patrick.net

tatupu70 says

MCM says

Folks die because of lack of healthcare.

Yes, and they don’t get healthcare without insurance. Are you having a problem making that connnection?

Do you intentionally ignore those pesky little facts that contradict your predetermined political view of the healthcare industry, or does that happen subconsiously?

CBOEtrader says

Do you intentionally ignore those pesky little facts that contradict your predetermined political view of the healthcare industry, or does that happen subconsiously?

lol--could be either. Tell me which "facts" I'm missing and I'll let you know.

tatupu70 says

Well, it’s very difficult for a layman to determine if Wellpoint is hiding profits as I can only see their public statements–if it was in there, it wouldn’t really be hidden now would it? And give me a break with the SEC and Sarbanes Oxley BS–you don’t think there are ways to move around numbers to make you appear less profitable?

So in other words, since you have no evidence at all, you are just going to assume that they are hiding profits, simply because you distrust private enterprise and trust government (what government says). Like a witch hunt... Claim they make too much profit... They show you the numbers showing otherwise, and the only possible answer, with no evidence, is that they must be hiding something....

tatupu70 says

Wellpoint free cash flow “exceeded $3 billion for 2009″ Hmmm–that sounds like some serious money to me.

Clearly you don't understand what this is. But if your point were valid, then why did the WH need to engage in misleading propaganda and not just use this instead? I appreciate you trying to turn the argument into it being about Wellpoint itself - how else to divert the example ABOUT THE WHITE HOUSE towards something else in order to pretend the WH isn't lying?

tatupu70 says

Granted, there will be some administrative costs under any program, but I’d like to think that we could trim a LOT there… So, there you go. $100 billion/year.

Once again, after all of the machinations in this forum, and name calling of conservatives because this *ISN'T* about nationalizing the whole system under "single payer," you are at least the 2nd person today to directly or indirectly admit that the conservatives are right: That is exactly what this is about, and that is exactly why this bill was put into place - as a first step. Thanks for finally coming clean.

Paralithodes says

They show you the numbers showing otherwise, and the only possible answer, with no evidence, is that they must be hiding something….

Huh? They showed me numbers showing exactly what I expected. Not otherwise.

Paralithodes says

Clearly you don’t understand what this is.

Clearly I don't understand what free cash flow is? It is the best gauge for how much money a company is actually making. Most of the accounting shenanigans are stripped away...

Paralithodes says

Once again, after all of the machinations in this forum, and name calling of conservatives because this *ISN’T* about nationalizing the whole system under “single payer,” you are at least the 2nd person today to directly or indirectly admit that the conservatives are right: That is exactly what this is about, and that is exactly why this bill was put into place - as a first step. Thanks for finally coming clean.

If you remember, I've been pretty consistent with my view that we need universal health care and that I wasn't thrilled with the current bill. I hope it is the first step. I'm not sure who called you a name, but it almost certainly wasn't because you said this bill was a first step towards nationalization of health care. Every other civilized country has nationalized health care and the results speak for themselves--lower health care cost per capita and better results.

tatupu70 says

CBOE–
I might agree with you if there were ANY examples of efficient, market driven healthcare solutions. They don’t exist. Every other civilized country has universal health care. At significantly lower costs.
If I’m wrong and there is a good example to follow, please show me.

This is a good point. I've been unable to find any system that even resembles a free market?

Communism breaks down because of human nature, though it sounds nice on paper. I am open enough to admit that the Libertarian free-market ideal (whatever that is) may a similar, unrealistic ideal. In practice though, since the Libertarian ideal will never happen, it is a moot point.

Our current system lacks any consumerism pricing mechanism, is riddled with anti-competitive monopolies/oligopolies, and is drowning in contradictory/confusing/politically driven command and control regulations. Every one of these issues is by government design.

So, now we have the democrats (plus some indies), who are deep in the emotional throws of a honey-moon phase with this current bill. These people ignore the natural laws of scarcity. They base their entire support on a fantasy of how much better the France/Canada/Germany systems work compared to ours. Though the republicans are nothing more than political noisemakers right now, the democrats are happy to use the massive amount of crap the republicans spew as a distraction to what the dems are doing. To top it off the propoganda machine uses the lie that our "free-market" system is the problem. Then, even after using extreme propoganda and distraction tactics, the democrats have to use every legislative trick available to get this bill passed.

How in the world can anyone justify any of this?

CBOEtrader says

......drowning in contradictory/confusing/politically driven command and control regulations. Every one of these issues is by government design.

Is government an alien entity like those amoeba things on Spock's back in season 1 episode "Operation Annihilate"? No, it's a product of a basic impulse to take care of our own. I'm sure in Homo Neanderthalensis tribes there were those who preferred turning the aged & sick out to die, and those who argued for using tribe manhours and food to heal and care for them. IMO this is not about "government" this is about what society wants to do, as these outcomes are driven by large numbers of individuals wanting it to happen. It's a common tactic to blame "government" because this tactic avoids civil war dividing lines with your neighbors. Do you go to neighborhood cocktail parties and start cornering all the the "progressives" and castigating them for how wrong they are? If so you won't get invited to many.

I’m sure in Homo Neanderthalensis tribes there were those who preferred turning the aged & sick out to die, and those who argued for using tribe manhours and food to heal and care for them.

In the lacota tradition, the tribe shared every commodity equally. Every member was expected to work for the greater good of the tribe. To ration the life-supporting resources, the old men of the tribe would leave the tribe to die when they personally determined they were no longer capable of prividing more to their community than they consumed. This was not forced upon them, but was rather done out of a sense of honor and natures balance.

Vicente says

No, [government] is a product of a basic impulse to take care of our own.

No, big government is the default. Freedom is the product of a basic impulse to take care of our own. Freedom requires a vigilant citizenry to keep the "necessary evil" of government from continually grabbing more power. As Murray Rothbard stated in Capitalism vs Statism ,

"Throughout history, states have existed as instruments for organized predation and exploitation. It doesn't much matter which group of people happen to gain control of the State at any given time, whether it be oriental despots, kings, landlords, privileged merchants, army officers, or Communist parties. The result is everywhere and always the coercive mulcting of the mass of the producers — in most centuries, of course, largely the peasantry — by a ruling class of dominant rulers and their hired professional bureaucracy. Generally, the State has its inception in naked banditry and conquest, after which the conquerors settle down among the subject population to exact permanent and continuing tribute in the form of "taxation" and to parcel out the land of the peasants in huge tracts to the conquering warlords, who then proceed to extract "rent." "

An much like our current moral and intellectual justifications of bigger government,

"To make their rule permanent, the State rulers need to induce their subject masses to acquiesce in at least the legitimacy of their rule. For this purpose the State has always taken a corps of intellectuals to spin apologia for the wisdom and the necessity of the existing system. The apologia differ over the centuries; sometimes it is the priestcraft using mystery and ritual to tell the subjects that the king is divine and must be obeyed; sometimes it is Keynesian liberals using their own form of mystery to tell the public that government spending, however seemingly unproductive, helps everyone by raising the GNP and energizing the Keynesian "multiplier." But everywhere the purpose is the same — to justify the existing system of rule and exploitation to the subject population; and everywhere the means are the same — the State rulers sharing their rule and a portion of their booty with their intellectuals."

Vicente says

Do you go to neighborhood cocktail parties and start cornering all the the “progressives” and castigating them for how wrong they are? If so you won’t get invited to many.

I try not to discuss politics or religion with people in my life...particularly the inlaws.

CBOEtrader says

So, now we have the democrats (plus some indies), who are deep in the emotional throws of a honey-moon phase with this current bill. These people ignore the natural laws of scarcity. They base their entire support on a fantasy of how much better the France/Canada/Germany systems work compared to ours. Though the republicans are nothing more than political noisemakers right now, the democrats are happy to use the massive amount of crap the republicans spew as a distraction to what the dems are doing. To top it off the propoganda machine uses the lie that our “free-market” system is the problem. Then, even after using extreme propoganda and distraction tactics, the democrats have to use every legislative trick available to get this bill passed.

Any time someone tries to tell me how Democrats (and some indies) feel, I can pretty much guarantee that it will be a misrepresentation. Your post was no exception...

It sounds like you have some economics background. As such, I would think that you would understand that there are certain conditions which must be present in order for a free market to produce an optimal result. Things like available substitutes, good informational flow, etc. Things that are unlikely to be present in a healthcare market.

There are obvious reasons why healthcare does not work as a free market. Further, universal coverage is good from an economic point of view as well. When people are sick and die young, it hurts the country. The most productive years of people's lives are wasted...

I agree with everything you have said, even including:

tatupu70 says

Further, universal coverage is good from an economic point of view as well.

Unfortunately, you are describing the bill you want, instead of the current bill.

This post is riddled with delusional utopian assumptions:

MYTH: Americans will be forced to change insurance even if they don’t want to.

REALITY: You can keep your current plan if you’re satisfied with it. Some insurance plans that offer an inferior product may disappear from the market, “but that’s a good thing for consumers, because better products will be offered,” McGlynn said.

Existing plans don’t have to meet the higher benefit standards of new policies but will face tighter regulations, such as eliminating a ban on pre-existing conditions that would apply to all policies come 2014.

The health care bill simultaneously dictates what must be covered in each health care policy, while keeping non-compliance penalties at a ridiculous level. If an employer can pay a penalty of only $750 per employee per each year while saving $9000+/year per employee in not having to buy insurance, that's one helluva incentive for companies to drop their current insurance coverage in order to maximize profits, thereby driving their employees to seek their own federally subsidized insurance. In other words, taxpayers will be footing the bill while employers pocket savings.. all thanks to the perverse incentives in this healthcare reform legislation

And dictating that insurance companies MUST accept pre-existing conditions?.. why in the hell then should ANYONE then buy insurance until they're already seriously ill? It makes no economic sense to do otherwise. It's no different than the government forcing auto insurance companies to sell insurance to an uninsured driver after the fact to cover a wreck that's already happened.

Those are just the tip of the iceberg of the unintended consequences that this legislation will incentivize.

ZippyDDoodah says

The health care bill simultaneously dictates what must be covered in each health care policy, while keeping non-compliance penalties at a ridiculous level. If an employer can pay a penalty of only $750 per employee per each year while saving $9000+/year per employee in not having to buy insurance, that’s one helluva incentive for companies to drop their current insurance coverage in order to maximize profits, thereby driving their employees to seek their own federally subsidized insurance.

Huh? Before the bill, they could drop insurance without paying any penalty. Why would having to pay a penalty encourage companies to drop insurance?

Huh? Before the bill, they could drop insurance without paying any penalty. Why would having to pay a penalty encourage companies to drop insurance?

Does the answer really need to be spelled out for you? Any employer who offered insurance before, did so for a reason - to attract and retain quality employees in order to prevent them from jumping ship to a competitor who offered insurance. Now with federally subsidized insurance, those incentives have been obliterated. Workers and chronically unemployed individuals not covered by an employer plan are incentived not to purchase insurance at all, waiting years until they need it to "buy" it, facing a penalty of only $95/year for not being covered. Perverse incentives to the extreme. But in utopia-world, those added costs from changes in behavior are never considered

Employers of low skilled and part-time workers often didn't provide insurance. Those workers, many of whom are young, often didn't need insurance other than high-deductible catestrophic insurance

ZippyDDoodah says

Does the answer really need to be spelled out for you? Any employer who offered insurance before, did so for a reason - to attract and retain quality employees in order to prevent them from jumping ship to a competitor who offered insurance. Now with federally subsidized insurance, those incentives have been obliterated. Workers and chronically unemployed individuals not covered by an employer plan are incentived not to purchase insurance at all, waiting years until they need it to “buy” it, facing a penalty of only $95/year for not being covered. Perverse incentives to the extreme. But in utopia-world, those added costs from changes in behavior are never considered

If you would spell it out correctly, perhaps. That's not at all how it works. Think it all the way through. Wouldn't an employee want a higher salary if their employer didn't offer insurance? Employer offered insurance will remain an incentive for employees. Don't you think families will want insurance for their kids? Or if they get pregnant?

And I'm not 100% familar with the way the penalties will work, but my guess is that it is considered and you just don't understand it.

Think it all the way through. Wouldn’t an employee want a higher salary if their employer didn’t offer insurance? Employer offered insurance will remain an incentive for employees. Don’t you think families will want insurance for their kids? Or if they get pregnant?

Employee offered insurance used to be a valued benefit, something that would cost the employee on average, about $10k/year if he had to purchase similar insurance coverage out-of-pocket. Now that the govt is offering federally subsidized insurance in which pre-existing conditions cannot be denied, individuals and families can pay a token amount $95 penalty (rising to $695/yr by 2016 with exceptions for hardship cases) and then "buy" (many won't have to pay) insurance only when they need it and still be covered, not substantively different than if they had an employer plan. Not much different than paying for auto insurance only for the month when you've had an accident, since individuals only have to pay for insurance when they're receiving treatment. Employer provided insurance will no longer be such a valued incentive for that reason. Worse, there are perverse unintended consequences in play to incentivize employers to drop insurance coverage.. $750 or $3,000 annual penalty per employee for dropping insurance with penalty exemptions for small businesses with under 30 employees (flood of new business created by breaking into 30 employee legal subsidiaries to get that loophole?), a significant savings from what they would have to pay in annual insurance for their employees.

As for your "guess" that I don't understand the penalties, please tell me where I'm mistaken http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-18-health-bill-table_n.htm

First off, I'm not sure I trust USA today to break down a 2000 page bill into a one page chart, but even so it appears to me that you've misread parts of that chart. It's the greater of the fees you listed and 2% of income. Still not a large amount, but in most cases more than $95.

But I still maintain that the vast majority of families want to have health insurance all the time. At least in my family, the kids get sick pretty regularly. It would be ridiculous to continually drop, then reapply, then drop, then reapply for insurance.

We'll see--if there are obvious unintended consequences, I'm guessing that they will get fixed. I'm not ready to throw out the baby with the bath water as it were. The bill is not perfect--I agree 100%. But it's a step in the right direction.

tatupu70 says

We’ll see–if there are obvious unintended consequences, I’m guessing that they will get fixed. I’m not ready to throw out the baby with the bath water as it were. The bill is not perfect–I agree 100%. But it’s a step in the right direction.

This is a very emotional issue - one that Sarah Palin is exploiting along with the $100,000 she received to speak in Nashville and the cushy travel arrangements she received to incite the crowd in Searchlight. Not to mention the exclusive dinners for high donations...

We're all fucked.

But I still maintain that the vast majority of families want to have health insurance all the time. At least in my family, the kids get sick pretty regularly. It would be ridiculous to continually drop, then reapply, then drop, then reapply for insurance.

Think about it, what would the financial incentive be to maintain insurance all the time, when the government mandates that insurers must cover pre-existing conditions and imposes paltry drop-in-the-bucket penalties for not carrying insurance? If your kids are sick all the time, unless it's a major illness, doctor visits paid in cash + prescriptions shouldn't average over $200 out of pocket a month, maybe less, still way less than a monthly insurance payment. Your employer could give you a $2,000 bonus to pay for incidentals and he'd still come out way ahead, at taxpayers' expense of course.. that's may not be how it was "supposed" to work, but unintended consequences of big govt legislation are inevitable, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. If a serious illness or accident occurs, fine, then you could switch on the insurance for as long as needed. Why would you handle it any differently unless you like wasting money? The government has skewed incentives to an extreme. Most everyone will game the rules to benefit themselves and their families most. And if they do "fix" it, expect other unintended consequences as a result. I've read about these penalties from several sources, not just USA Today, so it's not like they're the only ones reporting it. And their article wasn't supposed to summarize the entire bill, just some of the highlights.

Telling how some focus on Sara Palin while ignoring the other side's emotional appeals bringing in the children, passing out white lab coats and demonizing of political opposition.

I understand what you are saying Zippy--I just don't agree. Have you tried to get a Drs appt recently without insurance? Good luck.

Like I said--if there are unintended consequences, I'm betting that they'll get fixed. It wouldn't be all that difficult really.

ZippyDDoodah says

Telling how some focus on Sara Palin while ignoring the other side’s emotional appeals bringing in the children, passing out white lab coats and demonizing of political opposition.

lol--I think Palin brings it on herself. She is guilty of some of the worst distortions in the whole debate. Neither side has brought distinction on theirselves on this one...

I love it you can debunk the Myths but you supply no facts.

CNN had a link on their page, that said...

"Healthcare Reform, how it effects you."

I expected a bullet of facts, but it was bevy of the milk chuggers, rattling on about how they it's going to benefit them. Which of course this is purely "Speculation" at this point, even for those poor saps.

just wondering if anyone has read through parts of the bill, it's H.R.3590, and can comment on the accuracy of the reporting.

HR 3590 is the Senate bill passed in 2009. I've looked at parts of it. The $95 penalty for individuals is dead accurate. In fact, they reduce the penalty based on # of months that you may have paid that year by 1/12 per month. I didn't see any percentage of income in the Senate bill as part of the penalty for individuals not paying for insurance coverage as was reported. If you have something specific to challenge or question Juan, then be specific, because it's a 2,400 page bill.. No one, including the politicians voting on it, could possibly understand all the implications. One reason why a majority of Americans oppose this bill is because it's so long and complicated. It's not straightforward at all. http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

Please copy and paste and send to everyone you know.

Copy and paste? Hell, I'll start another thread just to show the outright lies that are being thrown around.

Troy says

The stupid thing is that the only criticisms that carry any weight are those from the left, not the right.
ObamaCare’s mandate-with-subsidies (what is causing the most sand-in-the-vag reaction here) is basically what the f—ing Heritage Foundation was proposing not too long ago:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/david-frum-aei-heritage-and-health-care/
And of course it’s a lot like RomneyCare.
Most of this song and dance has been by the establishment to avoid any actual radical reform (single payer or the public option that would lead to single payer). The public has in fact been mau mau’d to accept something less than what we could have gotten with all three policy elements in Democratic hands.

Ah yes, good ol Paul Krugman. The man can't make a coherent argument or stick to one stance for more than a few weeks or months. This is the man who said (paraphrasing here) healthcare is different, its not a standard commodity or effected by normal supply and demand. This is silly utopian feel good nonsense. It doesn't even consider the hypocrisy that medical providers (docs, nurses etc.) should be held to a certain standard of pay but everyone else who busts their hump and earns more cash for said hard work is not a selfish jerk? Joe/Jane Average decides to leave a job thats a deadend for one that pays more or has less travel or less hours or a better chance of advancement but John/Judy Average goes into the medical field, well we should just force altruism on them. How dare they want to profit from their hard work. Krugman should donate the cash from his Nobel prize instead of enjoying the fruits of his labor.

As for Heritage, yeah no one ever makes mistakes. Romneycare (he walks it back and forth depending on the news cycle) appears to be anything but stable financially or providing decent care.

My main point anymore regarding HCR/Obamacare besides the "no more money left to pay for it" is the government mandate. I've heard the line for most of my 32 years that its "her body, her choice" regarding abortion/reproductive rights along with the mantra "get your sexist hands off my body!". Now I'm supposed to buy into the line that Uncle Sam knows better than me and will look out for me? My body, my choice. Get government hands off my body. I supposedly a sexist pig asshole if I tell Nancy Pelosi how to deal with her reproductive rights but her mandating healthcare insurance and coverage regs is just fine?

AltonS says

Now I’m supposed to buy into the line that Uncle Sam knows better than me and will look out for me? My body, my choice. Get government hands off my body.

You're free to choose any f---ing insurance plan you want. If you already have a health insurance coverage this bill is a nothing-burger, other than some side benefits like recission and preexisting conditions (making it much easier to transition from one plan to another), and some negatives as insurances companies raise rates to match the increased presence of medically needy people in their pools.

When I was laid off in 2008 one of the first things I did was shop for health insurance.

NOT having any sort of health insurance in your 30s and 40s may be freedom, but if that's the kind of freedom you libertarians insist on then count me a card-carrying communist because your ideology sucks.

Regarding insurance company profits, don't forget the oft ignored fact that despite sharing a name, they usually are not joined at the hip between state and regions. Bluecross of Tenessee is not the same company as Bluecross of Oregon/Washington. Some of them are not for profit companies too. Thats not to say I trust insurance companies but studying history, I have come to trust governments far far less.

Troy says

AltonS says

Now I’m supposed to buy into the line that Uncle Sam knows better than me and will look out for me? My body, my choice. Get government hands off my body.

You’re free to choose any f—ing insurance plan you want. If you already have a health insurance coverage this bill is a nothing-burger, other than some side benefits like recission and preexisting conditions (making it much easier to transition from one plan to another), and some negatives as insurances companies raise rates to match the increased presence of medically needy people in their pools.
When I was laid off in 2008 one of the first things I did was shop for health insurance.
NOT having any sort of health insurance in your 30s and 40s may be freedom, but if that’s the kind of freedom you libertarians insist on then count me a card-carrying communist because your ideology sucks.

You seem to ignore the fact that the government will have to approve of all plans offered. If I don't report that I have an approved plan or refuse to tell the gov. my status, I get fined. Given the huge bill, who knows exactly whats going to happen. Odds are my current plan will change somewhat. I already knew price hikes were coming this year, I expect they will next year as well despite cost reductions being a major selling point. I self insure and I will likely stay that way (lucky I can afford it definately). I've never liked insurance being tied to a job, it makes no sense anymore.

AltonS says

You seem to ignore the fact that the government will have to approve of all plans offered. If I don’t report that I have an approved plan or refuse to tell the gov. my status, I get fined.

oh noes. You libertarians make the most stupidest arguments on the internet.

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opinion/derek-kieper-individual-rights-buckle-under-seat-belt-laws-1.998553

"The duty of government is nothing more than to make sure everyone’s rights are protected and not infringed upon. Uncle Sam is not here to regulate every facet of life no matter the consequences."

vs.

http://www.journalstar.com/news/local/article_d61cc109-3492-54ef-849d-0a5d7f48027a.html

twelc says

Here’s a sample of what is included in Federal Health Care Reform:
Thomas Edwards, editor of The River Cities Tribune, was contacted to get
legal permission to quote David Kithil’s comments. Permission was
granted, so here are excerpts from the article, giving EXACT pages and
paragraphs in the bill and why it is so bad.
hits everything right on the head, and the opposition you may encounter
cannot argue over these points:
JUDGE KITHIL wrote:
“I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable
that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill
loaded with so many wrong-headed elements.
We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to
make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us
believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than
the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program?
“Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial
mess of those two programs.
“I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is
estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees
will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion
of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are
going to hire 150,000 new employees, let’s put them to work protecting
our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law
enforcement/firefighters out there.”
NOW, here comes the good stuff:
JUDGE KITHIL continued: “Other problems I have with this bill include:
** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S.
residents, even if they are here illegally.
** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an
individual’s bank account and will have the authority to make electronic
fund transfers from those accounts.
** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government)
for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations
(such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -
ACORN).
** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be
treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with
that?)
** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of
specialty, and the government will set all doctors’ fees.
** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to
the patient’s age.
** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital
expansion;however, communities may petition for an exception.
** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning
consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an
“end-of-life planning” seminar every five years.
** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can
write an end-of-life order.
HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:
“Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members
of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social
Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their
retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe
they would find a very quick ‘fix’ to make the plan financially sound for
the future.”
Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls , Texas
…and more…
Obama included a revision to the healthcare bill that provides hime with his very own private army…didn’t see THAT coming:
http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=3549&sms_ss=facebook
Please copy and paste and send to everyone you know.

Just for future reference--Anything that ends with either please forward to everyone you know or please copy and paste and send to everyone you know is probably a lie.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/frazer.asp

twelc: you cut & pasted this in multiple threads, and I'm sure that you forwarded this to everyone that you know. We get it, you buy into the hype that the bill is bad. If we all agree that you know how to cut & paste, will you stop cutting & pasting this particular thread? It waters down your message, if you have one.

Every muslim isn't a terrorist. Every white guy from the south isn't a white supremecist. Every jewish person isn't wealthy. Every catholic priest isn't a child molester. Shall I go on?

Your rant is duly noted. You hate muslims, from what I can tell. Otherwise, why would you take the time to cut & paste (and we're so proud you know how to search for something that supports your point of view, and cut & paste it here!) something that is so blatently hateful?

So far as I can tell, no Scientologists were present for any of these historic moments. Do you blame them for 9/11 too?

This is not a conservative or liberal issue. This is a wing nut issue.

Wing nut? What a salty answer!

When I read it, I was sitting on the beech in Brazil. They charge extra for the drinks - but you don't realize it until they cashew out. It would be oak-kay, but the way the drinks down there make you pecan really cause you problems.

Please notice I left out the political reference to Acorn. :)

No cracks about nuts please since that's not suite.
I'd like to post meatier comments but I'm relaxing and listening to an old Allman brothers record, which I had to shell out for by trading a Planter. I had to barter cause unfortunately I work for peanuts and didn't squirrel anything away. But right now I gotta go to the can and take a pistachio.

You're very silly. (that's all I've got)

Call me un-PC, but the Koran and Mohammed's own example clearly encourage violence against non-Muslims. The bible does say some nasty things too, but Jesus didn't kill anyone. Mohammed killed a lot of people.

Most Muslims are fine human beings, but that's because most of them don't take Islam too literally. The minority who are more honest about Islam are the problem. They know exactly what it instructs them to do and they intend to do it.

There is a deep conflict in western society about tolerance. Should tolerance include tolerance of intolerance? Sounds crazy, but it's a really important question.

And if you start to point out that Islam causes violence, you might have to look at these factors at the bible too, even if they are weaker there. Uncomfortable for many.

It appears that Obama was being a politician in this instance. Politicians are in the business of placating. It's their stock and trade. Especially when on foreign soil.

And if you start to point out that Islam causes violence

Islam doesn't cause violence. Nutjobs and/or life pressures cause violence. Islam has sufficient textual and historical teaching to support a violent way of life, but so does Christianity, as the recent events concerning our home-grown "Hutaree" in Michigan attest

There's like a billion f--ing muslims in this world so we're going to have to learn to live with 'em. Our friends on the right harbor sociopathic holocaust desires that would give Himmler a stiffy but it's simply impossible to wipe out a billion people. Leave one or two with the knowledge and tools alive, and they can return the favor.

I lean toward the theory that a f---ed islam is caused by a f---ed society, not the other way around. Kurdish Christians got in the news last decade for stoning a girl who dared to date outside their religion (it was videoed on a phone).

Just recently the thought occurred to me that WWs I and II occurred due to insufficient socialization between the war powers. In WW I the major states had grown-up war toys but a childish view of their place in history and warfare. WW I disabused most in that, but a second helping of war was necessary to fully drive the point home.

The story of this century might, hopefully, be a continued socialization of the various traditions. Before there was a term for it, I thought "Soft Power" was America's greatest strength. I have faith in our institutions and mores -- that they are effective and basically empirically the best things going.

Funny thing, the warmongers to my right don't share this faith in culture. They want to f--k people's shit up too. I think this can cause more problems than it solves.

# Limit Congress from serving more than two terms. That is all that presidents are allowed.

Yeah, maybe. I could go for term limits, but I don't think that would address the larger problem of campaign finance.

# Stop Congress from voting for their own raises. How did that ever get started?

This is kind of, you know, a matter of public record. Congress doesn't vote for "their own" raises either, by the way -- they vote for raises for their successors, which are frequently themselves. You could let their pay stagnate, certainly, but then you'd just see more bribes.

# Stop paying for lawmakers’ high-priced insurance premiums. After all, they are only part-time employees. They might pass some law changes on the insurance companies, if they had to find one.

How do you figure that they're "part-time employees"? You think that a congressman's job is limited to the time he's sitting in the chamber?

# Stop paying lawmakers their full salary after serving just one term, or at retirement. We need to get rid of that pension plan; they’ve let other companies get rid of theirs. You were lucky to get 40 to 50 percent of your salary after working somewhere for 35 years, but they get 100 percent.

Where on earth did this lie come from? Congressional pension doesn't work this way at all -- it's a scaled system, just like most private pension plans. If you retire before 62, you need at least 20-25 years of service.

# Make Congress pay into the Social Security system. They make laws for it. If they spent some of their own money, they might be interested in making it solvent.

Why do you believe that they don't? Congress has been required to pay into social security since 1984, when the CSRS (an equivalent program for government employees) was ended.

# Stop handing out aid to illegal aliens. If we did, then Medicaid and the food stamp program would have enough money to aid the aged and the poor.

Please show me one example of an illegal alien receiving medicaid or food stamps (or really any federal handout). Yes, Some STATES (like California and Texas) choose to give aid to illegal immigrants. That doesn't have much to do with federal programs though.

# Secure our borders.

And how would you propose to do that?

# Stop allowing babies born to illegal aliens in the United States automatic U.S. citizenship.

Yeah, lets rewrite citizenship to suit our arbitrary definition, since our ancestors had to come to america on a BOAT, and these guys only have to walk through deserts. Oh, but our ancestors weren't brown so I guess it's OK.

# Stop the abuse of our benevolent welfare system. We feed children free meals three times a day until they are 17. Churches give away good, clean clothes. Companies buy and donate school supplies. Emergency rooms provide health care at taxpayer expense and the food stamp program is buying food at home. What are parents doing for their children?

Fuck children!

# Have a computer program that cross checks Social Security numbers with fingerprints to stop fraud on many fronts. Use it on voter registration, too.

Holy crap, there's a magic system to stop fraud using only social security numbers and fingerprints? (do you know anything about fraud detection?)

# Stop bailing out mortgage companies and banks that give loans to people who cannot afford them.

# Stop companies from paying CEOs and other executives outrageous salaries and bonuses while doing away with workers’ pensions.

Yeah, stop meddling with the private sector -- and while you're at it, make more rules for the private sector!

# Stop all unnecessary spending so we will have the money for our nation’s security, and to help needy and elderly Americans.

In other words:

"Cut every program except for the military, medicare, and social security, even though those three programs are 90% of the federal budget"

Fucking clueless.

# Stop permitting anyone to have a photo with their face covered on driver’s licenses.

Yeah, and fuck privacy too!

Troy says

Islam has sufficient textual and historical teaching to support a violent way of life, but so does Christianity

No, that's wrong. Islam explicitly and repeatedly, in both word and example of the founder, calls for the murder of those who, say, insult Mohammed. Official stories of Mohammed's life include the murders of the 100-year old man and the pregnant woman who each mocked Mohammed in poetry. It's hyper-violent. Not just a minor or "sufficient textual" thing.

Christianity is just the opposite, with "turn the other cheek" and Jesus forgiving those who insulted and then killed him, and preventing the crowd from stoning the prostitute, for example. The Kurds who stoned that girl were not following Jesus' example for sure.

I'm not religious at all, but the difference is huge. Islam literally means submission. As in "submit or we'll kill you."

Scripture refers to Christ as the "Prince of Peace." Nowhere is there any reference or teaching in the NT where Jesus or his disciples prescribes violence. Christ's kingdom is of a spiritual nature and is clearly stated as such. Islam on the other hand is a conquering religion where its followers are forced to obey with the real threat of death over their heads if they do not. The oppressive governmental systems that Islam produces is the antithesis of freedom of the individual.