Health Insurance Plans to Rise More than 80%.... Democrats SHOCKED!

OK...so, you didn't nab it off his Facebook page or something. Even still....you probably should have asked him if you could use it....I take the "fucked up" comment back and reduce it to rude.

You might want to have a discussion about how he searched out a picture of where a poster lived, after the poster posted their address; seeing as how it's so rude.

Decided to edit my post, since Howey is saying I lied about him posting the picture in question and then him lying about me taking it off his facebook; I direct you to this thread where this was discussed:
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?49769-Banning

He has now deleated the post he made; but I copied the entire quote, along with the pictues, and you can also read the comments that talk about his stupidity for doing such a thing.

This of course should give you an idea of how he behaves and I leave you to to your own devices, regarding how much merit you intend to place upon his honesty.
 
Last edited:
It's just astounding that he continues to outright ignore the portions of your post that highlight the partisan nature of these so-called "non-partisan" actuaries, to instead focus on the one single line from his OP that he feels will discredit Obama.

LOL... What is astounding is, you think there should be some outside entity with no interest, determining what capitalists sell their products for. Not only do you think it should be like this, you think it's "unfair" if it's not like this. This means, Walmart should consult anti-capitalist liberals who hate Walmart, to determine what their prices should be, and if they don't do this, it's not "fair" because Walmart is going to set their prices according to their own self interests.

HELLO.... Learn about how CAPITALISM works!
 
OK...so, you didn't nab it off his Facebook page or something. Even still....you probably should have asked him if you could use it....I take the "fucked up" comment back and reduce it to rude.

Will you and USF and whoever else is involved in this unrelated drama, please take your conversation to another thread, or PM? It's annoying and confusing for those who are actually discussing the thread topic. I've patiently tried to let it run it's course, but you two keep on going back and forth in the middle of another conversation. Start another thread to talk about USF or board rules about posting personal info, and stop flooding this thread with it. Thanks
 
No Zapped... Firemen are not paid based on whether they put the fire out or not. Regardless of whether the outcome is positive or negative, they get paid the same.

I would imagine that if a particular fire house had an abysmal record of putting out fires when compared to other fire houses, the firemen there WOULD get fired and replaced by others who could successfully do their jobs.
 
I would imagine that if a particular fire house had an abysmal record of putting out fires when compared to other fire houses, the firemen there WOULD get fired and replaced by others who could successfully do their jobs.

Maybe so, but in a system that is "outcome based" they would simply be making less money than firemen who were putting out fires.
 
Yes, he did.


With all due respect, you should have investigated for yourself as I did instead of falling for one of Obama's MANY lies.

Russ Feingold: Obama got the health care bill he wanted

According to Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), among the most vocal supporters of the public option, the ultimate responsibility for a Senate health care bill without a public option or Medicare expansion lies with the Obama administration.

Many progressives have painted the Obama administration as powerless to stand up to the will of Congress, blaming Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for single-handedly forcing Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) to drop the public option and Medicare expansion from the bill. It may not be realistic, however, to believe that one Senator has that much power and influence. On the other hand, it may be more practical to believe that the White House, with Presidential directives, veto and other means does have the power to force or mold legislation.

Russ Feingold probably knew exactly that when he said, according to The Hill:

It would be unfair to blame Lieberman for its apparent demise...[because] President Barack Obama...could have insisted on a higher standard for the legislation.This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth. I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect.

If one looks closely at the twists and turns in the health care debate over the past few months, there is much evidence to support Feingold's assertion. Keep in mind that Joe Lieberman was Obama's mentor in the Senate. There was also the deal cut by Obama with big Pharma, behind closed doors, to ban bulk price negotiations and drug reimportation that clearly contradicted both Obama's campaign positions on those issues and his promise to conduct all White House business out in the open. Then there was the warning by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to liberal groups to stop running attack ads against centrist Democrats who opposed the public option. According to Jonathon Martin writing for Politico, "there is no winking and nodding when Obama and Emanuel deliver their message."

In an unrelated issue regarding lack of support for supplemental war funding, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and other freshmen in the House also got a message from the White House: "We're not going to help you. You'll never hear from us again." The White House, clearly, can give a forceful message to members of Congress when it chooses to do so.

There are also very practical reasons, in terms of Washington politics, that the Obama administration would want to cater to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries and not those in favor of a public option or Medicare expansion. According to Glenn Greenwald writing for Salon:

The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration wants not only to prevent industry money from funding an anti-health-care-reform campaign, but also wants to ensure that the Democratic Party -- rather than the GOP -- will continue to be the prime recipient of industry largesse. If you're interested in preserving and expanding political power, then, all other things being equal, it's better to have the pharmaceutical and health insurance industry on your side than opposed to you.

So which is it? Is the Obama administration a champion of progressive causes, but impotent to stop the minority party, centrist Democrats and Joe Lieberman from perverting health care reform from a public option or the popular Medicare expansion into a politically disastrous and highly coercive "mandate" gift to the health insurance industry? Or is it politics as usual, and all about money, power and the influence that corporations have on all branches of our government? The evidence seems to support Sen. Feingold's assertion.
http://www.examiner.com/article/russ-feingold-obama-got-the-health-care-bill-he-wanted

During the 2008 campaign, Hillary Clinton forced Obama to take a position on SP .. a position that he never intended to see through.
 
Yeah, Obama could have gotten single-payer by sheer force of will, just like he got that expanded background check bill passed.
 
Yeah, Obama could have gotten single-payer by sheer force of will, just like he got that expanded background check bill passed.

Correct. Obamacare is far from ideal, but it's all that could have been passed. Why this is so difficult for some people, I don't know...

**shaking Jewish head**
 
Correct. Obamacare is far from ideal, but it's all that could have been passed. Why this is so difficult for some people, I don't know...

**shaking Jewish head**

It's difficult for you because you're a partisan.

Obama could have fought for a real healthcare bill that actually contained reform. When republicans balked at supporting a real bill .. such as Medicare-for-All, Obama could have done what he often does and took his case to the American people. He could have forced republicans to stand against expanded Medicare coverage for ALL Americans.

Truman was the model.

What did you get instead? A bill that is STILL unsupported by the majority of the American people ..

.. an ass-whooping in one of the greatest turnovers of the House in American history ..

.. an incredibly flawed bill that most Americans .. including many politicians STILL don't know what's in it or its impact ..

.. a bill that didn't even address costs .. which was one of the main reasons why reform was necessary.

.. a bill that never addressed the doctor shortage ..

.. and an upcoming midterm that will now cost democrats the Senate.

Good job.

Hope and Change goes down with a whimper.
 
It's difficult for you because you're a partisan.

Obama could have fought for a real healthcare bill that actually contained reform. When republicans balked at supporting a real bill .. such as Medicare-for-All, Obama could have done what he often does and took his case to the American people. He could have forced republicans to stand against expanded Medicare coverage for ALL Americans.

Truman was the model.

What did you get instead? A bill that is STILL unsupported by the majority of the American people ..

.. an ass-whooping in one of the greatest turnovers of the House in American history ..

.. an incredibly flawed bill that most Americans .. including many politicians STILL don't know what's in it or its impact ..

.. a bill that didn't even address costs .. which was one of the main reasons why reform was necessary.

.. a bill that never addressed the doctor shortage ..

.. and an upcoming midterm that will now cost democrats the Senate.

Good job.

Hope and Change goes down with a whimper.

That didn't work out with gun control did it? He went to the people for support on it and got 90%, but Congress didn't listen.
 
LOL... What is astounding is, you think there should be some outside entity with no interest, determining what capitalists sell their products for. Not only do you think it should be like this, you think it's "unfair" if it's not like this. This means, Walmart should consult anti-capitalist liberals who hate Walmart, to determine what their prices should be, and if they don't do this, it's not "fair" because Walmart is going to set their prices according to their own self interests.

HELLO.... Learn about how CAPITALISM works!


Bullshit...but then, it is another Dixie post so everyone already understands that.

That very point is driven home by your claim that Wal-Mart should consult "anti-capitalist Liberals who hate Wal-mart" to determine their prices, when just a single sentence earlier you claim Liberals want "an outside entity with no interest determining what capitalists sell their products for".

The two statements are a direct contradiction and a perfect example of your delusion.
 
No Zapped... Firemen are not paid based on whether they put the fire out or not. Regardless of whether the outcome is positive or negative, they get paid the same.


I thought it was a fairly straightforward question...don't know why you edited it out of my comment you quoted and couldn't answer it?

How many times have you witnessed firemen packing their hoses and equipment and leaving the scene of a fire BEFORE the fire has been completely extinguished?
 
They are to be demonized. The medical industry sucks the wealth out of the nation by using fee for service instead of fee for outcome....

The pharmaceutical and Med/Tech industries suck the wealth out of the country by using our tax dollars to help with R&D(not to mention all those donations that things like pretty pink ribbons brings in) and they in turn, gouge the consumer with hyper inflated prices while the rest of the world gets them at a minimal markup.

That's not free market capitalism.... that's corporate vampirism. Socialize the costs....privatize the profits

As far as the rest of your post? Pure right wing hackery.

I wish I could say I was surprised by your ignorance. You merely regurgitated left wing talking points.

Fee for outcome? Really? Do you realize that the outcome of any healthcare interaction is not 100% at the discretion of the healthcare provider? Take some fat assed state worker who has diabetes. Is it the doctors fault that the fat assed won't change their diet? Is it the doctors fault that the fat ass won't lose weight?

As for the gobblement research meme, yes it is true that the government gives money to universities for basic R&D for some basic life sciences, but with regards to the commercialization of a pharmaceutical entity, there is ZERO gobblement dollars in that R&D. Absolutely ZERO

The only thing you have stated that is accurate is that the rest of the world pays minimal amounts for the drugs while the US eats the R&D. That is true. Thank socialism and price controls. But, their citizens pay a price for that in the form of limited access to these new meds.

It would really help if you educated yourself on these complex issues rather than spouting off discredited left wing talking points
 
You don't think there'd be exceptions? Besides...doctors would be salaried. That also eliminates unnecessary tests and treatments and promotes patient care not trying to run a business.

Do you think unnecessary tests and treatments occur solely because of physicians or could it be that dipshits like you run to your physician asking for a Zpak even though all you have is bronchitis? How about Mott and his little "blip" the doctor found on his tiny ticker? Think Mott would have taken a pat on the ass and told its nothing? Or did Mott want all the tests in the world to make sure he wasn't going to collapse because of a left anterior descending that might have been 99% occluded?

You are stupid
 
Ah yes, the "clueless rube" character appears once again.

Dixie tries to pretend he's never heard of a health care provider refusing to treat a patient until paid...which is outright blind stupidity...it happens every day in every city across this "great" nation?

Does Dixie believe if he had Stage 3 Pancreatic cancer, no money to pay and attempted to be admitted to one of the hospitals that treat these KINGS and RULERS, that they'd welcome him with open arms and just forget about his lack of money?

ROTFLMAO!

No hospital can turn away a patient regardless of ability to pay. It is the law. Has been since the 80s
 
Wrong.

The hospital where I had my cancer surgery performed refused to admit me until we had paid a $3,000.00 down payment...

They can't turn you away in an emergency only. They will not treat your cancer in the emergency room.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top