YOU LIE!

[Jake]

Yes, we need to enforce it there, too. But the same people blocking enforcement in that place are the same ones blocking enforcement here as well.

No, I think you'll find Mr. Bush is, in fact, out of office.

 

[GasBandit]

Yes, we need to enforce it there, too. But the same people blocking enforcement in that place are the same ones blocking enforcement here as well.

No, I think you'll find Mr. Bush is, in fact, out of office.[/quote]

1 down, 536 to go.

(435 representatives, 100 senators, 1 president)

 

[DarkAudit]

Yes, we need to enforce it there, too. But the same people blocking enforcement in that place are the same ones blocking enforcement here as well.

No, I think you'll find Mr. Bush is, in fact, out of office.[/quote]

1 down, 536 to go.

(435 representatives, 100 senators, 1 president)[/QUOTE]

You've got a long list of folks you gotta outspend before you'll ever even get 1 more. SCOTUS only told Don Blankenship he couldn't buy judges. Never said jack about how many governors or state legislators he could own.

What happened to ya, Joe Manchin? You used to be cool. Now you're just in the pocket of Big Coal.

 

[GasBandit]

Yes, we need to enforce it there, too. But the same people blocking enforcement in that place are the same ones blocking enforcement here as well.

No, I think you'll find Mr. Bush is, in fact, out of office.[/quote]

1 down, 536 to go.

(435 representatives, 100 senators, 1 president)[/quote]

You've got a long list of folks you gotta outspend before you'll ever even get 1 more. SCOTUS only told Don Blankenship he couldn't buy judges. Never said jack about how many governors or state legislators he could own.

What happened to ya, Joe Manchin? You used to be cool. Now you're just in the pocket of Big Coal.[/QUOTE]

Image removed - Ame

 

[AshburnerX]

Gas, all of your suggestions seem to include private corporations overseeing their own business decisions, which is the main problem with the insurance industry in the eyes of many. Their current business practice of "Always deny, always fight, only pay when you have no choice" is indefensible when such decisions routinely result in not only a poorer quality of life for the people they insure, but often times death by failing to provide for preventative treatment. That's the heart of this matter: As long as the only option available is likely to deny your claims when you need it, it's not a viable method. It's a SUSTAINABLE method, but it's never going to fly in the eyes of voters who only see their friends and families dying because nobody would help them.

I understand your viewpoint Gas... I'm just flat out telling you that it doesn't matter. People are tired of getting shafted by their insurance companies. They want a public system that won't deny them. They are going to get what they want, whether its 1 year from now or 8 years from now. It's probably going to be disastrous... and then slowly morph into a system that will work. But things are definitely going to get worse before they get better.

 

[Cuyval Dar]

Gas, all of your suggestions seem to include private corporations overseeing their own business decisions, which is the main problem with the insurance industry in the eyes of many. Their current business practice of "Always deny, always fight, only pay when you have no choice" is indefensible when such decisions routinely result in not only a poorer quality of life for the people they insure, but often times death by failing to provide for preventative treatment. That's the heart of this matter: As long as the only option available is likely to deny your claims when you need it, it's not a viable method. It's a SUSTAINABLE method, but it's never going to fly in the eyes of voters who only see their friends and families dying because nobody would help them.

I understand your viewpoint Gas... I'm just flat out telling you that it doesn't matter. People are tired of getting shafted by their insurance companies. They want a public system that won't deny them. They are going to get what they want, whether its 1 year from now or 8 years from now. It will be disastrous... and then slowly morph into a system that will fail miserably. But things are definitely going to get bad before they get worse.

FTFY.

 

[Krisken]

Gas, all of your suggestions seem to include private corporations overseeing their own business decisions, which is the main problem with the insurance industry in the eyes of many. Their current business practice of "Always deny, always fight, only pay when you have no choice" is indefensible when such decisions routinely result in not only a poorer quality of life for the people they insure, but often times death by failing to provide for preventative treatment. That's the heart of this matter: As long as the only option available is likely to deny your claims when you need it, it's not a viable method. It's a SUSTAINABLE method, but it's never going to fly in the eyes of voters who only see their friends and families dying because nobody would help them.

I understand your viewpoint Gas... I'm just flat out telling you that it doesn't matter. People are tired of getting shafted by their insurance companies. They want a public system that won't deny them. They are going to get what they want, whether its 1 year from now or 8 years from now. It will be disastrous... and then slowly morph into a system that will fail miserably. But things are definitely going to get bad before they get worse.

FTFY.[/QUOTE]
LLLAAAAMMMEEE.

 

[Cuyval Dar]

Gas, all of your suggestions seem to include private corporations overseeing their own business decisions, which is the main problem with the insurance industry in the eyes of many. Their current business practice of "Always deny, always fight, only pay when you have no choice" is indefensible when such decisions routinely result in not only a poorer quality of life for the people they insure, but often times death by failing to provide for preventative treatment. That's the heart of this matter: As long as the only option available is likely to deny your claims when you need it, it's not a viable method. It's a SUSTAINABLE method, but it's never going to fly in the eyes of voters who only see their friends and families dying because nobody would help them.

I understand your viewpoint Gas... I'm just flat out telling you that it doesn't matter. People are tired of getting shafted by their insurance companies. They want a public system that won't deny them. They are going to get what they want, whether its 1 year from now or 8 years from now. It will be disastrous... and then slowly morph into a system that will fail miserably. But things are definitely going to get bad before they get worse.

FTFY.[/quote]
LLLAAAAMMMEEE.[/QUOTE]
You seem to be of the mistaken belief that I care.

 

[Krisken]

Gas, all of your suggestions seem to include private corporations overseeing their own business decisions, which is the main problem with the insurance industry in the eyes of many. Their current business practice of "Always deny, always fight, only pay when you have no choice" is indefensible when such decisions routinely result in not only a poorer quality of life for the people they insure, but often times death by failing to provide for preventative treatment. That's the heart of this matter: As long as the only option available is likely to deny your claims when you need it, it's not a viable method. It's a SUSTAINABLE method, but it's never going to fly in the eyes of voters who only see their friends and families dying because nobody would help them.

I understand your viewpoint Gas... I'm just flat out telling you that it doesn't matter. People are tired of getting shafted by their insurance companies. They want a public system that won't deny them. They are going to get what they want, whether its 1 year from now or 8 years from now. It will be disastrous... and then slowly morph into a system that will fail miserably. But things are definitely going to get bad before they get worse.

FTFY.[/quote]
LLLAAAAMMMEEE.[/quote]
You seem to be of the mistaken belief that I care.[/QUOTE]
Laaaammmeee too.

 

[Iaculus]

I seriously cannot believe that a group of people who wrote the things that they did would show anything but the most deferent respect for the office of president.

Umm... wasn't much of the point of the Constitution to systematically cripple the functioning of government so that it would not achieve the same level of power and influence as the British Parliament? Why else would they play all three branches off against each other, and place such limitations on their head of state?

Speaking of our own model, another classic example of British parliamentary discourse:

Dennis Skinner: What I want to know, Mr Speaker, is why you allow this 'ere pompous git...
The Speaker: That, sir, is unparliamentary language! I demand you withdraw it.
Dennis Skinner: In deference to you, Mr Speaker, I withdraw pompous.

 

[Covar]

Don't forget that Under the Articles of the Confederation the Federal government was even weaker, to the point of inefficiency. The Constitution was drafted as a way to make the Federal Government strong enough to be a viable representation and arbiter of the states, while still keeping most of the governing power at the state level.

 

[AshburnerX]

I seriously cannot believe that a group of people who wrote the things that they did would show anything but the most deferent respect for the office of president.

Umm... wasn't much of the point of the Constitution to systematically cripple the functioning of government so that it would not achieve the same level of power and influence as the British Parliament? Why else would they play all three branches off against each other, and place such limitations on their head of state?[/QUOTE]

It was less about crippling the governments ability to function than it was about ensuring that no one part of it became so powerful as to eclipse the others. In England's government at the time, it was still very much a Pyramid affair, which was far more crippled as it was routinely fucked up by idiots near the top, who could do whatever they wanted.

 

[GasBandit]

Gas, all of your suggestions seem to include private corporations overseeing their own business decisions, which is the main problem with the insurance industry in the eyes of many. Their current business practice of "Always deny, always fight, only pay when you have no choice" is indefensible when such decisions routinely result in not only a poorer quality of life for the people they insure, but often times death by failing to provide for preventative treatment. That's the heart of this matter: As long as the only option available is likely to deny your claims when you need it, it's not a viable method. It's a SUSTAINABLE method, but it's never going to fly in the eyes of voters who only see their friends and families dying because nobody would help them.

I understand your viewpoint Gas... I'm just flat out telling you that it doesn't matter. People are tired of getting shafted by their insurance companies. They want a public system that won't deny them. They are going to get what they want, whether its 1 year from now or 8 years from now. It's probably going to be disastrous... and then slowly morph into a system that will work. But things are definitely going to get worse before they get better.

That's more along the lines of the faux crisis that's been ginned up by obama's handlers and parroted diligently by their fawning sycophants in the mainstream media. The truth of the matter, as readers of my political thread will know from past links, is that over 70% of americans rated themselves "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their health coverage. The "47 million uninsured" figure that keeps getting batted around is also fudged, as it includes 15 million illegals and 15 million who are perfectly capable of affording insurance but they choose not to do so. This health care "crisis" is a great big molehill made into a mountain of wool, pulled over the eyes of the unwashed masses by a federal machine determined to increase its power irrevocably and a compliant media willing to fellate them as much as it takes to make it happen.

The idea that Obamacare is health "reform" is a joke. It's more like health DEform. If they were really interested in reforming health care and health insurance, they'd be looking at tort reform (which the trial lawyer lobby they are beholden to won't let happen) and other things such as increasing REAL competition by letting insurance be sold across state lines. But any ideas that don't involve a huge federal power grab are ignored or stomped on.

It isn't about health care.

 

[Espy]

I gotta agree with Gas here (and many other brilliants folks saying the same damn thing), if anyone wants to "reform" healthcare but isn't looking at Tort Reform or letting insurance be sold across state lines I just don't take it as real reform, or at least, not as substantial reform.

 

[Armadillo]

I gotta agree with Gas here (and many other brilliants folks saying the same damn thing), if anyone wants to "reform" healthcare but isn't looking at Tort Reform or letting insurance be sold across state lines I just don't take it as real reform, or at least, not as substantial reform.

Thirded. Tort reform is a MUST if anything substantial is to happen with health care.

 

[Espy]

Shame it will never happen. I don't even think under a Republican it would happen.

 

[GasBandit]

Shame it will never happen. I don't even think under a Republican it would happen.

Nope. Republicans are just as "big government" as democrats. Notice how all the hub-bub so far this year has really come from spontaneous grassroots outbursts, "blue dog" democrats or media pundits - actual republican politicians have been as quiet as they have been ineffectual.

 

[AshburnerX]

I'd make that "spontaneous grassroots outbursts", not as you put it. It's be pretty much proven that most of these grassroots efforts (on ether side of the debate) are actually scripted and well financed groups trying to create the illusion of the common man's support.

As for Tort reform... what are you suggesting exactly? It's sounding like you don't like the idea of patients who have been harmed by their physicians having the right to sue them for negligence.

 

[Rob King]

Can someone explain what you mean by tort reform? All I can imagine it meaning is tortellini.

 

[Fun Size]

Can someone explain what you mean by tort reform? All I can imagine it meaning is tortellini.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform

Typically, it's used to mean limiting the amount a person can claim in personal damages when suing a health care provider.

 

[AshburnerX]

Can someone explain what you mean by tort reform? All I can imagine it meaning is tortellini.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform

Typically, it's used to mean limiting the amount a person can claim in personal damages when suing a health care provider.[/QUOTE]

Ok, I can support that on some level... but let's get even more specific: What should the limit be? Should it vary by ailment? Should it be a flat rate? Who gets to decide what the limit is?

 

[GasBandit]

I'd make that "spontaneous grassroots outbursts", not as you put it. It's be pretty much proven that most of these grassroots efforts (on ether side of the debate) are actually scripted and well financed groups trying to create the illusion of the common man's support.

That's the line the democrats are taking anyway, because that's how THEY get things going. But do you have a link to any of what you allege? Because so far, most of the "special interests" with money to burn are in *favor* of obamacare.

As for Tort reform... what are you suggesting exactly? It's sounding like you don't like the idea of patients who have been harmed by their physicians having the right to sue them for negligence.

The amount of damages has to go down. How that is achieved has many schools of thought, several of which are outlined in the wikipedia article linked above. It'd be silly to eliminate all malpractice suits, but people also have to understand that going under the knife has risks all its own. There is, of course, middle ground between "you can't sue" and "if a doctor so much as slips an inch you can ruin him financially and be set for life"... currently the slider is set too far toward the latter, and is one of the major reasons why health care is expensive in this country.

---------- Post added at 03:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------

Ok, I can support that on some level... but let's get even more specific: What should the limit be? Should it vary by ailment? Should it be a flat rate? Who gets to decide what the limit is?

That, I think, is a topic that needs a whole lot of discussion by experts of both the medical and insurance fields, which isn't happening right now because lawyers refuse to allow it to be an option. I don't think anybody here has quite the qualifications to make that call of how far tort reform needs to go.

 

[Rob King]

That, I think, is a topic that needs a whole lot of discussion by experts of both the medical and insurance fields, which isn't happening right now because lawyers refuse to allow it to be an option. I don't think anybody here has quite the qualifications to make that call of how far tort reform needs to go.

I take this as a challenge.

It should be the cost of the patient's favorite variety of pie.

 

[GasBandit]

That, I think, is a topic that needs a whole lot of discussion by experts of both the medical and insurance fields, which isn't happening right now because lawyers refuse to allow it to be an option. I don't think anybody here has quite the qualifications to make that call of how far tort reform needs to go.

I take this as a challenge.

It should be the cost of the patient's favorite variety of pie.[/QUOTE]

Sorry about cutting off the wrong leg, here's a complimentary key lime pie?

 

[MisterSteve]

HEHEHEH.

I'm gonna explain ''politics'' one last time, because nobody here seems to get it.

Certain groups give money to campaigns to get certain politicians elected.

The politician, when elected, immediately begins sucking their dick.

That's the way it is and the way it always will be, forever and ever and ever. They even changed term limit laws and resorted to gerrymandering to allow more dick sucking over the years.

You want tort reform? Start with campaign and political reform.

You want transparency in government? Start with campaign and political reform.

You want any kind of meaningful change? Start with campaign and political reform.

When we, the people, start to demand real change, real reform and a wide open version of transparency, only then will the wheels of government start their slow and halting grind back to some kind of effective leadership.



Okay, go ahead and keep pretending any politician anywhere at anytime gives a flying fuck about you.

 

[Rob King]

That, I think, is a topic that needs a whole lot of discussion by experts of both the medical and insurance fields, which isn't happening right now because lawyers refuse to allow it to be an option. I don't think anybody here has quite the qualifications to make that call of how far tort reform needs to go.

I take this as a challenge.

It should be the cost of the patient's favorite variety of pie.[/QUOTE]

Sorry about cutting off the wrong leg, here's a complimentary key lime pie?[/QUOTE]

Key lime? What the fu -- Oh, you must be confused. That was the mis-lobotomized patient. I was lemon meringue.

---------- Post added at 06:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 PM ----------

Okay, go ahead and keep pretending any politician anywhere at anytime gives a flying fuck about you.

My former MP (I moved) is actually a pretty stand-up guy. You might not believe it, and he might be the exception, but I can tell you that the evil would have to live very deep in his heart, if there's any there to begin with.

 

[Espy]

That, I think, is a topic that needs a whole lot of discussion by experts of both the medical and insurance fields, which isn't happening right now because lawyers refuse to allow it to be an option. I don't think anybody here has quite the qualifications to make that call of how far tort reform needs to go.

I take this as a challenge.

It should be the cost of the patient's favorite variety of pie.[/QUOTE]

Sorry about cutting off the wrong leg, here's a complimentary key lime pie?[/QUOTE]

YES PLZ.

 

[Krisken]

Arrested? No. Broke decorum and was officially "yelled at", yeah.

 

[AshburnerX]

according to the news here Mr Wilson was arrested for his comment.

Something tells me this is bullshit.... Too many armed republicans would go to war over something like that.

No, but that's probably would have happened if he'd done it in China though. As for the armed Republicans... I honestly don't believe the next Civil War in the US will be divided along party lines. It might be around a single issue, but it's never going to be Dems Vs Republicans.

 

[Rob King]

No, but that's probably would have happened if he'd done it in China though. As for the armed Republicans... I honestly don't believe the next Civil War in the US will be divided along party lines. It might be around a single issue, but it's never going to be Dems Vs Republicans.

I love how you take for granted that there will be one.

 

[AshburnerX]

No, but that's probably would have happened if he'd done it in China though. As for the armed Republicans... I honestly don't believe the next Civil War in the US will be divided along party lines. It might be around a single issue, but it's never going to be Dems Vs Republicans.

I love how you take for granted that there will be one.[/QUOTE]

How many has Europe had? Hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of brother fighting brother over it's long history. America's a young country, with a quickly changing ethnic make-up, under represented minorities, big problems with corruption, lots of freely available weaponry, and an entitlement problem with ALL of it's social classes. Somethings going to give eventually.

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

No, but that's probably would have happened if he'd done it in China though. As for the armed Republicans... I honestly don't believe the next Civil War in the US will be divided along party lines. It might be around a single issue, but it's never going to be Dems Vs Republicans.

I love how you take for granted that there will be one.[/QUOTE]

How many has Europe had? Hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of brother fighting brother over it's long history. America's a young country, with a quickly changing ethnic make-up, under represented minorities, big problems with corruption, lots of freely available weaponry, and an entitlement problem with ALL of it's social classes. Somethings going to give eventually.[/QUOTE]

Factor in things like shortage of food, water, and/ or fuel and you've got a excellent formula for chaos.

 

[Rob King]

Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't disagree. I'm just glad you see it like I do.

That's why I'm glad I live on an island, and a lightly populated one at that. There's this great mentality of unity. Unless it's over who is in control (and I doubt that would ever even pass the level of angry yelling) this island will not be divided by war.

Foreign entities ... I have no idea why they would ever bring war to my home, but if they ever did, you can be sure as shit every last one of us would be ready to do something about it.

 

[GasBandit]

Balkanization - it's what's for dinner.

 

[Rob King]

That map looks familiar ...