cooking.

     The ability of you psychopaths to project yourself and your actions onto others is astounding.

     Lay off the Rush Limbaugh drug. You sound like a parrot.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/08/2009 @ 10:29am

104. I suspect that the problem of overburdensome regulations for the insurance industry is that the industry's record profits are not higher.

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/08/2009 @ 10:30am

105. Posted by Happy at 08/08/2009 @ 10:13am

     Hey Happy! I guess you must have missed my post: Posted by chaoszen at 08/08/2009 @ 08:54am, where I totally debunked srjenkins.

     Either that or you still have me on ignore. Which now makes you look doubly the fool. LOL..

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/08/2009 @ 10:41am

106. Posted by chaoszen at 08/08/2009 @ 08:54am

     Most of the federal taxes you refer to are to support the activity involved. Federal taxes on gas helps to pay for road maintenance for the roads people that buy gas use. They are infrastructure taxes.

     "The reason for this is because single filers tend to be young people and earn lower incomes."

     The bottom line is almost half the population does not pay federal income tax or receives a subsidy. I think this is a problem, no matter where you sit in the political spectrum.

     "It now costs over $200,000 dollars to raise a kid to age 18."

     And like buying a house, people should save to be able to afford this expense. I think we have a population problem in this world that is not helped by fertility subsidies.

     "Both of these categories account for about 98.8% of all the people who pay zero income tax. And both categories generally spend 100% of their income just to stay alive."

     Now, I'll just call bullshit. One obvious problem is that young people and single heads of households don't account for the legions of seniors. You're extracting these numbers straight from your ass so you can pretend that this isn't a problem.

     "So, your wingnut statement holds no water..."

     It's also rather amusing that you have a hard time distinguishing people like me, from antisocialist or Happy. Just apply the term, "wingnut", to anyone that disagrees with your left authoritarian policies. I don't have any more love for Stalin than for Hitler or Reagan.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 10:52am

107. Posted by Happy at 08/08/2009 @ 10:13am

     As much as I disagree with your notions of "Fair Tax" and your ideas about the unfairness of progressive taxes on people making higher incomes, I do agree that there needs to be some discussion about people doing their part.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/08/2009 @ 10:41am

     Totally debunked is not the word for extracting nonsense from your ass.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 10:56am

108. Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 10:52am

     You are a glutton for punishment. And require way too much of my limited time. I will now spend a bit of my free time to deconstruct everything you said. With the Truth. Which it seems, is a stranger to you. Although, I'm probably wasting my time.

     Most of the federal taxes you refer to are to support the activity involved. Federal taxes on gas helps to pay for road maintenance for the roads people that buy gas use. They are infrastructure taxes. Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 10:52am

     All Federal Taxes are meant to support the "activity involved". And road maintenance and other federal infrastructure maintenance and expansion are by definition "Socialist". They are part of the commons for which we all pay. Medicare and the Veterans administration, aswell as the military, along with every other Federal Program, and even the Government itself (Congress and Senate, along with the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch, are "Socialist"). At the local and state level, even more services are by definition, Socialist.

     Most things that are important to the health and security of a nation are "Socialist". If a healthy happy population is not also considered a part of this "Commons", then something is wrong with us.

     Now, I'll just call bullshit. One obvious problem is that young people and single heads of households don't account for the legions of seniors. You're extracting these numbers straight from your ass so you can pretend that this isn't a problem. Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 10:52am

     The "numbers" are for people who are employed. Seniors are by and large on Social Security and Medicare. These are the old who have worked their entire lives. No taxes for them, I would hope.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/08/2009 @ 11:35am

109. As much as I disagree with your notions of "Fair Tax" and your ideas about the unfairness of progressive taxes on people making higher incomes, I do agree that there needs to be some discussion about people doing their part.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/08/2009 @ 10:41am

     Totally debunked is not the word for extracting nonsense from your ass.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 10:56am

     And quit posting something which appears to be from me. If you do this again, I will seek you. You really don't want that. I can be a real asshole..

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/08/2009 @ 11:44am

110. Nataline Sarkisyan - suffering from leukemia...CIGNA Health Care - denies her doctors' requests for a liver transplant; Nataline dies...a tragic example of how the insurance industry routinely hurts and kills people.

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/08/2009 @ 11:52am

111. Jenkins-

     If there's a Cooperstown for progressive bloggers, you've just posted yourself out of contention.

     Ron Paul loves you! Of course you don't agree with his ideas on health care. Nothing doctrinaire about your stance!

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/08/2009 @ 12:20pm

112. And of course all upwardly mobile ambition stops at the federal income taxation threshold. They're trying to destroy America!

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/08/2009 @ 12:35pm

113. Posted by chaoszen at 08/08/2009 @ 11:35am

     Your arguments are bad, as usual.

     1. There is an obvious difference between a federal sales tax on gas specifically levied to pay for highway maintenance and a federal income tax used to pay for general government.

     2. I don't have a problem with socializing services and am for single payer for health care, so your arguments there are completely ass out.

     3. You say, "The "numbers" are for people who are employed." The numbers are actually for people that file tax returns with the IRS, which in the case of seniors on Social Security means anyone making more than $25,000 or $32,000 as a married couple.

     The third point reveals that (a) you don't understand the data set under discussion and (b) you just throw out random "ideas" about how you think the world works rather than presenting actual facts.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/08/2009 @ 11:44am

     A line like th one above indicates that I am responding to this post, you'll notice I always use quotes, if I'm quoting someone. Anyone reading the discussion can understand this simple convention, why is it that it presents a problem for you?

     Also, you are welcome to come look for me. I'm a pacifist when it comes to state violence, but anyone threatening me or the people I care about better be prepared to be more than just an asshole.

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/08/2009 @ 12:20pm

     I don't think the issue around half our population not paying federal taxes is terribly controversial.

     Ever been to a place with real slums and real crushing poverty, like Kolkata or Rio de Janeiro? We don't have that here. Kolkata itself has a homeless population of about half a million, which is half what it is in the entire United States.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 2:26pm

114. Posted by Sorelish at 08/08/2009 @ 12:35pm

     The point is not about ambition. The point is that half of the population filing income tax returns don't pay federal income taxes. Trying to argue that half our population lives in poverty that makes this alright puts you in an absurd position. But, being the good liberal that you are, good forbid you break from orthodoxy and suggest something is fucked up that the standard liberal supports.

     I'll add another for you. I support gun rights, because I believe we might need guns at some point to overthrow a fascist government where someone like chaoszen gets in power and starts disappearing people that has ideas he doesn't like.

     Most liberals forget that we have as much to fear from government as we do from big business. Perhaps even more so. This doesn't mean government cannot be useful, but we should have the good sense to acknowledge it is a dangerous tool and it isn't the solution to every problem.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 2:36pm

115. Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 2:26pm

     Oh yeah, reminds me of that old Yosemite Sam cartoon where he's marooned in his cabin & reaches for a solitary opened bean can on his shelf & shakes it over his plate. A single bean falls out & he carefully slices it into wafers with his Bowie knife. Lunch.

     We have so very much to be thankful for. A little self-reflection might be in order or does a six figure income preclude that?

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/08/2009 @ 3:39pm

116. You really don't want that. I can be a real asshole..

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/08/2009 @ 11:44am

     No argument here.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/08/2009 @ 4:57pm

117. Posted by Sorelish at 08/08/2009 @ 3:39pm

     This is pedantic. Yes, I've much to be thankful for. But, this assertion that half the people filing tax returns are in poverty, cutting their last bean, is complete and utter bullshit.

     I'm saying any society that gives half of its people a free ride has something fundamentally wrong with it. This is not controversial. It's not even an interesting discussion - which is evident by you trying to make it about me. This tactic is no different than conservatives talking about why you hate America. My internal state of thankfulness and appreciation (which, by the way, you've never heard me complain about my taxes) is immaterial to the point that half our citizenry is not ponying up and no amount of sad sack tales and poor mouth stories is going to cover a population this size. Your fantasy doesn't cover all of them or even most of them. Yes, there are people that shouldn't pay taxes. However, that is not half the population. Period.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 5:05pm

118. Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 5:05pm

     The tax rate in the first bracket has lowered a few percentage points in the last few years, but so has the upper bracket.

     Your buddy Reagan accomplished everything you could dream for back in the early 80s. What the shit are you crying about? What about that Mr. Regressive?

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/08/2009 @ 5:38pm

119. Posted by Sorelish at 08/08/2009 @ 5:38pm

     So, rather than address the question about why is it that half the population is not paying federal income taxes, you again want to make it about me and go for the weak-assed "Your buddy Reagan" line. I've never talked about being in favor for regressive taxes. I have no problem with paying what I estimate to be 60% of my household income to the government (except for the fact that a lot of that money is spent on bombs, conducting wars of aggression or paying the debt on same). I think progressive taxation is both right and fair.

     However, it is not right and fair that half the population pays no federal income tax. In effect, they have representation without taxation. People can lobby their government to prohibit my tax dollars to go to abortion clinics that don't pay any tax. You don't think that's a problem?

     Further, the fact that I raise the issue suddenly makes me a "wing-nut", "my buddy Reagan", etc. Do you even understand how this kind of childish name calling undermines the very causes that you purport to support? What kind of reaction do you think these comments might get from me, or someone like me who is reading this blog?

     The natural reaction that most normal people have to this kind of belligerent asshatry is to tell you people to fuck off. It leads one to the inevitable conclusion that both conservatives and liberals/progressives are fucktards that deserve to be fucked over by fascist tools like George W. Bush and the police state that is the result of creating big government programs that give the federal government more power over citizens.

     I'm asking a simple question. And you want to pretend half the U.S. population is going to bed hungry tonight. Let's cut the bullshit, shall we?

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 11:39pm

120. Also, you are welcome to come look for me Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 2:26pm

     Funny that you should immediately jump to the conclusion that I would waste any time to "come look for me". Your self importance is overrated. And you are more than a little paranoid. I used the word "seek" in the form of "set one's sights on", in other words to harass you on these posts. Chill out.

     As far as your original post:

     I'm sorry, but when the number of people not paying federal taxes gets to 40 to 50%, the little fable that all of these folks work in retail or some minimum wage job doesn't work anymore. Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 08:11am

     You mention nothing about federal income tax. You just said "federal tax". So I pointed out how almost everyone pays some form of "federal tax".

     If you don't like the way the IRS currently works, work to change it. But don't attempt to blame the victim (the american taxpayer) for taking advantage of current tax law.

     I don't care for the IRS either. In fact just 3 months ago I finally paid off the IRS. After paying them monthly for about the last 25 years.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/09/2009 @ 01:08am

121. What kind of reaction do you think these comments might get from me, or someone like me who is reading this blog? Posted by srjenkins at 08/08/2009 @ 11:39pm

     Sounds like you're saying, "Do you know who I am?" The truth is that I don't give a flying fig who you are.

     With an ally like Happy in your quest to get the untaxed to pay their "fair share", you can only be judged by the company you keep.

     Oh & about that simple question. The people I know who aren't required to pay federal taxes need the money more than you do. Assuming that you are the man of means you claim to be.

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/09/2009 @ 01:08am

122. With an ally like Happy in your quest to get the untaxed to pay their "fair share", you can only be judged by the company you keep.

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/09/2009 @ 01:08am

     I just posted a comment about MASK (on HCAN thread) which is apropose for most of you Lefties here. Your so-called arugments today, are intellectually way too FISHY.....LOL!

     That SRJ and I agree on something, has led you to condemn him as unworthy; despite his being my (very worthy) adversary on just about every other social/economic issue....

     And the Left is `tolerant'? SRJ is exactly right, folks like you are the main reason why self-identified Liberals will always be a small minority....the most vocal of you, are a bunch of uncivilized assholes who can't take it but only knows how to dish it out (like assholes)!

     Posted by Happy at 08/09/2009 @ 10:02am

123. Obamanation and the Demoncrats are trying to take the FOCUS of their catastrophic "death bill" for American citizens health, but it is worse than that! The future is even MORE REDINK!

     "If you think the budget deficit and national debt are in bad shape now, you ain't seen nothing yet.

     So say Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and William Gale, vice president of the Brookings Institution.

     "By 2019, even if everything goes the way the Obama administration wants, and the economy recovers and grows steadily over the next decade, the deficit will be 5.5 percent of GDP," they write on CNNMoney.com

     That's "an extremely high figure in good times," the duo point out. "And the debt-to-GDP ratio will hit 82 percent, its highest level since just after World War II."

     But wait a minute, it gets worse, "Things aren't as likely to go as well as President Obama hopes," the economists explain.

     "The economy has already performed worse than was assumed in the budget projections, and the projections are based on heroically optimistic assumptions about the political discipline Congress will impose on itself."

     So what's the solution?

     "Policymakers can thread this needle by committing now to future spending cuts and tax increases, while at the same time being careful not to undo the current stimulus or hurt economic prospects right now," the economists maintain.

     The short-term picture isn't pretty for the budget deficit either. The gap already broke past $1 trillion in June for the year ending Sept. 30.

     "Many private analysts still expect the fiscal-year deficit to top $2 trillion," Insight Economics analyst Steven Wood told Dow ."

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/09/2009 @ 10:22am

124. Posted by chaoszen at 08/09/2009 @ 01:08am

     Seek you out has several meanings in English and "set one's sights on" isn't among them, and you seeking me out for discussion in this forum isn't something that would even occur to me to be afraid of - which seemed to be your intent in making this comment.

     As for the rest of your comment, it's not "blaming the victim" to point out there is a problem with only half the citizenry paying federal income taxes, and creating an awareness of this problem is one of the first steps in addressing it.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/09/2009 @ 10:25am

125. srjenkins and happy, you keep saying what you don't want, well what would you guys do to help the 47 million that don't have health care? Instead of being part of the problem, try being part of the solution, what would you guys do? And I don't mean having health care or insurance company's or doctors dropping them dead at your door either, that's not the answer. So?

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/09/2009 @ 10:43am

126. Played golf yesterday with my Csnadian friend. He brought his mther down here to get treatment for his mothers painful vericous(sp) veins. She is 72 and was declined by Chaozens favorite model of health care he wants to see imposed upon us. .... Csnadas system.

     Sometimes I wish these live eouldget what they demand. Unfortunately guys like me get to pay for it.

     So in that light and that light only, since he is a union truck driver, I can only wish upon Chao the same fate as my friends mother when he gets his wish fom the dens health care.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/09/2009 @ 11:14am

127. Posted by Sorelish at 08/09/2009 @ 01:08am

     "Sounds like you're saying, "Do you know who I am?" The truth is that I don't give a flying fig who you are."

     What is important is not me, personally, but the archetype that I am an example of. I have a broad sympathy with many liberal or progressive positions, and by attacking people like me because we don't walk in lock step or have different ideas about where the base of the tax system should start, you undermine your own efforts. You are doing the conservatives job for them because you won't acknowledge an obvious problem. This makes you seem unreasonable.

     "The people I know who aren't required to pay federal taxes need the money more than you do."

     I have no doubt that they need the money more than I do but that is not the point. The point is that citizens, excepting those in poverty, should be involved in supporting their government. Half our population is not in poverty. So, why is half our population not supporting their government?

     If people could see the costs of Iraq being taken out of their check, do you think they would be as interested? Same can be said of any government program.

     Look at this chart:

     http://www.bls.gov/cex/2007/Standard/income.pdf

     Go across and check average entertainment expense against federal taxes paid across all income categories. Up to $30K people spend about $1,000 on entertainment, yet pay no federal taxes. It is only at 70K+ where people pay close to the average entertainment expense that they do in federal taxes.

     My position is quite uncontroversal. I think paying federal taxes is more important than paying for entertainment - or alcohol, tobacco or food away from home expenses. Cut the cable, pack a lunch or whatever and pay your fair share.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/09/2009 @ 11:19am

128. Posted by Denise29 at 08/09/2009 @ 10:43am

     Socialize it. All of it. Socialize physician training, cut fee for service and have government ration the delivery of care to control expenses.

     See these links:

     http://www.counterpunch.org/ginsburg08072009.html

     http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/09/2009 @ 11:25am

129. srjenkins, I like it.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/09/2009 @ 12:03pm

130. Well happy, whats your answer, then maybe we can start a new conversation from here?!?

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/09/2009 @ 12:04pm

131. Denise,

     yes, you may pay federal taxes, but that doesn't mean you pay your fair share...

     if you make peanuts for income and pay what is for you a portion of that income in taxes and you find it painful...then you feel you are paying your fair share...

     but...

     if the medical care you want costs more than what you pay in taxes, YOU aren't paying your fair share...for others who pay more in taxes at a higher rate than you, still feel the pain in their wallets too, these people are stuck paying their "fair share" and YOURS...as they pay YOUR medical bill for you..as you bitch that they are greedy...

     where you might be simply incompetent to cover the costs of your own living...and you might not have taken the steps to put yourself in a better position to cover your costs..and that is not part of the wealthier guys greed...but yours.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/09/2009 @ 12:05pm

132. By the way srjenkins, it will never happen, so how do we get the ball rolling?

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/09/2009 @ 12:08pm

133. Posted by Denise29 at 08/09/2009 @ 12:08pm

     Read the Counterpunch article linked above.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/09/2009 @ 12:48pm

134. Well happy, whats your answer, then maybe we can start a new conversation from here?!?

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/09/2009 @ 12:04pm

     If you've read my sparse comments, you'd know I do not demand the working poor (<$20k, thereabout) pay Fed. income taxes and I do support subsidizing the health care of the working poor. This is no different than the safety nets like food stamps, Sec. 8 housing vouchers, Earned Income Tax Credits, etc.

     The key issue I have, is to limit our charity to the actual working poor AND only citizens and legal immigrants. True hardships like the mentally challenged and severely handicapped should be supported, as they already are under both MediCaid & Social Security.

     One thing Hillary got right, if you want to cover most, if not all, of the working poor w/health insurance, is to mandate coverage by everyone. All those >$20k workers must enroll and NOT have the luxury of showing up in the emergency rooms when they take a bad spill on their Harleys/Gold Wings/dirt bikes or some such accidents.

     Also demand tort reform by capping damages & attorney fees, say 20%, along with special courts where juries have some level of medical knowledge.

     This still leaves out the non-working, choosing to be lazy types.....frankly, if they should die from lack of some health care, I'm sorry I just can't shed any tears for them....what the society need, is the End of Life (idea that Magic tauts for seniors) counseling for them, as they will likely be takers for life.

     One other thing, just as it took a Democrat, Bill Clinton, to reform Welfare, my guess is it will take a Repub to reform health care, er, health insurance.

     I'll also add a thought: IF HRC is POTUS, health reform would probably go much further. Her own lessons learned, would've been invaluable!

     Posted by Happy at 08/09/2009 @ 1:36pm

135. Ah, srjenkins, great article, but how do we get there, I must say the article says it all,but in a world where black is white, were we have people who say keep the government out of their medicare, and politicians are as dishonest as the day is long, where do we just start?

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/09/2009 @ 1:38pm

136. Simply explained, national health insurance means bigger government and more bureaucrats and no one wants that.

     If you want to see how government health care in action, just look how awful the VA treats our veterans. Do you want that kind of health care?

     Posted by SilverFox at 08/09/2009 @ 2:31pm

137. Posted by Denise29 at 08/09/2009 @ 1:38pm

     Personally, I think this is inevitable. So, doing something isn't even necessary.

     But, if you insist on doing something, you could try supporting half-measures you approve of. Some people like the Healthy Americans Act. But, many liberals don't like it because it doesn't provide a federal public option and it would be a problem for some unions.

     I like the fact that it is decentralized, allows states to offer a public option, does something to control costs while at the same time doesn't offer a too radical change from the existing system.

     But, I don't pretend to understand the impact of this bill. It's a complex issue, but it strikes me as a reasonable approach on the surface.

     Posted by SilverFox at 08/09/2009 @ 2:31pm

     We already have the kind of health care, and it's not just the VA. It's Medicare, state funded treatments by academic institutions, local safety-net medical services, etc.

     The central problem that people advocating your position have to address is how do you control health care costs even for people currently covered by insurance without government intervention? A secondary problem is how do you handle the uninsured - which is currently handled poorly by the government health safety net? And the bottom line is you don't have an answer to these questions.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/09/2009 @ 3:12pm

138. And the bottom line is you don't have an answer to these questions.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/09/2009 @ 3:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Do you?

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/09/2009 @ 4:09pm

139. Posted by jarshadow at 08/09/2009 @ 4:09pm

     No, I don't see how you can provide affordable healthcare under the current system to even the insured, much less the uninsured. I think government intervention is necessary because there are perverse market incentives to bilk those with illness and their insurers to maximize profits for hospitals, physicians, medical device manufacturers and pharmacuetical companies under fee per service. Insurers, of course, are incentivized to bilk the insured.

     So, it is a standard problem of individuals needing some form of protection from powerful business interests. Federal government can help, but the problem is that more often than not federal government is captured by these interests itself.

     But, I think even though government intervention is necessary. We should be very careful to make sure that local governments and states are more involved in solving this problem than the federal government - and any role of the federal government has multiple forms of oversight.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/09/2009 @ 4:35pm

140. People who pontificate about the health care bill should read the thing. Easy read, boring as hell but, easy read. The thing that seems to be causing the most hell is the living will provision, "good idea", proposed by Susan Collins of Maine. Love my Susan folks, got good brains. It is not euthanasia, that's already happening now with Unum and Anthem. Why the hell did blue cross go from a non profit at a third the price that it is now, to a"for profit" hell hole with the CEO getting 15. 8 million salary? I had blue cross under a teachers contract in the early sixties and it was a good coverage, then it went private and they seem to be looking for reasons not to provide service and squeeze as much from service providers and patients as possible. I'm convince that "for profit" health care is an oxymoron.

     Posted by julien38 at 08/09/2009 @ 5:03pm

141. But, I think even though government intervention is necessary. We should be very careful to make sure that local governments and states are more involved in solving this problem than the federal government - and any role of the federal government has multiple forms of oversight.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/09/2009 @ 4:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Well written...so the question is what kind of government intervention is need. My two cents is that first we must have a federal law making it a felony for health insurance companies to terminate coverage for the slightest reason, any reason, under penality of heavy fine and imprisonment. For example, Nataline Sarkisyan, the young lady I spoke of earlier, is dead from a liver transplant denial (with the final irony being that when the transplant was eventually approved, she was dead. CIGNA should have been fined heavily and the CEO who was responsible indicted and convicted of second-degree murder.

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/09/2009 @ 5:18pm

142. For example, Nataline Sarkisyan, the young lady I spoke of earlier, is dead from a liver transplant denial (with the final irony being that when the transplant was eventually approved, she was dead. CIGNA should have been fined heavily and the CEO who was responsible indicted and convicted of second-degree murder.

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/09/2009 @ 5:18pm

     You actually believe under a single-payer Gubber program, or any program you care to think ideal, every liver transplant request will be approved speedily?

     And if just by the slightest chance, some bureaucratic foul-up happens, and the approval didn't arrive in time, and the next Nataline dies, then somehow, the Gubber courts will fine the Gubber's own healthcare arm and then, indict and convict Obama or Sebelius of 2nd degree murder?

     Every `system' requires some kind of gatekeeper, even welfare, food stamps, and on and on! And having gatekeepers mean what? Rationing! Public or private, don't matter....boiled down, all the same deal, rationing.

     In Private healthcare, it's a matter of who can pay the premiums and how much time your doctors are willing to spend to fight the insurance gatekeepers on your behalf. In public health care , how much confidence would you give to those care givers to go to the floor mat for you against faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats?

     Ever heard of Canadians flocking to the US for care they deemed both more urgent and needed than their own Gubbers?

     Posted by Happy at 08/09/2009 @ 5:54pm

143. I AM A CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN SHIT HEAD

     This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

     I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

     After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

     I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

     At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

     After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration...I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

     MORE:

     http://tinyurl.com/nf4e23

     Posted by judybrowni at 08/09/2009 @ 6:38pm

144. I just saw the final irony. I just watched the kboom guy do a commercial for ICARE. An insurance company that apparently provides full coverage for 19.95. And here I was, I thought Billy was dead. Last week i brought my wife's twelve prescription drugs to Wal Mart for a pricing. Nope not a 4.00 dollar prescription in the lot, generic or not. Matter of fact many of them were less expensive a Rite Aid.

     Posted by julien38 at 08/09/2009 @ 8:33pm

145. According to the supreme court, Money is free speech, "Buckley V. Valeo". Big corporate money big lie. Did you guys hear the Sotomoyor oath, especially that line about justice for all rich or poor? You think really? Somebodies has got to remind that crazy Italien. His sense of humor isn't funny any more. I use to think that Scalia was just funny, now I think he is dangerous. I think he is really getting into the alter wine heavy.

     Posted by julien38 at 08/09/2009 @ 8:41pm

146. Posted by julien38 at 08/09/2009 @ 8:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Ya and what about those synchronous satellites and GPS and all that stupid gov. stuff. Course we have all that private stuff that works wonders like; Xe, KBR, Blackwater, Halleburton.

     Posted by julien38 at 08/09/2009 @ 8:47pm

147. Posted by jarshadow at 08/09/2009 @ 5:18pm

     Under those conditions, who would take the job as CEO of a health care insurance company? And how much pay would they need to make this risk worthwhile?

     I understand your intentions, but it sounds like a recipe for mismanagement.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/09/2009 @ 10:24pm

148. uh, srjenkins, I live in arizona, so states options isn't going to happen here, and no I didn't capitalize arizona because it doesn't deserve it, next?

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/09/2009 @ 10:32pm

149. Posted by julien38 at 08/09/2009 @ 8:33pm

     Only a fool believes he will get his drugs for $ 4 ...what you get for $4 is worth...$4.00...

     and at $ 4 ...someone else is paying for your drugs..

     so be honest here with everyone...

     simply put..

     you want to pay $ 4 for drugs that cost much more ...and you want someone else to pay the real cost...the govt...which is...

     me and everyone else...

     you are at this point no better than a pick pocket...

     I would respect you and your position if you just came out and said you dont want to pay for your own drugs at the price that they are sold at....

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/10/2009 @ 12:02am

150. I understand your intentions, but it sounds like a recipe for mismanagement.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/09/2009 @ 10:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     It's ALREADY a recipe for mismanagement, greed, callousness and homicide, in the worst of cases.

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/10/2009 @ 01:21am

151. And what the hell do you advise the insurance company's PR people say to the family of the deceased? "Oh, we're sorry, it's just too costly and not a good business decision...pardon me, we have to give approval for our CEO's $18,000,000 compensation package. We'll be sure to send a card of condolence to the family."

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/10/2009 @ 01:25am

152. His sense of humor isn't funny any more. I use to think that Scalia was just funny, now I think he is dangerous. I think he is really getting into the alter wine heavy.

     Posted by julien38 at 08/09/2009 @ 8:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     I knew immediately after the Supreme Court's decision in Gore v Bush, when Scalia said "Get over it," that he was a dangerous person in a position of such awesome potentially catastrophic power.

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/10/2009 @ 01:30am

153. Posted by Denise29 at 08/09/2009 @ 10:32pm

     Let me get this straight. You believe it is better for the federal government to impose a public option on every state rather than people in the state choosing what is right for them, which includes individuals being able to move to another state that does provide this option when it isn't available in their current state?

     The second option seems both easier and better to me. The great advantage of the United States is that it is possible to have 50 different experiments in governance, and people can vote with their feet. Monoculture, whether it is in agriculture or in government, is the surest way to failure.

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/10/2009 @ 01:21am

     So, in other words, your solution isn't one because the situation stays the same.

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/10/2009 @ 01:25am

     The idea that a person in need of a new liver is somehow murdered by their insurance company is silly.

     Perhaps after this you might move on to all the people that have not elected to donate their organs because surely people are dying (certainly making it more expensive) because their organs won't available. Or the surgeon that has the patient die on them while performing the operation. Maybe we should charge their mother for giving the patient genetic disease that caused the liver disease.

     Where, exactly, do you draw the line and accept the fact that death is part of life and the miracle that is organ replacement isn't something that can be provided to everyone that needs it?

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 09:25am

154. "you are at this point no better than a pick pocket... "----Posted by YourJomamma at 08/10/2009 @ 12:02am

     "A fine excuse to pick a man's pocket every 25th day of December."----Posted by EScroo at 12/24/1843 @4;58pm

     Posted by Mask at 08/10/2009 @ 09:29am

155. Thesaurus: seek Posted by chaoszen at 08/09/2009 @ 01:08am

     Seek you out has several meanings in English and "set one's sights on" isn't among them.Posted by srjenkins at 08/09/2009 @ 10:25am

     Wrong Again jenkins! Damn... I admit it is an idiom, but a definition none the less. Another thing that is not in your favor is that my ex-wifes maiden name was "jenkins". And she was a blockhead just like you..:)

     Top Home > Library > Literature & Language > Thesaurus verb

     To try to find something: cast about, hunt, look, quest, search. See seek/avoid. To strive toward a goal: aim, aspire. Idioms: set one's sights on. See seek/avoid, start/end. To endeavor to obtain (something) by expressing one's needs or desires: ask (for), request, solicit. See request. To make an attempt to do or make: assay, attempt, endeavor, essay, strive, try. Idioms: have a go at, havemaketakea shot at, havetakea whack at, make a stab at, take a crack at.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 09:54am

156. Just a little dose of facts to consider:

     "Nate Carlile offers the confused party chair a quick primer on reality".

     "...Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion in 2001. Budget experts projected a $710 billion surplus for 2009 when he came into office. But the deficit soon exploded, thanks largely to the Bush tax cuts -- which accounted for 42 percent of the deficit. When Bush left office, he handed President Obama a projected $1.2 trillion budget deficit for this year, the largest ever.

     As for the debt, when President Bush took office, it was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion."

     Food for thought...

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 10:14am

157. There is always a simple solution to a problem, and there is always and excruciatingly complicated and frustrating solution to a problem.

     SIMPLE SOLUTION TO THE HEALTHCARE CRISIS:

     1. Lift the Cap on Social Security Taxes, which for 2009 are $106,800. Everyone, no matter what their income level needs to pay their fair share into the system. Not having to pay into Social Security for any income above $106,800 is an atrocity.

     2. Rollback all of the Bush and Reagan Taxcuts for the obscenely wealthy.

     If we did just these two simple things, which would not affect 99% of all Americans we would be able to afford a whizbang National Healthcare System.

     EXCRUCIATINGLY COMPLICATED SOLUTION:

     1. The Current Cobbled Up Gobbledegoop Proposal.

     2. Not Doing Anything At All. (Repug Healthcare Proposal).

     And if you would like Cadillac Care for all Americans, just slash the bloated Military Budget.

     Healthcare For All 101.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 10:37am

158. Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 09:54am

     A thesaurus provides synonyms. A dictionary is the appropriate tool for finding the usage for a word or phrase. If you go to the OED, the relevant usage is number 6 under seek:

     "To pursue with hostile intention (a person; also, in Biblical phrase, his soul or life); to go to attack, advance against (an army, country); to persecute, harass, afflict. Also to seek out, to seek to death. Obs."

     Since this meaning makes barely any sense in the context of an online forum, I went with the more obvious usage of actually seeking someone out.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 10:39am

159. Would you prefer that your tax dollars go to funding imperialist occupations and dumbass war machines of death around the world? Or would you prefer to spend your tax dollars to ensure the chance at good health for yourselves and your children? No more co-pays, No more deductibles, No more insane paperwork to receive treatment, No more devastation of your family due to bankruptcy?

     I would think that this decision is quite simple, and a no brainer.

     So why is it that so many people want to work against their own best interests? Why is it that people live in fear and are angry with each other?

     While the priviledged class is happily running away with our wealth. They pit us against each other because they are afraid that if we see the reality of this three-card monte ponzi scheme we will rebel.

     And we should.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 11:02am

160. Posted by judybrowni at 08/09/2009 @ 6:38pm

     Excellent post.

     Clearly the aliens that run the govt are evil and incompetent.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/10/2009 @ 11:06am

161. Since this meaning makes barely any sense in the context of an online forum, I went with the more obvious usage of actually seeking someone out.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 10:39am

     I posted and told you the context in which I was using it, for clarification. That should be an end to it. Words are often used in many contexts. That is the danger of words.

     But instead of jumping to conclusions, maybe you should have asked me what I meant by that before you reached a conclusion.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 11:06am

162. CHAOSZEN I'd "prefer" to spend my tax dollars the way I see fit rather than how some bureaucratic lackey see's fit. It's true, as Andrew Jackson believed, that "the people" don't ALWAYS know what's best for them. But they DO know whats best for them more than anyone else does. These days, such a philosophy rings more true than ever

     Posted by william.harry13 at 08/10/2009 @ 11:10am

163. Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 10:37am

     You are aware that the social security system that people that contribute are given a stipend based on their contributions?

     So, your first suggestion would effectively have the social security fund paying retirement benefits to people that are more well off that don't need them and wouldn't solve the financial problem.

     The only way this idea works is if you use the system to transfer wealth and cap the benefits based on the income of the retiree - which would effectively make this move a tax on the wealthy. Fine as far as that goes, but disguising it as "Social Security" strikes me as a bit dishonest.

     The second issue is that increasing tax revenue does not address the cost containment problem of health care.

     The third issue is the taxing the top 1% taxes in the 90% range will give people incentives to migrate to other countries (which will be happy to take them) or hide their assets in offshore trusts and so forth. You can see how this works with companies that have moved their headquarters to the Cayman Islands to avoid U.S. taxes. It will also happen at an increased rate with individuals.

     While I don't think this is as bad of a problem as conservatives believe, it would have some negative effects on the economy that would reduce jobs and the overall tax base that makes this a less rosy picture than if you assume a steady state, as you do.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 11:14am

164. The idea that a person in need of a new liver is somehow murdered by their insurance company is silly.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 09:25am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Tell that to the grieving parents....go ahead, let's see if you'd have the guts.

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/10/2009 @ 11:26am

165. This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy. Posted by judybrowni at 08/09/2009 @ 6:38pm

     Great Post!

     By the way, I wonder if anyone knows that in the United Kingdom the consumer has a choice of 5 or 6 providers for their electricity? No Monopoly. And a good example of Regulated Capiltalism.

     Here is how it works:

     The Government owns and maintains the method of delivery. The power lines and such. Companies that produce Electricity through their Corporate Infrastructure Investments like Solar and Wind Power, Hydroelectric or whatever are rated at how much Electric Energy their investments produce. If they produce X amount of electricity, they sell it to the consumer and compete with other companies as to price and service.

     This creates healthy competiton. Everyone is in a win win situation.

     In this country we have Monopolies that stifle competition, and allow the consumer no choice.

     We should be open to new ideas that benefit us. And not be afraid of them because someone told us it was evil.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 11:28am

166. Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 11:02am

     Your wealth? Did you take the loans to go to medical school? Did you do locums every free weekend to pay those loans? Do you spend 15 years to train to be a surgeon? Work 15 hour days? Work six days a week? Take call 24/7 365 days a year, year after year? Where were you when all the investment and work took place?

     But now, you talk about your wealth? How about you get your hand out of my fucking pocket? While I'm more happy about being taxed for something socially useful like health care over paying for cluster bombs, I can't say I like this smug, self-satisfied sense of entitlement to "our wealth" that pretends that the 16 year old mother who can't be bothered to use contraception or get an abortion should live off the backs of those that did what they needed to do to be in a position to be successful.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 11:06am

     Who now is exhibiting hubris? You don't communicate clearly, blame the other guy and engage in name calling and then it's the other guys fault for not asking for clarification? It's all about you now, isn't it?

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 11:28am

167. Posted by jarshadow at 08/10/2009 @ 11:26am

     This mentality will prevent single payer from ever happening. If you support single payer, you have to accept the moral consequences that the government is going to be deciding who lives and dies and how much life is worth. I am willing to accept the moral consequences of that position because it is better than the current system, and yes, that includes telling families to their face that saving their loved one is not a good use of resources.

     The fact you haven't realized or don't have the guts to take this position suggests that you should be out there with conservatives complaining about rationing - except, you're not in a position to pay for it on your own either, now are you? So, again, why is it that you believe that I, or other people, should pay for your loved one to live another six weeks? Make the argument and stop using the chickenshit emotional tack that I don't have the balls to say it to people's face. I do. And you better be able to do so too if you support single payer.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 11:34am

168. The insurance industry already decides who lives and who dies

     Well, I can only wish that someday someone you love is denied medical care, resulting in his or her death. Don't get emotional when that happens, remember your own words, his/her medical care was just not a "good use of resources."

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/10/2009 @ 11:44am

169. You are aware that the social security system that people that contribute are given a stipend based on their contributions?

     So, your first suggestion would effectively have the social security fund paying retirement benefits to people that are more well off that don't need them and wouldn't solve the financial problem. Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 11:14am

     First of all the word "stipend" is inaccurate and misleading. A "stipend" is a form of monetary payment or salary, such as for and internship or apprenticeship. Or a complementary benefit. Almost like charity.

     Social Security is a benefit earned by those who have contributed over a lifetime of labor. Hardly a "Stipend".

     And a cap could be established for maximum benefits that could be received by any contributor. Anyone who could possibly be effected by that would probably not need Social Security in the first place. And would be fullfilling their obligation to a society that they profited from and a system that obviously served them.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 11:56am

170. Who now is exhibiting hubris? You don't communicate clearly, blame the other guy and engage in name calling and then it's the other guys fault for not asking for clarification? It's all about you now, isn't it?

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 11:28am

     Your posts are disintegrating into "drivel and babble". I recognize those twins well. When they show up, it usually means my job is almost complete.

     Thanks for the validation!

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 12:03pm

171. Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 11:34am

     Don't stretch your limited intellect too far. It can lead to a terrible case of "dissociation". It will devastate your ability to respond and function and can be quite unsettling.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 12:13pm

172. Posted by jarshadow at 08/10/2009 @ 11:44am

     And you want to replace the insurance industry with government. Will you feel better then?

     As for your wish, you can sit all smug with the knowledge that I don't have to wait. I deal with the reality every day that someone I love has an illness that will kill them, and it is not clear what will help them.

     Have you talked with your loved ones about whether you want to be kept alive in a vegetative state if medically possible? What about paying for physical and occupational therapy? What about a nursing home? What about clinical trials?

     Have you talked about what you ware willing to sacrifice to pay for these things? Will you sell your house, take from your kids college funds, live with your elderly parents and provide much of the care yourself?

     When you get past the emotions of why did this illness have to happen, there are real questions that sick people and their families have to answer, and this is just as true for the people providing their medical care. To pretend that there are no limits is to make a promise you can't keep and not having limits opens up the possibility of a life that is worse than death. It also saddles the living with a horrible burden.

     Ignoring these problems and making it a matter of emotions is a level of naivety that I, frankly, can't afford.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 12:21pm

173. Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 12:13pm

     Back to small minded name calling. Oh, oh, you might hurt my feelings chaoszen!

     Maybe you should work on your thinking and writing skills, so you can save people from the boredom of reading and trying to understand your poorly written posts.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 12:24pm

174. Back to small minded name calling. Oh, oh, you might hurt my feelings chaoszen! Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 12:24pm

     And exactly what name did I call you? In the post that you are referring to?

     Seems to me that you are hallucinating.

     Here is my post that you cite:

     Don't stretch your limited intellect too far. It can lead to a terrible case of "dissociation". It will devastate your ability to respond and function and can be quite unsettling.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 12:13pm

     No name calling. Just a warning as to your psychological state.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 12:32pm

175. Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 12:24pm

     Maybe you should get a little rest, and then reconsider things.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 12:34pm

176. If ever there was a list of American based terrorist organizations this is it! Most are funded directly or indirectly with taxpayer dollars pilfered by the Demoncrat party and the Obamanation!

     Their job ( and they will accept the "contracted hit") Is to terrorize American taxpayers, grandma and grandpa, mom and dad, American vetrens, small business owners, or any individual daring to show up and voice objection to the New Reich's power grab socializing forever the largest single sector of the American economy!

     SEIU AFSCME MoveOn NAACP National Council of La Raza ACORN AFL-CIO and Campaign for America's Future

     Watch the Demoncrats jackbooted minions and usable gullible fools coming to a townhall meeting near you!Dissent by the American public and freedom of speech will no longer be tolerated!by the Obamanation that makes desolation!

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/10/2009 @ 12:53pm

177. Your wealth? Did you take the loans to go to medical school? Did you do locums every free weekend to pay those loans? Do you spend 15 years to train to be a surgeon? Work 15 hour days? Work six days a week? Take call 24/7 365 days a year, year after year? Where were you when all the investment and work took place? Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 11:28am

     I believe I said "our wealth", you know, the inclusive instead of the selfish "your wealth". You see things through the lens of your own greed.

     In a society that truly cares about it's own welfare and success, free education through college is of primary importance. No Loans, No Debt for Students. In fact, subsidizing students who qualify for free higher education pays dividends that pay for themselves over and over. Fully funded public education is an investment in the future of any nation.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 12:56pm

178. Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 12:34pm

     Maybe you should try commenting on something you know something about. Maybe you could give a clinic on how to get caught by the IRS for not paying your taxes or write a book of fiction incorporating your experiences with hallucinations. It worked for Burroughs. It might work for you, too.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 1:07pm

179. Unregulated Capiltalism is a curse on Society. Capiltalism when unrestrained is unhealthy. It utilizes "Greed" as an incentive. And as far as I can see, "Greed" is one of the Christian "Seven Deadly Sins".

     But when you tame and moderate Capitalism by government regulation, it becomes a healthy and productive process.

     In other words, "once you tame the beast", it becomes productive. When Capiltalism only serves a small minority in any society, massive abuses result. When Capiltalism is properly restrained and defanged it serves the majority of society.

     What is so hard to understand?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 1:09pm

180. Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 1:07pm

     You know nothing about my problems with the IRS. And I won't go into them here. Suffice to say that I paid enormous amounts of money in interest and penalties when I was divorced. I never willfully avoided any tax liabilty. And believe me, I paid. Over and over. So that my kids and my ex-wife didn't have to.

     I'm not griping about that. Although I could. It is thankfully over now.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 1:18pm

181. The idea that unregulated CapITALISM serves only a small minority is ludicrous. Just in my drive home at night from work I see miles of townhouses and single family homes filled with people who have food to eat and two cars and who take vacations and live nice lives. Not everyone has as much as everyone else, though I'll take a society where 90% of the people have some good measure of wealth over one where everybody has 30%. And yes, its true I'm not in the 10%. If I was maybe I'd feel differently. I've been fortunate. The problem was not lack of regulation: It was criminal behavior on the part of a few and the failure of gov. to enforce the regs that already existed. That's not the systems fault.

     Posted by william.harry13 at 08/10/2009 @ 1:21pm

182. "...Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion in 2001. Budget experts projected a $710 billion surplus for 2009 when he came into office. But the deficit soon exploded, thanks largely to the Bush tax cuts -- which accounted for 42 percent of the deficit. When Bush left office, he handed President Obama a projected $1.2 trillion budget deficit for this year, the largest ever.

     As for the debt, when President Bush took office, it was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion."

     Food for thought...

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 10:14am

     As the old saying goes, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You have repeatedly mangled the facts.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 1:25pm

183. Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 12:56pm

     Since you don't have wealth, when you use "our wealth", you means someone else's.

     "In a society that truly cares about it's own welfare and success, free education through college is of primary importance."

     Except we don't live in that society and jobs like surgeons come with an initial investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars, an opportunity cost of years of time and means working hours that most people don't want to work. Now, after that has been made, you want to talk about "our wealth" and "free education" that doesn't exist.

     Hey, since we are talking about imaginary worlds, why not use "our wealth" to compensate all physicians for the debt that had to assume to get their training? In fact, our wealth could be used to compensate everyone for every kind of training they have ever taken to cover everything from grant writing workshops to basketweaving.

     At some time you have to move from your ideas about the world to reality and make the amazing discovery that they aren't the same.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 1:25pm

184. I believe excessive government is the cause of most existing health insurance problems, "-FREIHEIT

     What do you base this assumption on? What over burdensome regulations are causing problems for insurance companies? - Crabwalk

     Hi Crab, Special interests and powerful lobbies have worked congress to ensure health insurance companies are forced through regulation to cover a myriad of different profit making diseases and inflictions. Shrinks, in vitro fertilization and child-development assessments, impotence, hardware, gardisil injections, etc. This goes well beyond the purpose of health insurance. Instead it has raised overall costs for us, and benefitted political coffers for our "representatives".

     But having politicians in charge of health insurance is a great idea and clearly outlined in the US Constitution. I mean, look how well having Congress oversee banking through the Federal Reserve system has done. And don't you just beam with pride on how well Afghanistan and Iraq are being handled by Obama and the 111th! Yep, free health care is definitely the way to go.

     Congress proves how much it is for the people every minute of the day!

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/10/2009 @ 1:30pm

185. At some time you have to move from your ideas about the world to reality and make the amazing discovery that they aren't the same.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 1:25pm

     Funny you should say that. How do you define reality?

     Many countries in the EU have made these moves, that are working out quite well. So does that mean your "reality" only encompasses your small vision of the world?

     These are not "fantasies", they are realities in other countries. Are you so narrow minded that you do not acknowledge things that exist beyond the small minded universe of your mind?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 1:37pm

186. At some time you have to move from your ideas about the world to reality and make the amazing discovery that they aren't the same.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 1:25pm

     Funny you should say that. How do you define reality?

     Many countries in the EU have made these moves, that are working out quite well. So does that mean your "reality" only encompasses your small vision of the world?

     These are not "fantasies", they are realities in other countries. Are you so narrow minded that you do not acknowledge things that exist beyond the small minded universe of your mind?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 1:37pm

187. As the old saying goes, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You have repeatedly mangled the facts.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 1:25pm

     I see that you will persist in denying the Truth. And you do so without backing up your arguments with anything resembling "facts".

     You consistently avoid addressing my arguments with anything but a few cheap shots and accusations.

     Typical respones from the clueless.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 1:42pm

188. Well srjenkins, may I ask how old you are and have you or a beloved family member ever not had or been denied health care? Because it only will take one time for most sane and compassionate person to understand what is at stake. williamharry13 you sound like your 13, and BigP, bite me.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/10/2009 @ 1:44pm

189. Sorry about the double post. Not sure how that happens. First time for me.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 1:44pm

190. Posted by Denise29 at 08/10/2009 @ 1:44pm

     Thanks for showing up! I was starting to think I would have to hold off the hordes of ignorance all by myself..

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 1:46pm

191. Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 1:09pm

     I'm not a proponent of unregulated capitalism. If anything, I think cooperative economics where the means of production are owned by the people doing the work or customers that buy the products leads to better economic outcomes. You can see this in cooperative agricultural production, cooperative retail outlets, etc. Currently, we just don't have good infrastructure for this kind of approach.

     I agree that free market fundamentalism is a problem. But, your ideas about greed as sin are half-baked. For one, the seven sins are something that is a better fit in Catholic theology, and there are some protestant varieties of Christianity that believe wealth is a sign of God's grace (this is complete misunderstanding of the Christian message, but there it is). So, I'm not sure this is an effective argument.

     I'd also argue that the main problems with capitalism are that it leads to systemic boom and bust cycles and ultimately, it rests on creating or taking advantage of conditions where labor is relatively inexpensive, which requires some level of exploitation.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 1:18pm

     You're letting me tweak you, chaoszen. If you are going to play games with people, it helps if it isn't so easy to put you on the defensive.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 1:47pm

192. Speaking of "disinformation" isn't this article a case study in it?

     The headline screams "Disinformation", but the author concedes it was "misinformation".

     The author's own words: "Now, Josh made the error in good faith and he had the integrity to fess up and post a correction on his blog."

     Isn't intentionally conflating the terms "disinformation" and "misinformation" and example of "disinformation"?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/10/2009 @ 1:55pm

193. You're letting me tweak you, chaoszen. If you are going to play games with people, it helps if it isn't so easy to put you on the defensive.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 1:47pm

     It is impossible to "tweak" me. I come from the factory "pre-tweaked".

     As far as being on the defensive. I rarely take that option unless it improves my offensive position on the board.

     Ever play chess?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 1:57pm

194. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/10/2009 @ 1:55pm

     Hey Troll!

     Misinformation is the "action of misinforming", or condition of being "misinformed". Erroneous or incorrect information.

     "Disinformation" is the act of disseminating Misinformation. A deliberate attempt at spreading Erroneous or incorrect information.

     I hope this helps:)

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 2:07pm

195. Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 1:37pm

     In the US, physicians pay for their education out of pocket. It would be one thing to talk about reducing physician salaries or increasing their income taxes if medical education were free, but it is another matter when the real physicians in this country pay for their education out of pocket, often by assuming hundreds of thousands in debts, and then you come along after the fact and decide to tax the incentive for doing so out of existence.

     Since it is currently not free, you cannot pretend that it is free. It's a hypothetical. It might even be a good idea. But, it isn't actual, and you cannot base your policy ideas on hypotheticals.

     That said, I agree that a viable single payer system will ultimately have to have free or heavily subsidized medical education.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/10/2009 @ 1:44pm

     "Because it only will take one time for most sane and compassionate person to understand what is at stake."

     This is a good illustration of the concept of the tragedy of the commons. The compassionate person is going to want to save everyone, and if they try, they will quickly use all the resources available and not be able to provide medical services until more resources become available.

     The sane person is going to realize that ultimately, there has to be limits on what a governmental health care system can cover in order to be viable. Peter Singer's article in the NYT, "Why We Must Ration Health Care" speaks to this point in detail. Read it.

     I'm not sure how my age is relevant, but let's just say I'm not a young adult. Yes, I've not been covered by health insurance and gone without. Yes, I've paid claims out of pocket that my insurance company didn't cover when I did have coverage.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 2:09pm

196. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/10/2009 @ 1:30pm

     Hey Frei!

     By "special interests" you could mean "the people", as they are given the right of redress via their elected representatives..

     or you could mean "the psychiatrists lobby", who are also given the right to address their representatives via the free speech of campaign contributions.

     My take would be that much of the "over burdensome regulation" comes from "the people" because they recognize that "faceless bureaucrats" at private insurance companies write policies that are easily manipulated after the underwriting, and/or those same faceless folks deny needed care to people that thought they were covered.

     Needless to say, even counting those over burdensome regulations, health insurance companies continue to do quite well in this country. If they did not, would we see such outrage of the very idea of a single payer, privately supplied health care system? A system that can work, as it does in dozens of industrialized democracies around the world.

     As the economy slips further, and it will , YOU and JOMAMA are going to cover the cost of the uninsured at a higher rate. JOMs desire to see people paid the lowest possible amount for their labor is going to see to it. Your costs for your health care are going to continue to rise. You are going to pay more for the poor, their are going to be more of them and their health care costs are going to be higher as they wait longer for care and seek it in the ER.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/10/2009 @ 2:13pm

197. SR, you are spot on about some form of "rationing" of govt health care.

     You are also correct that it goes on today, and everyday.

     Today, right now, faceless bureaucrats are making decisions that affect peoples lives.

     They are doing it with a profit motive.

     It is called the "insurance industry".

     Right now there is a finite amount of money to spend on care, it is rationed by 1000's of companies. Each company has different rules, different avenues of mediation (if they have it at all). One can be dropped for no reason. With a single payer system, (regional is probably the way to go) there will be a finite amount of money for care. Why not have a pre-set model for all to follow? Why spend 1/2 of our health care dollars in the last 6 months of life?

     What we need is a rational discussion about this subject. Stepping up and whining about "beeyrocrats" making your decisions, making baseless accusations about "government euthanasia" etc does not help. But, that is what we are getting from the same people that were afraid of Saddams drone planes. I would have hoped that these people would have learned to question these sources, but they have not.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/10/2009 @ 2:22pm

198. Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 2:09pm

     I'm advocating free education. I am fully aware that this situation does not exist in this country at the present time.

     It does however exist in other countries. And has worked out quite well for them.

     This should not mean that we continue the immoral, for profit healthcare system, just so doctors who acquired extreme debt can recoup their debt from the misery of others. Maybe we could make a forgiveness of debt retroactive.

     Being a Doctor should be a Noble Occupation. And they should be properly compensated for their talents without a financial albatross around their necks.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 2:24pm

199. I am always amused by the talk of "special interests". Kind of the same way I am amused when someone says a defendant escaped via a "technicality".

     All laws are technical

     all of us are special interests.

     Some of us just have more influence than others. When "the left" tries to stop the influence of say, the insurance industry, they are told that the industry has the right to give till it hurts. Then, when another interest group has influence, say a nurses union, well...then "the right" uses the term "special interest group".

     The status quo is not working. Big Business knows this better than the 24%ers. Anybody that has declared bankruptcy due to medical costs knows this, and that is 1/2 of all bankruptcies. (Which BTW, JOM and Co pay for, just not in taxes). Anybody, like me, that has been denied coverage by a "faceless bureaucrat" knows this.

     But, ideology trumps reason daily.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/10/2009 @ 2:29pm

200. BTW, I keep going back to Chris Hayes' brilliant retort....

     Why is it none of these "I hate Government-run health care" Republicans or even their right-wing pundittry...

     calling for the elimination of Medicare?!?!???

     In fact, they insist they want to "protect" and "shore it up".

     "Protect and shore up socialized medicine"!?!???

     Posted by Mask at 08/10/2009 @ 2:49pm

201. JOM, where would someone get the idea that they could "pickpocket" $4 prescriptions?

     Could it be the same place they would get the idea that one store "Always sells for less! ALWAYS!"?

     Is it the consumer that is pickpocketing, or the giant company?

     From their own website: "The list of eligible drugs in the $4 Prescriptions Program -- available at Walmart, Neighborhood Market and Sam's Club pharmacies nationwide -- represents up to 95 percent of the prescriptions written in the majority of therapeutic categories. "

     I guess in your patriotic xtian outlook on life, most Americans are incompetent, lazy and stupid?

     I have an idea! Let's do away with income disparity! Could the rise in default of medical payments have anything to do with the rise in income disparity over the last 40 years?

     Nah, that would be socialist talk!

     "Real weekly wages in the U.S. rose until 1973, and have been declining since. From 1977 - 1989, the wealthiest 660,000 families gained 75% of "average pretax income" increases, while most middle income families saw only a 4% increase -- and those in the bottom 40% of income cohorts had real declines. The average annual earnings of the top group increased from $315,000 to $560,000 in twelve years. In 1990, the median income was $29,934; in 1973, it was $30,943 (constant dollars).- CatholicSocialJustice.org

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/10/2009 @ 2:49pm

202. Our current for profit healthcare debacle is geared towards denying healthcare. There is currently a profit motivated corporation standing between you and your doctor. They have the option of dropping you for any reason if it would appear that your health problem would effect the bottom line.

     Any healthcare system that is geared towards profits from the misery of others is immoral and despicable.

     The current healthcare system in this country has no reason or incentive to keep you healthy. What we have is a "pay or die system". Because if you become a liability they have the option to refuse you service and drop you.

     One the other hand, in a government run universal healthcare system they cannot drop you. They are stuck with your unhealthy ass. So what is the next best thing they can do to control costs?

     They can strive to keep you healthy in the first place. Regular checkups and and preventative healthcare is much cheaper than waiting for you to develop a serious medical problem.

     In other words it makes the incentive to keep you healthy in the first place, of paramount importance. Maximizing profits has nothing to do with it. Minimizing loses becomes the goal.

     Not that hard to understand.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 2:49pm

203. Like I have said in the past, people.

     This is Not Rocket Science!

     I hope I have been able to make it easy to understand for those of us who find it so difficult.

     I'm trying.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 2:54pm

204. Posted by Mask at 08/10/2009 @ 2:49pm

     May I stab at your rhetorical question?

     Because they are controlled by....wait for it....

     .....

     .......

     Media outlets and international corporations?

     Again, look back...

     Be afraid of Saddam!! Who told us that?

     Be afraid of Bill Ayers!! Who told us that?

     John Kerry was a coward! Who told us that?

     George Bush is a compassionate CONSERVATIVE. Who told us that?

     Be afraid of the federal government....but hold your flag high!!!

     And don't eat meat...the safety is regulated by the federal government.

     Don't buy gas! The contents are regulated by the federal government.

     Don't get vaccines...the federal govt controls the CDC!!

     Isn't it funny that the "patriotic" neo-cons can always find a govt system that is broken, but they usually fail to mention that most private businesses fail in the first 5 years?

     BTW, I had occasion to visit the Michigan Works offices last week. In and out in ten minutes. I then went to discuss a billing issue with Verizon. 20 minute wait to see a "customer service representative" (read: bureaucrat), 15 minutes with her, no result. She told me I would have to go online...and deal with a FACELESS customer service rep.

     DAMN this socialism!!!

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/10/2009 @ 3:00pm

205. Common sense seems to be a resource that is in short supply...

     Sad.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 3:08pm

206. Jenkins

     Next time you offer a homeless person a sandwich, you might remove the meat before handing it over. Another way of promoting a sort of universal taxation in lieu of these unfortunates failure to pay federal income taxes on their panhandling receipts. This will alert the recipient that we all share a stake in maintaining the "welfare" state.

     After all the lives of these bums is one infinite recreational pursuit of drinking, carousing & sprawling contentedly on the lawns of city parks.

     I would suggest taxing the homeless through the organization of shakedown gangs to extract change as a way of padding the national coffers & spreading the tax burden universally, but spearheading that effort might cut into your voluminous corporate memo production back at the office.

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/10/2009 @ 3:09pm

207. Me thinks CHAOSZEN is a bit of a legend in his own mind.

     Hang in there Jenk!

     Posted by william.harry13 at 08/10/2009 @ 3:27pm

208. Posted by crabwalk at 08/10/2009 @ 2:22pm

     Your comments are good and sane, as usual. But, I think it is much more complex than you make it. The insurance industry is not the only culprit. Fee-for-service is one major problem, and this issue is one that rests squarely on the backs of physicians and hospitals who have moved to cost center models and view patients as revenue streams.

     I'm also not sure about whether your comments about having different rules are correct either because many insurance companies use Medicare as a model for whether they will cover something or not. Medicare also doesn't pay for a lot of necessary procedures, particularly for things that are new.

     I agree that we need to have a rational discussion. But, I don't think conservatives are the only ones not being rational. I think there is plenty of evidence here to show that liberals in favor of single payer haven't yet grasped the full implications of what that means, and many of them many not have the stomach for doing what needs to be done when they come to the realization of what will be necessary.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 2:24pm

     Look here. We have a point of agreement. Maybe I should contact Guinness.

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/10/2009 @ 3:09pm

     Once again, you miss the point. The point is that 43% of the people filing income tax returns don't pay any federal income tax. The point is that people making <$30K still manage to spend a $1,000 on entertainment while not paying any federal tax. Also, since we are talking about filed income tax returns, this basically excludes homeless people because they aren't filing income tax returns on their panhandle income nor are they required to do so.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 4:34pm

209. Unbelievable ignorance and stupidity seems to be the norm in this country.

     Lack of Education is the Enemy of the People. Education of the People on the other hand, is an enemy of Tyranny.

     Would you rather side with Tyranny? And hope for a chance to be a part of Greed?

     Or would you rather side with Education and work towards equality?

     Inequality is the source of all social disease.

     Are you on the side of what is good? Or are you on the side of evil?

     Now is the time to decide.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 4:35pm

210. "One the other hand, in a government run universal healthcare system they cannot drop you. They are stuck with your unhealthy ass. So what is the next best thing they can do to control costs?

     They can strive to keep you healthy in the first place. Regular checkups and and preventative healthcare is much cheaper than waiting for you to develop a serious medical problem.

     In other words it makes the incentive to keep you healthy in the first place, of paramount importance. Maximizing profits has nothing to do with it. Minimizing loses becomes the goal.

     Not that hard to understand."

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 2:49pm

     No, it's not that hard to understand. That's why I can't believe you don't.

     So you're saying it is okay for the government to regulate our behavior to control costs? If so, chaoszen, you have accidentally uncovered a main thrust of the opposition to collectivist healthcare. And you don't even understand it, do you?

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/10/2009 @ 4:36pm

211. Democrats have controlled education in our nation for decades. Not even liberals can contend that educators from K through University aren't overwhelmingly liberal.

     So, chaoszen, that would explain to me the tyranny you claim in the lack of education.

     But, hey, let me join you in being an idiot... I can't wait to have free healthcare provided by the likes of the 111th congress! That's the GOOD side! Right?

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/10/2009 @ 4:43pm

212. There is not much time left. And there is no time left to sit on the fence.

     Pick a side. Decide where you stand. And ask yourself. What is in my own best interest? Because, chances are if you honestly determine what is in your own best interest, you are in good company.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 4:46pm

213. Jenkins, the issue is the slippery slope. Once the 30k earners are taxed, pretty soon it'll be the 20k crowd. Then the 10k crowd etc.

     If you moved into a commutable town with low property values with fewer services public & private services & correspondingly lower local taxes, you'd be able to pay more federal income taxes from the difference in living expense.

     The ball is in your court. Set an example & tell the world. Your govt reps are listening!

     BTW, let's say the 30k crowd forgoes its 1k entertainment extravagance so they'll have a cushion to pay the fed income tax. Will you scrap the plans on sending your child to Stanford & enroll he/she in a community college? Just in the interest of fair play?

     BTW, if you earn 30k & are without HC insurance & need a doc for something big, you're screwed. Unless of course you spend your money on booze & drugs & live in a trailer park. This (booze & drugs) was a big argument back in the yuppie 80s from the suits on limiting rank & file incomes.

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/10/2009 @ 5:16pm

214. Misinformation is the "action of misinforming", or condition of being "misinformed". Erroneous or incorrect information.

     "Disinformation" is the act of disseminating Misinformation. A deliberate attempt at spreading Erroneous or incorrect information.

     I hope this helps:)

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 2:07pm

     It helps tremendously-- to confirm my criticism.

     The headline screams "Disinformation" implying an intentional spreading of incorrect information.

     The author concedes the "case study" was unintentional or "misinformation" on the part of the conservative.

     So the article intentionally attempts to spread the misinformation that conservites are intentionally spreading incorrect info, when that is incorrect. The example was unintentional.

     Thank you. That was very helpful.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/10/2009 @ 5:22pm

215. Hey chaoszen, I've picked a side, and I'm with you on this, 'cause I know what is in my best interests. jarshadow, having states have control over health care, would be OK if I could afford to move to a state that had caring representitives, but just for starters my senators are McCain and Kyl, ugh. Then we have Jan Brewer for gov, I don't think health care is going to happen any time soon in arizona. But I do understand where your coming from.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/10/2009 @ 5:26pm

216. There is a class war brewing in this country. Once the top 1% of the population holds well over 50% of the wealth in a country. The shit hits the fan.

     This is historically the breaking point. It has happened throughout history. And it usually results in the catastrophic meltdown of society. The "priviledged class" which is a small minority, usually suffers death at the hands of the mob.

     This sort of recurring nightmare is not necessary. If we eliminate inequality and insure, through progressive taxation that generational wealth and a class of greedy elite cannot exist. We will have a stable society. A large middle class is the result of reigning in obsessive, and uncontrolled capital gain for a few. Regulated Capitalism insures a balanced and well organized society that benefits the majority. Instead of the minority.

     These things are obvious to any reasoned human being.

     Inequality is the enemy of any society.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 5:28pm

217. Posted by Sorelish at 08/10/2009 @ 5:16pm

     I'm glad that you used the term slippery slope because that is exactly correct. Slippery slope is the term used for an informal logical fallacy.

     While it is possible for there to be a real slippery slope - say allowing isolated instances of torture will create a culture that views torture as permissible, I don't think you can argue that is the case here.

     Define poverty. Set a limit, say twice the level of poverty. The begin a progressive tax that starts at five percent and goes up to 90% for the highest earners after a certain income. This approach does not require taxing the homeless or taking food out of people's mouths.

     I don't have children. I also attended community college and state colleges for undergraduate and graduate school. So, if I were to have children, I wouldn't pay for name brand education, although if they wanted to pay for it, they are more than welcome to do so.

     "BTW, if you earn 30k & are without HC insurance & need a doc for something big, you're screwed."

     Same can be said of anyone. If you make $150,000 and get diagnosed with certain forms of cancer, you could easily lose your job, find that your insurance won't pay for certain treatments and have to start selling everything you own to get them.

     The healthcare issue is not a issue that impacts only the poor (although they do take the brunt of it). It's an issue that effects everyone, as can be seen by the numbers of bankruptcies paying for health care causes.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 5:41pm

218. This sort of recurring nightmare is not necessary. If we eliminate inequality and insure, through progressive taxation that generational wealth and a class of greedy elite cannot exist. We will have a stable society. A large middle class is the result of reigning in obsessive, and uncontrolled capital gain for a few. Regulated Capitalism insures a balanced and well organized society that benefits the majority. Instead of the minority.

     These things are obvious to any reasoned human being.

     Inequality is the enemy of any society.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 5:28pm

     In other words, Chaozen wants to steal from others the fruit of their labor because they have done better than he has.

     that is just envy and lies at the root of much of what passes for "progressive politics."

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 5:42pm

219. And inequality in this society is well past the "breaking point".

     Why is it so hard for people to share? Why is it that the human race is so selfish? We are all one family. No matter what color, nationality, or religion we claim.

     In most families, all the members share resources for the good of all. Unless that family is dysfunctional. What is so difficult about seeing that we are all interdependent? What is so difficult about seeing that we are all responsible to be custodians of this planet?

     We live in a miracle, and yet we treat it like garbage.

     If we don't soon get our shit together, the living planet Earth will just wave Goodbye..

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 5:46pm

220. SR, you are spot on about some form of "rationing" of govt health care.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/10/2009 @ 2:22pm

     All people knowledgeable about macro-economic healthcare issues understand the inescapable reality of rationing. I am firmly in this camp, however...

     The most common rationing model that Americans are familiar with is rationing by price. We ration movie tickets by price, clothes, fancy restaurant meals, bicycles, gym memberships, Tupperware, big screen TVs, etc.

     The single payer "solution" is a different rationing model. The single payer model is that I have to "take away" something from people who currently have it to spread it more evenly because some people don't have it.

     In order to ration big screen TVs in this fashion, You would pay $3500 for a big screen TV, but you'd only be able to watch it Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday. Sucks being you on Super bowl Sunday.

     In my opinion, if you are going to tax me, fine tax me and do what ever you want with the money. Buy more private jets for Congress or buy the poor healthcare. Do what every you want. Just don't tell me that I can't buy what I want because it is unfair that everybody can't buy what I want.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/10/2009 @ 5:47pm

221. Demoncrats are busy "Earning" the name I call them by demonizing American citizens and taxpayers who oppose their marxist takeover of our nation! No wonder they are sending out all their stormtroopers to protect their malivalent intrest!

     "The House's top two Democrats said Monday that some of the behavior of healthcare overhaul opponents is "simply un-American."

     Protesters have disrupted town-hall meetings held by lawmakers, in some cases shouting down speakers at the events. Police have had to intervene and videos of the events have circulated widely on YouTube and cable news.

     "These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland. "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades."

     Their comments, in an opinion piece in USA Today, drew an immediate response from House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

     "To label Americans who are expressing vocal opposition to the Democrats' plan 'un-American' is outrageous and reprehensible," Boehner said in a statement." "

     -----

     Personally, in a mean spirited way I do hope the Demoncrats and the Obamnation continue to ignore the 15,000,000 unemployed whose jobs wil NEVER return, the American citzens who do not want themselves, their children, grand and great grand children to pay for this socialist-marxist foolishness, and all the small business owners who don't want this forced surrender of all our basic freedoms and liberties!

     There won't be a one left in office in 2012 and they will strart disappearing in 2010 and all the damage they do will be overturned!!!

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/10/2009 @ 5:54pm

222. Kind of the same way I am amused when someone says a defendant escaped via a "technicality".

     All laws are technical

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/10/2009 @ 2:29pm

     You paint with too broad a brush.

     "Technicality" addressess the dichotomy between the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law".

     To serve a search warrent, the police need probable cause and a judge's signature. If the 10 pounds of cocain recovered are ruled inadmisable because the warrent was served at 2525 Board Walk Ave but the warrent says 2525 Broad Walk Ave, well, that's getting off on a technicality.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/10/2009 @ 5:57pm

223. In other words, Chaozen wants to steal from others the fruit of their labor because they have done better than he has.

     that is just envy and lies at the root of much of what passes for "progressive politics."

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 5:42pm |

     Do I really sound like I want to Steal? My message is a willingness to share. There is no way to steal what belongs to everyone. No one does better than anyone else. That is an illusion. We are only as good or successfull as the least of us.

     We all sink or swim together. I would think Anti, that as a professed and supposed "Christian", you would know this.

     Funny how the people that always hide behind Religion, are really the least Spiritual.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 5:59pm

224. Do I really sound like I want to Steal? My message is a willingness to share. There is no way to steal what belongs to everyone. No one does better than anyone else. That is an illusion. We are only as good or successfull as the least of us.

     We all sink or swim together. I would think Anti, that as a professed and supposed "Christian", you would know this.

     Funny how the people that always hide behind Religion, are really the least Spiritual.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 5:59pm

     There is nothing spiritual about coercion.

     What Bill Gates earns is not mine any more than what I earn is not yours.

     Christianity operates on the premise of people sharing willingly with each other. Nowhere does it describe as necessary, govt dictating what someone should give. In fact that defies what the spirit of Christianity is about. No longer is is from a individual's decision to give from their heart, but the govt demanding and also growing in power at the same time.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 6:11pm

225. Just what do you spend that large income on, Jenkins? Your early moderation in educational choices leads one to believe that you are still moderate in your lifestyle today.

     Do you have a payphone in your living room like J. Paul Getty did in his English manor house? Parvenu or playing like you have "old money?" Oh, I know, you're the millionaire next door!

     Still you seem overly concerned with that 1k "entertainment" expense by the tax evading 30 k class.

     Aren't you worried about what the reaction of me & my minions might be over this fed income tax issue?

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/10/2009 @ 6:15pm

226. The government taking our money by force in the form of taxation and then redistributing it to special interests isn't "sharing" chaoszen.

     Our federal government has overstepped its boundaries. There is nothing in the COTUS that positions politicians in Washington DC to manage health insurance, the auto industry or financial markets.

     Thankfully Americans recognize what is happening and in 2010 will send a message to Congress and in 2012 the White House.

     Change we can believe in.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/10/2009 @ 6:18pm

227. Personally, in a mean spirited way I do hope the Demoncrats and the Obamnation continue to ignore the 15,000,000 unemployed whose jobs wil NEVER return. Posted by BigPasture at 08/10/2009 @ 5:54pm

     Let me deconstruct this. So, you believe that the massive loss of jobs that will NEVER return is the result of Democrats and Obama? I'm not a fan of this weak- kneed and cowardly administration. But to be fair, Obama has been in office for a little over 7 months. The Democrats have held the majority in both houses of congress since 2006.

     Though Democrats have a big tent and are weak. They can hardly be blamed for the current state of affairs.

     It is 30 plus years of failed republican policies such as "free trade" and corporate personhood. Along with unsustainable "exotic financial instruments" like credit default swaps and Synthetic Collaterailized Debt Obligations. That have brought this country dowm.

     We no longer manufacture anything but heartache.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 6:24pm

228. BigP, what are you babbleing about now, where were you for the last eight years when Bush was spending like there was no tomorrow???? God, people like you just stump me, you tell us "Obamanation" is spending our great great grandchildren into oblivian, all the while ignoring what started us on this path. BUSH & HIS CABAL!!!

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/10/2009 @ 6:28pm

229. The government taking our money by force in the form of taxation and then redistributing it to special interests isn't "sharing" chaoszen. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/10/2009 @ 6:18pm.

     Uh... are you sane? Wait a minute! You are a member of the "forever cluless".

     Nevermind..

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 6:28pm

230. "We no longer manufacture anything but heartache."

     What a lie. You have no credibility chaoszen. And fortunately, no power.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/10/2009 @ 6:33pm

231. Christianity operates on the premise of people sharing willingly with each other. Nowhere does it describe as necessary, govt dictating what someone should give. In fact that defies what the spirit of Christianity is about. No longer is is from a individual's decision to give from their heart, but the govt demanding and also growing in power at the same time.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 6:11pm

     If I had to wait with baited breath and beg with my alms bowl that the likes of you would share with me.

     1. I would starve.

     2. I would have to suffer degradation.

     3. I would have lost my dignity.

     No human being deserves to suffer at you feet my friend. You are not worthy.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 6:35pm

232. If I had to wait with baited breath and beg with my alms bowl that the likes of you would share with me.

     1. I would starve.

     2. I would have to suffer degradation.

     3. I would have lost my dignity.

     No human being deserves to suffer at you feet my friend. You are not worthy.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 6:35pm

     You couldn't be more wrong. I and thousands of Christians like me have spent decades feeding the hungry here and around the world.

     Your post shows that you know nothing about all of the giving to help others in need that Christians are engaged in here and around the world 365 days out of each year.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 6:40pm

233. What a lie. You have no credibility chaoszen. And fortunately, no power.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/10/2009 @ 6:33pm

     Strangely enough, I mustered up enough power to elicit a response from you!

     And instead of debating my point in an intelligent manner. I had enough power to expose you as a one trick pony. Who has no ability to debate, other than calling your opponent a liar.

     You are too easy...

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 6:43pm

234. Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 6:35pm

     I do feel sorry for you chaoszen. Seems you are so confused you don't know who to be mad at. So you lash out at producers as you've been programmed to do. "We no longer manufacture anything but heartache" is proof that you are little more than a koolade chugging lost soul.

     I think it would rock if the government ran healthcare for all equitably and efficiently. Who would be against that? The problem is our government won't do that. The Framers of the Constitution understood that well. That's why that document LIMITS government. To protect liberty from people like you who are so easily swayed.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/10/2009 @ 6:45pm

235. Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 6:40pm

     Show me how you have fed the hungry around the world. I want to see the cancelled checks. Or am I supposed to take the word of a hypocrite?

     You give lip service to your "charity", but your posts reveal otherwise..

     Nice try.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 6:49pm

236. Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 6:43pm

     What? You want me to copy and paste statistics showing you are full of baloney uttering a statement like, "We no longer manufacture anything but heartache"?

     Sorry, but there is no reasoning with such damaged logic.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/10/2009 @ 6:51pm

237. I think it would rock if the government ran healthcare for all equitably and efficiently. Who would be against that? Posted by freiheit1 at 08/10/2009 @ 6:45pm

     No one except you of little faith. There are currently 38 countries around the world who are doing just that.

     Do you have such little faith in your own country? That we could not do the same or better?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 6:53pm

238. Gotta go for now.

     Bye. Got better things to do than man the Alamo...

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 6:55pm

239. Change we can believe in.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/10/2009 @ 6:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Yep, change we can believe in: class bigotry, racial bigotry, war in another country (more death)..."Let 'em eat cake."

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/10/2009 @ 7:08pm

240. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/10/2009 @ 6:18pm

     Hey frei, I want them to take THEIR money not ours. Comprende? Only those who have more than they can manage PERSONALLY, HANDS ON should be taxed exorbitantly. Screw the greedheads, Frei. I don't want them touching your precious metals & your vacation house. I'm with you. We don't like the big boys, the kings, aristocracy, plutocracy & the like.

     When I get down to the Bay Area, I'll look you up & we'll trace the steps of Emporor Norton, Frank Norris & D. Hammett. We'll tip at the nearest station from the haunts of those princes. What say, ol buddy?

     BTW. my old friend Mike said, " Cyril Magnin isn't Mr. San Francisco, you are." Although Ray Taliaferro backers have a strong case too!

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/10/2009 @ 7:09pm

241. Show me how you have fed the hungry around the world. I want to see the cancelled checks. Or am I supposed to take the word of a hypocrite?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 6:49pm

     "Cancelled Checks"? You really do have no clue how religious charity works do you?

     We have collected food from farmers, markets, individuals and others to the amts of hundreds of 1000's of tons a year.

     this is the organization that I have worked with and am ordained with.

     <Sommer Haven networks with hundreds of other organizations around the world to distribute free of charge millions of pounds of food and other necessities locally, nationally and internationally.

     Whether it is a flood in Mexico, or a hurricane in the United States, Sommer Haven has become a reliable source for emergency provisions and assistance for relief workers, missionaries, churches and other organizations.>

     http://www.sommerhaven.org/

     We even had teams with nurses down in New Orleans with water, food, medicine, and blankets.

     or this miracle when we were able to send 350 thousand tons of wheat to the Philippines during a time of crisis for them.

     http://fransyl.multiply.com/photos/album/18

     Agnes Numer, the founder is my mentor in Isaiah 58 ministry.

     "Is not this the fast that I have chosen? To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free and that ye break every yoke?

     Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? When thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?"

     Isaiah 58:6,7

     You are truly blind if you think only govt does this kind of work.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 7:13pm

242. Hey freiheit1, does it make you feel like a big person by tearing another person down? Well thats the rights idea of right and the lefts idea of whats right in a nut shell. Your way versus chaoszen's, I'll take chaoszen's way, thank you very much, by the way you are such a tool.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/10/2009 @ 7:16pm

243. Posted by Sorelish at 08/10/2009 @ 7:09pm

     I don't understand your post. I don't live in San Francisco, but I sure love it there. I can't afford to live there, unfortunately, so I moved nearly two decades ago. I don't own a vacation home and probably wouldn't even if i could afford it.

     Why the attack? I am proud to pay taxes and give charitably to the extent I am able.

     Frankly, Sorelish, I'm surprised you feel a need to hammer me. I have an issue with the way politicians redistribute taxes. (I figure on that front we might be united.) I don't feel health insurance provision is the role of the federal government as defined in the COTUS. You see, once politicians can leverage groups against one another through distribution, as they have, we no longer have a representative government. The politicians and special interests have the upper hand and our personal liberty is at risk.

     Seems to me through your (sarcasm?) you've fallen into the class trap. That wealth is zero sum. That for you to be rich I have to be poor. And we're all victims and wealth is represented by fat cats drinking cognac.

     How sad for you.

     Oh, and wasn't Mr San Francisco Herb Caen?

     Anyway, maybe we can get together over a beer at the Suppenkuche someday. I bet we'd have a really good time.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/10/2009 @ 7:38pm

244. Posted by Denise29 at 08/10/2009 @ 7:16pm

     I'm confident chaoszen isn't too torn down by me Denise. =8>)

     You think I'm a tool? Well, I think you are a kind and gentle soul who is sadly naive about the reality of politics in DC.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/10/2009 @ 7:49pm

245. Posted by Sorelish at 08/10/2009 @ 6:15pm

     I do live moderately, thank you. And no, I'm not worried about the significant chunk of people currently getting a free ride.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/10/2009 @ 8:32pm

246. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/10/2009 @ 7:49pm

     When I operated my used book business in the strongly repub, libertarian, independent district that it is, I had repeat customers, well aware of my political leanings, who by tacit agreement steered clear of political discussion with me.

     If perchance a guy like Chaoszen happened to be present, he & I would still voice our opinions on news of the day. If you cared to join the party, there would be no prohibition on your opinions.

     I differentiate you from trolls who happening to be present would storm out in a huff. I think we've got clues as to who they would be. Even though affecting on these threads a dubiously respectful dialogue, if present in a commercial setting would punish by departure.

     Would be glad to share a beer or two with you.

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/10/2009 @ 8:35pm

247. Hey freiheit1,....Your way versus chaoszen's, I'll take chaoszen's way, thank you very much, by the way you are such a tool.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/10/2009 @ 7:16pm

     This post is one big reason Givers like me, know that a lot of so-called needy folks are simply undeserving......by siding with other idiot Takers against Givers like Anti.

     Posted by Happy at 08/10/2009 @ 9:12pm

248. Posted by Happy at 08/10/2009 @ 9:12pm

     Guess what anti can do with his sack of potatoes?

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/10/2009 @ 9:28pm

249. Show me how you have fed the hungry around the world. I want to see the cancelled checks. Or am I supposed to take the word of a hypocrite?

     You give lip service to your "charity", but your posts reveal otherwise..

     Nice try.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 6:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Antisocialist is right. Don't know about his organization but the Southern Baptists alone spent $506,000,000. last year alone on missions work of all kinds incl. food, clothing, shelter, community development all among the poor of the world and that is just 18 million members and not all active.

     Don't know about the Catholics, and 17 million evangelicals and nameless thousands of other churches here in the U.S.A.. We don't need nanny states. Our small chuch of 150 keeps enough food and clothing on hand to help 30 or 40 families when needed.

     So yea, Anti is right you have NO clue and like many leftist could care less!

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/10/2009 @ 11:07pm

250. If I had to wait with baited breath and beg with my alms bowl that the likes of you would share with me.

     1. I would starve.

     2. I would have to suffer degradation.

     3. I would have lost my dignity.

     No human being deserves to suffer at you feet my friend. You are not worthy.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2009 @ 6:35pm

     I would take and feed you, and then help you get a job...it would have to be a job where you work with your hands.... for anything involving critical or analytical thinking would be way out of your reach, judging by your posts I have read here..you definately have communist leanings....

     and if left on your own to earn your way using your mind, then you would be correct on all 3 points of yours comimg true...

     which is why you have risen to your abilitys as best as you can...and capitalism has served you well...the problem is you want things that you are unable to earn for yourself, so you want others who can to "share" their fruits of their labors with you...whether they want to share with you or not...and I, after reading your positions, dont want to share anything with you..you are a theif.

     And I wouldn't want you anywhere near my feet...my shoes, should you like them better than yours,,,would be in danger of being "shared"...when what you really need with others feet is to have them placed swiftly and deliberatly up your ass.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/10/2009 @ 11:20pm

251. Our small chuch of 150 keeps enough food and clothing on hand to help 30 or 40 families when needed. Posted by BigPasture at 08/10/2009 @ 11:07pm

     Does Happy accept potatoes & polyester cardigans in lieu of rent?

     Car insurance for spam? Gasoline for platform shoes?

     What are they sending to Afghanistan now.. halloween costumes?

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/10/2009 @ 11:27pm

252. Posted by Sorelish at 08/10/2009 @ 11:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     The only reason anyone from the right would walk out of your store is the strong sense of being engaged in conversation with myopic self obsessed idiocy and realizing the futility of pursuing intelligent cognizent conversation they would promptly exit (stage right of course)!

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/10/2009 @ 11:50pm

253. Sore,

     I would accept any of those items if I were given enough that I could go out and sell them for the equivelent amount of cash for the rent...plus a small charge for having to convert taters into "bread"....

     and why not...the govt and chumps like Choazen would never know of the deal and couldn't steal, er, "share" any of the efforts.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/10/2009 @ 11:57pm

254. Posted by BigPasture at 08/10/2009 @ 11:50pm

     Big P. I was getting top dollar for Rush Limbaugh & Ann Coulter titles from the likes of you 2 & 3 years after their release. Welcome Big P. Sanka? Kool aid?

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/11/2009 @ 12:23am

255. Sorry, don't read those kind of books, left or right! The only question remaining is since all your references are to "Was" it must mean you are living off "other peoples money" or a similar arrangement!

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/11/2009 @ 12:38am

256. Posted by YourJomamma at 08/10/2009 @ 11:57pm

     Sorry, but guys like Chaoszen were the heart of my business. Prolific readers who believed in supporting my shop.

     The Chamber of Commerce crowd showed up hardly ever & usually wanted techno thrillers or military fiction. I always had the feeling that this reading material was reserved for those rare times when the telly was unavailable.

     Unfortunately the needy seldom had anything of interest to trade or sell. Generally speaking, they had the same lack of discrimination as the suits. Neither group spent much at all.

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/11/2009 @ 12:58am

257. Posted by BigPasture at 08/11/2009 @ 12:38am

     Ever hear of retirement, Big P? Of course as a professional brush clearer, you're usually out somewhere in the far reaches of your one acre lot & will probably be found by a neighbor someday, trapped & expired in one of your homemade security devices.

     Posted by Sorelish at 08/11/2009 @ 01:16am

258. Posted by BigPasture at 08/10/2009 @ 11:50pm |

     And we thank you for attempting not to offend us with your 'myopic self-obsessed idiocy', but you might seem more confident in your ideas if you stopped and talked about them instead of spraying spittle, yelling, "Demoncrat!" and stomping off to some vehicle with poor gas mileage.

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/10/2009 @ 11:07pm |

     How many poor did that $506M help and how much was pocketed by the organization for adverts with starving kids and guilt-trips?

     Did you help them only if they accepted JC as their Lord and Saviour?

     How many of them had the baptists prevented family planning funding from reaching?

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/11/2009 @ 05:36am

259. "There won't be a one left in office in 2012 and they will strart disappearing in 2010 and all the damage they do will be overturned!!!"----Posted by BigPasture at 08/10/2009 @ 5:54pm

     Found a keeper. Only have to hold it for 3 years, 3 months.

     And as my ol' buddy HSUBFOOLS will tell you....I'm very patient.

     BTW, RIO/BP ...WILL get to celebrate come November 2010 as Democrats lose seats in Congress in the USUAL historical precedent of a 1st Term President losing seats in Congress....happened to Clinton....happened to REAGAN!

     Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 08:13am

260. "Democrats have controlled education in our nation for decades."FREI

     Really?

     got proof?

     For the most part education is controlled by local school boards.

     ------------

     To serve a search warrent, the police need probable cause and a judge's signature. If the 10 pounds of cocain recovered are ruled inadmisable because the warrent was served at 2525 Board Walk Ave but the warrent says 2525 Broad Walk Ave, well, that's getting off on a technicality.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/10/2009 @ 5:57pm |

     Your example is one that would probably never fly in court. Judges give leeway for such things.

     On the other hand, would you be HAPPY if you lived at 2525 Broad and the police came bursting in, guns drawn, forcing you, your wife and kids onto the ground, ripped up your furniture, poked holes in your wall looking for the 10 pounds of cocaine?

     Why would you be upset, it's just a technicality.

     Would your boss be "amused" at your technicality error if you left out a few zeros in a spreadsheet? The difference between 10 million and 10 thousand is just a technicality.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2009 @ 08:31am

261. So you're saying it is okay for the government to regulate our behavior to control costs? If so, chaoszen, you have accidentally uncovered a main thrust of the opposition to collectivist healthcare. And you don't even understand it, do you?

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/10/2009 @ 4:36pm

     Is it OK with you if HUMANA regulates your behavior?Blue Cross? My insurer requires me to go through health screening yearly. If my cholesterol, blood pressure or blood sugar do not meet their thresholds I have to go through what I call "re-education" classes. If my levels continue to be high I have to pay extra.

     What about your employer? Some employers in Michigan have fired people for being smokers. Not for smoking on the job, just being smokers.

     This is another amusement for me, so many people whine about "government control" but have no problem with companies controlling their lives.

     Anybody know why that is?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2009 @ 08:39am

262. Also amusing is that the overweight neo-cons continue to devalue those that grow and ship their food!!!

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2009 @ 08:56am

263. Hi Crab, I think the difference in your example is that with Humana, your good health lowers YOUR "price" of health insurance, as it does mine with my insurer. We both have an incentive to work out, watch what we eat, etc. That's not necessarily "being controlled". Because we're not being forced. We can decide to live on potato chips, and TV. It means we pay more, or we go to another insurer.

     If the govn't is running the show, our incentives like that go away. The financial incentive to take care of ourselves disappears. And politicians, to lower over all government costs, can begin to force us into lifestyles through fiat. No smoking, no drinking, maximum weights/body fat percentages, etc. In theory, the wrong politicians could even make a strong move to make statistically high health risk behaviors like male homosexuality, or fast food illegal - in the name of "the greater good".

     The most mind boggling aspect of this entire debate is the willingness liberals show to hand so much power to politicians.

     Why is that?

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 09:06am

264. Oh, hey, Crab, on the education thing. You and I both know the teacher's unions are overwhelmingly Democratic in their campaign support and contributions. And at the micro level, overwhelmingly liberal. And have been for decades. You don't need proof.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 09:10am

265. "The most mind boggling aspect of this entire debate is the willingness liberals show to hand so much power to politicians.

     Why is that?----Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 09:06am

     Libeals?!??!?? Hmmmm???

     "I have not ruled out a vote for Obama."---Posted by freiheit1 at 09/12/2008 @ 11:18am

     Palin: "You Can't Blink!" And She Didn't posted by John Nichols on 09/11/2008 @ 8:42pm

     Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 09:39am

266. Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 09:39am

     Your point?

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 09:56am

267. Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2009 @ 08:31am

     Darin's right about the search warrant issue. If the address is not correct, then the evidence is inadmissible. There's no judge that would overlook this detail once it is brought to their attention.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2009 @ 08:39am

     Would you feel better if the government were doing it? Also, since blood sugar, high cholesterol and high blood pressure have known associations with cardiovascular disease and can be controlled with diet, exercise or even medication, why is it that you think you shouldn't pay more if you are a higher risk?

     Do you complain about the auto insurance industry that asks for more money from drivers that get into more accidents or that are statistically more likely to get in accidents (such as males under the age of 25 years)? In what way is this different?

     And if you don't like this control, you always have the option to pay for your medical expense out of pocket, pay more, arrange your lifestyle so that a car is no longer necessary, etc.

     The reality is that government will have to take these same kinds of measures for cost control, and there is one important difference, I generally can tell any company to fuck off without being put into jail (or in the case of health insurance chose another plan or work someplace else that has a different plan). The same cannot be said of government.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 09:10am

     Arguing that education is liberal because teachers are liberal is like arguing that reporters are liberal, so the news is liberal. It's a bad argument, particularly in education where the curriculum and other matters is set by the school board, which I don't think you can argue these are Democratic.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/11/2009 @ 10:03am

268. Your example is one that would probably never fly in court. Judges give leeway for such things.

     On the other hand, would you be HAPPY if you lived at 2525 Broad and the police came bursting in, guns drawn, forcing you, your wife and kids onto the ground, ripped up your furniture, poked holes in your wall looking for the 10 pounds of cocaine?

     Why would you be upset, it's just a technicality.

     Would your boss be "amused" at your technicality error if you left out a few zeros in a spreadsheet? The difference between 10 million and 10 thousand is just a technicality.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2009 @ 08:31am

     Hey Crabman, My example would fly in count. If you make a mistake, you have to fix it. My middle name is Glen. I was once written a ticket for Darin Clem. Had I objected, the judge would have been forced to throw the ticket out on a technicality. In my case, the officer would have just reissued the ticket with the proper name and none of the evidence would have changed.

     In the case of the cocain, they would have to rissue the search warrent. In that case, I don't think they'd find any cocain the second time.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 10:16am

269. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 09:56am

     You "not ruling out" voting for Obama...and Obama made no bones about his plans for health care during the election.

     NOW, you seem concerned about "handing over power to the Government"....THEN, you were "not ruling it out"?!??!?!?

     Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 10:26am

270. This is another amusement for me, so many people whine about "government control" but have no problem with companies controlling their lives.

     Anybody know why that is?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2009 @ 08:39am

     I would think it is because the capiltalist mantra is, "Corporation Good, Government Bad". This is a mantra that is hammered home through the media on a daily basis 24/7.

     What is curious to me is the fact that if I go to "Corporate Headquarters" to protest, I would likely be arrested for trespassing and disturbing the peace. And I have no power whatever to change Corporate Policy or elect Corporate Management.

     On the other hand if I am upset about a Government policy, at least I have the recourse to vote for someone else or go to a Town Hall meeting and raise Hell.

     In other words, these folks who are bemoaning any Government Administration in things like Healthcare, fail to realize that the people are the Government. And that as such there is at least some avenue available to address grievances.

     So why are they willing to sacrifice what little power they possess? In a Corporate world they have no power at all.

     I don't understand this.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 10:27am

271. The people are sheeple..

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 10:31am

272. On the severing the warrent at the wrong address, yes I'd be upset by the mistake and I'd sue for the cost of damage during the search.

     that's all you can do.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 10:31am

273. And you are again missing the point about technically being realted to materiality.

     If the correct number is 123,456,789,101 and I use 123,456,789,110, that is a typo. If I use 923,456,789,101, that is a material error.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 10:34am

274. Who are you kidding Mask? Obama was about as stealth a candidate as we've ever seen. His plans for health insurance reform were not fully on the table before the election. Or did I miss it while he campaigned on taking over the auto industry?...

     My statement in Sept 2008 was more of an indictment of my contempt for McCain, frankly, than an endorsement of Obama anyway. My "not ruling it out" was in the context of pulling American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and how Obama would manage that. But there too, Obama is a disappointment to us all. You remember the wars don't you? They're on page 14A below the fold.

     I didn't vote for Obama.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 10:38am

275. In the case of the cocain, they would have to rissue the search warrent. In that case, I don't think they'd find any cocain the second time.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 10:16am

     "cocain"? I think that would be "Cocaine" or perhaps "Bolivian Marching Powder", "Weasel Dust", "Blow", "Snort", "Angie", "Bazulko" or the like. But not "cocain".

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 10:40am

276. So yea, Anti is right you have NO clue and like many leftist could care less!

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/10/2009 @ 11:07pm

     Years ago when I lived in Montana, I was a little down on my luck and hungry. So me and my girlfriend went down to a Baptist Church Foodbank in Missoula. We were told that they would give us some food, but first we had to listen to a sermon for an hour before we could get any.

     I told them I was an Atheist and that they could keep their damn food.

     There were strings attached if we wanted to eat. I'm sure that Churches do some good things. Although I haven't witnessed them personally.

     I do know however that Pat Robertson for example was involved with President Charles Taylor in Liberia in 2001. A terrorist and ruthless tyrant. "Freedom Gold Limited", a Robertson company was doing business with Taylor in a Gold and Diamond Mining operation in Liberia. According to two "Operation Blessing" pilots, Robertson was using "Operation Blessing" planes to haul Diamond Mining equipment to Liberia while all the time telling 700 Club members that he was sending relief supplies to the victims of genocide in Rwanda.

     This is just one example of the "Charity" from religious organizations. I think I will stick with the Government Model.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 11:19am

277. Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 10:27am

     You are completely false. In a free market, there are competitive forces that are eliminated in collectivist models. Sure, go ahead and protest at corp headquarters and waste your time. The real way to control businsees is by your patronage. Every business is controlled that way.

     If you don't care for WalMart, go to Costco and Target instead. Don't approve of junk food? Don't go to the outlets. Don't like someone's music? Don't buy it. Consumers acting freely control corporations... UNTIL CORPORATIONS START TO CONTROL THE POLITICIANS. The only way corporations can exercise power is by their leveraging government FORCE.

     That's why there's a lot about limiting the power of Government in the COTUS, chaoszen. But apparently you have undying trust for the same politicians who gave you the Iraq war to manage our health insurance?

     Sure, why not? I mean, how can you not trust a group of representatives who gave trillions of dollars to the financial markets... Again, where'd that money go?

     WAKE THE F**K UP!!!!

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 11:37am

278. This is just one example of the "Charity" from religious organizations. I think I will stick with the Government Model.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 11:19am

     Yeah, I mean, it's not like politicians are leveraging you for a vote or anything...

     Dork.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 11:39am

279. Years ago when I lived in Montana, I was a little down on my luck and hungry. So me and my girlfriend went down to a Baptist Church Foodbank in Missoula. We were told that they would give us some food, but first we had to listen to a sermon for an hour before we could get any.

     I told them I was an Atheist and that they could keep their damn food.

     There were strings attached if we wanted to eat. I'm sure that Churches do some good things. Although I haven't witnessed them personally.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 11:19am

     I'm sorry for your experience. However most of us who provide relief do not make such demands.

     when we did our twice weekly food distributions in South Central Los Angeles, we did give a message and offer to pray with anyone that wanted it, but we did not screen people to ensure that they had listened to us or were even in the crowd during the time of ministry. Everyone who was in line for the food distribution received the same groceries without question.

     When we send cargo containers overseas, we put no restrictions on those who will distribute the food, medicine, clothing, nutritional supplies, and educational supplies. When we distribute from our headquarters to local groups, we only ask them to register so that we can track where the food and other items are going and approx how many people they distribute to.

     If an individual comes seeking food or other help, we don't require them to come in and be preached to. They are invited but are under no obligation.

     I know that groups like Franklin Graham's Samaritan Purse operate the same way.

     But at the same time, I do not apologize for offering to share "spiritual food" also with people. For a Christian, the soul is more important than one's body.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 11:59am

280. Hey chaoszen, you failed to copy and paste this part:

     "The subsequent investigation by the state of Virginia concluded that Robertson diverted his ministry's donations to the Liberian diamond-mining operation, but Attorney General of Virginia Mark Earley blocked any potential prosecution against Robertson, as the relief supplies were also sent."

     Why'd you leave that out?

     But even if this isn't complete slander, do you really mean to discount centuries of religious charity around the world because of the isolated actions of Pat Robertson in 1999?

     Wow dude, that is some really twisted perception. You're welcome to it.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 12:10pm

281. Every business is controlled that way.

     If you don't care for WalMart, go to Costco and Target instead. Don't approve of junk food? Don't go to the outlets. Don't like someone's music? Don't buy it. Consumers acting freely control corporations... Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 11:37am

     Surprisingly, I agree to a point with your statement. But you don't take into consideration that with things like Healthcare, I don't have that option. For Profit Healthcare in this country is by and large a Monopoly. In my individual case, I have no choices where Healthcare is concerned, I am forced to pay $94.00 a week for Healthcare with United Healthcare. That is just for me. And it is taken out of my check once a week. That is $376 dollars a month or $4512 dollars a year. On top of that I have to pay a $1500 deductible and 20% of charges.

     United Healthcare in many cases refuses to pay anything for many of these charges. They send me an incomprehensible billing with obscure "codes" for services they will not pay. So, I get stuck paying 100% of these charges.

     I have no choice to shop for my healthcare. And I have a bunch of corporate dingbats who are not doctors deciding whether or not they will pay for tests or procedures.

     A few months ago I had a motorcycle accident and dislocated my thumb. I had to go the emergency room. My employer had cancelled my insurance a month previously as I had been out for work related carpal tunnel surgery on Workmens Comp.

     The hospital charged me $3,000 to give me an Xray, a shot of painkiller and a Doctor to pull on my thumb and relocate it. They are now threatening to sue me, as I don't happen to have $3,000 laying around.

     What choices were available to me there?

     If we had Single Payer Healthcare. I would be fine.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 12:18pm

282. Hey chaoszen, you failed to copy and paste this part: Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 12:10pm

     I didn't copy and paste anything.

     Attorney General of Virginia Mark Earley blocked any potential prosecution against Robertson, as the relief supplies were also sent."

     I won't even touch that one. It should be self evident. You just admitted to everthing I was pointing out. Prosecution was blocked... Wonder why?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 12:28pm

283. Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 12:18pm

     Sorry to hear about the accident. Glad you weren't more seriously hurt.

     Didn't the hospital offer a payment plan for you? Why are they threatening to sue? Are you refusing to pay? Didn't you know your insurance had lapsed?!!!

     And I'm not sure I understand you. You say, "For Profit Healthcare in this country is by and large a Monopoly" yet you wish to make it most definitely a government monopoly as the way to fix it?!

     When you say if we had singly payer health care (you mean insurance) you'd be okay, aren't you really saying you just want the responsibility for your health insurance to be paid by someone else?

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 12:39pm

284. Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 11:59am

     I have no problem with religious organizations doing good works. Help for the poor and the disadvantaged need to come from many quarters.

     But I don't believe that people should have to beg for a basic social safety net. Food, Shelter, Clothing and Healthcare should not be something that depends entirely on charity. It should be a basic human right.

     You like to say that you are a victim of coercion. I would say that through a progressive tax rate, free education, healthcare and other basic human needs being met as a right of citizenship is much better than forcing people to beg. Being forced to beg is a much worse form of coercion than requiring every citizen to pony up through taxes their Social Obligation.

     No one should have to beg. Begging for basic services is dehumanizing and atrocious. No civilzed society should require people to beg for the things that should be a right of birth.

     There is coercion either way. No avoiding it. I agree to disagree.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 12:53pm

285. Instead of complaining about poor health and lack of affordability for healthcare, be a person who takes charge of your life and implements positive change.

     While we do not state that categorically that drinking Monavie will heal any diseases or afflictions, drinking the equivalent of 9-15 servings of organic, nutrient dense fruits that are extremely high in anti-oxidants, will be helpful towards good health.

     And if you would like to join the evil success capitalists who earn great incomes working from home, check out the figures on who earns what in Direct Marketing. Monavie in our less than 5 years is already the leader in producing highly successful people. 3 of the top 5 and 10 of the top 25 in the Direct Marketing industy are with Monavie.

     And, we don't sell anything, we don't make money from recruiting people who would like their own business. We share the juice with people and give them the opportunity in a low key relaxed setting.

     Here are the industry numbers for who is earning (the top 500 in Direct Marketing).

     http://www.businessforhome.org/mlm-500-top-earners/

     A discussion from Robert Kiyosaki (Rich Dad, Poor Dad) and others

     www.wellnesstowealth.com

     password: success

     (Yes Mask, it is a blatant ad, but I wish everyone wellness and success if they desire it)

     BTW, in the past 6 months, our team has signed 32 doctors as business partners. They include cardiologists, and practitioners in Internal Medicine and Family Practice. They are enthusiastically recommending Monavie to all of their patients.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 1:07pm

286. Food, clothing, shelter and health care are hardly "rights". They are basic needs. It is MY responsibility to provide these needs to me and my family, not anyone else's responsibility.

     Aren't you a little suspicious of how we have to beg for our own money in the tax system chaoszen?

     Good example of begging, I returned a bunch of bottles and cans. In my state we have a bottle bill (and as an avid bicyclist, letme say plenty of broken glass on the roads). So I'm FORCED to pay the government a nickel for every can and bottle. This is a tax. The refund process is unpleasant with the "center" in a filthy parking lot and a grumpy attendant working it. Often he doesn't keep regular hours as posted. Of course, I'm not refunded there, I get a voucher that I then have to take to the grocery store for cash. When I did this last time, the nice lady at the grocery store asked what I'm going to do with my $22 bonus! I smiled and reminded her it would be a lot more fun if it wasn't my own money in the first place... She acted surprised at first, and then that reality dawned on her.

     She's like a lot of people who don't connect the dots on the reality of how government runs programs. I hear people all the time say that the government should pay for this, or that... And they treat their own tax returns like a windfall...

     Again, I'm proud to pay taxes, as I believe most of us are. I like good roads, safe bridges, police, fire, military and other protections, clean water and other government run entities.

     But politicians and their sponsors cannot abide by a limitation in their power. Instead they choose to rule. Not represent.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 1:21pm

287. Friheit1, Chaoszen is saying if the government was involved maybe we could bring insurance costs down, as it is now United health care can charge whatever they choose, because they are a monopoly.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/11/2009 @ 1:24pm

288. Friheit1, Chaoszen is saying if the government was involved maybe we could bring insurance costs down, as it is now United health care can charge whatever they choose, because they are a monopoly.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/11/2009 @ 1:24pm

     And the govt would not be a monopoly who could "charge" as much as they wish in taxes?

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 1:32pm

289. Posted by Denise29 at 08/11/2009 @ 1:24pm

     I see Denise. Why then does "the government" restrict cross state charters for medical insurance companies in many cases, effectively limiting competition? Could it be that politicians are being a little protectionist to the markets of their large insurance contributors? And blowing your mind even further, what if those big evil insurance companies would LOVE to be nationalized. That way they wont have the burden of competition, they won't need to innovate and they won't have to buy politicians as they currently do AND they'll have the FORCE of government to leverage against the "consumers." (Pssst, that's you and me.)

     And Denise, are you sure about the difference between price and cost? Because your question, "maybe we could bring insurance costs down, as it is now United health care can charge whatever they choose" is phrased like you don't.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 1:37pm

290. Sorry about the double post, well friheit1, yes politicians are jerks and that needs to change, but insurance companys are in it for the money only, not because they care. Getting the government involved would help keep the insurances companys from gouging us, or dropping us any time they choose. As it is now prices just keep going up while care is going down. We have to start somewhere, enough is enough! And quit trying to mix me up with the petty differences about cost and care, you damn well know what I mean.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/11/2009 @ 1:49pm

291. Again, I'm proud to pay taxes, as I believe most of us are. I like good roads, safe bridges, police, fire, military and other protections, clean water and other government run entities. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 1:21pm

     Glad to hear that you are a Socialist!

     What I don't understand is why you are unwilling to expand this to include Healthcare. Odd.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 2:02pm

292. It was the difference between costs and prices, not cost and care Denise.

     And the government is already heavily involved in the insurance industries. Politicians aren't jerks, they are human. Their incentives are like everyone elses - including the insurance companies and their shareholders.

     By the way, do you think Microsoft, or Safeway, or Toyota, or Taco Bell, or Amgen, or Kaiser, or State Farm are "in it" because they care?! No, they all provide goods and services for profit. Caring is the wonderful fringe benefit of true capitalism. If these companies, operating in a free market, didn't care about the consumers at some level, they'd be out of business. (Did you ever think that's why so many companies have to be forced to avoid monopolies???) As long as we have a choice as consumers, WE have the power.

     Yet well-meaning, compassionate people such as you believe that eliminating competition and creating a government MONOPOLY will somehow institutionalize CARING and be fair?!

     Denise, please think about that a little. I totally agree with you, it would be great having a single entity to provide all of our medical needs compassionately and equitably from cradle to grave. Who doesn't?

     Where you and I part ways is you, for some reason I don't understand, think that compassion and caring is the ultimate goal shared with you by our politicians and a government monopoly is the answer. You aren't seeing all the incentives in the game for what they are.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 2:14pm

293. And the govt would not be a monopoly who could "charge" as much as they wish in taxes?

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 1:32pm

     You act as if the Government would be a Monopoly concerning Healthcare. And would act like a Corporation who has a bottom line for profit and a responsibility to it's stockholders and would be paying a CEO outrageous salaries. That is nonsense. Apples and Oranges.

     You view the world through a distorted lens of profit. No one should profit from the misery of their neighbor. And you feel that only "you" should decide what your obligation to the society you live in should be. That is disgusting.

     Why is it that every other country who has Universal Healthcare spends half as much of GDP as we do? And why is it that we are rated 37th in the World concerning Healthcare?

     Do those Governments exploit a Monopoly? And tax their citzens for profit. No! Because when you have something as important as Healthcare being Administered by the Government, the impetus is to keep costs down with preventative medicine.

     You make no sense and are selling snake oil in the form of some concoction called "Monavie". Yeah, that will cure everything.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 2:20pm

294. Again, I'm proud to pay taxes, as I believe most of us are. I like good roads, safe bridges, police, fire, military and other protections, clean water and other government run entities.

     All these powers are recognized in the US Constitution, which is a document expressing the limitations of government. Written that way to keep politicians and groups from overtaking individual freedom.

     Funny what some consumers will give up for what they wrongly perceive as "free".

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 2:20pm

295. Posted by Denise29 at 08/11/2009 @ 1:24pm

     Wanna get married? We would probably get along:)

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 2:32pm

296. "No one should profit from the misery of their neighbor."

     Chaoszen, do you ever really think about what you say? I believe what you mean to say here is, for instance, I shouldn't be allowed to break all the windows in your house and then make a profit because I own the window store down the street, right? If so, we agree

     But I worry you are thinking, if your house is destroyed in a storm, as a contractor, am I immoral earning a fair market profit for my goods and services rebuilding your home?

     Or if I'm treating your cancer, am I not entitled to a fair market profit for that?

     Or if you foolishly ride a motorcycle with lapsed health insurance, I'm immoral charging you $3000 for putting your injured thumb back together?

     Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2009 @ 2:50pm

297. $3000 is outragous for an injured thumb that requires no surgery, just an exray and pulling on the thumb. But again the hospitals have to charge that much so they can make up the difference that those of us without insurance can't pay, it a vicious circle. I bet that $100 pain shot should have cost $4,if the government could keep these costs reasonable, because they compete with the insurance companys what the heck is wrong with that, sorry chaoszen, maybe in another life, I'm already married. But you flatter me, thanks.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/11/2009 @ 3:08pm

298. Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 12:18pm

     In terms of your immediate $3,000 problem, I'd suggest contacting someone recommended at the Alliance for Claims Assistant Professionals for your state.

     These people know how the health care system is administered and will be able to lean either on your employer or your insurance company to cover this or they can negotiate with the hospital to get the costs down and come up with a payment scheme that will be easier to manage than $3,000.

     The website is here: http://www.claims.org/

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/11/2009 @ 3:31pm

299. You act as if the Government would be a Monopoly concerning Healthcare.

     And you feel that only "you" should decide what your obligation to the society you live in should be. That is disgusting.

     You make no sense and are selling snake oil in the form of some concoction called "Monavie". Yeah, that will cure everything.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 2:20pm |

     Govts tax their citizens for power, not profit.

     The history of govt is the history of power and monopoly. this is the core of the libertarian argument and that of the founders. The saw the danger of a central govt that could tax it's way to power, seizing authority it does not have in the constitution. That is precisely why the said that the government would be one of enumerated powers and that the moment they went beyond those enumerated powers, they became one of infinte power and thus totalitarian.

     I don't view the world through profit. I view the world and especially the US through the lens of freedom. I don't care what other countries decide to do. I don't live there.

     I drink Monavie because I have lived in health for 60 years by putting natural things in my body. You are free to either agree or disagree. And BTW, I don't sell Monavie. I simply share it with people and let them decide if they also want to drink it and how they can do so. If they do so, I share in the profits. Seems like a fair thing to me.

     And I specifically said we don't claim cures. It is simply good practice to put nutrient dense fruits into your body. How many servings of organic fruit do you consume every day? The average American eats less than 2 servings of the recmd'd 5-7 servings per day. I have 15-20 servings per day.

     I prefer liberty, you prefer a massive state controlling our lives.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 3:48pm

300. I had a tomato, 2 peaches(organic) and a banana, yum and it isn't even dinner time. I'm heading over to the grapes soon, love my fruits and vegies.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/11/2009 @ 4:36pm

301. I prefer liberty, you prefer a massive state controlling our lives.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 3:48pm

     What is your definition of liberty and freedom?

     How can anyone be free or at liberty if they are unhealthy, hungry, and homeless? How can anyone be free or at liberty if they don't have a good education and the support of their larger human family?

     You prefer liberty and freedom only when you can flaunt your own personal success and can adorn yourself with praise for your "charity". You are an example of what human beings should strive not to be. You are an example of selfish, greedy and self serving motives. You are an example of everything that is wrong and evil in our society.

     Believe it or not, your ideology is that of a demon.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 4:42pm

302. , sorry chaoszen, maybe in another life, I'm already married. But you flatter me, thanks.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/11/2009 @ 3:08pm

     Seems to happen to me all the time. All the good ones are taken. Good Luck. And remind your significant other how Lucky he is...

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 4:46pm

303. Posted by Denise29 at 08/11/2009 @ 4:36pm |

     I just ate a big ol ripe Avocado, Two Ears of Iowa sweetcorn and a great bunch of very nice grapes.

     And now I have to go to bed. Gotta go to work at midnight. Bye all.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 5:00pm

304. Believe it or not, your ideology is that of a demon.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/11/2009 @ 4:42pm

     Like Denise and many others on the left, you are brainwashed into believing that only when govt runs our lives, we are somehow free. This is at the very least convoluted thinking.

     Freedom is the liberty to succeed or fail based upon you and not the dictates of others. Freedom is the ability to choose where and what you spend the fruit of your labor on. Not when someone who doesn't know you decides what is good for you.

     Freedom is choosing when I work and what I work at.

     Freedom is that I'm in control of my life; not doctors, not the govt, not an employer, not the shopping malls, not even the grocer.

     Americans could live healthy and free lives if they weren't so lazy that they have become dependent on others to think for them, to teach them, to feed and house them.

     I will fight against the continued encroachment of marxist socialism in this country by living the life I live, without materialism, without someone trying to tell me that I will be in a good mood if I take anti-depressants (the number 1 prescription in the US), that I will live longer if I take the drugs for hypertension that the doctors are fond of, but instead I will keep eating less meat and more fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and fish (with my daily glass of wine).

     If you truly believe that living without dependence on govt and others, that by doing good for others out of my heart rather than forced taxation, is demonic, you are truly a lost soul. I rather pity you Chaozen. Life has not taught you anything yet. You are more in bondage than you can possibly know about yourself.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 6:00pm

305. Oh for goodness sake Anti, I am not brainwashed into believeing the govt should run our lives, I just think the govt should be involved with our health care for many reasons I haven't the time to write down at this moment. But those reasons have been told to you on these blogs many times, so you know. I don't approve of govt being intrusive in many ways, but HC is a whole other subject, the private sector is taking us for a ride, if we can get coverage at all, and its past time to bring in the GOVT. Yeesh!I also am not nor ever have been a marxist, and one more time, I work my tush off every day of the week, and pay my taxes.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/11/2009 @ 7:00pm

306. Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 6:00pm

     Thought you might find this of interest.

     http://alephblog.com/2009/08/11/ beyond-co-ops-national-healthcare-mutual/

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/11/2009 @ 7:04pm

307. Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 6:00pm

     Thought you might find this of interest.

     http://alephblog.com/2009/08/11/ beyond-co-ops-national-healthcare-mutual/

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/11/2009 @ 7:04pm

     I think that it's a very reasoned approach.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 7:42pm

308. Posted by Denise29 at 08/11/2009 @ 7:00pm

     you seem to be responding to what I wrote Chaozen. I did not direct that towards you.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 7:48pm

309. "I will fight against the continued encroachment of marxist socialism in this country by living the life I live, without materialism, without someone trying to tell me that I will be in a good mood if I take anti-depressants (the number 1 prescription in the US), that I will live longer if I take the drugs for hypertension that the doctors are fond of, but instead I will keep eating less meat and more fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and fish (with my daily glass of wine). "antiAmerican

     Sounds more like you are fighting against global food corporations, advertising agencies and big pharmaceutical companies. Sounds like you hate America.

     Or, you could stop this nonsense about "marxism" and wake up to the reality that you actually agree with a lot of the people here, you just come at it from a different direction. With a LOT of hate and fear.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2009 @ 08:43am

310. I just don't see the connection between support for a public option and Marxism. If I support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan am I a Marxist? 'cause, you know, the US military is a Government run entity. The free market had it's chance with health care and what we got was a system that was great at delivering profits, but didn't deliver decent health care. There's all this talk about the founder's intent. Well, I'm certain one of their main intentions was to free people from the tyranny of monarchy. You know, those kings and queens who accumulated all the wealth and left everyone else out in the cold. Today's royal houses have names like Exxon and Phizer and they're just doing what royals have always done, taking all the gold for themselves and leaving everyone else table scraps. The Bush years gave corporations the chance to show the world how it's done. How an unregulated free market could make everything better for everyone. Well, they blew it. They damn near ruined western civilization, and may have done so, we're not out of this mess yet. So go ahead and bow to your kings, these mighty captains of industry. I'll just hope for a public option. Between bows you can call me a Marxist if you want to.

     Posted by DavidDurham at 08/12/2009 @ 09:15am

311. Anti, didn't I just read Denise and many on the left?

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/12/2009 @ 11:38am

312. Anti, didn't I just read Denise and many on the left?

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/12/2009 @ 11:38am

     yes, I caught that myself this morning and thus my prior exclusion claim was in error. However, though you deny it, your posts seem to speak otherwise about your feelings on having a large central govt. I'd be happy to be proven wrong by you.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 11:46am

313. Anti, read crabwalk at 8:43am, plus when you say larger govt, the only thing I want govt for at this moment in time is HC.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/12/2009 @ 12:35pm

314. Or, you could stop this nonsense about "marxism" and wake up to the reality that you actually agree with a lot of the people here, you just come at it from a different direction. With a LOT of hate and fear.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2009 @ 08:43am

     I've pointed out before that as a former hippy and a libertarian, I have many shared goals with people on the left. Where we seriously separate is this love affair by the left for big govt.

     When I'm at the health food store or a farmers market, most of the people there that I meet are on the left.

     And what is always ironic to me is that some of the former hippy types who are now leftists go against what so many of us believed decades ago. Hippy's were anti-govt. We didn't trust the govt. Now people like JR embrace big govt as if it changed. So, they changed, I didn't. I only want the Federal govt to provide national security, to ensure that we have a system of justice that works in accordance with the constitution, and that people, goods and services are able to move about without state imposed restrictions between the various states.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 1:11pm