patrick.net

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.

monkframe says

The public option as you envision it would be considerably less a benefit than other industrialized

Yes, but it is enough to save lives and provide preventative care. By limiting it thus, you are more likely to make the basic needed health care readily available. By adding the extras, you will slow down the availablilty of the basic stuff as you supply procedures that are more of a lifestyle subsidy. We do not want the delays in critical care that are the norm for the British and Canadian systems.

Fireballsocal says

Very simple to ban an IP address.

yah, its not rocket science at all. 'something is very wrong with this country' when so many spew so much BS. a 'deather' im sure.

Nomograph says

nosf41 says

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.

Eventually, you are going to have to confront the unpleasant truth that you have been drawn into a conspiracy theory. You dismiss all evidence that counters your theory as “tainted”, and you give full faith and credit to any evidence that supports your theory no matter how dubious and incredible.
Yes, you are being ridiculed by the rest of America (and the world), and rightfully so. Obama won the election fair and square, so grow up and move on.

There is no need for conspiracy theory. Legally, Obama can prove his eligibility only in court. Posting documents on friendly web sites is not a proof. Shouting at people with different opinion and media ridicule is a communist tactic. I have lived through it before.
If Obama was a natural-born citizen, he would not have spent >1M$ on law firm fighting for the DISMISSAL of eligibility lawsuits. He does not want evidence to be heard in the courtroom.

It would be good for USA if Obama could prove "birthers" wrong on eligibility issue. How long does it take to order a release of the original birth certificate and hospital records that would match each other?
This is such a simple issue, there is no wiggle room. It is not similar to the difference of opinion on health care reform or stimulus plan (those could be neverending debates).
Either Obama was born in the USA and he can prove it in the court of law, or he cannot.
The sooner Obama proves "birthers" wrong - the better it is for the country. I will not be holding my breath.

In the 1980's (in my birth country), I was deceived by the clever media (state) propaganda several times. At that time courts were of no help to anybody who would challenge a communist party leader/policy. Most people were silent and went about their daily life fearing to publicly speak their mind. Some who were brave enough to publicly challenge the government dogma were imprisoned. There were always enough willing "journalists" who acted like attack dogs in the media.
I look at the media attacks on "birthers" as a proof that they are onto something. Otherwise, why would the media pay any attention to something that is not an issue?

Aren't you bothered by the unprecedented secrecy about Obama's past? He run for the highest political office in this country - yet he keeps all the documents from his past sealed and hidden from public. This is done in a dictatorship - not in a democracy.

HeadSet says

So, since the public option clients are government supported, will we see a trend toward government interest in personal lifestyles?

"...government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" - Abraham Lincoln Of course govt has interest in its citizens lifestyles. That because in a democracy YOU are making govt. Good examples are various tax breaks (for parents, education, homeownership).

nosf41 say:
"I look at the media attacks on “birthers” as a proof that they are onto something. Otherwise, why would the media pay any attention to something that is not an issue?"

Read the Enquirer, Star, Weekly World News, In Touch, In Style, People, Us... and then tell us how they managed to write entire magazines about something that is not an issue.

They just do.

Some Guy says

But stopping smoking and exercising are not compulsory.

True, but then neither do we have a public option. I am refering to possible events that may come about after adopting a public option, such as an increased government involvement in personal lifestyles.

If you imagine government agents coming to your house to knock the cigarette out of your mouth, I think you have a rather vivid imagination.

I never even infered that. But I will say that the gov can use other tools, such as mandantory smoking cessation classes or mandatory supervised exercise. Currently, drunk drivers can be forced to attend an appointment where an authorized person watches them swallow a certain pill. This pill will make the taker violently sick if the taker drinks alcohol. Something similar may be developed for smokers.

I don’t believe there is a provision to require private insurance companies to charge the exact same amount for everyone.

I am talking about the price of the public option itself, not any prices regulated on private carriers. If we have a public option, will the price of the public option be the same for everyone, regardless of age, pre-exsting conditions, and lifestyle?

HeadSet says

am refering to possible events that may come about after adopting a public option, such as an increased government involvement in personal lifestyles.

Please be specific when you say "involvement", what you mean by that. Govt might have interest in people's lifestyle (and they do), but that's different from involvement, because it might consider certain things are harmful for society. If govt want to "involve" into personal lifestyle, they can do it anyway - irrespective of public health insurance option. Cocaine, meth are illegal. Govt certainly did not need public health insurance to ban those things.

P2D2 says

If govt want to “involve” into personal lifestyle, they can do it anyway

Not the point. You do not think that if the government sponsors the public option, the gov will have a stronger incentive to "involve?" Nobody is doubting government power, we are talking about the incentive to further use that power.

Some Guy says

I didn’t notice any discernible difference. The state college did not have mandatory study sessions or anything different than the private college.

Bad analogy. The college doesn't care if you do not study, they will flunk you out of the system. With public option, they cannot disenroll anyone. So, is it you're opinion that all citizens will be allowed to purchase the public option, and there will be no strings attached for those who do? Will the price be the same for all who purchase the public option?

Some Guy says

But my question was, if they want a low cost, catastrophic-only plan, could they not purchase it from a private insurance company?

That is true today. But if we have a public option, we will likely see rules that mandate that any private insurance be at least as comprehensive as the public option. You will be able to supplement the public option, but not undercut it. In this case, we may see qualified private plans that are actually less expensive than the public option, but only sold to low risk customers. The high risk would end up on public option.