america haters

9/12/2009 4:41:17 PM

OMFG TRIPLE POST!!!

Quote :

"BAN SUSPEND TERMINATE"

9/12/2009 5:11:35 PM

9/12/2009 5:17:52 PM

Fox news just said it was 1.2-1.5 million people there today (using numbers calculated by ABC). Sounds like it's more than just a few fringe crazies to me.

Edit: Other news programs are saying up to 2 million now.

[Edited on September 12, 2009 at 7:55 PM. Reason : ]

9/12/2009 7:40:00 PM

quite funny how the lefties proclaim their continuous acts of protest as democratic, and, when the right has the initiative to utilize the same civil right, its an abomination


i guess the last resort is trying to undermine the name of the protest (ie tea party)

if the media obscured, falsified, denounced, and made the million mang march illegitimate in the same respect as these tea parties, well, we could make a new thread

9/12/2009 8:25:09 PM

^^^ I do find that kind of funny. IMHO, he's more likely to be an atheist (no problems from me there) than a Muslim, but while probably over-used, the socialist moniker isn't completely inappropriate.

Part of the problem is that the movement on the right is abandoning the GOP and has no appearance of a unified message. It is a conglomeration which attracts all types, both savory and unsavory. Of course, this really isn't much different than any protest movement, the difference is that while the Democratic party puts a genteel face on the left, the GOP's recent fiscal track record has left it without a leg to stand on.

If there is ever the time for third party candidates at the local or perhaps HR level, this is it.


Speaking of House races, looks like Joe Wilson's comment bit him less than expected. Apparently he's raised $1M since then as well: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/12/wilson.fundraising/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

9/12/2009 8:46:01 PM

Quote :

"quite funny how the lefties proclaim their continuous acts of protest as democratic, and, when the right has the initiative to utilize the same civil right, its an abomination"

were you asleep for the last 8 years or are you just retarded?

9/12/2009 9:02:03 PM

rip van?

9/12/2009 10:15:35 PM

Quote :

"Fox news just said it was 1.2-1.5 million people there today (using numbers calculated by ABC). Sounds like it's more than just a few fringe crazies to me. Edit: Other news programs are saying up to 2 million now. "

LOL

Quote :

"Conservative activists, who organized a march on the U.S. Capitol today in protest of the Obama administration's health care agenda and government spending, erroneously attributed reports on the size of the crowds to ABC News. Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, the group that organized the event, said on stage at the rally that ABC News was reporting that 1 million to 1.5 million people were in attendance. At no time did ABC News, or its affiliates, report a number anywhere near as large. ABCNews.com reported an approximate figure of 60,000 to 70,000 protesters, attributed to the Washington, D.C., fire department. In its reports, ABC News Radio described the crowd as "tens of thousands." Brendan Steinhauser, spokesman for FreedomWorks, said he did not know why Kibbe cited ABC News as a source. As a result of Kibbe's erroneous attribution, several bloggers and commenters repeated the misinformation. "

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protest-crowd-size-estimate-falsely-attributed-abc-news/story?id=8558055

nice try Matt Kibbe and fox news

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 12:31 AM. Reason : .]

9/13/2009 12:30:40 AM

You really think this is 60,000 people?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoPud1TeubM&feature=player_embedded

And that's not even a full shot of the crowd, which stretched all the way to the monument.

9/13/2009 11:09:23 AM

Yeah, I really do think that that is 60,000.


What, do you think it's really 1.5 million?

9/13/2009 11:25:26 AM

Hahhahaha, and yet another obvious bit of proof that this guy is simply reading propaganda and believing it. That's a few ten thousand people, dude. Get over it.

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 1:12 PM. Reason : ,]

9/13/2009 1:10:22 PM

9/13/2009 2:04:38 PM

haha

9/13/2009 2:45:46 PM

hey Gzusfrk, i'm still wondering what your Lord and Savior's opinion on healthcare is

9/13/2009 2:50:20 PM

So why don't you ask Him? I don't claim to be a prophet.

Or... you can just stick to mockery when nothing else works.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/aerial-views-show-mass-crowd-gathering-march-dc

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM. Reason : ]

9/13/2009 2:55:46 PM

you don't have to be. i think he was pretty clear on his thoughts. got a whole half a book about them.

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 3:07 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2009 3:05:31 PM

Then it should be pretty explainable already, and we shouldn't worry about diverting this thread with useless comments on a subject that isn't going to sway anyone's opinion.

9/13/2009 3:12:30 PM

i just have trouble believing that someone who is a Jesus freak would be against providing healthcare to everyone

9/13/2009 3:23:06 PM

I forgot that the government was the only way to solve problems in society. How silly!

9/13/2009 3:23:56 PM

^^Why is that? If I want to donate money, or food, or shelter or anything, I should be able to do that out of my own goodness of my heart. I should not be forced to give up any MORE of my paycheck to pay for others' health insurance when no one else pays for mine.

I really don't think that being forced to pay for other people would qualify as "charity" at any rate.

And I'm not against health care reform or tort reform. I am against government spending MORE money to implement an ineffective public option.

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 3:27 PM. Reason : ]

9/13/2009 3:26:28 PM

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

Quote :

"tort reform."

Of course someone who is so easily manipulated, you, would be for "tort reform."

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 3:32 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2009 3:31:20 PM

Oh, I don't have a problem paying taxes for legitimate things. Do you want me to bring up the story about Zacchaeus and collecting more taxes than required?? Lets detract more from the important issues.

9/13/2009 3:32:47 PM

What's wrong with tort reform? For your own knowledge, I do know quite a bit about the tort system.

And yes, I double posted.

V And a lot of people would argue that a lot of what is happening in Congress right now (including public health care) is corruption.

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 3:37 PM. Reason : ]

9/13/2009 3:34:18 PM

Yes, because a public health care option is not corruption, as was Zacchaeus's crime.

9/13/2009 3:35:54 PM

But what's wrong with tort reform?

9/13/2009 3:39:19 PM

Because tort reform doesn't accomplish anything. All it serves to do is cap punitive damages and at least in North Carolina, punitive damages can only be awarded if the health care provider acted willfully, wantonly, maliciously, fraudulently, with bad faith or with a conscious indifference to the potential consequences.

The point of civil tort action is to make the victim whole and also punish the guilty party. To further cap punitive damages removes the 2nd aspect of tort action.

Also, I find it interesting that the people who are not comfortable with a governmental agency being involved in funding health care have no problem with a governmental agency arbitrarily capping potential tort liabilities. It makes no sense.

9/13/2009 3:48:58 PM

Quote :

" The point of civil tort action is to make the victim whole and also punish the guilty party. To further cap punitive damages removes the 2nd aspect of tort action."

We already have caps on punitive damages and "pain and suffering" in NC. I have no issues with making the victim whole, but punishing the guilty party to "three times compensatory damages" is excessive. (This is coming from someone who has been a law clerk at a plaintiff's personal injury firm for years.)

Punishment of the guilty party is often just taking money from med mal insurance companies or auto insurance companies. It doesn't punish the truly "guilty" it just raises the cost of insurance for doctors across the board.

It can also have a terrible effect on innovation and new procedures (Med Mal speaking). Doctors will be less likely to try new techniques because it isn't within the "industry standard."

And to accomplish the first prong of tort action, there needs to be reform at the most base level. I worked on a pro bono case this summer on a victim of drunk driving. The other did not have insurance, and she had a $30,000 cap on her "uninsured motorist" claim. So, woman who is a single mother, and permanently disabled just falls through the cracks on tort reform, doesn't qualify for the NCCVC fund, yet another client gets in a small fender bender, breaks an arm, and gets $30,000 in compensation for that. I'd say the system needs reform.

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 4:03 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 4:05 PM. Reason : ]

9/13/2009 4:00:57 PM

Quote :

"http://www.nowpublic.com/world/aerial-views-show-mass-crowd-gathering-march-dc"

Did I miss something? That video specifically says "tens of thousands"

9/13/2009 4:18:59 PM

Quote :

"We already have caps on punitive damages and "pain and suffering" in NC. I have no issues with making the victim whole, but punishing the guilty party to "three times compensatory damages" is excessive. (This is coming from a law clerk at a plaintiff's personal injury firm.)"

Three times compensatory damages is not excessive. Say for instance an 18 year old is paralyzed through a malicious act of a doctor are you really comfortable at capping possible punitive damages to something less than three times compensatory damages? After all, compensatory damages are only awarded for costs directly related to the act.

Quote :

"Punishment of the guilty party is often just taking money from med mal insurance companies or auto insurance companies. It doesn't punish the truly "guilty" it just raises the cost of insurance for doctors across the board."

It does punish the guilty party. If the insurance company views that physician as too much of a financial liability, they will cease to provide coverage, which will then result in that physician being unable to continue in that occupation.

Quote :

"It can also have a terrible effect on innovation and new procedures (Med Mal speaking). Doctors will be less likely to try new techniques because it isn't within the "industry standard.""

Not true at all. Medical innovation and advancement has not been terribly affect by punitive damages. Again, punitive damages can only be awarded in the instances of willfully, wantonly, maliciously, fraudulently, with bad faith or with a conscious indifference to the potential consequences acts.

Quote :

"And to accomplish the first prong of tort action, there needs to be reform at the most base level. I worked on a pro bono case this summer on a victim of drunk driving. The other did not have insurance, and she had a $30,000 cap on her "uninsured motorist" claim."

Nothing prevented her from taking a tort action against the uninsured driver. Then again, someone who doesn't have auto insurance isn't likely to have much to be taken. In the end though, it is not the fault of the tort system, rather it is the fault of her not having enough insurance coverage.

Quote :

"yet another client gets in a small fender bender, breaks an arm, and gets $30,000 in compensation for that. I'd say the system needs reform."

One doesn't just break an arm in a small fender bender. Also, medical bills aren't exactly cheap.

Also, all punitive damages go through automatic judicial review. those formulas used to determine damages are based upon years and years of case law. Legislating caps completely voids the case law.

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 4:24 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2009 4:22:21 PM

Quote :

"Nothing prevented her from taking a tort action against the uninsured driver."

Other driver died.

Quote :

" In the end though, it is not the fault of the tort system, rather it is the fault of her not having enough insurance coverage."

Couldn't the same be said of medical insurance?

Quote :

"Also, all punitive damages go through automatic judicial review. those formulas used to determine damages are based upon years and years of case law. Legislating caps completely voids the case law."

Of course legislating caps corrects case law. That's what legislation does as a general rule. I know perfectly well how the system works.

*Please don't think I'm for the broad sweeping "tort-reform" that a lot of conservatives are pushing for. I simply think the system needs a little revamping. The laws need to be clearer, and the lines more distinct. A system of negligence, vs. gross negligence, vs. willful and wanton disregard is a lot of times arbitrarily enforced, just based off of my few years in personal injury and law school.*

So, I'm going to bow out of this thread now.

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 4:35 PM. Reason : ]

9/13/2009 4:25:40 PM

Quote :

" Other driver died. "

Still can take action against the estate.

Quote :

" Couldn't the same be said of medical insurance?"

How so?

Quote :

" Of course legislating caps corrects case law. That's what legislation does as a general rule. I know perfectly well how the system works."

I have yet to see any evidence to suggest the case law is broken.

Quote :

"The laws need to be clearer, and the lines more distinct. A system of negligence, vs. gross negligence, vs. willful and wanton disregard is a lot of times arbitrarily enforced, just based off of my few years in personal injury and law school.*"

They may seem semantically obtuse, but the case law and meaning behind them are clear and bright as day.

9/13/2009 4:35:24 PM

^Never said I didn't understand them. That was a class I did quite well in actually. I am only saying I don't agree with how the system is run.

Like I said earlier, I gotta run. But I'll come back and phrase a response to the questions you posed if you truly want to discuss them. If not, we'll just forget about it.

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 4:43 PM. Reason : ]

9/13/2009 4:37:30 PM

People can reasonably disagree on what level of negligence certain actions and certain industries have to achieve before they become liable for tort action.

I will say the only reform of the tort system I would like to see would be the removal of contributory negligence.

9/13/2009 4:43:30 PM

^Absolutely. I 100% agree. NC is in the process of doing that now

9/13/2009 4:54:39 PM

We'll see. The insurance industry brought out the big dogs in an attempt to kill it. H813 was sent to Senate JI back in May and hasn't moved since then.

I hope it happens, but we'll see.

9/13/2009 5:13:02 PM

Has anybody posted this?

FACT CHECK: Obama uses iffy math on deficit pledge (AP)

Quote :

"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama used only-in-Washington accounting Wednesday when he promised to overhaul the nation's health care system without adding "one dime" to the deficit. By conventional arithmetic, Democratic plans would drive up the deficit by billions of dollars. The president's speech to Congress contained a variety of oversimplifications and omissions in laying out what he wants to do about health insurance. A look at some of Obama's claims and how they square with the facts or the fuller story: ___ OBAMA: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period." THE FACTS: Though there's no final plan yet, the White House and congressional Democrats already have shown they're ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge. House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill actually was deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn't have to count $245 billion of it — the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don't face big annual pay cuts. Their reasoning was that they already had decided to exempt this "doc fix" from congressional rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for. The administration also said that since Obama already had included the doctor payment in his 10-year budget proposal, it didn't have to be counted again. That aside, the long-term prognosis for costs of the health care legislation has not been good. CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf had this to say in July: "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount." ___ OBAMA: "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have." THE FACTS: That's correct, as far as it goes. But neither can the plan guarantee that people can keep their current coverage. Employers sponsor coverage for most families, and they'd be free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like, or drop insurance altogether. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and said that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it. In the past Obama repeatedly said, "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period." Now he's stopping short of that unconditional guarantee by saying nothing in the plan "requires" any change. ___ OBAMA: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." One congressman, South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, shouted "You lie!" from his seat in the House chamber when Obama made this assertion. Wilson later apologized. THE FACTS: The facts back up Obama. The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, but wouldn't get tax subsidies to help them. Still, Republicans say there are not sufficient citizenship verification requirements to ensure illegal immigrants are excluded from benefits they are not due. ___ OBAMA: "Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut. ... That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare." THE FACTS: Obama and congressional Democrats want to pay for their health care plans in part by reducing Medicare payments to providers by more than $500 billion over 10 years. The cuts would largely hit hospitals and Medicare Advantage, the part of the Medicare program operated through private insurance companies. Although wasteful spending in Medicare is widely acknowledged, many experts believe some seniors almost certainly would see reduced benefits from the cuts. That's particularly true for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage. Supporters contend that providers could absorb the cuts by improving how they operate and wouldn't have to reduce benefits or pass along costs. But there's certainly no guarantee they wouldn't. ___ OBAMA: Requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care like mammograms and colonoscopies "makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives." THE FACTS: Studies have shown that much preventive care — particularly tests like the ones Obama mentions — actually costs money instead of saving it. That's because detecting acute diseases like breast cancer in their early stages involves testing many people who would never end up developing the disease. The costs of a large number of tests, even if they're relatively cheap, will outweigh the costs of caring for the minority of people who would have ended up getting sick without the testing. The Congressional Budget Office wrote in August: "The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall." That doesn't mean preventive care doesn't make sense or save lives. It just doesn't save money. ___ OBAMA: "If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage." THE FACTS: It's not just a matter of being able to get coverage. Most people would have to get coverage under the law, if his plan is adopted. In his speech, Obama endorsed mandatory coverage for individuals, an approach he did not embrace as a candidate. He proposed during the campaign — as he does now — that larger businesses be required to offer insurance to workers or else pay into a fund. But he rejected the idea of requiring individuals to obtain insurance. He said people would get insurance without being forced to do so by the law, if coverage were made affordable. And he repeatedly criticized his Democratic primary rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for proposing to mandate coverage. "To force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh penalty," he said in a February 2008 debate. Now, he says, "individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance." He proposes a hardship waiver, exempting from the requirement those who cannot afford coverage despite increased federal aid. ___ OBAMA: "There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage." THE FACTS: Obama time and again has referred to the number of uninsured as 46 million, a figure based on year-old Census data. The new number is based on an analysis by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, which concluded that about two-thirds of Americans without insurance are poor or near poor. "These individuals are less likely to be offered employer-sponsored coverage or to be able to afford to purchase their own coverage," the report said. By using the new figure, Obama avoids criticism that he is including individuals, particularly healthy young people, who choose not to obtain health insurance."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_fact_check

9/15/2009 5:18:30 AM

Quote :

"We'll see. The insurance industry brought out the big dogs in an attempt to kill it. H813 was sent to Senate JI back in May and hasn't moved since then."

That's odd, last I heard the insurance industry was 100% in favor of the bill now that the public option had been removed. They liked the insurance mandate, as I guess any business would love a law requiring everyone to buy your product.

9/15/2009 8:34:32 AM

Barack Obama just needs to go on live television and say, "I'll bring us through this. As always. I'll carry you - kicking and screaming - and in the end you'll thank me."

9/15/2009 8:46:39 AM

Quote :

"Poll Finds Most Doctors Support Public Option When polled, "nearly three-quarters of physicians supported some form of a public option, either alone or in combination with private insurance options," says Dr. Salomeh Keyhani. She and Dr. Alex Federman, both internists and researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, conducted a random survey, by mail and by phone, of 2,130 doctors. They surveyed them from June right up to early September."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960

9/15/2009 9:47:19 AM

Pfft, NPR (LIEberal media)

9/15/2009 9:49:08 AM

well its obvious that most doctors are ivy league bleeding heart commie fucks.

9/15/2009 9:57:56 AM

Quote :

"conducted a random survey, by mail and by phone, of 2,130 doctors."

Most I know are for the govt backing out of health care not stepping more into it.

9/15/2009 10:07:25 AM

Anecdotal evidence for the loss.

9/15/2009 10:10:13 AM

^^^^^

It makes sense.

The more or better insured their patients are, the better options they have to treat them, and the more likely they are to get paid for their services. It's a win for them on both sides.

9/15/2009 10:23:07 AM

Also they hate America.

9/15/2009 10:38:12 AM

It really doesnt matter what our options are, we are all cutting off legs for 50k a pop now.

9/15/2009 3:26:47 PM

Or, reading that poll another way:

Quote :

"When polled, "ninety percent of physicians supported some form of a private health care, either alone or in combination with a public insurance option"

9/15/2009 3:34:53 PM

Or, 73% of the chart looks like Pacman.

9/15/2009 3:42:37 PM

^^ If only a single-payer option was even being considered, you'd have a point.

9/15/2009 6:24:58 PM