RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Moonhead -> RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (12/17/2009 12:55:46 PM)

The Apple not Microsoft argument is bollocks in any case. Most people who buy a Mac end up installing Office on it, so they're using the same godawful overpriced apps as everybody else.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (12/17/2009 1:02:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The Apple not Microsoft argument is bollocks in any case. Most people who buy a Mac end up installing Office on it, so they're using the same godawful overpriced apps as everybody else.


Then let someone develop apps that are as good.

And the Microsoft vs Apple argument is too limited anyway. There are other operating systems that work as well or better, are free or very cheap, but are not as convenient. You get what you pay for.




rulemylife -> RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (12/17/2009 1:04:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

However, thinking about it, it points to another mindset different between us. Pointed to such a decision, price to high for product, price too high for service; my solution would be to start my own entity to sell it cheaper at the appropriate price to value.

Your position, would be to cry to the government about those 'bad' companies?


Yes, you're quite the self-made man Merc.

So tell me, do you have the wherewithal to take on AT&T, Microsoft, even your local electric or cable company?


quote:


GRATEFUL to be so distinguished from the mindset of the government being the first choice of solution, let alone the best.


More like ignorant of the fact that sometimes it is the best and only solution.  And do take note of the "sometimes" before I have to hear anymore nonsense about it "being the first choice of solution".

quote:


One of the best cases in point is the subject of the OP. To 'sell' this idea to the people they've disclosed that the current government run portion of health care, Medicaid, as a minimum of $400 Billion in fraud. Of course that will be found and used to fund this new program - run by the same people - to not impact the deficit or raise taxes.

You REALLY believe that? You must if you support this Bill.

So tell me - what epiphany is going to disclose the fraud and while were at it how will the people who work in that current bureaucracy be punished and eliminated from the one being created?


Be punished?

Do you mean to say that those government workers were complicit in the fraud?

Or did you mean to say we need tighter regulation and oversight by those government workers?

You know, those same people you want to cut back on so we have even less oversight of the wasteful government programs you complain of.

Starts to become a self-defeating cycle.

quote:



Nice try - but the response was to you selectively only pointing to those issues. However, the bureaucrats eliminated by switching to that method would make it a zero sum result.


You will have to elaborate on that because I have no clue what you are trying to say.




Moonhead -> RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (12/17/2009 1:07:42 PM)

I didn't say it was limited, I said it was utter bullshit.




Mercnbeth -> RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (12/17/2009 1:19:09 PM)

quote:

Yes, you're quite the self-made man Merc.

So tell me, do you have the wherewithal to take on AT&T, Microsoft, even your local electric or cable company
No - but if your worst case scenario were accurate and AT&T / Microsoft were performing as bad as the government you give unconditional support - I'm confident I could do extremely well with a niche I could carve out.

quote:

More like ignorant of the fact that sometimes it is the best and only solution. And do take note of the "sometimes" before I have to hear anymore nonsense about it "being the first choice of solution".
When you take an stand in opposition of government intervention and the point of first solution I may have reason to believe you. My positions of when government provides value are documented.


quote:

Do you mean to say that those government workers were complicit in the fraud?
Or did you mean to say we need tighter regulation and oversight by those government workers?
Agreed - I wasn't clear, they shouldn't have been there in the first place, and they sure shouldn't be there now if to sell this Bill, they are being pointed to as the perpetrators of an ongoing $400 Billion fraud. Or is that okay with you as a pragmatic, and acceptable, consequence of any government bureaucracy?

Break the cycle - eliminate the bureaucrats and the bureaucracy. Apply 10% of the bureaucratic costs to enforcement and audit and that $400 Billion wouldn't be there. Or better yet - if it is there in the private sector - arrest the perpetrators! Currently in the public sector many government workers, Medicaid among them, are getting bonuses. Good idea for the perpetrators of the fraud stipulated to by the Senate?

quote:

You will have to elaborate on that because I have no clue what you are trying to say.
This is addressing, foolishly I know, your straw man position concerning itemized billing for use of public projects. Those involved in the current bureaucracies of collecting taxes can be redistributed for billing.

However, noticing you have yet to address those non-essential entitlements, I'll worry about that condition once all the pork, and special interest projects, the government payments going for everything from studying the environmental impact of pig shit to the bridge to nowhere - I'll feel less inclined to make sure I pay as little as possible in taxes.




Brain -> RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (12/17/2009 6:11:08 PM)

Kill the bill because it's not health, it's not care, and it's not reform:

Countdown Special Comment: Howard Dean is Right!
Keith Olbermann's Countdown Special Comment from the December 16, 2009.... Not health. Not care. Not Reform.

Be certain to click the link below the video for the last minute of this very important Special Comment...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFl7iChl3Ro




FatDomDaddy -> RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (12/17/2009 7:08:37 PM)

So does this now mean your are against the Senate Bill Brian?




Hardbutt -> RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (12/17/2009 7:31:47 PM)

Brian is so way out of touch, he is in Canada! He does not understand the issues. What do you care about this? Just Trolling in boredom?

How about this lesson in the tax system in terms that he can I hope he can relate to:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $ 20,"declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a Dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, this is how our tax system works.
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

( credited to David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible)

Brian, take a free drink before you piss on somebody's feet who is actually paying the bills. I know you are not buying for anybody else.





DarkSteven -> RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (12/18/2009 6:08:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I have held all along that the current bill as proposed is a massive mistake.  The correct approach is to determine WHY health care costs are high, and then reduce them.  The current thinking is to accept the current high costs, and the only issue is who will pay for those high costs, and who will be covered.  If the government becomes a payer, that will lock in payment of the current high costs.


Wouldn't that involve regulating the insurance industry? I'm sure the conservatives will like that even less than the idea of socialised medicine. Interfering with a profitable business is about as evil as a liberal can get, after all.


I have no idea.  I honestly haven't looked far enough ahead to figure out how to reduce costs.  I just want to know what and where they are at this point.




FatDomDaddy -> RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (12/18/2009 2:09:35 PM)

One way to reduce costs would be allowing the insurance companies balk at paying out outrageous sums of money via state mandates




SpinnerofTales -> RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (12/18/2009 3:59:56 PM)

quote:

One way to reduce costs would be allowing the insurance companies balk at paying out outrageous sums of money via state mandates
ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy




Another way to reduce costs is to allow the insurance companies to charge premiums and not provide any coverage in exchange. I'm sure that if they were allowed to do that, premiums would go down a good five to ten percent.





submittous -> RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (12/18/2009 4:10:15 PM)

Dean is right.... where the proposed health care bill is a gift to existing health insurance companies and of no real help in dealing with the cost of health care. It is an outrage that America is the only industrialized country that doesn't care for all it's citizens and eventually that will change, passing this legislation will delay a real solution. Apparently it will take a bigger mandate and demand from the public to get results.

So, until then the US economy will just have to suck it up and pay an extra 7 or 8 % of GDP for health care.




Brain -> RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (12/18/2009 4:14:51 PM)


I agree with Howard Dean kill the bill and go to reconciliation. There is nothing in it worth supporting any more in my view. It's nothing but a big fat snow job Obama is trying to pull over everybody's eyes and blind us with. Screw
Joe Loserman and Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu, they can all do me a favor and drop dead and John McCain too.


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

So does this now mean your are against the Senate Bill Brian?





Brain -> RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (12/18/2009 4:20:43 PM)

Bull! I lived in New York City for 20 years and half of my family is in New York, Ohio, and California. They have had to work in shit jobs just to have health insurance for their kids never mind having to pay in cash at the doctor's and the cost of prescription drugs.




FatDomDaddy -> RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (12/18/2009 11:09:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

One way to reduce costs would be allowing the insurance companies balk at paying out outrageous sums of money via state mandates
ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy




Another way to reduce costs is to allow the insurance companies to charge premiums and not provide any coverage in exchange. I'm sure that if they were allowed to do that, premiums would go down a good five to ten percent.




Spinner,

BC & BS just paid $22 for a nylon sponge filter about half the size of a playing card. When I inquired about this outrageous cost for something that is 99cents a bolt at Home Depot, I was told the State of Maryland mandates that it pays without question.

Something is wrong with this picture.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (12/18/2009 11:21:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

One way to reduce costs would be allowing the insurance companies balk at paying out outrageous sums of money via state mandates
ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy




Another way to reduce costs is to allow the insurance companies to charge premiums and not provide any coverage in exchange. I'm sure that if they were allowed to do that, premiums would go down a good five to ten percent.




Spinner,

BC & BS just paid $22 for a nylon sponge filter about half the size of a playing card. When I inquired about this outrageous cost for something that is 99cents a bolt at Home Depot, I was told the State of Maryland mandates that it pays without question.

Something is wrong with this picture.


Yeah, whats wrong is that they are only reimbursed 50 cents per sponge for their medicare patients that need 42 times as many.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.711914E-02