fuck clinton wins ap just said...cnn hasnt confirmed

[Edited on January 8, 2008 at 10:34 PM. Reason : page 3]

1/8/2008 10:34:36 PM

haha dude on cnn just looked like a fool for literally 10 seconds

1/8/2008 10:37:24 PM

CNN refuses to call.

1/8/2008 10:40:57 PM

No shit, and for good reason, too.

1/8/2008 10:41:40 PM

naah, ap probably had other data to support the idea that obama was not going to run the remaining places

1/8/2008 10:42:48 PM

what are you talking about health insurance is cheap? seriously?

but this is why i hate MSM. McCain was supposed to win...so what? him winning is huge mojo for him too in a bigger field of candidates. the political polls by MSM predicted Obama by vast margins, but they were wrong so Obama gets punished?

same with Iowa.

but this is huge for Clinton, I'll admit, because now she has a lot of momentum going into states she is leading in.

god help me if its Clinton/McCain.

i wouldn't call for sheer ratings. i mean come on.

[Edited on January 8, 2008 at 10:43 PM. Reason : ratings = $texas]

1/8/2008 10:43:17 PM

^ health insurance is cheap. Mine is $15 a week. Even when i didnt have a job i paid about $108 a month. THats cheap. Most people pay more than that for the cable bills, cell phone bills, etc. Hell a lot of people pay triple that for their car payment.

If you cant afford health insurance then you're a stupid fuck, period. Not everyone deserves top notch healthcare. If you cant work then you should die when you get sick/injured.




it's over.

It was pretty much over by the time it got to 20% reporting but its sealed now with 70% reporting.

It doesn't take much to be statistically significant in an election.

Clinton is trading at 97% for NH

[Edited on January 8, 2008 at 10:45 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on January 8, 2008 at 10:46 PM. Reason : a]

1/8/2008 10:44:01 PM

these monitors and computers cnn has are neat-o

1/8/2008 10:48:08 PM

damn

1/8/2008 10:48:56 PM

Quote :

"health insurance is cheap. Mine is $15 a week. Even when i didnt have a job i paid about $108 a month. THats cheap. Most people pay more than that for the cable bills, cell phone bills, etc. Hell a lot of people pay triple that for their car payment. If you cant afford health insurance then you're a stupid fuck, period. Not everyone deserves top notch healthcare. If you cant work then you should die when you get sick/injured."

Exactly. You can get an individual plan with decent coverage from blue cross/blue shield for $100-150/month.

Anywho, Obama's talking now.

1/8/2008 10:49:01 PM

^yeah he just said gg clinton

1/8/2008 10:49:22 PM

Well, although I don't agree with where he stands on a lot of issues he certainly does make Edwards sound like a whiner and Clinton sound like a smug, screeching harpy. It ought to be interesting to see what she has to say tonight.

1/8/2008 11:04:24 PM

Quote :

"If you cant work then you should die when you get sick/injured."

nice good to know.

anybody here have families? kids? sick kids? sick parents? i'm not trying to start a fight, but health care isn't as black and white as you guys would like ot make it out to be.

sometimes if you cant afford health care, its just not go die. but whatever floats your boat another debate for another topic.

should have an interesting primary this time around eh.

1/8/2008 11:05:04 PM

although I'm glad Obama hasn't started an early sweep, it bothers me that people can't stand to see girls cry...

it also bothers me that obama supporters are chanting like tribesmen

1/8/2008 11:07:46 PM

1/8/2008 11:11:19 PM

oh man

she almost tricked me into going to her website

who plugs their website during a victory speech?

1/8/2008 11:14:48 PM

it's the 21st century

people look to the internet for more information

FOR AMURICA

1/8/2008 11:17:57 PM

Ugggh.

1/8/2008 11:18:50 PM

A black man seriously using a nascar metaphor????

1/8/2008 11:25:26 PM

almost as crazy as a black running for prez

1/8/2008 11:59:50 PM

i'm so glad to see Gulliani crashing and burning everywhere he goes

1/9/2008 12:20:04 AM

1/9/2008 12:23:37 AM

big blow for obama. hillary was the favorite before the the primaries started, and now she is again the favorite. people are going to start questioning whether obama is really viable or just another howard dean.

He better have some serious, well-timed attack ads ready to go to push him over the hump.

1/9/2008 12:39:11 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "health insurance is cheap. Mine is $15 a week. Even when i didnt have a job i paid about $108 a month. THats cheap. Most people pay more than that for the cable bills, cell phone bills, etc. Hell a lot of people pay triple that for their car payment. If you cant afford health insurance then you're a stupid fuck, period. Not everyone deserves top notch healthcare. If you cant work then you should die when you get sick/injured." Exactly. You can get an individual plan with decent coverage from blue cross/blue shield for $100-150/month. "

If you're young and healthy, yes. My in-laws are self-employed, extreme health fanatics, in their early 60's and pay ~$500/month for catastrophic coverage only. That's no routine doctor or dentist visits, hospitalization only.

OTOH, my sister and b-i-l don't have coverage because it isn't a priority for them. If they get really sick the gov't will cover them.

1/9/2008 12:47:23 AM

^are you saying that either deserves more?

1/9/2008 12:49:22 AM

Quote :

"big blow for obama."

it's a big blow for Obama to lose by 2% in a state that was already known to be strongly Clinton? I don't think so..... It's not great news for him, but it could have been a lot worse.

1/9/2008 12:54:22 AM

^^No, I'm just responding to the 'health insurance is cheap, everyone should get it' line. It ain't cheap for everyone, folks.

My family of 3 pays as much in premiums than we receive in benefits, and that's with my son having a serious health condition. This is with an (admittedly minor) employer contribution.

I don't want to derail this discussion further, but the third-party payor system is broken; however, single-payor is not a viable solution.

[Edited on January 9, 2008 at 12:55 AM. Reason : ^^]

1/9/2008 12:54:50 AM

And in what way is this unfair or unexpected? As the risk increases based on a client the premium will increase. It's called insurance, not pay for everything no matter who or what.

If you're self-employed and older (and ergo more prone to disease and injury) you're probably going to pay an arm and a leg. So be it. Is $6000/year too much to pay for coverage of a 300k bill? Insurance companies are in it to turn a profit, not out of charity. They have to assess risks and are answerable to their shareholders. That's the way it works, and it works well as long as people take some responsibility for themselves.

Quote :

"My family of 3 pays as much in premiums than we receive in benefits, and that's with my son having a serious health condition. This is with an (admittedly minor) employer contribution."

Not to say you're lying, but I find that difficult to believe. If it is true then why are you continuing to purchase insurance?

I guess the big question then is, "would it be cheaper if it was gov. operated health coverage paid for by taxes?"

[Edited on January 9, 2008 at 12:58 AM. Reason : aga]

[Edited on January 9, 2008 at 12:59 AM. Reason : adsfad]

1/9/2008 12:54:58 AM

Where did I say it was unfair? All I said was that it isn't cheap.

^I should have said almost; I haven't itemized it but it's damn close. And yes, we pay it as a hedge against the possible 300K bill, and only until when I start a job with good benefits.

For the record before someone calls me a socialist or something worse, I think INSURANCE should be for catastrophic events only and that the system would be better served by health savings plans and other vehicles that encourage personal responsibility.

[Edited on January 9, 2008 at 1:03 AM. Reason : words]

1/9/2008 12:57:25 AM

Ahh, but those do exist. Medical flexible spending accounts are a tax free contribution, we have things like health saving accounts, and health reimbursement accounts. Hell, for most folks those are probably a better option anyway. You can hardly blame the insurance companies because people choose not to utilize them. I have a suspicion that I'm probably over insured considering my age, occupation, family history, overall health, etc.

I mean, fact is that you're going to be screwed no matter what you do if you've got a chronic condition (unless you go to gov. health care, but then it unfairly burdens those who don't make use of it because it eliminates choice), but for your average joe the system is not that bad.

This conversation probably needs to take place in another thread anyway, so I'll just drop it.

[Edited on January 9, 2008 at 1:16 AM. Reason : addad]

1/9/2008 1:14:26 AM

100 bucks a month cheap? wow

What about the significant and necessary sector of society making less than 2k a month? That would be a large chunk of their paycheck. But that is off topic. I'm not for state sponsored healthcare, I just don't want to call health insurance cheap.

I'm surprised Hillary is having so much trouble. This is a good win for her though.

1/9/2008 6:21:06 AM

Quote :

"it's a big blow for Obama to lose by 2% in a state that was already known to be strongly Clinton? I don't think so..... It's not great news for him, but it could have been a lot worse."

After Iowa's primaries I thought "they" were predicting Obama by a possible double digit figure.

Meh, I was kind of hoping Hillary would go away after this one or at least suffer a defeat that would have her in the last throes of her campaign. It only makes sense that she would come in first, the one thing that she absolutely needed going forward in the primaries. It's rigged

Quote :

"health insurance is cheap. Mine is $15 a week. Even when i didnt have a job i paid about $108 a month. THats cheap."

So, this is probably just for one person. Non-female, or if female they will not cover anything related with pregnancy or childbirth. If you're trying to cover a family it's going to be more than that. When I was working for the state it was $455/month and it was going to go up to $485/month for self, spouse, and children. Age and current health weren't factors. That's way too much.

^Yeah, I'd rather not see it either. The government has shown that it can't be bothered with the wise allocation of taxpayer dollars. Put them in charge of healthcare and I expect the premiums to go up. Why bother seeking the best rate, we can just print some more money. Why not charge more, the people that are paying print the money.

[Edited on January 9, 2008 at 8:03 AM. Reason : -]

1/9/2008 8:01:34 AM

If you want your healthcare run like the the Post Office or Amtrak, by all means, vote for socialized health care. But don't bitch about it later.

1/9/2008 8:48:09 AM

My wife and I health insurance through work cost me 750 a month. My employer paid mine, I had to pay for hers. I recently dropped her and got her own plan for 65/month. 2500 deductible.

health ins is cheap, people just dont want to pay for it.

Someone bitched about thier 60 year olds paying 500 a month is nothing. In five years they will be paying 80 a month and consuming a TON of resources that taxpayers make the difference for. THey are paying more bc they are older and have increased risks. Unfair? Thats exactly how your car insurance works. Do you hear people bitching about how much higher thier car ins is when they been in 4 wrecks and 5 speeding tickets?

Health ins should be viewed just like car ins. People should have a catasphrophic plan and pay for thier doctor visits. It would work better for the doctors and the patients. No more running to the ER to get antibotics for a sore throat when you have to actually PAY for it now.

Speaking of socialized med. Medicare is planning on cutting doctor reimbursement by 10% this year, and 40% over the next 5 years. SOOOO, if that goes through you will probably see alot of the older docs simply retire, and others stop taking it. THe bad thing is that medicare is like the pacecar for other insurances, so their reimbursements will also decrease. So start saving your cash or learn to speak Indian. Socialized medicine has been here for awhile, govt provides over 50% of healthcare in this country NOW. Im hoping if it passes they dont make it illegal for doctors to see people and not take insurance. Which im sure they will.

1/9/2008 9:07:51 AM

Quote :

"Unfair? Thats exactly how your car insurance works."

Yes, but due to their age their ability to work is lessened as well as their income. Your argument essentially leads to the 'well they're old and if they can't take care of themselves then I guess they should just suck it up and die.'


Most people with souls believe that we live in a society and should take care of those around us. Improving the healthcare situation is a way to do this for everyone, even you, a soulless bastard.

1/9/2008 9:12:02 AM

Quote :

"Most people with souls believe that we live in a society and should take care of those around us. Improving the healthcare situation is a way to do this for everyone, even you, a soulless bastard."

Nope, this country was founded on the absence of government and the reliance on one's self. You should not burden others with your problems. People have to suck it up sooner or later and help themselves.

I believe, however, that we SHOULD take care of the least amongst us, as one of the richest nations on earth. But those partaking in the medicare/caid programs are mostly leechers and not the actual needy.

I have no problems helping the needy, but expanding that to everyone in the country is absolutely ridiculous.


Call me soulless.

[Edited on January 9, 2008 at 9:16 AM. Reason : .]

1/9/2008 9:15:57 AM

If they are old and don't have insurance and don't have savings, they should get their kids to take care of them.

1/9/2008 9:17:53 AM

^^I don't agree with your position, but at least you're not saying, 'old people aren't productive and should suffer for it.'

and

^
not everyone has the luxury of kids, wealth, and/or wealthy kids.

I know that I couldn't pay for my parents health insurance and mine at the same time.

[Edited on January 9, 2008 at 9:20 AM. Reason : .]

1/9/2008 9:19:28 AM

There is no reason for anyone to pay for my health insurance. I have the means to do so (and I do). If there is a widespread government program that basically gave us all insurance, it would be a grave injustice... that people are paying for my insurance when I have the means to do so myself.

1/9/2008 9:20:56 AM

Well the way I see universal healthcare is an overall benefit to our society (country) whereas you see it as a drag on yourself. I'm willing to pay taxes if I think they're being used in intelligent ways, though I realize that there will always be waste and there should always be efforts for reform. We have fundamentally different ideologies and we won't agree.

1/9/2008 9:31:38 AM

Monky you can call me a soulless bastard all you want. But we have people that are brain dead with strokes being kept alive for YEARS because thier spouse says do all you can doctor. WHo pays for that? They certainly dont.

Everyone is going to die. No amount of bitching or insurance will prevent that. If it costs tax payers 10k a month to keep a 90 year old alive and watching tv, do we do it? These are serious issues. We have 90 year olds getting chemo, CHEMO. WTF. Just flush 20k down the toliet. If the chemo doesnt kill them, whats the outlook? There are SO many abuses of the system I see almost daily and its so frustrating. We dont have unlimited resources for healthcare. Its an expensive business that NOONE wants to pay for, but expects everything. You honestly think under a socialized medicine plan they wont ration?

I really think the best solution is for govt to get completely out of healthcare.

When you shift YOUR responsiblities onto others, you will have less incentives to take care of yourself/do the right thing. Would you agree with that monky?

1/9/2008 9:38:36 AM

^^ But all you have to do is look at the inefficiency of government to figure out that this will be a disaster. The DOD pays $100 for a hammer... you can't walk into a post office without a line a billion hours long, or the DMV for that matter... are you ready to wait in a line for a doctor when you need one?

I don't see it as a drag on myself, I see it as a drag on society. You say it's to the benefit to society, but I'll be damned if I can't walk into the UPS store and ship a package in 1 minute whereas it'll take me 20 to do it at the USPS... there's the difference between a business with a bottom line who must strive for customers, and a government monopoly that will go nowhere even if it is inefficient.

1/9/2008 9:43:42 AM

Quote :

"not everyone has the luxury of kids, wealth, and/or wealthy kids."

Then they are out of luck. The government is not insurance against a bad life or 60 years of bad planning.

1/9/2008 9:46:14 AM

^ Cold and reasonable.

I do, on the other hand, think we have an obligation to the poor, but certainly not an obligation to EVERYONE.

And by poor, I mean the single mother of 3 who's husband died of a sudden illness and is now waiting tables to put food on the table.


Not the bitch who doesn't work who complains about not having money.

1/9/2008 9:49:12 AM

There are many ways to help the poor without giving them subsidies or handouts. For one, lower the cost of care by eliminating things that drive up costs. Everyone benefits, including poor planners.

Your single mother of 3's husband didn't have life insurance? She didn't have a real job before he died? She couldn't do better than waiting tables? That's still poor planning.

1/9/2008 9:58:34 AM

no one in this country should go without basic healthcare. I think we have that now.

THe problem is that the "poor" and the elderly have the best plans. Pay little or nothing and get everythign covered. Explain why medicaid is covering acne meds, fertility drugs, hair pills, etc.. when most insurances people PAY for dont cover such things. Its upside down.

Just get the govt out of healthcare. I have a 22 year old patient on medicare and her only problem was she was overweight and diabetic. Thats ridiculous. And to top it off she came in drinking a mellow yellow, which has one of the highest sugar contents of the soft drinks. I asked her if that was part of her diet. But it pissed me off. This bitch will never work and is a total liablity on everyone working and she take NO responsiblity for herself. Unbelievable that this system allows shit like this.

1/9/2008 10:04:11 AM

Lets say he had a modest policy that took care of the funeral. Further assume she was an at home mom. Now she puts her kids in day care, pays for that, while trying to get a job as an "unskilled worker."

BTW, it's very difficult for women, even degreed, to find a job after a prolonged absence from the workforce. I'm saying those are the people we should feel compelled to help.



You're right on about removing what's driving up the costs (state and federal mandates about what an insurance company HAS to cover). I'm with you there, but my single mom analogy goes further than just healthcare.

1/9/2008 10:05:48 AM

The poor planning, which the state shouldn't subsidize, happened before that, though. By choosing to be single income, they willingly accepted the risk that the single income would stop beforehand. In this case, our poor planners did nothing to hedge against the risk of the income going away.

If you are a husband who is underinsured and the wife doesn't want the work, DONT HAVE KIDS. It's simple as that. You cannot afford kids, you cannot afford to be a stay at home mom, and you expose yourself to the situation described above. Again, the problem described above was completely avoidable and the result of bad decisions.

Bailing this family our encourages people to make these bad decisions. Having kids and being a stay at home mom are big decisions that require good planning. These people didn't do that.


[Edited on January 9, 2008 at 10:19 AM. Reason : .]

1/9/2008 10:16:30 AM

^ I think you're downplaying the significance that the at-home mother plays on our society. I could say that it is far more expensive to have two working parents to our society.

Even if the guy had a $250,000 or $500,000 policy, it pays for their house, their cars, takes care of the funeral, plus some... but putting 3 kids in daycare at $1000/mo/kid ain't cheap.



Speaking of bailouts, I think you should champion the awful decision by the feds to bail people out of their mortgages. That encourages bad decisions, not a death in the family.

Or even go against FEMA by saying that private insurance companies won't insure these people, but the government will bail them out when *surprise* your city that is 8 feet below sea level gets flooded. It encourages people to live in high risk areas.

[Edited on January 9, 2008 at 10:19 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 9, 2008 at 10:20 AM. Reason : .]

1/9/2008 10:19:01 AM

^sell the house, sell the car, move close to family, get a bare bones funeral, move to a cheaper place to live. Again, with smart planning, you can still deal with the situation, but the planning should have begun BEFORE THEY HAD KIDS.

The fact that there are other bad bailouts does not lessen the fact that this bailout is also bad. That's a logical fallacy. I don't support mortgage bailouts, either.


[Edited on January 9, 2008 at 10:23 AM. Reason : .]

1/9/2008 10:22:23 AM