Forum Index » Chaff » Tea Party Haters


Display Avatars Sort By:
Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Tea Party Haters on 10/21/2013 15:54:36 MDT Print View

Curious why so many seem to despise the TP? I'd also like to know how much the haters know about the TP, doctrine/manifesto, secret hand-shake, elected leaders, etc.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/21/2013 16:17:12 MDT Print View

Pretty simple for me.

I agree with their core principles of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and somewhat with free market economics.

The first two principles speak for themselves but free market economics is not so simple in my opinion. In a true capitalist society, if a bank used poor judgment and gave loans to anyone who had a pulse who walked through their doors, this behavior would be corrected when/if people defaulted on their loans. Unfortunately we don't allow capitalism to work the way it should and bail out too large to fail banks and insurance companies when they follow poor business practices. It's fair to say that many of these banks were pressured to make many of these mortgages available to undeserving customers so this is admittedly oversimplified but you get my point. Bottom line to me, if your service is so critical to the economic survival of the U.S. that a tax payer bailout may become necessary, then more government regulation and oversight is necessary. If your business is one that can simply fall to the wayside if it fails, then leave it alone for the most part (OSHA, food inspections, etc notwithstanding).

In spite of this, I was on board with their platform and subscribed to their newsletter (which I still receive) but they quickly lost my support for a few reasons:

1) They take Taxed Enough Already too seriously. There are three ways to earn more than you spend (in my opinion): lower spending, raise tax revenue, and stimulate the economy therefore raising tax revenue without raising the tax rate. Without going too far into my personal economic theory, all three have their limits and there are times where taxes need to be raised. Obviously if you go too far with raising taxes, you can kill jobs and create a financial burden on the average citizen but there are times when it's appropriate. I think their "never ever ever raise taxes" mantra is naive and a recipe for disaster.

2) They started venturing outside the scope of their charter. Once I started receiving emails from them in opposition to gay marriage, I completely gave up on them. The economy is enough to keep them busy for several generations; there's absolutely no reason for them to take on outside issues like this and alienate people from what they are trying to accomplish. I personally believe that gay marriage is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment and feel that they are trying to apply the constitution as they find convenient.

There's more than that for me but these are the major points.

Edit to add: I pondered the other day that admitting that you used to support the Tea Party is like admitting that you've been to a Nickleback concert. You permanently lose street cred after that.

Edited by IDBLOOM on 10/21/2013 16:22:31 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/21/2013 16:19:01 MDT Print View

There's the approximately 30 TP representatives that want to shut down the government and not raise the debt limit that would cause even more chaos. That's some reason to hate them.

If a group of Democrats shut down the government and didn't raise the debt limit unless the Republicans agreed to a bunch of gun regulations (or choose some other liberal policy) I'de hate them too.

In recent elections, some TP people won their primary but couldn't get elected so their Democrat opponent won. If a more moderate Republican ran, they would have won. This effect may be stronger in the next election, like it's possible the Democrats could win the House. In this case, I'm going to start loving the Teap Party : )

Justin Baker
(justin_baker) - F

Locale: Santa Rosa, CA
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 00:00:24 MDT Print View

The Tea Party started as a somewhat non partisan or libertarian movement opposed to taxation and overspending.
It was hijacked by neoconservatives, right wing Christians, and racists. This is why many libertarians, Ron Paul for example, avoid associating themselves with the Tea Party. They may agree with the founding principles but the idiots that the movement attracts have ruined it.
And then neoconservative, statist republicans used the tea party as a launching point for their campaign. These people completely go against the founding principles of the tea party but the party is already hijacked, so whatever I guess...

Of course there are plenty of videos of a guy walking around looking for stupid people to interview and ask tough questions and filtering out anyone who answers intelligently.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 06:52:43 MDT Print View

@ Scott.
"People hate the tea party because they are hypocrites, racist, and basically stupid".

Lots of good information. Didn't know about the racism.

Didn't the TP support Allen West? ...or Cruz

Please explain

Edited by BFThorp on 10/22/2013 07:15:04 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 07:36:38 MDT Print View

"It was hijacked by neoconservatives, right wing Christians, and racists."

and by corporists, like the Koch brothers who finance it, like with fancy buses with big American flags on the outside

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 09:21:31 MDT Print View

"Of course there are plenty of videos of a guy walking around looking for stupid people to interview and ask tough questions and filtering out anyone who answers intelligently."

+1 I don't support them but you can't hold them responsible for the nut-job in that last video.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 09:32:58 MDT Print View

Exactly, Ian. Here's one with Liberals signing a petition to increase the police state and model it after Nazi Germany:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l02E4cj4Vvo#t=48

Extremely stupid, low info voters on BOTH sides.

Matt

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/22/2013 09:34:16 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 10:34:02 MDT Print View

see, I told you so, Matt has some redemption possibility : )

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Where on 10/22/2013 10:42:06 MDT Print View

Where's the racism? Nobody want this one?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Where on 10/22/2013 10:59:49 MDT Print View

Fred - redemption possibility? - not so clear : )

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Where on 10/22/2013 11:05:32 MDT Print View

"Where's the racism? Nobody want this one?"

Are there racists in the Tea Party? Yes. There are also racists among the Democrats, Whig Party, Communist Party, Dance Party, NFL, Elk Snort Wyoming Chapter of the Red Hat Society (Marge is as bigoted as they come), and I heard that the guy who works at that gas station down yonder really really hates "them thar foreigners."

Are they officially bigoted against homosexuals? Yes based on emails I've received from them. I suspect I've deleted all of them but I'll try to find one that I can copy and paste here later.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Huh on 10/22/2013 11:20:06 MDT Print View

People here have thrown racism out on the table or agreed with it. I find it a little hard to believe that a grassroots organization, with no structure, and a few core objectives, could all the sudden be the next generation of mouth breathing klansmen.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Huh on 10/22/2013 11:30:50 MDT Print View

Ok... I'll be less subtle this time.

The Tea Party is not racist as an organization. It is a large organization so not surprisingly, there are racists within the party. Anti-Tea Party zealots, like the guy who videotaped that psycho in the video linked above, will cherry pick the crazies from the Tea Party and present them to the world as being representative of the entire party.

Bigoted as an organization against homosexuals? Yes. Racist? Not that I've seen other than some bad apples from within their membership.

Edited by IDBLOOM on 10/22/2013 11:31:45 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Sync posting on 10/22/2013 13:06:56 MDT Print View

Sorry Ian as I hadn't seen your last post when I entered mine. I get the bad apple part. I don't see bigoted actions. I see people that don't believe certain issues fall under the jurisdiction of the fed, and are thus labeled non caring a-holz. I've been told that myself.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 14:00:43 MDT Print View

"see, I told you so, Matt has some redemption possibility : )"

Not sure that makes me feel better, Jerry :)

Matt

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Huh on 10/22/2013 14:08:36 MDT Print View

"I find it a little hard to believe that a grassroots organization, with no structure, and a few core objectives, could all the sudden be the next generation of mouth breathing klansmen."

Does the TP have any African Americans or Hispanics in its membership?

Dean L
(AldoLeopold) - F

Locale: Great Lakes
Google this on 10/22/2013 14:28:02 MDT Print View

20 of the most racist tea party signs

or

Kentucky Tea Party sells "Yup I'm a racist" fourth of July T-shirts

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 15:25:50 MDT Print View

"And another thing...beyond Grayson and his cross, there's Democrat Senator Harry Reid refering to Barack Obama as light-skinned and not speaking in "Negro" dialect. And Democrat Vice President Joe Biden refering to Barack Obama as "clean and articulate." Where oh where is the outrage from NAACP, National Urban League, Congressional Black Caucus, Rev's Jackson or Sharpton? Oops, I forgot -- white liberal progressives have a get out of jail free card. It's just tragic that these traitors are selling the black community out to the party of slavery, Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow, literacy tests, poll tax, and modern day economic servitude. And they call me Uncle Tom?"--

Allen West


Rep. Alan Grayson's use of burning cross imagery in his recent fundraising email. Maybe he ought to crack open a history book, in between histrionics, to learn it was his party who created the KKK.

t


So, Dean...who's REALLY the racist here??

Matt

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/22/2013 15:49:53 MDT.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Pretty inflammatory on 10/22/2013 15:32:57 MDT Print View

The photo that is. Pun intended.

It took Superman to decimate the KKK.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/23157/how-superman-defeated-ku-klux-klan

Edited by oware on 10/22/2013 15:34:43 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Huh on 10/22/2013 15:39:23 MDT Print View

Does the TP have any African Americans or Hispanics in its membership?

This is the determining factor of a racist organization?

But...The answer to your question is yes, both. (Insert your own offensive racist Blazing Saddles line here... I would but not on this forum. Too many of the smart people wouldn't get it I'm afraid)



to Scott Jones. Your evidence is underwhelming. Stupid, really? It's ok to not know. My BS meter went straight to red when I started reading your post. Maybe it was meant to be entertaining. It was regardless.

Edited by BFThorp on 10/22/2013 16:09:20 MDT.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Local platform, oppose environmentally destructive under utilization of public lands! on 10/22/2013 15:49:29 MDT Print View

The Tea Party people I know say some pretty extreme things, though they are not listed on the TP platform. They vote with the GOP.

Here is the local Republican Platform with some outtakes.

http://www.stevenscountyrepublicans.com/county-platform/

2.1 Complete control of public education should be at the local level through elected school boards.

2.3 State Education funding should not be garnered from property taxes, but by revenue generated from state lands and assets – such as natural resource income.

3.4 We oppose lifestyle orientation and sensitivity training in our schools.

4.2 We categorically reject the implementation of government mandated, socialized healthcare in any form. (LIke Medicare ?).

6.5 We believe that court cases involving public lands, environmental policy enforcement and water rights conflicts should only be heard in the local jurisdiction where such public land is situated.

6.6 We support a policy of reduction of federal and state holdings of lands and assets, and oppose the establishment of United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Biosphere Reserves on American soil, Agenda 21, the Yukon to Yellowstone buffer zones, or any other international or domestic plan designed or leading to the impairing of private property rights or the environmentally destructive under utilization of public lands. (Environmentally destructive under utilization?)

6.9 We question the accuracy of the information used to suggest man-made Climate Change and reject any and all attempts to use this as an excuse to levy taxes or regulate business through a State or Federal program, including “Cap and Trade”.

6.10 We are opposed to the Washington Wolf Plan. Washington should have no wolves and wolves should not be listed as a state endangered species.

7.6 --Children born in the United States to persons who illegally enter or reside in the United States should not be granted the rights, benefits and privileges of citizenship.

Edited by oware on 10/22/2013 15:52:04 MDT.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
TEA PARTY LOCALS--Chem Trails and the EMP on 10/22/2013 16:08:27 MDT Print View

"Shutdown Is “A Trojan Horse” – Get Ready For Major Emp Attack On American Soil & Much Worse – The Perfect Storm Is Here

AFTER TWO YEARS OF NON-STOP CHEMTRAILS THERE ARE NONE – PREP IS COMPLETE

From putting together the pieces, the primary purpose of the shutdown is to drop U.S. Defenses to invasion from outside forces. That can be easily substantiated by examining what services are stopped which should never…ever be stopped as they protect the United States from advanced forces as well as tracking major troop movements. "

http://www.stevenscountyassembly.com/blog-entry/development-watch/shutdown-“-trojan-horse”-–-get-ready-major-emp-attack-american-soil


and

"SHERIFF: This Land is Our Land, Feds Have No Jurisdiction!"

http://www.stevenscountyassembly.com/blog-entry/county-government/sheriff-land-our-land-feds-have-no-jurisdiction

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 16:14:38 MDT Print View

"The photo that is. Pun intended.

It took Superman to decimate the KKK.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/23157/how-superman-defeated-ku-klux-klan"


Make light (pun intended) of it all you want, David, but the truth is that burning cross picture was from a Democratic Liberal. And the Tea Party are the racists here? Talk about hypocrisy!

Matt

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/22/2013 16:17:35 MDT.

Dean L
(AldoLeopold) - F

Locale: Great Lakes
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 16:16:48 MDT Print View

Matt

Some had called for examples of tea party racism. I pointed some out.

Where did I ever say that racism only only exists in the TP. I did not.

I believe also that you are articulate enough to know that the Democratic and Republican parties of 1865 has little resemblance to their modern counterparts. Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and even Eisenhower would likely be considered democrats by todays standards. Nathan Bedford Forrest, who started the klan was a confederate officer who murdered surrendering black troops at Ft. Pillow during the CW, but I'm sure you knew that.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 16:27:40 MDT Print View

It was inflammatory. That is not making light of it, however embarrassing the hell out of the KKK in front of their kids was very effective and funny too. Truth, justice and the American Way of LIfe.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 16:29:26 MDT Print View

" Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and even Eisenhower would likely be considered democrats by todays standards"

I disagree, Dean. I believe they'd be staunch conservatives (especially Teddy), bordering on Libertarian...just like JFK would :) That's in today's world, knowing what we know now, but having the same life experiences they did then. Kind of a moot exercise, but oh, well.

Matt

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 16:35:07 MDT Print View

And since we're talking my favorite President, ever......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCxf9eYWiaM

Matt

teddy

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 16:53:18 MDT Print View

"but the truth is that burning cross picture was from a Democratic Liberal"

LBJ pushed through civil rights legislation

the Southern Democrats voted against it, but there were a lot of Republicans that voted for it to make up for them. I believe a minority of Democrats but a majority of Republicans voted for civil rights.

LBK talked about loosing the South for many years but he though passing civil rights legislation was worth it

Those Southern Democrats all switched over to the Republican party

So, do those politicians count as Democrats or Republicans? They were Democrats when they voted against civil rights but now they're Republicans.

This is one of those "facts" that partisan right wingers throw out that are misleading at best

Justin Baker
(justin_baker) - F

Locale: Santa Rosa, CA
Re: Re: Huh on 10/22/2013 17:03:15 MDT Print View

"Does the TP have any African Americans or Hispanics in its membership?"

Yes, I even recall seeing an African American man speaking at a Tea Party rally to a cheering crowd.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Huh on 10/22/2013 17:10:41 MDT Print View

"Yes, I even recall seeing an African American man speaking at a Tea Party rally to a cheering crowd."

I don't suppose you'd have a link to that event?

Do you have any more examples, or does the exception prove the rule?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh on 10/22/2013 17:13:20 MDT Print View

there's Rubio and Cruz

but the fact that their Mexican's almost makes those TPers heads explode

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: Huh on 10/22/2013 17:14:11 MDT Print View

"Yes, I even recall seeing an African American man speaking at a Tea Party rally to a cheering crowd."


Was he telling them he was going to Africa?

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Huh on 10/22/2013 17:24:31 MDT Print View

"This is the determining factor of a racist organization?"

It's a logical place to start.

"But...The answer to your question is yes, both. (Insert your own offensive racist Blazing Saddles line here."

Sources?

"I would but not on this forum. Too many of the smart people wouldn't get it I'm afraid)"

BPL is fortunate to have you here to keep the smart people from getting uppity.

Luv ya, Fred. :)

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Racism on 10/22/2013 17:39:01 MDT Print View

I don't care for the Tea Party.
Arguing the racist or not racist card boils it down to the minimum common denominator.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 18:29:56 MDT Print View

The leaderless, vague nature of the "Tea Party" certainly seems to serve it well. If any self-described member embarrasses anyone publicly, then they weren't really a real member and it's easy to distance oneself. So it ends up becoming a general framework that just about anyone can readily latch onto and co-opt for just about any pet cause that slightly aligns. The same can be said for the "Occupy" movement.

Like so many movements, the whole thing reeks of fascism. All the basic parts are there.

We've got oaths and oath keepers, a strong desire to return to tradition and a strong reverence for history (regressive tendencies and historical nostalgia). There are flags and symbols (Don't Tread On Me) and the elevation of documents to near religious stature (Free pocket Constitutions from the Heritage Foundation to carry and memorize and the infallible enshrining of the "Founding Fathers"and the likes). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the creation of a boogeyman/common enemy that is simultaneously within and without, constantly threatening to destroy our very way of life, as evidenced by Tea Party sites espousing the maintenance of "Judeo-Christian" values, "family values", maintaining English as the "official" language of our country, and a hard-line stance on borders and immigration, both legal and otherwise.

Edit: Fascism is probably the wrong word to use here, as it's pretty vague. Probably more accurate in my mind to characterize it as regressive and conformist.

Edited by xnomanx on 10/22/2013 18:53:57 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 18:46:02 MDT Print View

I have two copies of contitution in paper - one from ACLU and the other from Heritage

One thing about Tea Party is since their not in control, they don't have to resolve any differences, they agree that they're against the Democrats or whatever

Hypothetically, if they did get into power, then their differences would come to surface

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 18:47:28 MDT Print View

"This is one of those "facts" that partisan right wingers throw out that are misleading at best"


Same can be said of Liberal "facts", Jerry :)

Matt

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 18:56:58 MDT Print View

Yeah...whatever, guys.

tea

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 19:01:54 MDT Print View

Your point would be better understood if 1/3 of the people in that painting didn't own a few hundred slaves.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
The liberal rip cord on 10/22/2013 19:05:12 MDT Print View

Seems that whenever a liberal is losing an argument, they pull the "racist" rip cord.

Jerry is right, republicans pushed the Civil Rights act over the goal. Of course now all the racist southern democrats are republicans.

Clinton told Teddy Kennedy that during his administration Obama would have been serving them coffee. Of course he couldn't be viewed as racist, a democrat and the first black President.

Who was the 95 year old democrat Senator they laid in state at the Capitol from West Virginia. He was a leader in the KKK. Clinton said he had to be a member of the KKK to get elected.

The end justifies the means.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 19:08:25 MDT Print View

""Yes, I even recall seeing an African American man speaking at a Tea Party rally to a cheering crowd."


Was he telling them he was going to Africa?"


Here you go, Ken:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOURiyy_6XA

Matt

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Racism on 10/22/2013 19:29:17 MDT Print View

"Arguing the racist or not racist card boils it down to the minimum common denominator."

The optimist in me says that means we've got no place to go but up. ;0)

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: The liberal rip cord on 10/22/2013 19:29:39 MDT Print View

"Who was the 95 year old democrat Senator they laid in state at the Capitol from West Virginia. He was a leader in the KKK. Clinton said he had to be a member of the KKK to get elected."

Was that Byrd. He changed his mind about racism which is good. And like you said, that was more typical of the time.

So what does that have to do with Tea Partiers being racist?

Dean L
(AldoLeopold) - F

Locale: Great Lakes
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/22/2013 19:37:53 MDT Print View

Matt

TR-can't agree with that. His reforms, pre-presidency (civil service, police commissioner), as president (trust busting, workplace, consumer protection, natural resources) would place him directly at odds with todays right. McKinley only took him as a VP to quash his progressive views. Remember too, that he started the Bull Moose party specifically because Taft didn't continue his programs. If I remember correctly Taft in the 1912 election, garnered the lowest vote% of any incumbent president.

As for Lincoln (charity for all, malice towards none) and Eisenhower (beware the Military Industrial Complex), those ideals would hardly fit into a conservative view in the increasingly strident era of the modern politics.

The old democratic south is now a republican stronghold and the old Yankee New England, is now a liberal one. Old labels hardly fit any more.

Edited by AldoLeopold on 10/22/2013 22:45:10 MDT.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: The liberal rip cord on 10/22/2013 19:38:51 MDT Print View

"Seems that whenever a liberal is losing an argument, they pull the "racist" rip cord."

The causes you guys espouse make it too easy, even for moderates. I suspect even a lot of conservatives cringe at some of the positions taken by you "patriots", as you will no doubt find out in 2014, when corporate interests subject you to a primarying of your own. Then maybe we can get down to sorting this country out, with men and women of good will on both sides sitting down to negotiate and end up, as it used to be, in the middle.

Dean L
(AldoLeopold) - F

Locale: Great Lakes
TR and John Muir at Glacier Point. on 10/22/2013 20:53:11 MDT Print View

Matt

TR invoked the Antiquities act to preserve millions of acres for all the people, do you disagree with that action? Carter and Clinton did the same thing, do you disagree with that? Johnson passed the Wilderness Act. Even Nixon passed the Clean Water Act, greatly expanded the Clean Air Act and started the EPA. None of these things are popular with the TP, conservatives or the right in general then or today.

So isn't it a bit of dichotomy for someone who greatly admires TR, enjoys the outdoors and would seem to have a vested interest in preserving it, espouse a political spectrum that is at odds with it? I am not trying to be snarky, just perplexed.

Edited by AldoLeopold on 10/22/2013 22:42:49 MDT.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Tea Party Haters on 10/23/2013 01:37:33 MDT Print View

"A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."
Theodore Roosevelt



"dichotomy"...Teddy Roosevelt was the epitome of that word. He believed in and lamented the fate of the plains buffalo, while at the same time shooting one of the last specimens of the animal in the Badlands. People aren't black and white, good and bad. Sometimes great men and women are works in progress. Looks like i'm in very good company. Never said I was a Tea Party member, either, just that I can certainly identify with them and their goals of limited government, liberty and personal responsibility (conservatism, in my opinion). Think what you will about me, but you're probably going to be wrong. By the way, what makes you think Tea Party members are "at odds" with the outdoors and the environment (an absolutely ludicrous hypothesis, by the way.)? Don't their children have to breathe the same air and drink the same water or hike the same trails as Liberl's kids? When you actually start engaging people with other opinions and beliefs, they become people, not just stereotypes you are told by your political parties to hate because they are "the enemy". A good example of that in this very thread is when someone asked, quite sarcastically, if there were any black Tea Party members and I produced a video of a black man speaking out at a Tea Party rally. Hmmmm.....maybe we shouldn't label people, and start talking to each other as equals, instead? Funny how all Liberals see is skin color and try and put people in ideological boxes based on those preconceived notions. How about we get past the race card and just hear each others words? Wouldn't that just piss off both parties? :)

Matt

PS--I still think Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Lincoln would be conservatives...because there are an awful lot of us true conservatives around with their same values, even today. They're called the Libertarian wing of the GOP, and you guys tend to hate them and their filibusters. :)

Here's one i'd love to see people wearing in 2016 (for the color blind only) BULLY!:

bull moose party

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/23/2013 02:16:26 MDT.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Tea Party Haters on 10/23/2013 02:21:30 MDT Print View

Dean...Carter also gave away the Panama Canal...Roosevelt would have shot him on the spot for that and I would have helped. What's your point?
LOL

Matt

teddy

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/23/2013 02:26:14 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/23/2013 08:01:11 MDT Print View

"Carter also gave away the Panama Canal"

the lease expired

it's someone else's country, empires are a bad idea

the earth did not stop rotating on it's axis after Panama regained control

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/23/2013 08:37:11 MDT Print View

the lease expired

Dear God (double face palm / giggles)

Jerry. - stay healthy my friend.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Faces of the Tea Party - 'We are not the KKK' on 10/23/2013 10:02:10 MDT Print View

Just came across this today, on Nbcnews.com , no less:

http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2010/10/20/.UmdW2FZndS0.facebook

mc

Faces of the Tea Party - 'We are not the KKK'

Emery McClendon is a husband, father, Air Force retiree, Christian, a FedEx driver, amateur radio guy and photographer. In general, his race is beside the point.

But this series is about the Tea Party, a movement that struggles to persuade some observers that it is not merely a racist reaction to a black president. The 59-year-old McClendon, as can clearly be seen in James Cheng’s photo, is a black man. He is also a prominent voice in the Tea Party movement.

McClendon was among the highlighted speakers at a recent rally in administration against the health-care package, adding his voice to the chorus with this message: the Tea Party movement has nothing to do with race.

“We are not the KKK,” he boomed with rhetorical flourish. “We are patriots.”

McClendon was raised at a time when the black population was overwhelmingly Democratic. It wasn’t easy to “come out” as a conservative Republican.

“I grew up in a household where they would break your neck if you voted any other way,” says McClendon. “But they were very conservative. My parents really didn’t know how conservative they were.”

The Fort Wayne native served in the Air Force for four years then joined the Indiana Air Guard. His 23 years as a FedEx driver paid the bills while he and his wife, Queenie, raised their three sons.

Over time McClendon decided that his views on abortion, limited government and taxation - principles he says he learned from his parents - just didn’t match liberal views.

“I ended up thinking I wasn’t a Democrat or a Republican, but more of a Reagan conservative,” he says, and he has voted accordingly since the election of George H.W. Bush.

By the time McClendon established the local Tea Party chapter last year, he had a network of conservative friends. At the group’s first rally in front of the Fort Wayne courthouse, former conservative presidential candidate Alan Keyes delivered the keynote address.

Since then, McClendon has frequently been invited to speak at Tea Party events in Indiana and elsewhere. Public speaking comes easily to him, he says, because as a child he used to travel with his uncle, a bishop for the Church of God in Christ, listening to preachers and talking morals and values.

The warm reception he receives at Tea Party events isn’t universal, even among family members.
“I’ve been called an Uncle Tom,” he says. “They say (I) should support the president because he’s the first black president. I support the president. I just don’t agree with his beliefs.”

If you get right down to it, McClendon is pretty disgusted by President Obama - even writing that Obama’s election was the saddest day of his life.

“I never thought the American people would fall for a person they didn’t know anything about,” says McClendon. “He has Socialist views and, even worse, Marxist…. He goes around the world bowing to leaders and talks about how the market system doesn’t work.”

In McClendon’s view, this show of presidential humility doesn’t mesh with the notion of “American exceptionalism” that is embraced by the Tea Party.

“We stand above because of our morals, our Constitution,” says McClendon.

“(The Tea Party) is a group of individuals who love their country and feel they are losing their country. They are finding out there are other people who are standing up for principles…. When we return to those principles, we will return to exceptionalism.”

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/23/2013 10:04:42 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Faces of the Tea Party - 'We are not the KKK' on 10/23/2013 10:14:10 MDT Print View

you missed the headline

"Breaking news! Black man found in Tea Party rally!"

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Tea Party Haters on 10/23/2013 10:54:07 MDT Print View

"There you go, again, Jerry...." (Reagan voice)

:)

Matt

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/23/2013 11:06:20 MDT.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/23/2013 15:42:54 MDT Print View

The Teabilly Party.....the party of lunatics! Say hi to the likes of Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. Anyone that would vote for those idiots as well as their brothers and sisters need to have their heads examined

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/23/2013 15:58:09 MDT Print View

You can always tell someone is about to drop some knowledge when they say something like "The Teabilly Party.....the party of lunatics!"

I don't support them either but I guess I don't understand all the raw emotion here.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Tea Party Haters on 10/23/2013 18:26:55 MDT Print View

"You can always tell someone is about to drop some knowledge when they say something like "The Teabilly Party.....the party of lunatics!"

I don't support them either but I guess I don't understand all the raw emotion here."

Very simple, Ian...haters gonna hate, man. Yeah...Liberals are the "sensitive" party. Ha!

Matt

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/23/2013 18:33:46 MDT.

Tim Zen
(asdzxc57) - F

Locale: MI
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/23/2013 19:23:07 MDT Print View

I find the tea party completely fake.
I assume they are alluding to no taxation without representation.
There was an election. They just did not win enough seats and the presidency.

Fake as in Ted Cruz's wife is a managing director at Goldman Sachs. Harvard MBA.
And Ted is just another ivy league, elitist too.

And where were the Tea Party when 43 took a budget surplus and made it a deficit?

Fakers all.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/23/2013 19:38:08 MDT Print View

Does the term Bats**t crazy count?

michelle

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/23/2013 19:39:17 MDT Print View

and yes Matthew....some of us Libs are not the type to be messed with.....not all of us are kumbya :)

Now onto normal programming

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/23/2013 19:45:49 MDT Print View

and since I am on a roll....here is one for the ages.... Now let's keep in mind, that this women is on the Intelligence Committee...how on earth that this idiot was put there is beyond me. But this takes the cake....Keep in mind that her husband owns a clinic to pray away the gay
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/06/29/257646/bachmanns-husband-calls-homosexuals-barbarians-who-need-to-be-educated-and-disciplined/

or this


http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/michele-bachmann-spying-on-a-gay-rights-rally-behi


she is one funny lady.

Tim Zen
(asdzxc57) - F

Locale: MI
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/23/2013 19:50:58 MDT Print View

Ken is on a roll.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/23/2013 20:19:58 MDT Print View

"it's someone else's country, empires are a bad idea"

Hear, hear! It's time we started taking care of empire building here at home!

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/23/2013 20:40:53 MDT Print View

"the lease expired

Dear God (double face palm / giggles)

Jerry. - stay healthy my friend."


so, what don't you agree with?

that we agreed to leave after 99 years?

that we should just stay even though we agreed to leave after 99 years and just use our superior military to enforce our decision?

that chaos has broken out and people aren't able to use the Panama Canal after the Panamanians took back control?

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Ken's a tough-guy...ooooowwwwwwwww. on 10/23/2013 20:49:27 MDT Print View

"and yes Matthew....some of us Libs are not the type to be messed with.....not all of us are kumbya :)"

Yeah, Ken, you're striking fear into my heart right now...LOL. I just hope I don't wake up to you "Occupying" my front yard, because I don't need anymore bull$h!t in my rose garden. LOL. You are correct, though...most wars America has been involved in have been when Democrats were the ones in charge. Thank God Comrade Obama didn't get his way with Syria or there would have been one more, to add to that list.

o

p

p

p

And the scariest one of all (because it's NOT Photoshopped!):

p

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/23/2013 23:49:38 MDT.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Tea Party Haters Just Gonna Hate. on 10/24/2013 00:02:08 MDT Print View

And since I'M on a roll, too....Besides believing they are victims of everything, Liberals believe anyone that disagrees with them, do so for a variety of totally disconnected reasons. This makes their mental disorder even more curious since they believe they are victims at the hands of others but have no problem victimizing other people by verbally assaulting them with a variety of unpleasant names and slurs they feel to be justified in using. Does my diagnosis ring a bell for you, Ken? Just add "tea-bagger" to the below cartoon and look in the mirror.


ken

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/24/2013 00:05:04 MDT.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Tea Party Haters Just Gonna Hate. on 10/24/2013 09:44:56 MDT Print View

Lol careful Matthew...my tough guy thing was drenched in sarcasm. Sorry that there is no font. I guess I could have put a j/k at the end...sorry my bad. Bur you do need to understand that a lot of liberals look at the fsr right with a solid chuckle. When I say Liberals I mean educated left of center Libs, not the occupy crowd as you paint us all. The difference between the far left and far right is not all that off...both live pipe dreams. However tge Christian right believes in some strange theories and fairy tales.....want to explain the whole foreable rape controversy? Pray away the gay, anti immigration? How about shutting down our nation because Cruz views Obamacare as tyranny when in reality it is a fantastic cost savings measure. Just remember us Libs are tough guys!


J/k

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Tea Party Haters Just Gonna Hate. on 10/24/2013 09:46:34 MDT Print View

Sorry for misspells as I am typing with my phone

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Tea Party Haters Just Gonna Hate. on 10/24/2013 10:15:00 MDT Print View

This thread has become a real joke.
Why isn't it funny though?

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Tea Party Haters Just Gonna Hate. on 10/24/2013 10:59:40 MDT Print View

@Ken, aka tuff guy
"when in reality it is a fantastic cost savings measure"

When you guys figure out that this didn't happen, what will you say then? I don't expect anything... just curious.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
irrationality on 10/24/2013 11:30:10 MDT Print View

The Tea party started as a grassroots organization with objectives that I could agree with- if only superficially. Primarily, fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately some of their proposed methods take cues from the more whacko Libertarian-Objectivist crowd. (I am a capitalist, but we tried absolute laissez-faire capitalism in the 19th century, and it wasn't pretty.) But then even worse, being a grassroots organization, they were hijacked by groups with Other Goals. The fiscal goals have become a smokescreen for the usual "social conservative" hatemongering. It really isn't hard to find. Plus I'll reiterate that though religion is fine and dandy I certainly don't want my government to be based upon one someone's dominionist fantasies. Matt and any others who claim that this takeover isn't happening- you're kidding yourselves. The Tea Party is absolutely getting taken over by such people. But my biggest objection to them is their utter irrationality about "standing for their principles" and "no compromises", even if this leads to a disaster like the recent shutdown.

Brother, if you are a politician then compromise is your JOB. The battle over the ACA had been fought in the Senate and the House (both did vote, despite what some of the more irrational Obama-haters claim) and the opposition lost. Get over it, and move on to more important issues. Plus, on that note, the current Tea Party is based almost entirely on the proposition that Obama is the antichriSt. They get rather irrational about the issue- birthers and all- and basically are just trying to foil anything that the man tries to do, out of spite. It's hard to support a group that is so irrationally hateful.

And, having just read Craig W.'s bit about pseudo-fascism... wow. That sort of rings true.

Of course, though it wasn't really the question the OP asked, the far left also gets my ire. For instance, I think that Nancy Pelosi is just as bad as Michelle Bachman, though in an inherently different way. Whereas Nancy Pelosi is just the classic self-absorbed elitist "I know what's best for you" socialist would-be dictator, Michelle Bachman is actually insane. :) She's damned near clinically paranoid (theories about a gay conspiracy to have her assassinated) and quite literally thinks that God talks to her. Well, I don't know about the rest of you but in my experience about 99.999999% (as a low estimate) of people throughout history who have claimed that they hold conversations with God have been either insane or con-artists or both. If that's the face of the Tea Party then, yes, the movement should be treated as the laughingstock that it is. What's scary is that there are still so many people supporting it (doubtless drawn to those "social conservative" platforms I mentioned).

Of course, Matt's bit about how liberals tend to be tolerant of everyone except those who disagree with them (and degenerate to name-calling) is pretty much spot on. But then again, their incessant playing of the "race card" is certainly no worse that the fictional plot against Christians that the right keeps trying to proclaim. (Apparently, trying to prevent them from forcing their belief-system upon everyone else constitutes genocide, or something.)

EDIT-- @Fred- And what will you say when it does end up driving costs down for everyone? Because it's kind of irrational to claim that it's doing otherwise, as well. We don't know yet. But somehow I keep hearing right-wingnut politicans giving soundbites about how bad the ACA is performing and how it is harming Americans, driving up prices, etc. Which is patently drivel.

It's going to take years to figure out what happens to healthcare premiums under ACA. Personally, I think that it very obviously will lead to lower premiums. (If nothing else it eliminates the defacto regional monopolies that some insurance providers have had, so now *gasp* they'll actually have to compete.) What all of the anti-ACA people don't understand is that they are already paying for other people's healthcare due to COBRA and similar laws- ERs cannot turn people away just because they lack insurance. So who do you think pays for their medical care? Answer- ultimately, we the insured do, through higher premiums. But if all of those uninsured people get insurance they will presumably get better preventative care (not to mention actually paying a bit for insurance to begin with), and have less ER visits. E.g a diabetic woman with better preventative care will presumably stop coming to the ER in DKA once a month and incurring huge bills that you and I end up paying. So how can it NOT result in lower premiums? (Well, so long as the insurance companies don't conspire to just pocket it as extra profit...)

Edited by acrosome on 10/24/2013 12:03:31 MDT.

Justin Baker
(justin_baker) - F

Locale: Santa Rosa, CA
Re: Ken's a tough-guy...ooooowwwwwwwww. on 10/24/2013 11:56:01 MDT Print View

Mathew, BPL's official anti-liberal meme generator.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: irrationality on 10/24/2013 11:59:21 MDT Print View

You're wrong Dean : )

Obamacare caused the employment rate to gradually fall from 66% in 2008 to the 63% it's at today.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: irrationality on 10/24/2013 12:00:19 MDT Print View

@ Dean
And what will you say when it does end up driving costs down for everyone?"

I continue to pull my hair out when I see this topic. The short answer is services will have declined. Cheaper, more efficient, wasn't the plan.

and again, we pay for the uninsured anyway...

Do you honestly think my property taxes will go down when ACA gets going? I'm guessing they don't.

Edited by BFThorp on 10/24/2013 12:06:38 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: irrationality on 10/24/2013 12:46:18 MDT Print View

@Fred-

Cheaper, more efficient is exactly the plan. The states whose leaders oppose the ACA are releasing figures that are quite blatantly manipulated to look like premiums are spiking (usually by using now-illegal "teaser rates" from pre-ACA that they compare to current full rates), and the converse is also true with states whose leaders supported the ACA producing very rosy figures on average premiums. But if you look at all of the *nonpartisan* analyses (CBO, Rand, KFF) they all are showing a modest decrease in average premiums. (Are a very small subset of people seeing increases? Yes, clearly. But even then most of the people complaining aren't really shopping around as they should be, they're just upset about what their current insurance provider is offering.) Plus, all of these new plans are offering better coverage for the majority of people- because they have to by law (ACA). Your "services will have declined" answer is clearly fantastical. Look at all of the people who now have real insurance rather than what they had before- which was either NOTHING or, if they were healthy enough that it was an option, a scam catastrophic plan.

So, modest decrease in premiums (or, at worst, stasis) for much better coverage? I don't think that's a hard call.

But as I said long-term effects are, well, long-term. We aren't there yet, so we don't know, and I think it is hubristic that you think that you DO know. But it is interesting that ALL of the projections that predict increased premiums are based upon input from the insurance industry and are released by Republicans.

I'm not sure what your property tax comment was about. Sort of a non-sequitur, there. :) Or was that just a de rigueur blanket anti-tax comment? Are you one of those "we shouldn't have any taxes at all" Objectivist wingnuts? Because I'm all for low taxes, but I think that clearly we do need some.

Edited by acrosome on 10/24/2013 13:16:43 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
fantastical on 10/24/2013 13:05:48 MDT Print View

@Dean
"Look at all of the people who now have real insurance..."

Rather than coverage, you should be concerned about the service that it provides. Again, we can insure everyone, for pennies. OTOH...

Friend just texted me, he lost his coverage and was denied coverage on the exchange.

Property taxes support the co. hospitals, i.e. for people that can't pay, etc.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: fantastical on 10/24/2013 13:09:01 MDT Print View

Then you should be ecstatic! Fewer people will use the county hospital and not be able to pay! I certainly wouldn't predict that your property taxes would go UP due to the ACA. And the "service that it provides" is exactly what I'm talking about, Brother- it's clearly better. Much more stuff is covered.

If you are proposing that somehow the quality of medical care will fall simply because the insurance companies are now forced to provide wider coverage, well, that's frankly magical thinking or something. If they pay for it, they pay for it. I'm not magically going to do a slipshod cholecystectomy just because I get to bill Kaiser for it and actually get reimbursed rather than billing an uninsured person who will never pay. :)

Who is "friend?" Because you cannot be denied coverage- that's now illegal. (Right?) That's sort of one of the big points of the ACA. What are "friend's" circumstances? I doubt that the whole story is quite that simple- lost coverage, then denied on the exchange. But I'm curious to hear the tale.

Edited by acrosome on 10/24/2013 13:26:54 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: fantastical on 10/24/2013 13:13:26 MDT Print View

Like Dean said, it'll be months or years before we know anything

Since health care costs have been going up a lot in recent years, hard to evaluate ACA in the future - if costs go up, but it's less than recent history, maybe it's a success

Some states there is a larger decrease - if a state already has some pre-existing conditions regulations, then there will be a larger decrease. If a state has few pre-existing conditions regulations, the cost will probably go up but you're getting something for that, no pre-existing conditions denial of health care

Over-all, ACA has a number of improvements like pre-existing conditions, minimal care standards, coverage of children to age 26,... so if it costs more, you're getting something for that.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: fantastical on 10/24/2013 13:24:31 MDT Print View

Friend has pre-existing conditions. Humana Insurance Co., through Humana One, denies coverage strictly on underwriting risk, not a clinical viewpoint. I don't know who dropped him. I don't know the entire story either. This was only one of several denials.

Stay healthy my friend

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/24/2013 13:30:10 MDT Print View

See, now I am quite curious. I don't think he was denied on the exchange. Because, as I said, that is illegal. However, if you go looking for non-exchange policies (they do still exist) then, yes, you can be denied for being high-risk just as before the ACA. So I suspect that some little detail was left out of that story somewhere- your friend was looking at non-exchange policies or something, possibly because he's having trouble with whatever exchange website applies to him, since many are being glitchy.

As I've said before, the ACA is far, far from perfect. But this is one of the better provisions, IMHO. Your friend should be enthusiastic about this- he should actually be able to get insurance at a reasonable premium, especially if he's low-income and qualifies for a subsidy.

The few people who have seen premiums rise tend to be wealthier people who don't qualify for any subsidies and who buy private insurance rather than getting it through an employer. (Because if you already get decent insurance through your employer then the ACA pretty much doesn't affect you at all- which is something like 80% of Americans.) Before the ACA your friend might never have been able to get insurance at all due to his pre-existing condition, now that Humana has discarded him.

Edited by acrosome on 10/24/2013 13:38:17 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/24/2013 14:27:35 MDT Print View

"denies coverage strictly on underwriting risk"

that is pre ACA

with ACA your friend will be covered

I knew you'de come around and embrace ACA eventually

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
County Hospital on 10/24/2013 14:45:49 MDT Print View

"Property taxes support the co. hospitals, i.e. for people that can't pay, etc."


There are no free hospitals anywhere near where I live.

Many places have only for-profit hospitals, they often do get tax dollars, but then charge higher prices too. So the average person here pays 1/3 more in their hospital bill for their services than if everyone could pay their bills. 33% of users don't pay their bills!

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: County Hospital on 10/24/2013 14:59:23 MDT Print View

And more from the lunatic fringe........

.http://dailycurrant.com/2013/10/23/sarah-palin-claims-jesus-celebrated-easter/

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/24/2013 15:05:28 MDT Print View

that is pre ACA

Ok. So now where does he go? I'll keep you updated on his continued struggle with this. He's one mad mofo. You can keep your existing healthcare promise seems to be another load of horse apples.

Also hearing deductibles going way up as much as 4x and reduced caps.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: County Hospital on 10/24/2013 15:17:10 MDT Print View

@ken
Never let the truth stand in your way... or you're too lazy to find any facts.

Snopes


By the end of the day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered it mistaking it for a genuine news item. However, the article was just a bit of political humor from the Daily Currant which spoofed the debate over secularization of religious-based holidays and the stereotype of former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin as ill-informed about historical matters.

As noted in the Daily Currant's "About" page, that web site deals strictly in satire:
The Daily Currant is an English language online satirical newspaper that covers global politics, business, technology, entertainment, science, health and media.

Q. Are your news stories real?

A. No. Our stories are purely fictional. However they are meant to address real-world issues through satire and often refer and link to real events happening in the world.
Last updated: 24 October 2013

Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2013 by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/easter.asp#DWKkYvighsQUDJfA.99

d k
(dkramalc) - MLife
Re: County Hospital on 10/24/2013 15:37:03 MDT Print View

And even where there are county hospitals, they are under funded and over loaded - that's why not everywhere has them. And the patients who can't pay for their own care there tend to only go when the situation is dire enough to require them to utilize the more expensive ( for the taxpayers footing the bill) emergency room services ( which also clogs the emergency room making it slower for the cases that ERs are designed to treat. This is something I saw over and over again for thirty years, working in just such a place.

Wouldn't it just be better, for them and for us, if they were provided good accessible non emergency services so that they didn't have to wait till things became dire? Or is that something you are opposed to? It seems to me that your attitude is " oh well, if it gets bad enough they can just go to the county ER."

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: County Hospital on 10/24/2013 15:56:18 MDT Print View

D K

"Wouldn't it just be better, for them and for us, if they were provided good accessible non emergency services so that they didn't have to wait till things became dire? "

Absolutely. So...Why didn't we start there instead of F-in with the whole system? What do you expect will happen with the uninsured going forward? There will be some, some say a lot. Still the same problem.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
I love my Tea Party Friends, just not their sins on 10/24/2013 16:29:11 MDT Print View

"Wouldn't it just be better, for them and for us, if they were provided good accessible non emergency services so that they didn't have to wait till things became dire? "

Absolutely. So...Why didn't we start there instead of F-in with the whole system? What do you expect will happen with the uninsured going forward? There will be some, some say a lot. Still the same problem."

---

If, like where I live, 1/3 of the system is not working (1 in 3 can't pay their medical bills), why would we keep that system? Sounds like it could use a lot of "F-in".

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: fantastical on 10/24/2013 17:25:16 MDT Print View

"Ok. So now where does he go? I'll keep you updated on his continued struggle with this. He's one mad mofo. You can keep your existing healthcare promise seems to be another load of horse apples."

I don't get it. ACA will help him. If he's mad, it's about pre ACA healthcare???


"Also hearing deductibles going way up as much as 4x and reduced caps."

You can get severasl choices of higher premium lower deductable or vice versa.

No caps.

It's like you're just mad in general and want to lash out at ACA because it's there.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 07:38:48 MDT Print View

"It's like you're just mad in general and want to lash out at ACA because it's there."

I think that's the problem with most of the rabidly anti-ACA people, frankly. Either that or its more of the annoying "I hate it just because Obama wants it" mentality- despite the absolute FACT that this plan was first proposed by the Republicans. I mean, I'm not 100% satisfied with it, but it isn't the apocalypse or anything. But as a rational moderate I'm just annoyed at the irrationality and lies about the subject from the right, and I'm sort of growing one eyebrow and digging in my heels on the issue. (I would have specified "radical right", but the truth is that there is no longer a moderate right in this country. Even McCain has sold out.) That's my lot, in general- even as a right of center moderate I'm turned off by the underhandedness and magical thinking of the modern right.

Approximately 100% of the things that anti-ACA folk complain about are easily debunked by spending 30 minutes on FactCheck or PolitiFact- denial of coverage, denial of mammograms, senior losing coverage, paying more for medications, etc. EVERYTHING! (So, take your own advice, there, Fred...) It's what I've been doing every time I see some ridiculous statement by a Tea Partier. Just go to one of those websites and search "ACA" and you'll see the huge list of disproved spin from the anti-ACA crowd. (Not that Obama hasn't stretched a truth here and there, too, but he's not NEARLY as egregious.) Hell, I've got FactCheck and PolitiFact bookmarked...

I blame the recent polarization of the media. Such folk aren't really interested in fact-checking. They just want to plop down in front of FoxNews (or, conversely, MSNBC), get carried away by the groupthink, swallow the untruths, hear absolutely nothing dissenting, and get radicalized.

Edited by acrosome on 10/25/2013 07:50:53 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 08:04:26 MDT Print View

"I blame the recent polarization of the media."

I assume you mean "on" the media

I think it goes back to our favorite boogyman - all the money in politics

They want the politicians to pass laws that allow them to make more money

Obviously, people won't vote for that, so issues are created like abortion or ACA that the people can argue about while the real "wizards behind the curtains" pass more laws to enrich them even more

And any Republican that doesn't go along with the radical agenda, will get primaried. Grover Norquist will dump a bunch of money in and get a Tea Party candidate elected.

The Maine senator who is a moderate, is retiring because she doesn't want to put up with it.

The media is screwed because if they don't go along, they won't get interviews. They get a lot of advertising dollars from people with vested interests.

60 Minutes does a lot of pieces, like 60 Minutes interviewed Grover Norquist who openly admitted what he does and wasn't the slight bit apologetic. PBS does a lot of pieces, like Frontline. People must be too busy buying the latest iphone or whatever...

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 08:18:34 MDT Print View

@dean and the gang
"It's like you're just mad in general and want to lash out at ACA because it's there."

Let me try to get to the point one more time about healthcare. I'm against it because it was pitched to SCOTUS as a tax and sold to us as a coverage alternative. Something I don't think is the Feds role, not that anyone really gives a shit anymore about the legal limits of the fed.

The second laughable argument, big picture, is that rates will come down, or this will cost less. Great, but at what cost? Services? Additional taxes?
Big picture...stick with me here Jerry. You can't mathematically add more insured, mandate coverage options, and add a big layer of government employees to monitor it, compliance regulations etc., ... and make it cheaper over all. Yes I'm considering the er costs that we ALREADY pay for. It's just impossible. I've seen nothing in the bill to actually address cost reduction but the additional compliance ARE expected to add. But, who the hell really knows what in the document? The fact that the rollout is a big FUBAR just legitimizes my view of the fed.

Back to the topic.

Judging from the comments, I'm guessing none of the tea party haters have ever attended a meeting.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 08:19:34 MDT Print View

I assume you mean "on" the media

You presume much. I meant what I wrote.

The media has polarized, with MSNBC on one hand and FoxNews on the other. I blame this as the cause of worsening political polarization. Thus, I blame "the polarization of the media." I then non-sequitured a bit into complaining about the American populace in general, so that may have confused you.

Ultimately, the media polarization is the media's fault. For decades there was a blatant liberal bias in the US media, which the liberal media itself has only recently acknowledged. This led to annoyance on the right, and thence to FoxNews, which made the liberals feels justified in polarizing MSNBC even further the other way, etc.

By the way, I just spent a while trying to find one true thing that Cruz has said about the ACA on FactCheck and PolitiFact, and I failed. The best I found was "overblown." If anyone can find one I'd be interested in being directed to it- it might prove enlightening.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 09:00:14 MDT Print View

"I assume you mean "on" the media

You presume much. I meant what I wrote."

Okay, then we're pretty much in agreement (not that it matters : )

Except you blame the media itself for being polarized.

Some truth to that but most of the blame, I think, goes to the big money that's in control of the country.

Like FOX was created by a wealthy person who wanted that message out. He hired people to say what they say. It lost a lot of money for years which Murdock didn't mind spending to get that message (propoganda) out.

And 60 Minutes and many PBS shows actually get out a lot of the truth, but enough people aren't listening.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 09:12:32 MDT Print View

"You can't mathematically add more insured, mandate coverage options, and add a big layer of government employees to monitor it, compliance regulations etc., ... and make it cheaper over all."

That makes logical sense and I agree

But another, bigger, factor is that the health care industry (pharmaceuticals, devices, insurance companies, doctors, hospitals,...) has been raising costs much faster than inflation until now it's a huge part of the economy and dragging everything down. The government, private companies, and individuals are having a hard time paying for it and don't have enough left over to pay for everything else.

ACA can help reign that in. For example, the exchanges allow for companies to compete and people to select the best. The insurance companies can get their suppliers to compete. We need to do health care that's effective and not do what isn't. Select the cheapest care that works, like using generic drugs rather than brand name advertised on TV brands.

The media likes all those expensive commercials for brand name drugs so they are demotivated from reporting on how this costs more without being more effective.

ACA isn't perfect, but it's what was politically possible. We should identify what doesn't work and fix it rather than threatening to repeal it.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
Tea Party Haters on 10/25/2013 09:14:27 MDT Print View

"Approximately 100% of the things that anti-ACA folk complain about are easily debunked by spending 30 minutes on FactCheck or PolitiFact-"

Sort of a blanket statement there, and 100% refutable to boot! ; )

PS - This is probably from a different thread but I am still curious why the New York Times Corp should have first amendment rights but not ACME Inc.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 09:59:04 MDT Print View

@jerry

Don't take this wrong way

"ACA isn't perfect, but it's what was politically possible. We should identify what doesn't work and fix it rather than threatening to repeal it."

Do you understand how completely idiotic that statement sounds?

Let's pass a big bill, full of unknowns, that nobody reads, with consequences that can't be identified or measured (but started before it was ever passed), that adds another metric shitload of compliance on the private sector, another layer of government, a bunch more IRS agents, at a cost that would make even BIG OIL cringe, and just fix stuff as we go along. Great plan. Is that the way you tackle a problem? Anybody?

It's fundamentally unsound.

Edited by BFThorp on 10/25/2013 12:19:51 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 10:43:31 MDT Print View

"Don't take this wrong way"

Nice to have a civil tone... before you bash the hell out of me : )


I think the idea that no one read it, consequences that can't be identified/measured... is just propoganda "talking points" - if they repeat it often enough people start believing it


I'll agree that legislation is too complicated - too many pages. All legislation these days is that way. We should make it simpler. The long legislation provides lots of places for people to put special goodies to political contributors.


For example, there's a law that says the Forest Service can't charge a fee unless outhouse, picnic table, garbage service is provided. Too much detail. The law should just say people can't be charged for just going into National Forest. Forest Service can make rule that if they maintain a trail, they can charge fee for trailhead parking.


I don't know how the legislature got into the mindset of too much detail in bills.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 11:44:40 MDT Print View

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/republican-precint-chair-resigns-lazy-blacks-daily-show-153557019.html



GOP and racism....glad 2014 is around the corner. ...time for The Libs to take control of The House. The demise of The GOP is upon us and cannot come soon enough.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 11:59:02 MDT Print View

No "spiking of the ball" premature celebration, Ken, you're going to jinx things : )

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 11:59:42 MDT Print View

The similarities between the extreme left and right never cease to amaze me. Do you guys truly not realize how much you have in common with each other (edit) from a behavior standpoint?

Edited by IDBLOOM on 10/25/2013 12:22:06 MDT.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Tea Party Haters on 10/25/2013 11:59:43 MDT Print View

e

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/25/2013 12:05:19 MDT.

Justin Baker
(justin_baker) - F

Locale: Santa Rosa, CA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 12:23:18 MDT Print View

Calling conservative America racist is like calling all liberals communists.
Just...stop...please.

"There conservative, there white, and they come from rural areas, so they must be racist, right?"
Get over these ridiculous prejudices.

d k
(dkramalc) - MLife
internet memes on 10/25/2013 12:24:35 MDT Print View

"BPL's official anti-liberal meme generator."

OK, a serious question about something that has long puzzled me:

It has always been my (admittedly subjective) observation that the types of memes in Matt's earlier post, i.e. wildly photoshopped, what I would call cruel and nasty, often misogynist, sometimes deliberate attempts to spread falsehoods (does anyone remember the widely circulated email years back that linked Hillary with some supposed criminal ancestor, which was totally made up but presented as absolute fact), are things I only see coming from the right side of the political spectrum. I don't include the bat**** photos that Ken H posted; in that the original photo is not doctored, and I have seen pages of those comparisons coming from both sides of the political spectrum. I am not pointing fingers at Matt's ACA "Shamwow", as I do see the humor in that one, and it is not in the same spirit as the others. I also am not referring to the work of comedians/impressionists on one side or the other, just to stuff in digital "print".

Some stuff I see from the left may be exaggerated, one-sided, sometimes inaccurate, as is plenty of stuff from the right, but I don't get emails circulated by left generated in the same vein of personal nastiness as the ones I've described above. I would think that I would see plenty of analogous lefty ones circulated amongst my group of email buddies if they existed, but I don't. Oddly, I do get sent many of the righty ones from friends who have friends on both sides. Am I just out of the loop, turning a blind eye, or overlooking something - are there an equal number of ugly things like that distributed by those on the left that I am not aware of? I know there was a lot of stuff about Sarah Palin back in the day, but what I saw pretty much just used her actual words against her, or poked fun at her hunting image.

I mean really, if you don't like Pelosi/Clinton/other female Dems why is it helpful to have a photoshopped picture of her with weird lipstick 'shopped onto her face to get people to agree with your political views, or to make up stories about her? Or post pics of Obama doctored to look like an African native/Nazi/devil? I don't get that. If you want to say something about their political views, fine, I can understand that. But posting pictures to make Pelosi look ugly, or implying she's a Christian baby-eater (I'm sure that's supposed to be witty somehow)? Are we supposed to take you or your political views seriously after that? Or is it just to make you feel good? ("you" meaning those who make and circulate these, not specifically directed at Matt)

Things like that disgust me and make it difficult for me to listen to viewpoints from the right. If the left is equally guilty of that sort of stuff, please enlighten me. But gently :) I don't mean to open up the floodwaters - please don't post a barrage of examples.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: internet memes on 10/25/2013 12:31:48 MDT Print View

+1

I'm waiting for equally nasty liberal examples

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 12:41:03 MDT Print View

Justin, and where did I generalize that all Repubs were racist. I merely stated that there is racism amongst some members of The GOP. There are racists from all walks of life....but it seems odd that a lot of them vote for Republican. The Grand Ole Party is in crisis mode and the polls strongly support that. Now that our financial crisis has been pushed back, immigration reform is now front and center. Watch The GOP shoot themselves in the foot on this one again. Good luck supporting a party who's ideals are from the 50's. A value system invented by older, rich, white men. A party that canmot accept Obamacare, legalization of illegal immigrants, abortion (which I'm against, but have no right telling a women what to do), against gay marriage. ...etc. This countries demographics have changed beaver...it's not the fifties no more... thankfully

Edited by kennyhel77 on 10/25/2013 12:41:48 MDT.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: internet memes on 10/25/2013 12:46:03 MDT Print View

Dk,

A result of spending 10 years in the Army and living in Washington, I'm fortunate (and I mean that) to have dear friends from both sides of the spectrum, some of which are on the fringe.

My experience has been...

Those from the left tend to surround lies or at the very least, factual inaccuracies with some truthiness. I’m see no shortage of memes coming from the left

Those from the right do this as well but also have no problem spreading out and out lies (eg Feds raided a Mormon Cannery, FEMA building secret concentration camps, DHS preparing to attack the U.S. with MRAPs, etc). The sad part, no one seems to care that these stories are completely untrue because they are clinging on to them to attack their opposition. To be fair, none of the right leaning memes I see on Facebook are nearly as bad as what we’ve seen here.

I think the demonizing at the political level has been pretty equal since 1994. Clinton, W, and Obama have their faults, but they've all done good things too. Try getting a kool aid drinking Democrat to give W any kind of credit for anything; same goes for a GOPer to Obama. Sadly, respectful discourse seems to be the exception and not the rule here.
.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 12:52:35 MDT Print View

@ken
Is this another satire piece you're trying to pass off as journalism?
Doesn't the racism game get old? It's like car alarms. I hear them so much, I never even raise an eyebrow anymore. You and people like you have conditioned me to the point where an actual racist act will likely be dismissed as the usual load of dung. Congrats.

You are definitely on the right team, please stay there.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Racism on 10/25/2013 13:08:53 MDT Print View

I just posted this on the other chaff thread, but I find it interesting as I loved the book The Tipping Point.

""Malcolm Gladwell expanded on this conclusion sociologically in his book, The Tipping Point where one of his types - Connectors - were successful due to their larger than average number of close friendships and capacity for maintaining them which tie otherwise unconnected social groups together. According to these studies, then, "tribalism" is in some sense an inescapable fact of human neurology, simply because many human brains are not adapted to working with large populations. Once a person's limit for connection is reached, the human brain must resort to some combination of hierarchical schemes, stereotypes, and other simplified models in order to understand so many people."

Ian +1 on the PNW, where the skin color is homogenous, but the politics are not. There is more of a rural/urban divide.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Is the Right Racist? on 10/25/2013 14:33:02 MDT Print View

@Justin--

No, not all conservatives are racist. I don't think anyone said that, so you can please stop the straw man attacks, Brother. Likewise all the other whining about calling the right racist that I hear from others, e.g. Fred. (And it IS whining. Boo-hoo. Gee, I'll have to think about that the next time I see a caricature of Obama as a cannibal with a bone through his nose. At least the liberals don't whine about it when you call them communists.)

Hell, as I said, I'm a right-of-center moderate, myself.

But the RADICAL right most definitely has strong racist tendencies which, admittedly, they try like hell to hide. That's sort of why they are "radical." The problem is that there really aren't any moderate Republicans left at the federal level any more- maybe one or two senators, but certainly none in the House.

Do I mean ALL of them are racists? No, clearly not. Some for instance are just anarcho-libertarian whackjobs and don't care one whit about race. But many, many radical righties are (still, in 2013) racist bigots and/or mysogynists or antisemites, etc., and those who take common cause with them certainly do accrue some guilt by association. So, if you are giving a speech to try to make a valid point about fiscal responsibility and your "partner" takes the microphone after you and starts a racist rant, well, you sort of have to address that or you are complicit. That's why I personally DON'T want to take common cause with them. I find them repugnant.

If you can't accept/understand that, well, that's on you, not the rest of us.

Edited by acrosome on 10/25/2013 14:59:36 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 14:52:36 MDT Print View

@ Fred--

"You can't mathematically add more insured, mandate coverage options, and add a big layer of government employees to monitor it, compliance regulations etc., ... and make it cheaper over all."

Of course it can, if the efficiencies generated are significant enough. And the insurance industry is such a disaster that it just might be possible in this case. In particular, the ACA ended the defacto monopolies that allowed some insurance companies to jack up premiums on individual policies. (Again- if you are among the 80% or so Americans who get health insurance through an employer then you will probably see zero effect from the ACA.)

Look at it this way: does NO regulation lead to lower prices? The Objectivist whackjobs will try to say "yes", but the truth is no- we tried that in the 19th century and it led to monopolies and artificially HIGH prices. (Not to mention child labor, worker abuse, and in response it ultimately led to another idea that has outlived its usefulness- unions.)

So, somewhere there is a sweet spot. I'm a moderate, and I want to find it.

Also, you are missing another point. If the gains from actually having so many more people insured and thus actually paying for their own healthcare outweighs the drag from the increased regulation then, yes, that's a net benefit. By definition. And that is certain to be so if we can get enough "young invincibles" to sign up. (I understand that it actually won't take many- about 3 million.)

And- again- all of the *reliable* *nonpartisan* (CBO, Rand, KFF) analyses that I've seen point to, at WORST, a mild decrease of average premiums since the exchanges opened. You can regurgitate the propaganda that you've been fed about how horrible the ACA is all you like- you are entitled to your own opinion. Unfortunately, you are not entitled to your own facts. And, really, you're trying to make up facts. It's going to take a while before we have decent data about this.

But, meh, it's clear that we aren't going to convince one another. (Though I did at least slow Fred down at one point. :) I'm moving on. Enjoy your soapbox, gentlemen.

Edited by acrosome on 10/25/2013 15:09:48 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 15:29:36 MDT Print View

@ dean

"Of course it can, if the efficiencies generated are significant enough. And the insurance industry is such a disaster that it just might be possible in this case. In particular, the ACA ended the defacto monopolies that allowed some insurance companies to jack up premiums.

Look at at this way: does NO regulation lead to lower prices? The Objectivist whackjobs will try to say "yes", but the truth is no- we tried that in the 19th century and it led to monopolies and artificially HIGH prices. "

The insurance industry is already heavily regulated. It has been for some time, the same with my industry. It's not creating competition, but rather destroying it. The efficiencies you anticipate, will come from where... an additional 3% uninsured on insurance? If that group couldn't afford it to begin with, it's still coming out of someone's pocket. There is no free lunch here. It's like someone arguing to make home loans cheaper by lowering the interest rate and not understanding the big picture.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 15:42:17 MDT Print View

The efficiencies will come from all of the people who previously received no preventive care now getting it. That will save IMMENSE amounts, since you and I will no longer be paying for their *emergent* care, which is much more expensive, though granted it will be a while before we see this effect. Also, the previously uninsured people will now at least be contributing SOMETHING, however little, instead of you and I paying for ALL of it as we do now.

Yes, the subsidy system is squirrely- I'm not a fan either- but it's still a zero sum game, i.e. it's still just accounting. Despite however the savings get moved around afterwards, it's still a net savings. And if giving a bit more of those savings to the poor nonetheless results in me paying less, too, well, I guess I'm for it. (Because without the subsidies the poor wouldn't be able to afford the insurance, and would thus still be uninsured, and you and I would still be paying for their medical care.)

All of this assumes that we don't get into a "Premium Spiral" which, admittedly, is a risk, albeit low. That's why there are provisions in the ACA that are meant to prevent one.

I don't know how I can make this any more clear, which is why I'm pretty much done, now.

Edited by acrosome on 10/25/2013 15:58:20 MDT.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 15:48:46 MDT Print View

Dean is correct...it will save money on the lomg run.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 15:56:07 MDT Print View

You have assumed there will be no uninsured going forward and we are all getting on the prevention train. What color is your unicorn?

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 16:04:30 MDT Print View

My unicorn is both invisible and pink. What color is your Kool-Aid?

I assume no such thing- thanks for the straw man attack. AS I SAID, this all depends upon getting enough "young invincibles" to buy insurance. (You really don't look very wise when you argue by quoting something back to me that I've already said.) That is exactly what the ACA is trying to do.

It patently does NOT rely upon their being NO uninsured people. (That's nothing more than you trying to have your own facts, again.) There just needs to be "enough". And as said earlier, IIRC "enough" includes about 3 million previously-uninsured "young invincibles", which is far from an unattainable goal. But I'm not sure of that figure- I need to look it up again.

And, since the ACA makes almost all preventive services available without a co-pay (and many studies have shown that by far the single biggest factor leading to low participation in preventive services is a co-pay requirement) you'd have to be an imbecile not to take part in it. But, yes, I am painfully aware that there will always be imbeciles in the crowd. Presumably they wouldn't be a majority, though.

EDIT-- But, y'know, I just realized something. You may have done it in a very inarticulate way, but I think that what you meant to say was something along the lines of "I personally do not believe that enough previously-uninsured people will get insurance under the ACA to realize the magnitude of savings that you are implying." If that was in fact what you were trying to say then, well, that's ok- we are allowed to have differing opinions. I'm certainly no economist. If on the other hand you really don't understand how insuring the uninsured (and making them pay for some of it) might be beneficial, then, wow. I'm not sure what to say. I work in healthcare and it seems self-evident to me...

Edited by acrosome on 10/25/2013 16:26:31 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 16:25:34 MDT Print View

Yes, AS I SAID, this all depends upon getting enough "young invincibles" to buy insurance.

7 million is what I've heard, from the uninsured pool, who statistically don't need insurance. Ponder on that a minute. We need 7 mil people to buy a service, that don't need it in the first place, to even begin to make this thing float. And that is likely underestimated, because we don't have a accurate cost on the fallout of this program and the estimates are historically low, but... I don't think it's workable, not even close. We are likely to be several billion in the hole before this thing ever gets started.

Stay healthy my friend

Lyan Jordan
(redmonk)

Locale: Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Tea Party Haters on 10/25/2013 16:29:56 MDT Print View

"Stay healthy", as a national health policy has failed.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 16:35:02 MDT Print View

Ah, yes. I was wondering when this argument would come up: "Forcing people to buy something that they don't need." From a personal liberties point of view, it isn't a bad argument, actually. If you want to prioritize that way, well, that's sort a personal moral decision. So we are all free to have opinions on it.

Here's the problem with it, though, as I see it:

COBRA.

If these uninsured people who "don't need insurance" were willing to sign a waiver to the effect that if they got unlucky and actually got injured or sick that they were then willing to quietly die in the street, THEN we could talk about personal liberty.

But they won't.

Instead, when that uninsured "young invincible" gets in his car wreck or develops leukemia he will, in fact, expect you and I to pay for his treatment, which we are forced to do under COBRA and similar laws. So he gets something for nothing, and you and I get screwed. And in fact we get screwed in the most inefficient and expensive way that could possibly be devised- via a hospital and an insurance provider, both of whom take a cut.

Mind you, I have no root objections to COBRA- the idea of letting someone die just because they are poor (a child, God forbid) is sort of repugnant to me. Thus, as things stand now, we need COBRA, and you and I end up paying for all of this. I (personal ethical call, here) think that having subsidized mandatory insurance is a better solution, because then MY personal liberties don't get infringed by being FORCED to pay so much for medical care for the uninsured... and thus COBRA is rendered superfluous as a side-benefit. (So, oddly enough, my support for the ACA has it's roots in my conservatism- I think the ACA makes more financial sense than COBRA. It's even more odd when you consider that I'm a flat-tax supporter.)

How's THAT for a personal-liberties argument?

It's also actually impossible to argue that someone really "doesn't need" health insurance. EVERYONE is at some degree of risk, even the young and healthy. Yes, their risk is lower, as indeed are their premiums. If you argue that everyone should be allowed the freedom to risk his health- well, as I mentioned, nobody really does that. Instead you and I pay for their medical care, and all they risk is bankruptcy. You may want to make that proud philosophical argument, but it simply isn't reality.

Here's the next argument you'll bring up:

"It is unfair that the healthy young people essentially end up subsidizing healthcare for older sicker people."

Wow, yeah. That is clearly a dastardly scam that can only be described as... insurance. :) (Quoting Colbert, there. Apologies.)

Personally, as a (relatively young) healthy person is it rather annoying to me that I end up paying for healthcare for some 70-year-old cirrhotic and vasculopathic turd who smoked and drank his whole life. But I could get catastrophically sick tomorrow- I am not immune. And if I get sick I want insurance. Thems the shakes.

Edited by acrosome on 10/25/2013 17:01:02 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/25/2013 16:35:48 MDT Print View

Teaparty healthcare policy:
1. Don't get sick
2. If you do get sick...
3. Die quickly

Lyan Jordan
(redmonk)

Locale: Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Tea Party Haters on 10/25/2013 16:42:42 MDT Print View

Anyone who leaves the house is one accident away from needing medical treatments.

In some cases a car can fly through the side of a house, or an earthquake can move the house, or a fire... I guess home isn't safe either.

There are two types of people, people that have need for a functioning health care system, and people that will have need for a functional health care system.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 17:14:30 MDT Print View

I bet Jerry and Ken H. would be happy to only have one party.

Edited by Kat_P on 10/25/2013 17:34:13 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 17:32:52 MDT Print View

Which Ken?

No, I think diversity is better, though at times It's frustrating things don't happen faster.

And, like I've said, the one party we have that has the real power is the big money party. They're laughing at us for arguing. Laughing all the way to the bank.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Sue on 10/25/2013 17:37:53 MDT Print View

Sue 2 a Tea

Edited by oware on 10/25/2013 17:47:12 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 17:52:42 MDT Print View

Sorry but I think you misunderstood. It's not about forcing the purchase (although that's probably next), it's about someone willing to pay for a contract that they will unlikely (statistically speaking) benefit from. Young people who typically are little or no expense to the insurer, provide cash flow for those not so healthy. I get it. Getting enough of this group to sign up, is the problem. Don't be surprised when this group's rates are subsidized to make it more attractive to sign up, with tax money of course.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Guts on 10/25/2013 18:18:13 MDT Print View

http://daily.represent.us/news-anchor-completely-loses-it-on-camera-because-of-everything-thats-wrong-with-america/

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 18:19:26 MDT Print View

If it were any other contract that might be a cogent argument. But it isn't. They do benefit- they get insurance coverage in case they get sick. Statistically (since you used that word) even some of the "young invincibles" will get sick. And if they aren't insured we end up paying for their healthcare when they get sick. If they would be willing to die without treatment if they got sick I would buy that argument, but no one is. Will they end up paying more into the insurance program than they get out? Most of them, yes, clearly. But most of everyone else does, too, even the sicker older people. That's... insurance. On average EVERYONE pays more into their healthcare plans than they get out of them. Otherwise it wouldn't be profitable for the insurers, would it? And, presuming that the young invincibles end up keeping some form of health insurance for the rest of their lives then eventually they would no longer be young nor invincible and would recoup some of that benefit. I mean, you can't expect people to only buy insurance once they get sick- that defeats the purpose of insurance! If everyone did that then premiums would be so high that that would really just be fee-for-service medical care. That's a society with NO healthcare insurance.

As I alluded, the personal liberty argument cuts both ways on that one. So I think it's a wash. Null. Means nothing, either way.

The "young invincibles" per se aren't subsidized- the poor are. But that is sort of the same thing, really. The non-poor invincibles can afford the insurance and will probably buy it (because it is better than paying for nothing, if they pay the penalty). The poor ones will get the subsidy. This is all designed to get as many of them to sign up as we can.

But it isn't JUST about the invincibles.

And ultimately yes I forsee everyone's premiums coming down. I admit, it may take a while, but barring horrid circumstances like a premium spiral they will come down. They must, for the reasons I mentioned regarding preventive care, etc. Frankly, even if premiums go up a bit you're at least getting better services for it, since the scam "hollow policies" are now illegal, all preventive services lack co-pays, etc. So that's probably a wash financially. (Indeed, it almost has to be, mathematically.)

EDIT-- I guess I should ask a basic moral question, Fred. Would you be willing to let the uninsured die from lack of medical treatment if they couldn't pay out of pocket? In essence, turn them out of the ER into the street?

Edited by acrosome on 10/25/2013 18:54:31 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 18:56:02 MDT Print View

Sorry Dean but I'm not talking civil liberties, contract law, or specific instances. It's simple math. Odds are, this needed group of contributors will pay far more (more now than in the past BTW) in premiums than they will recover. Not a good bet statistically speaking, and I don't see them lining up with check books in hand. So do you force it or subsidize it, to make this thing work?

ETA the moral question has been asked and answered. County hospital is supported by local property taxes. Maybe we should check back in five years and see where things are. I'm guessing you'll owe me a steak dinner. Care to wager?

Edited by BFThorp on 10/25/2013 19:35:25 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 19:16:21 MDT Print View

@ "Sorry Dean but I'm not talking civil liberties, contract law, or specific instances."

OK, I'll call BS on that one. You have in fact "talked" all of those.

@ "So do you force it or subsidize it, to make this thing work?"

Fred, are you even reading my posts? It is subsidized, for the poor. Just like Medicare and Medicaid. As I've said several times. Also, I *think* the plan is to slowly increase the penalty over time until basically everyone is strongarmed into buying insurance. The goal is to eventually get to the point that everyone has health insurance. Any other questions?

You claim simple math. Show it to me. Because right now I'll call you out and say that you are trying to invent your own facts, again. This math is anything but simple.

Yes, of course the previously uninsured will pay more for their premiums. Previously they were uninsured- they paid nothing. Error: Divide by Zero. Duh.

OTOH if you are trying to claim that the average premiums for everyone in the young invincible demographic will go up then I'll yet again call you out on trying to make up your own facts. I mean- that boggles logic. How does having more of them participate result in higher premiums? At worst it results in stasis, since presumably the risk is uniform across the demographic. And, in the end, we won't know for a few years how it will level out. The WORST thing that could happen is if none of the invincibles participated- that would result in a premium spiral, as has happened in smaller isolated markets.

"OMG everyone's premiums will go up!" is yet another of those many fearmongering lies that FactCheck and PolitiFact have debunked (to the best that anyone can tell at this early point). Follow your own advice- look it up. There actually are valid criticisms you could come up with- inflated promises by the Obama administration, etc.

And, in the interests of finding common ground with you, what is your position on letting the poor die untreated as I asked earlier? Are you willing to do so? Because if you are not (and as a compassionate human being I doubt that you are), then the logical result is either COBRA or some sort of universal insurance scheme.

So, then, do you prefer COBRA?

Edited by acrosome on 10/25/2013 19:58:22 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 19:47:03 MDT Print View

OTOH if you are trying to claim that the average premiums for everyone in the young invincible demographic will go up then I'll yet again call you out on trying to make up your own facts. I mean- that boggles logic.

Not at all. Let me explain it for you. Let's assume services don't decline and we have a single insurer. If the insured youngsters are supporting the elderly, so to speak, and we add high risk- pre existing individuals to the pool, it's going to statistically increase the payout, which will cause the premiums to adjust upwards.

Eta Again your assumption of participation IMO, at least initially will be inadequate.

Edited by BFThorp on 10/25/2013 19:52:59 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Guts on 10/25/2013 20:10:47 MDT Print View

Nice video Kat - Stick your head out the window and yell "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore"

He's got it right about the problem - we have a bought government, have to get the money out of politics

I don't agree with his solution - Obama has to come out and make a speech, create a bank that lends money to companies at 2%

Unreasonable to put all the blame on Obama. His guest identified the same problem but said congress has to be part of the solution, not just Obama.

Regardless of any speech, anything he proposed would be fillibustered by the Tea Party because he proposed it.

This is a real "catch 22" - if politicians threaten to take money out of politics they'll be primaried and then they won't be able to do anything, the new guy will have to support the money in politics system

Maybe if enough people talked about it a lot and everyone became aware of it a solution would happen

Another thing, the problem with the economy isn't that companies can't borrow money. Money is cheap now because of all the stimulus by the Federal Reserve. Creating a special bank that loans money at 2% won't make that much of a difference.

Doesn't Dylan Radigan have a MSNBC show that's pretty liberal? He was blaming Republicans and Democrats about equally, except maybe a little more at Obama.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Guts on 10/25/2013 20:16:07 MDT Print View

Goodness Jerry, he did not put all the blame on Obama. He just said Obama ought to do something about it. In my opinion you are too preoccupied in defending Obama that you miss a whole lot all over the place, like wearing blinders. It's actually exhausting.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Guts on 10/25/2013 20:17:33 MDT Print View

You really ought to watch it again and not get stuck the moment he dares say that Obama, as the President should do or say......
And yes, he is a liberal that says the man in charge owes us to speak up. How could you disagree with that?
I see my exercise in futility here. You are right Jerry, Obama is awesome, does no wrong, not even as far as the NSA or the drug war, or letting down Palestinians. And the drones. And on and on. Ok, you win. Your relentless pursuit is chasing out anyone that dares say otherwise is working.

Edited by Kat_P on 10/25/2013 20:24:28 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 20:18:54 MDT Print View

@ "Let's assume services don't decline and we have a single insurer."

A heck of an assumption- it's not a single insurer. The insurance companies are now (finally) being forced to compete. And I'm still not sure where your worry about declining services originates. But, to continue...

@ "If the insured youngsters are supporting the elderly, so to speak, and we add high risk- pre existing individuals to the pool, it's going to statistically increase the payout, which will cause the premiums to adjust upwards."

One could easily argue that adding in the healthy people balances the cost of the previously-uninsured ill people. (Really, you totally ignored the benefit of adding in those healthy people, there, and just talked about adding sick people. Many people are healthy but poor and would buy insurance if they could afford to- which they now can.) Also, those previously-uninsured ill people will now be getting preventive care thus lowering urgent care needs. Which will lower costs and thence presumably premiums. Plus, you and I will no longer be paying for those urgent care needs, which is a nice benefit in itself.

See why I said it's not simple? There are all sorts of second- and third-order effects at play.

@ "Eta Again your assumption of participation IMO, at least initially will be inadequate."

OK, I'll display my ignorance. What does "Eta" mean? Clearly I'm no longer up to date on the state of the art in interwebs abbreviations or something.

And I guess that's OK. As I said, we all get to have our opinions. I happen to disagree, and think that participation will be adequate. However, I will readily admit that it might take quite a while to realize these costs savings I'm talking about- especially since the federal website has crapped out and delayed everything. Yes, the more reliable evaluations (CBO, Rand, KFF) say that we have already seen modest decreases in premiums just from the competition, but really it's too early to hang your hat on that. Before we see the full extent of cost savings we have to allow time for the sick people who previously used to go to ERs for urgent care all of the time to get a bit better once they have insurance and can get preventive care. It will take a while to catch up. Will those savings offset costs? Again, I suspect so since I know just how costly urgent care can be, and how effective prevention can be. Plus, there should be few "loafers" if enough people sign up, which as I said I suspect will happen eventually. Maybe not this year, but eventually. You disagree- so be it.

Whew! Ok- we have boiled this down into simple issues that we can merely reasonably diasgree on. I'm happy. Are you?

But do you prefer COBRA? Or do you want to let the poor die when they take ill?

:)

Edited by acrosome on 10/25/2013 20:24:30 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 20:22:53 MDT Print View

I hate to make an argument supporting Fred's position, but

They say that to make this work, younger (healthier) people have to participate

That means they will pay more now, and when they get older or sicker they'll get it back

It seems like if the system was actuarially based, the rates for young people would be enough less so it paid for the number of people that get sick in that age group, with no excess. Older people would pay more to pay for the number of people that get sick in that age group. The younger people wouldn't be required to make it financially viable for older people.

You would need to get healthy people in each age group to sign up. In a year they stayed healthy, they'de pay more than if they had no insurance, but statistically, they will get sick eventually, and then they'll be covered so it will average out. That's how insurance works.

On the other hand, younger people pay into Social Security and it isn't until they get old that it makes financial sense, so maybe that's okay for health care, but we should be up front about it.

It would be better if health care was just paid for with a Social Security like tax, but that wasn't politically possible.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 20:32:05 MDT Print View

"That's how insurance works."

Absolutely, that's how insurance works. And there are different ways to do insurance- one being actuarial as you mentioned. But if we do that they the people who are currently old get screwed terribly- they have probably already put quite a lot of money into the system their whole lives and now just when they start to get some value out (speaking as a population) we would hike their premiums up to truly ridiculous levels and they would be forced to continue paying at a massive loss. We're stuck with what we're stuck with, just like with Social Security. But at least a universal insurance coverage plan would be sustainable.

Yes, the people who were previously uninsured will pay more- previously they paid nothing. But will the premiums for all young healthy people who already had insurance go up due to the ACA? No. They wont. We are (probably) net adding healthy young people to the pool, since they are the ones who tend to forgo insurance. And, yes, the ACA needs them for it to work without raising premiums. I've said as much.

And I'm OK with that- in the long run it saves everyone money (my opinion). As a *population* are these young healthy people being screwed into paying in more than they will get? In the short term, as a population, yes. But not *individually*, since every individual gets value in the form of insurance coverage. And, as I said, some of them WILL get sick and need the coverage. Is it a crime that most will pay more into the system than they get out? No, clearly not- as you said "that's how insurance works." On average EVERYONE pays more in than they get out. Are they in particular getting screwed more than other people? Again, no, not if they maintain coverage for their lifetime, as you mentioned, and as is the plan.

As I quoted earlier: A dastardly plan that can only be described as... insurance.

Edited by acrosome on 10/25/2013 20:42:03 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Guts on 10/25/2013 20:38:11 MDT Print View

No Kat : )

The solution Dylan Ratigan proposed was that Obama push a plan to create a bank.

His guest disagreed and said that congress has to participate too, can't just be Obama.

I agree more with his guest on the solution, but agree with both on the identification of the problem.

Obama is not awesome. Well, maybe he is...

Actually, Obama hasn't accomplished a lot, but he's in an almost impossible situation in large part because the Tea Party refuses to go along with anything he proposes. If Obama was more clever, maybe he'de figure out a way to get them to cooperate. Then he'de be awesome.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 20:40:44 MDT Print View

"It would be better if health care was just paid for with a Social Security like tax, but that wasn't politically possible."

It's been there for Seniors since the 60's. It's called Medicare. Why not just expand it to everyone and use a well tested system that works? Sure, you'd have to tinker with the premiums and payroll deductions for those still working, and really go after fraud, but by also eliminating all the overhead associated with private insurance companies, including their need to make a profit, I'll bet we could reduce costs and provide coverage for everyone. Every other developed country seems to be making a go of a single payer system for far less money than we spend with better outcomes for most patients. Why can't we? We stand alone in that regard, and I, for one, think it is a disgrace.

Excuse me while I change into my asbestos suit.

OK, I'm all suited up. Have at it, folks. ;0)

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 20:47:13 MDT Print View

You don't need the suit. I'll just point out that single-payer isn't quite the norm that you think it is. A lot of countries just make insurance mandatory, not unlike the ultimate goal of the ACA. Germany, for instance. And then there are weird systems like New Zealand's. Etc.

The other issue, of course, is that no generation wants to be the one that goes through the teething pains that countries like the UK had. (Sort of like with fixing Social Security, or lowering the national debt.) The UK damned near DID have "death boards."

Edited by acrosome on 10/25/2013 20:50:59 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 20:51:13 MDT Print View

But then it would make financial sense for young healthy people to pay the penalty. If they get sick or old then they could get insurance.

Of course if someone can only sign up once a year, and they got sick in the middle of a year, they'de have to pay out of pocket until the next sign-up period. That could be difficult. And what would you do if they couldn't pay, kick them out onto the sidewalk? That's one of the problems we're trying to fix.

Maybe it should just be paid for by a social security like tax.

Maybe we have to see what participation rates are and then fix any problems that occur.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 20:57:59 MDT Print View

"It's been there for Seniors since the 60's. It's called Medicare. Why not just expand it to everyone and use a well tested system that works?"

What about when a company pays for health care already?

Then the employee will have to start paying more SS-like tax and the company will save a bunch. Will they pay the employee more to make up for it?

Or if a company isn't paying for health care currently?

The transition would be messy but it would be possible.

Only problem is, politically it'll never happen because the people that have bought our government will never agree to it...

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 21:03:43 MDT Print View

@ "Let's assume services don't decline and we have a single insurer."

A heck of an assumption- it's not a single insurer...And I'm still not sure where your worry about declining services originates. But, to continue...
>>>single insurer, multiple, the result is the same-- declining services, higher deductibles, etc. can all decrease the cost. Don't be fooled by lower premiums alone.


;If the insured youngsters are supporting the elderly, so to speak, and we add high risk- pre existing individuals to the pool, it's going to statistically increase the payout, which will cause the premiums to adjust upwards."

One could easily argue that adding in the healthy people balances the cost
>>> again why would they? With insurers forced to take high risk individuals, and spreading that expense among the pool, a young healthy person has even less incentive to play the insurance game now.

Edited by BFThorp on 10/25/2013 21:20:49 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 21:20:14 MDT Print View

"With insurers forced to take high risk individuals, and spreading that expense among the pool, a young healthy person has even less incentive to play the insurance game now."

Fred, Fred, Fred,...

I hate agreeing with you but that is the math

I guess we have to see how the sign-ups actually are

If a young person opts out, then breaks a bunch of bones or gets cancer then they'll be screwed until the next sign-up period. Hopefully having coverage in case that happens will be enough of a motivation. If young people only subsidize older people a little it might help.

And it should be transparent.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 21:25:12 MDT Print View

"With insurers forced to take high risk individuals, and spreading that expense among the pool, a young healthy person has even less incentive to play the insurance game now."

Fred, Fred, Fred,...

I hate agreeing with you



Jerry... welcome to the dark side my friend.

Edited to add: ^ not a racist comment (for the tea party hater crowd)

Edited by BFThorp on 10/26/2013 06:56:40 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 21:46:03 MDT Print View

just trying to fool Kat into thinking I'm objective : )

Maybe she'll make me chaff president again

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
"Tea Party Haters" on 10/25/2013 23:13:24 MDT Print View

Hey Tom I'll bite! As you might imagine I don't like the idea but don't own a flamethrower.

MediCare doesn't pay doctors enough to stay in business. Other revenue streams from other payers subsidizes Medicare patients. IF it's all Medicare who will subsidize that?

Also - boring broken record here - but why don't we get really serious about going after fraud right now?

Plus I'm not a fan of the central control aspect. We see more choice, better quality and lower costs in many different markets all the time. Cars are better and cheaper with more options available than ever before. We have inexpensive devices in our pockets that the Jetsons could never have even have even imagined. In the health care field Lasik and plastic surgery have become cheaper and better over time. Why don't we encourage this proven line of thinking?

Has the botched exchange rollout given any of the big government folks pause? I don't think the guys in charge are dopes because they couldn't get the website together. I knew they couldn't do that. I think their dopes because they claim they didn't know it wasn't going to work right up until it didn't. Sebelius says she didn't tell Obama they were experiencing problems. Epic mismanagement.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
"Tea Party Haters" on 10/25/2013 23:21:09 MDT Print View

Was it posited back there somewhere among all those 1s and 0s that preventive care was going to save money? The evidence regarding that is mixed at best.

Please note - That doesn't mean it's not a good idea! Just that it's not a given that it saves money.

Here's the math. The number of people experiencing large health bills at any given is a relatively small percentage. If everyone consumes preventive care the cost of the preventive care might very well be larger than the sick care. Or maybe it's break even or we come out ahead. But it's unlikely to be a major contributor to a reduction in costs.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 07:26:56 MDT Print View

and why would I want one party?

Kat, what is your political leanings......seems you dislike both parties. Is that assumption correct? And if so, do you side with Libertarianism?

It seems that some of you values do fall in line with that thinking

Edited by kennyhel77 on 10/26/2013 07:31:04 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/26/2013 09:58:25 MDT Print View

@ ">>>single insurer, multiple, the result is the same-- declining services, higher deductibles, etc. can all decrease the cost. Don't be fooled by lower premiums alone."

'OMG EVERTHING IS GOING TO COLLAPSE!' This sounds an awful lot like merely regurgitating the sensationalist party line. Were do you keep getting this declining services claptrap? A Tea Party website? The ACA sets better minimum standards for coverage, so services will be much more comprehensive now. On average people will get more 'services.' How does that reduce my ability to perform a competent colectomy?

@ "One could easily argue that adding in the healthy people balances the cost
>>> again why would they? With insurers forced to take high risk individuals, and spreading that expense among the pool, a young healthy person has even less incentive to play the insurance game now."

Again, why wouldn't they? If you are allowed to arbitrarily endorse the absolute worst possibilities at every turn them I'm certainly allowed to propose that it might at least break even. You're being sensationalist again. Say, here's a thought- why don't we actually wait a bit and see if it works out?

@ others.

Yes, it is possible as things are now for a young healthy person to game the system. They could decide to pay the small penalty rather than buy insurance, and only buy the insurance if they get sick (since pre-existing conditions cannot be disqualifying anymore). They might have to wait until the next sign-up period to get the insurance but until then they are still going to get medical care under COBRA, thus forcing you and I to pay for it, again. This is one of those problems with the ACA that needs to be fixed that people have been mentioning. Still, most people are smart enough to figure out that paying for something is better than paying for nothing, even if you bay a bit less for the nothing.

My mind boggles at how Fred et al can possibly think that this is a GOOD thing. It's basically the system that we have now- the insured pay for the medical care of the uninsured, in an extremely inefficient manner, at the highest possible markup, including for all the urgent care that could easily be prevented.

Wow. Yeah. That's clearly a better system, isn't it? *sarcasm*

For the ACA to work well and provide the best for everyone at lowest cost we need to have as many people participate as possible- this isn't any sort of revelation, I've been saying it all along. Also all along I've been saying that it is far from perfect- which it is. But 'imperfect' is a far cry from the unmitigated disaster that the Tea Partiers and other fanatics would have us believe. The stuff they claim is simply farcical. 30 minutes on FackCheck.org should convince any rational person of that. Have you taken your own advice yet, Fred? I'd love to know what you think of what FactCheck and PolitiFact have to say about all the anti-ACA distortions that the radical right is putting out. :)

But no, you will never take your own advice on this issue. It would cause you far too much cognitive dissonace.

@ "Was it posited back there somewhere among all those 1s and 0s that preventive care was going to save money? The evidence regarding that is mixed at best."

It's only 'mixed' because you're looking at 'evidence' being presented from the two radical elements on opposite sides. Look at the stuff put out by the CBO, Rand, KFF and other nonpartisan groups. I have to say that from an admittedly totally empirical point of view, given the stuff I've seen comprehensive preventive care HAS to save money. Frex- occasional visits to a nurse practitioner to tweak a diabetic's insulin dose is one hell of a lot cheaper that treating her for DKA every other month. (Of course, some diabetics are so brittle that they'll still get DKA every other month...)

EDIT-- Is someone named 'Kat' commenting? I'm not seeing any such posts.

Edited by acrosome on 10/26/2013 10:12:03 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:01:35 MDT Print View

Kat jumps on liberals with the slightest bit of provocation

Like when I was critical of Ratigan blaming just Obama, she said I thought Obama was awesome : )

And she jumped on Jennifer without justification

I haven't seen that with conservatives or libertarians, but I am biased, maybe I just don't remember that

But I don't mean that with any ill feelings towards Kat. We all have biases. And since she nominated me chaff president she will always be dear to me. And she does cool knitting : )

Don't you have a Russian background Kat? I have noticed Russians are libertarian. I used to work with a number of them. Maybe a reaction to the insanity of Communism.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Kat? on 10/26/2013 10:07:34 MDT Print View

But where is 'Kat' posting? I'm not seeing any posts, here. That's what I'm saying. Or is this sort of like when I call Rog out, even when he isn't posting?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:10:55 MDT Print View

I didn't quite say that correctly

Ratigan did not blame just Obama

He said the solution was just Obama and was critical of Obama for not doing that

When actually the solution has to include many people - especially all of us for letting them get away with purchasing the government by wasting all our energy worrying about the Tea Party, abortion, gay people,...

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Kat? on 10/26/2013 10:11:56 MDT Print View

Kat = Katrina

I'm not sure whether you're serious or making humour : )

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Kat? on 10/26/2013 10:13:02 MDT Print View

No humor. I'll try to be explicit: I am not seeing any posts from Kat or Katrina on the past few pages of this thread. Way back at the beginning I see a couple from Katharina, but that's it. Did I somehow accidentally filter them out or something? If so, it'd be neat to know how I did that- I could filter out Matt. :)

Or did I just have my first schizophrenic break at an unusually advanced age?

EDIT-- Ah, I see more from Katharina. I think that's who you must be talking about. I think I got thrown because you're responding to posts from a while ago. From the timestamps it looks like she and I were posting at the same time, too, so I think I never saw them. My bad.

Does she jump on liberals? I actually thought that she WAS a liberal, from some of the other stuff I've seen her post.

Edited by acrosome on 10/26/2013 10:24:02 MDT.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:23:00 MDT Print View

@Ken
You asked me this exact question before and then were unhappy with the answer, remember? I told you to ask me where I stand on any issue, as I do not side with any party. I cannot vote here and that actually freed up my thinking.
Then you repeatedly were going yo get back to me and others and never do. You just come back with memes, Matt style, and rants. Then you promise to get back when questions get tough, in the morning......but you never do.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
OCare on 10/26/2013 10:27:51 MDT Print View

"It's only 'mixed' because you're looking at 'evidence' being presented from the two radical elements on opposite sides. Look at the stuff put out by the CBO.."

You don't know what evidence I'm looking at. You think the CBO is non-partisan? You know how they work, right?

Preventive care may very well save money but I don't think the delta will be as great as you do. I think the concept of preventive care is a good one, I just don't assign it super powers.

Also not a fan of experimenting with a nearly trillion dollar segment of the economy so we can see what happens.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:32:20 MDT Print View

Hi, KAT!!! Nice to meet you!

I'm sort of the same way. I call myself a right-of-center moderate a lot just to save time, but I'm a bit scatterbrained on many issues. I usually do take moderate stances, though.

I've also at times called myself a "Schwatrzenegger Republican", which should make some sense to the Californians in the crowd. It sort of means very green on the environment, tending libertarian on social issues, but tending conservative on most other stuff like defense, national security, and finance and business at least in that I believe that markets tend to be the most efficient option. That's not to say that I don't believe in reasonable regulation (hell, even uber-Objectivist Greenspan has admitted his errors) but I sure as hell am not into command economies. And I have no problems with someone who gets rich honestly because he's a good businessman.

Clearly, the ACA is an exception, there, purely because of practical considerations. Also, when those tendencies are at odds it's hard to predict how I'll come out. For instance, take the issue of corporate contributions to politicians. I think that Citizens United vs FDC is the worst supreme court decision since Plessy vs Ferguson, and that might be considered anti-corporate. And it is, but that's how I feel.

Edited by acrosome on 10/26/2013 10:34:25 MDT.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:33:01 MDT Print View

"Kat jumps on liberals with the slightest bit of provocation

Like when I was critical of Ratigan blaming just Obama, she said I thought Obama was awesome : )

And she jumped on Jennifer without justification

I haven't seen that with conservatives or libertarians, but I am biased, maybe I just don't remember that

But I don't mean that with any ill feelings towards Kat. We all have biases. And since she nominated me chaff president she will always be dear to me. And she does cool knitting : )

Don't you have a Russian background Kat? I have noticed Russians are libertarian. I used to work with a number of them. Maybe a reaction to the insanity of Communism."



Jerry,
I am one of the very few that calls liberals here when they either get offensive, claim to be objective or display narrow minded thinking while claiming otherwise. Most of BPL gives them a pass no matter how they act. When a conservative crosses the line there are dozens ready to rip him apart.
I do share some ideas with Libertarians, but only some. I believe in a safety net for those that need it, I believe in helping one another, and I do it in my own life. I also share many ideas with Liberals: I believe who you sleep with and marry is your own business; I believe in legalization of drugs; I believe a woman should be able to choose wether to have a child or not, although there is more to be discussed as far as I am concerned; no death penalty; stop policing the world; Just ask me on an issue.
No, I am not happy with Obama and the ACA has nothing to do with my sentiment here.
On fiscal issues I am more conservative.
As far as Jennifer I feel I was justified when I pointed how she seemed it was ok to offend people just because they are to the right. But you do too, so of course it seemed unjustified.

Edited by Kat_P on 10/26/2013 10:36:58 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:39:06 MDT Print View

"I am one of the very few that calls liberals here when they either get offensive, claim to be objective or display narrow minded thinking while claiming otherwise. Most of BPL gives them a pass no matter how they act. When a conservative crosses the line there are dozens ready to rip him apart. "

Well, part of that is just that there are so many uber liberals on this forum- Californians and folks from the PNW seem to be common. And, of course, one of the more irritating things about liberals is that as a group they seem to think that everyone cares about their opinions and that they are thus justified in voicing them loudly and at every possible opportunity. Contrarily, most decent folks would just come across some liberal rant, dismiss it, and move on. So, yes, I sort of get Matt's point on that one.

But, Christ, haven't you seen some of the gun flamewars here?

Edited by acrosome on 10/26/2013 10:42:05 MDT.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re Kat on 10/26/2013 10:39:49 MDT Print View

"Don't you have a Russian background Kat? I have noticed Russians are libertarian. I used to work with a number of them. Maybe a reaction to the insanity of Communism."

I was raised in Switzerland and then Italy until I was 19 and left. I saw what over regulation and other policies did to that country and it was disastrous. I will write more about it at some point.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:40:15 MDT Print View

Well if you can't bote then you have solutions then.....right?


You just seem to snipe at others in chaff...not only this thread but many others. I do too at times. You're not perfect....go take a hike and explore...post a trip report...offer advice on hikes...(which you obviously rarely do..... )

;)

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:44:41 MDT Print View

"You just seem to snipe at others in chaff...not only this thread but many others. I do too at times. You're not perfect....go take a hike and explore...post a trip report...offer advice on hikes...(which you obviously rarely do..... )"


I am far from perfect, you are right about that. I do hike, I don't post trip reports of places that have dozens of them already. I rarely have better advice than others give here.
I snipe, but it is only noticeable to you because it isn't toward the people you dislike. I also refrain from posting when incoherent.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:45:49 MDT Print View

"I am one of the very few that calls liberals here when they either get offensive, claim to be objective or display narrow minded thinking while claiming otherwise. Most of BPL gives them a pass no matter how they act. When a conservative crosses the line there are dozens ready to rip him apart."

I don't think that's objective

There are many people that are critical of liberals - Fred, Matt, Michael L, Ken Miller(may have my Ken's mixed up), Delmar, ..., many others in the past that are currently dormant like Nick,

I think it's approximately even. Sometimes there will be more liberal criticism, and sometimes there will be more conservative criticism

Why don't you like Obama?

Of course, we don't have to resolve anything here, we're all just internet trolls and should probably go outside and go hiking : )

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:46:37 MDT Print View

Yup....the morality police called Kat...good for you!!!! Since you can't vote here then you have no voice....shhhhhh

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:47:34 MDT Print View

"But, Christ, haven't you seen some of the gun flamewars here?"

I have. It may be where I first noticed how lopsided things are. But what gets me the most how when I been told that insulting those with views opposing the left, is perfectly legitimate.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:49:18 MDT Print View

You do fantastic job insulting others Kat...then chastise others for doing the same lol

Edited by kennyhel77 on 10/26/2013 10:51:12 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re Kat on 10/26/2013 10:52:26 MDT Print View

Switzerland, Italy - not as socialist as Soviet Union but socialist enough : )

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:52:36 MDT Print View

@Jerry, no to is not even. It does not have to be, but it still does not make it ok to bully the minority, which yes, does happen.
As far as Obama, I mostly object to his continued war on drugs, his drone policy ( including American citizens) , his shaking hands with the man that "allowed " the massacres of Sabra and Shatila.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re Kat on 10/26/2013 10:55:14 MDT Print View

"Switzerland, Italy - not as socialist as Soviet Union but socialist enough : )"

Yes, and I see Switzerland as having a working blend of social programs and good incentives for businesses. Also, a very decentralized government.
Italy is a can of worms....

Edited by Kat_P on 10/26/2013 10:56:22 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:55:38 MDT Print View

@Jerry-- "I think it's approximately even. Sometimes there will be more liberal criticism, and sometimes there will be more conservative criticism"

Well, I guess I'd have to disagree with you there, jerry. I could be a victim of observation bias (as could you) but I have noticed far more liberals around here than conservatives. As I have said before many times- just try posting a reasonable gun question and see how long it takes for someone to call you a psychopath or accuse you of living in fear or whatever the current buzzword is. It's never very long. Carrying a gun in the backcountry has become a defacto taboo subject here. If you like I'll hop over to the main chaff page and arrange a demonstration.

That's the extreme example, granted. But the trend holds.

Now, where I will agree with you is that I have started to notice MORE conservatives spouting off. That may indeed be the influence of the Tea Party at work, since spouting is sort of their thing. And a lot of it is indistinguishable from trolling. But I still think there is more liberal spouting in general, most of it unopposed. It also tends to be done in a manner that implies that the author assumes that all rational people must agree with him, which is annoying, but granted it's a trait that the Tea partiers share.

Edited by acrosome on 10/26/2013 10:58:25 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:56:25 MDT Print View

"You do fantastic job insulting others Kat...then chastise others for doing the same lol"

Ordinarily, I ignore people flaming each other, but since I started the Flame Kat thread, I don't think Kat's comments are that bad. Occasionally says something I don't agree with but there are much worse flamethrowers. Usually is fairly objective. Easy to misinterpret people's comments on the internets.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Yes on 10/26/2013 11:02:46 MDT Print View

I try and walk my talk, but I fall and fail too. I think I try pretty hard to maintain a civil tone.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 11:03:12 MDT Print View

Please show me a thread where Katharina has attacked someone on a personal level. I see her call out poor behavior and argue her point but I've yet to see her make cheap personal attacks. I'd argue that she's one of the more critical thinkers in this forum.

The same cannot be said for the extremists and cheerleaders from both sides on this forum.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 11:05:13 MDT Print View

I probably agree with what you say more than anyone else here Dean. I call myself a little left of center but those are all just labels. Like gun control - totally ineffective, no chance of passing anything, proposing legislation makes things worse, liberals like to talk about it to drum up support, I have shot guns a little but probably won't ever do it again,...

Before 2012 election there was a lot of political chaff, I thought there were more conservatives than liberals but maybe just "observation bias", in that case though someone proposed I run for president of the U.S. (but again, it was probably just a humorous way of saying I was being a troll)

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 11:07:03 MDT Print View

"Please show me a thread where Katharina has attacked someone on a personal level. I see her call out poor behavior and argue her point but I've yet to see her make cheap personal attacks. I'd argue that she's one of the more critical thinkers in this forum."

well said Ian (another conservative but very reasonable, open minded, civil,...)

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 11:08:35 MDT Print View

"You do fantastic job insulting others Kat...then chastise others for doing the same lol"

Please give an example

James Couch
(JBC) - M

Locale: Cascade Mountains
Reminds me of a joke... on 10/26/2013 11:09:46 MDT Print View

"Yes, and I see Switzerland as having a working blend of social programs and good incentives for businesses. Also, a very decentralized government.
Italy is a can of worms...."



Heaven and Hell

Heaven Is Where:

The French are the chefs
The Italians are the lovers
The British are the police
The Germans are the mechanics
And the Swiss make everything run on time

Hell is Where:

The British are the chefs
The Swiss are the lovers
The French are the mechanics
The Italians make everything run on time
And the Germans are the police

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
I do on 10/26/2013 11:13:52 MDT Print View

"Please give an example"

Well, my last few posts to Jerry have not been the most civil. I do get frustrated but I usually try for a relatively long time before I get there.



Edited to add an example, mentioned earlier
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=78640&startat=220

Edited by Kat_P on 10/26/2013 11:42:16 MDT.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: Chaff supreme. on 10/26/2013 11:16:51 MDT Print View

"Since you can't vote here then you have no voice....shhhhhh"

She has her right to voice an opinion. Have you Ken H. voted in every single election that you could? Every one? Or only the one you have an opinion on?

Wow. Looks like the old days of Chaff when posts here and gear swap are the majority. I don't really know what you are all on about. Just an observation.

Dean started the longest running Chaff thread in BPL history with the Carbon Flame War. I'll bet a gun thread would run pages and pages. Always do.

Edited by kthompson on 10/26/2013 11:35:41 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 11:18:45 MDT Print View

@ "I probably agree with what you say more than anyone else here Dean."

You're kidding. Right? Don't we fight a lot?

@ "I call myself a little left of center but those are all just labels."

Again, you must be kidding. I thought you were an uber-pinko. Seriously. What did I miss? Lay out your beliefs for me, jerry... :)

So, you don't want to take me up on the Great Gun Thread Experiment? I guess it would qualify as trolling, wouldn't it? Yeah, bad form. Offer retracted.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/26/2013 11:23:57 MDT Print View

Dean buddy, I tried to simplify this for you as best I could. I tried to keep some of the tangent variables out of this so you could understand the basic math. I have done my best to ignore some of your comments regarding how the free market didn't work and now the forced competition(oxymoronic no?) will, to avoid you more confusion. You seem to put little weight on the things we know will happen, yet lean on unlikely scenarios. You tell us you are in the industry, but you don't seem to have a clue about compliance and the regulatory issues, current or projected, or basic human behavior, and the insurance business. While you seem to be able to net out some of the expected costs in this shell game, you don't seem to comprehend the huge administrative expenses this creates and the hardship on the private sector. The current system has lots of holes. We can all agree it needs work. But...I'm afraid you've been sold on a bill that will have little effect on the real issue... At a huge cost.

Tea party talking points? Really?

" Say, here's a thought- why don't we actually wait a bit and see if it works out?"
We have no choice.

Edited by BFThorp on 10/26/2013 11:31:30 MDT.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Conservative / Liberal on 10/26/2013 11:41:45 MDT Print View

I'm at a point in my life where I've really come to hate these terms as they are meaningless to me.

I'm a liberal as defined by the dictionary as I try to avoid group think and dogma but I'm a conservative based on my ideas of spending less than we earn as a country?

I'm a liberal because I support gay marriage but in reality this is a conservative position as this is a right already guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

I believe that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right but I believe that universal healthcare should be one of the highest priorities for our country so I'm a tea bagging conservative and bleeding heart liberal at the same time?

Edit to add: I've been called a tea bagger and a bleeding heart liberal which is why I threw those terms in there.

Edited by IDBLOOM on 10/26/2013 11:48:46 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/26/2013 11:48:21 MDT Print View

Damn, Fred. Condescending much?

"Simplify" stuff for me? I "don't comprehend" or "don't have a clue?" Wow. Hubris. I have to tell you, that all sounds remarkably arrogant. (Can I ask what you do for a living, or why you feel that you are so competent to judge such things? Because maybe I'm talking out of the side of my face, here.) I feel that I have made cogent points. You can disagree with them, but dismissing them in the way that you are is arrogant. I'll call that one like I see it. I OTOH have expressed uncertainty on many of the issues, and have even pointed out ways that the ACA can fail, even if I find them to be unlikely. I generally find it to be a bad sign when someone has such CERTAINTY that they are right on such a complex issue, as you you seem to. That smells of dogma.

You accuse me of weighting factors preferentially, and ignoring others. Again, wow. Look in the mirror, Brother. At least I am capable of expressing anything other than certitude in my own infallibility. Frankly, yes, IMO you sound like you're scaremongering- regurgitating all of those Cruz talking points that have been so thoroughly debunked. So, check out FactCheck or Politifact. Sort of like my questions about how you feel about COBRA and letting poor people die in the street, you're furiously trying to avoid the subject. You just refuse to open your mind even a tiny bit on this. Just as a thought experiment why don't you pretend that you might be misinformed, and look up all of this ACA stuff on those sites, and actually read the whole articles. See what you think of them. (Some of them *gasp* are actually critical of Obama.) It is ALWAYS a good idea to read something from the other side of a debate with an open mind once in a while. If your opinions aren't changed then you can honestly say that you have considered the issue seriously. There is an old saying about religion: "I fear the man of only ONE book." I would expand that to a fear of a man of only one news source...

Heck, I try to be balanced and informed. I have read the stuff that Cruz et al have said about the ACA, for instance. I then researched it- including via those fact checking websites- and found most of it to be outright deceptions.

And I'll tell you a dirty secret- I used to be quite opposed to the ACA. You can probably find threads here on BPL where I made that stance. But that position was based on a poor understanding of what it was and what it intended to accomplish. Once I had the time to get above the propaganda (from both sides) I was at least willing to try it. If nothing else, it seems much more rational than COBRA. I also found that the right-wing propaganda on this issue was much more egregious lies than the left-wing stuff. (Sort of the opposite of the gun debate.) Now my biggest problem with the ACA is all of the crappy provisions that were included for political reasons.

So, I can be swayed on issues. (Another recent one involves L.L. Bean, oddly enough.) I'm willing to hear the other side. Can you say the same? And by that I don't mean arguing with people on an internet forum- that doesn't count. I mean actually researching an issue in a way that includes opinions dissenting from your own, rather than just listening to demagoguery.

I mean, if you come back in a few hours and say that you went through all those critiques on the fact-checking sites, and you still think that the ACA is absolutely, 100% destined to cause the downfall of America... ok. At least I would know you aren't just a FoxNews robot.

You have made some decent points. I can give credit where it is due. (OTOH, according to you absolutely everything I've said is nincompoopery.) The ACA has problems- I've said it many times. Taken as a whole, though, I'm not inclined to buy your argument that it will lead to economic ruin, the collapse of the US healthcare system, communism, white flight, global warming, herpes, inter-species marriage, or any other disastrous effect which you care to attribute to it.

EDIT--- I'm not sure where this came from:

"I have done my best to ignore some of your comments regarding how the free market didn't work and now the forced competition(oxymoronic no?) will, to avoid you more confusion."

One of the problems in the past was that there wasn't a free market. Heck, I'm all for markets- that's one of the things I like about the ACA- that it did away with the insurance monopolies that were in place in many regions. Do you think monopolies are a good thing? As a conservative, I surely don't.

Edited by acrosome on 10/26/2013 12:17:01 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re Kat on 10/26/2013 12:07:45 MDT Print View

So, I wikipediaed "Sabra and Shatila"

Horrible - massacred a bunch of people in retaliation but then it turned out they retaliated against the wrong people

And further horrible that there are so many attrocites in the world

Who is the leader that Obama shook the hand of? If it was the Israeli leader we better not go there, that would send this down the chaff toilet worse than arguing about guns : )

Nelson Mandella spent years (decades?) in prison. Rather than plotting his revenge, he learned their language and became a fan of their sports (soccer?). They probably killed more people than at Sabra and Shatila? Reconciliation is more important than revenge.

I don't think you can blame Obama for shaking the hand of a world leader. You can't just ignore past attrocities either. Difficult to come up with solutions.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Hike on 10/26/2013 12:10:47 MDT Print View

@Ken H.
From last weekend, actually Thursday/ Sunday


Ferns


Dogwood


Roots

Poop


Boulder

Forbidden

Forbidden

Edited by Kat_P on 10/26/2013 12:14:16 MDT.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Jerry on 10/26/2013 12:15:36 MDT Print View

I agree, we better leave than one be. I still disagree with you about it, but that issue would start Chaff War 3.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Justice/ on 10/26/2013 12:18:52 MDT Print View

I do understand the old saying that "Under an eye for an eye the whole world is blind." On the other hand, sometimes we must make sacrifices in the interests of justice. Finding the balance is difficult, and likely to be a neverending struggle and debate until the human race goes extinct.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
To Fred on 10/26/2013 12:19:59 MDT Print View

I'll tell you what, Fred. I have grown weary of this discussion, and it is clearly getting acrimonious, which I regret. I have noticed that happening more and more during political discussions in recent years, and I hope that it is merely a sign of the times rather than something inherent in myself. So I'll bow out now and let you get the last licks in so that you can feel good about yourself. This is my parting gift to you, by way of making amends. I have to take my kid to 'Boo at the Zoo', anyway.

If we meet on the trail someday, please don't shiv me. :)

Edited by acrosome on 10/26/2013 12:28:40 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Condescending on 10/26/2013 12:27:53 MDT Print View

Not at all. Not fond of the circle game. You continue to ask questions that have been answered and retread old ground. If you want to convince someone how great this thing is going to be, you might find it easier if you picked someone more distanced from the industry.

Edited after reading some of your edits and last post.

I can't tell you what I do for a living on a public forum because of compliance and regulatory policies. If you would like to know, you can request through a PM ... Include your email address. I will not respond with a PM.

No worries, I don't use shivs... I'm a gun guy. :)

Edited by BFThorp on 10/26/2013 12:58:36 MDT.

Lyan Jordan
(redmonk)

Locale: Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Tea Party Haters on 10/26/2013 12:42:16 MDT Print View

certainly no reason to suspect the information going around in a for profit industry, that is doing very well at profiting, would be biased toward preserving that very profitable industry, over making strides towards becoming a nation that has a functional health care system.

Perhaps finding someone further from the profits would be beneficial for discussion.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/26/2013 13:09:22 MDT Print View

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:44:41 MDT Reply Report Post Print View

"You just seem to snipe at others in chaff...not only this thread but many others. I do too at times. You're not perfect....go take a hike and explore...post a trip report...offer advice on hikes...(which you obviously rarely do..... )"


"I am far from perfect, you are right about that. I do hike, I don't post trip reports of places that have dozens of them already. I rarely have better advice than others give here.
I snipe, but it is only noticeable to you because it isn't toward the people you dislike. I also refrain from posting when incoherent"


and what does incoherent mean? That I am a drunk? Is that what you are getting at? Well Kat, I am diabetic, and I rarely drink. Nice of you to judge someone that you barely know....no? In fact that is rather rude to be honest. But then again you are the moral fiber of BPL. I don't take drugs neither if you need to know....have not in many many years.....but if you want to talk about your vices, let's shoot away sweety.

"I try and walk my talk, but I fall and fail too. I think I try pretty hard to maintain a civil tone"


Really? then why call someone a drunk Kat? Is that civil...me not think so! Hypocrite....You pass judgement on others here constantly but play by a different law....BUT I am not a pansy...far from! I can call a spade a spade and not worry about it, and YOU, girl, are a spade. YOU owe me an apology. And as for your hiking....yeah....have fun going to the same 2-3 places each time...Here is a hint, variety is the spice of life....go and explore some. Going to the same few places gets old. SEKI and Yosemite beckon you. lol....then maybe you can give advice about places you have been. F me

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Chaff supreme. on 10/26/2013 13:16:01 MDT Print View

On to the rescue! Isn't this out of your realm? Normally you are attacking the big BPL machine and not rescuing your friends!

"She has her right to voice an opinion. Have you Ken H. voted in every single election that you could? Every one? Or only the one you have an opinion on?

Wow. Looks like the old days of Chaff when posts here and gear swap are the majority. I don't really know what you are all on about. Just an observation.

Dean started the longest running Chaff thread in BPL history with the Carbon Flame War. I'll bet a gun thread would run pages and pages. Always do"

Most elections Ken, yes. I have a BS in Poli Sci....so I have a love affair with politics. And that was a jibe towards her. Everyone has an opinion and they are obviously allowed to say as they please. But I do find it somewhat hypocritical and smug to have someone that is NOT a citizen of this country to have beliefs and criticism of this country when they do live hear and do not take part of the political system that is offered.

A question to Kat, why live here and not be a citizen. Curious....and that is not a pointed question, just wondering. That will help me understand your situation much better.

Lyan Jordan
(redmonk)

Locale: Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
jeez on 10/26/2013 13:16:48 MDT Print View

She just meant that sometimes you post like a raving lunatic that is borderline BSC.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Chaff supreme. on 10/26/2013 13:25:29 MDT Print View

I have a BS in Poli Sci....

Ken would you answer my question about the satire link?

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Chaff supreme. on 10/26/2013 13:33:08 MDT Print View

Now now....I never said I was a good student :) I'm just a product of California's State college system. I barely got in and barely graduated....but I have that piece of paper!!!

and Kat did mean that....She has seen me in my glory of drunkeness at some BPL gatherings...but then again, I was not the only one that over indulged at these events. So yeah, I do take it that way.

Edited by kennyhel77 on 10/26/2013 13:34:05 MDT.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chaff supreme. on 10/26/2013 13:35:13 MDT Print View

But let's make this very clear....again. I am a diabetic and drinking and having a insipid disease like Diabetes is not a good match. Now where is Cameron, the resident troll to come and join in!

Edited by kennyhel77 on 10/26/2013 13:36:50 MDT.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Attacks on 10/26/2013 13:39:04 MDT Print View

I did jab, Ken. During the gun debate you posted stuff that some would call incoherent. You never got back when you said you would. On one post you said that you and I do not share values, then one page later you said the opposite. When I said I cannot vote you said that I still should have opinions and favor the left, since I am a woman, then today you write I should shhhhhhh since I cannot vote.
There have been incoherent posts. Maybe you were just tired, I don't know. I should have made my point more veiled, but I did not. My bad.
I should explore more places, ok.

Want to talk about my "vices" ..go for it. It'll be pretty boring.

Edited by Kat_P on 10/26/2013 17:29:14 MDT.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Meanwhile in Canada..... on 10/26/2013 13:44:35 MDT Print View

Ken,

I somehow doubt that you'll object to this Canadian's opinion...

.Obama

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Attacks on 10/26/2013 13:44:50 MDT Print View

Ohhhh sorry that I did not get back in due proper time! I work two jobs and if you noticed, I don't post here that much because I am busy....then, on top of that, life gets in the way and you forget that you were SUPPOSED to answer a post. My bad. Again, your tone sucks at times, but you feel you try to do a good job at it....fail

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Attacks on 10/26/2013 13:47:20 MDT Print View

No Ken, you are misunderstanding me. You said you would get back to an issue, then wait a day and just jump in with another rant, never going back to unfinished business. I am not saying you abandoned a thread.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: Attacks on 10/26/2013 13:47:21 MDT Print View

Wow.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Attacks on 10/26/2013 13:54:02 MDT Print View

Breathe..... breathe..... step away from the computer.... relax....

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Ken? on 10/26/2013 13:58:41 MDT Print View

I take it you won't answer the question? The Palin satire link you passed off as journalism? 3rd attempt.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: Attacks on 10/26/2013 13:59:16 MDT Print View

wow Kat....I did not know that I was beholden to you! :)

My bad, I will rush right over to whatever thread that was and answer pronto.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Attacks on 10/26/2013 14:05:07 MDT Print View

Nope Fred...take it as it is...whatever. Now go and enjoy your day. I'm working...or at least trying to

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Peter Pan on 10/26/2013 14:53:36 MDT Print View

Ken H,

I hope you find your Happy Place and somebody gives you back your marbles.

Your friend

Captain Hook

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Peter Pan on 10/26/2013 14:58:36 MDT Print View

ahhhh that is not very nice of you....now move on and find something else to do...kay?

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re Kat on 10/26/2013 15:10:56 MDT Print View

"If it was the I......(my dots) leader we better not go there, that would send this down the chaff toilet worse than arguing about guns"

True, unfortunately, which ensures that the American People will remain abysmally ignorant of what has been, and continues to be, done in their name, with their tax dollars, at great and spiralling cost both to others and themselves, ultimately in a doomed cause. I am not, however, trying to initiate a discussion of the subject, given the general attitudes I have seen displayed here on other less controversial subjects, for it could easily end up with this website harrassed out of business and some people here finding themselves the subject of increased suveillance. Myself included.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Justice/ on 10/26/2013 15:20:26 MDT Print View

"I do understand the old saying that "Under an eye for an eye the whole world is blind."

And under a tooth for a tooth, we all starve to death. Do you think we'll learn in time to avoid catastrophe?

"On the other hand, sometimes we must make sacrifices in the interests of justice."

I would feel better if this were amended to say "self sacrifices". As things stand, innocents other than ourselves are usually sacrificed in the pursuit of our version of justice. Not surprisingly, they often refuse to go quietly into the night and, to our self righteous consternation, we find ourselves making a few sacrifices of our own.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Haters is a strong word. on 10/26/2013 15:37:06 MDT Print View

calvin and hobbs

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Chaff supreme. on 10/26/2013 15:42:50 MDT Print View

"But I do find it somewhat hypocritical and smug to have someone that is NOT a citizen of this country to have beliefs and criticism of this country when they do live hear and do not take part of the political system that is offered."

I've been trying to stay out of this one, Ken, but you pulled me off the sidelines with this comment. Everyone who lives here has a right to their opinions and a corresponding right to express them. First Amendment rights are not restricted to US citizens. Personally, I find Katharina's opinions to be far better considered and on the mark than most of what I see here, even on those occasions where we diverge, and I often wish she was a citizen. Further, to the degree she is still European in her world view, she brings welcome perspective to political discussions that have become dangerously ingrown as a result of nearly 3 centuries of isolation from the rest of the world. The disastrous results of that isolation, which has led to arrogant, ignorant conduct in the wider world, are only now beginning to surface. They are a dangerous portent for our future if we continue to dismiss them as cavalierly as we have to date. We are in urgent need of many more fresh perspectives, from all parts of this diverse world, if we are to have a chance at the bright future we are capable of, and Kat's is as good a place to start as any.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re Kat on 10/26/2013 15:48:33 MDT Print View

or people would come to our houses and do who knows what : )

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Chaff supreme. on 10/26/2013 15:50:31 MDT Print View

+1 Tom

I think diversity is what has made this nation so exceptional!

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Citizenship on 10/26/2013 15:50:44 MDT Print View

I am working on getting my citizenship; It is a process that I have started and had delayed for various reasons in the past.

@Tom.....I am pretty sure that I already am on that list...

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Attacks on 10/26/2013 15:53:46 MDT Print View

Re: Re: Re: Re: Attacks Posted 10/26/2013 14:05:07 MDT by Ken Helwig (kennyhel77)
Nope Fred...take it as it is...whatever.

So you link to a joke satire piece, about a conservative politician, and pass it off as a credible article... get called on it, and that's your answer?

Classy

Edited by BFThorp on 10/26/2013 16:55:54 MDT.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Attacks on 10/26/2013 16:06:47 MDT Print View

yep sure is...have a good day!

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/26/2013 16:27:12 MDT Print View

"MediCare doesn't pay doctors enough to stay in business. Other revenue streams from other payers subsidizes Medicare patients. IF it's all Medicare who will subsidize that?"

I know a lot of docs up here who seem to be doing just fine, and almost all of them tell me that they would gladly settle for less money if they could eliminate all the hassles of dealing with insurance companies and go back to practicing medicine. Something about job satisfaction and professional integrity. My impression is that very few of them are in it solely for the money, but I suppose I could be mistaken about that. I am easily fooled when it comes to things like that. Chalk it up to my liberal tendencies. ;0)

As for Medicare subsidies, if everyone goes on Medicare, we reduce fraud to an absolute minimum, make a serious at preventive care by making a major effort to educate folks on the benefits of diet and exercise beginning in kindergarten, and reintroduce phys ed into schools at every grade level, eliminate the profit making insurance companies from the equation, I frankly doubt we will have to increase subsidies at all. However, I do not pretend to have all the answers to this complex problem. To be truthful, if I were in charge, the first thing I would do is a serious study of how other developed countries are managing to pull it off at a fraction of the cost of medical care here, before attempting to reinvent the wheel. Of course, that would require us to give up our long cherished claims of exceptionalism, which might be an unintended health benefit.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Citizenship on 10/26/2013 16:37:20 MDT Print View

"@Tom.....I am pretty sure that I already am on that list..."

Let's hope not. But that could change in the future, if things continue along their present trajectory. If it ends up that way, take some small comfort in the knowledge that you won't be alone. ;)

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Citizenship on 10/26/2013 16:39:10 MDT Print View

"I am working on getting my citizenship;"

Let me be among the first to congratulate you, and bid you welcome!

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/26/2013 17:30:43 MDT Print View

I don't know that you need to eliminate insurance companies Tom

The problem now is that they make more profit if they deny or delay claims, so they make it difficult for healthcare people

But you need an organization to collect claims data. To control fraud. to collect data on which treatments are effective and recommend the most effective treatments in the future.

If you get rid of insurance companies, all those people will be out of a job, and you'll have to hire new groups of people.

If your plan is to get rid of insurance companies, they will fight you like they did Clinton, running "Thelma and Louise" ads.

Pay insurance companies 5% of the claims or something. The government could audit them for accuracy. The insurance companies would probably like this because it would be more reliable long term.

I think most medicare people have "Medicare Plus" insurance policies where the insurance company does most of the administration, not the government.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 09:41:58 MDT Print View

@Tom "I know a lot of docs up here who seem to be doing just fine, and almost all of them tell me that they would gladly settle for less money if they could eliminate all the hassles of dealing with insurance companies and go back to practicing medicine."

That's one reason that I work for who I do- I make less than half of what I could, but I find it fulfilling. Many docs (particularly ER and trauma) recoup only about a third of what they bill. Another third is lost to the uninsured and underinsured, and one third is lost to underhanded ploys from insurance companies. It's been that way for a very long time.

But that argument doesn't work for Medicare, because if a doctor/hospital/whatever ONLY takes Medicare patients (without supplemental plan) then it isn't that they are making less money, but rather they are damned close to operating at a LOSS. You cannot make a living on Medicare patients without some sort of further subsidy, for instance a tax-supported county hospital.

As a philosophical issue a single-payer system looks pretty good, even to me. And you are correct, a lot of other people make it work. But I'm not sure if it would work well for modern America, if for no other reason than at this point I just don't trust congress and the Medicare administration. There, I said it. They have been playing games with Medicare and Medicaid for decades and I don't see why they would stop if it were the only game in town. They have a nasty tendency to set limits on what medicare will pay for a service, and they set it far below market rate.

If they stopped such shenanigans I might take the proposition more seriously.

*** Studiously not engaging Fred, though he is clearly begging for it ***

EDIT---

Also- wow. I do tend to be oblivious about interpersonal stuff but I had NO IDEA about this acrimonious Kat/Ken warfare. Clearly, we need to lock them both in Thunderdome and let them work it out. I'll run book at 2:1 in Kat's favor- she seems fiesty, and Ken has revealed chronic medical conditions. :)

Speaking of which, have any of you all read the "Presidential Knife Fight" thing? Hilarious.

@ Tom "I would feel better if this were amended to say "self sacrifices". As things stand, innocents other than ourselves are usually sacrificed in the pursuit of our version of justice. Not surprisingly, they often refuse to go quietly into the night and, to our self righteous consternation, we find ourselves making a few sacrifices of our own."

Gee, Tom, you are psychologically incapable of passing up even the thinnest opportunity to voice criticism on every foreign policy decision the US has ever made, aren't you? :) Please don't make semantic quibbles with me- I was clearly referring to SELF sacrifices. There are always effects from everything we do, but justice is a basic human psychological need, and is one function that governments have assumed. A system of automatic universal punishmentless forgiveness for all crimes obviously would be disastrous, for instance. The example given was clearly a repugnant crime and does deserve it's own punishment, but a blanket statement about forgiveness is not realistic, either. When people are wronged they need redress. If they can swallow something like Truth and Reconciliation a la South Africa or Rwanda, all the better. But that's a big pill since, clearly, one end result is that a gawdawful lot of horrible crimes go unpunished. People don't like that. So I guess all that I'm saying is that I tend to be a realist about the issue and think that there is a time for Truth and Reconciliation, and a time for justice.

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 10:38:55 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 10:32:34 MDT Print View

Medical costs have been rising faster than inflation. Medicare and Medicade taxes have not been rising as fast. As a result, they have not raised Medicare and especially Medicade to keep up with rising costs.

I don't think it's that the Medicaire administrators are bad people, they're "between rock and a hard place". We need to control medical costs.

For example, pharmaceutical companys try to develop "blockbuster" drugs. Produce statistically questionable data that shows it's more effective, heavily market it, charge high price for it. It would be cheaper and just as effective to just use a generic drug. That's what we have to do to reduce medical costs.

But there are lots of similar problems that have to be solved, it's not just one thing. Pharmaceutical companies are not "boogymen". We just have to change the system so we have effective and cost effective medical care and don't do expensive and ineffective care.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 10:48:44 MDT Print View

@ jerry--

I'm glad that you included that final paragraph. I tend to get feisty at blanket bashing of the pharmaceutical companies. Clearly they suffer from the evils inherent to any for-profit coporation, and I'm quite willing to criticize them, but without an opportunity to make a profit NO progress would be made at all. (The system that I work in is heavily into generic drugs.)

Regarding Medicare reimbursement, I doubt that the administrators are "evil" as well (though I have my doubts about congress)- but you missed something there. It isn't just that Medicare costs "don't keep up with medical costs." In fact recently the Medicare limits on reimbursement for many things have actually been cut! Actual dollar amount- not adjusted for inflation or anything else- so it's actually a sort of double-cut. In fact there are laws that *automatically* cut the reimbursement for some things periodically. (Several common surgical procedures are among them- that's how I know this.) How in the hell is THAT sustainable?!?

This does cut both ways, though. For instance a while ago it became clear that doing more than a 4-vessel coronary bypass was almost always pointless (they do increase blood flow and thus theoretically should provide benefit, but studies show no better survival) so Medicare stopped reimbursing beyond 4 and all insurance companies immediately followed suit... and the days of 7-vessel coronary bypasses ended. This was probably a good thing "big picture", even if it does mean that hospitals and doctors have to suck it up when a rare individual patient actually does need more than 4 (incredibly rare, and usually due to a technical problem).

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 10:56:36 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 10:53:52 MDT Print View

see - I probably agree with you more than anyone else : )

it's just the system that we have randomly evolved into

at the heart of it is that we have a bought government. We have to fix that or it's almost impossible to fix everything else.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 10:54:32 MDT Print View

Ok, now you're goading me into a Citizens United rant. Troll. I'm on to you.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
Propaganda from right-wing rag LA Times! on 10/27/2013 11:13:07 MDT Print View

"Thousands of Californians are discovering what Obamacare will cost them — and many don't like what they see.

These middle-class consumers are staring at hefty increases on their insurance bills as the overhaul remakes the healthcare market. Their rates are rising in large part to help offset the higher costs of covering sicker, poorer people who have been shut out of the system for years.

Although recent criticism of the healthcare law has focused on website glitches and early enrollment snags, experts say sharp price increases for individual policies have the greatest potential to erode public support for President Obama's signature legislation.

"This is when the actual sticker shock comes into play for people," said Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. "There are winners and losers under the Affordable Care Act."

Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage."



Pretty much the opposite of "You can keep your plan" and "You will save $2,500.00 per year".

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Propaganda from right-wing rag LA Times! on 10/27/2013 11:33:58 MDT Print View

These middle-class consumers are staring at hefty increases on their insurance bills as the overhaul remakes the healthcare market. Their rates are rising in large part to help offset the higher costs of covering sicker, poorer people who have been shut out of the system for years.


No way.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Propaganda from right-wing rag LA Times! on 10/27/2013 11:35:31 MDT Print View

I've only had an opportunity to see a grand total of 1 quoted rate for ACA. The person in question is making close to minimum wage, single, and is buying a modest house. The business he works for isn't contributing to his premiums.

What I don't understand for this guy is that there are two lines which quote him his premiums. Total premium is $190.15 but his cost is $34 for bronze level coverage. Since his premiums aren't being subsidized by his employer, I'm assuming that he'll be reimbursed the difference between the two at the end of the year?

Bronze level coverage is catastrophic coverage and has a high yearly deductible of $6000 individual and $12000 family. It's nice that he won't have to lose his house in a worst case scenario but he'll have to opt for a higher option if he want preventative care and physicals.

I'm not trying to sound callused to his situation (as I've had to live on minimum wage as well) but worse case scenario, if he can't free up enough income to cover the $190, he's probably a candidate for Medicaid. If it's $34 then that's quite a deal in my opinion.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Propaganda from right-wing rag LA Times! on 10/27/2013 11:46:11 MDT Print View

Pretty sure Obama said that you could keep your insurance provider, not the exact same plan. I could be wrong, though. I'll look it up.

The $98 plan mentioned was discontinued my her provider because it didn't meet minimal requirements- in other words, it was a trash plan. She can still keep her insurance provider, just not the same plan. In fact, further on the article cited even mentions that people are being offered to be automatically enrolled in the most comparable plan available if theirs is cancelled. Yes, she is one of the young invincibles that the ACA is trying to force to either get insurance if they have none or to get adequate insurance if theirs sucks (as her does). Yes, they will have to pay more in either case. But the price of two identical plans pre- and post-ACA should still go down on average. Her $98 plan simply sucked. It was probably one of those scam catastrophic plans that young healthy people tend to get.

She's pregnant? She'll recoup any increase in the form of free preventive care rather handily.

And if you read the rest of the article you'll see that they still predict lower premiums in the long term. This *should* be a short-term problem. Basically, the entire second page of the article- which you cut- covers this, and includes comments from some people who say that they are OK with the increases in their premiums if they can be controlled in the long run.

All of that said, yes, I'm sure that some people (the fraction from among the fraction who buy private insurance who will see a rise) are unhappy. But, really, their plans probably suck and they will get more value for their money. And in the long run premiums will improve. Are people curmudgeonly and get annoyed when they have to change plans? Yes, clearly. They'll get over it.

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 11:49:04 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Propaganda from right-wing rag LA Times! on 10/27/2013 11:47:23 MDT Print View

I talked to my health insurance company. My rates will go down slightly, but it's difficult to do apples to apples comparison. $617 a month last year. $588 a month next year under ACA. Same $30 copay to see doctor. The last time I had a colonoscopy I had to pay about $200 but under Obamacare it will be free. I'm not sure how other co-pays and deductibles compare.

But health care has been, in general, rising from year to year so I would expect it to have gone up some. And I was in a pool so I was not subject to pre-existing conditions. I probably could have found a cheaper policy but then I would have had to gone through under-writing and my minor pre-existing conditions may have been a problem. And I don't know how such a policy would change over time. Easier to just stay with what I had.

My point is, that it is so complicated you can not do a good apples to apples comparison. I'm skeptical of anyone that says their rates under Obamacare have gone up or down. I think that all you can say is that rates will be about the same.

What I was talking about was a policy that has no subsisdy or tax credit. If I made less than $50K a year for 2 people in the home, I would become eligible for tax credit. Somewhere less than that and I would be eligible for subsidy. When I asked them about this, they said I would have to wait for that to work. They couldn't give me any rates or anything. Coveroregon.org gave me numbers and a list of policies, but when it comes to doing anything it doesn't work yet. They sure have clever commercials though : )

Again, I'm skeptical of anyone that says Obamacare will cost more or less - system doesn't work yet so you can't get numbers out of it. Maybe other states are working better though.

I think there's a flaw in the law. They have removed income verification from the IRS out of fear that the "Gestapo IRS" is going to do bad things to people. That makes it almost impossible to verify income, so it's going to be difficult for this to work smoothly. This is just me conjecturing based on my interacting with them.

They should just have the subsidy, tax credit, and mandate penalty handled by the IRS - lines on the 1040 form or whatever. This was not politically possible then and it doesn't seem likely the Tea Party will go along with anything but repeal Obamacare.

But I'm okay - forget about the tax credit, I could sign up tomorrow. Thanks to Obamacare I won't be subject to pre-existing conditions. Thanks to Obamacare there are some minimum care and preventative care standards I didn't have before. I'll save an insignificant amount on costs.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
? on 10/27/2013 11:53:09 MDT Print View

Ian. My understanding is most of the applicants that get through are being routed to Medicaid. Anyone else see the humor here? Anyone understand the impact potentially to the ACA numbers? Any intelligent guesses?

Lots of unanswered questions but who picks up the deductible shortfalls? What if premiums aren't maintained? On a sadder note... Applicant ratios that I've seen are roughly 7:1. 7 being applicants who can't afford coverage and are denied vs. 1 who can afford coverage. This shouldn't have surprised anyone either.

Edited by BFThorp on 10/27/2013 12:00:01 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 12:00:38 MDT Print View

Looks like Obama may indeed have put his foot in his mouth on that one, by not being explicit enough...

****************************

Claim: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

FactCheck.org: Misleading.

Obama has repeatedly made this claim, and the White House continues to use the line on its website. The law doesn’t force Americans to pick new plans or new doctors, but the president simply can’t make this promise to everyone. There’s no guarantee that your employer won’t switch plans, just as companies could have done before the law. And if you switch jobs, your new work-based coverage might not have your doctor as an in-network provider, either.

As we mentioned above, some employees won’t have an offer of insurance and will look for a new plan on the exchanges. Some small businesses could drop their current plans and join the exchanges, too. Grocery store chain Trader Joe’s, for instance, announced that it will direct its part-time workers (less than 30 hours per week) to the exchanges for health coverage and provide them with $500 to help purchase it, as of Jan. 1, 2014. The company, which has provided coverage to such workers, said “many crew members should be able to obtain health care coverage at very little, if any, net cost.”

******************************

There is a similar analysis on PolitiFact. When you follow the links on WhiteHouse.gov where they try to clarify this they backpedal a bit. They say "your plan will probably be strengthened", by which they mean that it will now have to meet the new minimum requirements. This is why crappy plans are being discontinued and replaced with better ones that offer more coverage- so you certainly get to keep at least the same coverage. It probably will cost more, though- but then, you get better coverage.

This is really what is happening to almost everyone who is seeing an 'increase' in premiums, by the way- they are just being forced to get better coverage. Understandably, this is unpopular, because people have trouble thinking long-term. (And generally does not affect the 80% of Americans who get their insurance through their employer- assuming that the employer doesn't pull any shenanigans, but that's on them.)

Still, yeah, foot-in-mouth. I understand that he needs to keep the sound bites short and simple, but he could have done better, there.

OTOH, Politifact recently made a synopsis of Ted Cruz statements:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/oct/17/fact-checking-ted-cruz/

Apparently the only thing he's said that they rate TRUE is "We have a federal government that thinks they have the authority to regulate our toilet seats." Because the federal government does, apparently, regulate toilet seats under the Commerce Clause.

Profound.

None of his MOSTLY TRUE or HALF TRUE statements were about the ACA, either...

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 12:28:28 MDT.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 12:10:13 MDT Print View

I make just enough to not qualify for assistance. Looking at over $450 a month for health insurance is just not possible. I have no car payment, just a mortgage that 's not even that much. No credit card bills. Need to eat and buy fuel to get back and forth to work. Even taking the bus only saves me $60 a month and uses more of my time.

What's plan B? Paying the fine I guess. Under duress.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 12:13:46 MDT Print View

EDIT--- Retracted. Inquiries about people's income is rude.

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 12:35:21 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 12:18:52 MDT Print View

Ken. Work a cash deal with your employer so you can slide under the benefit threshold. It's not like you'll be the only one.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
In the interests of fairness... on 10/27/2013 12:37:47 MDT Print View

Here are some things that the pro-ACA people end to say that PolitiFact doesn't like:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/oct/02/10-things-obamacare-supporters-say-arent-entirely-/

A few of them are "Promises Broken" that he could not pull off politically, like open negotiations or the public option.

I'd say that this list compares favorably...

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 12:40:17 MDT.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 12:45:32 MDT Print View

No problem Dean. With needed prescriptions for my wife the Silver Plan is a way better choice than the Bronze plan that doesn't pay for hardly anything. Anthem Blue cross wants $427 a month Blue Shield wants $459 a month. We make a combined income of less than $60k annual.

@ Fred. My employer (Bien Padre Foods LLC) has no interest in their employees health. We are to fend for ourselves. I'M SURE I'm not the only one.

They actually just reduced my wages without prior notice. They're awesome. There will be an opening there just as soon as I can make one.

Tax credits. What kind of game is that?

I have no secrets. Ask away.

I just love how things like mortgages and insurance are figured on your gross earnings, Not on what is actually left over to spend. Take 25% off the top and it makes a huge difference.

As far as hate for the Tea Party. Don't care. All politics in government is shameful. We must strive for all encompassing change in the way Americans think. Good luck with that.

Edited by kthompson on 10/27/2013 13:03:43 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 13:36:36 MDT Print View

Ok- I thought that under Covered California the point at which you get no subsidy was around $95k? Where are you looking?

EDIT--- Ah, never mind. That's a family of four...

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 13:38:05 MDT.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 13:37:45 MDT Print View

Those figures are straight from the covered ca website.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 13:39:08 MDT Print View

Yeah- see my edit: I was thinking of a family of four. I saw it in an article, somewhere, and misremembered. It's $62,040 for two, just as you said.

What insurance do you have pre-ACA? And you're 55, right?

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 13:42:38 MDT.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 13:42:40 MDT Print View

What insurance do you have pre-ACA?

My wife is covered mostly by her employer. We cannot afford to have me added to that plan. So I am without insurance like I have been for all but three years since I was 17. I'm 47 in January. I've been lucky.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 13:44:28 MDT Print View

Jesus, yes- lucky. A case of appendicitis could wipe you out! Brother, you need insurance... Heck, you're coming due for colon cancer screening in a few years. So, it costs more than the $427 to add you to your wife's plan, eh? Hmm. And $427/month is 8.5% of your annual family income, and doesn't include whatever you pay for your wife. (Or are you trying to cover both of you?) Tough one.

Did you use one of the much-maligned 'navigators' to be sure that you aren't missing anything? Actually, California has it's own exchange, so I'm not sure that there are navigators there...

One of those minimalist Bronze plans, or even the one below that for 'hardship' cases, might be for you. At least then you'd be paying for *something* rather than paying for nothing. (I admit that I cannot quote any prices for such a thing, though.)

Is it possible to get lesser Bronze coverage than your wife (e.g. a Bronze plan) through her employer? After all, you say that you are pretty healthy, though she has prescription needs. (I have no idea if this is possible.)

EDIT--- I'm not trying to be preachy. I'm just sort of a problem-solver personality.

The Bronze plans on Covered California look to generally be about 2/3 the cost of silver plans, so presumably one would cost you less than $300/month. (The lowest Bronze rates are in the low-$200s, but presumably your estimated Silver premiums are higher than the average Silver plan for a reason, so let's extrapolate from there. I'm sure that this isn't how it actually works, but I'm brainstorming, here.) Yes, the other co-pays are higher in a Bronze plan, but they still cover preventive visits the same as the higher plans, and you would still have an annual catastrophic cap that is the same as the Gold plans.

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 14:21:03 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 13:52:27 MDT Print View

coveroregon.org - 2 person household:
$55K - no tax credit
$50K - $158 annual tax credit - estimate only, wait a month
$40K - $1608 - estimate...
$20K - "Good news! eligible for Oregon Health Plan, details not yet available online"

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 13:52:32 MDT Print View

Ken has been on the " hope for good luck and take good care of myself plan". All the backpacking must have helped.
I hope something more affordable becomes available soon.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 14:12:15 MDT Print View

This is another example where a HSA and a high deductible catastrophic coverage combination makes all the sense.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 14:15:56 MDT Print View

Okay, I'm going to be a total jerk here, just consider this a hypothetical question : )

You make $60K a year and you can't afford health insurance????

Well, I guess you live in California where some things cost more

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Citizenship on 10/27/2013 14:24:49 MDT Print View

@ Tom, thanks for the encouragement. It will be a few months still, but it looks pretty straightforward in my case. At least I hope so.

@ Jerry. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, even though we butt heads sometimes

@ Ken H. We disagree about many things, probably mostly about form . However, you are correct that my comment about not posting when incoherent was a low blow. It's hard for me to be sorry about it at this point, since you shot back many fold, but I admit that it was uncalled for.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 14:25:17 MDT Print View

No, his *family* makes $60k a year. He and his wife together. That said, especially since he says that he has few expenses... I was trying not to be so rude, jerry...

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 14:27:46 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Propaganda from right-wing rag LA Times! on 10/27/2013 14:40:19 MDT Print View

@jerry - "I think there's a flaw in the law. They have removed income verification from the IRS out of fear that the "Gestapo IRS" is going to do bad things to people. That makes it almost impossible to verify income, so it's going to be difficult for this to work smoothly. "

Not totally accurate:

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/07/blunt-wrong-on-income-verification/

Plus, it's kind of hypocritical for a Republican to complain about this, since it was the Republicans who kept a robust income verification scheme out of the ACA in the first place, out of some misguided belief that the IRS an equivalent of the Gestapo.

See:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/may/20/fact-checking-michele-bachamann-irs-and-health-car/

Granted, those are statements made by Batsh!t Bachmann, but hey she is "The Face of the Tea Party" after all... :)

Check out the rest of her record:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/may/29/michele-bachmann-truth-o-meter-politifact/

PolitiFact says "She had a remarkable streak: Her first 13 ratings were False or Pants on Fire."

The anti-vaccination claptrap is particularly dear to my heart.

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 15:05:54 MDT.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 14:44:18 MDT Print View

"Okay, I'm going to be a total jerk here"

Yup. But not really unusual recently....

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Just for fun... on 10/27/2013 14:48:00 MDT Print View

Here are some of the more amusing statements about the ACA...

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/article/2013/sep/25/top-16-myths-about-health-care-law/

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2013/sep/29/testing-obamacare-truth-o-meter/

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 14:49:28 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
For fun on 10/27/2013 15:21:34 MDT Print View

Politifacts half truths are typically under 75% accurate most of the time.

Continued tea party bashing, is something I've honestly tried to understand, and can't.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 15:24:35 MDT Print View

Jerry remember that is our gross earnings. Take 25% off of that. Made 58k last year. Take home 46,400. Mortgage with property tax and home owners insurance is 13,200 a year. With gasoline at $4.70 a gallon or about $350 a month. Car insurance, PG&E, AT&T, prescription co-pays, food. (we consider $20 for a take out dining experience for the two of out as a splurge), dog food, etc. it is real hard to come up with anything to pay for insurance or have any left over to invest for the future.

So with just the mortgage taken out it gives us $2766 a month/$691 a week to pay for the rest. So yes $400+ a month on another bill is out of the question.

Just found a plumbing leak under the patio slab, and we need a roof. Joy.

Edited by kthompson on 10/27/2013 15:25:44 MDT.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: Jerks and their questions on 10/27/2013 15:33:15 MDT Print View

Like I have said. I've got no secrets and am willing to share my experience. I don't take any of these questions personally. We all can only learn if we are given facts, not guesses.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: For fun on 10/27/2013 16:05:01 MDT Print View

*** Still not engaging Fred about his unsubstantiated claims. ***

I will say this, though- I do not always agree with the ratings that PolitiFact or FactCheck give, even after reading their analyses. But they never seem too far off, and I am personally more likely to weight the obviously intended meaning of a statement rather than literalism, since most of these are soundbites and its kind of hard to expect a politician to quote figures that are 100% correct off-the-cuff. This seems to equally favor the left and the right, by my personal standards. But, as I said, I don't disagree by much. "Mostly False" vs "Half-Truth" or such.

And I'm assuming that, no, Fred has not actually read these analyses. That would be far too much cognitive dissonance...

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 16:21:48 MDT.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
"Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 16:19:54 MDT Print View

Since I've been following this thing closely from the jump I don't need to visit a website to determine if something is true. And Dean you might spend some of your own time verifying the veracity of Politifact. Politifact is sometimes like the CBO, garbage in-garbage out.

Obama said repeatedly "If you like your plan you can keep your plan". And "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor". I saw the man say it. Then apparently something clicked behind the scenes because he modified it to "If you like your plan/doctor nothing in the plan forces you to change". Parsing words. This is the problem with having attorneys run things.

He also said that a family of four would see their health care expenses reduced by $2,500 per year. I saw the man say it repeatedly, don't need to have a website verify it for me.

Both of these statements have been proven to be untrue.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 16:30:04 MDT Print View

Yeah. What I said.

You clearly haven't been following very *closely*, because I've already endorsed the first point (after looking it up on FactCheck and PolitiFact, I might add), and have never disputed the second, which the fact-checkers have also verified. So, your experience at least seems to support the accuracy of the fact-checkers, eh? :) In the case of the "keep you plan" statements I thought that it was important to go to the fact-checkers because people often latch onto sound bites without ever hearing the full speech, and it is easy to lose the actual message. And, of course, politicians LOVE to quote one another out of context. So, it is only honest to check. And, it does appear that Obama either couldn't deliver on that one or made a VERY severe grammatical error... heh. :)

I have a lot of problems with Obama, Brother. I'm not one of those knee-jerk "Obama Walks On Water" people. Hell, I have been posting fact-check links that are critical of him, haven't I? But I'm also smart enough to look it up when people like Ted Cruz or Michele Bachmann spew blatant falsehoods. They must think that the American people are idiots or something- and evidently they are right, actually. I mean, gee, it sure is funny how the "OBAMA LIED!" foam-at-the-mouth meme pops up every time you talk to a Tea Partier, based upon relatively few gaffs, yet no one ever calls out the arch-fiend of lies, Cruz... (Not calling you a Tea Partier- you merely reminded me of the issue.)

I guess, to get back to the OP- that's why I don't like the Tea Party. The politicians that they get elected treat me like an idiot and lie to my face with far too much regularity. Mind you- I mean that they CLEARLY lie on purpose, with malice aforethought. Screw them. Frankly, they are pushing me to the left- something that I am hearing from a LOT of fellow moderates- and I think that the congressional elections next year are going to be amusing. The Tea Partiers themselves are electorally untouchableb because their constituencies are just as delusional as they are, but the Republican Party as a whole is going to suffer for their sins. That's sort of a Bad Thing in at least one way- when the Dems control both houses and the presidency they are going to get tempted to try some dumb things...

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 16:52:45 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 16:37:54 MDT Print View

Sorry Ken : )

Yeah, it sure is expensive to live, doesn't seem like you're spending extravagantly or stupidly

Median U.S. income is like $50K I think - I don't know how people do it

It seems like there's something wrong with U.S. economy, especially for middle income people, we've taken a wrong turn somewhere...

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 16:51:58 MDT Print View

I'm listening to the author of this book interviewed on radio

http://www.amazon.com/Extortion-Politicians-Extract-Money-Pockets/dp/0544103343

He talks about how politicians can do insider trading - if they know a bill they're about to pass is going to affect a stock price, then can insider trade that stock

And if a bill is going to be passed that will favorably affect a company, they will hold it until the company ponies up some political contributions

etc. etc. ad nauseum...

Both parties equally

He compared it to "professional wrestling". The fighting is all staged just for entertainment. All of these battles between "conservatives" and "liberals" are just B.S.

Occasionally, someone tries to push through a bill to change things but no one else is in favor of it, so it never goes anywhere

There are a few politicians that don't like all this but are unable to fix it. Just try to get through the few things they're capable of doing.

Should we have publically financed elections? Whose going to write the rules? the author says those same politicians, so it'll never work. He says term limits would work but I don't agree - then you'll have inexperienced politicans that will be more influenced by lobbyists.

We have a real mess with no obvious solutions. Us citizens have to get "mad as hell" to start with.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 16:55:49 MDT Print View

"But that argument doesn't work for Medicare, because if a doctor/hospital/whatever ONLY takes Medicare patients (without supplemental plan) then it isn't that they are making less money, but rather they are damned close to operating at a LOSS. You cannot make a living on Medicare patients without some sort of further subsidy, for instance a tax-supported county hospital."

True enough, but if Medicare were expanded to all, it wouldn't be just the elderly, most expensive cohort they would be treating. My thought is that the young would pay a premium higher than what would be required to cover their projected costs, in return for coverage later when they were more likely to become sick at for premiums less than what would be required to cover the projected costs. A rigorous crackdown on fraud would also be part of the solution, as would a science based approach to treatment protocols and results based reimbursements, rather than fee for serivce. The pharmaceutical industry should also be thoroughly overhauled, IMO. I'll throw out an idea here. Let a government-university consortium do the drug research and relegate Big Pharma to manufacturing the drugs, which would be sold at cost plus a margin sufficient to cover development and manufacturing costs, plus a premium to fund ongoing research, plus a reasonable profit margin akin to what the utilities are permitted. Heresy, I know, but those ba$tards are out of control and need to be reined in. We should also institute a comprehensive program of diet counseling and reintroduce physical education at all levels of the school system as part of a preventive approach to health care. If people ate properly and got a decent amount of exercise, we would eliminate an enormous of medical expense. Lastly, and perhaps I should have started with this thought, premiums should be calculated on the basis of what would be required to pay providers a salary consistent with their training, skills, and the enormous sacrifices they make in their personal lives to provide quality care. I know quite a few physicians personally, and I have seen this up close. It is a very, very demanding calling. What I am talking about here is what other developed countries seem to be doing, and frankly, I see no reaason why we can't do it here.

"As a philosophical issue a single-payer system looks pretty good, even to me. And you are correct, a lot of other people make it work. But I'm not sure if it would work well for modern America, if for no other reason than at this point I just don't trust congress and the Medicare administration. There, I said it. They have been playing games with Medicare and Medicaid for decades and I don't see why they would stop if it were the only game in town. They have a nasty tendency to set limits on what medicare will pay for a service, and they set it far below market rate.

If they stopped such shenanigans I might take the proposition more seriously."


The politics of it, unfortunately, is another thing entirely. As things stand, you are very likely on the mark, but I feel it is within the power of the American electorate to change that in an election cycle or two, if they would withdraw their collective heads from
that nether region where the sun don't shine and THOUGHTFULLY exercise their constitutional right to vote. There really is not other solution to the situation

Anyway, that's my 2 pollyanna-ish cents on the issue.

Edited to add reasonable profit for the pharmas.

Edited by ouzel on 10/27/2013 17:29:22 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 16:58:07 MDT Print View

I'm not sure that I buy that, jerry. Nancy Pelosi truly thinks that she knows what's best for everyone else, and what's best is hard socialism and an absolute gun ban. And Michele Bachmann is indeed batsh!t crazy, a dominionist, and truly believes the drivel that she spews.

I don't believe that either of them just use the political process as a financial scam for personal gain. That might be incidental.

IMHO, of course... ;)

And insider trading would still be illegal, even if you're a politician, and what you described WOULD count. They'd go to jail. I'd ask your author for examples, because he sounds full of you-know-what on that score. That's why all these politicians end up putting their financial stakes into blind trusts- so that they cannot be accused of this.

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 16:58:59 MDT.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
Tea Party Haters on 10/27/2013 17:02:47 MDT Print View

"And, it does appear that Obama either couldn't deliver on that one or made a VERY severe grammatical error... heh. :)"

Why does Obama get the benefit of the doubt that he might have misspoken? Could he not have been lying?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 17:07:51 MDT Print View

"And insider trading would still be illegal, even if you're a politician"

I've heard that from many sources - politicans not subject to insider trading laws

60 Minutes did a piece on it

Interview was on Bob Brinker radio show and he is more conservative than liberal

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 17:10:33 MDT Print View

@ Tom-

Yeah, as I said in principle I have few objections to a single-party system. I just have doubts about how well it would realistically work in the US within the foreseeable future. And as I said, no one wants to be the generation that goes through the teething pains.

I'm not quite as fatalistic about the pharmaceutical industry as you are, though. Even in the lands of socialized medicine it's still corporations who do almost all of the drug development. Perhaps there's a reason? Profit is one hell of a motivation for innovation, and doesn't raise anyone's taxes. If all research is government-funded, well, that's taxes. And, yes, I'm one of those who think that we are taxed enough if we'd just allocate the money rationally.

We do need to do away the the worst offenses, though, I agree. (Remember- I'm ok with rational regulation.) Evergreening, for example, needs to be illegal.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 17:14:58 MDT Print View

"Gee, Tom, you are psychologically incapable of passing up even the thinnest opportunity to voice criticism on every foreign policy decision the US has ever made, aren't you? :)"

It may seem that way sometimes, but let me assure you there are many US foreign policy decisions that I have agreed with down thru the years. Unfortunately, most of them occurred before the disastrous decision to get involved in Vietnam. Things since then have gone pretty much down the rabbit hole, IMO, and those issues are the ones we always seem to end up discussing. The issue you are referring to here, I think, just happens to be one that I have seen up close and have followed for some 50 years now, and about which I have very strong feelings. For me, it is not just a matter of justice, but also a cause of serious concern over what is has done to my country, particularly since WTC, and the disastrous path we are headed down even now. I will say no more, for reasons I stated in my original post, other than that I continue to anguish over the situation and for the countless innocents on all sides who have suffered, and will continue to suffer, so terribly, so unnecessarily. It is far more complicated than a knee jerk opposition to US foreign policy, my friend.



"Please don't make semantic quibbles with me- I was clearly referring to SELF sacrifices. There are always effects from everything we do, but justice is a basic human psychological need, and is one function that governments have assumed. A system of automatic universal punishmentless forgiveness for all crimes obviously would be disastrous, for instance. The example given was clearly a repugnant crime and does deserve it's own punishment, but a blanket statement about forgiveness is not realistic, either. When people are wronged they need redress. If they can swallow something like Truth and Reconciliation a la South Africa or Rwanda, all the better. But that's a big pill since, clearly, one end result is that a gawdawful lot of horrible crimes go unpunished. People don't like that. So I guess all that I'm saying is that I tend to be a realist about the issue and think that there is a time for Truth and Reconciliation, and a time for justice."

No argument here. And the sooner we get around to meting out justice, the better. Nothing puts the guilty in the mood for a little truth and reconciliation like the prospect of imminent justice. ;0)

And honest, Dean, I wasn't trying to quibble with you semantically. It wasn't clear to me that you were referring to self sacrifice. It has become an alien concept to most in this culture. I apologize if you feel I tarred you with that brush. It was not my intent.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/27/2013 17:19:39 MDT Print View

@Dave--

Did I say that? It indeed may have been a deliberate deception. (I reiterate, I am not an Obama-lover.) But it is rational to think that the Obama quote just MIGHT be a case of poor phraseology or honest over-reaching. It is, after all, a quote from 2009, before the ACA was finalized, so he may have just been unable to realize a goal. As opposed to, for instance, the insistence that the IRS is going to form death panels under the ACA. An honest error of some sort at least seems possible with the Obama quote- not so much with the death panels. And unlike when Bachmann claims that for every $3 distributed to the poor as food stamps that $7 are spent on wages and pensions for the federal employees who administer the stamp program- something that is public record, easily looked up, not in contention in any way, and so unbelievably grossly inaccurate that it's hard to attribute it to an honest error. (97% of the money put into the food stamp program gets disbursed to the beneficiaries- look it up on FactCheck.) Or, that the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation. Or that her family never made money on their farm, which received a quarter of a million dollars in federal subsidies. That page 92 of the House healthcare bill will make it illegal to buy private insurance. That Geithner wants to abandon the dollar in favor of a fictional currency. That Obama's healthcare adviser wants to withhold medical care from the disabled. (I'll omit a few that might actually be cases of her mis-speaking or getting an obscure fact wrong.) She lives in a different reality than the rest of us, or something. Not to mention that she is demonstrably a failure as a legislater- she's gotten, what, one amendment passed? The one about daycare, or something, IIRC? She clearly prefers to stand in front of a camera and spout drivel to actually doing her job.

In the interests of fairness I'll contrast this to times when Bachmann quotes tax statistics, on which she is usually right. (Which I suppose isn't surprising for a tax attorney.) She tends to be factually correct when she attacks her fellow Republicans, too, oddly.

So, really?

I'm not making fantastical absolute statements, here, unlike the leading Tea Party politicians.

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 18:01:03 MDT.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: For fun on 10/27/2013 17:24:57 MDT Print View

"its kind of hard to expect a politician to quote figures that are 100% correct off-the-cuff."

It gets even harder the more time they have to formulate their answer. ;0)

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: For fun on 10/27/2013 17:27:11 MDT Print View

Probably true. The waffling starts to stack high...

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 17:50:01 MDT Print View

"I make less than half of what I could, but I find it fulfilling."

Understand. My best friend used to do trauma surgery, and that was a lot of what kept him in it. Still, I get this feeling that the work you do confers an added degree of fulfillment that just can't be experienced in the civilian world...

Edited by ouzel on 10/27/2013 17:55:16 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 18:05:31 MDT Print View

Trauma surgery is hard. A relatively large portion of your patients are uninsured and litigious neer-do-wells who won't pay their bill and then are likely to sue you for helping them. In fact the collection rate for trauma care is so low that many states subsidize trauma surgeons- they have to pay them to take call or it just wouldn't be financially worth it for them. (IIRC Oregon is one of them.)

But you do get to be one of the "rock stars" of the medical community...

I did almost nothing on the deployment from which I just returned (though working for CJSOTF was interesting in other ways) but the one before that was great. My little 10-man FST slice saw 1500 patient encounters. Less than 50 of them were Americans- most were Afghan civilian charity cases. Neat stuff, productive, did a lot of good, grateful patients. A few tragedies too, true, but it really doesn't get better.

God help her, I think that my 6-year-old daughter might follow me into medicine. She keeps wanting to look at my photos from deployment. Either that or she's a young psychopath. Hard to tell. :)

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 18:35:22 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 18:33:59 MDT Print View

I guess, to get back to the OP- that's why I don't like the Tea Party. The politicians that they get elected...

I I think you are giving the organization, for lack of a better term, too much credit for organizing.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 18:36:15 MDT Print View

@ Fred "I think you are giving the organization, for lack of a better term, too much credit for organizing."

Heh. Possibly. But at the very least they vote them in.

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 19:12:07 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Heh on 10/27/2013 19:58:41 MDT Print View

Individuals voting. You are giving it the unity of a voting block, like a union, which is inaccurate IMO.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 20:20:10 MDT Print View

"Trauma surgery is hard. A relatively large portion of your patients are uninsured and litigious neer-do-wells who won't pay their bill and then are likely to sue you for helping them. In fact the collection rate for trauma care is so low that many states subsidize trauma surgeons- they have to pay them to take call or it just wouldn't be financially worth it for them. (IIRC Oregon is one of them.)"

Sad, but true. But the hardest part, I'm told, is that the basic reality of trauma surgery is that you are going to lose a lot more patients than just about any other area of surgery; particularly difficult when the patients are young innocents caught up in a drug deal gone wrong or over the edge domestic violence incidents. They're all hard to lose, according to my friend, because they are all fellow human beings, but the young innocents are the hardest.

"But you do get to be one of the "rock stars" of the medical community..."

Heady stuff when you're young, but trauma surgeons don't stay young for very long...

"though working for CJSOTF was interesting in other ways"

What is CJSOTF?


"My little 10-man FST slice saw 1500 patient encounters. Less than 50 of them were Americans- most were Afghan civilian charity cases. Neat stuff, productive, did a lot of good, grateful patients. A few tragedies too, true, but it really doesn't get better."

Now that seriously warms my heart, Dean. What a great way to leave Afghanistan. Is there any chance that we will deploy teams like yours in the event we reach agreement with the Afghan Govt to keep troops in country? That would be a great way to gain support among the Afghan People, if it were tactically feasible.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 20:31:22 MDT Print View

"I just have doubts about how well it would realistically work in the US within the foreseeable future. And as I said, no one wants to be the generation that goes through the teething pains."

I have my doubts, too, but we've got to do something, and the sooner we start, the better, IMO. Some generation is going to have to be the guinea pig. I can't see any other way to do it.

"I'm not quite as fatalistic about the pharmaceutical industry as you are, though. Even in the lands of socialized medicine it's still corporations who do almost all of the drug development. Perhaps there's a reason? Profit is one hell of a motivation for innovation, and doesn't raise anyone's taxes."

You're probably right, but then how do you get Big Pharma to allocate part of their research and manufacturing capacity to things like vaccines and antibiotics, that won't make them a lot of money? It seems like they're always looking for that next blockbuster drug that will make them billions but not have a major impact on the health of the general public. It seems to me that a lot of good basic drug research these days is being done by NIH and universities. Why not build on that, especially in areas where Big Pharma doesn't see the opportunity to make huge profits? Just blue skying here. Personally, I wouldn;t mind seeing more of my tax dollars funnelled into areas like this, but I'm not sure how many of my fellow Americans would agree. Might it just amount to a reallocation of existing taxes, rather than an additional levy?

"Evergreening, for example, needs to be illegal."

A huge +1


Edited to clean things up a bit.

Edited by ouzel on 10/27/2013 20:38:35 MDT.

Jeremy B.
(requiem) - F - M

Locale: Northern California
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 22:48:35 MDT Print View

Per the CDC, leading causes of death for Americans are:
Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

One can factor in quality of life issues, or argue that most heart disease and cancer cases are "preventable" and shouldn't be such a high priority, but it does argue for a certain direction in research. (Orphan drug programs exist in the US and other countries, which provide incentives for developing rare disease treatments.)

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
congress insider trading on 10/28/2013 08:11:12 MDT Print View

A year ago congress was shamed into eliminating insider trading by government people

Then they quietely undid major parts of it, namely you can't easily get to the records about what trades different people did.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law

Lots of other ways federal government employees can make lots of money.

I like the analogy of congress is like professional wrestling, they act like they hate each other and pretend to fight, but it's just entertainment, behind the scenes they're friendly and just making as living

I remember 60 Minutes did a piece. Asked Nancy Pelosi if it was okay she traded health insurance companies just before ACA was passed. She said it was oaky because she didn't make any money off the deal.

They also interviewed Republicans, I just forget the details

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/28/2013 08:48:34 MDT Print View

"You're probably right, but then how do you get Big Pharma to allocate part of their research and manufacturing capacity to things like vaccines and antibiotics"

Did you see that "Frontline" on PBS. There are more and more cases of bacteria resistant to all antibiotics. So far, only a few people have died but it could quickly escalate to major problem. Then, the solution to an infection will be, for example, to cut pieces off your leg until they get rid of infection. Hopefully there'll be enough of a stump left over to fit a prosthetic.

The last pharma to do antibiotic research pulled out because they make no money. People take antibiotics for only a short time. Pharma makes more money with drugs for high blood pressure, cholesterol, (or erictile dysfunction) because people taker them forever.

NIH could launch major program but they're asleep. Corrupted by the big money that goes into politics. Funding reduced because of the "Tea Party" attack on government spending.

Solution - rather than the "free market" model we have now where pharmas make big money advertising Viagra, we should compensate them based on what's needed for health. NIH could fund research directly, but maybe having private companies do the work is better, pay anyone that can successfully develop a new antibiotic. Or combination of both - government funded basic reasearch and then private development of drugs.

Until we get the money out of politics we're screwed.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
@ Tom on 10/28/2013 12:40:56 MDT Print View

I'm kinda gonna be all over, here:

CJSOTF is the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force. So, as I said- interesting in a different way. Not that I personally did anything more than the same old stuff, mind you, but it's always fun to spend a day at the range getting instruction from people who can do truly terrifying things with a handgun. I was also on a very tiny FOB- fifty guys total- with a very active local amateur artillerist community, which always adds a little zest to daily living. Despite all of the high explosives falling from the sky, though, we only had a single casualty all summer- not life threatening, albeit resulting in a GREAT scar.

There may be troops remaining in Afghanistan but if they include medical resources they will certainly be prohibited from doing charity on a scale like that, if at all. One reason that I did so little on this last deployment is that the medical rules of engagement got a lot more strict in an attempt to force the Afghan government and medical system to develop to be able to care for its own citizens, in anticipation of the day that we would no longer be there in force. There was a not-unjustified perception that the US military had become the defacto trauma care, charity ward, and medical evacuation system for the entire country. So the line guys, as is often the case, had to step in and restrain the medical people from getting carried away. Because we do have a tendency to do that...

I think that the production of cheap and unprofitable but societally beneficial medications like vaccines and antibiotics are where the government can have a bigger role. How exactly, I don't know- subsidies? I'd prefer that to actually having production in the hands of the government. Jeez, I'm just a poor country surgeon, here- I don't have all the answers. But that would certainly be cheaper than totally taking over new drug development- leave that to the corporations.

Is it a bad thing that the pharmaceutical companies always "strive for the next drug that will make a big impact on the health of the general public"? I'd say that's a Good Thing. Profits? Well, that's what corporations are for- IMO we only need just enough reasonable regulation to stop capitalism run amok as in the late 19th century worker and consumer abuses, the Great Depression, the housing bubble, the tragedy of the commons, environmental abuse, etc.

Edited by acrosome on 10/28/2013 13:04:20 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: @ Tom on 10/28/2013 13:53:03 MDT Print View

"Is it a bad thing that the pharmaceutical companies always "strive for the next drug that will make a big impact on the health of the general public"? I'd say that's a Good Thing. Profits? Well, that's what corporations are for..."

definitely

but take Lipitor, the best selling blockbuster drug

there was a study in 2006 that found no difference between atorvastatin (Lipitor), pravastatin and simvastatin. But earlier "phony" studies found Lipitor to be more effective plus huge marketing resulted in it being the best selling drug in history.

So, the reason the pharma made so much money wasn't that they found a drug that made "a big impact on the health of the general public", it's that they scammed the system.

Combination of free market and government regulation will produce "a big impact on the health of the general public" and not a money making scam.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: @ Tom on 10/28/2013 14:45:45 MDT Print View

Perhaps the most well known drug that actually made "a big impact on the health of the general public" was pinicillin, that was developed by university researchers

So if we want new effective drugs, we should put more money into university research, not presume that Pharmaceutical companies are going to do it

Instead, this crazy movement to reduce government (or "gubmint") spending is doing just the opposite

Not that I'm saying Pharmaceutical companies aren't good and shouldn't make a profit

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: @ Tom on 10/28/2013 17:21:54 MDT Print View

" but it's always fun to spend a day at the range getting instruction from people who can do truly terrifying things with a handgun."

Judging from the few I know personally or have met casually, those guys can be terrifying without a gun. A very intimidating bunch. Even when they smile.

So tell me, did they teach you how to do a colonic resection in the field with a Heckler & Koch Mk 23 Mod 0? ;0)


"I was also on a very tiny FOB- fifty guys total- with a very active local amateur artillerist community, which always adds a little zest to daily living. Despite all of the high explosives falling from the sky, though, we only had a single casualty all summer- not life threatening, albeit resulting in a GREAT scar."

Sounds like a sporting proposition. If it isn't classified, what were you doing way out in the boonies this late in the war? If the Talibs had gotten lucky, it would have been one helluva waste of medical training and experience.

"There may be troops remaining in Afghanistan but if they include medical resources they will certainly be prohibited from doing charity on a scale like that, if at all."

Too bad. It would be a great way to win a lot of hearts and minds, a lot more effective, IMO, that trying to bludgeon them into submission or wear them down in a low grade campaign of attrition. A lot easier on docs like you, too, than what you've mostly been doing for the last 12 years.

"One reason that I did so little on this last deployment is that the medical rules of engagement got a lot more strict in an attempt to force the Afghan government and medical system to develop to be able to care for its own citizens, in anticipation of the day that we would no longer be there in force. There was a not-unjustified perception that the US military had become the defacto trauma care, charity ward, and medical evacuation system for the entire country. So the line guys, as is often the case, had to step in and restrain the medical people from getting carried away. Because we do have a tendency to do that..."

I think it's going to be a long, long time before the Afghan government gets around to giving much of a sh!t about its own people. Given that, it makes me sad that you docs have been restrained by line authority, but that's the way it goes, I guess. It would be different if it lit a fire under the Afghan Govt, but as I said.... Did it make you feel ambivalent?

"I think that the production of cheap and unprofitable but societally beneficial medications like vaccines and antibiotics are where the government can have a bigger role. How exactly, I don't know- subsidies? I'd prefer that to actually having production in the hands of the government. Jeez, I'm just a poor country surgeon, here- I don't have all the answers. But that would certainly be cheaper than totally taking over new drug development- leave that to the corporations."

How about letting govt-university consortiums do the development and farm the production out to pharma at cost plus a decent profit? At least as a fall back plan if pharma wouldn't step up to the plate. Subsidies might also be a way, if you could get them to commit part of their R&D staff to the projects.

"Is it a bad thing that the pharmaceutical companies always "strive for the next drug that will make a big impact on the health of the general public"? I'd say that's a Good Thing."

If they were always striving for the next big drug that would make a big impact on the health of the general public, I'd be all for it, especially if they went after the ones that would have the broadest impact. In practice, it seems they instead tend to concentrate on developing drugs that will have a limited impact, say for instance, drugs that extend life a few months, improve the sex lives of over the hill males, or mellow people out. Just my impression. I'd also feel a whole lot better if they spent more on R&D, and a whole lot less on advertising directly to patients. In fact, I think the practice should be outlawed. If they weren't allowed to advertise, and instead put that money into R&D, they could do a lot more of both.

"Profits? Well, that's what corporations are for- IMO we only need just enough reasonable regulation to stop capitalism run amok as in the late 19th century worker and consumer abuses, the Great Depression, the housing bubble, the tragedy of the commons, environmental abuse, etc."

I've got nothing against profits. Unfortunately, in my view, they're the best motivator for innovation we have at this point in human evolution, but recent corporate behavior has proven once again that we have not evolved much beyond the 19th century in the absence of reasonable regulation.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: @ Tom on 10/28/2013 17:53:32 MDT Print View

"I've got nothing against profits. Unfortunately, in my view, they're the best motivator for innovation we have at this point in human evolution, but recent corporate behavior has proven once again that we have not evolved much beyond the 19th century in the absence of reasonable regulation."

A lot of people are motivated by helping other people

And people that have aquired sufficient wealth often become more motivated to help others - Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Kennedy,...

But depending on super-wealthy people to save us kind of bothers me, they can go off in weird directions

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: @ Tom on 10/28/2013 19:44:01 MDT Print View

"And people that have aquired sufficient wealth often become more motivated to help others - Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Kennedy,..."

The exceptions prove the rule?

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
answers on 10/28/2013 20:56:41 MDT Print View

I have to say, jerry, that the entire rant about lipitor was a bit of a non-sequitur. I'm certainly not going to argue about there being little difference in efficacy among statins. And I have already said that there need to be changes. Heck, I condemned evergreening. So, uh, just who are you arguing against? :)

Are you saying that a socioeconomic system based upon altruism would work better? As a practical matter, that'd be a hoot. (Wasn't that sort of the idea behind communism? And that worked so incredibly well...) Yes, many people are motivated by helping others, but everyone can't ONLY be motivated by helping others. You have to take care of yourself as well, and that includes economically. Also, being motivated by helping others is not mutually exclusive with being motivated by profit. Your wealthy philanthropist list sort of shows that. I do get your point but we still need an efficient economic system, and altruism isn't an economic system.

Tom, wow, lotta questions.

No Mk23 Mod0- almost without exception our guys had Glocks, and very rational-sounding reasons for why they prefer them. Shooting the silenced ones is fun. Poor instrument choice for colectomies, though. But we medical weenies were still stuck with our Berettas, anyway

What was I doing, why, and where? Nothing classified- CJSOTF just decided that they wanted a more robust surgical capability under their direct control, because medical coverage is getting dicey as units pull out and medevac helicopters get thin on the ground. Since what CJSOTF wants CJSOTF gets, they were given the Forward Surgical Team that I was assigned to. (They had a couple of administrative projects for us, too, but nothing interesting. We're medical weenies.) We were covering southwest Ghazni. One nice thing is that since the special people like to make their own rules and are all into the hearts and minds thing as you mentioned we at least got to do a *little* charity work.

Ambivalent? No, I wouldn't say that. Less fun, yes, but I'm enough of a Soldier to to suck it up and drive on. I also understand at least what they were trying to do. They were trying not to just disappear on the Afghans one day and leave them with no functional medical system at all. Task Force MED spent a lot of money and effort training up the Afghan system. They had advisory programs in a lot of Afghan hospitals, including Kabul National Military Hospital, and development teams out teaching midwifery to village women and such. The French have a charity hospital at Kabul Airport that is actually still doing charity cases- I think it's run by an NGO, but they obviously must interact with the military forces in the country very extensively. The Egyptians also still do charity cases, the last I checked, but they were getting close to leaving. Also the Koreans.

And don't get me wrong- the American military is still doing charity cases, too- there just has to be NO other alternative in the country and an available bed, and we're trying like hell to make the Afghan government use their own ambulance system and helicopters instead of burning aviation fuel and risking our aircrews.

I suspect that having all new drug development performed by a government/university partnership wouldn't be as vigorous. Development would slow to a crawl because not as much money would be getting poured into it- our government already spends half again as much as it takes in, and new drug development is *expensive*. (Which is actually part of the problem, since the pharmaceutical companies are loathe to just walk away from a new drug that isn't really any big improvement as they spent so damned much to develop it.) But as I said, profit is a great motivator- its one reason that I say that I believe in markets. They get stuff DONE, and generally in the most efficient ways. But I acknowledge that runaway libertarian/objectivist-style capitalism is destructive- again, reasonable regulation. We have to find a way not to destroy our own ecosystem and drive ourselves extinct. Because that is clearly where we are headed.

I can't say that I don't have objections to medical advertising, either. And there is certainly a subpopulation of patients who don't believe you when you say that a generic is just as good. So sort of like jerry, I'm not sure who you are arguing with. :)

Edited by acrosome on 10/28/2013 21:08:53 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: answers on 10/28/2013 21:54:12 MDT Print View

I'm not really arguing with you Dean, just brainstorming how things could be better

The profit making of Pharmaceuticals mostly leads them in directions that don't improve our health. Lipitor is just an example - the best selling drug on the list and you could work your way down the list. And you could also look at diagnostic machines and everything else.

The government pays companies to build roads and make military weapons, maybe that would be a better model for pharmaceutical companies. And they might prefer a steady income even if they didn't make huge amounts when they "hit a homerun" with a drug like Lipitor.

Most of the ground breaking work is done by universities. They are more motivated by altruism. And they get paid good too. Just not "Bill Gates" rich. But government funding of university research is being reduced.

It's super expensive to bring a drug to market with large double blind studies. But these are not statistically valid. If a study starts showing bad results they stop it and start a new study, until they get one that works. It's super expensive to produce new drugs because of these studies, but as in the example of Lipitor, this super expensive process created a drug that was no more effective than other already available statins.

If a pharmaceutical company developed some new antibiotics, and bacteria evolved resistant to current antibiotics that would then cause a large outbreak that killed thousands or millions of people, and that new antibiotic would prevent it - that would be a blockbuster - but all the pharmaceutical companies have stopped developing antibiotics because there's no money in it like there is developing new blockbuster drugs like Lipitor.

There is something wrong with our system.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Tom on 10/28/2013 21:56:48 MDT Print View

"And people that have aquired sufficient wealth often become more motivated to help others - Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Kennedy,...

The exceptions prove the rule?"

Like I said - depending on super-wealthy people to save us kind of bothers me, they can go off in weird directions

But they do a lot of good things based on altruism. Everything is not just about making money.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
Tea Party Haters on 10/28/2013 22:51:10 MDT Print View

Not to quibble Dean but the "You can keep your plan" stuff is current, not limited to 2009.

In fact, this statement is up on the White House website right now:


"Q: Will my coverage at work change?

A: No. If you like the health plan you have, you will be able to keep it."


Not much ambiguity there.

Jeremy B.
(requiem) - F - M

Locale: Northern California
Re: answers on 10/29/2013 00:12:57 MDT Print View

And there is certainly a subpopulation of patients who don't believe you when you say that a generic is just as good.

So Dean, have you heard about this particular generic manufacturer:
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/

(It's not really about Lipitor, that's just the hook to draw in readers. But, it is pretty epic.)

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: answers on 10/29/2013 08:17:35 MDT Print View

You must be talking about the Indian drug manufacturer that made bad Lipitor.

Seems like we should have better regulations on drug manufacturers. Seems like consumer goods regulations and inspections have become less effective in recent years, like they have been corrupted by the people being inspected.

Like chicken - why don't they recall that Foster Farm salmonella tainted chicken?

Jeremy B.
(requiem) - F - M

Locale: Northern California
Re: Re: Re: answers on 10/29/2013 12:26:12 MDT Print View

Yes, the article is about that company, but it's so much more awesome than that side story. Setting aside the question of regulatory capture, this is more about an enterprise (6th largest generic drug maker) that actively worked to deceive regulators. Think forged documents, faked tests, adulterated products, etc as a standard business practice.

As the article mentions, an inspection of a US site could be unannounced and last for weeks, whereas with the foreign sites there's often plenty of warning should a company want to "tidy up a bit". My take from the article isn't that the regulations are insufficient, more that the ability to effectively police off-shore manufacturers may be lacking.

Strangely enough, I'm not as worried about the Foster Farms bit. I think Foster Farms could have handled it better from a PR perspective, but mentally it's still in the #firstworldproblems box. Probably the USDA (the relevant agency in this case) will obtain the ability to recall for salmonella in the future. (Some backstory on that here.)

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: answers on 10/29/2013 13:24:52 MDT Print View

I try to buy U.S. stuff. or Canada or other first world countries that we have approx. balanced trade with. Both for safety and economic reasons.

I think the way we grow chickens and beef produces unhealthful meat. They should be closer to natural conditions, but then it's more expensive and maybe there isn't enough nature to produce the amount of meat we eat. Salmonella in chicken is only part of it.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
slavery okay, if thats what they want on 10/29/2013 18:30:08 MDT Print View

"On Monday, a YouTube video surfaced of a Republican gathering last August where freshman Assemblyman Jim Wheeler told members of the Storey County GOP he would vote to allow slavery if that was the desire of his rural constituents. "If that's what they wanted, I'd have to hold my nose ... they'd probably have to hold a gun to my head, but yeah," Wheeler said."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-nevada-lawmaker-slavery-vote-20131029,0,2751119.story#axzz2jA1BKzU1

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: answers on 10/29/2013 20:58:50 MDT Print View

"So sort of like jerry, I'm not sure who you are arguing with. :)"

Not arguing at all. This has been, far more than our usual dialogues, a low key exchange of views/info, and I was just putting an idea out there to solicit your perspective. And others'. Thanks much for all your info on your Afghan experience. I found it to be enlightening, compassionate, and far more balanced than I might have expected, given your experience trying to put our folks back together again, which could well have left you with a deep seated hatred of all things Afghan. And no, I'm not going all wobbly on you, just genuinely appreciative of what you have done and how well you have weathered the whole thing.

Ditto your perspective on the medical situation here at home. :)

Justin Baker
(justin_baker) - F

Locale: Santa Rosa, CA
Re: Tea Party Haters on 11/06/2013 15:53:00 MST Print View

Libertarians vs the Tea Party.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BY5ZGurCU

Edited by justin_baker on 11/07/2013 10:57:56 MST.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Tea Party Haters on 11/07/2013 09:59:46 MST Print View

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BY5ZGurCU

OK, I looked at part of this, the first four topics (all I had time for), none of which are tea party concerns, at least the group that I am familiar with.

Again, I think there is a lot of misinformation floating around about the "tea party" and for most, it's just easier to repeat what has been said, than to find out for yourself. What goes on in the group in the next town, I dunno. I try not to pretend I know, even though I've got a pretty good idea.

Edited by BFThorp on 11/07/2013 16:34:58 MST.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Fred you are right on 11/07/2013 10:28:31 MST Print View

This http://www.teaparty-platform.com/ does not match

This http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BY5ZGurCU

However, pretty much every tea-party person I know also expounds on the beliefs parodied in the youtube video. Not only are liberals confused as to what the tea party movement stands for, but a lot of conservatives seem to be also.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Tea Party Haters on 11/07/2013 10:38:25 MST Print View

Are there tea party "groups" from town to town? Do they have meetings, maybe with coffee or tea provided?

Or is it sort of an undefined label that has no specific meaning common to all people?

Certainly, the national politicians that call themselves "tea party" are different than local citizens. And the same super wealthy people that have corrupted our government have also corrupted any national tea party organization.

What's interesting is the national tea party politicians seem to have "gone off the reservation". The super wealthy people that have taken over the tea party have lost control. For example, I don't think they wanted to shut down the government.

Will the tea party politicans running for national office continue to get so much political contributions? Maybe the super wealthy will have second thoughts.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
The American Iron Curtain on 11/07/2013 16:11:37 MST Print View

The American Iron Curtain

Posted by: TLB Staff
Published November 7, 2013

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/11/07/the-american-iron-curtain/



In March 1946, Winston Churchill told a Missouri audience, “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia.”

Today a new iron curtain is descending. It encloses the small Missouri town where Churchill gave his speech and all the great capitals of a great nation. Behind the iron curtain lie New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and countless others.

It covers a million streets and hundreds of millions of people. Its shadow passes over stores and factories, homes and schools. It is not a physical wall. There are, as of yet, no border guards with rifles waiting to shoot those wanting to leave, there are no watchtowers or leashed dogs keeping an eye on the inner frontier.

It is a wall of words. A wall of laws, regulations and mandates. The 2012 Federal Register had 78,961 pages. There are 11 million words of ObamaCare regulations alone. With so many regulations, everyone violates a few of them without even knowing it. Assemble all the millions of them together and you have a great wall that would dwarf anything in China
The American iron curtain is still made out of paper, but in time it will be made out of cement and iron

The American iron curtain is still made out of paper, but in time it will be made out of cement and iron. Tyrannies begin with paper, but end with metal. The state begins by imposing bureaucracy on a free people and ends by imposing tyranny on them. When they will not obey the paper, it resorts to steel, iron and lead.

Four decades after Churchill invoked the Iron Curtain, in his Evil Empire speech Reagan named the Soviet enemy as those who “preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, predict its eventual domination of all peoples of the Earth.”

“They are the focus of evil in the modern world,” he said.

Quoting C.S. Lewis, he warned that the greatest evil “is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.”

That is the struggle now before us.

We do not fight men with nuclear missiles or red armies of freezing conscripts waiting to march through Europe. Instead we fight against an evil empire that has arisen in our cities and its red army of front groups that insinuate their ideas into every institution they take control of.
Conservatives have lost the ability to lay out the stakes in the clear and simple language of a Churchill or a Reagan

Conservatives have lost the ability to lay out the stakes in the clear and simple language of a Churchill or a Reagan, to let the people know that they are not choosing between politicians, but choosing whether they will be able to have the car of their choice, the doctor of their choice, the meal of their choice and the book of their choice.

Choice, the word that once used to define the American experience, has been relegated to a debate over whether mothers have the right to kill their children. That choice is still the focus of a national debate. But the billion other choices that millions of people make have been taken off the table.

The conflict is simple and straightforward. It is the struggle over whether America will be an open system or a closed system.

In an open system, you choose the life you live. In a closed system, your life is mandated for you. An open system believes in the genius of the individual while the closed system believes in the genius of the visionaries of the ideology and the moral purity of the bureaucrats who implement it.

The open system is a door that you can choose to lock or leave open. The closed system is a cell door with wardens and guards who will let you out when they choose to.
In the open system you are in control. In the closed system you are being controlled for your own good, for the greater good

In the open system you are in control. In the closed system you are being controlled for your own good, for the greater good, for the good of the state and the five-year-plan and the policy paper and the sub-paragraph of the regulation of page 50,261 as reinterpreted by a Federal judge in a court ruling that you never even heard of.

In the open system, you are a free man or woman standing at an open door. In the closed system, you are one of countless numbers in a book and a database. A number has been given to you at birth and your life is an interaction with other numbers that rate your behavior and your potential until your death when you are given your final number—the sum total of your property that will be claimed by the state.

Even in an age where the internet has proven the supremacy of open systems, liberals insist on pursuing the iron dream of the 19th century of stewardship and slavery, of a state that runs like a factory with managers to oversee the cradle to grave lives of its dumb and unwilling workers.

The iron dream has failed everywhere. Its ruins dot the Russian landscape. Its corpses fill the tundra from Asia to Europe. Its victims cry out across thousands of miles. The statues of its visionaries fill the scrap heaps of the east and its empty fields and abandoned factories can be found on every continent.

But everywhere there are men who need to believe in the supremacy of the state, in the closed system, the iron dream and the iron curtain, in 78,000 pages of regulations and all their millions and millions of words, in the nudge, the mandate, the law, the bill and the billy club.

These are the dreamers of the iron dream; the professors who tell their students to change the world by enslaving others to their iron dream, the newsreaders and entertainers who vividly paint the joys of living in the iron dream and the horrors of life outside it, the activists who crowd around shouting for the iron dream in the name of the “People” and the politicians of the iron dream whose faith is in the good of the many and the power of the few.

The American iron curtain is not substantively different than the iron curtain anywhere else, its descent is only slower and the men and women lowering it are more familiar.

The politicians are not guttural foreigners with harsh voices, they speak of American values and invoke American history even as they dismantle both, they stand in front of flags and speak of social justice at state fairs.

They claim that the old system is broken, that it’s unfair and inhumane, that progress is inevitable and that the march of progress and the progress of science have revealed that their way is best. The Mohamedans had their revelation from an angel and the politicians have their muse who shows them that a better world is possible when all men are slaves and the right men rule over them.

They speak of the power of the people, but they only mean certain people will have power and other people will have the power to support them. Like a Soviet election, the power of the people will be limited to voting “Yes” or “No” with the negative vote punishable as subversion and treason.

They don’t call for shooting their opponents, though occasionally the liberal thinkers at the think-tanks that come up with the ideas and talking points that are incorporated into their laws and speeches are indelicate enough to broach the subject. That sort of thing usually comes later.

For now they are concentrating on building their paper walls higher and higher. There are more laws than anyone can read, let alone know or follow.

The laws, like the marching Chinese, are effectively infinite. Even if a curious follow were to sit down and try to read through them, going without food or sleep around the clock, it would be a hopeless task because no sooner will he have finished 100 pages,than a fresh delivery of another 200 pages will have already been added.

There is too much law being made to count.

Laws are being passed to find out what’s in them and even reading them is useless because the added regulations define what the law does and judges decide how they should be implemented. Nearly 100 million Americans will have their health plans taken away because of how the regulations were written.

That is the power of the paper wall.

In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt delivered a speech that began, “The great fundamental issue now before the Republican party and before our people can be stated briefly. It is: Are the American people fit to govern themselves, to rule themselves, to control themselves? I believe they are. My opponents do not.”

“I believe in the right of the people to rule,” he continued. “I believe the majority of the plain people of the United States will, day in and day out, make fewer mistakes in governing themselves than any smaller class or body of men, no matter what their training, will make in trying to govern them.”

A hundred years later, that is still the issue before us. Will we have an open system in which the American people govern themselves or a closed system in which they are governed by bureaucracies and judges, by the activists and mediacrats of the iron dream and their politicians who promise to protect them from their own choices?

We cannot have a hybrid system of both functioning together for very long. Freedom and tyranny do not naturally co-exist. A system does not hang in equilibrium between open and closed. Or as Lincoln put it, “This government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free.” And it isn’t enduring.

America has been moving back toward the closed system for some time now. The movement is incremental, its bureaucratic chains come wrapped in populist rhetoric, its power plays take the moral high ground for the oppressed, for progress and for efficient government, and its worst abuses are kept out of the headlines.

Each generation has less freedom than the last. Each generation lives under a more powerful system that is relentless in its determination to control and command. And each generation fails to make the connection between its incremental poverty, its incremental loss of freedom and its growing government.

The iron curtain, like the Berlin Wall, is vulnerable. It can be torn down when enough men inspired to be free converge on it and begin destroying it with sledgehammers and even their bare hands. Its greatest strength is that men do not even know that it is there.

When Churchill named the iron curtain, he expressed a reality that people were familiar with, but lacked the words to describe.

The Communists had seized control of Eastern Europe through deception and double-dealing, they had promised freedom and delivered tyranny, and did it with the collaboration of politicians and media abroad who defended their crimes and spoke of them as humanitarians and defenders of equality. And there lay their greatest strength; until they were named for what they were, it was impossible to see the iron curtain and the evil empire that Churchill and Reagan made real.

That is true of the American iron curtain, which goes by a thousand names like liberal, progressive, humanitarian, social justice, equality, opportunity, reform… and 993 others like it. To destroy it, it has to be named.

People do not try to tear down a wall that they do not even know is there. It is only when they see the wall, when they feel its chill in their bones, when they sense its shadow over their lives, when they strive to climb over it and are shot down, when they chant against it and are beaten; will they be ready to tear it down.

Until the men and women of the open system come with a clear message warning of the wall that is being built around a free people, then they will go on losing elections and the cause of freedom will be lost, drowned in iron and paper, put in chains and filed in a trillion crowded databases.

Only when Americans see the wall, when they sense its shadow over Missouri and Florida, over New York and California, from ocean to ocean and border to border, will they be ready to tear it down.

Only then will they be ready to be free.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tea Party Haters on 11/07/2013 16:42:15 MST Print View

>>>>>>>>>>>
Are there tea party "groups" from town to town? Do they have meetings, maybe with coffee or tea provided?

Or is it sort of an undefined label that has no specific meaning common to all people?

Certainly, the national politicians that call themselves "tea party" are different than local citizens. And the same super wealthy people that have corrupted our government have also corrupted any national tea party organization.

What's interesting is the national tea party politicians seem to have "gone off the reservation". The super wealthy people that have taken over the tea party have lost control. For example, I don't think they wanted to shut down the government.

Will the tea party politicans running for national office continue to get so much political contributions? Maybe the super wealthy will have second thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

Questions followed by organizational assumptions. Sweet. This pretty much answers the question in my original post.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Simple enough on 11/14/2013 11:06:10 MST Print View

http://www.teaparty-platform.com

No gay rights, abortion, or race topics here. Strange...

For those that have been confused by the media or politicians that have additional issues on their plate, maybe this will help your understanding.

Edited by BFThorp on 11/14/2013 11:21:03 MST.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Tea Hee on 11/19/2013 17:21:28 MST Print View

Putting the "party" back in Tea Party

"Congressman Trey Radel, a tea party freshman lawmaker from Fort Myers, was arrested Oct. 29 for cocaine possession in Washington D.C, Politico reported."

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/19/3765335/tea-party-rep-trey-radel-busted.html#storylink=cpy

(Like there are no left wing politicians that are drug users)

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Tea Hee on 11/19/2013 18:25:26 MST Print View

That mayor from Toronto, is Ford his name?, he got caught drinking excessivly, using meth (or was it cocaine), abusing people. He's conservative.

I think bad behavior is bi-partisan : )

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
A Canadian Conserative Mayor on 11/19/2013 18:38:34 MST Print View

Sounds like a re-calibration is in order. Conservative large city Mayor is an oxy-moron.

Oh wait, Bloomberg is a conservative.

The guy in Toronto needs to keep it up to deflect media attention off the President.

Maybe he'll do spring break in the Florida Keys, parte on. He could come to Colorado, but all we have is high octane pot.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Tea Hee on 11/19/2013 20:28:16 MST Print View

"Like there are no left wing politicians that are drug users"

They're just smart enough to not get caught. ;0]

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Tea Hee on 11/20/2013 14:33:44 MST Print View

""Congressman Trey Radel, a tea party freshman lawmaker from Fort Myers, was arrested Oct. 29 for cocaine possession in Washington D.C, Politico reported."

Tea Party lawmaker? Uhmm I think republican would probably be more accurate.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Tea Hee on 11/20/2013 17:12:59 MST Print View

and the irony is he passed a bill in Florida to have welfare recipients be drug tested.....lol

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Tea Party Haters on 11/22/2013 00:24:54 MST Print View

"Oh wait, Bloomberg is a conservative"

Good one, Ken!
Bloomberg just switched parties to get elected then governed the way his liberal history said he would.This just shows how dishonest liberals are and that they will say anything or do anything to get elected. In their minds, the end justifies the means. Bloomberg's a life-long ultra-liberal Democrat. A Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his party registration in 2001 (during the height of the 9/11 attacks when we had a very popular Republican president in office) to run for mayor as a Republican. He defeated opponent Mark Green in a close election held just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Bloomberg won a second term in 2005 and left the Republican Party two years later. You had to be blind or stupid not to see that coming. He has enacted liberal policies and nanny- statism since. Arguably one of the most anti-second amendment politicians out there (unless you're talking HIS right to have his armed bodyguards carry at all times!).

M

Edited by bigfoot2 on 11/22/2013 00:27:59 MST.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Not loved in Colorado on 11/22/2013 07:30:17 MST Print View

Bloomberg is typical of a "I know what's best for you" liberal. He's not very well liked in Colorado. He has spent millions on restricting 2nd Amendment rights, raising income tax levels and rigging school board elections. Getting the sheet kick out of him in all arenas.

He's just a regular guy, fly's around in helicopter, with armed guards, and a personal chef.

I haven't heard from Jerry here for awhile. He must be busy filling out the 30 page ObamaCare applications.

A $600,000,000.00 IT development project replaced with #2 pencils and a Big Chief tablet.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Not loved in Colorado on 11/28/2013 18:08:25 MST Print View

"I haven't heard from Jerry here for awhile"

Hiking at Toleak Point in Olympics. Nice I'm missed here :)

Wasn't Reagan a liberal. Did lots of ads for unions and supporting Democrats. Then he switched to a "conservative".

Byrd switch from being a racist to a Democrat. Sort of like Wallace.

Good that people are open minded and capable of changing their mind.