comments by leo707

leo707   befriend   ignore   Wed, 11 Dec 2013, 3:19am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 1

Call it Crazy says

I guess in your mind, she should of stayed in office, wasted millions of dollars of government money and untold staff manpower on these frivolous lawsuits?? Plus spend hundreds of thousands of her PERSONAL money on lawsuits that were fake??

? "Frivolous"..."fake"...what are you talking about? You may want to expand your knowledge about Sarah Palin beyond here Wikipedia page.

Sarah Palin has been found in violation of a state ethics law on one occasion, and on another occasion has been required to pay the state back money used for personal travel.

leo707   befriend   ignore   Wed, 11 Dec 2013, 2:39am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 2

Call it Crazy says

leo707 says

Posting a Wikipedia entry quoting a known oath-breaker and liar is not that compelling to me.

Nice cop out... Prove that it is incorrect, go ahead....

? what cop-out?

Are you saying that you trust the resignation speech of a politician? A politician who with great pomp and circumstance recites the Pledge of Allegiance, then supports groups that are in direct violation of the Pledge?

How about this...you prove that she did not resign and then embark on a career in reality-TV.

leo707   befriend   ignore   Wed, 11 Dec 2013, 2:12am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 3

Call it Crazy says

leo707 says

So...then in your eyes the time-honored tradition of resigning a post when one is elected to a higher office is equivalent to resigning ones position to pursue a career in reality-TV?

Resigned for reality TV... Hmm... You're entitled to your opinion but not your own facts....

Posting a Wikipedia entry quoting a known oath-breaker and liar is not that compelling to me. How about looking into the facts of what she decided to do with her time after quitting as governor?

Are you suggesting that after quitting a job that Palin swore to complete she did not launch a reality-TV career?

leo707   befriend   ignore   Wed, 11 Dec 2013, 1:34am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 4

thomaswong.1986 says

leo707 says

Sarah Palin's oath to support and defend the Constitution = FAIL

Sarah Palin's pledge of allegiance to the US = FAIL

And Martin Bashir, a foreign citizen, is he ready to swear allegiance ... and to who ?

Who do you trust more?

An outside observer with unknown loyalties.

-or-

Someone who has pledged loyalty to your country; then demonstratively broken the pledge and has show support for seditious and traitorous groups that could -- if they had their way -- literally plunge our country into another civil war.

For me anyway, I would have less trust for someone who has already shown that they want to drive my country to ruin and division.

leo707   befriend   ignore   Wed, 11 Dec 2013, 1:27am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 5

thomaswong.1986 says

leo707 says

Being that Sarah "Oath-Breaker"

You mean Obama not upholding and enforcing the US constitution because

Actually, no I was referring to Sarah Palin's borderline seditious behavior and her seemingly complete lack of a moral or ethical backbone when it comes to honoring her commitments.

thomaswong.1986 says

How about all the wire taps and Prism programs ? How you feeling about that.

I think that they are awful, and I would love it if the Republicans would actually wrest control of their party back from the criminally insane, and field candidates that would not just amplify the same abhorrent programs that Obama has allowed to continue.

I guess I am to assume then that you are condemning Palin's oath-breaking with the same vim-and-vigor you use for Obama.

leo707   befriend   ignore   Wed, 11 Dec 2013, 1:18am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 6

Call it Crazy says

Wow, Alaska seceded from the US while Palin was governor?

Haha, silly Crazy! No...no...Palin only supported and exalted the virtues of an organization that is pushing for the succession of Alaska. Why, if they had been successful she never would have been picked as McCain's running mate -- assuming that she survived the civil war following an Alaskan attempt to secede --, but maybe they would have made her the Queen of Alaska!

Call it Crazy says

leo707 says

Did Sarah Palin not take the oath of office for Governor of Alaska? I don't think that resigning a post counts as "...faithfully discharge [ones] duties..."

I see, double standard... She can't do it but Obama can as Senator...

So...then in your eyes the time-honored tradition of resigning a post when one is elected to a higher office is equivalent to resigning ones position to pursue a career in reality-TV? Hmmm...not the way I see it, but I guess for some realty-TV is pretty important American institution.

leo707   befriend   ignore   Tue, 10 Dec 2013, 8:07am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 7

Call it Crazy says

leo707 says

You are talking about Palin, right? Yeah, she did pledge to "...support and defend..." the constitutions of the US and Alaska. Then she broke that pledge.

How so??

Did Sarah Palin not take the oath of office for Governor of Alaska? I don't think that resigning a post counts as "...faithfully discharge [ones] duties..."

Sarah Palin's oath of office = FAIL

How about when Palin says, "...indivisible..." in the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States? Did you know that the Alaskan Supreme Court has ruled that any attempt for Alaska to secede from the US would be in violation of the Alaskan Constitution? Care to guess what the US Constitution would say about that?

After Palin's oath to "...support and defend..." both the Alaskan and US Constitution she attended events of the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) calling them "inspirational." At one time her husband was also a member of the AIP. The AIP is of course famous for pressing for Alaska to succeed from the US. Inspirational, indeed...I don't know about you but praising an organization that is in direct Constitutional violation would not, in my book, be supporting and defending the Constitution. In fact I believe it to be the opposite.

Sarah Palin's oath to support and defend the Constitution = FAIL

Sarah Palin's pledge of allegiance to the US = FAIL

leo707   befriend   ignore   Tue, 10 Dec 2013, 6:56am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 8

thomaswong.1986 says

which one of these already pledged to protect the state and US constitution...

You are talking about Palin, right? Yeah, she did pledge to "...support and defend..." the constitutions of the US and Alaska. Then she broke that pledge.

To be fair, part of her broke oath of office was, "...I will faithfully discharge my duties as Governor to the best of my ability." If Palin was to make the argument that, as an inept governor, the best duty she could perform as governor of Alaska was to resign. Then she may not have technically violated that pledge.

Being that Sarah "Oath-Breaker" Palin has not yet made such an argument we can only assume that her pledge to the US Constitution, the Alaskan Constitution, and to the duties as Governor was worth less to her than the prospect of making millions as a reality-TV star.

leo707   befriend   ignore   Wed, 4 Dec 2013, 3:29am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 9

Reality says

...and I found this claim to be an entirely made-up bald-faced lie, that has absolutely no grounding in any reality whatsoever -- including "reality" as perceived by a hysterical mescaline junky.

With lots of legitimate apologist arguments as to why the US infant mortality is so much more worse than many other countries why resort to such an outrageously transparent and verifiable lie?

If your intent is to play an absurd internet character making tea-servatives appear to be dangerously insane then, congratulations well done sir!

It is not a lie, but a fact on the ground that your pea brain is too small to comprehend. Cuban government infant mortality tally does not register a person as being born until 10 months after birth.

Wow, I would think that you would at least reference the original source of the lie. Then again truthiness is probably your reference, so then no real proof...

On the same note...the existence of The Great A'tuin is an actual fact on the ground that your quark sized brain is too small to comprehend.

And...before you mention that a quark is too small to be considered a brain; the fact that you have a quark sized brain is also another fact that your brain is too small to comprehend.

I like the way you prove facts, it is so refreshingly to be unburdened by having to do actual research or corroboration with the real world.

leo707   befriend   ignore   Tue, 3 Dec 2013, 3:38am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 10

Reality says

CL says

Reality says

Like which one? Cuba where the average patients wait to die while the best doctors treat foreign dignitaries?

Cuba has better care for many people, including lower infant mortality rates. I mean, if you care about dead babies.

Did you look into how "infant mortality" is tallied in Cuba?

Yes...

Reality says

The newborn is not counted until it is 10months old! Yes, in the Orwellian world that is Cuba, a newborn that dies in the first 10 months is not born at all! Most real infant mortality takes place in the first 10 months!

...and I found this claim to be an entirely made-up bald-faced lie, that has absolutely no grounding in any reality whatsoever -- including "reality" as perceived by a hysterical mescaline junky.

With lots of legitimate apologist arguments as to why the US infant mortality is so much more worse than many other countries why resort to such an outrageously transparent and verifiable lie?

If your intent is to play an absurd internet character making tea-servatives appear to be dangerously insane then, congratulations well done sir!

leo707   befriend   ignore   Fri, 22 Nov 2013, 6:55am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 11

debyne says

I don't disagree if we could magically transform our entire healthcare industry in the blink of an eye to try it out, but moving to that model would be politically unpopular and very painful in my opinion...who knows, maybe I'm wrong.

Politically unpopular, very painful...I think you are right. We can dream though right ;)

debyne says

However, I think we could get as good or better than Singapore if we morphed our existing model into competing HMOs.

I had Kaiser for many years and did "enjoy" it, there are a lot of great things about it, but today its system would not be ideal to fit my needs. I think that the HMOs can be good examples of what private firms do well with healthcare, but they still have some pretty big deficiencies and depending on ones needs/condition the choices are very limited. Also, competing HMOs is still going to give the consumer a very limited "free market" experience; one still gets "locked in" to an HMO for a term (year?) and if they need a procedure they are stuck with in-house pricing and cannot "shop around."

I don't think that we would get very close to the efficiency in Singapore, because they have seemed to have struck a balance of when it is more efficient for the government to step in and take over care. A lot of that care, which is a lot of the heavy lifting in a healthcare system, is not run efficiently under the HMO system.

Also, now that I am thinking of it, HMOs are an option in our current system. If they could really provide healthcare at ~%25 of the current US cost (as does Singapore) one would think that they would be doing so, and US consumers would be flocking to them. At my current work HMOs are an option, but they are not priced any better. What is stopping them from becoming more efficient and competing the other options out of business?

leo707   befriend   ignore   Fri, 22 Nov 2013, 6:25am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 12

debyne says

leo707 says

Why add a government layer? Because -- as shown by every other industrialized nation -- it seems to work.

But other countries' single payer setups are different than what you're proposing. They don't have insurance companies and they collect the revenue, pay out the claims, etc., and proposing that type of model would be astronomical change.

Right, -- well, sort of* -- and these other single payer systems do it all much cheaper, by at least half, than we do with our massive private insurance system.

* This was "sort of" because the examples I used were Singapore which does have a layer of private insurance. However, Singapore's private insurance is primarily utilized by only the wealthy and can only be used once one is fully vested in the government plans. A majority of Singapore's system is based on a single payer, and they have one of the most effective -- both in cost and results -- healthcare systems in the world.

There is no healthcare system in the industrialized world similar to what you propose. It seems that one of the best and most cost effective systems is to be like Singapore; having a strong government role in: regulation, long-term care, chronic conditions, etc; having everyone required to pay into the government system before they can buy private insurance; having private "free-market" competition do what it does best in healthcare: critical care, checkups, preventative care, elective procedures, etc.

leo707   befriend   ignore   Fri, 22 Nov 2013, 6:13am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 13

debyne says

Dan8267 says

Single payer is not health insurance. Medicare is.

Single payer does not take tax dollars. Medicare does.

Why would you want to add another layer of administrative BS in the whole process? Right now, we have providers and insurance companies. Now you want to add a gov't layer on top of all that?

Why add a government layer? Because -- as shown by every other industrialized nation -- it seems to work.

It would be great if we had a system as cost efficient and universally covering as Singapore -- where 80% of the hospital beds are owned and operated by the government, and the bulk of healthcare money goes through government hands before it is payed out to providers public or private. Like Singapore has done, we would first have to shrink private providers to the roles that they seem to be good at and let the government take over a majority of hospitals. We would also have -- once again like is done by, very successful, Singapore -- to setup multiple levels of government savings and payment programs that are mandatory before one can be eligible to buy private insurance.

Also, the government layer is necessary to regulate/manage the healthcare market and assure that the private firms are playing by the rules.

leo707   befriend   ignore   Thu, 21 Nov 2013, 8:53am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 14

debyne, I am for free markets and competition, many industries benefit from these. (However, I think that we agree that there is a need to regulate a free market to insure that it stays free) Hell, we could talk about a lot of industries and agree on how competition and free markets benefit them.

I just don't see healthcare being an industry that benefits from the free market approach. A limited degree of free market -- like is used in Singapore -- sure...but not almost entirely run through private free market interests.

I also don't think services like police, fire, etc. should be free market either.

I am not sure how you reconcile the fact that every other industrialized nation runs their healthcare entirely or almost entirely as a single-payer government run program. Without exception everyone of these government run programs costs much less and has better results than our healthcare system dictated by private companies. Private industry has certainly not made healthcare in the US efficient.

leo707   befriend   ignore   Thu, 21 Nov 2013, 8:44am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 15

debyne says

If insurance companies don't do it, who will? A slow, expensive monopoly like the government?

Slow expensive monopolys are not the exclusive providence of governments.

Let us not mistake our system of private insurance companies and healthcare providers for something that in any way resembles free market competition.

debyne says

That's the beauty of competition...major portions of any profits that a company makes in a competitive marketplace have to be reinvested into making the company produce results more efficiently and effectively.

Private firms are not motivated to produce widgets efficiently and effectively, they are motivated by profit. Yes, at times profit it helped by in creasing efficiency, but often times large amounts of profits are gained through other means. The private US healthcare system is a prime example of greater profits through inefficiency and poor product quality.

leo707   befriend   ignore   Thu, 21 Nov 2013, 8:44am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 16

debyne says

Their costs are lower for entirely different reasons. For example, they don't do fee-for-service, they don't have the tort issues we have, they perform more medical services outside of expensive hospitals, etc.

So, what you are telling me is that the government run healthcare systems that every other industrial nation in the world enjoys have been able to develop methods that lower the cost of healthcare -- while maintaining a high level results -- without major action from private "free market" companies?

leo707   befriend   ignore   Thu, 21 Nov 2013, 7:39am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 17

debyne says

Because insurance companies can perform all of the claims adjudication, quality and utilization reviews, etc. much more efficiently and effectively than the government, who has zero motivation to be efficient.

Why then do other countries where the government does the bulk of the claims adjudication, etc. spend at least half of what we do on healthcare? And to boot the US has some of the worst healthcare results in the industrialized world.

Perhaps the private insurance companies are more efficient, but keep for themselves any of the savings due to increased efficiency, plus their 100% vig of course.

So, then what is the point to our having insurance companies doing everything?

leo707   befriend   ignore   Mon, 18 Nov 2013, 7:54am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 18

Quigley says

Ship him to Oakland

Please don't.

Other Pnet forum members (at least one that I remember) have stated that they would like having a someone like Zimmerman in their neighborhood. I believe that now is the time for them to step up to the plate and offer Zimmerman a place to stay.

leo707   befriend   ignore   Wed, 13 Nov 2013, 7:55am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 19

SoftShell says

So we now agree, Wilson told a "white" lie....??

Even assuming that the ends justifies the means, that does not change the nature of the ends.

Lying about an endorsement is not equivalent as saying, "No, honey those pants don't make you look fat."

I really don't know -- or really care much -- about Mr. Wilson or his predecessor. However, if he needed to be sleazy and lie in order to win it makes me wonder if he is any better than the person he is replacing. Sure Wilson's bullshit tricks to get elected are not a bad as Gavin Newsom's or Arnold Schwarzenegger's lies and deception, but it would be enough to put Wilson on my "never vote for" list.

One would hope that Mr. Wilson's smug arrogance on the matter would be enough to ensure his political death, but when the likes of Gavin Newsom seem to be doing fine...

leo707   befriend   ignore   Wed, 13 Nov 2013, 6:44am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 20

SoftShell says

There is a reason that the phrase "Lie of omission" exists. If it was equal to a "lie", there would be no need for the phrase. It is used to distinguish a specific action that is very similar to a lie, but not a lie.

No, "of omission" is a descriptor identifying the type of lie. You know, like a "little white" is another type of lie descriptor.

Not all lies are "of omission", but all "lies of omission" are lies. Kind of like not all whiskey is a bourbon, but all bourbons are whiskey.

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best of   about   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net