In the past year

[tony]

What have Republicans accomplished? Obstruction just cause you oppose politically is hardly an accomplishment btw. Just curious.

[BanginJimmy]

They stopped the healthcare bill. That is enough for me.

[tony]

They stopped the healthcare bill. That is enough for me.

Dems had a filibuster proof majority, you can thank them for stopping health care reform, not Republicans.

[Total_Blender]

Yeah, the Republicans stopped the healthcare bill. Now the 46 million Americans who can't get healthcare can die and go to hell just like Glenn Beck and Pat Robertson have prophesied. They were all sinners who made a deal with the devil anyway so fuck 'em, right?

[David88vert]

The Republicans have not accomplished anything of value in the last year.
The Democrats have not accomplished anything of value in the last year.

The difference is that the Democrats controlled Congress, and had the White House. That speaks volumes about the quality of their Congressional leadership abilities.

[Vteckidd]

The Republicans have not accomplished anything of value in the last year.
The Democrats have not accomplished anything of value in the last year.

The difference is that the Democrats controlled Congress, and had the White House. That speaks volumes about the quality of their Congressional leadership abilities.


:goodjob:

I think the Republicans lack real ideas. They need a "newt gingrich" type guy to really challenge and be proactive with the Dems and President. Boehner needs to really step it up IMO.

Dems are all over the place. They had power but were not consolidated. They tried to do too much

[Vteckidd]

Yeah, the Republicans stopped the healthcare bill. Now the 46 million Americans who can't get healthcare can die and go to hell just like Glenn Beck and Pat Robertson have prophesied. They were all sinners who made a deal with the devil anyway so fuck 'em, right?

quit with your propaganda for christs sake. Glenn Beck never said anything remotely close to that.

Id rather come up with a way that really WORKS to let people AFFORD their OWN healthcare , than the govt blindly trying to give it to everyone with no way to pay for it.

Ive always said the OBAMACARE would give you healthcare at the EXPENSE of your job. Seems you still dont understand that.

And please stop with the 46million crap, its not that high. 15 million are peope pASSING through the system and drop coverage between jobs or a lapse of 1-3 months.

5 million are people that CAN AFFORD HEALTHCARE but refuse it.

12-18 million are illegal immigrants who dont deserve govt taxpayer funded healthcare in the first place.

So you are left with less than 15 million who REALLY CANNOT AFFORD healthcare or choose not to pay for it.

5% of our nation doesnt have healthcare. LETS REVAMP THE ENTIRE SYSTEM because 5% are lacking. Hell even if you use 46million people its 15% of our population WITHOUT HEALTHCARE.

Instead of GIVING it away, how about making the poor able to afford it by getting them jobs or better training to make more money.

You would rather make the rich pooorer than the poor rich

[BanginJimmy]

quit with your propaganda for christs sake. Glenn Beck never said anything remotely close to that.

Id rather come up with a way that really WORKS to let people AFFORD their OWN healthcare , than the govt blindly trying to give it to everyone with no way to pay for it.

Ive always said the OBAMACARE would give you healthcare at the EXPENSE of your job. Seems you still dont understand that.

And please stop with the 46million crap, its not that high. 15 million are peope pASSING through the system and drop coverage between jobs or a lapse of 1-3 months.

5 million are people that CAN AFFORD HEALTHCARE but refuse it.

12-18 million are illegal immigrants who dont deserve govt taxpayer funded healthcare in the first place.

So you are left with less than 15 million who REALLY CANNOT AFFORD healthcare or choose not to pay for it.

5% of our nation doesnt have healthcare. LETS REVAMP THE ENTIRE SYSTEM because 5% are lacking. Hell even if you use 46million people its 15% of our population WITHOUT HEALTHCARE.

Instead of GIVING it away, how about making the poor able to afford it by getting them jobs or better training to make more money.

You would rather make the rich pooorer than the poor rich


Beat me to the 46mil line. I would say the real number is even lower than your numbers though. I would guess it is somewhere between 7-10mil.

[Total_Blender]

I keep forgetting that you guys all think the US census is government tyranny and that all numbers have to be verified by Rupert Murdoch before they are acceptable.

The part about Glenn Beck was a little humor. You redwingers err... right wingers I mean... can dish it out but you can't take it.

As far as leadership goes the GOP doesn't have any. Bohener and Jindal lack charisma, Michael Steele comes across as a mean spirited asshole, and Palin's petite little hands are just not big enough to write all the party's talking points on. Moderates like Colin Powell get pushed aside while loudmouths like Joe Wilson and Michelle Bachmann are given favor. I don't think we will ever have another Teddy Roosevelt or Barry Goldwater as long as the party is actively courting the lowest common denominator with this "tea party" nonsense.

[BanginJimmy]

I keep forgetting that you guys all think the US census is government tyranny and that all numbers have to be verified by Rupert Murdoch before they are acceptable.

Not sure what the census has to do with it, but the numbers Obama has been reading are wrong, just like the stories he likes to tell.




As far as leadership goes the GOP doesn't have any.


I actually agree with you here. The leadership as a whole is gone in Washington. It starts with the top and encompasses both parties though. I cant think of a single ranking politician in Washington that has even the slightest clue what they are doing. Obama, Pelosi and Reid are all ideologues and cannot see further than their own overinflated ego to actually see what anyone in this country wants.

[Vteckidd]

The numbers are wrong blender. Go watch any video collage of Obama and watch how the numbers change.

Statistics are skewed to highlight his agenda.

Are you telling me 46 million american citizens are without healthcare?

[David88vert]

As far as leadership goes the GOP doesn't have any. Bohener and Jindal lack charisma, Michael Steele comes across as a mean spirited asshole, and Palin's petite little hands are just not big enough to write all the party's talking points on. Moderates like Colin Powell get pushed aside while loudmouths like Joe Wilson and Michelle Bachmann are given favor.

I agree on this as well. Both parties are not representing the people in the middle.

[Alan®]

Yeah, the Republicans stopped the healthcare bill. Now the 46 million Americans who can't get healthcare can die and go to hell just like Glenn Beck and Pat Robertson have prophesied. They were all sinners who made a deal with the devil anyway so fuck 'em, right?

every time you post i feel like just reading it i lost 5 I.Q. points

[BB6dohcvtec]

What have Republicans accomplished? Obstruction just cause you oppose politically is hardly an accomplishment btw. Just curious.

Its just a setup for the upcoming elections. They are the party of no right now. They can't come up with their own ideas, so the plan is to say no to everything that Obama and the dems come up with to save face. The problem with that is they are suppose to shut up and let the dems fall on their face, but they just can't seem to do that because they have to add their two cents when it really wasn't needed. Oh yea and the tea party movement won't help the republican efforts it just splitting them in two.

[Vteckidd]

The tea party is not a GOP movement it's more independents than republican. The tea party will help as it is damaging to dems and only helps the republicans as it's a
more conservative leaning movement

[Total_Blender]

The tea party is laughable bullshit. Half those idiots have no idea what is going on other than they disapprove of Obama because they think he's a Kenyan Muslim with a fake birth certificate.

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/political-pictures-teabaggers-work-ethic.jpg



every time you post i feel like just reading it i lost 5 I.Q. points

Every time I read your posts, I find errors in punctuation and capitalization. If you're attempting to criticize someone's intelligence, at least fucking get basic 3rd grade grammar right. :goodjob:

[Vteckidd]

You've demonstrated time and time again you have no idea nor actually watch read or comprehend anything on the right side of the aisle

you spew olberman talking points and lack the comprehension to even articulate a rational argument.

All you see is the liberal left blog posts you refuse to look at the other side.

Peoples right to assembly, protesting big govt, socialism, higher taxes, and govt policy is laughable bullshit? Figures it would be to a liberal zealot , you guys trample enough on the constitution as it is.

I'm going to challenge you:

sit through a Glenn beck episode I'll watch the same one. TiVo it. At the end you tell me where he's wrong or he's in the tank for the GOP

[Total_Blender]

I've busted on Glenn Beck numerous times. I have more productive and enjoyable ways to spend my time than watching any more of his nonsense.

[Vteckidd]

That's what I thought

[BanginJimmy]

That's what I thought

Its people like Blender that gave rise to Hitler, Mao, Castro, Lenin, and many others. He believes only in the Party and sees no reason to justify or corroborate anything he says. Quick to throw insults and whenever challenged, he deflects with further insults. Hitler and Lenin used the failings of their predecessors, to go along with bringing the nation back to prominence, as their main talking points. This is exactly the same mantra Obama has been using into his second year in office. Every failing is Bush's or the GOP's fault. Every lie is deflected or simply ignored. Will it ever stop? Will he ever take responsibility for his own failings? Will he ever realize that he agenda is not what people want? Judging from his State of the Union speech, I seriously doubt it.

[Total_Blender]

. He believes only in the Party and sees no reason to justify or corroborate anything he says.:blah: .

So the number when you account for non-citizens is 36 million. That's still a whole lot of people without insurance. You can also see how the lower incomes are most of those who are uninsured.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121820/one-six-adults-without-health-insurance.aspx

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/18/barack-obama/number-those-without-health-insurance-about-46-mil/

Here is the US census survey used to get those numbers:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthinsseq.pdf

I've posted many times about my disagreements on Obama's policies, but you guys are all too busy teabagging one another to really pay attention.

[tony]

The tea party is not a GOP movement it's more independents than republican. The tea party will help as it is damaging to dems and only helps the republicans as it's a
more conservative leaning movement

C'mon now, tell me you dont believe this. The Tea Party movement only bolsters Democratic support, Palin is their unofficial spokesperson. Look, if there is one thing that Republicans haven't learned from their recent loss is that moving farther right isn't the answer. The fact that Palin is a legitimate candidate (and probably the most polarizing for the Republican party) shows the status of the GOP.

[alpine_aw11]

C'mon now, tell me you dont believe this. The Tea Party movement only bolsters Democratic support, Palin is their unofficial spokesperson. Look, if there is one thing that Republicans haven't learned from their recent loss is that moving farther right isn't the answer. The fact that Palin is a legitimate candidate (and probably the most polarizing for the Republican party) shows the status of the GOP.

I would laugh uncontrollably if Palin was nominated, fortunately it probably wont happen.

The thing is, neither party has accomplished anything in the past year and it will continue to be that way for a while. Possibly forever.

[BanginJimmy]

So the number when you account for non-citizens is 36 million. That's still a whole lot of people without insurance. You can also see how the lower incomes are most of those who are uninsured.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121820/one-six-adults-without-health-insurance.aspx

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/18/barack-obama/number-those-without-health-insurance-about-46-mil/

Here is the US census survey used to get those numbers:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthinsseq.pdf

I've posted many times about my disagreements on Obama's policies, but you guys are all too busy teabagging one another to really pay attention.

Next you have to remove the people that choose not npot have health insurance and people with existing conditions that basicly bar them from coverage.

Lower income people will be more represented because low income people have low end jobs that rarely offer those benefits.

I will comment further when I get to a computer and can see the info on your links.

[Total_Blender]

Next you have to remove the people that choose not npot have health insurance and people with existing conditions that basicly bar them from coverage.
.

Most of those people "choose" not to have it because they can't afford it, or they can but they would have to make a lot of sacrifices. And its just not right that people with existing conditions can't get coverage.

[Verik]

Most of those people "choose" not to have it because they can't afford it, or they can but they would have to make a lot of sacrifices.

This is the fucking world of capitalism. Welcome to the basic concept of opportunity costs... your going to bitch and complain because "capitalism inspires inequality" and completely disregard that this country was not built upon the principles of economic equality, but economic [b]equity[b]. You also have to realize that the classification of poverty is subjective to the society. If we start using the IMF's poverty levels, I would be willing to bet substantial money that under 1 million people in america are considered in poverty.

And no, the ones who are classified as "choosing" not to have health insurance aren't the ones who "can't afford it" (you'd be contradicting the definition of them having a choice if they had no viable choice), they are the ones who ignore the risk associated with having no coverage and would rather buy a new lcd tv, or live in the 800 square ft apartment rather than the cheaper 500 sq ft one, or make payments on a lexus instead of paying off a toyota in full. This is America, people choose to ignore risks associated with not purchasing healthcare so that they can feed their unrestricted consumerist mentality which has plagued americans for the past 20 years.

You need to realize before you start down the road of "well they would choose health insurance if they didnt have to give up so much." that right there classifies how much the person values their health. If they can't give up the bigger apartment (or a single apartment instead of living with roomates or instead of taking on a car payment, paying one off in full, etc), then their rational is simply one that their health is not as important as those items which they purchase. You want to get more people health coverage? Find a way to fix their fiscally fucked up consumerist mentality that has made American households the most irresponsible and indebted in the world for the sake of leading a lifestyle which is beyond their financial capabilities. Why dont you encourage people to fix their misaligned priorities rather than simple putting it in the government's hands to solve.


And its just not right that people with existing conditions can't get coverage.

why? There are international alternatives if they dont wish to pay the rates for medical care inside the US. Also never once has the US government said that health was a given inalienable right. You've never taken a risk management course or even understand the concept of pooling risk do you? if insurance companies were forced to accept a large pool of high risk applicants, everyone's rates would justifiably go up. It's simple risk association with standard deviations. You don't understand a thing about the concept of insurance if you think there should be no requirements or screening of applicants.... that contradicts the entire prospect of control while pooling risk.

[David88vert]

This is the fucking world of capitalism. Welcome to the basic concept of opportunity costs... your going to bitch and complain because "capitalism inspires inequality" and completely disregard that this country was not built upon the principles of economic equality, but economic [b]equity[b]. You also have to realize that the classification of poverty is subjective to the society. If we start using the IMF's poverty levels, I would be willing to bet substantial money that under 1 million people in america are considered in poverty.

And no, the ones who are classified as "choosing" not to have health insurance aren't the ones who "can't afford it" (you'd be contradicting the definition of them having a choice if they had no viable choice), they are the ones who ignore the risk associated with having no coverage and would rather buy a new lcd tv, or live in the 800 square ft apartment rather than the cheaper 500 sq ft one, or make payments on a lexus instead of paying off a toyota in full. This is America, people choose to ignore risks associated with not purchasing healthcare so that they can feed their unrestricted consumerist mentality which has plagued americans for the past 20 years.

You need to realize before you start down the road of "well they would choose health insurance if they didnt have to give up so much." that right there classifies how much the person values their health. If they can't give up the bigger apartment (or a single apartment instead of living with roomates or instead of taking on a car payment, paying one off in full, etc), then their rational is simply one that their health is not as important as those items which they purchase. You want to get more people health coverage? Find a way to fix their fiscally fucked up consumerist mentality that has made American households the most irresponsible and indebted in the world for the sake of leading a lifestyle which is beyond their financial capabilities. Why dont you encourage people to fix their misaligned priorities rather than simple putting it in the government's hands to solve.



why? There are international alternatives if they dont wish to pay the rates for medical care inside the US. Also never once has the US government said that health was a given inalienable right. You've never taken a risk management course or even understand the concept of pooling risk do you? if insurance companies were forced to accept a large pool of high risk applicants, everyone's rates would justifiably go up. It's simple risk association with standard deviations. You don't understand a thing about the concept of insurance if you think there should be no requirements or screening of applicants.... that contradicts the entire prospect of control while pooling risk.


X2

This is a true statement.

Many small businesses do not offer health insurance, and many younger people would rather spend their money on other things than health insurance.
I'll explain it this way. From 1990-2000, I did not have any health insurance. I was making ok money enough to afford it, but did not choose to, based upon my acceptance of the risk of not having it. What did it cost me? My total medical costs during that decade was $2000 out of pocket. What would it have cost me to pay monthly insurance that I would not have used? A LOT more.

Currently, I work for a company that provides health insurance to my family at low rates, so I have it, but I understand why a 20-30 year old would rather spend their money on something else, when they are likely not to need medical coverage.

[Total_Blender]

It's simple risk association with standard deviations. You don't understand a thing about the concept of insurance if you think there should be no requirements or screening of applicants.... that contradicts the entire prospect of control while pooling risk.

The so called "public option" is/was supposed to provide an alternative to those who have pre-existing conditions so they would be able to obtain care they could afford without having to seek "international alternatives" or whatever is is you were talking about (I assume you want to make them Canada's problem or something like that).

As far as "consumerism" goes... I live with 4 roommates, I buy all my clothes at thrift stores, I drive an '84 Mazda I paid $700 for, and I bought my 19" CRT TV from a pawn shop for the kingly sum of $20. I don't even like to wear clothing with logos as I feel that companies should be paying me if I'm going to advertise their product. So as far as your rant on consumption-driven culture I'm with you 100% but I don't see what that has to do with fixing the healthcare system.

[BanginJimmy]

The so called "public option" is/was supposed to provide an alternative to those who have pre-existing conditions so they would be able to obtain care they could afford without having to seek "international alternatives" or whatever is is you were talking about (I assume you want to make them Canada's problem or something like that)

So why should I be forced to pay for someone elses health insurance?


As far as "consumerism" goes... I live with 4 roommates, I buy all my clothes at thrift stores, I drive an '84 Mazda I paid $700 for, and I bought my 19" CRT TV from a pawn shop for the kingly sum of $20. I don't even like to wear clothing with logos as I feel that companies should be paying me if I'm going to advertise their product. So as far as your rant on consumption-driven culture I'm with you 100% but I don't see what that has to do with fixing the healthcare system.

Either you didn't bother to read what he said or you don't have the intelligence to comprehend it.

[Total_Blender]

Either you didn't bother to read what he said or you don't have the intelligence to comprehend it.

I read what he posted, and he's right that some people do choose not to have insurance to suit their materialistic lifestyle. But those same people might be more inclined to choose health insurance if it were cheaper and there were some sort of guarantee that they would not be dropped from it because of a "pre-existing condition" should they get sick. I have never been satisfied in any of my dealings with insurance companies, they are more in the business of making money than helping people.

As income goes down, the percentage of people who have health insurance goes down. You can see that in the tables in this table... its a read-only so it will open in Excel.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin08/uninsured_family_income.xls

[tony]

So why should I be forced to pay for someone elses health insurance?





You do it anyway under the current system.

[Vteckidd]

I've always said you can't legislate CHOICE.

Where does it stop? The govt (in new York) want to take salt off the table because it causes too many health issues, but alcohol and smoking, no problem let's leave those.

The market sets the price for insurance, not the govt. What we should be doing is concentrating the outside factors that drive costs up, such as tort reform, allowing
more private sector competition like buying across state lines, getting rid of pre-existing conditions clauses, allowing people to buy catastrophic insurace only, giving tax credits to people or busiensses that offer health care etc.
iNSTEAD we want to make it a right, have no way To pay for it, and instead of working on increasing the peoples wages who CANT afford it, you want to cripple the system in a takeover to make it free to those.

Again it's nothing more than a power play you'd rather make the rich poorer instead of the poor richer.

Even then anyone that wants healthcare can get it.

[Vteckidd]

X2

This is a true statement.

Many small businesses do not offer health insurance, and many younger people would rather spend their money on other things than health insurance.
I'll explain it this way. From 1990-2000, I did not have any health insurance. I was making ok money enough to afford it, but did not choose to, based upon my acceptance of the risk of not having it. What did it cost me? My total medical costs during that decade was $2000 out of pocket. What would it have cost me to pay monthly insurance that I would not have used? A LOT more.

Currently, I work for a company that provides health insurance to my family at low rates, so I have it, but I understand why a 20-30 year old would rather spend their money on something else, when they are likely not to need medical coverage.

agreed, however if you had walked out of your house tripped and broke your leg, you would have been financially screwed. Broken leg can cost upwards of $30,000 with treatment, rehabilitation etc.

Regular illnesses are relatively CHEAP to treat. So thats why i think there should be a CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE policy, something that covers you up to $100,000, $200,000 whatever.

Recently i took my nephew here in DC to a MINUTE CLINIC. They are located in CVS pharmacy stores. They take regular insurance as well as non insured people. I looked at their rates for NON INSURANCE holders:

Services and Costs
Minor illness exam $62
Minor injury exam $62
Skin condition exam $62
Wellness & prevention $20-$95
Vaccinations $30-$120


heres what they consider MINOR ILLNESS
Allergy Symptoms
Body Aches
Corneal Abrasions
Cough
Earache
Ear Wax Removal ($59)
Flu-like Symptoms
Itchy Eyes
Motion Sickness Prevention
Nasal Congestion
Pink Eye
Sinus Symptoms
Sore Throat
Urinary Tract Infection Symptoms

Heres what they consider MINOR INJURY
Blisters
Burns
Deer Tick Bites
Lacerations
Splinters
Sprains (Foot, Ankle, Knee)
Sunburns
Suture Removal
Wounds & Abrasions

Heres what they consider SKIN CONDITIONS
Acne
Athlete's Foot
Cold & Canker Sores
Impetigo
Infections (Minor)
Lice
Oral/Mouth Sores
Poison Ivy
Rashes (Minor)
Ringworm
Scabies
Shingles
Sunburn (Minor)
Swimmer's Itch
Wart Removal


Wellness and Preventions
EpiPen refill $41
Health screening package $66
Cholesterol screening $45
Diabetes screening $40
Hypertension screening $30
Weight evaluation $30
Physical exams

Camp physical $30
College physical $30
DOT physical $60
Sports physical $30
Pregnancy testing $51
Smoking cessation $30
TB (Tuberculosis) testing $20


Vacinations
DTaP (Diphtheria,
Tetanus, Pertussis) $67
Flu (Seasonal) $30
Hepatitis A (Adult) $87
Hepatitis A (Child) $56
Hepatitis B (Adult) $67
Hepatitis B (Child) $52
Meningitis $112
MMR (Measles,
Mumps, Rubella) $67
Pneumonia $49
Polio (IPV) $82
TD (Tetanus, Diphtheria) $42
Tdap (Tetanus,
Diphtheria, Pertussis) $62


as you can see its VERY INEXPENSIVE to treat 90% of the illnesses and problems out there. prescriptions cost extra, but youre talking roughly under $150 per hosiptal visit OR LESS WITH MEDS.

The insurance i carry (AETNA) as a SMOKER costs me $145 a month. Thats a PPO, i pay co=pay to $5000 then after that its free.

[99hatch]

I went through a period in my life when i was 19 or so. I paid rent, only made 8 bucks an hour (which is just barely above min wage now). Still managed to afford health insurance which was only 60 bucks a month. It wasnt the best coverage, however it did cover me in the event of an emergency. Now i have a much better job, and health insurance through my work. Still have to pay over 100 bucks a month to insurance, and I havent been sick in 3 years. But I make that sacrifice because in the event that something does happen. I will need it. People in America need to quit looking for handouts from the government and start earning their own. That is what the country was built off, the pursuit of happiness. Not the Pursuit of handouts.

[BanginJimmy]

You do it anyway under the current system.

Well in that case, we should let the govt handle all the money right? They do such a great job at it already that they bankrupted social security and medicare.


As was already said, none of the real factors for rising costs are being addressed. Tort reform and buying across state lines would do more to bring down costs than anything the govt has proposed to date.

[Alan®]

The tea party is laughable bullshit. Half those idiots have no idea what is going on other than they disapprove of Obama because they think he's a Kenyan Muslim with a fake birth certificate.

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/political-pictures-teabaggers-work-ethic.jpg



Every time I read your posts, I find errors in punctuation and capitalization. If you're attempting to criticize someone's intelligence, at least fucking get basic 3rd grade grammar right. :goodjob:

HAHAHAHAHA. Ok. Since this is the internet and it's "serious business", I'll step up from my normal "3rd grade grammar". You have to be one of the most short sighted ignorant people I have ever had the displeasure of having to read posts from.

You seem to have this opinion of anyone who doesn't worship the ground that the Left Wing political agenda is "they think he's a Kenyan Muslim with a fake birth certificate.". Sorry but the contrary is true. Yes, there is a great number of people who do feel that way but anyone who actually takes 20 minutes to watch more than one news organization talk about the issues think a little bit more than what you seem to think, that they think. Some of us are actually capable of forming independent thoughts and opinions and it just so happens that those of us that can, agree with one side or another.

You on the other hand, can't seem to comprehend that and instead choose to believe that anyone from a differing opinion from yours is incompetent.

And before you go judging a book by it's cover, you might want to know that I am actually a Junior at Kennesaw State University with a major in Political Science with a concentration in Legal Studies.:goodjob:

But hey, what do I know. I'm just some pinko right wing fanatic with the grammar skills of a 3rd grader:rolleyes:. Oh wait.....I'm not.

[Total_Blender]

.
And before you go judging a book by it's cover, you might want to know that I am actually a Junior at Kennesaw State University with a major in Political Science with a concentration in Legal Studies.:goodjob:

But hey, what do I know. I'm just some pinko right wing fanatic with the grammar skills of a 3rd grader:rolleyes:. Oh wait.....I'm not.

Hooray for you, since you want applause for that. Even Sarah Palin graduated from college with a degree in - wait for it - Journalism. Having a college degree alone does not prove one's capacity for original thought or leadership, nor does it prove that one is erudite. College is more like a survey that prepares one for scholarship rather than the sum, total, and proof that one is a scholar. I know a lot of college graduates who have neither read a book from start to finish nor even set foot into a library.

Pinko, by the way, is a derogatory term for left wing people:

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

I would think you'd get that right since you're Mr. Red GT Political Science Junior at Kennesaw State Esq.

A derogatory term for you to choose for yourself might have been:

Nut Job
Redneck
Whitebread
Bible Thumper
Nazi
Teabagger

[David88vert]

agreed, however if you had walked out of your house tripped and broke your leg, you would have been financially screwed. Broken leg can cost upwards of $30,000 with treatment, rehabilitation etc.



I completely agree. My point is at that time, I was willing to accept the risk, and did pay out of pocket for when I needed attention at the hospital.

I believe that insurance should only be for the larger items that you cannot pay out of pocket - such as major injruries/surgeries, etc. NOT of office visits and regular lab tests. If people would use insurance for major issues, and not for everytime they go for a checkup, insurance costs would be lower. The problem is that everyone thinks that their insurance is a debit card.

[Vteckidd]

True there has to be a way to allow insurance for things over $1000 versus $40 checkup.

[Vteckidd]

I hate to equate it to car insurance but if you have a $1000 deductible and you do $500 in damage to your car, you pay out of pocket.

The difference or problem lies with you can wait 2-3 year to fix your car (cosmetic damage) with your health that could mean you die. What if you really don't have $500 to pay for your doctor visit? You can throw a car away can't throw a life away

has to be some sort of middle ground to service both customers

[David88vert]

I hate to equate it to car insurance but if you have a $1000 deductible and you do $500 in damage to your car, you pay out of pocket.

The difference or problem lies with you can wait 2-3 year to fix your car (cosmetic damage) with your health that could mean you die. What if you really don't have $500 to pay for your doctor visit? You can throw a car away can't throw a life away

has to be some sort of middle ground to service both customers


With car insurance, you have the option to choose what deductible you have. A lower deductible mean higher monthly payments. Insurance is a risk management industry.
You can have the same option with health insurance. You choose what risk level that you can afford.

[Alan®]

Hooray for you, since you want applause for that. Even Sarah Palin graduated from college with a degree in - wait for it - Journalism. Having a college degree alone does not prove one's capacity for original thought or leadership, nor does it prove that one is erudite. College is more like a survey that prepares one for scholarship rather than the sum, total, and proof that one is a scholar. I know a lot of college graduates who have neither read a book from start to finish nor even set foot into a library.

Pinko, by the way, is a derogatory term for left wing people:

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

I would think you'd get that right since you're Mr. Red GT Political Science Junior at Kennesaw State Esq.

A derogatory term for you to choose for yourself might have been:

Nut Job
Redneck
Whitebread
Bible Thumper
Nazi
Teabagger
:blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah:

Out of all that the best you could do was point out that I used the wrong derogatory term. Forgive me I've only been up for 96 hours straight and posted that at 2:30 in the morning.

Nut Job? Nope sorry. I've been told I'm an asshole.
Redneck? Nope sorry wrong again. Lived in 3 different countries 4 states while my Dad served this country honorably for 10 years as an officer in the United States Army.
White bread? Yes I'm white. What of it?
Bible Thumper?:lmfao::lmfao:. I think organized religion has lost its meaning. Haven't stepped foot in a church since a friend of mines Dad died.
Nazi? Wrong again. Grandfather was a member of the RAF.
Teabagger? Now that I will admit to. Can't say I don't have my balls sucked and licked on every once in awhile.:goodjob:

[Total_Blender]

Out of all that the best you could do was point out that I used the wrong derogatory term. .

I don't know you from Adam. To me you're just some guy on the internet, which as we all know, is serious business.

As far as taking more than 20 minutes to "watch" more than one news organization... you summed it up right there. The people of the right are too dependent/expectant on cable news (as a format, not just any one particular network). You can only criticize the left based on what you hear/see from CNN and MSNBC. How many of you even read a print newspaper at least once a week? How many of you use the Library of Congress website to actually read legislation? Its rare that you guys post info from anywhere besides Fox...

Theres much, much more, to being informed than just watching cable news.

[Alan®]

I don't know you from Adam. To me you're just some guy on the internet, which as we all know, is serious business.

As far as taking more than 20 minutes to "watch" more than one news organization... you summed it up right there. The people of the right are too dependent/expectant on cable news (as a format, not just any one particular network). You can only criticize the left based on what you hear/see from CNN and MSNBC. How many of you even read a print newspaper at least once a week? How many of you use the Library of Congress website to actually read legislation? Its rare that you guys post info from anywhere besides Fox...

Theres much, much more, to being informed than just watching cable news.

You don't know me from Adam yet you had no problem throwing out all those terms to describe me.

I actually have the WSJ and the AJC delivered to the house on the weekends:goodjob:

[Vteckidd]

theres no need for print newspaper anymore, more information can be found online IMO

[Total_Blender]

theres no need for print newspaper anymore, more information can be found online IMO

Perhaps not a print newspaper, but theres always a need for the local, independent, and de-centralized news and op-ed content that only newspaper can provide.

If you use Fox online you're getting the same Murdoch-approved crap they broadcast on TV. The WSJ is also part of the Murdoch empire, as is the New York Post and HarperCollins publishing (publishers of Going Rogue).

[BanginJimmy]

Blender, the same can be said of the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe and dozens of other papers. They are all heavily slanted towards the liberal agenda and most of those papers are are dem donors.

The simple fact is that there isn't a single major media outlet in this country that doesn't show a bias. Some are obviously worse than others and show a definite bias in both their commentary and news, the most obvious is MSNBC. Fox is obviously leaning right in its commentary but their actual news shows are far closer to centric than you will find in any newspaper or other cable news channel.

[tony]

BBC, and PBS News tend to minimize the bias.

[BanginJimmy]

BBC, and PBS News tend to minimize the bias.

I get a lot of general info from BBC and Reuters. I havent found them to get much into specifics though on political issues.

[jorgen]

if you dont hate BOTH parties by now, your an idiot.

[Total_Blender]

I get a lot of general info from BBC and Reuters. I havent found them to get much into specifics though on political issues.

Well the BBC doesn't go in depth because they are covering the news for Great Britain. Operated by the British gov't, in fact. Socialism at its finest. :goodjob:

Reuters is more of a world-wide news source. They are good, but they are not necessarily covering events from an American prespective.

Thats why I prefer the AP, you get the news from an American/national perspective. Even though the AP is also a worldwide service, their coverage of American politics is written from an American perspective for an American audience.

Do you have proof that says the specific papers are Dem donors? As I understand it, newspapers themselves do not make political contributions, but some newspapers allow their employees to make political contributions.

[David88vert]

Do you have proof that says the specific papers are Dem donors? As I understand it, newspapers themselves do not make political contributions, but some newspapers allow their employees to make political contributions.

AP is considered a balanced news source IMO.

As for the request, not contributions, but bias:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
"Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post."
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/15/202224.shtml

From Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1828309,00.html
"At this point, denying that the press has a liberal tilt, particularly on social issues, is like denying that the universities have one. Surveys of reporters show that they have more liberal views than the public; surveys of the public show that readers and viewers pick up on it."

[Total_Blender]

The study in your articles is from 2005. Back when the media was busy criticizing George W. Bush and his blunders. Had they taken the survey between the fall of 2001 and the summer of 2002 it would show the media slanted Right because they were all supporting Bush and the war.

[David88vert]

The study in your articles is from 2005. Back when the media was busy criticizing George W. Bush and his blunders. Had they taken the survey between the fall of 2001 and the summer of 2002 it would show the media slanted Right because they were all supporting Bush and the war.

You failed to read and understand the article. They went back 10 years - so that would cover your "conservative reporting period" that you have referenced without corresponding evidence.

"Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.
Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score."

"Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter."

This is the most accurate study on record. Show me one that is more accurate. The fact is, the media has a definite liberal bias.

[Total_Blender]

This is the most accurate study on record. Show me one that is more accurate. The fact is, the media has a definite liberal bias.

A study that went back 10 years from 2005 to 1995 would have began right in the middle of Bill Clinton's presidency. It could just be that Democrats and liberal issues were in the news more. Also, it seems like the study only concerns the frequency with which left groups were mentioned over right groups. It doesn't concern whether the actual content of what was broadcast about the groups was left or right.



Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.
Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.


If I can find the specific study I'll give it a closer read, but I don't think I'll be that surprised by it.

[David88vert]

A study that went back 10 years from 2005 to 1995 would have began right in the middle of Bill Clinton's presidency. It could just be that Democrats and liberal issues were in the news more. Also, it seems like the study only concerns the frequency with which left groups were mentioned over right groups. It doesn't concern whether the actual content of what was broadcast about the groups was left or right.

If I can find the specific study I'll give it a closer read, but I don't think I'll be that surprised by it.

The study had the 5 most optimistic years of the Clinton presidency, and the 5 most optimisitic years of the Bush presidency. Can you think of a more balanced time period? Surely you don't think that the last 7 years of the Bush presidency, and 1 yr of Obama is a more balanced time period.

[Total_Blender]

Surely you don't think that the last 7 years of the Bush presidency, and 1 yr of Obama is a more balanced time period.

I will agree that Obama did get more attention in the campaign coverage, but McCain has received a lot of good press in elections past. After 8 years of George W., McCain and the GOP just couldn't create the excitement that the Dems could. McCain running for president might have been big news in 1992 or 1996, but by 2008 it was been there/done that.

[preferredduck]

Yeah, the Republicans stopped the healthcare bill. Now the 46 million Americans who can't get healthcare can die and go to hell just like Glenn Beck and Pat Robertson have prophesied. They were all sinners who made a deal with the devil anyway so fuck 'em, right?

no instead we will be required to buy some form of insurance or be fined or go to jail for not having it. it's insurance reform is all it is and that was what was gonna happen from the beggining. 46 million times say $100/mo = huge profits for them.

[BanginJimmy]

Do you have proof that says the specific papers are Dem donors? As I understand it, newspapers themselves do not make political contributions, but some newspapers allow their employees to make political contributions.


Should have been mor specific. I didnt mean the actual company donated, but the staff, including editors, are heavily slated towards liberal ideologies.

How about this for unbiased reporting, NY Times openly endorses Obama. I wonder how their reporting is going to be slanted.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE49N0FP20081024

[Total_Blender]

How about this for unbiased reporting, NY Times openly endorses Obama. I wonder how their reporting is going to be slanted.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE49N0FP20081024

Newspapers do print editorial opinions in addition to news reporting, you know. Mayor McCheese received many newspaper endorsements as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presid ential_primaries,_2008

[David88vert]

Did you forget the Feb 2008 report in the NY Times? It was found later to be a blatant smear on McCain - during their quest to ramp up coverage of Obama.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/mccain.media/index.html

Or what about their piece on Cindy McCain that was later proven to be fabrication:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18cindy.html
Only link that I have with her lawyer's response: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-latest-nyt-smear-of-cindy-mccain


The NY Times is definitely liberal. You cannot think that Fox is right wing, and the NY Times is balanced unless you are a extremist liberal.

[Total_Blender]

Your reply from her "lawyer" comes from a right wing blog and I can't find anywhere that the NYT has responded to it. Theres so much baiting partisan rhetoric I seriously doubt it is actually from her attorney.

If they were in the wrong they would have been called out and forced to print a retraction. I am not aware of such a retraction ever being released. Also, if the letter were legit and actually from her attorney, wouldn't it be accompanied by an order to cease and desist, signed by a judge? Although there is a vague threat that they will give an "appropriate response" there is no distinct claim that the allegations in the actual article were libelous or that they intend to prosecute on the grounds of libel.

[David88vert]

Your reply from her "lawyer" comes from a right wing blog and I can't find anywhere that the NYT has responded to it. Theres so much baiting partisan rhetoric I seriously doubt it is actually from her attorney.

If they were in the wrong they would have been called out and forced to print a retraction. I am not aware of such a retraction ever being released. Also, if the letter were legit and actually from her attorney, wouldn't it be accompanied by an order to cease and desist, signed by a judge? Although there is a vague threat that they will give an "appropriate response" there is no distinct claim that the allegations in the actual article were libelous or that they intend to prosecute on the grounds of libel.


The fact is that it was a part of a smear campaign by the liberal agenda of the NY Times.
Where was their investigation on Obam's drug dealer or the Marxist professors that he accounted as influences? Where were their interviews of his Kenyan family? Where was their digging into Michelle Obama - especially her college papers? They did not want to follow that path, as it did not fit their agenda. That is fine to report with bias, but don't say they are balanced.
The NY Times refused to redact, as they have refused many times on article concerning the Republican party. That is not uncommon among news agencies that have a political bias - the same happens with Fox.
The NY Times definitely has a liberal bias. This is well-known (as it is well-known that Fox leans right).

You consistantly ignore the obvious point that most of the media leans left.

[Total_Blender]

The fact is that it was a part of a smear campaign by the liberal agenda of the NY Times.
.

I don't see any evidence of a "smear campaign" at work. There was a clear conflict of interest between McCain and a lobbyist, and they reported on it. If it were untrue, they would have been legally liable to print a retraction.

If the McCains are right and that weak response letter and its results (nothing happening) are the best lawyer-ing that McCain's money can buy, I should open up a practice of my own.

Marxist professors? I see you are on that "liberal bias in education" nonsense again. Marx is valuable to the study of social science, as his theories on material culture are the backbone for the procedures of analysis used by modern scholars. One can write Marxist critiques (using Marx's procedural framework for an essay or study of criticism) without being a political communist, a political socialist, or any of the other baggage attributed to Marx by those who are unfamiliar with his work. Whether you agree with Marx or not, a cursory understanding of his concepts and terminology like sign-exchange value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_value) and use-value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_value) are essential to participate in the discourse of social science.

The Kenyan family have little to do with Obama's job as president, and from what I have read he didn't even meet then until the mid '80's. And as far as his drug dealers go, Obama has been forthcoming about his drug use so I don't see why the stories of guys who sold Obama nickle bags a couple of times 30 years ago would be necessary. The press hasn't interviewed Rush Limbaugh's drug suppliers, or George W. Bush's, or Glenn Beck's....

[Mike Lowrey]

The Republicans have not accomplished anything of value in the last year.
The Democrats have not accomplished anything of value in the last year.

The difference is that the Democrats controlled Congress, and had the White House. That speaks volumes about the quality of their Congressional leadership abilities.

This! :goodjob:

[David88vert]

I don't see any evidence of a "smear campaign" at work. There was a clear conflict of interest between McCain and a lobbyist, and they reported on it. If it were untrue, they would have been legally liable to print a retraction.

If the McCains are right and that weak response letter and its results (nothing happening) are the best lawyer-ing that McCain's money can buy, I should open up a practice of my own.

Marxist professors? I see you are on that "liberal bias in education" nonsense again. Marx is valuable to the study of social science, as his theories on material culture are the backbone for the procedures of analysis used by modern scholars. One can write Marxist critiques (using Marx's procedural framework for an essay or study of criticism) without being a political communist, a political socialist, or any of the other baggage attributed to Marx by those who are unfamiliar with his work. Whether you agree with Marx or not, a cursory understanding of his concepts and terminology like sign-exchange value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_value) and use-value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_value) are essential to participate in the discourse of social science.

The Kenyan family have little to do with Obama's job as president, and from what I have read he didn't even meet then until the mid '80's. And as far as his drug dealers go, Obama has been forthcoming about his drug use so I don't see why the stories of guys who sold Obama nickle bags a couple of times 30 years ago would be necessary. The press hasn't interviewed Rush Limbaugh's drug suppliers, or George W. Bush's, or Glenn Beck's....


CNN saw it as a smear campaign. If you took your head out of the sand, you might see it as well. No organization has to print a retraction, and what presidential candidate is going to file a lawsuit during a campaign? That is political suicide. Use some common sense.

I said nothing about education. You are an idiot if you think that. Read Obama's book - The Audacity of Hope. Barack Obama talks of his time at Occidental College in California. Here's a quote from pages 100 and 101:

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets.At night,in the dorms,we discussed neocolonialism,Franz Fanon,Eurocentrism,and patriarchy.When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake,we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints.We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure.We were alienated.


Obama endorsing socialist Bernie Sanders for Senate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIlIpOkRh2A

Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is the junior (http://www.importatlanta.com/wiki/Senate_seniority) United States Senator (http://www.importatlanta.com/wiki/United_States_Senate) from Vermont (http://www.importatlanta.com/wiki/Vermont), elected on November 7, 2006. Before becoming Senator, Sanders represented Vermont's at-large district (http://www.importatlanta.com/wiki/Vermont%27s_at-large_congressional_district) in the United States House of Representatives (http://www.importatlanta.com/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) for 16 years.
Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist (http://www.importatlanta.com/wiki/Democratic_socialism), but because he does not belong to a formal political party, he appears as an independent (http://www.importatlanta.com/wiki/Independent_(politician)) on the ballot. He is the first person elected to the U.S. Senate to identify as a socialist (http://www.importatlanta.com/wiki/Socialist).


On Kenya - If Obama won't choose to help his own family, why would he care about you?

Dig into Cindy McCain's past for dirt, but not follow up on the man running from President, do you think that it is logical?

And for the record - I am not against Obama, nor do I believe that all journalism has to be without bias. But I do believe that you are choosing to ignore the blatant slant of the news - that the majority of American can recognize.

[Total_Blender]

On Kenya - If Obama won't choose to help his own family, why would he care about you?



There are people in my own family I don't care about. People who have stolen from me, my parents, my grandparents, etc. People who are whacked out on drugs, etc. Every family has them. I see them only at Thanksgiving and X-mas and I don't even talk to them then.

Also, maybe they haven't asked for his help. According to Wikipedia most of them aren't doing too bad... owning businesses, working for the gov't, etc. Obama's brother George in Kenya said he's happy living in the slum. :dunno:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/22/bts.obama.brother/

If the NY Times was responsible for libel toward the McCains then the McCains would have a Tort of Defamation against them, and could sue for millions. For such a lawsuit to happen, the McCains would have to prove that:

A.) The claims against them were false.

or

B.) That the claims were published with "actual malice," which means a reckless intent to defamation whether the claims were true or false.

The McCains didn't sue because they couldn't prove it. They could have sued after the campaign. Most states have a statute of limitations of 1 year for libel claims, some have as many as 3 years.

But if anything, the fact that CNN stuck up for the McCains goes against your theory of the "liberal media". If there really was a liberal conspiracy, wouldn't CNN be in on it too? :lmfao:

[David88vert]

There are people in my own family I don't care about. People who have stolen from me, my parents, my grandparents, etc. People who are whacked out on drugs, etc. Every family has them. I see them only at Thanksgiving and X-mas and I don't even talk to them then.

Also, maybe they haven't asked for his help. According to Wikipedia most of them aren't doing too bad... owning businesses, working for the gov't, etc. Obama's brother George in Kenya said he's happy living in the slum. :dunno:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/22/bts.obama.brother/

If the NY Times was responsible for libel toward the McCains then the McCains would have a Tort of Defamation against them, and could sue for millions. For such a lawsuit to happen, the McCains would have to prove that:

A.) The claims against them were false.

or

B.) That the claims were published with "actual malice," which means a reckless intent to defamation whether the claims were true or false.

The McCains didn't sue because they couldn't prove it. They could have sued after the campaign. Most states have a statute of limitations of 1 year for libel claims, some have as many as 3 years.

But if anything, the fact that CNN stuck up for the McCains goes against your theory of the "liberal media". If there really was a liberal conspiracy, wouldn't CNN be in on it too? :lmfao:

Obama's family in Kenya hasn't had the opportunity to have him dislike them though. That's a difference between your family her and his there. Your argument on that is extremely weak at best. Bottom line is that Obama doesn't care about them enough to take any action on their situation, and that is fine with me. But make no mistake, he is not worried about your family either. Our current Presidents have not appeared to have the same ideals as our founding fathers for quite a long time.

McCain is a sitting Senator. It would be political suicide to take it to a lawsuit. They don't need the money, and they are pretty used to the media publishing articles both for and against them. But again, common sense seems to escape you. The McCain's didn't sue because even if they proved it 100% that it was malicious (which is very difficult to prove in court in this situation), it still would have sidetracked his presidential campaign, and would have sunk his capabilty to control future Senate campaigns.

You do realize that CNN and all media outlets are in competition with each other, right? Interestingly, the story was condemned by the majority of the media. Additionally, have I not mentioned it multiple times that CNN is far more balanced in my opinion than a lot of other media outlets?

Your choice to not see or believe the truth does not change that there is political media bias. Fox will still be biased, as will the NY Times - both in opposite directions. The majority just happens to be with a liberal slant - for now. In 30 years, it might be the complete opposite.

Interestingly enough, you did not address Obama's choice to associate specifically with Marxist professors. Nothign wrong with him being friends with them, but don't think for a minute that he was not influenced by socialism. Again, that is not necessarily a bad thing, depending upon how one acts when in the position of President.

[Total_Blender]

. Our current Presidents have not appeared to have the same ideals as our founding fathers for quite a long time.

.

I wasn't aware that he needed to take any "action" about his Kenyan family. Again, according to Wikipedia several of them now live in the US, and some of the ones who remain in Kenya own businesses or work for the Kenyan government. It doesn't seem like they are living in squalor, other than Obama's half brother George, who seems happy where he's at and hasn't asked for Obama's help according to the information published about him. And if Obama were to help them publicly, it would be fodder for Orly Taints and the Birthers. If he is helping them he would probably not publicize it. For all we know he might be sending them crates of Hungry Man dinners right now. :screwy:

I hear a lot about the "founding fathers" like they all agreed and they all had a cohesive vision for the country... which couldn't be farther from the truth, as they had disagreements so strong they had brawls and fought duels over them. Some of them had only wanted representatives from the colonies in British Parliament, or for the colonies to have their own parliament but still remain under British protectorate. Others wanted the US to be an independent monarchy with its own king. Also, don't forget that the country was about evenly split at the time of the revolution. There were plenty of citizens and politicians who had been loyal to the British who were forced to integrate into the new independent America.

Obama and the "Marxist professors," sounds a lot like my experience in college. I have friends on all sides of the political spectrum, but my best friends are those of the Marxist sort. With my conservative friends, discussion of Marx is more of a debate (which is fine), but with my friends who are also students of Marx the discussion is more topical and analytical.

Anyone who studies Marx probably studies socialism, the two are not one-in-the-same, but the application of Marxist logic is a driving principle behind socialism. I'm sure Obama is familiar with socialism and no-doubt does show some socialist influences. But I would not describe him as a "Socialist," given the current record of his administration. If he is a "Socialist" he is foremost a corporate socialist as the bailouts of the auto industry and the banks, and the proposed mandates to buy private insurance attest.

[David88vert]

I wasn't aware that he needed to take any "action" about his Kenyan family. Again, according to Wikipedia several of them now live in the US, and some of the ones who remain in Kenya own businesses or work for the Kenyan government. It doesn't seem like they are living in squalor, other than Obama's half brother George, who seems happy where he's at and hasn't asked for Obama's help according to the information published about him. And if Obama were to help them publicly, it would be fodder for Orly Taints and the Birthers. If he is helping them he would probably not publicize it. For all we know he might be sending them crates of Hungry Man dinners right now. :screwy:
True, we cannot see everything he does. You continue to want to go off on tangents though, rather tha answer the original issues.


I hear a lot about the "founding fathers" like they all agreed and they all had a cohesive vision for the country... which couldn't be farther from the truth, as they had disagreements so strong they had brawls and fought duels over them. Some of them had only wanted representatives from the colonies in British Parliament, or for the colonies to have their own parliament but still remain under British protectorate. Others wanted the US to be an independent monarchy with its own king. Also, don't forget that the country was about evenly split at the time of the revolution. There were plenty of citizens and politicians who had been loyal to the British who were forced to integrate into the new independent America.
The leadership of this country had disagreements of course; however they came to agreements that they documented - you might have read them in civics class.
No one was compelled to stay here. Those who did not want to integrate had the option to go back to England. I sure that some decided it was not worth it, and stayed, others probably decided it was better to go back. Again, this is a tangent.


Obama and the "Marxist professors," sounds a lot like my experience in college. I have friends on all sides of the political spectrum, but my best friends are those of the Marxist sort. With my conservative friends, discussion of Marx is more of a debate (which is fine), but with my friends who are also students of Marx the discussion is more topical and analytical.

Anyone who studies Marx probably studies socialism, the two are not one-in-the-same, but the application of Marxist logic is a driving principle behind socialism. I'm sure Obama is familiar with socialism and no-doubt does show some socialist influences. But I would not describe him as a "Socialist," given the current record of his administration. If he is a "Socialist" he is foremost a corporate socialist as the bailouts of the auto industry and the banks, and the proposed mandates to buy private insurance attest.
You choose to associtate closely with your friends. These people do exert influence on you. Obama chose to be around people who's main focus is to discuss Marxism and socialism. He chose to be influenced by these people. Since one cannot accurately predict the future, one has to look at the past, and see how the person behaved in the past. This is not a guarantee of how they will act in the future, of course, but it is better than nothing. In these cases, both you and Obama have a past that includes stronger socialist tendancies than the average American - and this increases the probability that both will promote socialism in America.
Obama is currently pushing a healthcare plan with socialist tendancies. While it is possible that you could become the next Rush Limbaugh, it is not likely in my opinion. :D

[Total_Blender]

In these cases, both you and Obama have a past that includes stronger socialist tendancies than the average American - and this increases the probability that both will promote socialism in America.
Obama is currently pushing a healthcare plan with socialist tendancies. :D

I don't see how a mandate to buy insurance from a private system could be interpreted as "socialist". Its a gimme to private insurance companies. Myself I don't see whats wrong with starting a public pool to compete with the private companies for those of us who can't access the private system. That would be more "socialist" than what is being proposed currently.

[David88vert]

I don't see how a mandate to buy insurance from a private system could be interpreted as "socialist". Its a gimme to private insurance companies. Myself I don't see whats wrong with starting a public pool to compete with the private companies for those of us who can't access the private system. That would be more "socialist" than what is being proposed currently.

I understand and partially agree. Socialism is not completely wrong, as you may be used to constantly hearing. It may be beneficial in some instances, like healthcare. The problem is once you legislate it, you have to manage it - which the government is notoriously poor at doing.

[preferredduck]

I don't see how a mandate to buy insurance from a private system could be interpreted as "socialist". Its a gimme to private insurance companies. Myself I don't see whats wrong with starting a public pool to compete with the private companies for those of us who can't access the private system. That would be more "socialist" than what is being proposed currently.

do you realize how much campaign $$ the private insurance companies gave to the big O. those companies are also ties into many other companies"banks, oil, etc" and alot of the same people own them. did you also know that medicare and medicaid are already "managed" and "underwritten" by most major insurance companies. i learned this because i did hospital billing and collections and i learned a whole lot about the system and it sucks really. basically a public pool will still be ran by the private companies. now what are the people going to do like me who cannot afford any type of insurance at all atm. i'll get fined or go to jail, atleast that was in the proposed bill. it was going to be insurance reform from the beginning and obama, and all the companies knew it, they just had to put on a show for the people so we felt like we won and still make a difference. remember the big meeting they all had over a year ago, they do have agenda's they follow you know.

[BanginJimmy]

I don't see how a mandate to buy insurance from a private system could be interpreted as "socialist". Its a gimme to private insurance companies. Myself I don't see whats wrong with starting a public pool to compete with the private companies for those of us who can't access the private system. That would be more "socialist" than what is being proposed currently.


That "gimmie" to private insurance companies comes with a VERY hefty price tag for everyone. Remember all of those people that have existing conditions? Under any of the proposed plans, insurance companies will be forced to cover them for the same price that they cover healthy people, not at a level proportionate with the risk involved. This is no different than a mandate for everyone making more than 30k a year to purchase a home so that those people that make less could use available apartments. This would prop up the housing market wouldnt it? Thats a good thing isnt it? We will just ignore people's right to choose for the greater good.

[Vteckidd]

I don't see how a mandate to buy insurance from a private system could be interpreted as "socialist". Its a gimme to private insurance companies. Myself I don't see whats wrong with starting a public pool to compete with the private companies for those of us who can't access the private system. That would be more "socialist" than what is being proposed currently.

Simple yes or no questions, no rhetoric be honest

1)do you believe the federal govt can operate without making a "profit"
2)do you think any private entity can compete with the federal govt?
3)do you think it is fair to collect taxes for 4 years before giving out any benefits?
4) do you think it is honest to have 10 year projections on cost of healthcare with only 6 years of benefits being given out?
5) do you think introducing 30 million people to the system will cause costs to go up?

After the yes or no answers on that you may answer the followng:
1) how does a private business operate in competition with the govt? Do you think they can? Give an example. My example would be the usps vs fedex/ups. Usps is sometimes cheaper but their service and reliability sucks, and they are almost bankrupt. Who runs a better business? Private sector.

2) how will one keep their current insurance if the goal of the govt option is to be cheaper? If this is simply about cost, doesn't it make sense that a person/business would drop te private carrier to use the govt option?

3) tell me why costs are high and how the govt plan will keep them down. Cite examples


I don't want links to other pages I want your opinions.

[Total_Blender]

Simple yes or no questions, no rhetoric be honest

1)do you believe the federal govt can operate without making a "profit"

"Profit" for who? The way you use profit in quotes seems to indicate that you are implying corruption or something. Restate your question more clearly and I'll answer it.

2)do you think any private entity can compete with the federal govt?

UPS and Fed-Ex do it every day. So, yes.

3)do you think it is fair to collect taxes for 4 years before giving out any benefits?

Happens all the time with other gov't programs. Yes

4) do you think it is honest to have 10 year projections on cost of healthcare with only 6 years of benefits being given out?

I think its pretty obvious to anyone who looks at the facts that with a 10 year projection starting in 2010 you're only getting 6 years of benefits. I don't see how that is dishonest as they are not hiding anything. So, no.

5) do you think introducing 30 million people to the system will cause costs to go up?

That depends on the plan that is passed. Adding 30 or 40 million more people to the private pools will put a hell of a lot more money into the system though. So for the current proposal, no.

As for the essay questions...

1.) You just answered #2 of the above questions here. Yes, UPS and FEd-EX are able to compete by offering more expedient service to the customer at a slightly greater expense. I don't see why private insurance wouldn't be able to compete in the same way.

2.) As I understand it there will be tax incentives for companies that provide insurance to their employees. So theres that.

3.) I think costs are so high because of the army of lawyers the insurance companies have trying to deny claims, and the army of lobbyists they have jockeying for political patronage. Also, the inconsistencies and loopholes in the way services are billed and reimbursed. And theres the rising cost of prescription drugs... Big Pharma also has an army of lawyers and lobbyists to pay and these costs are passed on to hospitals, insurance companies and ultimately, consumers.

I think tort reform would be helpful, but Republicans haven't thrown out anything that has stuck. The reality about tort reform is that a lot of congressmen on BOTH sides of the aisle are lawyers. So I don't see it getting a lot of support from either party. The republicans can use it as a talking point, but do you really think all the career lawyers in the GOP would support it?

[Vteckidd]

I'm sorry he trial lawyers are in the dems back pocket

I'll respond later, good answers.

[Total_Blender]

Here's a list of attorneys in Congress from Ron Paul's forum. Not the best source but it was just a quick google.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/94514

20 of 41 GOP senators

53 of 178 GOP reps

Granted, the majorities of repubs aren't lawyers, but should those lawyers vote in their own interest an already outnumbered GOP wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

[BanginJimmy]

Here's a list of attorneys in Congress from Ron Paul's forum. Not the best source but it was just a quick google.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/94514

20 of 41 GOP senators

53 of 178 GOP reps

Granted, the majorities of repubs aren't lawyers, but should those lawyers vote in their own interest an already outnumbered GOP wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

I wont do the research, but a lawyer isnt just a lawyer if you know what I mean. Just like 1 doctor isnt the same as every other one. You have specialties. How many of those GOP (and dem) lawyers have never actually practiced law and just got the degree because thats what you do before going into politics? How many of them were prosecutors or defense lawyers? Then you get to how many are trial/tort lawyers.

Also, do you have the numbers for the Dems?

[BanginJimmy]

4) do you think it is honest to have 10 year projections on cost of healthcare with only 6 years of benefits being given out?

I think its pretty obvious to anyone who looks at the facts that with a 10 year projection starting in 2010 you're only getting 6 years of benefits. I don't see how that is dishonest as they are not hiding anything. So, no.

The point I believe he was trying to make was that with only 6 years of benefits and 10 years to spread the cost, it will make the real cost look MUCH lower than it really is.

For Example.

I start the year with a 40k a year budget and I spend 1k a month for the first 6 months and because I am so far under budget I decide to buy a new, bigger house and a brand new car, pushing my spending 5k for the last half. My total spending only looks like 36k a year which is great, I am under budget. But if you actually break it down my budget, which I am trapped in for the next 6 years, is actually 60k a year.


5) do you think introducing 30 million people to the system will cause costs to go up?

That depends on the plan that is passed. Adding 30 or 40 million more people to the private pools will put a hell of a lot more money into the system though. So for the current proposal, no.

Your arent just adding healthy people to the pools though. You are adding AIDS patients and cancer patients whose yearly medical costs could easily top 100k a year.
To make things simple I will say that all 30 mil people will be charged $1000/yr for insurance. That will create about 30B in revenue for the govt. Now, we will say that 1% of those 30M people will have AIDS or cancer, or some other major ailment that costs an average of 100k a year. For just that 1%, or 300K people, you will see 100% of the total budget used up. The other 29.7M people's medical costs along with all of the overhead will have to go on someone else's dime.



1.) You just answered #2 of the above questions here. Yes, UPS and FEd-EX are able to compete by offering more expedient service to the customer at a slightly greater expense. I don't see why private insurance wouldn't be able to compete in the same way.

Because of the govt mandates and additional taxes. It would be like the govt charging UPS an extra $1 per package per day that it was delivered quicker than USPS could do it.


2.) As I understand it there will be tax incentives for companies that provide insurance to their employees. So theres that.

Those tax incentives, if there are any, wont cover half of what providing insurance would.


3.) I think costs are so high because of the army of lawyers the insurance companies have trying to deny claims, and the army of lobbyists they have jockeying for political patronage. Also, the inconsistencies and loopholes in the way services are billed and reimbursed. And theres the rising cost of prescription drugs... Big Pharma also has an army of lawyers and lobbyists to pay and these costs are passed on to hospitals, insurance companies and ultimately, consumers.

If you really think that, you really need to do some research into it. My quick bit of research says the biggest issues are defensive medicine, patients trying to get the newest and most expensive procedures even if other tests are just as good, although not always as pleasant, and medicare/medicaid underpayments.


I think tort reform would be helpful, but Republicans haven't thrown out anything that has stuck.

That would be because the dems have never let a GOP bill onto the floor for debate. Its very easy for the dems to say the GOP hasnt offered a plan when you can control what discussions hit the floor of the chamber or a committee meeting.

[Total_Blender]

If you really think that, you really need to do some research into it. My quick bit of research says the biggest issues are defensive medicine, patients trying to get the newest and most expensive procedures even if other tests are just as good, although not always as pleasant, and medicare/medicaid underpayments. .

Theres also the added burden of people who use the emergency room like its a regular Dr's clinic because they have nowhere else to go. There would be significant savings and reductions in wait time if those people could just go to a regular clinic.

[BanginJimmy]

That is another factor, but it isn't one of the top factors. Defensive medicine alone costs hundreds of billions a year and the only reason many of the tests and procedures are done is to shield docs from a malpractice suit and the drasticly rising rates for malpractice insurance that go with them.