Quote :

"So what? What does that have to do with people who have actual compassionate ideas? "

LOL. I think he proved your point d35yrOy3r

5/22/2013 1:25:27 PM

Quote :

"Please explain to me why capitalism works in just about every other industry to bring goods and services to people of ALL income levels while increasing innovation and being pushed to keep prices down, but health care is different."

Uh yeah, that's not true at all, and health care is different. All sorts of goods/services that are essential for our way of life have been subsidized and regulated by the government in order to bring them to people of all income levels.

5/22/2013 1:32:09 PM

Quote :

"So what? What does that have to do with people who have actual compassionate ideas? There are people here that believe crazy ideas like the best system of government is no government. "

When you say that doctors and health care providers should be forced to deliver a certain level of service, you are making the claim that those providers are, in whole or part, owned by you or someone else.

If all of the people that made this claim themselves became health care providers and offered their services free of charge (or at least fronted the necessary funds), there'd be no need for any "health care reforms". But, because people want laws that say professionals, who take years to train and hundreds of thousands of dollars to educate, should be forced to provide their services free of charge, we have the system of today.

[Edited on May 22, 2013 at 1:36 PM. Reason : ]

5/22/2013 1:35:24 PM

capitalism in those other markets has regulations too

5/22/2013 3:37:28 PM

Quote :

"But, because people want laws that say professionals, who take years to train and hundreds of thousands of dollars to educate, should be forced to provide their services free of charge, we have the system of today."

No one has ever said that. I believe what they generally say is that society as a whole has a responsibility to pay those professionals a market price for taking care of people who can't afford basic medical care.

No one has ever said what you are implying, which is that we want to force health care professionals in to some sort of slavery.

[Edited on May 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM. Reason : ]

5/22/2013 3:38:34 PM

Quote :

"Please explain to me why capitalism works in just about every other industry to bring goods and services to people of ALL income levels"

how about you explain this to me, seeing as you just made it up.

also, basically all physicians have to buy their way out of slavery; only it's not slavery to the people, it's to the rich, and we call it "student loans". by the way, the government, funded by taxes, subsidizes even those.

[Edited on May 22, 2013 at 3:45 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2013 3:41:31 PM

most of the medical services you receive are not by someone who paid hundreds of thousands of dollars on their education

5/22/2013 3:51:02 PM

Quote :

"No one has ever said that. I believe what they generally say is that society as a whole has a responsibility to pay those professionals a market price for taking care of people who can't afford basic medical care. No one has ever said what you are implying, which is that we want to force health care professionals in to some sort of slavery."

The quote I posted indicates that if someone shows up at your medical facility, you should be required by law to treat them, regardless of their ability or intent to pay. If there was a law requiring a grocer or restaurant owner to provide a free meal to anyone that comes through the door, we'd all recognize how ludicrous that is. Yes, there are (and should be) facilities that provide basic services to those that can't afford them, just as there are soup kitchens, but if you want top notch services, you have to pay.

We all intuitively understand that market competition generally leads to a greater variety and availability of any class of good or service. Whether this is called "capitalism" or not doesn't matter. The point is that the industries least burdened by poorly crafted regulation, where the market is allowed to work, are the ones where we see the greatest flourishing of innovation and cost reduction.

5/22/2013 3:55:17 PM

so someone suffering from a heart attack or stroke is able to make the same informed decision about their healthcare purchases as they can about their food purchases?

5/22/2013 4:02:57 PM

^^ just be aware that you're essentially arguing for imperialism.

there's a reason we exert so much military force to keep this shit afloat. there is almost literally not a single free market in the world, and if there were America would crumble immediately.

[Edited on May 22, 2013 at 4:16 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2013 4:05:15 PM

Quote :

"We all intuitively understand that market competition generally leads to a greater variety and availability of any class of good or service. Whether this is called "capitalism" or not doesn't matter. The point is that the industries least burdened by poorly crafted regulation, where the market is allowed to work, are the ones where we see the greatest flourishing of innovation and cost reduction."

well said. One doesn't need to look any further than most government services which provide poor service and are terribly inefficient. The market either pushes those things out of business or forces them to change. Govt faces no such pressure.

5/22/2013 5:53:54 PM

^ no, you need to look MUCH further than the one system that you've ever lived in. only a complete idiot would argue otherwise.

5/22/2013 6:15:34 PM

I'm not arguing for imperialism, so if you could expand on your point about the U.S. crumbling if any free (or freer) markets existed. Yes, the United States has tipped the economic scales in its favor through use of military power.

Milton Friedman, while I don't agree with him on everything, makes a strong point that portions of free markets exist today in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQLBitV69Cc

See the ~3:20 mark.

5/22/2013 6:38:25 PM

Quote :

"If someone comes to the ER, the hospital has to provide them with at certain level of care. If they can't pay, the hospital passes that cost to paying customer through rate increases. If they have insurance, even if they use the ER, those costs are not passed onto paying customers in the form of higher rates. They don't need to move to a primary care physician to see those savings, the hospital just needs someone to pay them."

The hospital is forced to provide them a certain level of care not because it's a normal function of a hospital, but rather because of, say it with me, government laws and regulations. See a theme here? And sure, the sticker price at the ER will possibly go down, but insurance premiums will most certainly go up when you have a large number of people who consume a large amount of expensive services needlessly (as opposed to going to a primary care provider), expecting someone else to foot the bill. You think it's great that the hospital is now "getting paid", but you've completely ignored who is actually paying them and how those funds are raised for payment. How is this at all a victory? it's like you just don't understand basic economics at this point, man...

Quote :

"If you don't think the hospital should have to provide them some level of care, then you're a psychopath and there is no point discussing healthcare with you"

Fantastic poisoning of the well there, man. Instead of actually defending your belief that professionals should be forced to provide a service to people who have absolutely no intention of paying for said service, you just say that anyone who disagrees with you is an evil sociopath. I know you can do better than that.

Quote :

"so someone suffering from a heart attack or stroke is able to make the same informed decision about their healthcare purchases as they can about their food purchases?"

Considering that this is hardly the common case for which hospitals are forced to admit and treat people, I fail to see the relevance. Moreover, if you've lived in a community for a while, you should already know to which hospitals you want to go in just such an emergency. Most other hospital admissions can actually be planned, so your "OMFG HOSPITALS ONLY HANDLE EMERGENCIES!!!!!!" idea is absolute bupkis.

^^ yet another poisoning of the well.

5/22/2013 9:28:02 PM

Your response to the first quote makes it clear that you didn't even read the quote

5/22/2013 9:40:54 PM

Your response to the first quote makes it clear that you didn't even read the quote

5/22/2013 9:48:36 PM

Fuquay-Varina Boy Was Assassinated Under Obama's Orders...His Execution Covered Up by the Administration for Four Years



http://www.wral.com/ag-4-americans-killed-since-2009-in-drone-strikes/12475084/

[Edited on May 22, 2013 at 9:54 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2013 9:53:22 PM

He should have known better than to be an adult male in a country where brown people are.

5/22/2013 9:56:45 PM

5/22/2013 9:57:46 PM

Hey, remember when Rand Paul had that filibuster about this happening on US soil and a lot of people scoffed at his very legitimate concern? Looks like maybe he wasn't so wrong to be concerned. We're already killing American citizens in foreign countries, how long until our government starts offing "suspected terrorists" here?

Obama has been a horrendous president, he's actually worse on civil rights than Bush, which is fucking hard to believe, but true.

5/23/2013 2:09:20 AM

Obama is terrible, but he's still not worse than Bush. Bush got us into a war based entirely on information that they knew was wrong, it was an illegal war.

5/23/2013 6:46:05 AM

^^ already happening; the fbi interrogated and then shot one of the Boston guy's friends yesterday.

^ on civil rights Obama is worse.

to the person that linked friedman: i actually watched that shit, though i don't know why i bothered. he said the same shit he always does, "capitalism rules, look at how great my life is." (by the way, his shining example being the height of the British empire is explicitly arguing for imperialism). so sure, capitalism is awesome if what you want are companies that have private navies and armies extracting resources from foreign countries to make things cheap at home. even then, though, these operated under the crown. so thank you for pointing out that you have barely thought about this by saying "how am i arguing for imperialism? here's a video where the British empire is seen as a success."

[Edited on May 23, 2013 at 8:01 AM. Reason : .]

5/23/2013 7:38:04 AM

Quote :

"but he's still not worse than Bush"

why does this ever need to be stated? it's totally irrelevant.

[Edited on May 23, 2013 at 7:55 AM. Reason : ...]

5/23/2013 7:54:36 AM

How is Obama worse? Bush did the same things, and on at least one issue Obama has a better record.

[Edited on May 23, 2013 at 7:57 AM. Reason : ^because it was claimed in the post i was responding to]

5/23/2013 7:56:55 AM

Quote :

"Instead of actually defending your belief that professionals should be forced to provide a service to people who have absolutely no intention of paying for said service, you just say that anyone who disagrees with you is an evil sociopath."

No one is saying that! I almost absolutely certain that anyone who believes that people who can't afford treatment should still get treatment believes that society should foot the bill. But oh no, that's socialism!

That's the choice: the free market system where poor people die (unless you believe the pie-in-the-sky bullshit in this thread that the market will provide despite thousands of years of historical data suggesting otherwise) or socialism where we support poor people by stealing from society at gunpoint. Poor people dying or not poor people paying more taxes. The morally preferable choice seems obvious to me.

[Edited on May 23, 2013 at 8:43 AM. Reason : I could be a sociopath..how would one know?]

5/23/2013 8:42:20 AM

Natural Responsibilities

5/23/2013 8:44:19 AM

bttt

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

5/23/2013 2:08:56 PM

This seems significant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/us-acknowledges-killing-4-americans-in-drone-strikes.html?hp&_r=1&

Quote :

"President Obama plans to open a new phase in the nation’s long struggle with terrorism on Thursday by restricting the use of unmanned drone strikes that have been at the heart of his national security strategy and shifting control of them away from the C.I.A. to the military. In his first major speech on counterterrorism of his second term, Mr. Obama hopes to refocus the epic conflict that has defined American priorities since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and even foresees an unspecified day when the so-called war on terror might all but end, according to people briefed on White House plans. As part of the shift in approach, the administration on Wednesday formally acknowledged for the first time that it had killed four American citizens in drone strikes outside the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, arguing that its actions were justified by the danger to the United States. Mr. Obama approved providing new information to Congress and the public about the rules governing his attacks on Al Qaeda and its allies. A new classified policy guidance signed by Mr. Obama will sharply curtail the instances when unmanned aircraft can be used to attack in places that are not overt war zones, countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. The rules will impose the same standard for strikes on foreign enemies now used only for American citizens deemed to be terrorists. Lethal force will be used only against targets who pose “a continuing, imminent threat to Americans” and cannot feasibly be captured, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a letter to Congress, suggesting that threats to a partner like Afghanistan or Yemen alone would not be enough to justify being targeted. The standard could signal an end to “signature strikes,” or attacks on groups of unknown men based only on their presumed status as members of Al Qaeda or some other enemy group — an approach that administration critics say has resulted in many civilian casualties. In effect, this appears to be a step away from the less restricted use of force allowed in war zones and toward the more limited use of force for self-defense allowed outside of armed conflict"

Makes sense and probably the most reasonable thing to do at this stage of the war in Afghanistan. Since we're getting close to pulling all our troops out, there is no longer any reason to target militants in Pakistan who only pose a threat to Americans nearby. The next step is to create some definitive legal guidelines governing drone use and have it approved by Congress.

[Edited on May 23, 2013 at 2:50 PM. Reason : :]

5/23/2013 2:49:12 PM

and then actually abide by it, unlike warrantless wiretapping.

5/23/2013 4:07:12 PM

Quote :

"No one is saying that!"

Actually, that's precisely what baldy said. Go back and read it again; he said that if you disagree with his position, the only possible reason for the disagreement is that you are a sociopath. He used the word "sociopath."

Quote :

"That's the choice: the free market system where poor people die (unless you believe the pie-in-the-sky bullshit in this thread that the market will provide despite thousands of years of historical data suggesting otherwise) or socialism where we support poor people by stealing from society at gunpoint. Poor people dying or not poor people paying more taxes. The morally preferable choice seems obvious to me."

Fantastic false dilemma, man.

5/23/2013 10:30:28 PM

I like that some of you are pretending to care about people.

It's cute.

5/23/2013 11:18:54 PM

I'm about to blow your mind here: most everyone here believes that his policy preferences end up benefiting everyone and have the maximum effect in that regard. You're welcome.

5/23/2013 11:27:37 PM

Oh man you just totally blew my mind maaaaaaaan.

5/23/2013 11:47:07 PM

Oh look, all the fear mongering about Obamacare premium shock was completely wrong. Who would have guessed?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/24/wonkbook-some-very-good-news-for-obamacare/

Quote :

"In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that a medium-level “silver” plan — which covers 70 percent of a beneficiary’s expected health costs — on the California health exchange would cost $5,200 annually. More recently, a report from the consulting firm Milliman predicted it would carry a $450 monthly premium. Yesterday, we got the real numbers. And they’re lower than anyone thought. As always, Sarah Kliff has the details. The California exchange will have 13 insurance options, and the heavy competition appears to be driving down prices. The most affordable silver-level plan is charging $276-a-month. The second-most affordable plan is charging $294. And all this is before subsidies. Someone making twice the poverty line, say, will only pay $104-a-month. Sparer plans are even cheaper. A young person buying the cheapest “bronze”-level plan will pay $172 — and that, again, is before any subsidies."

Milliman was the source of that now hilariously erroneous graph d357r0y3r posted on the last page.

[Edited on May 24, 2013 at 11:47 AM. Reason : :]

5/24/2013 11:46:18 AM

right now. Remember your "the bailouts won't cost any money" thread? yeah, how's that working out, again?

5/24/2013 8:48:29 PM

Quote :

"The federal government Everyone else picks up the rest of the tab."

5/24/2013 11:18:47 PM

^^Uh, pretty damn well?

http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/reports/Documents/December%202012%20Monthly%20Report%20to%20Congress.pdf

Quote :

"In December, Treasury made substantial progress in its ongoing efforts to wind down its remaining TARP investments. Treasury received a total of $12.9 billion through repayments and other income. Looking back at the entire year, Treasury recovered $69.4 billion (plus an additional $15.6 billion for Treasury from the AIG non-TARP shares), which means that it has now recovered almost 93% of the $418 billion disbursed under TARP through the end of 2012. At the start of 2012, OFS had $121 billion in outstanding investments. At the end of 2012 it had $41 billion -- a reduction of 66% in less than a year."

5/25/2013 1:36:14 PM

Quote :

"right now. Remember your "the bailouts won't cost any money" thread? yeah, how's that working out, again?"

hahahahahahahahaha

5/25/2013 2:12:04 PM

It's an awkward moment when, as a zealous Obama supporter, you end up coming out in support of Bush-era crony capitalism.

Yeah, it's really amazing how those banks end up profiting off of free money. Oh, and the banks are even bigger than they were before. Who would have thought?

5/25/2013 7:19:34 PM

he still has to quote treasury numbers that ignore some of the biggest losses. it's so sad :-/

5/27/2013 5:54:30 PM

Quote :

"It's an awkward moment when, as a zealous Obama supporter, you end up coming out in support of Bush-era crony capitalism."

Just crony capitalism?

5/27/2013 7:51:24 PM

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/may/31/us-president-twitter-threat/#axzz2UtMgAFyK

presidents in general are such babies.

5/31/2013 1:25:14 PM

Quote :

"Authorities say the 22-year-old from Charlotte told them he was high on marijuana when he made the threats. He later wrote an apology to Obama."

Weed...not even once.

5/31/2013 2:04:22 PM

Really Obama??? this is fucking shameful

NSA collecting phone records of millions of Americans daily
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

6/5/2013 7:53:55 PM

Quote :

"This is part of free speech...listening."

6/5/2013 8:13:46 PM

This stuff has been going on ever since the Patriot Act got signed.

6/5/2013 8:40:28 PM

If this thread extends to Michelle then I would say she's a big baby when it comes to dealing with hecklers.

The heckler's account of the atmosphere following Michelle's comments is also somewhat disturbing. She didn't feel safe after Obama whipped them up against her.

"Hell naw she ain't leaving; I paid $500 to be here!"

6/5/2013 9:37:28 PM

Quote :

"The heckler's account of the atmosphere following Michelle's comments is also somewhat disturbing."

Wow, hold on, you're telling me that when a heckler rudely interrupted the person that everyone else came to see and her, that the people got mad at the heckler? Wow, that only happens everywhere.

Here's a tip, when you heckle, expect a rough atmosphere after. Expect everyone else there to be pissed off. They came to see the person they came to see, not the person in the audience who thinks they have something important to say. What the hell would you expect to happen?

[Edited on June 6, 2013 at 12:30 AM. Reason : ]

6/6/2013 12:28:05 AM

The majority of any audience will typically wait for the heckler to finish and observe the speakers reaction before they decide what to do. That doesnt mean the heckler didnt piss them off and they werent talking badly about her immediately; several people probably let some outburst fly.

What the heckler was saying was the crowd did rise against her (almost violently, she said) until Obama basically gave them the green light.

Her husband didnt do that in his recent heckler exchange, and going back further I can recall Kerry, Dean, Clinton, and Gore all at least giving hecklers a chance (or at least not provoking the crowd).

Thats exactly my point in a nutshell. Michelle Obama further provoked them. Also what happened to the liberal love for the gays?

6/6/2013 8:09:40 AM

It's probably not the most "politically correct" way to handle a heckler but
1) who blames her?
2) it's the First Lady, who cares???

6/6/2013 8:39:02 AM