seems like the gov would have more incentive to want old ppl to die. i can see how this might turn into a soylent green type situation.

8/21/2009 2:52:15 PM

^^ Ignorance of posts is no excuse if one is going to make blanket statements like:

Quote :

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

Oh, and stop trolling, fucknuts.



[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM. Reason : ^ Sweet Jesus. What a goddamned mongoloid. ]

8/21/2009 2:52:23 PM

You kinda won there for a second, until you decided to be a jackass and defend the silliest part of your statement.

The fact that I'd not caught that statement from 10 months ago doesn't have much of an impact on my intelligence or perception.


Hah. How is "I've never heard you mention him. Ever." a blanket statement?

I hadn't.

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 2:54 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 2:53:16 PM

Quote :

"^ 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."

Uh, no. EBT is part of the WIC program - it stands for "Electronic Benefits Transfer." It is a way of delivering WIC benefits without the paper vouchers they used to use. Many states have moved over to this model.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/EBT/wicebtstatus.htm

Meanwhile, here is a list directly from WIC which further supports my point: they specify packaging/size requirements, not brands:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/benefitsandservices/foodpkgregs.HTM

8/21/2009 2:53:23 PM

^^^ If he didn't read your post then how is

Quote :

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

an untrue statement?

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM. Reason : can't forget the personal insult: ]

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM. Reason : Jesus christ you're a douche]

8/21/2009 2:54:05 PM

^^ Things have changed since the late-90's, then. But sure-- I concede the point. What was the point, again?

^ It's false and blanketed. Fact.

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 2:57 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 2:56:29 PM

Let's bring this forward so everybody can see what a fool you are:

Quote :

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

Boone-Tard

Quote :

"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?"

hooksaw

Quote :

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

Boone-Tard

Quote :

"It is not a 'fantastic coincidence' at all. You are just not very perceptive or intelligent. '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 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2009 2:59:09 PM

Quote :

"What was the point, again?"

The point was that WIC acts like a voucher program for purchasing food directly from grocers.

Look, I'd believe that back in the day, the program was much more heavy-handed. But back when I was a cashier for awhile, it was pretty simple - the only issue was that they'd buy the wrong package size, it never got all uppity about the actual brand.

That being said, my argument is that this is a successful model of how the government can deliver benefits to poor people using the private market. That is, it doesn't require the government going in and being the direct provider; the model of providing a voucher to redeem for a pre-set criteria (food, or in this case, a health plan) also easily works, as it has with food.

8/21/2009 3:00:06 PM

Quote :

"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."

-Boone

Then let's drop the food metaphors.

Insurance is not a means for paying for a product or service (thats what we call money). Insurance is a means of hedging against risk. That is why insurance itself is a service--an insurance company takes on the risks you don't want to.

Do you think that the federal government could perform this service more effectively than private companies (as House Dems layed out in the public option)? If so, why?

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 3:31 PM. Reason : ``]

8/21/2009 3:26:37 PM

Quote :

"Do you think that the federal government could perform this service more effectively than private companies"

Do we define better in the quality sense or in the quantity-served sense?

No and yes.

Which is why the public option is so great.

8/21/2009 3:56:01 PM

so you are conceding that quality of service will decline and the quantity served improve?

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 3:59 PM. Reason : ?]

8/21/2009 3:58:50 PM

So I'm not going through 26 pages of name calling to ask a question so let me try and ask this in here before I start my own thread:

Let's pretend that we as a nation, decide that a public option is necessary so that every citizen that needs it, gets health care. Fine. Now here are a few scenarios:
1) Do you think that it is our duty as a nation to impose rules that prevent this system from becoming over-extended by restricting the amount of 'new' people brought into it by anyone? (i.e. restricting the amount of children you can have)?

2) Would you allow there to be an exception say, that those people who could afford it to bypass the rule assuming they provide the money for the additional childrens healthcare?


2) Now suppose there is a 20 y/o woman, who couldn't afford health insurance without the gov't program and assume she gets pregnant. Do you believe that it is our duty as a nation to punish her for breaking the rule?

8/21/2009 4:03:59 PM

^^ No, I just don't think it'd be any better.

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 4:07 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 4:07:28 PM

^^ Aren't you punishing the children (by witholding their healthcare) for something the parents did?

8/21/2009 4:10:35 PM

I'm not suggesting anything is right or wrong, I'm just asking if you think that someone has to take on the responsibility of preventing additional costs from overtaxing the country.

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 4:14 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 4:14:04 PM

Quote :

"Do we define better in the quality sense or in the quantity-served sense? No and yes. Which is why the public option is so great. "

-Boone

But is that really great? Lets think about it. If the public option was going to be a self-sustaining program, it would have to earn enough in revenue to exceed its costs each year. That means the money being paid on premiums on their policies must at least balance the money being paid out to claims.

So how are they going to attract people to buy policies from the public option? By charging less than private companies. That means they will be able to cover more people, but it also means they will offer lower quality health insurance because they are earning less revenue (that will likely mean limiting the number of doctors you can see, higher copays, who knows).

It sounds like we both agree up to this point. But you think this situation is great. I'm not sure why. I think its going to be very hard (I think) for this program to be sustainable because the people that are probably most interested in cheap, but crappy insurance is poor sick people. This is going to make it very hard for the public option to attract more premiums than claims. And even if the program is sustainable, it has only succeeded in spending a lot of money to give poor people low quality care.

Wouldn't it be much better and cheaper to simply give poor people a subsidy to buy health insurance from a private company? I'm not sure I see what the public option accomplishes that an income subsidy (part of McCain's proposal) would not.

8/21/2009 4:32:17 PM

Quote :

"If the public option was going to be a self-sustaining program it would have to earn enough in revenue to exceed its costs each year."

A. Who said it was going to be self-sustaining? The reform bill will be bundled with new taxes

B. Ignoring A, it will only need to come out $.01 ahead to be self-sustaining. How do you think shareholders of a private insurance company would react to news of a penny profit?

C. There's plenty of room for the gov't to lower premiums and still maintain a profit. I'll refer you to Nate Silver:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/george-f-will-admits-public-option-will.html

8/21/2009 4:49:20 PM

Quote :

" I'm just asking if you think that someone has to take on the responsibility of preventing additional costs from overtaxing the country. "

I should not be forced to subsidize someone else's irresponsible decisions. If they can not afford children then they need to be taking the necessary steps to not become pregnant; whatever that may be (abortion, abstience, condoms, the pill).

8/21/2009 4:57:46 PM

^ while I agree its not my problem that someone has 5 kids and cant care for them, we also cant punish the children for merely being born. There has to be some middle ground reached.

maybe we should just ban the Catholic church.

8/21/2009 5:10:02 PM

the middle ground would be forced, reversible sterilization for those on welfare.

and, the children shouldn't be punished? If a parent doesn't give a shit about his kid, then why should I? Why should we perpetuate the passing along of clearly defective genes. Maybe we should let evolution do its job. oh wait, evolution can only be used to knock on God, not liberal policies. eek!

8/21/2009 5:13:13 PM

how can one "knock" on something that doesnt exist?

also I disagree with everything you said and you sound like a crazy person. Maybe we should start feeding unwanted babies to the homeless.

8/21/2009 5:16:30 PM

give me a break. you know why I meant by "knock."

The irony here is that you are so "oh, boohoohoo" about something, and you don't realize that the policies you promote only serve to continue the problem. If people had to actually be responsible for their children, then we might not see as many children in the situations they are now. yet, we make it so that people can get more money for having more children that they can't afford.

8/21/2009 5:21:52 PM

Quote :

"and, the children shouldn't be punished? If a parent doesn't give a shit about his kid, then why should I? Why should we perpetuate the passing along of clearly defective genes. Maybe we should let evolution do its job. oh wait, evolution can only be used to knock on God, not liberal policies. eek!"

This is eugenics, not evolution.

8/21/2009 5:26:52 PM

no. Eugenics would be actively selecting which genes are removed. Nice try to smear me, though

8/21/2009 5:28:14 PM

yeah that's not evolution, though.

8/21/2009 5:31:18 PM

Quote :

"Why should we perpetuate the passing along of clearly defective genes."

aaronburro

Quote :

"the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics

8/21/2009 5:31:39 PM

many policies offered by the government do not help the problem and need to be fixed.

however the ideas you offered as a solution are ridiculous and boarder on psychotic

edit: it seems we have already covered how that isn't evolution and is completely crazy.




[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 5:34 PM. Reason : aaronburro obviously has no idea what evolution is]

8/21/2009 5:32:38 PM

Boone,

Um, the President said it would be self-sustaining. If I can't believe him to sell the plan honestly, who can I believe?

As far as your article goes, I think it really gets its facts wrong.

Quote :

"The profits the insurance industry is making, of course -- profits artificially boosted by an enormous backdoor tax subsidy -- don't seem to be buying the customer much of anything in terms of improved service or cost savings. On the contrary, health care costs are rising by as much as 9-10 percent per year, without any concomitant increase in the level of service"

I'm not sure what the argument is supposed to be there. 1) health care costs are not health insurance costs (there is really not much a health insurance company can do to bring down the costs of health care, just like flood insurance can do little to bring down the costs of floods) 2) and health care costs are going up primarly BECAUSE health care quality is improving dramatically (how many MRIs and CAT scans were conducted 30 years ago).

Quote :

"The reason the insurers are staying in business, though, is because barriers to entry in the health insurance industry are in practice quite high. Insurers benefit from pooling risk. The larger the pool, the better in terms of the insurer's ability to hedge its risk and build negotiating leverage with its providers. That makes it very difficult for a Five Guys or a JetBlue type of start-up to compete: they'll have trouble getting together enough customers to pool their risk adequately, and even if they do, they won't have as much negotiating leverage as the big guys. Health care providers may demand a better deal or refuse to accept them. As such, they'll never get off the ground."

Barriers to entry like preventing people from purchasing health insurance across state lines??? If you dropped those barriers, then you're talking about expanding the potential pool hundreds of times over, making it possible for firms to compete. Thats, uh, kinda why those small north eastern states that Paul Krugman loves to complain about have so few insurance companies.

If competition is truly the problem as this article contends, then there are much cheaper ways to solve it.

8/21/2009 5:35:33 PM

I agree with you and McCain on allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines. If only the GOP would act in good faith, they could get this added to the bill

I agree with you and McCain on allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines. If only the GOP would act in good faith, they could get this added to the bill

8/21/2009 5:39:56 PM

Tell me, Tanzanarian... What, exactly, isn't defective about a person with no sense of personal responsibility who can't even be influenced to take care of their children? There isn't a "presumption" there. It's fucking obvious. I'm not talking about going out and sterilizing people with cleft palates. I'm talking about letting those who won't lift a hand to help themselves die. That's a little different.

Quote :

"Um, the President said it would be self-sustaining."

Not really. he said the program needed to be revenue neutral. Taxes are part of the program.

Quote :

"If only the GOP would act in good faith, they could get this added to the bill"

Come on. Rahm Emmanuel himself said "We don't need Republicans." Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have no interest in listening to anything Republicans have port forth, and Republicans have put forth many ideas. It isn't the Republicans who need to act in "good faith." It's the fucking Democratic leadership that needs to do so.

8/21/2009 5:53:29 PM

Quote :

"If only the GOP would act in good faith, they could get this added to the bill"

This, to me, is the frustrating part of the debate. For one, and given the rather visceral reaction of the netroots to say, John Mackey (the Whole Foods CEO)'s alternative plan published in the WSJ, it doesn't feel like a large contingent on both sides are treating this as a good-faith debate. It has basically become a matter of "My way or the highway" on the Democrats' side, while with Congressional Republicans (and their affiliates), it's become a means to cripple Obama's domestic agenda. I feel like neither side in Washington is really making this an actual good faith debate.

8/21/2009 5:56:58 PM

Quote :

"There isn't a "presumption" there."

You're presuming it's genetic. (which it ain't)

Quote :

"It isn't the Republicans who need to act in "good faith.""

It really is. Between the GOP pundits' rhetoric, and the GOP politicians' rejection of cooperatives (a middle ground if there ever was one) they have zero intent on acting in good faith.

Quote :

"It has basically become a matter of "My way or the highway" on the Democrats' side"

Again-- cooperatives. It was the olive branch. The GOP's rejection of it was my "fuck ya'll" moment.

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 5:59 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 5:57:58 PM

Quote :

"You're presuming it's genetic. (which it ain't)"

That may be. But let's let nature run its course either way.

And co-ops? Really? Given that democrats have basically said they'll only accept co-ops if they do the same thing the public plan would have done, then what really is the olive branch here?

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 6:01 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 6:00:45 PM

Quote :

"Tell me, Tanzanarian... What, exactly, isn't defective about a person with no sense of personal responsibility who can't even be influenced to take care of their children? There isn't a "presumption" there. It's fucking obvious. I'm not talking about going out and sterilizing people with cleft palates. I'm talking about letting those who won't lift a hand to help themselves die. That's a little different."

weren't you guys just bitching up a storm about Obama wanting to kill old people?

TAKE ABOUT LAZY GOOD FOR NOTHING ASSHOLLLESSS.

also you still obviously don't understand what evolution is.

8/21/2009 6:01:14 PM

Quote :

"Again-- cooperatives. It was the olive branch. The GOP's rejection of it was my "fuck ya'll" moment."

I don't think co-ops are a bad idea (I don't think they'll do what is promised either, however) but I think the rest of the bill, particularly in provisions about community rating, etc. are fatally flawed. Swapping the public option for co-ops mitigates the damage imposed by a direct public plan, but it's still not a very good bill, and definitely one which does not solve the underlying cost drivers behind health insurance.

8/21/2009 6:03:16 PM

evolution is the passing along of genes that make one more likely to pass along one's genes. If a lioness can't feed her young, guess what happens? Her young die. If a lioness has genes that prevent her from procreating or feeding her young, guess what happens? Evolution. THe young die and don't pass along those genes. Wow, that sounds like evolution, doesn't it?

Like I said, liberals are more than happy to tout evolution when it can be used to attack religion. When it attacks their little pet projects, though, all of a sudden it's the evil Eugenics!

8/21/2009 6:03:27 PM

Quote :

"What, exactly, isn't defective about a person with no sense of personal responsibility who can't even be influenced to take care of their children? There isn't a "presumption" there. It's fucking obvious. I'm not talking about going out and sterilizing people with cleft palates. I'm talking about letting those who won't lift a hand to help themselves die. That's a little different."

As Boone said, it's not neccessarily genetic.

Eugenics isn't limited to sterilization.

Quote :

"If a parent doesn't give a shit about his kid, then why should I?"

You're talking about the child, not the parent (whose behavior you have a problem with).

And you're still not talking about evolution.

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 6:07 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 6:06:11 PM

Quote :

"evolution is the passing along of genes that make one more likely to pass along one's genes. If a lioness can't feed her young, guess what happens? Her young die. If a lioness has genes that prevent her from procreating or feeding her young, guess what happens? Evolution. THe young die and don't pass along those genes. Wow, that sounds like evolution, doesn't it?"

Uh, dude, hate to burst your bubble, but when you apply the line of thought of encouraging or discouraging humans to reproduce based upon certain desirable or undesirable traits, that is the textbook definition of eugenics:

Quote :

"Eugenics is "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I mean, you may want to read up on your history a little:

Quote :

"Prominent in the late 19th century and the Progressive Era, eugenics became a core tenet of some of the policies behind Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime."

Basically: you're advocating the same thing turn-of-the-century Progressives (i.e., early liberals) did.

8/21/2009 6:08:17 PM

Quote :

"Given that democrats have basically said they'll only accept co-ops if they do the same thing the public plan would have done, then what really is the olive branch here?"

The olive branch was the fact that they wouldn't actually be public.

Supposedly, that was the issue you all had with the public plan.

8/21/2009 6:08:42 PM

^^ false. Eugenics is an active plan. Evolution is passive.

^ however, the co-ops had to effectively be the same thing. So where was the difference?

8/21/2009 6:10:29 PM

Choosing to give something to one person and withold it from another isn't active?

8/21/2009 6:11:54 PM

que? What choice am I advocating here? Other than ending policies which only promote poverty continuance?

8/21/2009 6:15:25 PM

8/21/2009 6:20:39 PM

Quote :

"evolution is the passing along of genes that make one more likely to pass along one's genes. If a lioness can't feed her young, guess what happens? Her young die. If a lioness has genes that prevent her from procreating or feeding her young, guess what happens? Evolution. THe young die and don't pass along those genes. Wow, that sounds like evolution, doesn't it?""

no, actually. that sounds like natural selection.

Quote :

"In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can culminate in the emergence of new species.[1] Indeed, the similarities amongst species suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence.[2] The basis of evolution is the genes that are passed on from generation to generation; these produce an organism's inherited traits. These traits vary within populations, with organisms showing heritable differences (variation) in their traits. Evolution itself is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation, and processes that make variants either become more common or rare. New variation arises in two main ways: either from mutations in genes, or from the transfer of genes between populations and between species. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are also produced by genetic recombination, which can increase variation between organisms."

but the typical american is pretty ignorant when it comes to what evolution actually is, so you're not alone, burro.

8/21/2009 6:24:40 PM

Quote :

"Eugenics is an active plan. Evolution is passive."

Yes, that would be what is implied by the part where it was stated:

Quote :

"by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."

Was your stated goal not to discourage reproduction? Yes or no.

8/21/2009 6:27:36 PM

nope. yes, I should have said natural selection, but it is used by evolution. let's argue semantics and show pictures of Hitler, though.

8/21/2009 6:30:16 PM

Quote :

"the middle ground would be forced, reversible sterilization for those on welfare. and, the children shouldn't be punished? If a parent doesn't give a shit about his kid, then why should I? Why should we perpetuate the passing along of clearly defective genes. Maybe we should let evolution do its job. oh wait, evolution can only be used to knock on God, not liberal policies. eek! "

Having children is not a right when you require the labor and sweat of another person to procreate.

Right now we put positive pressure on the reproduction of stupid genes.

Quote :

"The irony here is that you are so "oh, boohoohoo" about something, and you don't realize that the policies you promote only serve to continue the problem. If people had to actually be responsible for their children, then we might not see as many children in the situations they are now."

the entire situation is a positive feedback loop.

Trailer park mom has 4 kids by 22 years old and lives on welfare. Kids growing up in lower class house hold without much parental guidance leads to a situation where the apple does not fall far from the tree. With heart felt liberal support the kids do not even have “poverty/starvation” as motivation for being responsible since [insert liberal politician here] supports policies to give these people money.

Quote :

" This is eugenics, not evolution."

how is this eugenics?? The gov’t is not exterminating the lowest common denominators of our society. In the wild if there is a population of birds and one hatchling’s mother is lazy or a poor hunter, guess what? The chances of that baby bird surviving decrease since they are not being adequately fed. There is no bird welfare where a neighbor bird flies in to provide for the hatchling with what the mother can not provide.

Quote :

" You're presuming it's genetic."

Really now? So everyone is born equally intelligent and purely environment leads to a Einstein versus a KKK clansman??

I agree with aaronburro 100%.
There is nothing eugenic about letting people (white, black, asian, canadian, latino, brazilian, indian) who refuse to take self-responsibility fend for themselves. I guess the octomom deserves our sympathy and tax dollars in order to support her brood created by reckless irresponsible artificial procreation.



[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 6:52 PM. Reason : l]

8/21/2009 6:49:21 PM

^ haha, that says a lot, lol

8/21/2009 6:51:44 PM

environment lends a lot more to success (not necessarily genius) than does genetics. just look at the success of some early childhood development programs in poor neighborhoods. one that was done in harlem was especially encouraging.

8/21/2009 7:01:16 PM

irregardless.

So we should tell everyone. Don't worry about pumping out as many babies as you'd like. We will just get some rich people to pay for them. As long as we give them health care, access to college, and a positive environment; than they'll come out ok!!

A large part of that "environment" is the parents. If they fail out holding a job, Being a responsible member of society, etc than in all likelihood their kids will inherit the same set of traits.

If the case if like you describe it where environment is key. Why then do we not start confiscating children of welfare recipients since we let them cultivate in a civilly toxic environment where they are destined to repeat the ways of their parents.

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 7:06 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 7:07 PM. Reason : ll]

8/21/2009 7:03:50 PM