i dont know anything about this rick perry-

is he a cool guy?

6/8/2011 9:35:05 PM

Sure, if you fancy secession.

6/8/2011 9:38:53 PM

Loser Limbaugh listeners.

6/9/2011 12:56:58 PM

Secession = You Hate Blacks

6/9/2011 1:01:36 PM

Why anyone who hates America so much would run for office is beyond me.

6/9/2011 1:11:29 PM

If you really want to destroy the United States, the easiest way is to run for office. From there, you can do as much damage as you want, and the only way to be held accountable is to be voted out of office.

6/9/2011 1:27:00 PM

Gingrich's campaign manager resigned. That's a good sign, right?

6/9/2011 3:45:09 PM

haha, his whole fucking campaign staff resigned. what a fuck up

6/9/2011 4:00:49 PM

Quote :

"Why anyone who hates America so much would run for office is beyond me. "

worked well for the last guy. Bring on the Czars

6/9/2011 4:38:57 PM

Gingrich is only campaigning to build a war chest. He'll then drop out, keep all the money and buy more rubies and diamonds for his whore wife.

6/9/2011 7:45:19 PM

Awww, I looked forward to the obliteration of the EPA. . .

6/9/2011 8:01:50 PM

sparky

Quote :

"WHERE IS GARY JOHNSON DAMMIT!?!?"

d357r0y3r

Quote :

"He's got very little name recognition, right now. Maybe that will change once the major debates start up."

ThePeter

Quote :

"God damn it Johnson, get your name out there "

After both scoring 1% on the last CNN poll, and both scoring 0% on the last Suffolk University Poll, it looks like neither Johnson are participating in the next debate. It looks like Johnson just wasn't invited even though he participated in the last one (which is unfortunate, I'm generally for more open debates). But I've very surprised that Huntsman would turn this debate down given how much he needs the exposure.

6/10/2011 9:28:28 PM

Romney's got this one in the bag folks...

Lets see...
Palin-stupid
Paul- doesn't like civil rights act
Cain- doesn't trust muslims and is fair tax



I want to make a GOP: Even your black candidate is a racist

[Edited on June 11, 2011 at 12:45 AM. Reason : fair tax fails romney wins]

6/11/2011 12:40:16 AM

From http://intrade.com

6/11/2011 1:20:03 AM

I'd put money on Huntsman at this point.

If we fall into another recession in 2012, Huntsman or Romney could very easily be our next President.

6/13/2011 12:50:52 PM

Quote :

"Paul- doesn't like civil rights act"

Would you shop at a store that didn't allow black people? Would anyone here? There's a market solution for blatant discrimination: everyone would hate the asshole that ran the company and refuse to do business there.

Legislation was necessary to eliminate unjust laws, but that's as far as it should have gone.

Romney has no political principles whatsoever. I wouldn't care if he or Obama were President. It would essentially be the same person in office. Obama/mainstream GOP candidates will seal our fate.

[Edited on June 13, 2011 at 1:04 PM. Reason : ]

6/13/2011 1:00:21 PM

Quote :

"God Caught Backing Multiple GOP Candidates for President After a thorough investigation, Daily Intel has discovered that God is separately backing at least three different contenders for the Republican presidential nomination. Over the course of the past few months and even years, God has sent signs and direct messages to each of these candidates encouraging them to run, presumably without telling them that he supports other candidates as well."

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/06/god_caught_backing_multiple_go.html

[Edited on June 13, 2011 at 6:45 PM. Reason : ...]

6/13/2011 6:45:32 PM

Quote :

" politico POLITICO Michele Bachmann announced she has filed paperwork to run for the GOP nomination during the Republican presidential debate hosted by CNN. "

oy

6/13/2011 8:20:30 PM

this debate is painful

6/13/2011 8:37:39 PM

great debate.

6/13/2011 10:49:47 PM

pic update

6/14/2011 12:35:04 AM

Don't they realize that pictures of Osama Bin Laden's bloody corpse are going to surface just before the election? Obama may be a secret communist muslim, but he ain't stupid.

6/14/2011 12:40:01 AM

The 7 dwarfs.

6/14/2011 10:31:04 AM

"privileged from birth" lol. Love that excuse.

6/14/2011 10:42:15 AM

Jon Huntsman to announce campaign next week.

Positives: intelligent, likeable, very popular as governor, socially moderate, fiscally conservative.

Negatives: Mormon, worked for Obama, supported the individual mandate back in 2007.

Neutral (likely to hurt him in the primaries but help in a general election): Believes in global warming, supports same-sex civil unions.

Moderates in the GOP who are lukewarm on Romney are gonna flock to this guy if he can generate some buzz. And aside from Romney, he's about the only electable candidate in the group.

I wouldn't be surprised if Romney and Huntsman split the moderate GOP vote, allowing some idiot like Bachmann to snag a few southern primaries. But ultimately the GOP won't commit suicide by nominating someone that far out on the Right. when it's all said and done, one of the Mormons will be the nominee.

6/14/2011 12:02:35 PM

Why are there all of these Mormons running? I enjoyed the days where you had to either be or pretend to be a christian to run for president.

6/14/2011 12:17:50 PM

Quote :

"fiscally conservative"

Quote :

"supported the individual mandate back in 2007"

Sorry, what? Supported the individual mandate before Obama suggested it? Sounds like your typical partisan GOP scumbag. I don't see this guy gaining much traction at all, certainly not as much as you're predicting.

6/14/2011 12:34:02 PM

The individual mandate was a Republican idea from the 90's. Romney and Newt have both acknowledged it's necessity in lieu of a single-payer system.

It's only idiots like you and Michelle Bachmann who cling to this notion that a civilized society can function with millions of uninsured people, an illness away from bankruptcy.

6/14/2011 1:07:08 PM

I don't feel like digging up the dozens of threads where I speak about this in detail, but there are major issues with the way health care is paid for in this country that need to be addressed. The individual mandate quite clearly serves as a band-aid, as Obama pointed out during the campaign:

Quote :

"If things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t. But this is a philosophical disagreement that we have and it’s one that we’re going to continue to talk about."

Costs are exploding due to third-party payers driving up costs. We need to get back to a system where health care costs are negotiated between patients and doctors, not doctors and insurance companies.

6/14/2011 1:17:07 PM

Fair enough. We can both agree that healthcare costs are out of control. Cost controls alone won't solve the problem of 50 million uninsured, however.

Huntsman is a very viable candidate. The question is whether the Right will embrace his centrist positions.

[Edited on June 14, 2011 at 1:38 PM. Reason : 2]

6/14/2011 1:36:52 PM

Quote :

"We need to get back to a system where health care costs are negotiated between patients and doctors, not doctors and insurance companies."

We won't be able to go back to that system unless we also go back to when malpractice lawsuits didn't exist.

6/14/2011 2:16:10 PM

I feel like if the solution for healthcare was that simple (just let patients negotiate with doctors), we would see such a plan elsewhere.

6/14/2011 2:32:53 PM

Medicare for all. 3% overhead and takes the burden off businesses.

6/14/2011 2:46:41 PM

Quote :

"Cost controls alone won't solve the problem of 50 million uninsured, however."

It many ways it will, though it's an absolute certainty that forcing those 50 million to buy insurance won't solve the problem either.

Quote :

"We won't be able to go back to that system unless we also go back to when malpractice lawsuits didn't exist."

Malpractice insurance may be one factor contributing to higher costs, but it's not the driving factor that results in higher (5-10%) costs every year.

Quote :

"I feel like if the solution for healthcare was that simple (just let patients negotiate with doctors), we would see such a plan elsewhere."

The solution is not "just let patients negotiate with doctors." That's a desired outcome, but the solution is quite a bit more complex than that. The tax code needs to be changed to encourage private, individual insurance, rather than employer-provided group plans. This would cause consumers to become more cost-conscious; rather than opting for plans that covered everything (like is often available through group plans), they would buy a plan that was more fitted to their needs. This "one size fits all" third-party payer model has to go; the doctors/hospitals charge whatever they can get away with, because they know the insurance company is able to pay.

This isn't popular for a couple of reasons. For one, it would be hard to get passed. The politicians are afraid to make major changes to the tax code. It would also be wildly unpopular with the insurance companies, and they have quite a bit of sway in Washington.

[Edited on June 14, 2011 at 2:54 PM. Reason : ]

6/14/2011 2:53:07 PM

Quote :

"That's a desired outcome, but the solution is quite a bit more complex than that. The tax code needs to be changed to encourage private, individual insurance, rather than employer-provided group plans."

When talking about implementing nationwide healthcare plans, that is simple.

Quote :

"This isn't popular for a couple of reasons. For one, it would be hard to get passed. The politicians are afraid to make major changes to the tax code. It would also be wildly unpopular with the insurance companies, and they have quite a bit of sway in Washington."

That explains why it might not happen here, but what I was asking was why we do not see that system ANYWHERE. Many countries have done thorough analysis at possible healthcare systems and been willing to make very sweeping changes to implement them, yet none have opted for that simpler model, most have gone with socialization, social insurance, or national insurance models.

6/14/2011 3:07:01 PM

negotiate with a doctor?

Doc: Sorry buddy, you've got AIDS

Patient: AIDS? I can't afford that!

Doc: Okay, then you have herpes.

[Edited on June 14, 2011 at 3:11 PM. Reason : ]

6/14/2011 3:11:03 PM

Quote :

"When talking about implementing nationwide healthcare plans, that is simple."

I'm not talking about implementing a nationwide health care plan. I don't believe in central planning, especially not for a country as large as the United States.

Quote :

"That explains why it might not happen here, but what I was asking was why we do not see that system ANYWHERE. Many countries have done thorough analysis at possible healthcare systems and been willing to make very sweeping changes to implement them, yet none have opted for that simpler model, most have gone with socialization, social insurance, or national insurance models."

It probably has to do with the inclination of governments to do something rather than nothing. The fact is, no matter how great of a system you rig up, not everyone will get top notch care. There's no way around it. Health care technology is always improving, and there will always be new, lifesaving drugs or procedures. At first, these options will only be available for the very well off. It seems unfair, but that's reality, and we would all be better off to accept that. No amount of laws or regulations will change it.

People, by nature, are unwilling to cope with the prospect of death. They see it as unjust that some people will be able to survive certain illnesses, but they will not have access to the same options. That makes health care a likely target of government intervention.

Sorry, but that's life, and I fully realize that there may come a time when I'm simply unable to afford certain procedures. I would rather have the free market working to improve quality and cost for all people than have some government program in place that stifles creativity and drives up costs, which is precisely what we have now.

6/14/2011 3:52:26 PM

Kris, if you let people nego with a doctor directly (no third party) then that third party misses out on money/power. Plus there would be plenty of sob stories that would encourage the social engineers to step in.

Quote :

"3% overhead "

lol, love that one. There is a good reason serious politicans dont use that BS.


Cutting spending is really political suicide, but has to be done. If you look at polls the majority of americans want the govt to cut spending. However, when asked what to cut the closest you get to a majority is foreign aid and it is under 50%. Medicare is under 30% and that is the biggest threat. So basically people want to cut spending, but EVERYTHING is off the table, esp the main debt drivers. We are simply fucked.

As for the problems with health care most of the problems today are problems bc of the govt stepping in and fing with the market. Yet these problems just cause more people to call for MORE govt.. Kinda comical.

d357 I agree with your comments on govt and ins. Look at some of the mandates they require insurance companies to cover in some states(hair transplants for example). These mandates drive up the cost of insurance whether you want to pay for that shit or not. Thats ok, bc you can always shop for a plan in another state that doesnt force it's insurance companies to pay for massage therapy.....oh wait, the govt prevents you from doing that too. Yeah, that makes sense.

6/14/2011 4:03:10 PM

Quote :

"I'm not talking about implementing a nationwide health care plan."

That is what you are talking about, by implementing the direct patent-doctor transaction and individual insurance, you are implementing a health care system.

Quote :

"It probably has to do with the inclination of governments to do something rather than nothing."

Really, so all those governments did all that research and still opted to do something other than the simplest and cheapest to implement, and you would argue the best, system? That's completely unrealistic. Please at least acknowledge reality.

Quote :

"Kris, if you let people nego with a doctor directly (no third party) then that third party misses out on money/power."

That doesn't mean the third party isn't useful.

6/14/2011 5:47:37 PM

Quote :

"That is what you are talking about, by implementing the direct patent-doctor transaction and individual insurance, you are implementing a health care system."

No, there's no implementation necessary, just repeal of legislation. Patients would go directly to doctors for treatment if there were not policies in place that overemphasized the importance of insurance companies.

Quote :

"Really, so all those governments did all that research and still opted to do something other than the simplest and cheapest to implement, and you would argue the best, system? That's completely unrealistic. Please at least acknowledge reality."

The simplest and cheapest route for the people is for the government to not act. Of course, the people don't always understand what the long-term consequences of policies are, and the people running the government are more interested in appeasing the voters in the short-term.

6/14/2011 6:00:56 PM

Kris govts like power/money. Insurance companies like profit.

It really isnt that difficult.

Name a problem with health care and it will most likely lead back to some govt policy or mandate.

To keep costs down you either have to limit services or engage the consumer directly with their consumption cost. Not allowing price to rise to meet demand (real price, as to what the doctor charges and the patient pays) will only continue to drive up costs of INSURANCE as demand rises.

What happens to demand of ipads if the govt forces Apple to sell it for 100 bucks or give it to peopel who cant afford it. Think it goes up?

6/14/2011 6:08:10 PM

Quote :

"Patients would go directly to doctors for treatment if there were not policies in place that overemphasized the importance of insurance companies."

And what are these policies that could be repealed?

Quote :

"The simplest and cheapest route for the people is for the government to not act. Of course, the people don't always understand what the long-term consequences of policies are, and the people running the government are more interested in appeasing the voters in the short-term."

So you still haven't explained why so many different countries went looking for the best healthcare system and came up with something different than you. I mean I guess you are saying that the people don't want it because they are stupid, but it seems strange that so many different countries would come up with the similar answers.

Quote :

"Kris govts like power/money"

If they like it that much, there's a great deal more of it that they can take, why haven't they?

Quote :

"Name a problem with health care and it will most likely lead back to some govt policy or mandate."

You can manage to twist even the most tenuously connected things back to the government, I'm aware of that, I've seen you do it several times. What I am asking is why have so many countries gone out to look for the best healthcare system, yet according to you, have not only failed, but were WAY off?

6/14/2011 6:29:18 PM

Quote :

"If they like it that much, there's a great deal more of it that they can take, why haven't they? "

I think they are well on their way. Obamacare will ruin private insurance. Yes it will take awhile but think of it as the boiling a frog theory.

Im not convinced other countries/govts are looking for the best healthcare system. It is more important politically to "give" people a benefit or appear that you are providing them a service that they otherwise might not get. I think it is clear that the more central controlled the health care system is you tend to either get rapid price increase or limited services and lack of new tech.

As for me twisting any connection back to govt....do you feel that over the last 50yrs government has gotten more involved with healthcare? How about education? Funny how the two most subsidized sectors have the highest cost growth. Yeah, probably just another tenuous connection. haha

As for healthcare let me know if you think any of these things have changed the landscape of health care/insurance.

1.Hospitals have to see anyone regardless of their chief complaint/ability to pay

2.Govt(FDR) sets price/wage controls during WW2, however they allow companies to offer health benefits and not be taxed. So in order to lure new employees, since they couldnt offer more money, companies offered health insurance. Thus our employer based system is born....out of GOVT policy/intervention.

3.In response to the "growing number of poor using the ER for routine care" we passed medicaid. Which INCREASED the numbers going to the ER for care.. imagine that. Medicaid is now the largest expense most states have, moving past education and still growing. Some states, like tenn, have tried to limit the amount of visits or payout per year to help control the rising costs. However, the fed and obamacare wont allow such steps. naturally

4.Govt basically grants a monopoly to some hospitals. In order to open a new surgery center or hospital a "certificate of need" has to be obtained. And who is in control of the CON? Well that would usually be the existing hospital. haha, no shit.

5.Federal govt doesnt allow one to shop policies between states. State govt can then mandate that their insurers cover whatever procedure they say. Thus driving up cost and limiting competition or the ablity for consumers to shop. So you would be FORCED to pay for hair transplants and massage therapy(true story) if you live in such state.

6.Would you like me to get into licensing and Medical school grants? eh, that is probably good for now.

Here is the liberal wonder blogger even talking about how employer based health ins started.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/05/health_reform_for_beginners_th.html

6/14/2011 11:13:25 PM

Quote :

"Yes it will take awhile but think of it as the boiling a frog theory."

People have been saying that this is happening for centuries, the water is the same temperature.

Quote :

"Im not convinced other countries/govts are looking for the best healthcare system."

You never will be, but what about Taiwan? They have shown a great affinity towards privatizing government-owned enterprises, do you think they just want to grab up all the money and power when they are seemingly reducing it?

Quote :

"Funny how the two most subsidized sectors have the highest cost growth."

They aren't the most subsidized sectors. I'd say retirement planning and the military are by far the two largest.

I don't see how the last bit of your rambling has any relevance to anything. You seem to ignore my questions and go into little irrelevant rants.

6/14/2011 11:29:23 PM

Quote :

"the water is the same temperature. "

How can you possibly say that? So you are saying that govt is the same size as it was 40 years ago and controls/provides the same percentage of health care? Hell even 10 yrs ago.

I dont know much about Taiwan, but a lot of Eastern countries are certainly moving towards free markets bc it is in their best interest(increases in production and standard of living). Was is Wynn that claimed China is more free market these days than the US.

Retirement planning? I assume you are talking SS. Which isnt close to health care costs. Medicare/medicaid are the biggest cost drivers for fed and states esp with their growth curves.

Military, yes there is a PRIME example of cost efficency and limited growth curve. lol, good example.


yes, my points were totally irrelevant as to govt getting into and upsetting the health care industry and the problems they caused. got it. You have a good night sir.

6/14/2011 11:51:42 PM

Quote :

"How can you possibly say that?"

I'm just pointing out we're not that much different from the rest of the world in water temperature.

Quote :

"I dont know much about Taiwan"

You should spend more time studying how other countries have implemented health care, and less time fellating and parroting Schiff.

Quote :

"I assume you are talking SS. Which isnt close to health care costs."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but the government would have WAY more money if it stopped making SS payouts than if it stopped any sort of healthcare spending it does.

Quote :

"yes, my points were totally irrelevant as to govt getting into and upsetting the health care industry and the problems they caused. got it."

They're irrelevant to anything I've said in this thread.

6/15/2011 12:02:44 AM

Quote :

"but the government would have WAY more money if it stopped making SS payouts than if it stopped any sort of healthcare spending it does. "

WAY more huh. You just fucking with me now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
2010 Pres budget
SS 695B
Medicare 453B
Medicaid 290B
(oh you will also notice the percentage next to the numbers in the link. That is growth. Like I keep saying medicare/medicaid are the primary debt drivers and the biggest threat esp with their growth curves)

(and this doesnt count all the money that went to states to cover their medicaid costs from the stimulus. Or what taxpayers pay at the state level for medicaid either)

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/#usgs302a

here is the actual govt spending. we will use 2009

Federal exp

Pensions 730B (of course that just isnt SS, but it is in there)
Health Care 764B

From their own website 2009 spending
Medicare 502B
Medicaid 374B
https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/25_NHE_Fact_Sheet.asp

6/15/2011 12:32:19 AM

I'm still failing to see how this is relevant.

6/15/2011 12:45:08 AM

Yeah

6/15/2011 8:21:46 AM

Taiwan health-care sounds kinda neat

Quote :

"Every enrollee has a Health IC smart card. This credit-card-size card only contains 32 kilobytes of memory that includes provider and patient profiles to identify and reduce insurance fraud, overcharges, duplication of services and tests.[13] The physician puts the card into a reader and the patient’s medical history and prescriptions come up on a computer screen. The insurer is billed the medical bill and it is automatically paid. Taiwan’s single-payer insurer monitors standards, usage and quality of treatment for diagnosis by requiring the providers to submit a full report every 24 hours. This improves quality of treatment and limits physicians from over prescribing medications as well as keeps patients from abusing the system."

Quote :

"Taiwan has the lowest administration cost in the world of 2 percent.[8] Before NHI, Taiwan spent 4.7 to 4.8 percent on health care. A year after NHI, it increased spending to 5.39 percent. Prior to NHI, the average annual rate of increase every year was around 13 percent. Now, the annual rate of increase is around 5 percent.[5] Taiwan spends a little over 6 percent in GDP and less than US $900 per person.[14]"

6/15/2011 9:15:37 AM