McDanger has problems with...

8/20/2009 7:06:05 PM

gah, that was some pretty severe owning there. Lol. y = a*x doesn't have a correlation factor of 1? Really, McDanger? Really? Come on, dude.

8/20/2009 8:35:42 PM

Quote :

"Insurance companies make MASSIVE profits"

1) Insurance companies who operate as for-profit entities have paltry margins compared to other industries
http://seekingalpha.com/article/155858-health-insurance-industry-s-profit-margins-rank-86

2)

Quote :

"Nonprofit health plans are estimated to serve over 40 percent or more of all private health insurance enrollees."

http://www.nonprofithealthcare.org/resources/The%20Value%20of%20Nonprofit%20Health%20Care.pdf

If profits are as detrimental as many of you portray them to be, why have existing, nonprofit health plans not been demonstrably more successful than their greedy counterparts?

3) The growth in premiums is almost entirely due to the growth in health-care expenditures. Profits have played no role in that growth.

4) Nothing will go further in reducing the role of insurance companies than expanding the use of health-savings accounts, which bypass insurance companies entirely. This would be the surest path to depriving insurance companies of profits, if that is your primary motive.

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 8:48 PM. Reason : ,]

8/20/2009 8:47:45 PM

^ Explain how Credit Union that are "not for profit" continue to thrive and succeed; plus *gasp* have higher customer satisfaction amoung consumer bankers than the Bank of America's of the US.

8/20/2009 8:57:27 PM

I did not say nonprofits cannot succeed. What I am saying is that they are not inherently better than their for-profit counterparts and thus removing the profits from the health-insurance industry is not a solution.

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 9:31 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2009 9:27:23 PM

Quote :

""Insurance companies make MASSIVE profits""

which can only mean they are EVIL. Because the only way one can make MASSIVE profits is to somehow rob another or do something immoral. (other than apple.. bc we all love ipods and they are trendy with libs)

8/20/2009 9:30:54 PM

Quote :

"which can only mean they are EVIL. Because the only way one can make MASSIVE profits is to somehow rob another or do something immoral. (other than apple.. bc we all love ipods and they are trendy with libs)"

You understand how insurance works, right?

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 9:47 AM. Reason : .]

8/21/2009 9:46:16 AM

Quote :

"(other than apple.. bc we all love ipods and they are trendy with libs)"

I loled.

8/21/2009 9:56:50 AM

Haven't you all figured out that McDanger is a protoplasm bag of fiction?

8/21/2009 11:39:30 AM

^^I did too

8/21/2009 11:41:57 AM

I think it's fair to say that if you needed iPods to live*, people would become concerned about Apple's profit margins.

* Whether this is currently the case is debatable.

8/21/2009 11:43:10 AM

If you needed health insurance to live, this country would have never been formed in the first place.

8/21/2009 11:45:04 AM

spookyjon, what do you think is a good level of profit to earn when you are providing products/services that people need to live?

8/21/2009 11:45:55 AM

People need food to live, but it's a commodity--and it's often a more immediate need than health care. Should it not be a commodity? Should we simply provide food for everyone?

8/21/2009 11:48:56 AM

Quote :

"If you needed health insurance to live, this country would have never been formed in the first place."

or, it would have been settled where the average lifespan was about 40 years and you could count on losing half of your children

8/21/2009 11:51:06 AM

Quote :

"Should we simply provide food for everyone? "

No b.c this does not solve the issue of why people are hungry to begin with...

This is why i role my eyes at all the "Feed the Poor in 3rd world africa."
Treating victims of acute circumstances (natural disaster, war, genocide, drought) is a worthy cause.
Treating victims of chronic circumstances (over-crowding, rampant fertility rates, suppressed economy) is just delaying the invetible. Without treating the underlying condition, corrupt leadership, economic conditions, family planning, and education; feed one hungry girl leads to having to feed 8 hungry children in 20 years.

What Republican Clowns do not realize is that the gov't already has its hand in healthcare. The issue is that the system is broken and needs repair. While the "Public Option" is absurd; their are other alternatives to provide healthcare for those are willing to "help themselves" that do lead to a bunch of free-loaders or health care costs continuing to become increasingly difficult to purchase for your avg working clas family.

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 11:57 AM. Reason : a]

8/21/2009 11:53:58 AM

^ Blah, blah, blah--meaningless, as usual. My analogy is perfectly valid.

In any event, one can't say that government should provide health care without saying that it should provide for more immediate needs such as food, shelter, clothing, and so on. Some will and do try--but it's just bullshit.

And there's this:



[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 12:20 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2009 12:16:13 PM

He did a pretty good job of explaining why food and healthcare are different, actually.


(and btw-- we already do provide food. WIC is a great program)

8/21/2009 12:48:14 PM

Per the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) study "Are Health Care Reform Cost Estimates Reliable?"

Quote :

"Whatever the causes, it seems there is a kind of Murphy’s Law of health care legislation: “If it can cost more than the highest available official estimate, it probably will.”"

Quote :

"Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion.vi The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.” Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. viii Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.ix ESRD program. In 1972, Congress enacted a universal entitlement to kidney dialysis for patients suffering from end stage renal disease. The program proved twice as expensive as the publicly predicted levels—$229 million in 1974 instead of the predicted $100 million. The bill’s authors had seriously underestimated the demand for services, especially among the over-65 population. Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments—which states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients—would cost less than $1 billion in 1992xi. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion. Among other things, federal lawmakers had failed to detect loopholes in the legislation that enabled states to draw significantly more money from the federal treasury than they would otherwise have been entitled to claim under the program’s traditional 50-50 funding scheme. Medicare home care benefit. When Congress debated changes to Medicare’s home care benefit in 1988, the projected 1993 cost of the benefit was $4 billion. The actual 1993 cost was more than twice that amount, $10 billion. Medicare catastrophic coverage benefit. In 1988, Congress added a catastrophic coverage benefit to Medicare, to take effect in 1990. In July 1989, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doubled its cost estimate for the program, for the four-year period 1990-1993, from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion. CBO explained that it had received newer data showing it had significantly under-estimated prescription drug cost growth, and it warned Congress that even this revised estimate might be too low. This was a principal reason Congress repealed the program before it could take effect. SCHIP. In 1997, Congress established the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as a capped grant program to states, and appropriated $40 billion to be doled out to states over 10 years at a rate of roughly $5 billion per year, once implemented. In each year, some states exceeded their allotments, requiring shifts of funds from other states that had not done so. By 2006, unspent reserves from prior years were nearly exhausted. To avert mass disenrollments, Congress decided to appropriate an additional $283 million in FY 2006 and an additional $650 million in FY 2007. Massachusetts Commonwealth Care. In 2006, the Bay State passed a historic universal-coverage plan, which combined a mandate on all residents to have health coverage with generous subsidies for lower-income uninsured families. At that time, the program was predicted to cost roughly $472 million in fiscal year 2008. It cost $628 million that year. In the words of one Democratic state senator, who came to regret his vote for the plan: "The assumption was that, as more people—and, in particular, more young and relatively healthy people—joined the system, premiums would go down across the board. There was also the assumption that as more people became insured, the number of people going to the emergency room would drop dramatically, saving the Commonwealth money. Neither of those things happened—at least not enough to produce the cost savings we were told we would see. In fact, health care reform""

http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/_files/Are_Health_Care_Reform_Cost_Estimates_Reliable__July_31_2009.pdf

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 12:50 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2009 12:48:26 PM

Boone,

Actually the U.S. government does not provide food--it provides income supplements for the express purpose of buying food. That is NOT the same thing or anything close.

If Obama was proposing a health insurance voucher or tax credit (like uh McCain did), then I would have no problem with his plan. Instead, he may or may not want to get the government into the health insurance providing business. To return to the food analogy, that's like the Uncle Sam becoming Farmer Sam and growing crops for distribution to the poor.

8/21/2009 12:56:18 PM

FFS... talk about semantics on your first point. Your distinction had nothing to do with the validity of what we were discussing (we do provide people with food. The system by which we supply said food is completely irrelevant).

You just wanted to argue with me, didn't you.



But regardless-- are you saying the Federal Gov't doesn't come within two ticks of this each time they pass a farm bill? Or when they passed the AAA?

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 1:08 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 1:03:15 PM

Quote :

"What you're describing is a single payer solution to food, which is not at all similar to Obama's healthcare plan."

Uh, no. What he's describing is in fact the opposite of a single-payer solution to food.

A single-payer solution to food would be government-run grocery stores, funded by taxes, where everyone goes and just gets food. I think we all know how that one would turn out.

WIC is essentially a voucher, where aid recipients use the voucher to go buy their food on the private market. Which is analogous to the more market-oriented proposals to helping those who cannot get health insurance on their own obtain it.

8/21/2009 1:09:03 PM

WIC is not a voucher program.

Vouchers imply choice; WIC participants are told exactly what to buy, down to whether they may have Cheddar or American, or Ranch or Italian.

8/21/2009 1:12:17 PM

Quote :

"FFS... talk about semantics on your first point. Your distinction had nothing to do with the validity of what we were discussing (we do provide people with food. The system by which we supply said food is completely irrelevant). "

Actually the system for supplying food is very relevant. If we don't think the government would do a good in the food making business, why would anyone think it would do a good job in the health insurance business?

That was the analogy hooksaw and others was trying to get at. Saying that WIC works fine is a totally irrelevant response to this question. Like I said, if we were talking about income subsidies, I don't think libertarians and conservatives would have as big of a beef (at least not for ideological reasons, for political reasons the Republican Party would still piss and moan).

8/21/2009 1:15:01 PM

Quote :

"That was the analogy hooksaw and others was trying to get at. Saying that WIC works fine is a totally irrelevant response to this question."

Exactly. And Boone knows it--he's just trying to obfuscate. WIC is in no way "universal," either.

8/21/2009 1:17:47 PM

Quote :

"If we don't think the government would do a good in the food making business, why would anyone think it would do a good job in the health insurance business?"

That's terrible logic.

Gov't is bad at A
Therefore gov't is bad at B


Regardless-- who here is saying the gov't would do a bad job at producing food? Ever since the AAA, our poor have been chronically overfed.

What HUR was saying is that there's no compelling reason for gov't to get directly involved in food production.

8/21/2009 1:23:15 PM

Quote :

"WIC is not a voucher program. Vouchers imply choice; WIC participants are told exactly what to buy, down to whether they may have Cheddar or American, or Ranch or Italian."

They're not told what brand or what store. They get a check or an EBT which is valid for the specified products. Again, not unlike a voucher, which even the WIC website calls it:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/FAQs/FAQ.HTM

8/21/2009 1:24:43 PM

Quote :

"The issue is that the system is broken and needs repair."

-HUR

I am still not clear anymore on how the system is broken. I mean, yah millions of people don't have health insurance. But a closer look at those numbers reveal that the vast majority of them that are U.S. citizens either a) can afford it and don't want it or b) are only temporarily without insurance because on job transitioning.

Only a small portion of this number chronically do not have health insurance. It is very sad and I would very much like to help these people. But I don't see why would could not do that with modest expansions in Medicaid and/or income subsidies to help them afford insurance.

I don't see how a system-wide overhaul is required.

8/21/2009 1:26:52 PM

Quote :

"That's terrible logic. Gov't is bad at A Therefore gov't is bad at B"

-Boone

I did not say that. I asked you to explain why government would do a good job administering a health insurance plan if we would not expect it to do a good job with food (i did not realize you **actually** thought the government could grow crops as well as private farmers). I was asking you to explain what makes health insurance different.

Do you think you would be able to answer that question?

8/21/2009 1:29:20 PM

^^^BS. They're incredibly picky when it comes to brands. As a cashier in high school, I had to wait on pregnant ladies all the time because they picked up Sargento Cheddar instead of Kraft American, or what-have-you.

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 1:31 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 1:30:56 PM

^^^^ Boone doesn't know what he's talking about. He's talking out of his ass just like HUR always does.

Here's an example:

Quote :

"What HUR was saying is that there's no compelling reason for gov't to get directly involved in food production."

1. Everyone needs food every day--not everyone needs medical care every day or even every week or even every month or even every year.

2. If the fact that one will starve in a few days without food is not a "compelling reason," I don't know what the hell is.

3. What is the "compelling reason" for government to be involved in health care in the way that Obama is proposing?

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 1:40 PM. Reason : PS: Hunt made an excellent point about cost overruns in his post.]

8/21/2009 1:32:37 PM

Quote :

"I did not say that. I asked you to explain why government would do a good job administering a health insurance plan if we would not expect it to do a good job with food (i did not realize you **actually** thought the government could grow crops as well as private farmers). I was asking you to explain what makes health insurance different. Do you think you would be able to answer that question?"

"I did not say 'A therefore B,' I asked you how B doesn't necessarily follow A" Seriously.


The food metaphors are confusing the issue. You're insisting that we only compare things to the gov't literally growing and producing food. This is not analogous to any current health care reforms being suggested. Insurance isn't the product-- it's a means for paying for the product.

If we must continue riding this, then it's:

food = doctors
food stamps = health insurance


^ HUR already answered your questions:

Quote :

"Treating victims of chronic circumstances (over-crowding, rampant fertility rates, suppressed economy) is just delaying the invetible. Without treating the underlying condition, corrupt leadership, economic conditions, family planning, and education; feed one hungry girl leads to having to feed 8 hungry children in 20 years."

You may have missed that while you were skimming for opportunities to inject childish insults into grown-up talk.



[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 1:44 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 1:38:34 PM

that ony works if the value of food stamps is determined by the grocery stores.

8/21/2009 1:41:57 PM

Food stamps are worth X amount of money.

A 20 EBT card is worth less at Harris Teeter as it is at Walmart.

8/21/2009 1:44:10 PM

^^^ You are definitely confused--you have that part right. Government providing universal health care to meet a need and government universally providing food or clothing or shelter to meet even more immediate and necessary needs is perfectly analogous--no matter how much you whine and piss and moan.

Your problem is that you simply can't justify the government providing any of these things (food, clothing, shelter, and so on) anymore than you can it providing universal health care. The only thing "justifying" government-operated health care is your own normative statements and ideology.


[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 1:47 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2009 1:45:36 PM

Quote :

", I had to wait on pregnant ladies all the time because they picked up Sargento Cheddar instead of Kraft American, or what-have-you."

Sargento is "premium" cheese compared to other brands.

If you are a lazy sack of shit working 20 hours a week at family dollar and getting your supplemental income via EBC to feed
your 4 fuck trophies than you should be getting the Food Lion Brand of cheese not the Sargento.

Quote :

"1. Everyone needs food every day--not everyone needs medical care every day or even every week or even every month or even every year."

I actually believe unless you are having a heart attack, have an artery gushing blood out of your arm, or have symptoms
of the ebola virus then hospitals should have the ability to turn out the door your uninsured billy bob's with the jammed finger
or Juanita whose nino has the flu.

While i do troll for fun against you; usually you do not even bother to comprehend (perhaps lack of reasoning skills?) the meaningful posts i do
make. Hell, sometimes when i agree with you or make a point in line with your beliefs; yet you will still argue/refute/ad hom attack my statement.

This leaves me to believe that you are nothing but a pathetic cock-sucking troll. Should you not be prepping for the upcoming
school semester or does NCSU pay you to browse TWW all day.

HUR I agree with President Bush's action with this issue.
hooksaw blah blah blah you are just talking out of your ass and the issue is fucking bullshit.

Quote :

"3. What is the "compelling reason" for government to be involved in health care in the way that Obama is proposing?"

Believe it or not dickwad but some politicians do have humanitarian reasons, even if misguided, for going along with this bill. Not every person is purely guided by selfish greedy, money and power seeking motives like with Bush's cabinet.

Quote :

"You may have missed that while you were skimming for opportunities to inject childish insults into grown-up talk."

LOL, good going.

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 1:49 PM. Reason : l]

8/21/2009 1:46:24 PM

Quote :

"Your problem is that you simply can't justify the government providing any of these things (food, clothing, shelter, and so on) anymore than you can it providing universal health care. The only thing "justifying" government-operated health care is your own normative statements and ideology."

The free market, charities, and smallish gov't programs do a great job at providing food, clothing, and shelter. No further gov't involvement is needed.

The free market, charities, and smallish gov't programs have failed at providing health care. Thus, more gov't involvement is needed.

If we had tens of millions of Americans starving to death, I'd want more gov't involvement in food production, too.



Did I just blow you mind?

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 1:49 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 1:49:11 PM

Quote :

"^ You are definitely confused--you have that part right. Government providing universal health care to meet a need and government universally providing food or clothing or shelter to meet even more immediate and necessary needs is perfectly analogous--no matter how much you whine and piss and moan. Your problem is that you simply can't justify the government providing any of these things (food, clothing, shelter, and so on) anymore than you can it providing universal health care. The only thing 'justifying' government-operated health care is your own normative statements and ideology."

You stupid fucking mongoloid. You and Boone can't answer and you know it.

8/21/2009 1:49:29 PM

I just answered above.

Care to explain how if tens of millions of Americans were starving, you wouldn't want the government to get involved?

8/21/2009 1:51:47 PM

food is a fixed cost, healthcare is not. Thats the point i was trying to make.

8/21/2009 1:56:46 PM

^^

Quote :

"1. Everyone needs food every day--not everyone needs medical care every day or even every week or even every month or even every year. 2. If the fact that one will starve in a few days without food is not a 'compelling reason,' I don't know what the hell is. 3. What is the 'compelling reason' for government to be involved in health care in the way that Obama is proposing?"

And if "tens of millions" were starving, it would be a national emergency. Emergency aid is quite different from government providing food, clothing, shelter, health care, and so on a daily basis during normal conditions.

You really are the worst type of douche bag sophist. Saul Alinsky would be proud, comrade.

8/21/2009 1:59:56 PM

Quote :

"not everyone needs medical care every day or even every week or even every month or even every year."

But everyone does need it, eventually.


And what a coincidence, hooksaw mentions Saul Alinsky the day after Rush Limbaugh mentions him on his show:

Quote :

"RUSH: I know. Competition destroys kids. We shouldn't even keep score in intramural basketball, baseball, softball, football games because one side is going to lose and it will humiliate them. You've identified a good point. One of Saul Alinsky's rules is that when you're arguing and trying to put something over on people, you speak within the area of their understanding and expertise and what they're familiar with."

That's incredibly odd.


[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 2:08 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 2:06:51 PM

^ 1. So you finally admit that food is a more immediate need? Good--you now have a firm grasp of the obvious.

2. Dude, I hate to be the one to inform you but Alinskyites and their agitprop have been around since at least the 1960s--do you get out much? I listen to Limbaugh occasionally, but I didn't yesterday--and I would absolutely tell you if I did. I really have no reason to lie about this.

3. And I think you're "incredibly odd." Seriously.

8/21/2009 2:20:59 PM

Quote :

"BS. They're incredibly picky when it comes to brands. As a cashier in high school, I had to wait on pregnant ladies all the time because they picked up Sargento Cheddar instead of Kraft American, or what-have-you."

So did I - and in the state I worked in, it wasn't picky at all - the entire thing was done by EBT.

8/21/2009 2:25:54 PM

^^It's just such a fantastic coincidence-- I've never heard you mention him. Ever.

Then you bring him up immediately following El Rushbo's mention of him.

Quote :

"I really have no reason to lie "

Other than to avoid allowing someone of the other side of the aisle to get a small jab in on you, which you are literally incapable of doing.


^ EBT and WIC are two different things. WIC is when they literally have a gov't-printed shopping list that they present to the cashier.

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 2:29 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 2:28:26 PM

^ It is not a "fantastic coincidence" at all. You are just not very perceptive or intelligent.

Quote :

"More Saul Alinsky-inspired far-left bullshit. 10/29/2008 11:04:36 AM"

hooksaw

message_topic.aspx?topic=546260&page=1

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 2:41 PM. Reason : Seriously.]

8/21/2009 2:41:29 PM

Quote :

"The free market, charities, and smallish gov't programs have failed at providing health care. Thus, more gov't involvement is needed."

It's funny, though. Every time the gov't has tried to get involved, things have gotten massively worse. I wonder why the "free market" has failed in this respect... Oh, right, it's no longer a real example of a "free market."

8/21/2009 2:46:58 PM

^^ A single post made about 10 months ago, and Boone is "not very perceptive or intelligent" for having missed it.

lol

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 2:48 PM. Reason : turd licker]

8/21/2009 2:47:09 PM

^ This. . .

Quote :

"I've never heard you mention him. Ever."

. . .was the point, stooge. That's what we call getting owned in these parts.

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM. Reason : Stop trolling.]

8/21/2009 2:48:30 PM

Do you have proof he read your post?

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 2:49:31 PM