you don't read well, do you?A 1974 quarter. THink about what time I am referring to. dumbass.The best part about your post? Not all of the 90cent gas can be attributed to inflation, yet you pointed to 1979. Well after the policies which began the massive inflation of the US dollar. You point to an almost quadrupling of the price of gas in less than 6 years as a refutation of inflation? good work, man.]
8/7/2009 8:00:39 PM
what?90 cents in 1979 is $2.64 in 2009about what gas is nowso wtf are you talking about
8/7/2009 8:07:51 PM
^Are you seriously that dumb?
8/7/2009 8:11:08 PM
thank you for proving my point, buddy.but, here, let me help you out. I'll quote myself:
8/7/2009 8:12:09 PM
8/7/2009 8:15:49 PM
are you seriously standing by a QUADRUPLING OF PRICE over a 6 year period? really? You consider that "protection?"Or, are you standing by a >1000% DEVALUATION OF THE DOLLAR over 35 years? Really? Are you that fucking stupid?but, yes, "i are retarded analogy is stupid "]
8/7/2009 8:17:52 PM
:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(
8/7/2009 8:20:28 PM
8/7/2009 8:44:42 PM
Rock Scott:http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com%2Flivewire%2F2009%2F08%2Fcnn-anchor-rips-into-health-care-ceo-whos-funding-anti-reform-effort.php&feature=player_embedded" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwjcxyuUf5A&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhttp://www.talkingpointsmemo.com%2Flivewire%2F2009%2F08%2Fcnn-anchor-rips-into-health-care-ceo-whos-funding-anti-reform-effort.php&feature=player_embedded...whose hospital was fined $1.7 billion for overcharging medicare, is now spending 20 millions dollars to oppose health reform. He's hiring CRC Public Relations to do the job. CRC is the company that did the swift boat ads.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/10/AR2009051002243.html?hpid=topnews
8/7/2009 9:08:09 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/07/white-house-collect-fishy-info-health-reform-illegal-critics-say/
8/7/2009 9:56:05 PM
How is this intimidation? What consequences will the opposition face, other than being corrected?"Oh no! The White House will rebut my argument! Help! I'm being oppressed!"
8/7/2009 9:58:19 PM
8/7/2009 10:01:42 PM
Again,
8/7/2009 10:06:51 PM
anothher link showing free speech being inhibited furtherhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204886304574310552006266132.html
8/7/2009 10:16:20 PM
8/7/2009 10:32:18 PM
is that the going rate for free speech in america, $20,000?what part of "Free" are you not understanding[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 10:35 PM. Reason : ]
8/7/2009 10:34:52 PM
It's the going rate for violating a federal law, passed 60 years ago, against threatening your employees regarding unionization.Did you even read the article you posted, or did you just search for "Obama free speech" in the WSJ's search bar and post the first result?[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 10:38 PM. Reason : ]
8/7/2009 10:36:50 PM
8/7/2009 11:16:40 PM
I would much rather have a $20,000 price tag than a "make whole" clause. Jesus, that would be far more expensive.
8/7/2009 11:56:48 PM
mini-riots errupt at townhall meetings protests of the new healthcare plan....seems less and less likely that anything will be passed now...no wonder obama wanted it done fast, so the public wouldn't be able to get a good idea about what it really was before it was too late.... i think it's unfortunate that something will probably still get crammed through due to certain majorities.
8/8/2009 12:14:32 AM
the funny thing is, those people shouting down everyone at town hall meetings probably couldn't describe a single detail of any plan out there
8/8/2009 12:16:15 AM
probably, but get enough people yelling and support will falter
8/8/2009 12:17:27 AM
that seems to be the tactic[Edited on August 8, 2009 at 12:28 AM. Reason : .]
8/8/2009 12:28:53 AM
8/8/2009 12:36:20 AM
^^^no the funny thing is how many of the ppl that bitch get medicare or medicaid
8/8/2009 12:36:31 AM
8/8/2009 12:42:35 AM
^^
8/8/2009 9:51:22 AM
[Edited on August 8, 2009 at 10:24 AM. Reason : .]
8/8/2009 10:24:24 AM
8/8/2009 11:15:09 AM
8/8/2009 11:21:27 AM
Fauxtesters called out by Rachel Maddow(not taking any strong sides on the health care debate here, but its nice to see who is funding the buses to bring out of staters to yell down the debates)
8/8/2009 1:22:02 PM
People don't understand how low their standards actually are -- when people think a drone at an insurance company making decisions for you is somehow better than a bureaucrat making decisions for you, that's how you know we are really fucked.Hooray for the growing medical tourism. Real US healthcare prices are so out of whack with the rest of the world, arbitrage of health is now feasible. That's pretty damning of our current situation.
8/8/2009 1:33:07 PM
8/8/2009 1:49:06 PM
^ umm... OBama doesn't write the plan, congress does, and it's ~1000 pages.
8/8/2009 1:54:28 PM
8/8/2009 2:03:10 PM
8/8/2009 2:11:52 PM
^ except the majority of people get their coverage through their employer, and many (most maybe...) wouldn't get reimbursed for ditching the employer care for a private one, if they didn't like their employer's company.The government plan doesn't really fix this, but your scenario of people just switching insurance companies doesn't work out how you think it would.The government could mandate that the employer has to pay in equally to whatever company you choose, but then this is just more government interference that you allege to hate so much.
8/8/2009 2:20:21 PM
Exactly:
8/8/2009 2:22:05 PM
^ huh? Employers covering healthcare (the current situation) is not a government-induced lack of competition.
8/8/2009 2:45:40 PM
The idea of tying your care to your employer is absurd. Take the money that employer is using to subsidize your care and put it into an HSA. Get accident insurance through the same people that do your car/home/etc.. insurance. If something really bad happens, they cover it. If you get a cold and want to go see a doc you pay cash out of your HSA. For young people who almost never need to go to the doc, our HSAs will continue to grow like our 401k's. You can keep the money in an FDIC insured account with a guaranteed rate of return. When you get older that money is there for you to use. For the poor who might not get much or any funds into their HSA at work or who are unemployed, the fed can drop money in there for them. In addition you make donations to charities that pay for people's medical care 100% tax deductable.The idea being you control costs by requiring people to pay for services as they use them. You save for retirement, you save to buy a car or a home, why wouldn't you save for future healthcare expenses? For the poor and the jobless the government provides funds similar to wellfare or food stamps. Making charities that will pay for care tax deductable will lower the burden on the federal government and tax payers. Most of the time its cheaper to get care if you're paying cash than if you have insurance because the doctor doesn't have to deal with the insurance beuracracy. This plan would mean everyone pays cash so everyone has lower prices. Plus, since it is cash, your choice of doctor is no longer limited by your insurance provider, your company, or the government. Health costs aren't fixed and time and time again the government has proven it cant handle unfixed costs. Hell it can barely handle fixed costs. Medicare/medicaid and social security make up a huge portion of our budget and they're only going to increase as the baby boomers retire. Folks like you and me already know for a fact that the money we put in to social security wont be there when we retire so we've made other plans (401/ira/etc..). Why do people think medicare/medicaid or whatever government plan comes up is going to be any different? Insurance opperates on the idea that X number of people contribute Y dollars to the plan but that only A number of people will ever extract any money. If the ammount extracted is less than X*Y-costs then its sustainable, otherwise you need to increase Y or decrease the ammount you pay out. In other countries they handle this by limiting the ammount of care people can get through rationing. In such a system the poor end up with mediocre care while the rich can pay to bypass the lines. The goal of the system should be to require MOST people to put in the same or close to what they take out of the system. For poor people the goal should be to give them the ability to purcahse high quality care. The fed can barely withstand the stress of medicare/medicaid/social security so why add another such plan onto the system? The government can get involved in healthcare. They can create a guaranteed means for people to save for future health costs and regulate a cross-state insurance system for emergency care. If you really wanted to a government based perscription drug purchase system might be viable. If you need drugs you pay the government plan (Cost of drug + overhead)*(a percentage value based on income). For average people we'd all pay essentially cost for our drugs and the government would negotiate cheap prices for us. We pay directly for the costs of the drugs and the system overhead which means the system can stay sustainable. For the poor, they can get a portion of the cost paid for by our taxes or they can get it through charities. If the costs are known and fixed and people pay for what they use, the system is vaible. The last thing I want to say is that while healthcare is important, better education and lower energy prices are both more important. The cost of energy is a major factor in while many poor people cant afford healthcare. Theres that other thread where the county fucked up their water system and so this lady had high heating costs + high water costs and couldn't afford both. She probably cant afford healthcare either. I know for a fact in Maine many people cant afford their heating bills in the winter. We subsidize them with tax money, but this is a poort state and some people still cant afford it. Im sure they have problems with healtchare as well. If you can lower the price of energy then you can take a burden off these people. Plus lower engergy costs decrease costs throughout the entire system. Lower energy costs have an exponential effect on peoples purchasing power.Better education means better jobs and better pay which means more people can afford healthcare. This starts with better schools in poor areas plus new ways of teaching to get poor kids to take advantage of it. We also need to have ways to re-educate adults who have fallen on bad times or who didn't have access to quality education when they were young.The goal should be to create ways for poor people to improve their own quality of life. If you simply give them a handout they'll be happy until you cant afford to give them those handouts anymore. Give them cheaper energy, cheaper healthcare, and better educations. They dont want to be poor. Most of them will take the opportunity to better themselves at which point they'll contribute more than they take out.
8/8/2009 3:08:50 PM
Is it not a little funny how those who were so dismissive of hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters are now convinced that a couple hundred loonies showing up to town halls are now going to make an impact on policy.The fence-sitting Democrats are now towards the Republican side of the fence. Keep up the crazy, Republicans.
8/8/2009 3:43:51 PM
8/8/2009 3:59:01 PM
8/8/2009 9:31:09 PM
8/8/2009 10:25:46 PM
tip: dont say hundreds, when its tens of thousandsand the majority doesnt want this shit, so suck it upand obama is at 50% approval[Edited on August 8, 2009 at 10:58 PM. Reason : ]
8/8/2009 10:57:34 PM
8/8/2009 11:00:58 PM
8/8/2009 11:02:35 PM
8/8/2009 11:05:13 PM
whatever, lets look at what actually applies to this discussion
8/8/2009 11:06:32 PM
Democrats represent over 60% of those thousands of districts.
8/8/2009 11:06:55 PM