Obama Care Could Be Deadly

It's just we have spineless Dems. Have any of you ever read James Carville's Had Enough? It's basically about how our Dems have no backbone. It's more or less a guide on how the democrats should be arguing.

Would be great if he ran for office.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Here's my level of cynicism:

I don't get what I want because they're fucking WIMPS WHO CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH A MAJORITY OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE fuckING WHITE HOUSE.

Not because they're corrupt.

They need to drink "powerthirst" or some shit. Bunch goddamned babies in the beltway, lettin' bitches use lies and bullshit to weaken an already weak bill.[/QUOTE]
See, that's the thing though. The Democrats not only don't do what they say they will, but they also lie to your face. Look at FISA, Iraq, torture etc. Its because they don't actually care. When they do actually push something though, it tends to be terrible. Look at Cap & Trade.
[quote name='HowStern']It's just we have spineless Dems. Have any of you ever read James Carville's Had Enough? It's basically about how our Dems have no backbone. It's more or less a guide on how the democrats should be arguing.

Would be great if he ran for office.[/QUOTE]
Oh fuck no. Not James Carville.
 
There are good Democrats and Republicans, they are just very few. That's why my own personal push is to try and convince other people to ignore party affiliation and only vote for those that promise to try and abolish the Federal Reserve. That's the root core problem that almost all others stem from - once people realize that, it's my hope that we can finally vote in those (of any party) that might get us real change.

It's hard to keep hope for this alive, though, because if the regulars in this forum are any litmus test, most people simply refuse to believe there is a root cause to all their pet-issues the headlines tell them are important, or they enjoy focusing on them too much. Most people tend to think they can still get real change in the country by tackling each separate political issue - and that's depressing.
 
No it won't. But it would be the first logical step to crippling the influence of the central banks/corporations on our law-makers.

"He who has (makes) the gold makes the rules" is 100% true.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']
Oh fuck no. Not James Carville.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I mean, he wasn't a wrestler or anything.... :roll:

What was that post where you were talking about how people have an infatuation with movie and tv stars?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']No it won't. But it would be the first logical step to crippling the influence of the central banks/corporations on our law-makers.

"He who has (makes) the gold makes the rules" is 100% true.[/QUOTE]

If the Fed helps the Culling, it can't be all bad.
 
[quote name='HowStern']Yeah, I mean, he wasn't a wrestler or anything.... :roll:

What was that post where you were talking about how people have an infatuation with movie and tv stars?[/QUOTE]
I'd rather not have an idiot like James Carville in an leadership position. We don't need the Republicans calling people "anti-american", and the Democrats "Judas."
 
[quote name='Msut77']http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/18/hitler-israel/

First comment:

"Compassionate conservatism rears its head yet again."

I bet she will get invited onto at least one tv show.[/QUOTE]


6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a4cf79df970b-500wi
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i still dont get the planet of the apes thing... what was tivos reasoning behind it again? just that it was funny? i dont remember what he said after he was flamed for his movie poster.

myke, oh myke. it makes me sad that you and msut read and post the same stories.
 
that's fine. you should be disgusted that someone who shares your viewpoint thinks shouting "Heil Hitler!" is an appropriate political retort.

But hey, if you want the low road, it's all yours. it's well tread.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']that's fine. you should be disgusted that someone who shares your viewpoint thinks shouting "Heil Hitler!" is an appropriate political retort.

But hey, if you want the low road, it's all yours. it's well tread.[/QUOTE]

theres no reason to think she shares my viewpoint on anything
 
"Keep doing what you've been doing and you're going to keep getting what you've been getting."

Obama, Bush, they're all the same. If someone's willing to spend millions and millions on a job that pays $400,000/year, you know something's not right.
 
[quote name='tivo']
Doctor.jpg


made that in MS paint but you get the idea.[/QUOTE]
It's idiots like you who give people who oppose these health care plans a bad name. Great. fucking. Job.

[quote name='mykevermin']that's fine. you should be disgusted that someone who shares your viewpoint thinks shouting "Heil Hitler!" is an appropriate political retort.

But hey, if you want the low road, it's all yours. it's well tread.[/QUOTE]
I love how you group some idiot who yells "Heil Hitler!" at a jewish guy in with people who have perfectly reasonable qualms about these health care bills that are being debated. I suppose you should be disgusted that someone who shares your viewpoint beat up a man for trying to sell flags after a town hall, and called him a racial slur?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']LOL "perfectly reasonable qualms."[/QUOTE]
In case you haven't noticed, the health care reform bill is loaded with kickbacks to big pharma, and big insurance.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']you were against the bill before there *was* a bill.

Get over yourself and your feigned nobility.[/QUOTE]
So? Does that mean we should just disregard the fact that this bill is terrible, and going to hurt more than it helps? I've said before that if we are going to expand coverage to people using the government, this should be handled by the states, not the federal government. Why? The states can't borrow money and build up debt. The states can't create a huge entitlement hole that is very hard to patch up.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Oh my God.

Tivo has been replaced by a parody of himself.[/QUOTE]

It is kind of hard to parody right wingers.

Hear about all the dumbshits showing up to where ever Obama goes with guns?

It is kind of hard to explain this to people from other countries:

Furriner: Why are these people so upset?

Me: There is a plan to expand healthcare for millions who don't have it.

Furriner: WTF is wrong with your country?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know we've discussed the fact that liberals are okay with linking Bush to Hitler, but to do the same with Obama - well, that makes you a horrible person... But this story caught my eye as to how blatant it is in the mainstream media.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-...party-reporter-obama-hitler-offensive-bush-hi

A reporter for CNN, Susan Roesgen, did a report in 2006 on New Orleans where a guy showed up in a Bush mask with devil horns and a Hitler hairpiece/mustache. She describes this man as a Bush "look-alike".

More recently, at a TEA party (guh), she went after a man that had a sign portraying Obama as Hitler. "Why be so hard on the President of the United States with such an offensive message?"
 
[quote name='Msut77']
Me: There is a plan to expand healthcare for millions who don't have it.
[/QUOTE]
Quit playing this bullshit of "the health care bill will expand coverage to millions who don't have it." There is an individual mandate in the bill. What does this mean? You have to pay a certain percentage of your income for health care, depending on your income, if you qualify for subsides. This number is at least 11%-12% which is what the poorest pay. You are taking away this much of their income that they need for food, and a home, and the essentials, to give them government health care. They have no choice in this matter. They either pay that percentage of their income or pay fines. This isn't affordable health care. It's extortion. It's like passing a law that says "You must buy a house, or pay a large fine every month," and saying that you have eliminated homelessness.
 
Well said, fullmetal.

I have been looking for any hard numbers on any independent study on exactly WHY those 30-60 million Americans without Healthcare don't have it. I can't find one so far. Does anyone know of one?

We seem pretty hell bent on getting them healthcare, hell or high water, but nobody seems to be really asking the question "Why don't they have it?" What percentage of those who don't have it don't have it by choice or don't work at all? Or are we, as a nation, really actually saying "Even if you want to live under a bridge, not work, and not contribute - you should have healthcare for free because it's a right". Is that really where we have come?
 
:rofl:

EDIT: Thrust, reform isn't geared towards the 50 million uninsured solely. Plenty of people are underinsured, or pay extraordinarily costly insurance premiums because the health care industry is obliged to (1) shareholders, (2) executives, and (3) patients, in that order of priority. Being insured does not equate to satisfaction, or adequate coverage, or coverage that will prevent you from going bankrupt. That's a large part of this bill as well, so focusing solely on the uninsured (and your question which implies that they are ether the willfully uninsured or the deserving-to-be-uninsured) fails to get at the whole picture.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:rofl:

EDIT: Thrust, reform isn't geared towards the 50 million uninsured solely. Plenty of people are underinsured, or pay extraordinarily costly insurance premiums because the health care industry is obliged to (1) shareholders, (2) executives, and (3) patients, in that order of priority. Being insured does not equate to satisfaction, or adequate coverage, or coverage that will prevent you from going bankrupt. That's a large part of this bill as well, so focusing solely on the uninsured (and your question which implies that they are ether the willfully uninsured or the deserving-to-be-uninsured) fails to get at the whole picture.[/QUOTE]
So, let me get this straight. You are going to screw over the people who are can't afford insurance to save everyone else some money? You don't really care about the people who are uninsured, do you?
 
heard that barney frank clip on the radio this morning. hilarious.


[quote name='thrustbucket']Well said, fullmetal.

I have been looking for any hard numbers on any independent study on exactly WHY those 30-60 million Americans without Healthcare don't have it. I can't find one so far. Does anyone know of one?

[/QUOTE]

ive read "numbers" but whether or not they were a pundits estimation (more likely) or an actual study im not sure. ill try and find it today while i have downtime at work. the numbers break down something like this, and this is from memory, so its likely different from what i read...

50 million uninsured

10 million are illegal
10 million qualify for government care
10 million who could potentially get care through employment but dont utilize it or are "between" jobs
10 million make over 75k annually but dont buy it
10 million actually uninsured

im 100% positive those arent the same as the ones i read, but thats essentially how they break it down.
 
HC.jpg


In 1995, poverty for a family of four was $15,150.
In 1995, median household income was $34,076.

So if we hit 200% of the poverty line there, we'd still be $3,376 short of the median line (meaning we're not yet at the 50th percentile of income earners in the US). And it is at that threshold that we see the % uninsured decline substantially. Given this relationship between income and insured status, it's clear that the uninsured we're talking about are working class people (esp. since the lowest level has a lower % uninsured level) who have jobs and can't afford health care.

And those indicators are almost a decade and a half old - would you believe that these numbers have improved in 13 years?

(image taken from here. much more good data in the PDF to counter the "can't find it on google" crowd who thinks that nobody ever did demographic research on insured status. :lol:)
 
ok, it seems the "study" i referred to early is a deduction made by mark levin in his book liberty and tyranny... he bases it of census data and their annual report on health care...

numbers from the report from 2007 (most recent i could find)


253.4 million with insurance
45.7 million uninsured
8.1 million under 18 uninsured in "poverty" (ie could qualify for various government programs for coverage. levins deduction, not mine.)
9.7 million are illegal (surprisingly 12.7 million illegals have some type of coverage)
9.1 million make over 75k a year (and could potentially buy insurance, again levin not me)

and then somehow he came up with a percentage of people who lost coverage for part of the year but got it back in the same year, but im not sure where he got it in the study or how he came up with that number.

so by his deduction theres only 25.5 million uninsured, of which 30% (7.65) are "between" insurance coverage. the other 20.2 million could be covered or are not entitled to coverage. so his uninsured number is more in the 17.85 million or so that are actually uninsured... i guess.

anyway, heres the report.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf


edit for myke

the post you just did is mentioned in the study i just posted too, only with updated numbers and a different scale (and no graph :( )

2nd edit

based on your graph it looks like that graph goes through households that make up to 60k, which according to the report i posted accounts for about 41 million people (roughly, not exactly because the income breakdowns are different in my report) uninsured that make under 60k, which 91% of the uninsured in our country. (according to levin its really half that though), take it for what you will (and i know what youll take it for myke ;) )

The proportion of people not covered by health insurance is lower among people with higher income. In 2007, 24.5 percent of people in households with annual incomes of less than $25,000 had no health insurance coverage. Uninsured rates decreased for each consecutive household income group to 21.1 percent for households with incomes of $25,000 to $49,999, 14.5 percent for households with incomes of $50,000 to $74,999, and 7.8 percent for households with incomes of $75,000 or more. Among the four household income groups in Table 6, the uninsured rate was not statistically different in 2007 from 2006 in the lower three groups. The uninsured rate fell for people in households in the highest income group to 7.8 percent in 2007, from 8.5 percent in 2006.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i still dont get the planet of the apes thing... what was tivos reasoning behind it again? just that it was funny? i dont remember what he said after he was flamed for his movie poster.
[/QUOTE]

yea, the whole president looking like an ape thing has already been played out with Bush so what I do isn't very original - I know. I just do it for a laugh. And the Planet of The Apes thing is showing the downfall of man- all possible under Obama.

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']It's idiots like you who give people who oppose these health care plans a bad name. Great. fucking. Job.
[/QUOTE]

Democrats love this stuff. they can point towards racism and ignore the real claims by other people. same with the Birthers argument. they don't release Obama's birth certificate and continue to call everyone against Obama a loon (at least Bush released his service record) because how could anyone not support saving $200/month under the new healthcare - they must be racist -all 49% of americans that don't approve (vs the 43% that do approve)*.

* Lattest Gallup Poll
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']based on your graph it looks like that graph goes through households that make up to 60k, which according to the report i posted accounts for about 41 million people (roughly, not exactly because the income breakdowns are different in my report) uninsured that make under 60k, which 91% of the uninsured in our country. (according to levin its really half that though)[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say Levin is saying - is he claiming that nearly 60% of the uninsured in this country make over 60K annually?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:rofl:

EDIT: Thrust, reform isn't geared towards the 50 million uninsured solely. Plenty of people are underinsured, or pay extraordinarily costly insurance premiums because the health care industry is obliged to (1) shareholders, (2) executives, and (3) patients, in that order of priority. Being insured does not equate to satisfaction, or adequate coverage, or coverage that will prevent you from going bankrupt. That's a large part of this bill as well, so focusing solely on the uninsured (and your question which implies that they are ether the willfully uninsured or the deserving-to-be-uninsured) fails to get at the whole picture.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. It's just that everyone I've seen or heard trying to sell the importance of healthcare reform mostly beats on the "Everyone needs healthcare!" drum, not the "Everyone needs better healthcare!" drum. So that's what seems to get focussed on....
 
Depends on how you hear/interpret the arguments about the increases in health-care costs over the past decade. That's more than simply the uninsured.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not sure what you're trying to say Levin is saying - is he claiming that nearly 60% of the uninsured in this country make over 60K annually?[/QUOTE]

no, i was just relating the report i posted with the graph you posted because my numbers are a decade more recent. i was saying 90% of the uninsured make under 60k, but levin would argue only half of them are "actually" uninsured.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']We seem pretty hell bent on getting them healthcare, hell or high water, but nobody seems to be really asking the question "Why don't they have it?" What percentage of those who don't have it don't have it by choice or don't work at all? Or are we, as a nation, really actually saying "Even if you want to live under a bridge, not work, and not contribute - you should have healthcare for free because it's a right". Is that really where we have come?[/QUOTE]

Since a sense of humanity and basic moral decency hasn't prevailed here, perhaps I could appeal to your self-interest.

Last thing I saw, disease doesn't care if you have a healthcare plan or not. If you cut working-class people out of healthcare, they're just going to hit up emergency rooms or spread their disease (can't eat if you don't work). And guess what, unless you live in a bubble you interact with working-class people every day (the bus driver, the laundry guy, the cashier at the take-out joint...). If you live in a city you probably come into contact with homeless people too, and there's no guarantee a TB microbe isn't going to jump from the lungs of a coughing panhandler into your air.

So think about it, is it worth it to save a fraction of the cost of the Iraq war if it means Typhoid Mary ends up serving you the next bowl of tomato bisque?
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']no, i was just relating the report i posted with the graph you posted because my numbers are a decade more recent. i was saying 90% of the uninsured make under 60k, but levin would argue only half of them are "actually" uninsured.[/QUOTE]

yay for more recent numbers.

boo for mark levin.
 
[quote name='camoor']Since a sense of humanity and basic moral decency hasn't prevailed here, perhaps I could appeal to your self-interest.

Last thing I saw, disease doesn't care if you have a healthcare plan or not. If you cut working-class people out of healthcare, they're just going to hit up emergency rooms or spread their disease (can't eat if you don't work). And guess what, unless you live in a bubble you interact with working-class people every day (the bus driver, the laundry guy, the cashier at the take-out joint...). If you live in a city you probably come into contact with homeless people too, and there's no guarantee a TB microbe isn't going to jump from the lungs of a coughing panhandler into your air.

So think about it, is it worth it to save a fraction of the cost of the Iraq war if it means Typhoid Mary ends up serving you the next bowl of tomato bisque?[/QUOTE]

Healthcare is always going to be expensive to whomever is paying for it. Everyone lives various lifestyles, some of which invite health problems far more than others.

Why should everyone be obligated to take care of someone that wanted to smoke, drive fast cars, weigh 500 lbs, eat out of trash cans, and screw hookers, while refusing to work? Why does that guy have a right to expect society to pay for his health problems? At some point, society has to give some people the finger - because they aren't deserving of all of society's perks.

You have to draw the line somewhere, unfortunately. The big argument with this is do we want the government deciding who gets covered based on various factors (like in the UK) or do we want greedy corporations deciding. Ultimately, most people agree a hybrid of both is the answer, but it's a very delicate patchwork solution to get right.
 
What?

The very idea of insurance is based on some mild form of "wealth redistribution." You pay lower rates if you're a young, fit, nonsmoker with no preexisting conditions. But your rates help cover the potential costs for the entire insurance company. Doesn't mean you're paying the same amount that mr or mrs unhealthy-pants is, but it would be silly to think that companies don't consider their overall costs when you get your rate.
 
Of course. And that's a type of government regulation I could get behind; regulating that type of stuff.

My issue is that any time we take anything that costs a lot of tax-payer money and call it a "right" it's very hairy, if not an outright bad idea. Simply because we need to expect a certain baseline of behavior and social parcipitation back from individuals getting that "right".

If I go live under a freeway overpass, simply because I'm sick of working and want to be lazy, and eat diseased pigeons till i get ill, I am not going to expect government help of any kind. And when it's refused, I'd understand.

In other words, people shouldn't be allowed to be volunteer wards of the state.

Now if we require individuals to work, or even volunteer, that are receiving welfare/free healthcare then let's start the discussion there - and I bet you'd get a lot more participation.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Of course. And that's a type of government regulation I could get behind; regulating that type of stuff.

My issue is that any time we take anything that costs a lot of tax-payer money and call it a "right" it's very hairy, if not an outright bad idea. Simply because we need to expect a certain baseline of behavior and social parcipitation back from individuals getting that "right".

If I go live under a freeway overpass, simply because I'm sick of working and want to be lazy, and eat diseased pigeons till i get ill, I am not going to expect government help of any kind. And when it's refused, I'd understand.

In other words, people shouldn't be allowed to be volunteer wards of the state.

Now if we require individuals to work, or even volunteer, that are receiving welfare/free healthcare then let's start the discussion there - and I bet you'd get a lot more participation.[/QUOTE]


Well, with forced coverage, everyone pays. You sign up for the public option you pay the fee. You don't sign up for any kind of plan you get fined.

Everyone pays their own way.
 
[quote name='HowStern']Well, with forced coverage, everyone pays. You sign up for the public option you pay the fee. You don't sign up for any kind of plan you get fined.

Everyone pays their own way.[/QUOTE]
Especially when they can't afford it!
 
[quote name='HowStern']Well, with forced coverage, everyone pays. You sign up for the public option you pay the fee. You don't sign up for any kind of plan you get fined.

Everyone pays their own way.[/QUOTE]

So are you telling me that the guy that doesn't pay gets turned away at the emergency room under the new plan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top