Thinking Right

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 26, 2006 08:04 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

I am all for changing the system and the culture, but “all” of the “system” and the entire “culture.”

However, here is the other part of the equation. Given how inadequate our “public schools” have been over the past 50 years, as those towering intellects like Georgie Bush, Roy Barnes, and Teddy Kennedy are prone to remind us, the vast majority of “poorly” educated Americans may not be able to comprehend all of this highly technical information. For example, the rationale for why aspirin in a hospital should be valued at $12.98 each is quite complicated.

As we reform the health care coverage (insurance and otherwise) system, we need to reform the health care provider system as well. Perhaps we can develop a data driven process on the order of No Child Left Behind (complete with bubble in the circle assessments) by which health care providers (individuals and institutions) can be evaluated, held accountable, and provided remediation to make sure that they achieve the “performance standards” and lead the nation…no, the world…in health care!

I like it!

By Brian Curtis

September 26, 2006 08:08 AM | Link to this

Right out of the gate, Wooten sets up a false either/or choice: “It’s either government or the marketplace.”

Wrong. Like most western democracies, we have a mixed economy, i.e., a regulated marketplace. Some things are commodities left to the whims of supply and demand… others are public property, civil rights, and other matters where capitalism doesn’t (and shouldn’t) hold absolute sway.

The real question is: Should healthcare be a purely consumer commodity, or should it be under public control as something too important to lurch through booms and busts?

By jbmlaw

September 26, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this

Leftists lament the horrible costs of health care in the modern world, then design a demand-based solution, and pledge that taxpayers will pay whatever is necessary to conform to their promises. Total disconnect. Supply-curves must mystify the left. Newt’s plan is obviously superior, so democrats will reflexibly reject it.

The jbmlaw plan is much simpler than either. Don’t go to the doctor. Spend your money on the things you really want. We’re not getting out of this world alive in any event, and 20 years is nothing in the eternal scheme.

By Lease Scandinavian

September 26, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this

Say “ahhh”.

By zekemire

September 26, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

Absolutely everything would be more efficient and a better process if the government(s) had no control other than to insure quality of the various parts! Civil rights, health care, social programs, food stamps and social security are absolute failures! The anarchist groups like the aclu, naacp, southern poverty law center, rainbow/push and other such socialist groups serve no purpose other than to line their pockets and take rights away from the American citizen! True freedom would allow an owner of a private business, even though they serve the public, to decide whom they will serve, if they allow smoking and a homeowner or apartment owner to decide who he sells to or who he rents to, not a legal mandate that he must sell or rent to anyone! Pretty stupid rules for a country that “prides” itself on personal property rights!

By azcat225

September 26, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this

Good morning to all. Jim, I have to agree with Mid South about concerns about how a fairly significant percentage of the population will learn to negotiate through this new territory. I absolutely agree that the marketplace will be the bright and shining solution to the health care crisis, as opposed to the dull and wornout government “solutions”. But how many of us are willing to spend the time and energy that GM Nick Bond did with his small group of employees to educate those that need it the most? I don’t think you can just brush over that with the wave of a hand. That education/training has to be part of the revolution.

By CJ

September 26, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

Per Jim Wooten — “Two directions, two choices. The nation can go to universal government-provided health care, which is where we’re headed. Or we can change the system and the culture. I choose the latter.”

Actually, the idea of going to universal government-provided health care IS changing the system and the culture. Senators Chambliss and Isakson and our House representatives in Washington are covered by an excellent government-provided health care plan that, if expanded to cover all Americans, would drive the overall price of health care down.

Market-based health care (e.g. Gingrich and Wooten’s prized Health Savings Accounts with catastrophic insurance) isn’t viable for most Americans. Many families don’t make enough money to purchase life or health insurance, save for retirement or send their kids to college. I don’t know where Gingrich and Wooten think these people are going to find the money to put into Health Savings Accounts.

In addition, people don’t purchase health care like they purchase ground beef. What are people supposed to do when they wake up in the middle of the night with with a medical emergency? Call around for the best price? “Yes, hello - I have an unbearable pain in my chest, and I’m pretty sure I’m dying. What do you charge to fix that?” In fact, we go to the emergency room and pay whatever the hospital feels like charging us — an amount likely to be very different than what they charged another person with the same ailment on the same day.

When my Dad needed open heart surgery he actually went to a hospital, St. Joseph’s, outside of his insurer’s provider network because this hospital specialized in heart procedures. This decision resulted in his having to pay approximately $10,000 more than he would have otherwise paid. Many won’t go or send their loved ones to the cheapest health care provider they can find; they’ll go to the health care provider that provides the highest quality of care — even when doing so means a lifetime of debt.

Health care is unaffordable for most Americans. Health insurance is unaffordable for many Americans and rapidly becoming unaffordable for business as a recruiting and retention tool. We’re on a market-based system now, and Newt Gingrich’s online price list won’t bring prices down. In fact, assuming its current, complete and accurate (experience in Florida indicates this may not be the case) it may have the opposite effect since it can lead to higher demand for quality providers. Higher demand equals higher prices.

Is a revolution is under way as Jim states? No. Is hyperbole under way? Absolutely.

By Bella

September 26, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this

How much does a certain type of surgery cost?

The truth is, no one, not even the hospitals or doctors know. Every single hospital across the country will give you a completely different answer.

The price even varies at the same hospital! It fluctuates on whether or not you have insurance, what kind of insurance, and other seemingly arbitrary factors.

Maybe if there were clear rules, absolute transparency, then consumers would be able to make informed and cost-effective choices. Until then, let go of the fantasy of marketplace health care.

By Sell Swedish

September 26, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this

Newt does have some good ideas, but if you boil them down, they all involve having a sailor turning his head and coughing. Shame, sir.

I SAID SHAME!!

Cartoon Idea: Title: “Newt, put down that tongue depressor”. Show Newt sitting next to his wife’s sick bed wearing a stethoscope, and turning a bedpan upside down to get his wife to sign a legal document totally favoring himself.

By Realist

September 26, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

As we reform the health care coverage (insurance and otherwise) system, we need to reform the health care provider system as well.

I think in the plan Jim supports, the health care provider system would reform itself, in order to compete in the competetive marketplace. I beleive this would lead to better quality healthcare overall.

By rmycroft

September 26, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

This debate in this country is really quite amusing. I have lived in foreign countries, including the much maligned UK, and have lived under the ‘horror’ of a government provided health care service. All I can say is in my personal observation the government form was at least as quick as the US form and certainly massively less expensive. And the quality I experienced was quite good. On the other hand I’ve had a serious misdiagnosis here that cost me $6,000+ and if I had not changed doctors might very well have caused me serious long term harm due to the real cause of my illness being ignored.
As regards international ratings, according to the WHO, the US system is ranked 7th in the world in terms of quality of care provided but absolute tops, and by a wide margin, in terms of cost of service. And yes, it is those evil, socialist medical systems that outrank the US system in terms of actual delivery. Indeed, the #1 system is the French system in terms of quality of care. I guess no one here has noticed that in the last decade or so many celebrities have gone to France to get high end treatment rather than coming here. Perhaps they could not afford the US costs or the airline ticket? Unlikely. The #1 in terms of cost effectiveness is the system in the UK. Dear God no, a government provided system that is more cost effective than a private system? Can’t be. And the highest ranked system in the US? The VA system, at least until the current administration got busy improving it. But then a nation unable to accept that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 is likely unable to realize that their beloved private system of health care is doing little besides bankrupting the majority and enriching a few.

By Curious Observer

September 26, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

Health savings accounts—now there’s a wonderful idea!

If all the people who can’t afford medical insurance would just cut down to one meal every three or four days, they could have the money to put into a HSA.

And if they can’t do that, why did they get sick in the first place? Where is Personal Responsibility? And what business do they have having sex and giving birth to babies if they can’t afford medical care? And how are doctors going to be able to afford country club memberships and estates if everybody relies on somebody else to pay for patients?

Personal Responsibility—that’s the ticket. Let’s force these freeloaders to contribute to HSAs and ship those who don’t to Canada or Great Britain, which have socialistic medical systems. Give me Personal Responsibility and Free Enterprise, and let those who can’t function in the system die.

By Philip R. Rast, MD, MBA

September 26, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

I, too, have favored the marketplace approach to healthcare, as well as other segments of the economy. But, when the Peachcare program can be administered for $156.00 per child per month, and the private insurance premium for a newborn, as quoted to me by Humana yesterday for my granddaughter, is more than $1500 per month, it’s time to stop funding the bureaucratic waste and the $19 million CEO compensation (SEC filing of Humana for CEO Michael B. McCallister, 2005) of the insurance industry.

By Van

September 26, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

I only have one question, either plan market or government imposed, why must it be forced on us all?

Why must government force coverage on us all, mark Taylors plan would cover everyone, why? Why not just those that need it? Make it needs based like some other programs.

I may have enough funds to not want a health care package and prefer to pay for my care out of pocket. I may have excellent benefits through my work, why change? I might be a wealthy person and just want to sponge of the backs of everyone else.

Think of the money saved, if we just covered those that can not afford a medical coverage package.

I just can not see our government also in the healthcare business, I keep thinking about their great contribution to education.

By Dana

September 26, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

It is quite obvious that none of the responders this morning have experience with critically or chronically ill children.

It’s a great concept though - the marketplace will regulate itself - Great idea!!! I am having trouble viewing healthcare as a consumer product, but will concede that it is possible that it is.

I have to admit up front that I haven’t researched either of Jim’s options so I will keep my comments minimal until I do. In general I am NOT in favor of government intervention, I have serious issues with our welfare state and other assitance programs, but I am well aware of the unbelievable costs to provide care to critically/chronically ill children.

Today I would like to encourage all of us who post to be genuinely thoughtful about this - rather than to jump into insults and obscenities. This is an issue that will effect each of us, so lets give some real thought to the subject and see what we manage to come up with.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

September 26, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

The market is a great way to regulate health care and health care costs.

People with money can have access to health care, poor people can put themselves in God’s hands and die - hopefully not on the street so we won’t have to look at them.

Hey we’re all gonna die, let the poor people die first is all I’m saying.

By healthcareright

September 26, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

This is not a completely market based country, it never has been and it never will be. There will always be certain social programs in this country, and certain rules to maintain social order and rights. Roads, highways, libraries, parks, police, military, airwaves, airtraffic control, space-program, public utilities, and the list goes on. These are all social programs. The right to health care to everyone should be ahead of most of these. Health care shouldn’t be a priviledge based on cost which is forever growing out of the reach for a lot of americans because of the contunue desire not to pay people a decent wage, unethical. Healthcare is more important the parks and stadiums.

By RGrossman

September 26, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

Realist,

Since you’re here already I’d like to follow up on my question of yesterday. I will be out of pocket for most of the day but I’d really like for you to point me to your support for your contention that 80% of welfare recipients are black.

You offered to cut and paste the answer yesterday but when I asked to do just that I got no answer. I assumed my request caught you after you left and that is why I am reposting it this morning.

I’ll check in later so please do me the favor of supporting this contention.

Thanks.

By JK

September 26, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

Dana, the bankruptcy bill that Congress passed last year makes no exceptions for people with critically or chronically ill children, nor for families whose breadwinner is beset with medical catastrophe — which accounts for nearly 50% of personal bankruptcies. (Corporations were somehow exempt from this “reform,” but not Veterans…) Without real changes to the affordability of health care, more people will fall into the abyss of choosing survival at the cost of permanent financial ruin.

That being said, we don’t have “health care” in this country, we have “sick care.” We abuse our bodies with gluttony, garbage food, and sedentary lifestyles, and wonder why half our paycheck goes to CVS. I encourage all Americans to FREE YOURSELVES from this madness, toss your pills, ditch the donuts and chips, eat right, exercise, and please drive carefully. It’s your best chance. Thank you.

By Janine

September 26, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

*RGrossman Here is a link for those stats you asked REALIST for.. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2004/tab21.htm As you can see…He was incorrect.

By BPJ

September 26, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Markets are wonderful inventions which do many things well. But they do not do evrything well. To assume that markets (unregulated) are always the answer is just “market fundamentalism,” as irrational as the religious varieties. If you start with an ideology which says that a market solution - or a government solution - is by definition a good thing, then it’s not possible to have a rational argument about it, is it? Try a pragmatic approach. Is Medicare really so bad? It is government health insurance. Are seniors begging to be liberated from it? Of course not. And well-off seniors can supplement Medicare with whatever private insurance they wish. If we expanded Medicare to cover everyone, wouldn’t that be better than what we have now? No one would be uninsured; call it “No Patient Left Behind.” You wouldn’t have uninsured people putting off treatment, then popping into emergency rooms. The cost per person would be lower than today’s Medicare, because the pool of insured would be not just the elderly (who spend more on health care, especially in the last year of life) - but everyone. Market fundamentalist ideology is unwilling to even consider this option, because it begins with the premise that govenment solutions are always bad. But I question whether that applies to health insurance. I want the market to decide who can afford cars, nice restaurants, and air travel (for instance), but I am not willing to leave it to markets to decide who can afford certain essentials: e. g., police protection, or basic health care. Now suppose I told you that in Canada, which has government health insurance, it took the government insurance bureaucracy a full YEAR to pay the hospital bill for a woman who had a child…and the government even had to pay the hospital interest because they were so late! You would say that proves that government is inferior to the private sector in efficiency, right? Well, this really happened, but it wasn’t in Canada, it was here, at Piedmont Hospital, and the insurer was a private insurer - one of the best! - and I know about it because it was my wife giving birth to our daughter! The private insurer took a year to pay, and had to pay Piedmont interest. Now, since you were so ready to say that this anecdote “proved” the inefficiency of government health insurance, are you now ready to say that it proves the inefficiency of private health insurance? Well, no, you shouldn’t…in either case. Anecdotes don’t prove much, by themselves. So let’s avoid argument-by-anecdote, which simply allows people to grab onto the anecdotes which fit with their ideology, and to disregard the ones which don’t.

By jbmlaw

September 26, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

JK @ 10:10, I don’t want to scare you, but I think your second paragraph is the most intelligent argument on the blog today.

By @@

September 26, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

Jim: There seem to be too many variables that could affect Taylor’s plan.

I saw a woman interviewed on an Atlanta news station the other day. She had a disabled child who required physical therapy and was upset that funding was being cut limiting service to her child.

I work in a private school for disabled children. We have a physical therapist, and occupational therapist who visit once a week to administer therapy to our students. That’s not enough.

We have a speech therapist who is full time, but is limited in the time allowed with each child.

The solution was to instruct the teachers in individualized therapy and have them incorporate the therapy into each child’s daily lesson resulting in five days of PT, OT and Speech Therapy for each child.

In the public school system the government program is applied limiting services to the kids. At our school, the individual therapists use individual teachers to assist the individual students.

Did you notice how often I applied the word ^^^ individual in the paragraph above.

I guess you know where I stand…independent of government healthcare and the restrictions it places on care.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

It is arrant nonsense that the marketplace simply regulates itself and will deliver the perfect solution every time. To even try and approach this topic from the perspective of “imposing” yet further reform without a drastic root and branch reform of the whole area of funding for health insurance and medicine and medical services is utterly moronic.

Until some political will is shown to stop the gauging and ripping off of folks by doctors for all kinds of services and (often very defensive) pill pushing and by pill pushing companies seeking to maximise their profits at the expense of all of us there will be no change. Similarly until the folks stop abusing/clogging emergency rooms and doctors offices for very minor matters, especially illegals who know they can always be seen for free with NOTHING to pay, medical insurance costs will continue to rise.

Naturally the private sector health providers and drug companies have to be suitably compensated for their services and products. This is where the everlasting socio-economic tension arises. If there was no tension the drug companies wouldn’t be continuously smugly telling folks on TV ads that help can be offered to those who cant afford their drugs. If there was no tension then there would be NO public sector state/federal health provision for kids and old folks and the disabled and so on.

The snouts in the trough laywers more than take their share of blame too for continuously sticking their grasping noses deep in the trough with punitive malpractice suits which are intended to “make it sting” for the corporations and large companies they sue. Urging juries to “Send a message” is so conveniently also about rewarding the lawyers who can make multi-millions with one law suit - and their selfish disinterest is all about themselves - not their clients. They are solely there to make money, as “necessary parasites” - the needs and interests of their clients is invariably of secondary importance. The whole circus of malpractice has meant massive increases in insurance premiums for us peasants, and pushed many folks into reducing their coverage or having no coverage.

The one thing I am pig sick and tired of hearing is about the “market place” settling every thing/. This is a mixed economy, just as the UK is, although the mix here is a lot less ‘public sector’ than the UK. If there are NO ‘price constraints’ - just the market place - then anyone can charge whatever they want and only rich folks will be able to afford good medical coverage or many other products and services.

My HMO rations health care like they do in the UK - the waiting lists for certain procedures/tests etc are often much longer than you’d think was the case in supposedly on demand medicine. Its not as bad as the UK and Canada for waiting lists of course - but still not good in some cases.

Surely only a rabid free market nutter is going to assert that if you cant afford it you shouldn’t have it. In which case its all about making (collective) choices and imposing policies and regulations etc that control the access to health care for the archetypal middle classes and of course the less well off. If the notion of a safety net is accepted in principle for vulnerable folks as it clearly must be - then its a question of defining that safety net.

There is a reason why even the arch privatiser Baroness Thather didn’t mess with the fundamental delivery of the health care in the UK. And it wasn’t just political - she wisely recognised that the private sector simply could not deliver the health needs of 50-60 million people. Which is why health care in the UK is still mixed.

Newt who I would like to see as the next two term President is open of the most innovative and advanced political thinkers in the US. Fatboy Taylor is just trying to scrape up a few more votes.

Like I said the merits of this tweak and that tweak are really of little consequence until the whole framework of healthcare provison is addressed. Hopefully by a publlic spirited Republican not a vote buying demagogue from the left!!

Clearly its not possible in one post to cover every single germane point.

By Janine

September 26, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

RGrossman and one more site for the welfare stats http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm

By Realist

September 26, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

I do have to apologize. The number I quoted was actually the current figure for my home state of Alabama, where 80% of welfare recipients are black. Janines link is two years old, and shows around 70%. As I contended yesterday, the numbers are growing, not declining, which given that opportunity and equality which has inarguably risen, what is the reason for the increases? It is supposedly TEMPORARY assistance, but Im afraid many see it as a career choice.

In addition, as blacks represent only about 15-18 percent of the population, but make up 39% percent of all welfare recipients, the numbers are grossly proportionatley skewed toward black recipients.

Now lets get back on topic.

By Dana

September 26, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

Janine -

Thanks for the link! for those who haven’t or don’t look, the national average is roughly even. However, in GA, it is very close to what Realist claimed yesterday, which is not a good finding…

By JK

September 26, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw, um, thanks. I freed myself, and feel much better; now I annoy everyone else. That advise doesn’t help kids with cancer, though, or people with serious injuries, conditions, or illnesses — especially if they can’t work or afford to keep their insurance coverage.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

Realist

Blacks are actually 14-15% of the population - slightly less than Mexican types now who are the largest minority - and that’s without counting the 15 million or so illegals.

Thus the figures you quote are even more disproportionate.

By Realist

September 26, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Again, dont lose site of the fact that blacks represent only 13 percent of the population yet 39% of all recipients. If they want to toot thier horn over that fact be my guest. I think its obvious they represent a hugely disproportionate amount of recipients in this country. Almost as many as whites who represent almost 80 percent of the population. If you look at the numbers, its obvious who is getting the benefits, and who tax dollars largely support the benefits. Make no mistake, Id support the cutting of benefits regardless of color to anyone ABLE to work who chose not to.

TOTAL POPULATION 100.0 %

WHITE ALONE- 79.3 BLACK ALONE- 13.1 ASIAN ALONE- 4.6 ALL OTHER RACES- 3.0

HISPANIC- 15.5

By Ken

September 26, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

As others have stated already, we don’t have a market-based health care system. Though some have kindly referred to it as “regulated”, it’s more like an oligopoly maintained by force. It combines the worst features of government (hot air, bungling, protectionism, lies) and capitalism (gouging, price-fixing, exploitation).

One only needs to look up the terms “certificate of need” and “scope of practice” to understand the anti-competitiveness built into our current system.

In short, we are nothing more than a captive market at the mercy of the whims of the providers, insurers, and politicians.

By CJ

September 26, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

Responding to Van’s post @9:39 “*Why must government force coverage on us all, mark Taylors plan would cover everyone, why? Why not just those that need it? *”

Insurance is a pooling arrangement. With any kind of insurance, we pool our funds together so that we can absorb a financial loss that we wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford on our own. The more people who contribute to the pool, the lower the contribution needed from each contributor.

So, requiring everybody to contribute will drive down the cost of the premium (i.e. contribution) for each individual or family. If people can opt out, then those who don’t want or can’t afford to pay any premium will opt out, and we’ll all end up paying for their health care, one way or another, in the end. Also, healthy people who can afford private insurance will opt out leaving those who can’t get affordable insurance elsewhere because of health problems purchasing insurance from the government. The end result would be premiums subsidized by the taxes of those who opt out. Again, we all end up paying. Universal insurance is cheaper for everybody because everybody contributes.

The other reason that a plan has to be universal is so that we’re all vested. For example, Medicaid in Georgia is subject to the whims of the electorate, and within the last couple of years many elderly have lost their benefits in Georgia because of changes in eligibility rules. These disgustingly under-reported changes were an embarrassment and many poor elderly were literally evicted from nursing homes because of such changes. The State gets away with this cruelty because only a small percentage of the electorate is vested. Now we’re about to re-elect the Governor who implemented this disgrace, and who is promising to eliminate state income taxes for all people over 65. He doesn’t like the well-to-do elderly subsidizing nursing care for the impoverished elderly.

But I digress…We all need to be vested.

By Van

September 26, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

I see no one has answered my question

Why does any government plan cover everyone, and not just those that need coverage?

I may want to handle my own healthcare, I may have my own coverage plan, I may have great benefits from my company.

BTW, if our efficient government gets Hilliarycare, I mean a Universal Health care plan, what would ahppen to all the health care plans out there now? No company will foot the bill if it is provided by the feds. Anyone that thinks they would continue providing healthcare benefits is out o their Marxist head.

By Realist

September 26, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

It may be insensitive or cruel or a number of other adjectives, but at what point did it become the forced responsibilty of the well-to-do to subsidize the impoverished CJ?

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

Realist your figures above seem to include whites with Mexican types which is the traditional way of counting. Whites are now under 70% of the population.

By Van

September 26, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

CJ,

So you are saying, whether we want to or not, we will be forced to bow to whatever healthcare the feds desire us to have?

Those with the means will buy their own coverage and we will be like the Brits or Canadians and we will have a two+ tier healthcare system.

Regarding pooling, let take the lefties figures and say at any one time there are 40 million people without healthcare - that is a pretty large “pool”. If the Government was serious, it could negotiate a very good plan with 40 milion members.

By Realist

September 26, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Those numbers were projected 2010 numbers, and it seemed that they broke out the hispanics seperately. In any case, even at 70% percent, my point was made.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Sick Willie did lie to Fox about his failure to get bin laden … (see my post late yesterday)

plus more proof here from Condi:

ttp://www.nypost.com/seven/09252006/news/nationalnews/riceboilsoveratbubbanationalnews.htm

By CJ

September 26, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

Realist @11:19 “…at what point did it become the forced responsibilty of the well-to-do to subsidize the impoverished”

At what point did it become a forced responsibility for me to subsidize my wealthy parents’ Medicare insurance and Social Security through regressive payroll taxes?

At what point did it become a forced responsibility for me to pay for a bloated military that’s sent into wars of choice?

At what point did it become a forced responsibility for me to pay higher income taxes, so investors can pay lower taxes?

At what point did it become a forced responsibility for me to subsidize oil companies that refuse to pay royalties to the people via the federal government?

At what point did it become a forced responsibility for me to financially support the black hole that is Halliburton?

It comes down to values and expressing those values at the ballot box. My value system says that as a society, we have an obligation to each other to make sure that everybody, rich AND poor, has access to quality healthcare. I’ll vote for candidates who more-closely share those values, and Perdue isn’t one of them.

By JK

September 26, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

At what point did it become the forced responsibilty of the well-to-do to subsidize the impoverished?

Indeed! Good question! I shall not try to answer it; rather, I’d like to hear how the right-wing “Christians” who make it their business to dictate how others should medicate themselves, regulate the wombs of others, use religious beliefs to limit education, and prohibit Americans from enjoying marriage rights equally, would answer that question.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

September 26, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

Van, the problem with leaving rednecks like yourself in charge of your own insurance and health care is that you won’t buy any, or you won’t buy enough, and decent people like myself would be uncomfortable just watching you waste away and die, or bleed out. Although frankly, it might not be such a bad idea for a great many of the rednecks out there…

Many many years ago I worked at Lockheed - there was some crazy fundie Christian with a tumor on his face that didn’t believe in medicine, so we were forced to look at him every day until his face was pretty much ate off.

Stepping over untreated medically and mentally ill people and corpses on my way to work, or to the store is not my idea of civilization, although I guess if civilization was that important to me - why would I still be living in Georgia?

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

this is a fascinating website

also try the other 49 links folks

By Michael

September 26, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

If your a member of a society you take some level of responability for the other members of that society. In exchange your provided with benfeits, security, protection etc. We have long accepted that military and police protection was a responability we accepted as members of society.. we pay for an army and a law enforcement system. The argument now, the real argument is if healthcare should be one of those shared responabilities. None of us can buy our own army or enforece our own laws on the rest of society, neither as it turns out can we all individually afford the best medical care. Right now, major long term illness can an does finiancial destroy more people than anything else. Even those with private insurance.

I guess my question is simple, when the insurance runs out for those in your market economy because they couldn’t afford the long term care.. are you willing to watch them die and just say thats sad.. and are you willing to look at someone who is getting care when your dieing and say “I should have made more money”.

By CJ

September 26, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

Van, the feds work for us. If we fight for a good plan, that’s what we’ll get.

I can’t speak to whether Canada and the UK have two-tiered system. Avoiding that scenario is one of the reasons for making coverage universal.

With regard to the 40 million…a large chunk either won’t buy insurance at any price or can’t afford it at any price.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

this is a superb link

By Realist

September 26, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

Yeah CJ. You are supporting the wealthy investor and Halliburton and Big Oil. Yes sir, they couldnt keep the doors open without your contributions. Jesus man, go get a haircut or something. So given that how is it that the top 50% of all earners pay 97% of all income taxes in this country? And given that disproportionate fact, why shouldnt those high earners being hammered by income taxes be given some leniency on capital gains and estate taxes?

I know I know. The man is out to keep you down. Go ahead to the “ballot” box or wherever you go. You and those with your dinasour ideas are dead and gone forever.

By Dana

September 26, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

I am really dissapointed in you Van. I recognize your conservative nature, but I really expected more. That comment is so shallow, and completely lacking in forethought.

For multiple reasons, I hope you never, EVER find yourself with a family member who undergoes a catastrophic injury or illness.

I had a coworker, years ago, worked hard, paid his bills, had what we thought then was GREAT insurance coverage, did his part. His son was badly burned in a flash gasoline fire. The cost of his care very quickly shot past the million dollar cap. My friend lost his savings, his 401K, his house, etc in an effort to pay these bills. This could be any of us. I think this time you forgot to think before you asked. If it was YOU in that situation, what would YOU have done? How would any of us handle that?

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

Gutless German Cowards

By jbmlaw

September 26, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

Dear TFTT @ 10:46, you correctly note, “It is arrant nonsense that the marketplace simply regulates itself and will deliver the perfect solution every time. To even try and approach this topic from the perspective of “imposing” yet further reform without a drastic root and branch reform of the whole area of funding for health insurance and medicine and medical services is utterly moronic.” The only more moronic view is that there is anyone out there who can make decisions for all of us better than those of the individuals. I am always wary of any argument that the “market” is inferior to the wisdom of a self-appointed messiah. The market merely clears the collective decisions of us all. To condemn the “market” for the poor collective of decisions is foolish; the market tells us nothing more than what idiotic decisions we are making as individuals. If you wish to interfere with the market, you should read it first. If you think prices are too high, you need to stimulate production (supply). For example, your anti-malpractice proposal would stimulate supply by reducing costs. Ken @ 11:08 correctly suggests that introducing freedom, by eliminating government licensing, would also increase supply. The normal bias among the collectivists is to artificially restrict pricing and to control those who can supply, thus stimulating demand and simultaneously reducing supply. Newt’s plan, as with any sound market based plan, addresses supply without making any meaningful reductions in demand, which I think would also be desirable. Be wary of those plans that try to control pricing without address supply, or you will find the traditional market solution, shortages. Signed, Rabid Free Market Nutter

Also, CJ @ 11:12, why is your requirement, that everyone pay for whatever health plan you deem necessary under penalty of death or incarceration, morally superior to my position that people should be free to participate or not, and bear the consequences?

By Dana

September 26, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

Shut up TFTT. Believe what you want, but keep it to yourself, at least on that discussion. That link is way off topic, and (in this instance) you are a pathetic moron.

Don’t waste time commenting back, I am leaving the office for a meeting and won’t be here to read it. I’m tired of listening to your anti GOD bullsh^t. But I’ll keep your blind arse in my prayers anyway.

By Realist

September 26, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

Ms. JK, Are you so blinded by hypocrisy that you dont see that you practice your same argument? As you try to imply that the Christian right opposes abortion and gay marriage, and by opposing it “forcing” our opposition down your throats, do you not see that thier stance is the same? That you and those like you are forcing the legality and acceptance of abortion and gay marriage down our throats? It works both ways sweetheart, but the hypocrisy you practice is blindingly obvious to everyone but YOU!!!

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

the perfect artwork for DNC HQ

By Bella

September 26, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

I notice that some people are selectively Christian at least when it comes to health care and taxes. What about Matthew 25: 35-45?

“I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me. Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord when was it that we did these things for you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

September 26, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

The welfare statistics cited here today point to a deeper problem - southern ancestry. Virtually all the blacks on welfare in America are the descendants of slaves and, of course, redneck slave rapists. And I would imagine an analysis of the heritage of the white folks on welfare in the US (even in the blue states) would reveal a strong hillbilly influence…

Hopefully, research will end the scourge of redneck genetic infection in America’s gene pool - it may be our only hope…

Redneckism can be treated - read a book, take a bath (use soap), turn off the TV, put down the Chitos and the pork rinds, cut down on alcohol and methamphetamine consumption - are good first steps. But it is a lifelong disease, requiring constant treatment…

By Van

September 26, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

CJ,

Are these the same ones we have to support now and would have to subsidize in the future?

Since my taxes are going to pay for them anyway, leave my healthcare alone and lets provide them with coverage.

Pope rednecks - Amerikkka’s Al Qaeda

What I do regarding healthcare is my responsibility. I have a pension and healthcare benefits, I have also got beneifts available to me from my present company. In other words, butt out.

JK, Simple question for you, I make is short - Why do you lump christians and the conservatives together? That is totally illogical and makes you look ignorant.

By Redneck Convert

September 26, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Well, I knew it was too good to last. I loaded up the beer truck last night and parked it at my trailer, just to save some time today. When I came out this morning, Joe Bill was laying there nekkid as a jaybird and passed out, surrounded by about two dozen empties, and the lock on the truck had been broke. And old lady Weatherby was just raising cain, saying that the whole neighborhood was going downhill fast. We live in one of those upscale trailer parks, and I guess she has a right to complain about seeing her property cheapened. Anyway, I covered Joe Bill with a tarp and drove off. I figure I can short every bar one bottle and they won’t notice.

It would be a lot cheaper if we didn’t have to pay for the medical care of Those People. Just let them croak, and we’ll be better off in cost as well as politics. They are all Democrats anyway, and they wouldn’t be missed.

Anyway, I enjoy reading the ranting of the libruls that want taxpayers to pay for the medical costs of others. I say we live in a jungle, and it’s every man for hisself. I don’t want to live in a socialist world. That’s why I’m proud to be a Republican now.

By jbmlaw

September 26, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Just a reminder to all, the death rate is 100%. We are only debating how much cash to pump into that black hole that is the “health” (or as JK aptly calls it, the “sick”) industry.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

So much for free speech then Dana - you sad superstitious arsewipe!!

By CJ

September 26, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Realist @11:49 AM

I’ll ignore the sarcasm and ask you about your statistics: “the top 50% of all earners pay 97% of all income taxes in this country”.

What’s the definition of earner used in calculating this statistic(work, investment, inheritence,…)? What’s the definition of income tax (federal, payroll, state, …)? What’s the breakdown of this statistic among various levels of income and what percentage of total income do they earn at those levels? How old is that statistic? What’s the source?

I see similar figures thrown out in debate all the time. Without backup, its meaningless.

You also wrote: “why shouldnt those high earners being hammered by income taxes be given some leniency on capital gains and estate taxes?”

Our economy depends on investment. It also depends on work. Giving better tax rates to investors than to workers is like saying that my right leg is more important than my left. If we had parity, then tax rates for workers could come down. As it is, those of us who get most of our income from work subsidize those who get most of their income from investment.

By getalife

September 26, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

I know healthcare costs are through the roof but you don’t until you get sick.

How many of you have spent months in a hospital?

The ones that have know what they are talking about.

The ones that have not, do not have a clue.

By Sell Swedish

September 26, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

Deep.

By JK

September 26, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

Van, I’m not lumping anyone together; I just stated that I wanted to hear how certain people would answer Mr.R’s question. Mr R., again, I did not “make” any argument whatsoever. I simply wanted to see how our modern right-wing “Christian” friends — the ones feel their beliefs should drive government regulation of others — would answer YOUR very good question.

By jbmlaw

September 26, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

Dear JK @ 11:41, “Indeed! Good question! I shall not try to answer it; rather, I’d like to hear how the right-wing “Christians” who make it their business to dictate how others should medicate themselves, regulate the wombs of others, use religious beliefs to limit education, and prohibit Americans from enjoying marriage rights equally, would answer that question.” I don’t doubt that you should not try to answer it, but you raise good questions.

I believe the government has no intelligent role in anything other than stopping violence against and among the citizenry. Thus, we should not have a war on drugs.

You should not dictate schooling instruction, but that should be within the province of the parents, only.

As to abortion, I have no quarrel with any government effort to stay the hand of a murderer.

I think government ought not be in the marriage business at all, leaving that to the sound judgment of the churches, but for the problem of the absentee fathers who do not even pay child support. Not much of an argument for homosexual marriage.

By jbmlaw

September 26, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

Bella @ 12:01, why is your requirement, that everyone pay for whatever health plan you deem necessary under penalty of death or incarceration, morally superior to my position that people should be free to participate or not, and bear the consequences?

By Realist

September 26, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

Thats how it is TFTT. You see, you and I have some similar beliefs, but we differ on the religion aspect. But do I hammer you and condone you and try to slam my beliefs down your throat, as they say Christians do? No. I allow you your opinon, and I have mine. The left has trouble with this concept but want to lay the blame on the Christian right. Boloney! The Christian right sit on thier hands and just want to be left alone for Gods sake! Its the radical left that pushes the issue, every issue, until it blows up!!

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

jbm

I agree there is NOT one individual or political appointee or elected representative that can magically solve these problems. Nor should anyone be allowed to do so - either on the right or left.

Until all of the points I raised - and obviously others that lack of space prohibited commentary on - are addressed concomitantly the current sorry state of affairs will continue and the folks will go on getting fleeced and short changed.

I fundamentally disagree that the market merely reflects the collective decisions of us all - a few ‘oligarchical’ folks “at the top” have essentially unfettered access to imposing much if not most of what the market is “allowed” to offer - and what kind of restrictions - if any - are imposed/allowed. The market doesn’t actually operate “freely” - the feds, the states, even counties and cities etc and the controlling professional bodies in medicine, pharmaceuticals etc plus the NYSE and other funding interests also have a huge say and “they” control what goes on and is allowed.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

September 26, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

You know, non-Papal redneck, I think you may be right - if FDR had let nature take its course back in the 30s, most rural trash in this nation would have died from rickets, cholera, typhoid or syphyllis, and America today would be a far better place.

OK, it’s Darwin for me…

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

the unacceptable cost of illegal Mexican type immigrants

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

September 26, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Realisp - a lady should not be sitting on her hands in church - and it makes them smell funny. Why do you think they call the pews?

Shame on you.

By CJ

September 26, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw @11:58 “CJ, why is your requirement, that everyone pay for whatever health plan you deem necessary…morally superior to my position that people should be free to participate or not, and bear the consequences…”

I don’t know jbmlaw. If the guy at the table next to mine is choking on his food, I’ll try to help. Apparently, you would either choose to let me bear the consequences or perform the Heimlich and then send him a bill for $1,000.

Is my attitude morally superior? That’s a matter of opinion. I’ll vote for the guys who share my values, and I’m sure you’ll vote for the guys who share yours.

By Realist

September 26, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

CJ, Those numbers were put forth in a senate speech given by Orin Hatch last week, and as he said them I understood them, but then I wasnt trying to be an a* like you are. I also looked them up and verified at least some of it at multiple sources on the web. Do the work and find it like I did. Let me see if I can help you understand some of it now though, if only you could stop trying to cloud the fact that the well-to-do pay more than thier fair f*** share in this country you just might get it!!!!

Sen. Hatch was referring to FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. You know, that figure you put on your 10-40? We are talking wages here, not cap gains or inheritance ok. Our parents aleady took a hammering on what they EARNED, why should I take another hammering as I inherit thier wealth? Its b******!! Also, I already paid income taxes on the money I put back into stocks, funds, etc (other than pre-tax 401K) so why should I get hammered to the tune of 40-50% just because I chose wisely to invest and strengthen our economy and made some money? But when I lose on an investment the relief isnt nearly as equal!! That is b****** as well!!!

I can tell already that our opinions differ because we come from to different walks of life. You will never see it my way nor me yours, so forget it.

By Realist

September 26, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

If the guy at the table next to mine is choking on his food, I’ll try to help. Apparently, you would either choose to let me bear the consequences or perform the Heimlich and then send him a bill for $1,000.

Yeah sure. And then one of those “guys” you support who shares your values, will sue your a* for bruising the victims ribs while you saved his life.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Realist

I found this link on the current mohammedan convert blog top from the Rick Badie page.

Surely it is ALWAYS well worth reading and thinking and critiquing and evaluating one’s beliefs - the logic and rational thinking on the site I linked is good - I’ve seen better of course.

Surely challenging one’s own beliefs is a good thing. But the only way to do that is with ‘outside’ sources that might make one uncomfortable. Dana was unnecessarily abusive. Her right of course. But you have to admit that most folks who are religious have pretty closed minds (not being at all personal here) when it comes to critiquing such dogmatic and fideistic beliefs.

I am completely open to such matters- I am agnostic - not an atheist. Thus if if any real proof and evidence ever emerges to change my mind I promise you, Dana and Barbara I’ll be right there with the happy clappy crowd!!

Happily for now this is impossible as the evidence and proof of both God and the absurd Christians claims about Jesus is currently non-existent. But I respect the right of folks to believe whatever they want - with the obvious proviso that such beliefs should be rigorously challenged. Most religious folks even if they dont demonise the beliefs of others at least (completely) reject them.

I simply say that proof is essential - not self serving theological circular logic.

By JK

September 26, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

The Christian right sit on thier hands and just want to be left alone for Gods sake!

<JK also notes that Sadie Fields might take offense to the charge that she sits on her hands, but that is not for JK to address, as JK just comes here to learn.>

By jbmlaw

September 26, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Dear TFTT @ 12:16, I think you and I may not disagree on the ultimate cure to the problem, we simply disagree on how to get there. I perceive you are an absolutist – do nothing until we do everything – whereas I am an incrementalist – every step in the right direction is one worth taking.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

Realist

forgot to add … I depise the cowardly appeasing left at least as much as you do - but the control freak dogmatic smug Christian Coalition religious right are really NO better. They just have different demands to make of everyone who disgrees with them. Obviously there are various strands of both lefties and religious nutters, including mohammedan nutters, radical Sihks, fundamentalist Hindus and Jews, Christians who believe in the bible literally and so on. But then you get into the very problematical question - who gives anyone the “wisdom” to divine which bits of a given bible like scripture or religious rite and dogma etc should be revised or interpeted or rejected etc?

Obviously few if any folks would concede they are religious nutters. That’s for others to judge though. As clearly both religious folks and non-religious folks ALL DO!!

I proudly oppose BOTH the left and ALL organised religion!!

By Realist

September 26, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Smokey and da bandit got nothing to do with this JK…… :)

By MELO

September 26, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Pope rednecks - Amerikkka’s Al Qaeda, u are a f* redneck. Keep sniffing that ice.

By Randy

September 26, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Just a quick question on my lunch hour. If the cost of health insurance is evenly distributed and subject to price increases, what happens when the population diminishes in numbers? It’s happening here in the U.S.

I’ll check in later to see if anyone wants to respond.

By Realist

September 26, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

sorry truth, its a topic I simply dont discuss. I beleive what I beleive, you believe what you beleive. Thats how it is supposed to work, and you wont lure me into lashing out, and thus proving what you beleive to be true about Christians. Not gonna happen sir. :) i respect your opinions and would fight for your right to express them!

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

jbm

actually I do agree that it can’t all be resolved in one go at reform - that’s impossible both politically and practically. However the seemingly endless (national) yapping about drastic reform that’s best for most if not all of us will lilely never end. Clearly incremental changes in such a gargantuan ‘monolithic’ area are the only way to go. My original post was a humble attempt to frame a (partial) bigger picture approach with a couple of fully deserved logical digs at the common leftist enemy! …grin

By jbmlaw

September 26, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Dear CJ @ 12:28, I think the morality question is important. Freedom ought not be sacrificed without a sound moral basis; I do not deny such basis exists in other areas, but I do not see it here. Certainly 50% plus 1 does not constitute “morality;” that was the moral basis for Jim Crow also.

By lavatory

September 26, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Us illegals do not care about this health care thing. We go to Grady and get thousand dollar treatment. America is good. Me and my girlfriend are going to have 8 kids before Bush reforms the system.

Hilary for President anytime!!! Realist,Time for truth(whatever?!!) and redneck Alkida, u are all BUMS!!

GO BLESS AMRICA!!

By CJ

September 26, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Realist @12:30

Again, I’ll ignore your invectives and go to the issue.

Thanks for limited info on your statistic. I’ll see what I can find on that.

You wrote: “*Our parents aleady took a hammering on what they EARNED, why should I take another hammering as I inherit thier wealth? *” Your parents paid taxes on their initial earnings. They didn’t necessarily pay taxes on investment GAINS that arose out of those earnings and have never been sold.

You wrote: “* already paid income taxes on the money I put back into stocks, funds, etc (other than pre-tax 401K) so why should I get hammered to the tune of 40-50% just because I chose wisely to invest and strengthen our economy and made some money?*” First, the capital gains rate is something like 5-15% (no SS or Medicare taxes), not 40-50% as you stated. Second, you paid income taxes on the money you earned before you invested it; you did not pay income taxes on the GAINS from those investments.

So, you are not taxed twice as you claim. You are taxed at an income tax rate for money you earn from work, and your taxed at a capital gains rate for money you GAIN from investing (hence the phrase “Capital Gains”). As I said, work money is taxed at a higher rate than investment gains despite the fact that your work is just as crucial to the economy as your investment.

In my opinion, all income, regardless of source, should be treated equally under our tax system.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

rednekkks NAMBLA

you scum sucking yankee born hypocritical maggot brained bigot!!

SOD OFF BACK UP NORTH and take your inbred retarded yankee kin with you!!

I naturally assume that was the kind of robust mildly abusive response you were hoping for with your earlier hysterical anti-Southern bigotry??

I’m always happy to generously oblige yankee rednekkks pond scum like yourself!!

By CJ

September 26, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw @12:53

I agree — the morality question is important. I also agree that majority opinion doesn’t constitute morality. However, unlike you, I believe health care is an issue that is based heavily on morality.

I’m out. Have a good afternoon.

By Realist

September 26, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

CJ, I understand how Im taxed sir, and Im telling you that at the end of the day Im giving back about 40% of my total income to the government. For you to tell me that Im not doing enough and that the well-to-do are being supported by people like you, makes me want to throw up.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Realist

Please understand, I am NOT at all trying to get you to lash out. If you are saying you choose not to quietly reflect on (not my points of course) but the wider issues I raise then fine - I have NO right to expect you to and I do not seek to compel you to - even if I could.

Ultimately we all have to make our way in the world using whatever floats our (individual) boats.

Talking of boats, hopefully rednekkks NAMBLA’s canoe mentioned on here yesterday has sunk by now in a water moccasin filled creek!! Shame he wasn’t on it!!! …smirk

By JK

September 26, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

If you inherit $10 million, you didn’t work for it, you LUCKED into it by being born to someone who worked for it (or swindled someone out of it, but that’s not your sin.) Sure, you had to put up with expectations, “Why can’t you be more like your brother?” and oppressive prep schools, “But I don’t LIKE Darlington!” and then there are the dreaded Holidays… (Aaaacccckkkk!) But that’s what wine and Scotch are for. So you dressed up, you bought Grandma a Pierre Cardin scarf she’ll never wear, you endured the banal conversation under carefully masked faces, you pretended no one could see the elephant in the room, you ate the turkey and the pice, and you avoided cursing for five whole hours! Bravo! You EARNED it, okay. You did. But pay your taxes gladly, if only because the Troops eating MREs for Christmas need your support. Thank you.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

its time to flush the stinky LAVATORY with 99% germ killing industrial strength bleach!!! (gedditt??)

By Realist

September 26, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

I was actaully hoping that the choking restaurant patron that CJ referred to earlier was in fact Mr. Nambla, and that CJ tripped over a peice of frayed carpet on the way to save him!

By White Jesus

September 26, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

TFTT,

You are right on the money regarding religion. You may find this to be interesting, (http://www.jamesarthur.net/mm_01.html)

This topic does not concern me because I do not get ill, and I cure all of my followers….when they eventually die after a bout of suffering..pain..bleeding…

By True American

September 26, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

What’s the deal with all the Christian bashing on this blog?

This is the second time I’ve been to this blog and both times “right” thinking and culture is bashed!

The other day this TIME FOR BS guy was saying how great it was the Europe beats the USA and now he bashes Chrisitanity?

Hello, Di@K weed this country was founded on it! Take your foreing national arse back to Europe you pathetic loser!

By dahreese

September 26, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

There is absolutely no reason why all American citizens should not have health care equal to those members of our Congress.

In fact, given the worth of some of the Congress, American citizens deserve even better.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By getoveryourself

September 26, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW Shucks!!!! TFTT’s 11:07 post was so precious. I was waiting for him to declare his love to Realist. It looks like someone may be sleeping on the couch tonight!

By MrLiberty

September 26, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

It is the sign of a truly delusional person who thinks that any republican will put forth a market-based proposal for anything. The party that began after the failure of the merchantilistic Whig party knows only government-big business collusion.

Admittedly Mr. Taylor’s proposals are doomed to failure and will only further destroy what little is left of decent medical care in this state, but to suggest that any truly free market proposals are going to come from Sonny - “there isn’t a corporate back I won’t scratch” - Perdue is ridiculous.

Only one party still understands what the free market really is about, and that is the Libertarian party. Yes, I would like to see more free market initiatives here in Georgia. That’s why I and everyone else who wants the same will be voting for Garret Michael Hayes in November.

As for idiots like Brian Curtis I would ask just how important is food? We allow a reasonably free market to deliver this most precious commodity to our tables every day. Unlike in the former Soviet Union (where it was under total goverment control) we do not have to wait in multi-hour lines either. Look at computers. One would dare say that they are extremely vital to our daily functioning. By leaving this market virtually untouched by any regulations, we have see unbelievable decreases in prices, improvements in reliability, vast improvements in speed, and a level of availability to virtually everyone in society. Can you imagine what healthcare might look like if it too had the benefits of a truly free market??? Then lets look at education. Complete failure where the state exerts total control and excellence where parents and the free market reign supreme.

By Realist

September 26, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

the Troops eating MREs for Christmas

Thats ok JK, because its ribs, ham, potato salad, malt liquor and gin in the poorest slums and housing projects of America. They come first Im afraid.

By Jesus was a Mushroom

September 26, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

Interesting True American…are you American Indian by chance? Which tribe?

By Van

September 26, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

Lets get back to basics folks,

The federal government, as stated in the 10 Amendment, does not have the authority to implement a universal healthcare.

How would you propose to over come that issue?

By True American

September 26, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

STFU you clown! No, am not native american, and you know that. And get ready for your next stop in hell for disgracing the Lord’s name!

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

I am a coke and meth sniffing whity who lives in a trailer park and drink home brew. I live in Cartersville, right in the sticks.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

@ Puke American

this country was actually founded by religious nutters who were being persecuted by other religious nutters in England. The folks on the Mayflower were puritans - about as sullen a lot of dogmatists you could hope to find this side of Beirut!!

If you actually bothered to study the history of religious persecution in GB/Europe 400 years or so ago you hopefully wouldn’t post such ignorant bollocks!!

I am English bubbaturd - with dual US citizenship - therefore its quite natural I would celebrate the UK/English element of the Ryder Cup victory.

Since when is legitimate critiquing of smug dogmatists like P. Robertson “christian bashing”? My points were factual and logical - and YOU once again are utterly anubalke to refute any of them … you just hurl abuse ..which is fine - I am LMFAO that its so easy to get smug wankers like you to bite so easily yet again!!

By Jesus was a Mushroom

September 26, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

You mean the hell where a red bogey man resides..or the hell where fairy tell believing people like yourself resides?

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

LMFAO - the ONLY response these scum have is to post increasingly unhinged abuse!!!

BTW - I can go to heaven any time I want puke American - I HAVE A BRITISH PASSPORT!!…huge smirk

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

September 26, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Realisp, tftt - terdburlgling fairy tranny Tommy - you ladies better behave…

Look, I’ve been very nice to you gals lately, you’ve been a lot better behaved - but watch it, I’m not going to put up with a lot of silliness from you two - your gal pals Andi and Markanusknow what happens when I stop being nice… their cherry cheeks are still sore from Pope rednecks arsewhuppin’.

You’ve been making good progress, don’t blow it.

By Dana

September 26, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

TFTT - you are correct, I shouldn’t have blasted you for speaking your mind. And in doing so I rather blew my credibility. I apologize.

Do me the immense favor of NOT interjecting your thoughts about God and Christianity into every discussion. Caring for one’s fellow man is not a strictly christian behaviour. It is a human behaviour, a familial behaviour. I will respect your right to believe whatever you choose, but I respectfully ask that you stop making your agnosticism a constant issue within this blog. I have made no effort to convert you to my way of thinking, yet I feel you take every opportunity you can to trumpet your belief in an effort to help others “see the light” of your intellect.

True American - give it a rest. Bashing someone over the head isn’t going to change their minds. (to paraphrase someone yesterday)

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

@ puke American

typo correction

and YOU once again are utterly UNABLE to refute any of [my points].

By Barbara

September 26, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

TFTT, your posts today really sadden me. I respect your agnostic decision, but you went a little overboard attacking Christianity. I hope one day you will get the proof that you need. I understand wanting that proof, but faith and love can overcome that need.

As to the topic, I was at first very scared because I found a lot of the early morning liberals’ posts to make some sense. I personally have access to these “health spending accounts” and I don’t like them at all. I am very traditional about medical insurance and I want to have the assurance of knowing that I’m covered for wellness checks as well as catestrophic events. I agree with JK in that our lifestyles have lead us to become a very unhealthy nation. But I also believe there are those that take advantage of the current systems, and the pressures of the “freeloaders” including the illegals, all drive up the cost of healthcare. And to top it all off, we have all these frivolous lawsuits where people get millions of dollars for every little doctor’s flub. (I’m not saying there haven’t been some tragic mistakes, but I would bet those don’t make up even 10% of the lawsuits against the healthcare professionals.)

I’d love to see someone solve this problem. I certainly can’t.

Oh, and in response to Bella @12:01, Jesus talks of individuals helping others; not of the community empowering government to pay for healthcare for everyone. Why stop there? Why aren’t you calling for a government plan to feed everyone too? And to clothe everyone? And to house everyone? And of course everyone needs a car, right? And plane tickets to go visit their sick relatives? And a retirement plan? Where does it stop? In fact, the solution is to allow people (or communities) to do what they can for individuals, through personal choices. Not through being taxed into poverty.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

September 26, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

Really, I want to compliment all of the folks of the Woo-ten Kkklan - we had a little flare up this weekend when a lot of little sissy sillies from Mr. Mike’s board came over to visit. I noticed that some of you though saw what bad little girls they were being, and you were quieter and nicer than usual. Poor Markanus is still hiding! I bet she’ll be nicer around here too when she comes back, too.

Anyway, Pope rednecks wants to give you all a big ONLINE hug and a big ATTAGIRL!

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

the apology really wasn’t needed Dana … I could care less what folks call me or say to me on here … but its graciously accepted. I humbly retract my little quip in response too.

there is nothing wrong with debating sensitive topics - we do race pretty well on here and politics too - just because someone doesn’t like a topic doesn’t mean it should be taboo. you might not like it and folks like minded may also not like it -but there are many many folks here who quietly lurk without posting and we shouldn’t exclude them from the fun.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

but faith and love etc …

NOPE - it cant Barbara - only proof and evidence can - no matter how much you may want it to!! As I’ve always said I implicitly respect both your and anyone’s right to believe whatever they want.

By Dana

September 26, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

tftt, I’m not opposed to debating sensitive subjects, however, this really is a political blog - personally I’d prefer to debate the topics offered without diving into quite so many side debates. There are going to be times when religion IS the topic, but it really isn’t today. And I imagine you can all tell this topic is hitting a nerve for me.

And that’s all for me today - good luck and good night.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

NAMBLA rednekkks is moronically mentally flatulating in cyber space again … how quaint!!

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

September 26, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

That silly tftt - sometimes I think she likes a good spanking. Well, dearie, I’m outtahere for today.

You girls behave.

By BE INFORMED

September 26, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

Why do you supposed CONGRESSMAN TOM PRICE (R-6TH) refuses to show up at scheduled debates with his challenger Steve Sinton? Is it because, as one of the 10 richest men in Congress, he feels he owns the 6th district? (He voted himself two pay raises, by the way.) Does he not “get” that America has a two-party system in which candidates present the voters with issues and choices? Does he feel he is above addressing his constituents in an honest debate?

Or perhaps Rep. Price is AFRAID to debate Steve Sinton on the issues. But how would we know? He never shows up! What does that say about his respect for the people he collects a paycheck to represent?

By Barbara

September 26, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

Hey it looks like Jim fixed the time delay (maybe)? Mine posted almost immediately.

Thanks Jim.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

I’m outtahere for today.

I hope the door smacks you hard in the head NAMBLA rednekkks on your way out …smirk

By Van

September 26, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

Barbara ,

Great post Barbara, could not agree more.

By Jim Wooten

September 26, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

Barbara, the delay is caused by the volume of traffic on this and other blogs. I’m afraid the problem could crop back up from time to time over the next couple of months.

By Richard

September 26, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

As Jim would say: “To hell with the average person, just look out for the wealthy!”

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda

September 26, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

One thing the Chimpster in Chief, Chris Wallace and tftt have in common - all three of them are little gay guys that like to smirk.

smirk

(Shaking his finger at tfft)

OK - now I really am outtahere.

By Cletus

September 26, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

GREED GREED Almost any thing would beat what we have now. Other countries do a lot more with a hell of a lot less.

By Monarch Hames

September 26, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

People have rights to good health care. Our government should provide to all without enough means from taxes going to wars. Those who can afford health care should buy it for themsselves so those without means can have it.

By Van

September 26, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Monarch Hames

I disagree, people do not have a right to good health care.

Those that can not provide their own, need the states help, but those that can provide for themselves will.

There is NO RIGHT to healthcare

By Brian Curtis

September 26, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

Mycroft made an excellent point earlier this morning that should strike a chord even with fiscal conservatives: national healthcare would be cheaper than what we’re doing now.

Really. Think about it. If we deny basic preventive care and maintenance to those who can’t afford it, we wind up paying for their emergency care when their condition deteriorates… anyone have any doubts that this is MUCH more expensive than correcting a condition early on?

National healthcare is not only the moral and ethical thing to do—it makes good economic sense as well.

By Brian Curtis

September 26, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Van: That’s the point that’s under debate here, isn’t it? Some folks seem to think that healthcare SHOULD be a right, rather than a market commodity.

By True American

September 26, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

Time For European Cultureal Elitist

Let’s get one thing straight - your are not American. You have filled out some immigration forms and taken a history test. You are no better than the border jumpers who exploit this country. You just happened to hire a lawyer and write your name on a few pieces of paper.

Your “trailer park whitty” comment shows your true cultural elitist self. this plus, your consistent bashing of America and Christianity, doesn’t sit well with real red-state conservatives.

I’m sickened that some “conservatives” on this blog shack up with a traitor like you.

You can’t cherry pick when you stand by America and when you don’t. Much like Brazilians and mexicans who wave their flags and cheer for their homeland.

Do us a favor and go home.

By Monarch Hames

September 26, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

The Constution gave us all rights and so did the laws that make us all equal. They can not be taken back again from us.

By Barbara

September 26, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

Monarch, are you saying that the government should discriminate against those who have worked hard to better themselves and therefore have achieved financial success? That type of entitlement attitude is one of the problems we face today with the government programs. Throwing more and more tax money away doesn’t solve the problem. If people don’t have the means to support themselves, then for crying out loud stop having more babies! I know it sounds harsh, but we can’t keep encouraging people to live on goverment subsidies and programs while the taxpayers pay for more and more freeloading.

Your post really struck a nerve with me. There is no right to healthcare. There is no right to a government house. There is no right even to a meal. It is all given by people who have to work even harder if they have to provide all of this for their own family and for yours too.

By Sell Swedish

September 26, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

No, the point under debate here is the validity of Newt’s plan, for which he provides no details or cost estimates. Look at his phrasing: “..encourage current market trends…” That’s insurance industry gobbledeegook.

I would be willing to pay extra taxes, however, to cover Time4theturd’s gynecological healthcare costs. She deserves it. She gets so wet on this blog that she wears her heart on her twinkie, and she shouldn’t have to bear all the costs; (the salve for the yeast infection alone runs into the hundreds)

It’s only that I think it’s a shame that his mother didn’t raise him to be a more discreet girl.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

NAMBLA Rednekkks is still furtively lurking like a guilt ridden stingray hoping to pounce on a doggy paddling liberal activist … if we conservatives club together NAMBLA and for a very early Kwanza present buy you a ticket for a Great White Shark experience - you’re not going to insist on anything stupid and wimpy like a cage are you???? Ditch the cage, the way the voters ditched the demoNcrats in the Senate and House under sick Willie and we’ll send you to play with the great whites - of course they will be genetically superior to you and ALL your kin - but its time you had someone to look up to other Republicans.

who knows the great whites might even like you and let you swim them for 20 secs before they playfully nip at your head/feet/arms/torso etc

NAMBLA’s Kwanza trip starts here folks:

http://www.greatwhiteadventures.com/experience.html

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

puke American

still grinding away at ya - eh bubbtaturd???

I am on the right of the true Conservative Party - the one so brilliantly led by Baroness Thatcher - with Sir Ronald Reagan (PBUH) as her political soul mate.

Dont patronise me about where and when I “stand by America” and I wont patronise you about not doing what Tammy Wynette told you about standing by your man!!

If you are so brainlessly dim and stupid you cant see I’m endlessly and effortlessly winding you up - albeit factually and comedically - then you simply dont deserve the right to vote!!

Keep your ignorant bigotry to your inbred self bubbaturd!! And if you dont like that I’m here and a legal voter and citizen then p!ss off and LEAVE!!! Its MY COUNTRY NOW!!!

P.S. I bet I hate the French way more than you do!!

By Van

September 26, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis

I may not agree with the market commodity either. I am not decided on that aspect yet.

No, Brian I feel that the federal government has way overstepped it bounds already and we do not need to encourage it any further.

That said, I feel the states should come up with a system, that provided basic care for those that can not afford healthcare, on a needs basis. Those that choose to subscribe, pay based on their income, upto a preset upper limit.

Monarch Hames, the Constitution grants us NO RIGHTS. Those are endowed by our creator. The Constitution is a device to limit the power of the Federal Government and to a degree the state governments.

What the federal republic has done is to upsurp the rights of the states and of the people to their own use.

Look up the 10th Amendment and read it carefully. Some will say the 14th admendment has rendered this a moot point, I disagree. The left wants the federal government to be the all powerful, granting them unlimited power. The left wants the feds to care for us from the cradle to the grave.

I, for one, reject that premise and feel that we should rein in the broadsweeping powers that the feds want. Remember the old phrase, power to the people? Back in the sixties, it was a call for anarchy, it should be brought back as a call to wake up the congress critters as to who has the real power. The voters.

I will never vote for or with any congress critter that wants a “universal” healthcare program.

By Monarch Hames

September 26, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Poeple are owed for the suffering of 500 years. This “country” was built on the backs of those owned by others. Their children childrens childen deserve no less.

By Van

September 26, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

Monarch Hames,

We are all equal, no one deserves anything more than another. No matter what. Anything else is contrary to the nations ways.

We each succeed based on our abilities, not our ancestry. If that was the case, then what would the Irish get that the other wouldn’t, what about the chinese brought over for the railroads, where does it end?

By Barbara

September 26, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

Monarch, You have got to be kidding me!@$!#@! With an attitude like that you will never amount to anything. I hope you don’t teach your children or neices/nephews that trash.

This country was built on the backs of people who were willing to work hard, and do whatever it takes to get ahead. And now those people, and their children, and their children’s children, etc., are being deprived of the fruits of that hard labor by people like you who want to take it all away and redistribute it to people who aren’t willing to work for it.

Agggghhhh!! You’re still striking my nerve. I’m announcing miller time early today.

By True American

September 26, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Listen TIme for godless, Europe loving, pseudo-citizen,

I don’t care for your rug-munching thatcher any more than I care for a godless, america-exploiter like yourself. Which, obviously means, I don’t care at all. Any country that puts a female as their leader is far to liberal for me! And you, patheticly enough, love her.

This country is not yours, and I almost did puke when i read that - fortunately I just coughed up a little bile into the union jack I have lying on my floor(an old Who t-shirt I polish my shoes with).

And apparently the only thing effortless about you is your lack of work ethic, which I’m sure is genetic in a socialistic Brit, such as yourself.

And don’t be coy, I’m sure Mr. Chirac is hanging right between the Oasis and your topless poster of Beckham.

By Jesus was a Mushroom

September 26, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

Monarch is a phony and is winding you all up the way TFTT is winding True Assmerican. She/he is not mexican, black, or indian….so Monarch..STFU with all the 500 years crap…nobody has been in servitude here that damn long beyotch!

By Redneck Convert

September 26, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

Well, I sure am glad to know that the constitution don’t grant us no rights. It seems you only get those if you believe in God. It makes me feel better about having my calls listened to. Anyway, I try to speak real clear when I call somebody so the govmint people won’t have to ask me to repeat something. And I like it that atheists and people that ain’t Christians don’t have rights now. You can’t have God-given rights if you don’t believe in God, right, Van?

By Jesus was a Mushroom

September 26, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

Barbara…

“This country was built on the backs of people who were willing to work hard, and do whatever it takes to get ahead.”

does that include slaves?

By Monarch Hames

September 26, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

Chinese people and white Irish were not brought here in boats full of suffering to be sold. Last night on tv children of the owners of them watched football where babys were raped and where people died again from suffering. No man made floods can wash that away even if they try.

By Van

September 26, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

Redneck Convert,

Then your problem lies with the Declaration of Independence, no where else.

By Van

September 26, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

Redneck Convert,

On a second note. If to you the Creator is God, god, Allah, Jehovah, or some other devine or powerful spirit or being, that is the source of your rights.

I hate ignorant nuckleheads.

By Jesus was a Mushroom

September 26, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

Its like listening to the Regular Guys radio show when they have some fake “bruhman” call up there with some ignorant “blame whitey” crap. All you stupid rednecks are so gullible that you actually believe it and call in to argue. You make us intelligent whites look bad b/c you fool stand out as much as the thugs stand out in the black community. Barbara, Van…read a book, watch UPN, listen to some soul music…whatever you do..wake the hell up!

By JK

September 26, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

What exactly is a nucklehead?

By Barbara

September 26, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

JwaM, you’ve got your opinion; we’ve got ours. And from the looks of your posts, you’ve flip-floped a lot on the most recent ones. Mock Christ all you want, and call us names if you must. At least we’ve maintained the same position on issues.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

puke American

hit the road WANKER … and DONT YOU CoME BACK HERE NO MORE NO MORE NO MORE!!!

I’ll be wiping up the dog shiite tonite with your flag bubbaturd!!!

BTW wankface - its actually the Union Flag -only ignorant uneducated colonial peasants like yourself call it the Union Jack!!

Turdforbrains simpletons like YOU are simply here for the entertainment of folks like me. I praise Allah everytime a backward mutant like you slithers into cyber space - its fabulous fun just ENDLESSLY winding the crap out of simpering flag waving illiterate dickweeds like you.

What the hell is a “whity”? I didn’t write that pathetic earlier post you moronic little twonk - that’s the ID stealer at it again!!

THIS COUNTRY IS MINE NOW!!! You’re living in a state named after an English King, founded by English/British folks. settoed by mostly British folks, subject to a goiod deal of English common law - envious wankers like you even try and speak English!!!

By Van

September 26, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

JK,

When spelled right,knucklehead, it means dumbbell, dummy, empty headed

By Barbara

September 26, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

JK, Knucklehead - a stupid, bumbling, inept person; a blockhead. Dictionary.com babe.

Or were you just being a knucklehead?

By Barbara

September 26, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

JK, Knucklehead - a stupid, bumbling, inept person; a blockhead. Dictionary.com babe.

Or were you just being a knucklehead?

By Van

September 26, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

Monarch Hames,

So I am to assume that the black slave owners are just as guilty as the american indian slave owners and the white slave owners.

That is ancient history, live in the today, respect the past and move toward a better tomorrow. - grow up.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

Magic Mushroom Jesus

You are obviously some witless arrogant yankee - just like puke American - who needs to sod off back up north and STAY THERE!!

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

Barbara and Van

you are being suckered by a leftist/yankee troll - just like puke American is a leftist troll, hence my utter contempt!!

No genuine conservative would sneer at Baroness Thatcher like that!!

By Sen. Macacawitz

September 26, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

Condi Rice did what the Bush administration does best today … she lied.

Clinton left the Bush administration Richard Clark and a plan to target AlQaeda. Condi lies and says he did not.

The smoking gun:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf

By JK

September 26, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson!

Sooooo, if I were to follow Van’s example and model his beliefs (I just come here to learn, y’all), then I would find a place in my heart to harbor hatred for the inept among us? Hmmmm… “My creator blessed me with a certain IQ, that I may be filled with hatred for those of lesser IQ.” Got it. I’m learning SO MUCH! {;->

By Van

September 26, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this

Sen. Macacawitz,

Be careful, based on history, Bubba is in wirse shape than W.

I would trust Condi before that shrill Hillery.

We had to live with her before, who in their right mind would go back to having her majesty Queen Hillery. Maybe the folks in the Whitehouse travel office or her new boy/girl friend.

By time for the truth

September 26, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

then I would find a place in my heart to harbor hatred for the inept among us?

why not just say liberals JK - why sugar coat it?

…blessed me with a certain IQ, that I may be filled with hatred for those of lesser IQ

WHAT??? this drivel is even sillier than usual!!

By Van

September 26, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this

JK,

Grow up, when you a little age on you, you will realize that knucklehead is not a slam, derogatory or mean.

And trust me, you do not need my example to be hate filled, you are doing a good job on your own.

By Markus

September 26, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

To Rednex liberal anti-American al Qaida:

No, I’m not “hiding” bucketlip. It’s the end of Q4/FY06, and I’m busy, unlike you pansies on the overemployed left that tend to dominate these boards during the day.

By Markus

September 26, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this

Hey Macacawitz, resident multiple ID freak:

Did YOU read any “comprehensive plan” in that document? If you did, point it out, because I can’t see one. All I see is talk about a plan to DRAW UP a plan and “strategic initiative” to deal with al Qaida.

Filthy liberal LIAR.

By Markus

September 26, 2006 05:28 PM | Link to this

Another good topic for the neomarxist socialist liberals to wet their beds over… free healthcare for all! Let’s see, 84% of this nation’s population has some form of a healthcare plan, either through employers, or through affiliates of organizations like the IEEE for those who are contractors or self-employed.

Still others choose (there’s that pesky word for liberals anytime we talk about a social issue) to purchase plans through traditional Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Keiser Permanente plans. About once a month I get fliers in the mail for those healthcare providers. A single guy between 30-35 would pay around $130/mo. for a comprehensive plan. Yeah, that’s REAL bank-breaking healthcare, isn’t it?

I wonder, for that whopping 14% of the population who don’t have healthcare plans, how much are they blowing on bling-bling like shoes, Gucci bags, booze, smokes (or drugs), plasmas, nights-out, concerts, pit bulls, prostitution, and other non-essential BS? I wonder how many of those Katrina evacs who blew that $2,500 debit card EXACTLY on the BS listed above had healthcare coverage? Why is it every time I drive by apartment complexes and low-income housing in this city that there are all kinds of nice vehicles in there like Yukons and hoopties like 1985 Monte Carlos with 22” chrome wheels?

Do the owners of these materialistic things have healthcare coverage? Most CERTAINLY most do not. What about that satellite dish on that trailer in rural Georgia? Are they paying a monthly premium for access to healthcare? Please.

Yet, things being as they are, those ~40 million people with no healthcare coverage are the targets for liberal democrats in the “fairness” doctrine of liberal Utopia land. If any aspirate liberal thinks the government can run a medical establishment better than private enterprise, they are out of their collective mind. Sure there are problems in the system right now.

Sure there really ARE people who can’t afford SOME sort of healthcare coverage. But if anyone who currently has health coverage and wants FEMA-like management and bureaucracy in control of their health for that whopping 14% without, they are absolutely delusional (note: government bureaucracy is government bureaucracy no matter WHAT political party is in charge). No, like someone else said here, there needs to be a subsidized program for that specific relatively small group. Socialist liberals have NO RIGHT to take from those of us who are perfectly happy with our current plans and turn it into a one-nation clusterF.

You think you have to wait in line NOW? How about when that fatass comes in with a corn on her toe and thinks it’s life-threatening? Or the poor little flaming liberal who tried to dice an onion and nipped his little pinkie finger? You think you’ll have a CHOICE to have a second or third medical opinion under a universal system? Go research Hitllary Care. Talk about dictating fascism and ramming it down OUR throats.. and this is LIVES we’re talking about, not just money out of pockets.

It’s never enough for you neomarxist liberals. Only the mindset of the pinks on the left would attempt to validate punishing the majority for the benefit of the minority… sinking the ship to launch the lifeboat. I have looked hard and long in my copy of the US Constitution, and nowhere does it say people have a right to free healthcare, the right to take from some and give to others via income redistributive progressive taxation policies, free housing, free cars, free college education, free whatever-the-hell-liberals-come-up-with-next.