you don't read well, do you?

A 1974 quarter. THink about what time I am referring to. dumbass.

The best part about your post? Not all of the 90cent gas can be attributed to inflation, yet you pointed to 1979. Well after the policies which began the massive inflation of the US dollar. You point to an almost quadrupling of the price of gas in less than 6 years as a refutation of inflation? good work, man.

8/7/2009 8:00:39 PM

what?


90 cents in 1979 is $2.64 in 2009

about what gas is now

so wtf are you talking about

8/7/2009 8:07:51 PM

^
Are you seriously that dumb?

8/7/2009 8:11:08 PM

thank you for proving my point, buddy.

but, here, let me help you out. I'll quote myself:

Quote :

"A 1974 quarter. THink about what time I am referring to. dumbass."

Quote :

"You point to an almost quadrupling of the price of gas in less than 6 years as a refutation of inflation?"

Do some math: 1979-1974 < 6 years.

8/7/2009 8:12:09 PM

Quote :

"but, seriously. Gas in the 70s cost 25cents a gallon. If you took a 1974 quarter and melted it down and sold that metal, guess how much gas you could get? At least a gallon. How, then, do you think the government is "protecting your money." They've made it worthless, and you somehow think this is protection? How bout I jizz in your mouth and tell you that I am "protecting your teeth?""

so the government isn't protecting our money because gas is priced similarly today as it was in 1979 when adjusted for inflation?

oh right you're retarded and this gas analogy is silly as shit.

8/7/2009 8:15:49 PM

are you seriously standing by a QUADRUPLING OF PRICE over a 6 year period? really? You consider that "protection?"

Or, are you standing by a >1000% DEVALUATION OF THE DOLLAR over 35 years? Really? Are you that fucking stupid?

but, yes, "i are retarded analogy is stupid "

8/7/2009 8:17:52 PM

:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

8/7/2009 8:20:28 PM

Quote :

"we certainly don't need roads, education, police, firefighters, or the military"

Aside from the last, all of those services are provided by the states. Given that, if there's going to be any public option, why does the federal government have to do it?

8/7/2009 8:44:42 PM

Rock Scott:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com%2Flivewire%2F2009%2F08%2Fcnn-anchor-rips-into-health-care-ceo-whos-funding-anti-reform-effort.php&feature=player_embedded" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwjcxyuUf5A&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhttp://www.talkingpointsmemo.com%2Flivewire%2F2009%2F08%2Fcnn-anchor-rips-into-health-care-ceo-whos-funding-anti-reform-effort.php&feature=player_embedded

...whose hospital was fined $1.7 billion for overcharging medicare, is now spending 20 millions dollars to oppose health reform. He's hiring CRC Public Relations to do the job. CRC is the company that did the swift boat ads.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/10/AR2009051002243.html?hpid=topnews

8/7/2009 9:08:09 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/07/white-house-collect-fishy-info-health-reform-illegal-critics-say/

Quote :

"The White House said it wanted to be made aware of "fishy" comments about its health care plan because it wants to set the record straight. But critics called White House move an Orwellian tactic designed to control the health care debate. "This is a very troubling attempt to stifle the free speech of Americans who have the constitutional right to express their opinion and concerns about health care," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. He called on Obama to repudiate his blog. "This move is an attempt to intimidate those who have legitimate concerns about the health care plan," Sekulow said. "And, worse, it turns the White House into some sort of self-appointed 'speech police.' This new White House reporting program strikes at the heart of the First Amendment and has no place in this important debate about health care.""

Quote :

"The ACLU said in a statement to FOXNews.com that the White House blog is a "bad idea that could send a troublesome message." But the organization added, "While it is unclear at this point what the government is doing with the information it is collecting, critics of the administration's health care proposal should not fear that their names will end up in some government database that could be used to chill their right to free speech." The White House Thursday denied that it was playing "Big Brother.""

8/7/2009 9:56:05 PM

How is this intimidation? What consequences will the opposition face, other than being corrected?

"Oh no! The White House will rebut my argument! Help! I'm being oppressed!"

8/7/2009 9:58:19 PM

Quote :

"The White House strategy of turning supporters into snitches when they see "fishy" information about the health care debate may run afoul of the law, legal experts say. "The White House is in bit of a conundrum because of this privacy statute that prohibits the White House from collecting data and storing it on people who disagree with it," Judge Andrew Napolitano, a FOX News analyst, said Friday. "There's also a statute that requires the White House to retain all communications that it receives. It can't try to rewrite history by pretending it didn't receive anything," he said. "If the White House deletes anything, it violates one statute. If the White House collects data on the free speech, it violates another statute.""

8/7/2009 10:01:42 PM

Again,

Quote :

"How is this intimidation?"

If it's against an administrative rule, then whatever-- end it. But your original quote made it out to be OMG TYRANNY!1

8/7/2009 10:06:51 PM

anothher link showing free speech being inhibited further

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204886304574310552006266132.html

Quote :

"Yet there has been virtually no debate over the bill’s onerous and unprecedented penalties against employers who may fall afoul of vague National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rules as workers try to unionize. These penalties will stifle employer free speech. Would an employer be willing to inform employees about the potential downsides of unionization in the face of fines, treble damages, injunctions and costly litigation levied by EFCA? Today, according to the National Labor Relations Act—as amended in 1947—employers are permitted to express themselves to their employees with “views, argument, or opinion . . . if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.” Of course, this leaves unclear just what constitutes lawful opinion versus unlawful threats or promises. And over the years, the shifting composition of the NLRB—and of the courts—has caused disagreements over what permissible free speech is."

8/7/2009 10:16:20 PM

Quote :

" if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit"

This is the 1947 law. The only thing the new bill proposes is a $20,000 penalty for violating the law, instead of "'make-whole' and 'cease and desist' sanctions."

This is supposed to be supression of free speech? Are we at the bottom of the barrel, yet?



[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 10:35 PM. Reason : ]

8/7/2009 10:32:18 PM

is that the going rate for free speech in america, $20,000?

what part of "Free" are you not understanding

[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 10:35 PM. Reason : ]

8/7/2009 10:34:52 PM

It's the going rate for violating a federal law, passed 60 years ago, against threatening your employees regarding unionization.

Did you even read the article you posted, or did you just search for "Obama free speech" in the WSJ's search bar and post the first result?



[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 10:38 PM. Reason : ]

8/7/2009 10:36:50 PM

Quote :

"against threatening your employees regarding unionization. "

Quote :

"Faced with these draconian penalties, employers—particularly smaller employers—will be forced to remain silent. EFCA’s penalty provisions deserve careful scrutiny in light of statutory and constitutional free speech protections. Their net effect will be to deny free speech to employers and to deprive employees of the advantages of meaningful debate before they make important choices affecting their livelihood."

8/7/2009 11:16:40 PM

I would much rather have a $20,000 price tag than a "make whole" clause. Jesus, that would be far more expensive.

8/7/2009 11:56:48 PM

mini-riots errupt at townhall meetings protests of the new healthcare plan....

seems less and less likely that anything will be passed now...

no wonder obama wanted it done fast, so the public wouldn't be able to get a good idea about what it really was before it was too late....

i think it's unfortunate that something will probably still get crammed through due to certain majorities.

8/8/2009 12:14:32 AM

the funny thing is, those people shouting down everyone at town hall meetings probably couldn't describe a single detail of any plan out there

8/8/2009 12:16:15 AM

probably, but get enough people yelling and support will falter

8/8/2009 12:17:27 AM

that seems to be the tactic

[Edited on August 8, 2009 at 12:28 AM. Reason : .]

8/8/2009 12:28:53 AM

Quote :

"no wonder obama wanted it done fast, so the public wouldn't be able to get a good idea about what it really was before it was too late...."

Seriously, the people yelling about it at town halls have no idea what they're talking about. Shit, even Sarah Palin's saying the bill would give the government the power to kill her elderly parents and her retard baby. And she's normally an expert on everything.

8/8/2009 12:36:20 AM

^^^no the funny thing is how many of the ppl that bitch get medicare or medicaid

8/8/2009 12:36:31 AM

Quote :

" Seriously, the people yelling about it at town halls have no idea what they're talking about"

yea because congress and obama has been so decisive and public about what the bill will entail...

we know its going to cost a shit load of money we dont have, and the only way to get it will be to tax the middle class and up, that is inevitable

and we know 83% of americans are happy with their current situation

universal health care has is used in all other countrys and they have all failed miserably at their attempts ... this is a major concern

[Edited on August 8, 2009 at 12:43 AM. Reason : ]

8/8/2009 12:42:35 AM

^^

Quote :

"A disingenuous question, and a logical fallacy at the same time. First, in order for one to collect their Social Security benefits (you know, the money promised them in exchange for the taxes they are forced to pay) they must also be enrolled in medicare. http://www.medicarelawsuit.org/about_the_lawsuit.html In addition the enrollment of these people in medicare in no way changes the validity (or lack thereof) of their arguments for or against government run healthcare anymore than an admonishment not to kill is made invalid if it comes from a murderer."

8/8/2009 9:51:22 AM

[Edited on August 8, 2009 at 10:24 AM. Reason : .]

8/8/2009 10:24:24 AM

Quote :

"universal health care has is used in all other countrys and they have all failed miserably at their attempts ... this is a major concern"

Shit is completely through the looking glass to me. I think he actually believes this.

8/8/2009 11:15:09 AM

Quote :

"What's fascinating to me is not just the blind fury of the people - it is much more than anger, it is close to explosive - but the bizarre points they are making. One man insists that when the new proposals come into force, his son with cerebral palsy will be denied all care. He is close to murderously adamant about this. But under what interpretation of any of the bills would that be true? Another woman asks heatedly, "Exactly where's the money coming from? Is it coming out of my paycheck? I wanna know if it's coming out of my paycheck--yes or no!" Well, if she has health insurance from her employer, yes it already is coming out of her pay-check in larger and larger amounts. Is she aware of this? Are the Dems planning to tax her to pay for insuring the uninsured? Unless she's very wealthy, no. And these pretty basic misunderstandings are then converted into a simple slogan: "Liberty or Tyranny!" Mark Levin has indeed had an impact. Look: if these people were yelling: "End the employer tax break!" or "More Cost-Controls!" or "Malpractice Reform!" I'd be more sympathetic. But this is blind panic and rage. "

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/the-rage-of-the-right.html

8/8/2009 11:21:27 AM

Fauxtesters called out by Rachel Maddow


(not taking any strong sides on the health care debate here, but its nice to see who is funding the buses to bring out of staters to yell down the debates)

8/8/2009 1:22:02 PM

People don't understand how low their standards actually are -- when people think a drone at an insurance company making decisions for you is somehow better than a bureaucrat making decisions for you, that's how you know we are really fucked.

Hooray for the growing medical tourism. Real US healthcare prices are so out of whack with the rest of the world, arbitrage of health is now feasible. That's pretty damning of our current situation.

8/8/2009 1:33:07 PM

Quote :

"the funny thing is, those people shouting down everyone at town hall meetings probably couldn't describe a single detail of any plan out there"

No one can describe the plan, because Obama has not clearly outlined one, yet he is calling for bill passage immediately.

8/8/2009 1:49:06 PM

^ umm... OBama doesn't write the plan, congress does, and it's ~1000 pages.

8/8/2009 1:54:28 PM

Quote :

"How is this intimidation? What consequences will the opposition face, other than being corrected? "Oh no! The White House will rebut my argument! Help! I'm being oppressed!" "

What aspect of conservative opposition recently makes you think they are remotely trying to be rational about anything?

6 months in and they are ready to revolt, and we have at least another 3.5 years, and probably another 7.5 years to go. If they don't get a grip on reality, they are going to become the problems they fear.

8/8/2009 2:03:10 PM

Quote :

"People don't understand how low their standards actually are -- when people think a drone at an insurance company making decisions for you is somehow better than a bureaucrat making decisions for you, that's how you know we are really fucked."

Provided there were no government-induced lack of competition, one could easily switch to a different insurance company at the first sign the provider was more strict than their peers - just as in every other competitive market today (e.g. Geico, too, has an incentive to deny claims; however, they have an even stronger incentive to err on the side of being too generous in order to maintain their reputation and thus their future cash streams. Else, a sufficient number of existing customers will switch providers and Geico's profitability suffers more than it would with reduced claim payouts)

Quote :

"Hooray for the growing medical tourism. Real US healthcare prices are so out of whack with the rest of the world, arbitrage of health is now feasible. That's pretty damning of our current situation."

How do the current bills in congress address the rising costs of medical care?

[Edited on August 8, 2009 at 2:13 PM. Reason : /]

8/8/2009 2:11:52 PM

^ except the majority of people get their coverage through their employer, and many (most maybe...) wouldn't get reimbursed for ditching the employer care for a private one, if they didn't like their employer's company.

The government plan doesn't really fix this, but your scenario of people just switching insurance companies doesn't work out how you think it would.

The government could mandate that the employer has to pay in equally to whatever company you choose, but then this is just more government interference that you allege to hate so much.

8/8/2009 2:20:21 PM

Exactly:

Quote :

"Provided there were no government-induced lack of competition"

8/8/2009 2:22:05 PM

^ huh? Employers covering healthcare (the current situation) is not a government-induced lack of competition.

8/8/2009 2:45:40 PM

The idea of tying your care to your employer is absurd. Take the money that employer is using to subsidize your care and put it into an HSA. Get accident insurance through the same people that do your car/home/etc.. insurance. If something really bad happens, they cover it. If you get a cold and want to go see a doc you pay cash out of your HSA. For young people who almost never need to go to the doc, our HSAs will continue to grow like our 401k's. You can keep the money in an FDIC insured account with a guaranteed rate of return. When you get older that money is there for you to use. For the poor who might not get much or any funds into their HSA at work or who are unemployed, the fed can drop money in there for them. In addition you make donations to charities that pay for people's medical care 100% tax deductable.

The idea being you control costs by requiring people to pay for services as they use them. You save for retirement, you save to buy a car or a home, why wouldn't you save for future healthcare expenses? For the poor and the jobless the government provides funds similar to wellfare or food stamps. Making charities that will pay for care tax deductable will lower the burden on the federal government and tax payers.

Most of the time its cheaper to get care if you're paying cash than if you have insurance because the doctor doesn't have to deal with the insurance beuracracy. This plan would mean everyone pays cash so everyone has lower prices. Plus, since it is cash, your choice of doctor is no longer limited by your insurance provider, your company, or the government.

Health costs aren't fixed and time and time again the government has proven it cant handle unfixed costs. Hell it can barely handle fixed costs. Medicare/medicaid and social security make up a huge portion of our budget and they're only going to increase as the baby boomers retire. Folks like you and me already know for a fact that the money we put in to social security wont be there when we retire so we've made other plans (401/ira/etc..). Why do people think medicare/medicaid or whatever government plan comes up is going to be any different? Insurance opperates on the idea that X number of people contribute Y dollars to the plan but that only A number of people will ever extract any money. If the ammount extracted is less than X*Y-costs then its sustainable, otherwise you need to increase Y or decrease the ammount you pay out. In other countries they handle this by limiting the ammount of care people can get through rationing. In such a system the poor end up with mediocre care while the rich can pay to bypass the lines.

The goal of the system should be to require MOST people to put in the same or close to what they take out of the system. For poor people the goal should be to give them the ability to purcahse high quality care. The fed can barely withstand the stress of medicare/medicaid/social security so why add another such plan onto the system?

The government can get involved in healthcare. They can create a guaranteed means for people to save for future health costs and regulate a cross-state insurance system for emergency care. If you really wanted to a government based perscription drug purchase system might be viable. If you need drugs you pay the government plan (Cost of drug + overhead)*(a percentage value based on income). For average people we'd all pay essentially cost for our drugs and the government would negotiate cheap prices for us. We pay directly for the costs of the drugs and the system overhead which means the system can stay sustainable. For the poor, they can get a portion of the cost paid for by our taxes or they can get it through charities. If the costs are known and fixed and people pay for what they use, the system is vaible.

The last thing I want to say is that while healthcare is important, better education and lower energy prices are both more important.

The cost of energy is a major factor in while many poor people cant afford healthcare. Theres that other thread where the county fucked up their water system and so this lady had high heating costs + high water costs and couldn't afford both. She probably cant afford healthcare either. I know for a fact in Maine many people cant afford their heating bills in the winter. We subsidize them with tax money, but this is a poort state and some people still cant afford it. Im sure they have problems with healtchare as well. If you can lower the price of energy then you can take a burden off these people. Plus lower engergy costs decrease costs throughout the entire system. Lower energy costs have an exponential effect on peoples purchasing power.

Better education means better jobs and better pay which means more people can afford healthcare. This starts with better schools in poor areas plus new ways of teaching to get poor kids to take advantage of it. We also need to have ways to re-educate adults who have fallen on bad times or who didn't have access to quality education when they were young.

The goal should be to create ways for poor people to improve their own quality of life. If you simply give them a handout they'll be happy until you cant afford to give them those handouts anymore. Give them cheaper energy, cheaper healthcare, and better educations. They dont want to be poor. Most of them will take the opportunity to better themselves at which point they'll contribute more than they take out.

8/8/2009 3:08:50 PM

Is it not a little funny how those who were so dismissive of hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters are now convinced that a couple hundred loonies showing up to town halls are now going to make an impact on policy.

The fence-sitting Democrats are now towards the Republican side of the fence. Keep up the crazy, Republicans.

8/8/2009 3:43:51 PM

Quote :

"Employers covering healthcare (the current situation) is not a government-induced lack of competition"

From pg 10:

Quote :

"The tax code favors benefits over cash compensation and therefore decreases the mobility of health insurance (e.g. when one becomes unemployed, they lose their health insurance). It also decreases choice given consumers are stuck with whatever plan their employer picked out for them. Additionally, it decreases innovation as insurers are providing one-sized-fits-all plans and catering them to HR departments rather than offering a wider range of tailored products to meet individual needs. Lastly, the tax benefit favors more luxurious plans with low deductibles (by the way, the wealthy get the most benefit from these subsidies). If you think this is a good thing, see the following from former NEC director, Keith Kennessey http://keithhennessey.com/2009/05/14/third-party-payment-in-health-care-part-2/."

When insurance is tied to employment, it makes it very costly to switch providers (one must either switch employers or take a hit in compensation by forgoing the employer's coverage and buying insurance on the underdeveloped individual market). With such high switching costs for beneficiaries, insurance companies are less sensitive to the threat of its beneficiaries switching to a competitor.

Additionally, letting employers chose their employees health insurance decreases competition given employers are more apt to purchase plans from larger, incumbent insurance companies, preventing start-ups with niche offerings from surviving.

8/8/2009 3:59:01 PM

Quote :

"Is it not a little funny how those who were so dismissive of hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters are now convinced that a couple hundred loonies showing up to town halls are now going to make an impact on policy. "

god youre a moron ... theres a few hundred "loonies" in thousands of districts across the country

i.e. 600 in raleigh yesterday

8/8/2009 9:31:09 PM

Quote :

"thousands of districts"

Really? Thousands of districts?

There are only 435 districts in the entire country. 535 if you want to include the Senate. And only 60% or so of them are voting for healthcare reform.


[Edited on August 8, 2009 at 10:43 PM. Reason : Pro tip: don't call someone a moron just prior to saying something moronic.]

8/8/2009 10:25:46 PM

tip: dont say hundreds, when its tens of thousands

and the majority doesnt want this shit, so suck it up

and obama is at 50% approval

[Edited on August 8, 2009 at 10:58 PM. Reason : ]

8/8/2009 10:57:34 PM

Quote :

"hundred loonies showing up to town halls"

This is a correct statement. Sorry if English isn't always precise.


I'm curious, though-- did Congress add a couple thousand members just before the recess? Is Obama Congress-packing in the FDR tradition?

8/8/2009 11:00:58 PM

Quote :

"and the majority doesnt want this shit, so suck it up "

8/8/2009 11:02:35 PM

Quote :

"thousands of districts"

8/8/2009 11:05:13 PM

whatever, lets look at what actually applies to this discussion

Quote :

""and the majority doesnt want this shit, so suck it up ""

8/8/2009 11:06:32 PM

Democrats represent over 60% of those thousands of districts.

8/8/2009 11:06:55 PM