supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 13 years ago
A must read article on how Obamacare works...

http://www.nytimes.com/20...eakin.html

Proof that if the federal government hadn't exempted itself from Sarbanes-Oxley, most members of Congress would be led away in cuffs.

I also see Democrats have decided today that abortion funding can be cut via Executive Order. That'll sure will come in handy in '13. For now though, we'll just have to file it away under "Imagine if Bush had done it"
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3743) 13 years ago
Then why are you so upset about this bill making you buy health insurance?


I am upset because of this massive power grab by the Federal Government.

I am upset because the costs are still unknown.

I am upset at the way this was railroaded into law.

I am upset at the further erosion of our liberties.

I am upset that the Government has the audacity to demand that people sign up or face stiff fines.

Those among others is is why I am upset & distressed with this bill.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (3/23/2010)]
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+596) 13 years ago
So having insurance allows a woman to get an abortion? Then it seems that those who have insurance are susidizing abortion with their premium payments. That means Kyle, Rick, and Richard all support abortion.... Wow!
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+18638) 13 years ago
I am upset because of this massive power grab by the Federal Government.


I'm afraid I have some bad news for you, Kyle. Massive power grabs by the Federal Government began under George Washington. Ever heard of the Whiskey Rebellion?

Indeed, it could be said that our Constitution, so beloved of the teabaggers, was a massive power grab by the Federal Government from the Articles of Confederation.

The issue of nullification that is being proposed by several states was addressed by Andrew Jackson, and confirmed by Abraham Lincoln.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3743) 13 years ago
Massive power grabs by the Federal Government began under George Washington


No poop Gunnar, but this goes way beyond anything done before.

Indeed, it could be said that our Constitution, so beloved of the teabaggers, was a massive power grab by the Federal Government from the Articles of Confederation


We must have different views on the Constitution Gunnar. I've always been under the impression that the Constitution LIMITS on what the Federal Government can and can not do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...nstitution

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (3/23/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9526) 13 years ago
I am upset at the way this was railroaded into law.


How's that democracy taste Kyle? I understand that Obama's on an all broccoli diet these days, to make it just that much more bitter for you to swallow.

On what planet does "majority vote" == "railroaded"?
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+18638) 13 years ago
Ummmm.....Kyle? Like, WTF? Are you that stupid?

Click on your own link, and then click on "History of the Consitution".....

However, weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation became apparent before the Revolution ended. The Articles left most of the power in the state governments as a response to fears of re-creating the centralized power like Britain. The need for a revenue stream was widely conceded. Under the articles, Congress lacked authority to levy taxes. Instead, it could request the States to contribute a share to the common treasury. The amounts gained through this technique were not sufficient. To remedy this defect, Congress applied to the States for power to lay duties and secure the public debts. Twelve States agreed to such an amendment, but Rhode Island refused its consent, thereby defeating the proposal.[1] Congress did borrow money and sell western lands.

The veto of each state was a second weakness in the Articles of Confederation. Not only did all amendments have to be ratified by each of the thirteen states, but also all important legislation needed the approval of nine States. With several delegations absent, one or two States were often able to defeat legislative proposals of major importance.


So the Constitution was created to replace the Articles of Confederation to provide for a stronger, more powerful federal government.

You shouldn't post links to articles that you have no intentions of reading yourself.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3743) 13 years ago
On what planet does "majority vote" == "railroaded"?


When they talk of using "Nuclear Options" & parliamentary sleight-of-hand to avoid debate & discussion Bridgier I consider it to have been railroaded.

You shouldn't post links to articles that you have no intentions of reading yourself.


I have read it Gunnar and I stand by what I said. In the Constitution itself you are correct. But, the Bill of Rights (which is a part of the Constitution) does place limits. So if anything we are both correct.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9526) 13 years ago
When they talk of using "Nuclear Options" & parliamentary sleight-of-hand to avoid debate & discussion Bridgier I consider it to have been railroaded.


That's politics dumbass.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+18638) 13 years ago
They had 12 months of debate. It was time to shut those windbags up.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3743) 13 years ago
That's politics dumbass


Politics huh?

"But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."


Hmmm, I wonder what happened to all that transparency we were promised? Making promises & breaking them repeatedly.

You're right Bridgier. That IS politics.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (3/23/2010)]
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3743) 13 years ago
They had 12 months of debate. It was time to shut those windbags up


For a bill this massive Gunnar I would've like to have seen a lot more debate especially with all of the unanswered questions and issues still lingering around it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 13 years ago
Then we'll be able to make better choices for health care on our own, without those pesky doctors making us go through expensive tests.


Those aren't doctors, Gunnar. As Obama himself pointed out, they're foot rustlin' for-profit amputanionists.

Or maybe the fact that they made $10 billion in profit last year makes that $100 million seem like chump change.


Actually in 2009 they posted $900 million profit. But we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with 2008's figure of 3.5 billion.

100 million over 3.5 billion. Chump Change. Let me write that down.

Now, here's the important part...what evidence do you have that 'cost shifting' due to the uninsured is a major player in the "what's wrong with health care costs" story. How much money are we talking?
Top
Posted by AJS (+217) 13 years ago
A bird in the hand is safer than one overhead.

AJS
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+18748) 13 years ago
You're right Rick, sorry. Gross profit last year was $10 billion on $32 billion in sales but they had a net income of only $895 million in what appears to be an atypical year.

I'm still trying to find a reputable source that says CAT claims the health care bill will cost them $100 million in the first year.

Anyhow, waaa, waaa, waaaa, keep crying big fella. It's tough to be on the losing side of politics once in a while isn't it? Boo hoo.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9526) 13 years ago
Or in the immortal words of Joe Biden: Boo procreateing hoo...
Top
supporter
Posted by Dustin Lynam (+186) 13 years ago
I have a question for Denise and Rick..... are you guys sure your mom didnt secretly adopt one of you and just never tell anyone??? LOL! Just teasing.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5104) 13 years ago
Or in the immortal words of Richard "Dick" Cheney: "Go procreate yourself, Rickenhawk."
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1668) 13 years ago
Dustin, our mom's favorite foods during pregnancy were eggs (me) and bologna (Ricky). Since eggs are a good source of Choline for brain development, and bologna, is well, bologna, I'd say there was something prophetic in that.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+18638) 13 years ago
That is pretty darn funny, Denise.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15536) 13 years ago
Looks like the yolk is on Denise.
Top
Posted by mtpatriot (+86) 13 years ago
Another fact everyone may be interested in is that they are giving this to the IRS to run, it is also stated there will be another 16,000.00 IRS hires for this. (This must be the job creation he has said he is doing" "more governmental employees with high salaries" We all know how intrusive the IRS is in our lives, does anyone want more of this? It is not called a fine it is called a Tax, and they worded as such to hopefully help get around the constitutional end of it. The government just took over another 1/6th of our economy. Changes did need to be made we all agree, tort reform would have helped. Being able to purchase insurance across state lines would have helped, getting rid of the preconditions barriers so many people come to know. My mother who is now 80 has health issues, she is in what is called the dognut hole for prescription drugs as so many other people, little was done to help that. What about the lack of care that is going to happen? If you come down with a deadly disease or illness are you going to want to have to wait to see a DR any longer than you all ready do? Is the diagnosis going to be missed due to not being able to do the testing they need to do. I realize there are a lot of abuses, and if they could cut down on the fraud that would be good, but have they ever? Doctors are now talking on becoming Independant and not taking payments from insurance companies or the government, there is quite a movement going for that one. They have all ready changed the age for a woman to have a mamogram from 40 to 50, quite a few women found lumps around the age of 40, so breast cancer rates will no doubt go up. We all agree that things are needed in order to change things, but I dont believe many of us wanted this much interfearence from the government. It will be months maybe years before we discover all the "special deals" that were made which sold out the american people. People need to have personal responsibility, there are times that people who could and would qualify for medicaid cant be bothered to even do the paperwork. We have a hospital here and 2 clinics that offer financial aid to people if they bother to fill out the paperwork which is offered repeatedly. The medical facilities here are non profit 501 C3 they have to give financial aid in order to be within the guidlines of operations. The simple fact is that no matter what side of the fence you sit on this one we simply cannot afford all of this at this time, your children and grandchildren will not even to keep up on the interest payments when this fully hits. Not only that but we also have an illegal alien problem in this country which costs us billions and billions of dollars, now they are talking about amnesty for all of them, what is that going to do to our health care then? Then we have the government bleeding social security dry with all the money they have siphoned off and all they have left stacks of is IOU'S. Is this really who you want managing our health care?
Top
Posted by Jim Birkholz (+196) 13 years ago
If you go to a doctor or hospital right now and look at the resulting bill, you will see what I think is the biggest argument for fixing the old system. If you don't have insurance, you will get a bill that might cripple you financially for the rest of your life and damage the quality of life for your children. If you have insurance, you will get the same bill, but it will be divided into three parts: the pre-negotiated price that the insurance company pays, the part you pay (if any) and the amount written off in the pre-negotiated pricing agreements.

Let's assume that the amount that you and the insurance company pay is approximately the realistic price for the services rendered. It is my understanding that the amount that is written off (but not for the un-insured) is what the medical providers have to jack up to break even, based on a certain percentage of uninsured patients who eventually pay their bill in full, plus those who pay partially until they go under and have to sell the farm.

This is essentially the same as charging more interest to persons with "bad credit", somewhat justified by the implication that all bad credit is the fault of that consumer, charging high fees for overdrafts. Those that can least afford it, are charged the highest rates. This "kick-em when they're down" mentality extends to the difficulty of work: the harder the work is, the lower the pay.

To recap, let's say you have to get a CT scan that bills out at $4000. If you have insurance, the negotiated price might be $1800, the insurance company pays $14,400 and you pay $360. (And, on average, you've paid for the $1800 also, in payroll premium deductions and in the reduced pay you could have received if the employer wasn't paying most of the premiums.) If you don't have insurance, you pay the $1800 plus the $2200 to cover the other guy who can't afford to pay any of the bill for his CT scan and the third guy who pays $25/mo for 16 months and then goes bankrupt.

Isn't that a great system?

But reform opponents say that we should have the choice to not be insured. The number of rational adults who have the option to have insurance and don't take the option is tiny.

The "right to choose not to be insured" might be true

1)for adults who have a choice.
2)*If* everyone in our society has no problem with them not being able to get any free care - ever, nor their kids.

We've made auto insurance mandatory because the alternative is to make some people pay for all the accidents. Some people don't drive. All people live and need to be reasonably healthy, if medically possible. Good health means more productivity, which increases tax revenue.

We will always have to struggle with deciding what level of care we can afford and deal with fraud. Some of us will be lucky enough to be able to afford extra insurance. The collective pain of this bureaucracy will be much less than the collective pain of the formerly uninsured. We will all pay more, but we will all healthier. We'll pay more for gas and for carbon-reduction, but we are resourceful and we will still enjoy a good standard of living.

Any shake up is going to affect diverse aspects of other struggles, like immigration and global economic competition. But we'll find ways to deal. *Absolutely nothing* can justify standing on the heads and souls of the less fortunate, to maintain a privileged life.
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+596) 13 years ago
Well stated, Jim
Top
Posted by GCC (-604) 13 years ago
Well stated, mtpatriot
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15536) 13 years ago
It appears, after reading this thread, that mockery has cash value. Who knew.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 13 years ago
Sorry, since nobody wanted to answer, how big is the 'uninsured cost shifting' problem... the answer is $28 billion, according to the CBO report.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc...Issues.pdf

or $43 billion if you count what hospitals and doctors absorb.

I've seen other reputable estimates around $11 billion, but most seem to center around $40-50.

This is in a 2.3 trillion dollar market, mind you. Even assuming the highball $43 billion, we've just solved a problem for less than 2% of the health care dollars spent in the US annually. Or, if you go look at those Caterpillar numbers above... Obamacare is a bigger problem for Caterpillar than the uninsured are for health care costs. Chump Change.

And that's not even counting the fact that Obamacare's goal is to cut 40-some million uninsured to 20-some. So you'll be lucky to get rid of half of those 'uninsured' costs.

Or put another way, the federal government could've just written a check for 20 years of uninsured, and still saved a ton of money over their 6 year 'solution.' And not kicked any lil' ol' ladies off of Medicare Advantage.

I imagine alot of mechanic shops in town probably get stiffed for a few of their bills. Maybe we should mandate car maintenance insurance, so I'm not paying the bills for those slackers! Truth is, you pay for bad debt everywhere you buy anything.

Simply put, the uninsured are not really THE problem with healthcare cost. They're a problem, but the biggest cause is the 12 cent problem. All this pomp and circumstance is really just justification for the trojan horse.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (3/24/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15536) 13 years ago
I'm still trying to find a reputable source that says CAT claims the health care bill will cost them $100 million in the first year.


"Dow Jones Newswires | Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives would increase the company's health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.

In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan "because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees."
Caterpillar, the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer by sales, said it's particularly opposed to provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines.

The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program.

"We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors," said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar. "We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we've raised throughout the year."

Business executives have long complained that the options offered for covering 32 million uninsured Americans would result in higher insurance costs for those employers that already provide coverage. Opponents have stepped up their attacks in recent days as the House moves closer toward a vote on the Senate version of the health-care legislation.

A letter Thursday to President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed by more than 130 economists predicted the legislation would discourage companies from hiring more workers and would cause reduced hours and wages for those already employed.

Caterpillar noted that the company supports efforts to increase the quality and the value of health care for patients as well as lower costs for employer-sponsored insurance coverage.

"Unfortunately, neither the current legislation in the House and Senate, nor the president's proposal, meets these goals," the letter said."

http://www.chicagobreakin...-100m.html
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+18748) 13 years ago
Boo hoo, Rick. Too bad your team didn't come to Congress with the intention of passing true health-care reform. Instead we have to accept this "hardly any change" watered-down version which, based on the R's fear-mongering, I suspect is pretty close to the kind of health-care reform they really wanted to see.

Thank you, Richard. Poor Caterpillar will have 3% less income in a typical year:

"The company said the potential extra costs would primarily come from provisions to tax the federal subsidies the company now receives for providing prescription-drug benefits to retirees and their spouses.

Since the Medicare drug program was enacted in 2003, Caterpillar and more than 3,500 companies that already provided drug benefits for retirees have received tax-free subsidies from the federal government as an incentive to maintain their drug programs.

The subsidies average $665 per person covered under a company-sponsored prescription program, according to benefits consultant Towers Watson, which recently completed a study on the health-care legislation's effects.

Watson Towers estimates federal taxes on the drug subsidies would amount to $233 per person receiving drug benefits under such programs.

About 40,000 Caterpillar retirees receive company-sponsored drug benefits, which are more generous than Medicare's drug plan, in which recipients are required to pay some out-of-pocket expenses.

Proponents of subjecting the drug benefit subsidies to federal income taxes argue that Caterpillar and other companies are already able to deduct health care benefit costs, including the drug program, from their taxes as a business expense.

The Peoria, Ill., company also says it faces higher insurance costs from a requirement in the health-care legislation that would extend coverage for employees' dependent adult children up to age up to age 26. The company currently covers adult dependents up to 25, but only if they are full-time students.

Caterpillar said this provision, along with eliminating the tax exemption on drug subsidies, would raise its health care costs by at least 20%, or more than $100 million, in the first year after the health-care overhaul program."


http://www.foxbusiness.co...--million/
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+596) 13 years ago
So our choices are to remain the same and save companies like Cat money and remain the same and absorb the costs associated with the some 40 million uninsured. Or step foreward and start reform with this law.

Richard, you have never offered your thoughts for a healthcare solution other than to ask the sick to die. Do you have an interest in a funeral home? Rick, what do you offer that would cover the uninsured? I agree we should 'lay bare' the true cost of health care by 'exposing' the cost of the employer contribution. I would think/hope that this knowledge would increase the interest in a public option.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15536) 13 years ago
Richard, you have never offered your thoughts for a healthcare solution other than to ask the sick to die. Do you have an interest in a funeral home?


No, I don't have any interest in a funeral home.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (3/24/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15536) 13 years ago
It is time to quit giving the Pirate-in-Chief a pass as though he is some sort of bumbling idiot. He is being very intentional as he wages economic jihad against the American people.


Exactly. And here is some evidence. Too bad there are so many lies about Reagan in this article, but it does demonstrate that "healthcare" IS REALLY about waging economic jihad!




http://www.nytimes.com/20...hardt.html

"In Health Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: March 23, 2010


For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government's biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.

Over most of that period, government policy and market forces have been moving in the same direction, both increasing inequality. The pretax incomes of the wealthy have soared since the late 1970s, while their tax rates have fallen more than rates for the middle class and poor.

Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction. This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate. Beyond the health reform's effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.

Speaking to an ebullient audience of Democratic legislators and White House aides at the bill-signing ceremony on Tuesday, Mr. Obama claimed that health reform would "mark a new season in America." He added, "We have now just enshrined, as soon as I sign this bill, the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care."

The bill is the most sweeping piece of federal legislation since Medicare was passed in 1965. It aims to smooth out one of the roughest edges in American society - the inability of many people to afford medical care after they lose a job or get sick. And it would do so in large measure by taxing the rich.

A big chunk of the money to pay for the bill comes from lifting payroll taxes on households making more than $250,000. On average, the annual tax bill for households making more than $1 million a year will rise by $46,000 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. Another major piece of financing would cut Medicare subsidies for private insurers, ultimately affecting their executives and shareholders.

The benefits, meanwhile, flow mostly to households making less than four times the poverty level - $88,200 for a family of four people. Those without insurance in this group will become eligible to receive subsidies or to join Medicaid. (Many of the poor are already covered by Medicaid.) Insurance costs are also likely to drop for higher-income workers at small companies.

Finally, the bill will also reduce a different kind of inequality. In the broadest sense, insurance is meant to spread the costs of an individual's misfortune - illness, death, fire, flood - across society. Since the late 1970s, though, the share of Americans with health insurance has shrunk. As a result, the gap between the economic well-being of the sick and the healthy has been growing, at virtually every level of the income distribution.

The health reform bill will reverse that trend. By 2019, 95 percent of people are projected to be covered, up from 85 percent today (and about 90 percent in the late 1970s). Even affluent families ineligible for subsidies will benefit if they lose their insurance, by being able to buy a plan that can no longer charge more for pre-existing conditions. In effect, healthy families will be picking up most of the bill - and their insurance will be somewhat more expensive than it otherwise would have been.

Much about health reform remains unknown. Maybe it will deliver Congress to the Republicans this fall, or maybe it will help the Democrats keep power. Maybe the bill's attempts to hold down the recent growth of medical costs will prove a big success, or maybe the results will be modest and inadequate. But the ways in which the bill attacks the inequality of the Reagan era - whether you love them or hate them - will probably be around for a long time.

"Legislative majorities come and go," David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, lamented on Sunday. "This health care bill is forever."

Since Mr. Obama began his presidential campaign in 2007, he has had a complicated relationship with the Reagan legacy. He has been more willing than many other Democrats to praise President Reagan. "Reagan's central insight - that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic," Mr. Obama wrote in his second book, "contained a good deal of truth." Most notably, he praised Mr. Reagan as a president who "changed the trajectory of America."

But Mr. Obama also argued that the Reagan administration had gone too far, and that if elected, he would try to put the country on a new trajectory. "The project of the next president," he said in an interview during the campaign, "is figuring out how you create bottom-up economic growth, as opposed to the trickle-down economic growth."

Since 1980, median real household income has risen less than 15 percent. The only period of strong middle-class income growth during this time came in the mid- and late 1990s, which by coincidence was also the one time when taxes on the affluent were rising.

For most of the last three decades, tax rates for the wealthy have been falling, while their pretax pay has been rising rapidly. Real incomes at the 99.99th percentile have jumped more than 300 percent since 1980. At the 99th percentile - about $300,000 today - real pay has roughly doubled.

The laissez-faire revolution that Mr. Reagan started did not cause these trends. But its policies - tax cuts, light regulation, a patchwork safety net - have contributed to them.

Health reform hardly solves all of the American economy's problems. Economic growth over the last decade was slower than in any decade since World War II. The tax cuts of the last 30 years, the two current wars, the Great Recession, the stimulus program and the looming retirement of the baby boomers have created huge deficits. Educational gains have slowed, and the planet is getting hotter.

Above all, the central question that both the Reagan and Obama administrations have tried to answer - what is the proper balance between the market and the government? - remains unresolved. But the bill signed on Tuesday certainly shifts our place on that spectrum.

Before he became Mr. Obama's top economic adviser, Lawrence Summers told me a story about helping his daughter study for her Advanced Placement exam in American history. While doing so, Mr. Summers realized that the federal government had not passed major social legislation in decades. There was the frenzy of the New Deal, followed by the G.I. Bill, the Interstate Highway System, civil rights and Medicare - and then nothing worth its own section in the history books.

Now there is.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1668) 13 years ago
Richard, just curious. If you preface an article that you want to use to support your opinion with "too bad there are so many lies...", what would make one believe anything else discussed in the article, let alone read it?

Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+18638) 13 years ago
Richard, to his credit, has posted many trivial ideas on this forum to reform health care. I know, as a long time reader of mc.com.

Problem is, they only address about 1-3 percent of the total cost of the problem. Right in tow with the GOP Party line.

So when we mock your absence of a solution, Richard, that is where we are coming from. Malpractice reform, states pooling coverage, small business pooling....all of those are worthy goals, but they do not mean jack poop in terms of the overall debate. So when you are mocked here on mc.com for your moranity, stupidity, ignorance, and idiocy....well, this is where the posters who are attcking you are coming from. You present solutions that all recognized neutral parties (not the Rick K. Bozo the Clown sources) such as the CBO have recognized as drops in the bucket.

Have a nice day.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5104) 13 years ago
Well, I mock Ricardo because he's a moran with no understanding of basic economics.

That's just me, though.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3710) 13 years ago
Everybody knows your only purpose on this board is to follow every post by Richard and Rick with an ad hominem attack Bob, no need to explain it.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3743) 13 years ago
[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (3/25/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1668) 13 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/l...antichrist

I especially like the final paragraph:

While extreme, there's a chance some respondents weren't even sure what a Muslim is, for instance. Research reported in 2008 suggested Americans have inaccurate views of Muslims: Many think the Islamic religion is associated with violence and religious extremism, and perhaps even terrorism. In addition, seven in 10 Americans in that study admitted they know very little about the Islamic religion.


That has certainly been my experience in talking to people. It's amazing how one can feel comfortable enough to judge something with which they have no, or very little, knowledge.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5104) 13 years ago
Levi wrote:
Everybody knows your only purpose on this board is to follow every post by Richard and Rick with an ad hominem attack Bob, no need to explain it.



Man. I feel just horrible.

An mc.com poster who:
--- States that our CINC is a "Muslim pirate"
--- States that the Great Depression was caused by "political correctness" and
--- Cut and pastes posts from Erick Erickson at redstate.com and pressents them as his own

Certainly doesn't deserve any mockery
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3743) 13 years ago
Nice to know you have the inability to post anything other than insulting comments Bob.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (3/25/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5104) 13 years ago
Kyle:

You're still mad about the Oprah comments, aren't you?

Did you watch RACHEL RAY today?

IT WAS AWESOME!!!!!'
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 13 years ago
Bob posts more than insulting comments Kyle...that's not fair...Right now in his busy season, I am sure it is more difficult to post anything..
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5104) 13 years ago
Nah, Howdy:

Insulting comments are my forte.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3743) 13 years ago
I do have to confess that some of them are pretty funny Bob.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 13 years ago
LOL, both Bob and Kyle.... Having again been sprung from the dang hospital, I needed that laugh...

[This message has been edited by howdy (3/25/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9526) 13 years ago
Great minds think alike: http://pajamasmedia.com/v...much-snow/

Government never, in any single instance I can think of, ever saved any money by passing a law. Quite the opposite. In fact, if you look back through American history, about the only time government ever did any good is when it stopped doing something. Usually, something heinous and awful and bad. I've even prepared a few examples.

With the Bill of Rights, the government lost the ability to stop people from speaking out, from assembling freely, from owning guns, from violating homes and papers, from bossing around the states, etc.

After the Civil War, the government stopped telling some people that they were the property of other people. The government didn't free the slaves - it finally recognized that all men are already free.

With the passage of the 19th Amendment, the government finally stopped telling women their votes weren't welcome.

With the Civil Rights movement, the state governments finally lost the ability to tell some people that they couldn't go places other people could already go.


Comedy procreating gold.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 13 years ago
The percentage is way higher than 3% for Caterpillar, David. Nobody expects them to get back to 3.5 billion in profit anytime soon.

John Deere came out today and said it would cost them $150 million, or well over 10% of estimated 2010 profit.

For the non-utopians in the room, that flushing sound tells us that these huge taxes on employment = prolonged non-hiring and layoffs.

The greatest part of all this is that virtually all major corporations are going to have to come out and restate earnings because of this turd sandwich. So we'll get an endless procession of reminders of the insane cost and scope of this job-killing turkey.

Bonus... Verizon didn't restate earnings yet, but they did outline just one of the wonderful changes...

http://online.wsj.com/art...86422.html

When Congress created the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003, it included a modest tax subsidy to encourage employers to keep drug plans for retirees, rather than dumping them on the government. The Employee Benefit Research Institute says this exclusion-equal to 28% of the cost of a drug plan-will run taxpayers $665 per person next year, while the same Medicare coverage would cost $1,209.

In a $5.4 billion revenue grab, Democrats decided that this $665 fillip should be subject to the ordinary corporate income tax of 35%. Most consulting firms and independent analysts say the higher costs will induce some companies to drop drug coverage, which could affect about five million retirees and 3,500 businesses. Verizon and other large corporations warned about this outcome.


So under the old plan, the government said, Hey Verizon, thanks for covering our Medicare patients. You're saving us a ton of cash, so here's a little back.

New and Improved Obamacare... Hey Verizon, that's nice and all that you're covering our liability, but we need the cash, so we're gonna tax you 35% on that. How about a hopenchange T-shirt?

So companies are going to drop coverage for seniors, leaving the government paying the whole thing.

Lose-lose all the way around. What a mess.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5104) 13 years ago
Howdy: Hope you're doing well.


Kyle: Aw, you big lug.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+18748) 13 years ago
Still having your tantrum, Rick?
Top
Posted by Jimmie (+59) 13 years ago
Top