kapkomet

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) Oh come on, surely you jest, they keep telling us it won't cost a penny. Are you fired up ...ready to go....fired up ....ready to go....GMAFB... Preaching to the choir... Shouldn't these union workers be WORKING, oh wait, they probably are working while listening to ther sermon. I LOL'd when I heard that clip. This is the most intelligent, articulate man we've ever had in office of the president. LMAO. He's a cheer-monkey. And I'm not talking about the racial monkey before that crap starts.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 12:33 PM) When someone skips out on an ER bill, which is pretty common because an uninsured person pays 2.5 the rate an insured person would, the cost is placed on the taxpayer. By providing insurance, that cost would be lowered, because 1) they would be charged the insured rate, and 2) there is less incentive to skip out on the bill. Also, every bill being considered at this point has the public option as budget neutral, so it wouldn't add to taxes. They're supposed to be self-sufficient on premiums and deductibles. Do you have a clue what that means? Oh wait, you mean this plan's not free? We have to pay for it? WHAT? SERIESLY?!?

You pretty much have to have 4GB minimum to effectively run vista, and that's a pretty big issue for a lot of the computer population.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 11:10 AM) yeah sorry I can't find batteries strong enough for my camera. Damn, a downfall of Brazil. Neat blogging. Very cool. Do you think you might stay? And, I think you'll be surprised in a month how much of the language you've learned. Hang in there, I know it's tough.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 11:40 AM) And yet you're more than willing to say right now that people who can't afford tests shouldn't get them. That's what our current system does to the letter. Even for people with some insurance, but especially for people with none. No, it's not. You want treatment, you get treatment. Oh, but you might have to pay for it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 11:10 AM) You're making several assumptions about the current system that even you disagree with if I phrase it in a different way. If I ask you if doctors were over-ordering tests to cover their arses in the event of a malpractice suit, you've made it clear that you 100% agree that is a major problem with the current system and a major reason why costs are out of control, thus you argue that malpractice reform (Yay says the right side of the Congressional chamber!) is one of the biggest keys to controlling costs. Thus, if I phrase things in a slightly different way, you're 100% willing to admit that overuse/overtreatment is a major problem in our system. You can't have it both ways. If there's no over-utilization in the system, then banning all malpractice suits for all time won't have any impact in terms of cost control. The difference is you cherry pick crap - just like I supposedly just did - to create these fallacies that do not exist in the current system. The truth is, private companies, albiet absolutely imperfect, do a pretty damn good job. You want to talk about preventative medicine - our system has so many pharaceutical innovations that keep people from being more sick - all that will go by the wayside - it's proven in Europe and Canada. Testing for CYA is different then testing for other things. Which, by the way, even though they're 700 miles away, they do exist within the same state. Again, different payor mix, different contract issues, etc. re: Texas. But that's ok, my argument sucks because by golly our system sucks and we need intervention by the government (I mean, who else would do it, these big bad EVIL corporations are just sticking your ass because it's fun, right?)./

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 11:07 AM) I thought the lesson we learned from Obama's association with Rev. Wright is that if you identify yourself as a member of a group (whether it be a congregation or otherwise) led by an alleged loonie, the views of that loonie can automatically be attributed to you also. So when people identify as members of a 912 project led by a crying whacko who says Obama hates whiteys, it is okay to attribute Glenn Beck's or Mark Williams' views to all of their followers. There's a pretty big difference here. As a matter of fact, I'm not even going to waste my time if you can't see the difference, that's pretty ignorant.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 11:02 AM) he's the leader of the revolution. LMAO. There is no "leader" but you sure as hell want a strawman to hang, don't you?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 10:55 AM) Because our system is designed in a way such that everyone makes more money the more they do. The more procedures a doctor orders, the more money they make. You guys like capitalism, you ought to understand that concept; if you make more money by ordering more care, you're going to order more care for people. The British, IIRC, do something different. If you pay doctors on salary, even if they're making really, really good salaries, then you remove the economic incentive where it benefits a doctor to overtreat. This points back directly to that test-case in El Paso TX we talked about a few times, where in McAllen TX, the doctors were ordering vastly more care for the same amount of tests as the city next door and were getting worse health care outcomes. And I've been telling you the fallacies of this. Different contracts. Different demographics - totally different. There's a totally different way of doing business in these two cities. One's all in cash. They're certainly not "neighbors", they're 700 miles apart. And all of a sudden, these "47 million" will make the rest of the US stop doing "all these tests". LMAO. Oh, wait, degradation of care, quality of care goes down... I thought that wasn't going to happen? This is again, double speak. Add people, quality stays the same... cut costs, add people. BS. It can't happen.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 08:54 AM) Thats what I hear people say, but honestly, I've been using it now for a couple months and I really don't see what the big deal is. It's a memory hog, things hang up, it takes forever to load. Anything else?

2006: St. Louis. Good story. Subpar season, got hot at the right time. 2007: Boston again? Who cares? 2008: Philadelphia, and the whole series was s*** because of the weather. Pathetic the way that whole thing was handled.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 11:47 PM) How come it hasn't killed the quality of care in countries with UHC? Seriously? It hasn't?

I hate Tom Brady. Punkasshole.

Because the way we count mortality is different then those in other countries. And when you give them the access you're speaking of, it will kill the quality of care that you're suggesting that's ok now, or not ok, depending on what part of your mouth you want to speak out of.

Ahhh... night-time pills rule again: (less dose tonight but still the same) Shipps: Git git git it it it... you better be relaxin, pickassin; You betta get you some of dat. Icecream pants don't fly, oh no, you got to get your moove on. Ok, it's more boring tonight. No muffdives. Maybe I should take another pill. I sure hope you do at least laugh at this pile of crappy posts.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 11:05 PM) Conservatives have come back to power in Canada and have gutted funding for health-care to make private insurance companies more attractive. Don't just call points bs, you have to back up your assertion with facts. Like this one about administration costs. http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resource...hnicalPaper.pdf According to the UN, the number one health care system in the world is France. They have private insurance companies. The difference between their companies and ours is a big one though. Theirs are non-profit. It is that incentive to maximize profits in every sector that have driven up American healthcare costs and led to massive numbers of people being denied care. Also, I don't think you know what socialism is. I know what the French system is - I worked for a French company. And I spoke to all of them from their side of the world and even they say that health care is overpriced here but there is nowhere better in the world to get treatment as quickly as we do. Why is it executives our my former French company wanted on the US plan, if their insurance is so good? Why is it when the executives go back, they stay on the US plan? I mean if it's so damn good, they should hate our system, but they don't. Why? Oh, I know...! Because we provide the best treatment in the world in a timely manner to those who need it. And that's what matters.

You don't get it. Private insurance cannot compete. They lose money under this. Private health care is springing back up in Canada because people hate the system. Gee, go figure. It's a boondoggle to control what they don't now, and that IS socialism, whether you want to admit it or not. They ARE liberal because they KNOW what it will do. Oh, let's take public option off the table, but in its place, let's put regulations up the ass on what they can and cannot do. Last time I checked, that means they will be so regulated that they will not be able to make the decisions in a market based situation. Oh, I forgot. The "market" is an evil socio-f***up that we dare not do. We must contain salaries, health care, industries, environment, and everything else under the sun, all in the name of making our society so much better - they know what's best for us, shut the f*** up, sit down, no debates, we know what's better for you then you know! Barackus the Great knows utopia, and we will arrive! Woot!

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 10:06 PM) You might be looking at Buchanan through the scope of a neocon, which he is not. He's your old school run of the mill isolationist conservative. And he's irrelevant. Next.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 10:01 PM) Refute the assertion, not the source. The source in that article was the insurance companies. Are you saying the insurance companies lied when they admitted to denying coverage because of domestic violence? Oh good lord. It's not even worth it. Your insurance company could deny you because you took a 10 inch s*** instead of the typical 8 inch s*** because you were irregular yesterday. Poor guy, you were constipated! Now go somewhere else with your megabulls***. LOL. It's their perogative, right? Just like it will be a single payor choice all in due time. So instead of getting denied by 1,304 (or whatever the hell number it is) you can be denied once. Generally, if you have a job, you're going to be covered. Of course there's exceptions, and a lot of times, you may have to get riders that expire - again - most of the time. The horror stories are so far and few between, yet we see all these "horror stories" from websites like the SEIU. People GENERALLY want their insurance left alone. Fix the damn problems. You talk about medicare and the administration... that's a bs point too, but the SEIU and the other left wing sites better build the strawmans, and FAST! The "time for debate is over!!!!", declares Barackus the Great. You have supermajorities, go for it, big BOY. Oh wait, he can't even lead his own party... oh the games, oh the games...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 09:59 PM) I just wish Xe (Blackwater) got the same treatment for killing people. Or the banks got the same treatment for trying to destroy the world. Why do you have our country so much? Gees. The banks (almost) DESTROYED THE WORLD! OMG LOLERZ! But Barackus the Great "saved" us. He "brought us from the brink". LMAO. Kaperbole ™.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 09:57 PM) Would you say a channel with Joe Scarborough, a former GOP congressman, and Pat Buchanan as a nightly contributor are liberal? What about a channel with a primetime host who encourages the Birther movement? (Lou Dobbs) Also, I would say being pro-single payer, anti-militarization, and pro-gay rights are not fringe elements of the liberals. They are central planks of it. As Stephen Colbert would say, reality has a liberal bias. I would say none of these people are "conservative". Especially Buchanan. He's just a mouth piece on MSLSD to say that they have a "right winger" point of view, and he's a nutball jackass who lost his irrelevancy in about 1975.

QUOTE (WilliamTell @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 09:57 PM) Something "big" is supposed to come out tomorrow involving ACORN. That's what some people on Hannity said tonight. We'll see if and what tomorrow. Meh. The Senate cut off some of their funding. Little Dick Durbin voted against this.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 09:20 PM) Funny that you say Bill Clinton Type Democrat, as Clinton is widely recognized as being a Conservative. What? Yea, maybe compared to Barack Obama/Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid standards, but a "conservative"? That just proves that you have no idea what a "conservative" is.

You're getting your talking points from SEIU? Please.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 08:30 PM) Yah, I never understood this "mainstream media" thing. Aren't Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh mainstream? So most of the media don't think like Kapkomet, for example, doesn't mean they're liberal. I would say the media has major problems, but whether or not they're liberal or conservative is probably not the biggest problem. But of course Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh aren't mainstream, they're right wing kooks. Get with it, you're not following your marching orders!