Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 17 Apr 2014 in Tell me anything that you hate about Republicans the most., CL said:

    marcus says

    Paralithodes says

    How would Kennedy do in today's Democratic party re. taxes?

    If the top rate was 90% as it was back then, then I'm sure he would do fine.

    From what I understand, Kennedy's often taken out of context. The right believes that he meant "cut taxes for rich people", when he discussed rising tides. I believe he was actually focused on the demand side of the curve, and middle to low income workers.

  • On 17 Apr 2014 in Tell me anything that you hate about Republicans the most., CL said:

    iwog says

    Unfortunately at this point the real problem with our government is voters.

    I always say that. I was watching "Hot Coffee" the other day, about the backstory on the Tort Deform movement. The voters are best symbolized by some cat in the story who voted for limits on malpractice damages, only to have subsequently suffered at the hands of a medical institution. He basically said that the limits were for OTHERS, ya know..who ABUSE the system!

    The voters lack empathy and introspection. They want to vilify the poor because it makes them feel better than they are in their own underpaid suffering.

    Regarding Republicans, where to begin? Where to end?

    Blindly supporting gun rights without limit, despite the deaths of children and innocents.

    Fanning the flames of bigotry, wherever and whenever it benefits them electorally.

    Their inverted crazy logic on nearly every topic. "The poors are poor because of safety nets! The safety nets were designed to keep you poor, so that you poors will vote Democrat!" Global warming is a scam concocted by scientists throughout the world because of grant money! My oil industry paid lobbyists said so!" Crazy.


    Hypocrisy. The most adamantly opposed to gay rights are usually gay themselves. The ones opposed to abortion under any circumstance are the ones who drive their girlfriends to get them.

    And the fact that the voters, particularly social conservatives, never seem to hold them accountable for playing them all like fools.

  • On 4 Apr 2014 in Salem, Oregon, CL said:

    Thank you for your reasoned input!

  • On 1 Apr 2014 in Some Bay Area Residents Refuse To Sign Up For Insurance, Will Pay Penalty, CL said:

    Analyzer says

    Somehow the government gets a pass when they screw something up

    Where? In America? The opposite is clearly true, as very few recount their good experiences with a government agency or programs.

    FortWayne says

    Roi sure know show to under report his income if $350 is 1% of his annual income.

    Wouldn't he be eligible for subsidies?

  • On 29 Mar 2014 in We're in a private debt crisis that could lead to the next economic collapse: R, CL said:

    "The government offers necessary services, that are best organized top-down. Its efficiency is not worse than any large organization. The DMV is not worse than ATT. The size of the American government is not large by comparison to any other developed country, and is more focused on military than most other nations."

    AT&T is far WORSE than any government agency I've ever encountered.

  • On 29 Mar 2014 in Why not Jesse?, CL said:

    The Professor says

    Call it Crazy says

    Where do I vote for him??

    The same place you voted for Ron Paul.

    A cereal box?

  • On 27 Mar 2014 in We'll ask the questions around here!, CL said:

    I ran it through my "Fox news translator". It says, "Black people are angry, very angry". The it calls them all "uppity", and wistfully looks back on the day when "coloreds" knew their place.

  • On 26 Mar 2014 in Some pictures of Global Warming, CL said:

    rooemoore says

    Climate change industry? Don't you think the oil industry is a wee bit more powerful?

    And this is where the rightwing usually retorts, "them science eggheads get GRANT MONEY". They're the ones with vested interests---all of 'em!

    I do believe the science guy that was paid for by the Oil and Gas lobby. Quite convincing!

  • On 24 Mar 2014 in Is President Obama becoming a two-term version of President Jimmy Carter?, CL said:

    CaptainShuddup says

    Vicente says

    Who was this loser?

    ...Yeah, but juuuuuuuuussssssssssst barely.

    If that accounts for anything.

    Um...5 million votes and 126 EV is not "barely". That's a larger EV spread than Clinton trounced Dole with, and larger on both counts than anything Bush "won" with.

    Largest vote totals ever, except for himself in 2008 (obviously population growth is a factor). Still, the largest vote tallies in history are Obama at #1, and #2.

    CaptainShuddup says

    Obama has been a one man "horror" show.

    Because Congress signs off on anything that comes from the WH? Where do you get this stuff?

  • On 23 Mar 2014 in How to remove stickers from laptop?, CL said:

    You wouldn't have this problem if you had gone with a laptop with VGA, no HDMI, no sound card and no processor. First world problems!!

  • On 21 Mar 2014 in Is President Obama becoming a two-term version of President Jimmy Carter?, CL said:

    Vicente says

    Well everyone knows Obama is an empty suit, and wears Mom jeans. Obama also knows EVERYTHING thanks to the NSA and is an iron-fisted dictator. Just like Jimmy Carter.

    Kind of like Reagan was a simpleton mastermind. That always made us on the left seem illogical too. :)

  • On 21 Mar 2014 in Is President Obama becoming a two-term version of President Jimmy Carter?, CL said:

    Ceffer says

    Must have mistaken him for Fred Phelps.

    In America, Putin fucks Obama in the ass on a horse. In Russia, horse fucks you! ~ Yakov Smirnoff

    Other than rhetoric that is silly and intellectually weak shorthand for "Democrats" suck, I don't even accept the premise.

    If Carter sucked (and I don't accept that he did), by what metric would you not judge George H. W. Bush as "Carter", or George W. Bush as "Carter"? I say Reagan was a two-term version of Nixon, what..with all the ass-fucking they both gave the constitution.

    Both Bush Presidents had approval ratings equal to or below Carter's at their lows. Carter never had a massive terror attack on his watch, either.

    "He kept us safe!!!". If he were a Republican, the convention would have howled with delight, chanting that slogan like a Buddhist monk.

  • On 21 Mar 2014 in State Healthcare Lotteries, CL said:

    curious2 says

    CL says

    Insurance is access....

    No, insurance is a contract. Read yours.

    Semantics. If you are not in a life-threatening position, hospitals can refuse you if you don't have insurance, right?

    curious2 says

    Medicare exists, as does Medicaid, but whether they are insurance depends on what definition you use. Some people refer to Medicare as insurance, but does Medicare describe itself that way?


    "Medicare is a health insurance program for:

    people age 65 or older,
    people under age 65 with certain disabilities, and
    people of all ages with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or a kidney transplant)."

    curious2 says

    surprisingly little in the Medicare population, less than 10 years in the 50 year history of the program, and most of that is due to other factors like fewer smokers

    Is that comparing Seniors to Seniors in the same time frame? What was the rate of increase prior to Medicare? 10 years out of 70 or so is an awful lot in any case.

    curious2 says

    Oh please, spare us. First of all, you're ignoring Medicaid. Second, most people who go bankrupt with medical bills they can't afford actually had insurance at the time of their last injury or illness.

    Don't most of the elderly who have assets hide them so as to benefit even more from Medicare? Did people die in poverty prior to Medicare?

    curious2 says

    How on earth do you know that without even seeing one?

    What kind of risk premium would YOU or anyone have to get in order to take the other side of that insurance bet? Old people cost a lot of money, if they want medicine and doctor attention.

    curious2 says

    Do you ever consider that?

    Considered, but you are conflating Social safety nets and our unbridled greed. The safety nets were created due to the failure of the free-market to provide for the old, sick and dying. That's like saying the EPA caused dirty air and water, or food wasn't tainted prior to FDA. The people were revolting at the turn of the century, even voting for Socialists. What was their motivation, and was the market less free then?
    curious2 says

    LOL - sarcasm really helps.

    I was serious. You may hate the whole system, but insofar as there are good, life saving measures out there, the people are entitled to them. What is your answer? Get sick and don't avail yourselves to the system we DO have? It makes no sense.

    curious2 says

    in fact many suffered serious cardiovascular events including strokes, but the revenue recipients made a killing - literally.

    Okay. So......? Big Pharma sucks? We need more FDA regs and trials?

    curious2 says

    You can argue we deserve better, or cheaper but it doesn't change a thing.

    And you can argue that we don't, and that doesn't change a thing either.

    I'm not arguing we don't. I'm saying it's the system we have and there are good things and bad things. If you are ill, in pain, or dying, good luck with finding care in the libertopia that does not exist. So what is a patient to do?

    curious2 says

    i.e. to 39% (still within the margin of error, which they didn't mention), while opposition remains near 60%. It takes real devotion to sum up 60-40 opposition with a headline saying "support edges up."

    You'll never go broke if you bet on Americans being fickle or stupid.

  • On 20 Mar 2014 in State Healthcare Lotteries, CL said:

    Insurance is access, and many were uninsured prior to Medicare.

    Life expectancy has increased, and countless don't die in or because of poverty. It would seem as though the "free-market" would price out the elderly, because care has gone up in price, and they would be facing higher premiums as their incomes dropped.

    If access to whatever current offerings we have doesn't improve quality of life, where is the parallel universe we can go to the care we do want?

    Even if it's some crappy drugs to mitigate pain, it's what we produced and are entitled to. You can argue we deserve better, or cheaper but it doesn't change a thing.

  • On 20 Mar 2014 in State Healthcare Lotteries, CL said:

    Blaming Reagan is less specious than claiming the Dems or the Government "caused" the problem. It's not like the free market delivered care to everyone prior TR, FDR, Truman or LBJ.

    Old people lived worse prior to Medicare, right?

  • On 20 Mar 2014 in State Healthcare Lotteries, CL said:

    zzyzzx says

    Maryland wasted 300Million on a state healthcare website that doesn't work. I figure it's the contractors who won. The losers are the taxpayers here, but of course the Democrats here don't care about taxpayers.

    The Indiana one goes back to 1981. Looks like a healthy dose of taxpayer cash provided care for the uninsurable. I'd say the free-market fails from time to time, even when Ronnie Raygun was President.

  • On 20 Mar 2014 in State Healthcare Lotteries, CL said:

    Found that PDF.

    ICHIA is funded by three entities. The participants
    pay a premium that is approximately 50% of the total
    cost of the program. The remaining cost, referred to as Net Losses, are shared by the health insurance companies operating in Indiana, and the State. The carriers’ share of the Net Losses is 25%, and the
    State pays the remaining 75%. Tax credits previously granted to carriers have been eliminated for assessments paid after January 1, 2005. "

    Does that mean that even the 25% that was paid into the program was offset by tax credits?

  • On 20 Mar 2014 in Rand Paul Takes Privacy Message to Bastion of Liberalism, Berkeley California, CL said:

    Yeah. 100 students at an event with a headliner who has big name recognition.

    The event was organized by Cal Republicans. Yet, this is a thrilling development and portends that the GOP will become a popular, diverse party once again!!

  • On 19 Mar 2014 in State Healthcare Lotteries, CL said:

    curious2 says

    CL says

    What exactly does that have to do with State Lotteries?

    Well, I provided the only links to information about state lotteries in this thread, then you asked, "Any other comments or outrages?" Were you going off topic in your own thread, and then surprised someone answered your later question too? Do I need more practice to realize all of your questions are rhetorical?

    Got it. Nice work! And thank you for your diligence.

    I asked re: outrages because normally some overly bitchy commenter would be able to slip in their complaints about the system in question, like lotteries.

  • On 19 Mar 2014 in State Healthcare Lotteries, CL said:

    curious2 says

    CL says

    I don't think there are cures for that). His management is expensive....

    At what point do you consider those two facts might be related? How many reports do you need to see that (a) Obamacare increases funding for "management" (with "no lifetime caps") while (b) sequestration cuts funding for research that might lead to cures and disrupt the expensive (read: lucrative) "management"? The two deals were brought to you by the same people, and maximize revenue and power for those same people; do you imagine them to be entirely coincidental?

    Isn't communicating with endless question marks fun? Especially with no links to any sources of information? Gosh we must be having gangs of fun by now.

    Sorry. What exactly does that have to do with State Lotteries???

  • On 19 Mar 2014 in State Healthcare Lotteries, CL said:

    curious2 says

    CL says

    he has a chronic illness

    Was he cured?

    BCBS is a brand name owned by Wellpoint. If they gave him a discount or subsidy, but did not cure him, who do you think paid for the chronic treatments?

    If they converted his chronic illness into an infinite revenue model ("no lifetime caps"), who won?

    This was prior to ACA. They did not cure him (He has MS, so I don't think there are cures for that). His management is expensive, and he found them affordable through the lottery.

    I assume the State paid for his care via a subsidy that he is unaware of. I would also assume that the State was allowed to implement their Medicaid policies with some latitude, which the lottery was part of.

    Is that correct?

  • On 19 Mar 2014 in State Healthcare Lotteries, CL said:

    curious2 says

    All taxpayers paid, a few "winners" were selected at random, though they were "winning" like Charlie Sheen, i.e. the purported beneficiaries did not benefit. But, spending (including emergency hospitalizations) increased, which is to say the lobbyists' revenues increased, so from their POV it was a huge success.

    I have a friend who was in Indiana's Lottery and 'won". I am under the impression that those were all closed and likely went to PCIP under ACA.

    My questions are about how they used to work.

    He says he paid BCBS for his premiums and that it was cheap, even though he has a chronic illness and high income.

    If that is the case (and it might not be), then were the plans subsidized?

    Was it Indiana using Medicaid dollars to achieve this?

    Any other comments or outrages?

  • On 17 Mar 2014 in What would Republicans do, CL said:

    APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

    Republicans would blow the bankers!

    If Obama wasn't so busy sucking them off!

    But he doesn't suck them off RIGHT!

  • On 15 Mar 2014 in College Students Scared Straight, CL said:

    I have a few degrees, some more practical than others. I've had lots of great jobs, lived in Europe a few times and paid my relatively tiny debt off in a handful of payments. Even had free tuition for one BA due to my service.

    Apparently, there are always good jobs for the smart, charming and attractive people. And when you're a triple threat you can study whatever you want!

  • On 14 Mar 2014 in Obamacare's problem: You can't fix stupid, CL said:

    John Bailo says

    Is it not true, that if you don't sign up, you will have to pay a penalty of around $800 in your taxes?

    Isn't it 1% of your income, with a minimum of like $95? On the other hand, you can get "free" (to you) insurance or heavily subsidized up to 400% of poverty.

    So, it's a carrot and stick approach. Why take the stick when the carrot offers you insurance?

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 376 milliseconds to create.