patrick.net

Once again, I owe you no explanation. I'm sorry you're spending your hard-earned dollars on hiring lawyers to "review the evidence" or however you spend them. To a Military person I would say that the man is his commander in chief and yes, their job is to blindly follow orders. Just as Bush was the commander in chief...

BobK says

I’m not talking just about overhead. I’m talking about the huge increase in demand for medical care simply because someone else is paying for it. In economic terms, the demand curve shifted to the right and prices went up.

Oh, I get it, you think it's OK for people to not get health care as long as it's cheaper for the few who can afford it. BobK says

ou don’t have to know biochemistry, biology, surgery, and animal medicine? Interesting. I’m glad that’s not using hi-tech stuff. And dentistry and Vets requires a doctorate degree (D.D.S and D.V.M respectively) I’m sure you don’t have either of these, and probably believe you can get one easily.

A doctorate degree? Really? Wow! If only I worked in an industry where Ph.Ds were common place. Oh, right, I do -- and we all get paid a hell of a lot less than physicians, or dentists for that matter. If you're ignorant enough to think that all doctoral degrees are the same, it's no wonder why you hold these other bizarre beliefs. I can assure you that there's a very large gulf between the doctoral degrees held by Dr Hunter S Thompson and Dr Ron Paul. BobK says

ike now? Where taxpayers are going to be in serfdom and the monarchy is the political elites?

Not even fucking close my friend. You have no idea what you're talking about. Ordinary people are better off today than the were at any time prior to the second world war. Get real. BobK says

Of course. It is good to enslave taxpayers, and medical professionals by having a government run program. Higher taxes + keep the wages for doctors and nurses low = recipe for disaster morally speaking.

Oh please. Have you ever been to a country with a single payer system? The doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals are doing just fine. "Enslave the taxpayers"? In the words of Barney Frank, on what planet do you spend most of your time? BobK says

’ve argued that religious charities do a better job of providing care for the poor than secular governments. Secular governments only care about politics and will declare people not worthy of human rights routinely.

Quick, find me a country where the majority of medical care for the poor comes from charity. Congratulations, you just found some shit hole in Africa.

Terri Schiavo was not an aberration. That’s what secular governments do when they have control over the health care of the people - they use it to deny human rights.

So you'd prefer a theocracy? Awesome. Let me know how your next visit to the middle east goes. Prefer Christian theocracy? How about Europe in the dark ages? BobK says

nd they also are the ones who provide funding for the charities to serve the poor.

And destroying any chance that they have for bettering themselves. No education? No medical care? That's ok, we'll give you a sandwich every Friday! BobK says

It does matter. It is the secularists preaching the anti-gospel of moral relativism. They’re the ones telling us there is no such thing as morality. So any moral arguments don’t work with them.

Really? "They're" telling you that there is no such thing as morality? What a load of bullshit. Religion doesn't create morality, it just defines it in completely arbitrary ways (don't masturbate or eat shellfish -- especially at the same time!)

elliemae says

Once again, I owe you no explanation. I’m sorry you’re spending your hard-earned dollars on hiring lawyers to “review the evidence” or however you spend them. To a Military person I would say that the man is his commander in chief and yes, their job is to blindly follow orders. Just as Bush was the commander in chief…

What is new - you have no logical explanation; otherwise you would have provided it, just like you did for other questions.

Where did you get the idea that I am spending any money on lawyers?
It is Obama who is hiring high priced law firms to fight eligibility lawsuits. If he could produce a trivial document like birth certificate there would be no need to spend money on lawyers.

According to your logic, soldiers who commit war crimes following an order should not be prosecuted - they are just doing their duty!?
Soldiers should not be mindless robots. They took an oath to defend the Constitution. As a minimum, Obama should earn their trust on the eligibility issue. After all, he is signing orders to send them to war.

In Bush's case there was no doubt about his Constitutional eligibility to serve. This is not true in Obama's case. He should have been eager to prove his eligibility. The perfect opportunity was the first lawsuit by his fellow Democrat, Phil Berg.

yawn.

elliemae says

yawn.

Your one word reply shows me that you learned a lesson. No responses to other questions, because you do not want to show that you cannot answer the first one.
Unfortunately, in short term it ends our debate.

If you'll ever have any questions or would like to challenge any claims by "birthers", let me know.

I would also like to hear from anyone on this forum if you found something wrong with my reasoning about the eligibility issue.

i know some folks who made tons of money ( in the stock market). unfortunately i am not one of them. These guys are same ones who made money when the market was going up , then when it dived and now when its again going up....and we have been wining and scratching our heads all this time thinking why the world is not perfect. At the end of the day, its the guys who make money who win ! When we met for coffee to discuss the derivative crap , the first thing they use to talk about was on taking advantage of the coming crash and making money out of it, while i was complaining about how unjust the system is and that we have to bail them out...etc sometimes i doubt my attitude.

sometimes i doubt my attitude.

The rationale of If you can't beat 'em, join 'em so often turns into the defense of Everyone was doing it.

nosf41 say:
"Your one word reply shows me that you learned a lesson. No responses to other questions, because you do not want to show that you cannot answer the first one.
Unfortunately, in short term it ends our debate."

My one word reply - yawn - actually showed that you're boring me. No responses to other questions, because you are boring me. It ends our debate - because you're boring me."

I'll bet you're the one at parties that everyone tries to get away from.

elliemae says

nosf41 say:
“Your one word reply shows me that you learned a lesson. No responses to other questions, because you do not want to show that you cannot answer the first one.
Unfortunately, in short term it ends our debate.”
My one word reply - yawn - actually showed that you’re boring me. No responses to other questions, because you are boring me. It ends our debate - because you’re boring me.”
I’ll bet you’re the one at parties that everyone tries to get away from.

If that is your opinion - fine. I can live with that.
My goal when when started posts on this thread was to challenge all those who ridicule "birthers" and respond to them in a calm manner using logical evidence pointing to the contrary. So far it seems that none of Obama's supporters could defend his behavior on eligibility issue.

So, you are into betting - Would you put your money on Obama's birth hospital being:
a) Queens Medical Center (Honolulu)
b) Kapiolani Hospital (Honolulu)
c) Outside the USA

Few months ago, Obama's campaign (web site) switched answer from (a) to (b). They did it only after World Net Daily published an article pointing out to an inconsistency in birth hospital claims. His sister claimed (a) few years ago.
My guess is (c), but we cannot be sure because original documents are hidden from public. Obama does not want courts involved in resolving the issue. Why?
Kids cannot play in the Little League without proving their age. They have a higher verification standard than US presidential elections.

Can we file a law suit against MLS for misleading (aka outright lie) the public like this?

Ronald Reagan was very liberal in spending money that the government did not have.

Some Guy says

LOL, by the standards that some right-wing nuts now consider “conservative”, Ronald Reagan would have been a liberal.

Fair enough. But would today's left wing nuts consider "liberal" JFK a conservative?

Wingnut(TM) refers only to right-wingers. There is no correspondingly large and equally insane group of left-wingers.

justme says

Wingnut(TM) refers only to right-wingers. There is no correspondingly large and equally insane group of left-wingers.

That would depend on where one puts the fulcrum in the balance. One who puts the fulcrum dead center would notice nuts on the far left and far right. One who puts the fulcrum a bit too far off cemter is in danger of being too close to the nuts to notice them.

You people are BATSHIT crazy................ I would suggest building concrete bunkers in your back yards and supplying them with food for, oh, 7 years and hunker down. Please?

woefatcat says

You people are BATSHIT crazy……………. I would suggest building concrete bunkers in your back yards and supplying them with food for, oh, 7 years and hunker down. Please?

:) amen, brother!

In its defense, Little League is a serious sport. :)

Constitutionalist says

If insurance companies were gouging the public, the evidence would show up in one of two places, according to Graef Crystal, a compensation expert in Santa Rosa, California, and occasional Bloomberg News columnist: excessive executive pay or excessive returns to shareholders. His analysis of five major health insurers shows just the opposite: below-market pay and below-market shareholder returns. “There’s no case here for undue enrichment of shareholders” or over-compensating CEOs, Crystal finds. Health care needs a major overhaul, but that’s no reason to make scapegoats out of insurance companies.

What an absurd claim. If I had a business that made driving your vehicle 50% more expensive (say, by expanding auto insurance to provide "insurance" for gasoline purchases, "insurance" for oil changes, etc.), with no actual benefit, and that business produced below market pay for me and below market returns for my shareholders would you say that it was a good business? Because that's what (health) insurance companies do. Of course, we don't have quite such an absurd system with auto insurance because there is a public option (it's called a bus).

Constitutionalist says

Some Guy says

Asshole republicans don’t even know what they’re protesting against - their right to be anally raped by big insurance companies? Just puppets dancing around, with the good ole boys of the GOP pulling the strings, then off to pick up their big fat check from Blue Cross and Kaiser. I can picture the emperor from Star Wars standing off to the side - “Excellent! Give in to your hate. Thank you for doing my bidding.”

We know EXACTLY what we are protesting against… the threat to PERSONAL CHOICE. You know, lib … CHOICE?! Its your mantra when justifying killing unborn babies — but damn those Republicans for wanting Americans to have a say in their health protocols. The fact you pin this on Insurance Companies shows you are nothing more than a shrill (an uninformed one at that) Obamabot …. Facts are stubborn things, this White House is quick to remind us. And in this case, the facts don’t support the vilification. If insurance companies were gouging the public, the evidence would show up in one of two places, according to Graef Crystal, a compensation expert in Santa Rosa, California, and occasional Bloomberg News columnist: excessive executive pay or excessive returns to shareholders. His analysis of five major health insurers shows just the opposite: below-market pay and below-market shareholder returns. “There’s no case here for undue enrichment of shareholders” or over-compensating CEOs, Crystal finds. Health care needs a major overhaul, but that’s no reason to make scapegoats out of insurance companies.

PERSONAL CHOICE. We want a public option, you can choose to keep your shitty private insurance company and make those f*ckers richer if you want it. That is a real CHOICE.

nosf41 says

Kids cannot play in the Little League without proving their age. They have a higher verification standard than US presidential elections.

My son plays little league, and they were perfectly happy with a photocopy of his certificate of live birth.

I recently had to get a new passport. My certificate of live birth worked just fine there too.

As near as I can tell, the only place where that document doesn't prove who I am and where I was born is if I want to be a member of batshit crazy ville.

Kevin says

nosf41 says

Kids cannot play in the Little League without proving their age. They have a higher verification standard than US presidential elections.

My son plays little league, and they were perfectly happy with a photocopy of his certificate of live birth.
I recently had to get a new passport. My certificate of live birth worked just fine there too.
As near as I can tell, the only place where that document doesn’t prove who I am and where I was born is if I want to be a member of batshit crazy ville.

The following is link to California District 8 Little League web site:
http://www.d8ll.org/Sign-ups.htm

" Proof of Age:
The original certificate of birth is the most commonly used document to verify age. This cannot be a copy produced on a copy machine. An authorized copy obtained from the county is acceptable. There are other ways to obtain proof of age if the original certificate of birth is not available. Please click here to review the official requirements.
Please keep in mind that a baptismal certificate or the hospital issued announcement of birth, by themselves, are not acceptable. The hospital issued document typically has the child's foot prints and because this is not a government issued document - it is not considered acceptable."

The COLB documet published by Obama on a friendly web site was not accepted even by the state of Hawaii until July of 2009. Could it be that the "birthers" controversy prompted Democrats in Hawaii to provide a cover for Obama by changing the law.

Nomograph says

nosf41 says

The COLB documet published by Obama on a friendly web site was not accepted even by the state of Hawaii until July of 2009. Could it be that the “birthers” controversy propmpted Democrats in Hawaii to provide a cover for Obama by changing the law.

The plot keeps getting thicker and thicker. Pretty soon it will be so thick that just thinking about it will feel like having rocks in your head.

The proper way to resolve the Obama's eligibility is to examine the evidence by courts. We cannot trust a document posted on friendly web site nor words of State officials.

The following link describes a criminal case (in 2004) where a state official (New Jersey) created false birth records for foreigners:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande1028_r.htm

" The former deputy registrar of the Hudson County Office of Vital Statistics pleaded guilty today to conspiring to illegally transfer Hudson County birth certificates, U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie announced.
The guilty plea from Jean Anderson, 40, of Jersey City, is the culmination of an extensive investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Diplomatic Security Service, an agency of the Department of State, into the issuance of fraudulent birth certificates from the Hudson County Office of Vital Statistics (HCOVS).
An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate.
As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally..."

If Obama had nothing to hide, he would have welcommed opportunity to prove his eligibility in courts. Yet he is doing everything to stop courts from examining the evidence.
You have to have blind faith in him to belive otherwise.

Constitutionalist says

Do you libtards have any clue that 40% of workers with employment-based health insurance work for employers that self-insure?

I was aware of it, but it's pretty meaningless. Here's why: - About 20% of all employers self-insure - About 40% of people work for self-insurers HOWEVER - 88% of self-insured employees are union members Unions can self-insure because they have the same large negotiating power as insurers do (when you have thousands of members, it's pretty easy). Unions overwhelmingly support single payer, mostly because it means one less thing to negotiate.

Chill out guys. To lighten things up, here some funny posters/signs from various town-hall meetings. My favorite is "Youth in Asia will kill your grandma". I guess Euthanasia "Youth in Asia" are really scary thing people. I should be careful next time with any asian looking guy. So, I am proposing a new reform-bill to my congressman - Healthcare Dictionary for everybody.

Another favorite - "NO Pubic option". Govt, please stay away from my pubic area.

Constitutionalist says

Don’t sweat the Prius denial — I’d just run over you in my big SUV anyway.

I am not able to get past the fact that the name of the above poster is "Constitutionalist". :)

Constitutionalist says

Kevin says

Constitutionalist says

Do you libtards have any clue that 40% of workers with employment-based health insurance work for employers that self-insure?

I was aware of it, but it’s pretty meaningless. Here’s why: - About 20% of all employers self-insure - About 40% of people work for self-insurers HOWEVER - 88% of self-insured employees are union members Unions can self-insure because they have the same large negotiating power as insurers do (when you have thousands of members, it’s pretty easy). Unions overwhelmingly support single payer, mostly because it means one less thing to negotiate.

Kevin - agree with your numbers, but the point was there are still a very large number of people in the US are not covered by “private insurers”. Not saying it is a good thing either way, people just think if you have insurance it is always provided by the “villian” insurance companies who decide your fate. Just pointing out this is not always the case.

Are these numbers up to date? This RAND study http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/18/3/161.pdf showed that the number of employees covered by self-insurance fell from 40% to 33% in the 4 years from 1993-1997, due mainly to a shirt to managed care/HMO plans. This shift was in turn driven by escalating costs (and this was 12 years ago). Also, the report mentions that firms that only partially self-insure were counted in these figures (in other words, those firms that contract out major medical to insurance companies.) I'd be interested to find out how many companies/unions that self-insure also contract with insurance companies for major medical. This is the case with my health plan, which self-insures for all claims up to $5,000. Everything over that amount is underwritten by Blue Cross/Anthem, and they therefore also piggyback on to their PPO list. Would seem managing/negotiating a PPO list throughout all states covered by a union or company would be an obstacle for all but the very largest groups. Also, this form of partial self-insurance still forces you to contend with the major insurance companies for anything substantial, such as surgery or chemo.

Constitutionalist says

Some Guy says

Like I said, naive. You think you can never lose your job (or your husband or whoever provides your fabulous health insurance) you will never lose your health insurance, and you will never have a “pre-existing condition” and be barred from health insurance for life. You are living in a fool’s paradise. I would feel sorry for you, but your “I’ve got mine so fuck the rest of you” attitude makes me not give a shit about you and your little “perfect” world. Why don’t you fucking pay attention and stop spouting your right-wing drivel? MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE UNISURED. What part of that don’t you understand? We don’t give a fuck if you like your insurance - MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE UNINSURED. That needs to be fixed. Are you too stupid to comprehend that, or are you just an asshole?

What about the soaring costs of Elite Private Schools? What happens when my son gets into Stanford? WHO WILL PAY??? WHO? BOO fucking HOO … For a guy you are seriously whiny and neutered. Man up, already.

I love that you dumb conservatives make our arguments for us. If you can't pay for an elite private school YOU GO TO PUBLIC SCHOOL! Get it? A PUBLIC OPTION! Somehow Stanford and Harvard haven't gone out of business. I realize critical thinking is not your strong point, but making our point for us is too generous.

Kevin says

nosf41 says

Kids cannot play in the Little League without proving their age. They have a higher verification standard than US presidential elections.

My son plays little league, and they were perfectly happy with a photocopy of his certificate of live birth.
I recently had to get a new passport. My certificate of live birth worked just fine there too.
As near as I can tell, the only place where that document doesn’t prove who I am and where I was born is if I want to be a member of batshit crazy ville.

Be careful there, Kevin. Your words can be easily twisted to be interpreted that you believe that little league isn't a serious sport - after all, they were "perfectly happy" to accept substandard information as proof of your son's age. Your words also raise the issue that our little league gatherings are terrorist training camps for young children who don't have to prove their loyalty when they join. Also, that there could be an entire birth certificate ring that creates birth certificates for little leaguers so that their comrades can infiltrate the team and gain information from parents about our vulnerabilities. As this would be expensive, the birth certificate ring has got to be funded by drug cartels, who also fund arming the Taliban with technologies and weaponry capable of ending life as we know it. Osama & you probably have each other on speed-dial.

You've proven that your loyalty isn't to our government merely by the tone of your reply: "I recently 'had' to get a new passport." What, you got a problem that our government wanted to update its probably massive File on you by requiring you to apply for a new passport? What makes you so much better than everyone else, that you don't have to update? (I'm sure your obvious Narcissistic Personality Disorder is addressed thoroughly in your File...) You go on to say: "My certificate of live birth worked just fine there too." So, once again you revel in the fact that our country, to whom you have no loyalty, is lax in its security checks of citizens. Probably nothng like YOUR country, the one for which you've callously used your child to betray.

Kevin, I demand your explanation, and this discussion can go no further, until you answer this question YES or NO. Simple enough, one would think?

Kevin, are you still a Taliban operative living undercover in the United States as a boring, middle-class family man?

Insofar as your statement :"As near as I can tell, the only place where that document doesn’t prove who I am and where I was born is if I want to be a member of batshit crazy ville."

I don't know what it's like to be an actual member o fbatshit crazyville, because I'm not quite there yet...

...but I believe I'm getting closer!

Constitutionalist says

P2D2 says Constitutionalist says Don’t sweat the Prius denial — I’d just run over you in my big SUV anyway. I am not able to get past the fact that the name of the above poster is “Constitutionalist”. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness DOES protect the right to travel in a large, luxury vehicle with XM radio and OnStar. (/sarcasm)

LOL! I am curious if you ever read US Constitution? The phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" does not come from US Constitution. It's in Declaration of Independence. So I am not sure what your point is. Secondly, I don't have any problem with someone driving "large, luxury vehicle with XM radio and OnStar" (although bragging about it tells a lot about the person). My comment was about "I’d just run over you". I guess running over someone is part of "Pursuit of Happiness" too - for some people (sarcasm).

SR-LA, That's an excellent point. Many public universities are just as good as the private ones, and they provide important price competition against the private universities. It is a near perfect domestic proof of existence that shows that the public option is good for everyone.

Well, Kevin. It's been two hours and you still have no answers for our readers? Don't you owe us more than that? Oh, yea - that's right - your loyalty is to the dark side. Us God fearing Christians who are born & bred Americans are deeply offended by you and your liberal, potentially damaging views.

What's that? You might not be online? A flimsy excuse!

"Now that’s rich! What about the guilt factor of the Democrats “manufacturing” a president, and using Acorn to commint voter fraud on a grand scale that makes Bush jr. look like a preschooler in politics? That's all I have to read: The poster is lost before he even begins.

Very simple to ban an IP address.

stillrentinginLA says

If you can’t pay for an elite private school YOU GO TO PUBLIC SCHOOL! Get it? A PUBLIC OPTION! Somehow Stanford and Harvard haven’t gone out of business.

Now that is a convincing argument. It puts to bed the idea that a public option would kill all private insurers, but there is still the matter of whether tax money should support a public option in the same manner as public schools, military, highways, courts, and so on. Assuming we get a public option (in the long run, it will most likely gravitate to that), there is still some implementation issues that supporters of a public option may disagree among themselves on: For example, would (should) the Public Option include a cafeteria plan? That is, if I am a low paid or healthy person, can I buy a cheap Public Option that only covers emergency room and catastrophic illness? Of course, a sickly person may want a more comprehensive, although more expensive plan. Obama said he wants no such patchwork plans. He wants a one size fits all where everyone pays the same. But suppose the cost for this is $400/mo per insured family? Not all families/individuals would find that affordable. Personally, I would like to see a very basic, cheap public option that would cover emergency room visits, yearly physicals, catastrophic illness, immunizations, and meds above a certain amount. The citizen would be on his own for dentistry, broken bones, cosmetic procedures like boob jobs or wart burning, abortions, routine childbirth (except NICU situations), addiction treatments like smoking cessation or methadone, eating disorder treatments like stomach stapling, and all types of fertility treatments or male enhancement pills. The citizen could pay for such procedures themselves, or buy private insurance to cover them.

More on the Public Option: If we do go to a public option (which will likely require all citizens to buy either approved private insurance or this public option), what happens with visitors to the USA? Do we require visitors to buy trip medical insurance? Or do we do a reciprosity deal with foreign nations, you cover our citizens we'll cover yours? So what will we do with illegals and "scofflaw" citizens who never bought a public or private policy? Oddly enough, since we let illegals get drivers's licenses and in-state tuition, we will probrably let them buy a public policy.

Even more on the Public Option: Since the public option is designed to be affordable for those who cannot afford private insurance, it will most likely pay out more in medical costs than it takes in premiums. There is also the issue where some families will not be able to afford even the lower cost public policy, and those families will have the premiums funded by taxpayers. So, since the public option clients are government supported, will we see a trend toward government interest in personal lifestyles? Some may say the government is justified (and has a fudiciary interest) in mandatory smoking cessation or even compulsory physical training. After all, a private insurer could raise the rates on or drop coverage for smokers or others with lifestyle risks, but the government must keep public policies affordable and universally available.

The public option as you envision it would be considerably less a benefit than other industrialized countries. Private insurance is available in Canada and the UK for those wealthy folks who want it now. So what you propose is considerably better than what creeps like Joe Lieberman envisage for the sheeples.

Bap33 says

I mentioned that helth stuff up above

Yep, and I didn't even mention rationing. No matter what system we use, there is not enough transplant organs or specialized doctors to go around. We are fat on million dollar ambulances, nightingale helicopters, private hospital rooms, MRIs, CAT scans, dialysis machines, sonograms, X-rays, and medicines, but all to no avail if you need a liver and none are available.