Discussion:
OT: I'm with Robin Williams
(too old to reply)
Mike Kreuzer
2010-04-02 00:04:57 UTC
Permalink
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/people/krudd-i-love-australia-williams-redneck-row-comeback-20100402-rimy.html

Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Vincenzo Beretta
2010-04-02 00:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kreuzer
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/people/krudd-i-love-australia-williams-redneck-row-comeback-20100402-rimy.html
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
"...Meanwhile, Mr Rudd's reference to Alabama and rednecks generated a terse
response from Alabama governor Bob Riley..."

LOL :^D
Juarez
2010-04-03 14:54:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kreuzer
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/people/krudd-i-love-australia-williams-redneck-row-comeback-20100402-rimy.html
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Robin is right but it is also true the 80% of Americans are rednecks.
Americans and Aussies have a lot in common.
KG_Jag
2010-04-04 06:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juarez
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/people/krudd-i-love-australia-will...
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Robin is right but it is also true the 80% of Americans are rednecks.
Americans and Aussies have a lot in common.
So I'm left with the conclusion that you put yourself with the
remaining 20%, which consists of burned out hippies and the self-
appointed "elite"--who know what is best for everyone (except possibly
themselves).
Juarez
2010-04-04 14:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by KG_Jag
So I'm left with the conclusion that you put yourself with the
remaining 20%, which consists of burned out hippies and the self-
appointed "elite"--who know what is best for everyone (except possibly
themselves).
I don't live in USA or AUS. I live in a redneck free zone.
KG_Jag
2010-04-04 17:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juarez
Post by KG_Jag
So I'm left with the conclusion that you put yourself with the
remaining 20%, which consists of burned out hippies and the self-
appointed "elite"--who know what is best for everyone (except possibly
themselves).
I don't live in USA or AUS. I live in a redneck free zone.
The North Pole?
Juarez
2010-04-05 17:57:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by KG_Jag
The North Pole?
Not too far from there.
Ray OHara
2010-04-04 17:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Juarez
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/people/krudd-i-love-australia-will...
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Robin is right but it is also true the 80% of Americans are rednecks.
Americans and Aussies have a lot in common.
So I'm left with the conclusion that you put yourself with the
remaining 20%, which consists of burned out hippies and the self-
appointed "elite"--who know what is best for everyone (except possibly
themselves).
yep kill the "elite", we doant want no smart peeple leeding us.

we doant want no Yankee blue blood prep-school Yale/Harvard types in charge.
look what happened with the last wun.
yep we want those Sarah Palin dumber than a mud-brick leeders.

P.S. Fox news is lying to you.
KG_Jag
2010-04-05 02:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray OHara
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Juarez
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/people/krudd-i-love-australia-will...
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Robin is right but it is also true the 80% of Americans are rednecks.
Americans and Aussies have a lot in common.
So I'm left with the conclusion that you put yourself with the
remaining 20%, which consists of burned out hippies and the self-
appointed "elite"--who know what is best for everyone (except possibly
themselves).
yep kill the "elite", we doant want no smart peeple leeding us.
we doant want no Yankee blue blood prep-school Yale/Harvard types in charge.
look what happened with the last wun.
yep we want those Sarah Palin dumber than a mud-brick leeders.
P.S. Fox news is lying to you.
So Ray--what's the U.S. unemployment rate more than a year after the
drunken-sailor-we-have-pass-it-now-because-I have-to-fly-to the
Vatican-to-see the-Pope-so-called-stimulus-bill? On top of that how
many have just quit looking for jobs?

How much has been added to the U.S. deficit since the summer of 2009
at the insistence of these elites, and how the hell--and when the
hell--are going to pay it off?

Social Security and Medicare are insolvent and unsustainable, so
instead of addressing these problems the elites come up with a whole
new "health care" entitlement that will cost billions more, even after
stealing money from troubled Medicare.

All of these elite sponsored initiatives should be labeled "don't try
this at home" because if you did, you'd be living in a washing machine
box.

Keep your elites. Give me leaders with common sense; math skills that
exceed those of Mr. Ed; and in format of a small and limited federal
government, as called for in the Constitution.
KG_Jag
2010-04-05 02:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Ray OHara
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Juarez
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/people/krudd-i-love-australia-will...
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Robin is right but it is also true the 80% of Americans are rednecks.
Americans and Aussies have a lot in common.
So I'm left with the conclusion that you put yourself with the
remaining 20%, which consists of burned out hippies and the self-
appointed "elite"--who know what is best for everyone (except possibly
themselves).
yep kill the "elite", we doant want no smart peeple leeding us.
we doant want no Yankee blue blood prep-school Yale/Harvard types in charge.
look what happened with the last wun.
yep we want those Sarah Palin dumber than a mud-brick leeders.
P.S. Fox news is lying to you.
So Ray--what's the U.S. unemployment rate more than a year after the
drunken-sailor-we-have-pass-it-now-because-I have-to-fly-to the
Vatican-to-see the-Pope-so-called-stimulus-bill?  On top of that how
many have just quit looking for jobs?
How much has been added to the U.S. deficit since the summer of 2009
at the insistence of these elites, and how the hell--and when the
hell--are going to pay it off?
Social Security and Medicare are insolvent and unsustainable, so
instead of addressing these problems the elites come up with a whole
new "health care" entitlement that will cost billions more, even after
stealing money from troubled Medicare.
All of these elite sponsored initiatives should be labeled "don't try
this at home" because if you did, you'd be living in a washing machine
box.
Keep your elites.  Give me leaders with common sense; math skills that
exceed those of Mr. Ed; and in format of a small and limited federal
government, as called for in the Constitution.
Correction to first line of para. 2 above: "summer of 2008".
Ray OHara
2010-04-07 01:35:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Ray OHara
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Juarez
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/people/krudd-i-love-australia-will...
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Robin is right but it is also true the 80% of Americans are rednecks.
Americans and Aussies have a lot in common.
So I'm left with the conclusion that you put yourself with the
remaining 20%, which consists of burned out hippies and the self-
appointed "elite"--who know what is best for everyone (except possibly
themselves).
yep kill the "elite", we doant want no smart peeple leeding us.
we doant want no Yankee blue blood prep-school Yale/Harvard types in charge.
look what happened with the last wun.
yep we want those Sarah Palin dumber than a mud-brick leeders.
P.S. Fox news is lying to you.
So Ray--what's the U.S. unemployment rate more than a year after the
drunken-sailor-we-have-pass-it-now-because-I have-to-fly-to the
Vatican-to-see the-Pope-so-called-stimulus-bill? On top of that how
many have just quit looking for jobs?
How much has been added to the U.S. deficit since the summer of 2009
at the insistence of these elites, and how the hell--and when the
hell--are going to pay it off?
Social Security and Medicare are insolvent and unsustainable, so
instead of addressing these problems the elites come up with a whole
new "health care" entitlement that will cost billions more, even after
stealing money from troubled Medicare.
All of these elite sponsored initiatives should be labeled "don't try
this at home" because if you did, you'd be living in a washing machine
box.
Keep your elites. Give me leaders with common sense; math skills that
exceed those of Mr. Ed; and in format of a small and limited federal
government, as called for in the Constitution.
Correction to first line of para. 2 above: "summer of 2008".


============================================================================

Reagan and Bush Jr ran up the deficits.
you wingnuts seem to forget the 8 Bush years.
KG_Jag
2010-04-07 03:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by KG_Jag
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Ray OHara
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Juarez
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/people/krudd-i-love-australia-will...
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Robin is right but it is also true the 80% of Americans are rednecks.
Americans and Aussies have a lot in common.
So I'm left with the conclusion that you put yourself with the
remaining 20%, which consists of burned out hippies and the self-
appointed "elite"--who know what is best for everyone (except possibly
themselves).
yep kill the "elite", we doant want no smart peeple leeding us.
we doant want no Yankee blue blood prep-school Yale/Harvard types in charge.
look what happened with the last wun.
yep we want those Sarah Palin dumber than a mud-brick leeders.
P.S. Fox news is lying to you.
So Ray--what's the U.S. unemployment rate more than a year after the
drunken-sailor-we-have-pass-it-now-because-I have-to-fly-to the
Vatican-to-see the-Pope-so-called-stimulus-bill? On top of that how
many have just quit looking for jobs?
How much has been added to the U.S. deficit since the summer of 2009
at the insistence of these elites, and how the hell--and when the
hell--are going to pay it off?
Social Security and Medicare are insolvent and unsustainable, so
instead of addressing these problems the elites come up with a whole
new "health care" entitlement that will cost billions more, even after
stealing money from troubled Medicare.
All of these elite sponsored initiatives should be labeled "don't try
this at home" because if you did, you'd be living in a washing machine
box.
Keep your elites. Give me leaders with common sense; math skills that
exceed those of Mr. Ed; and in format of a small and limited federal
government, as called for in the Constitution.
Correction to first line of para. 2 above: "summer of 2008".
============================================================================
Reagan and Bush Jr ran up the deficits.
you wingnuts seem to forget the 8 Bush years.
I did not support Bush on these issues in 2008. But Obama has made
all the others look like penny-pinchers in his drive to multiply the
deficit level.
Giftzwerg
2010-04-08 09:57:42 UTC
Permalink
In article <73f95e7f-28dd-4a35-80e6-
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Ray OHara
Reagan and Bush Jr ran up the deficits.
you wingnuts seem to forget the 8 Bush years.
I did not support Bush on these issues in 2008. But Obama has made
all the others look like penny-pinchers in his drive to multiply the
deficit level.
Ain't that the truth. This graphic:

Loading Image...

... says it all. The deficit under Bush peaked at about $400B in 2004
and then dropped steadily until The Panic of 2008 drove it up again.

Clodhopper is running an $1,850 billion deficit this year. Thaaaaat's
right, folks, *one year* of Obama's deficits are equal to *eight years*
of Bush's.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Ray OHara
2010-04-08 00:50:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by KG_Jag
Post by KG_Jag
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Ray OHara
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Juarez
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/people/krudd-i-love-australia-will...
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Robin is right but it is also true the 80% of Americans are rednecks.
Americans and Aussies have a lot in common.
So I'm left with the conclusion that you put yourself with the
remaining 20%, which consists of burned out hippies and the self-
appointed "elite"--who know what is best for everyone (except possibly
themselves).
yep kill the "elite", we doant want no smart peeple leeding us.
we doant want no Yankee blue blood prep-school Yale/Harvard types in charge.
look what happened with the last wun.
yep we want those Sarah Palin dumber than a mud-brick leeders.
P.S. Fox news is lying to you.
So Ray--what's the U.S. unemployment rate more than a year after the
drunken-sailor-we-have-pass-it-now-because-I have-to-fly-to the
Vatican-to-see the-Pope-so-called-stimulus-bill? On top of that how
many have just quit looking for jobs?
How much has been added to the U.S. deficit since the summer of 2009
at the insistence of these elites, and how the hell--and when the
hell--are going to pay it off?
Social Security and Medicare are insolvent and unsustainable, so
instead of addressing these problems the elites come up with a whole
new "health care" entitlement that will cost billions more, even after
stealing money from troubled Medicare.
All of these elite sponsored initiatives should be labeled "don't try
this at home" because if you did, you'd be living in a washing machine
box.
Keep your elites. Give me leaders with common sense; math skills that
exceed those of Mr. Ed; and in format of a small and limited federal
government, as called for in the Constitution.
Correction to first line of para. 2 above: "summer of 2008".
============================================================================
Reagan and Bush Jr ran up the deficits.
you wingnuts seem to forget the 8 Bush years.
I did not support Bush on these issues in 2008. But Obama has made
all the others look like penny-pinchers in his drive to multiply the
deficit level.
all of Obama's "debts" are theoretical projections made up by Fox and its
tame political party using Reagan's famous "fuzzy math" Bush 1 used to talk
about.
and how you wingnuts have turned on the old Chimperor.
all the money is still going to pay for the two inherited wars and debt
service for the money Reagan and the two Bush's borrowed from China.
then there was the tanking economy, even the Repub pols admitted that it
worked, {just not on Fox but comments will be provided below}
the Cash For Clunkers lso worked both Ford and GM reopened closed plants.
KG_Jag
2010-04-08 04:23:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray OHara
Post by KG_Jag
Post by KG_Jag
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Ray OHara
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Juarez
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/people/krudd-i-love-australia-will...
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Robin is right but it is also true the 80% of Americans are rednecks.
Americans and Aussies have a lot in common.
So I'm left with the conclusion that you put yourself with the
remaining 20%, which consists of burned out hippies and the self-
appointed "elite"--who know what is best for everyone (except possibly
themselves).
yep kill the "elite", we doant want no smart peeple leeding us.
we doant want no Yankee blue blood prep-school Yale/Harvard types in charge.
look what happened with the last wun.
yep we want those Sarah Palin dumber than a mud-brick leeders.
P.S. Fox news is lying to you.
So Ray--what's the U.S. unemployment rate more than a year after the
drunken-sailor-we-have-pass-it-now-because-I have-to-fly-to the
Vatican-to-see the-Pope-so-called-stimulus-bill? On top of that how
many have just quit looking for jobs?
How much has been added to the U.S. deficit since the summer of 2009
at the insistence of these elites, and how the hell--and when the
hell--are going to pay it off?
Social Security and Medicare are insolvent and unsustainable, so
instead of addressing these problems the elites come up with a whole
new "health care" entitlement that will cost billions more, even after
stealing money from troubled Medicare.
All of these elite sponsored initiatives should be labeled "don't try
this at home" because if you did, you'd be living in a washing machine
box.
Keep your elites. Give me leaders with common sense; math skills that
exceed those of Mr. Ed; and in format of a small and limited federal
government, as called for in the Constitution.
Correction to first line of para. 2 above: "summer of 2008".
============================================================================
Reagan and Bush Jr ran up the deficits.
you wingnuts seem to forget the 8 Bush years.
I did not support Bush on these issues in 2008. But Obama has made
all the others look like penny-pinchers in his drive to multiply the
deficit level.
all of Obama's "debts" are theoretical projections made up by Fox and its
tame political party using Reagan's famous "fuzzy math" Bush 1 used to talk
about.
and how you wingnuts have turned on the old Chimperor.
all the money is still going to pay for the two inherited wars and debt
service for the money Reagan and the two Bush's borrowed from China.
then there was the tanking economy, even the Repub pols admitted that it
worked, {just not on Fox but comments will be provided below}
the Cash For Clunkers lso worked both Ford and GM reopened closed plants.
So Ray--what is Obama's deficit for 2009, 2010 and how much will it
increase in 2011 and 2012. All are records for the U.S.--including
times of World War. But don't worry the corrupt, promised free lunch
health care bill will certainly help out--especially for those four
years it implements taxes, but almost no benefits.

All that spending and the unemployment rate is 9.7%, almost two points
greater that what Obama's administration promised would be the worst
case scenario after passing their deficit busting early 2009
"stimulus" bill.

Sorry you don't like the real numbers. What does MSNBC say they are
and are projected to be? I'd certainly like to hear from those
objective reporters of news.
Giftzwerg
2010-04-09 09:02:42 UTC
Permalink
In article <9d86a7ef-1725-4800-8bac-24de39f97e83
@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, ***@netscape.net says...
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Ray OHara
all of Obama's "debts" are theoretical projections made up by Fox and its
tame political party using Reagan's famous "fuzzy math" Bush 1 used to talk
about.
and how you wingnuts have turned on the old Chimperor.
all the money is still going to pay for the two inherited wars and debt
service for the money Reagan and the two Bush's borrowed from China.
then there was the tanking economy, even the Repub pols admitted that it
worked, {just not on Fox but comments will be provided below}
the Cash For Clunkers lso worked both Ford and GM reopened closed plants.
So Ray--what is Obama's deficit for 2009, 2010 and how much will it
increase in 2011 and 2012. All are records for the U.S.--including
times of World War. But don't worry the corrupt, promised free lunch
health care bill will certainly help out--especially for those four
years it implements taxes, but almost no benefits.
All that spending and the unemployment rate is 9.7%, almost two points
greater that what Obama's administration promised would be the worst
case scenario after passing their deficit busting early 2009
"stimulus" bill.
Sorry you don't like the real numbers. What does MSNBC say they are
and are projected to be? I'd certainly like to hear from those
objective reporters of news.
This chart, which I posted earlier:

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

... details President Clodhopper's ruinous bankrupting of the country.

Please note, for our retarded mailman, that it contains two sets of
projections. One is from the Congressional Budget Office, the other is
from the *White House* itself. Neither set of numbers if from Rush
Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or any of the other bogeymen the retarded
mailman wets himself over.

Note, too, that the *lowest* projected deficit in the Jug-ear Clodhopper
regime is almost twice what the *highest* deficit under Bush was.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Giftzwerg
2010-04-05 08:24:04 UTC
Permalink
In article <5591b939-1fc4-4a61-8c32-eebf7da08c70
@k13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, ***@netscape.net says...
Post by KG_Jag
So Ray--what's the U.S. unemployment rate more than a year after the
drunken-sailor-we-have-pass-it-now-because-I have-to-fly-to the
Vatican-to-see the-Pope-so-called-stimulus-bill? On top of that how
many have just quit looking for jobs?
The more I see and hear President Clodhopper, the more intense the
feeling grows that he's an Affirmative Action dolt passed up the chain
without much regard for whether he had two brain cells to rub together.
His rambling, incoherent, borderline looney "answer" the other day to
the woman who asserted she was "overtaxed" was jaw-droppingly stupid.

Oh, and it took him 17 minutes to stop talking; I thought his handlers
were going to break out a straightjacket.

Cripes, we thought *Bush* sounded like an idiot when speaking without a
script? They should make Obama wear a bright yellow football helmet
like the other 'tards.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Q***@webtv.net
2010-04-05 13:53:04 UTC
Permalink
http://www.dc37.net/

The Power of Persistence: Winning on Health Care and Contracting Out

By LILLIAN ROBERTS
Executive Director, District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO

PRESIDENT BARACK QBAMA and the Democrats in Congress made history last
month with a sweeping reform of the nation's health care system - our
country's greatest advance in social justice in half a century. I am
proud that we in District Council 37 were part of making a change as
momentous as Social Security, Medicare and the Civil Rights Act.

This landmark legislation will provide coverage for 32 million people
who have been kept from meeting this most basic need under the current
system. The next issue of PEP will publish a complete description of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but here are a few of the
great improvements that affect members.

The new law:

* Cuts the $1,000 annual "hidden tax" that insured members pay to treat
the uninsured.

* Closes Medicare's prescription drug "doughnut hole" coverage gap
gradually, starting with a $250 rebate in 2010 and a 50 percent discount
in 2011.

* Gives adults with pre-existing conditions immediate access to
affordable insurance and in 2014 prohibits any discrimination based on
pre-existing conditions.

* Extends dependent coverage to age 26, bans insurance companies from
dropping people when they get sick, and restricts lifetime and annual
benefit limits.

* Lessens contracting-out threats by penalizing big employers that don't
offer health coverage.

I am thrilled that after a long and tough battle, we have taken this
giant step. We are a strong and wealthy country, and it's about time for
us to use our resources so all our people can be healthy. But I was
dismayed at the blatant fear mongering the Republicans used to fight
reform, such as the lies that said "death panels" would pull the plug on
grandma and called a majority vote in the Senate a "totalitarian
tactic."

As the lawmakers passed the bill, we saw incredible bitterness that
reminded me of the 1950s, when the Supreme Court ended racial
segregation in the schools and some stood in the doorway to block
equality. One right-wing writer called health care reform "affirmative
action on steroids." A "tea party" mob shouted racist epithets and spat
on African American Congressional representatives, including civil
rights movement hero John Lewis. The invisible sheets became very
visible that day.

But in the end, it became a day of pride for America, as people of
decency and good

see
http://www.healthreform.gov/
Ray OHara
2010-04-07 01:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q***@webtv.net
http://www.dc37.net/
The Power of Persistence: Winning on Health Care and Contracting Out
By LILLIAN ROBERTS
Executive Director, District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
PRESIDENT BARACK QBAMA and the Democrats in Congress made history last
month with a sweeping reform of the nation's health care system - our
country's greatest advance in social justice in half a century. I am
proud that we in District Council 37 were part of making a change as
momentous as Social Security, Medicare and the Civil Rights Act.
This landmark legislation will provide coverage for 32 million people
who have been kept from meeting this most basic need under the current
system. The next issue of PEP will publish a complete description of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but here are a few of the
great improvements that affect members.
* Cuts the $1,000 annual "hidden tax" that insured members pay to treat
the uninsured.
* Closes Medicare's prescription drug "doughnut hole" coverage gap
gradually, starting with a $250 rebate in 2010 and a 50 percent discount
in 2011.
* Gives adults with pre-existing conditions immediate access to
affordable insurance and in 2014 prohibits any discrimination based on
pre-existing conditions.
* Extends dependent coverage to age 26, bans insurance companies from
dropping people when they get sick, and restricts lifetime and annual
benefit limits.
* Lessens contracting-out threats by penalizing big employers that don't
offer health coverage.
I am thrilled that after a long and tough battle, we have taken this
giant step. We are a strong and wealthy country, and it's about time for
us to use our resources so all our people can be healthy. But I was
dismayed at the blatant fear mongering the Republicans used to fight
reform, such as the lies that said "death panels" would pull the plug on
grandma and called a majority vote in the Senate a "totalitarian
tactic."
As the lawmakers passed the bill, we saw incredible bitterness that
reminded me of the 1950s, when the Supreme Court ended racial
segregation in the schools and some stood in the doorway to block
equality. One right-wing writer called health care reform "affirmative
action on steroids." A "tea party" mob shouted racist epithets and spat
on African American Congressional representatives, including civil
rights movement hero John Lewis. The invisible sheets became very
visible that day.
But in the end, it became a day of pride for America, as people of
decency and good
see
http://www.healthreform.gov/
posting the facts is wasted on the wingnut brigade.
remember you are dealing with people who think the chimpler was brilliant
and Sarahquitter will be the next president.
KG_Jag
2010-04-07 03:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Q***@webtv.net
http://www.dc37.net/
The Power of Persistence: Winning on Health Care and Contracting Out
By LILLIAN ROBERTS
Executive Director, District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
PRESIDENT BARACK QBAMA and the Democrats in Congress made history last
month with a sweeping reform of the nation's health care system - our
country's greatest advance in social justice in half a century. I am
proud that we in District Council 37 were part of making a change as
momentous as Social Security, Medicare and the Civil Rights Act.
This landmark legislation will provide coverage for 32 million people
who have been kept from meeting this most basic need under the current
system. The next issue of PEP will publish a complete description of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but here are a few of the
great improvements that affect members.
* Cuts the $1,000 annual "hidden tax" that insured members pay to treat
the uninsured.
* Closes Medicare's prescription drug "doughnut hole" coverage gap
gradually, starting with a $250 rebate in 2010 and a 50 percent discount
in 2011.
* Gives adults with pre-existing conditions immediate access to
affordable insurance and in 2014 prohibits any discrimination based on
pre-existing conditions.
* Extends dependent coverage to age 26, bans insurance companies from
dropping people when they get sick, and restricts lifetime and annual
benefit limits.
* Lessens contracting-out threats by penalizing big employers that don't
offer health coverage.
I am thrilled that after a long and tough battle, we have taken this
giant step. We are a strong and wealthy country, and it's about time for
us to use our resources so all our people can be healthy. But I was
dismayed at the blatant fear mongering the Republicans used to fight
reform, such as the lies that said "death panels" would pull the plug on
grandma and called a majority vote in the Senate a "totalitarian
tactic."
As the lawmakers passed the bill, we saw incredible bitterness that
reminded me of the 1950s, when the Supreme Court ended racial
segregation in the schools and some stood in the doorway to block
equality. One right-wing writer called health care reform "affirmative
action on steroids." A "tea party" mob shouted racist epithets and spat
on African American Congressional representatives, including civil
rights movement hero John Lewis. The invisible sheets became very
visible that day.
But in the end, it became a day of pride for America, as people of
decency and good
see
http://www.healthreform.gov/
posting the facts is wasted on the wingnut brigade.
remember you are dealing with people who think the chimpler was brilliant
and Sarahquitter will be the next president.
Especially if you have no facts to post.
Ray OHara
2010-04-08 00:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Q***@webtv.net
http://www.dc37.net/
The Power of Persistence: Winning on Health Care and Contracting Out
By LILLIAN ROBERTS
Executive Director, District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
PRESIDENT BARACK QBAMA and the Democrats in Congress made history last
month with a sweeping reform of the nation's health care system - our
country's greatest advance in social justice in half a century. I am
proud that we in District Council 37 were part of making a change as
momentous as Social Security, Medicare and the Civil Rights Act.
This landmark legislation will provide coverage for 32 million people
who have been kept from meeting this most basic need under the current
system. The next issue of PEP will publish a complete description of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but here are a few of the
great improvements that affect members.
* Cuts the $1,000 annual "hidden tax" that insured members pay to treat
the uninsured.
* Closes Medicare's prescription drug "doughnut hole" coverage gap
gradually, starting with a $250 rebate in 2010 and a 50 percent discount
in 2011.
* Gives adults with pre-existing conditions immediate access to
affordable insurance and in 2014 prohibits any discrimination based on
pre-existing conditions.
* Extends dependent coverage to age 26, bans insurance companies from
dropping people when they get sick, and restricts lifetime and annual
benefit limits.
* Lessens contracting-out threats by penalizing big employers that don't
offer health coverage.
I am thrilled that after a long and tough battle, we have taken this
giant step. We are a strong and wealthy country, and it's about time for
us to use our resources so all our people can be healthy. But I was
dismayed at the blatant fear mongering the Republicans used to fight
reform, such as the lies that said "death panels" would pull the plug on
grandma and called a majority vote in the Senate a "totalitarian
tactic."
As the lawmakers passed the bill, we saw incredible bitterness that
reminded me of the 1950s, when the Supreme Court ended racial
segregation in the schools and some stood in the doorway to block
equality. One right-wing writer called health care reform "affirmative
action on steroids." A "tea party" mob shouted racist epithets and spat
on African American Congressional representatives, including civil
rights movement hero John Lewis. The invisible sheets became very
visible that day.
But in the end, it became a day of pride for America, as people of
decency and good
see
http://www.healthreform.gov/
posting the facts is wasted on the wingnut brigade.
remember you are dealing with people who think the chimpler was brilliant
and Sarahquitter will be the next president.
Especially if you have no facts to post.

======================================================================

thanks I foprgot that trait of yours.
yes, not having facts is the hallmark of the wingnuts and the teabaggers.
Briarroot
2010-04-05 15:20:38 UTC
Permalink
In article<5591b939-1fc4-4a61-8c32-eebf7da08c70
@k13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, ***@netscape.net says...
Post by KG_Jag
So Ray--what's the U.S. unemployment rate more than a year after the
drunken-sailor-we-have-pass-it-now-because-I have-to-fly-to the
Vatican-to-see the-Pope-so-called-stimulus-bill? On top of that how
many have just quit looking for jobs?
The more I see and hear President Clodhopper, the more intense the
feeling grows that he's an Affirmative Action dolt passed up the chain
without much regard for whether he had two brain cells to rub together.
His rambling, incoherent, borderline looney "answer" the other day to
the woman who asserted she was "overtaxed" was jaw-droppingly stupid.
Oh, and it took him 17 minutes to stop talking; I thought his handlers
were going to break out a straightjacket.
Cripes, we thought *Bush* sounded like an idiot when speaking without a
script? They should make Obama wear a bright yellow football helmet
like the other 'tards.
Obama is the "Teflon Bill Clinton." He's an even bigger liar than
Clinton was - which is saying a lot - but he gets away with it because
he's black. Those in the media who have the *temerity* to point out
that when Obama is not telling lies it's because he's babbling feel-good
nonsense, are immediately branded "racist" by the rest of the media and
promptly ignored. At least Clinton was roundly criticized even if he
himself ignored all media criticism. But Obama? No fucking way!

I said at the outset that Senator Obama was running for President to
improve his self-image; to heal the scars leftover from growing up
half-white half-black with an African name in a nation where neither
group could accept him. Name another guy with zero accomplishments who
wrote not one, but *two* autobiographies! Granted, all politicians have
outsized egos, it's part of the job requirements, but most of them
aren't nearly as adept as Obama at hiding their real motivations.
--
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
Giftzwerg
2010-04-05 16:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
Cripes, we thought *Bush* sounded like an idiot when speaking without a
script? They should make Obama wear a bright yellow football helmet
like the other 'tards.
Obama is the "Teflon Bill Clinton." He's an even bigger liar than
Clinton was - which is saying a lot - but he gets away with it because
he's black. Those in the media who have the *temerity* to point out
that when Obama is not telling lies it's because he's babbling feel-good
nonsense, are immediately branded "racist" by the rest of the media and
promptly ignored. At least Clinton was roundly criticized even if he
himself ignored all media criticism. But Obama? No fucking way!
Well, the media is certainly *trying* to dismiss criticism of President
Hillbilly^h^h^h^h Super Genius by playing the race card, but the
pushback is immediate and right on the money ... and the public is
waaaaaaaaaay smarter than the media. Sure, every media guy in the
pueblo is convinced that "Tea Party == KKK," but nobody outside their
li'l echo chamber believes this.

And the problem has spiraled out of their control, anyhow; already Obama
is strongly opposed by a large majority of the people. It's one thing
to call the 20% hardcore right a bunch of redneck racists ... but you
have to tread with extreme caution when you're flirting with charges of
bigotry against a whopping *60%* of the *electorate*.

And I think a good many people are so weary of the race card that
they've reached a point I hit way back in 2002:

"If you're against affirmative action, you're a
racist. If you're unhappy with immigration policy, you're a racist. If
you dislike <insert something the left likes>, you're a <racist /
homophobe / sexist>. Shit, if you thought OJ Simpson guilty, you're a
racist. [...]

By now, I'm a racist so many times over that it's sort of ...
liberating. Empowering. Yes. By gosh. I'm a racist. A genocidal
racist. I thought Mark Fuhrman didn't frame OJ. I thought Rodney King
was a wretched little criminal. I think Mumia Abu-Jamal deserves to
fry. I think Ward Connerly has the right idea. I like <gasp!> Clarence
Thomas, and think he has a sort of quiet strength of character that I
find inspiring."

And then there's this:
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Briarroot
2010-04-06 14:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
Cripes, we thought *Bush* sounded like an idiot when speaking without a
script? They should make Obama wear a bright yellow football helmet
like the other 'tards.
Obama is the "Teflon Bill Clinton." He's an even bigger liar than
Clinton was - which is saying a lot - but he gets away with it because
he's black. Those in the media who have the *temerity* to point out
that when Obama is not telling lies it's because he's babbling feel-good
nonsense, are immediately branded "racist" by the rest of the media and
promptly ignored. At least Clinton was roundly criticized even if he
himself ignored all media criticism. But Obama? No fucking way!
Well, the media is certainly *trying* to dismiss criticism of President
Hillbilly^h^h^h^h Super Genius by playing the race card, but the
pushback is immediate and right on the money ... and the public is
waaaaaaaaaay smarter than the media. Sure, every media guy in the
pueblo is convinced that "Tea Party == KKK," but nobody outside their
li'l echo chamber believes this.
And the problem has spiraled out of their control, anyhow; already Obama
is strongly opposed by a large majority of the people. It's one thing
to call the 20% hardcore right a bunch of redneck racists ... but you
have to tread with extreme caution when you're flirting with charges of
bigotry against a whopping *60%* of the *electorate*.
Have you noticed the recent attention the Justice Department has been
paying to those marginal nutball groups who like to run around in the
woods in full camo gear? They're now being branded "white supremacist
militias intent on overthrowing the government." As laughable as that
may be, I don't think the sudden interest of federal law enforcement in
these groups is a coincidence. Call me overly suspicious, but I think I
see the handiwork of the Democratic Party hierarchy at work. It's
classic spin doctoring.
Post by Giftzwerg
And I think a good many people are so weary of the race card that
"If you're against affirmative action, you're a
racist. If you're unhappy with immigration policy, you're a racist. If
you dislike<insert something the left likes>, you're a<racist /
homophobe / sexist>. Shit, if you thought OJ Simpson guilty, you're a
racist. [...]
By now, I'm a racist so many times over that it's sort of ...
liberating. Empowering. Yes. By gosh. I'm a racist. A genocidal
racist. I thought Mark Fuhrman didn't frame OJ. I thought Rodney King
was a wretched little criminal. I think Mumia Abu-Jamal deserves to
fry. I think Ward Connerly has the right idea. I like<gasp!> Clarence
Thomas, and think he has a sort of quiet strength of character that I
find inspiring."
Whenever my criticism of Obama gets tagged as racist, I point my
accusers to two of the men I would *much* rather see as President:
Professor Walter Williams of George Mason University, and economist
Thomas Sowell, both of whom happen to be a whole lot blacker than Obama!
Hell, I'd even settle for radio jock Larry Elder in preference to
Obama. At least he's a straight shooter.
--
"The 2008 elections gave liberals the curse of opportunity, and they
have used it to reveal themselves ruinously. The protracted health-care
debacle has highlighted this fact: Some liberals consider the
legislation's unpopularity a reason to redouble their efforts to inflict
it on Americans who, such liberals think, are too benighted to
understand that their betters know best. The essence of contemporary
liberalism is the illiberal conviction that Americans, in their
comprehensive incompetence, need minute supervision by government, which
liberals believe exists to spare citizens the torture of thinking and
choosing." - George Will
Frank E
2010-04-06 14:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Briarroot
Have you noticed the recent attention the Justice Department has been
paying to those marginal nutball groups who like to run around in the
woods in full camo gear? They're now being branded "white supremacist
militias intent on overthrowing the government." As laughable as that
may be,
What part of that description do you disagree with?
Post by Briarroot
I don't think the sudden interest of federal law enforcement in
these groups is a coincidence. Call me overly suspicious,
Nah, not you. Perish the thought! :p

Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
2010-04-07 04:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank E
Post by Briarroot
Have you noticed the recent attention the Justice Department has been
paying to those marginal nutball groups who like to run around in the
woods in full camo gear? They're now being branded "white supremacist
militias intent on overthrowing the government." As laughable as that
may be,
What part of that description do you disagree with?
Nothing in particular. My only question is why these folks:

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

... didn't seem to attract much attention from the Justice Department,
the Secret Service, or the leftist media. Suddenly, dissent no longer
seems to be patriotic at all.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

[Note the vast numbers of protesters depicting a noose around Bush's
neck. Now imagine a single sign at a Tea Party rally depicting Obama
being lynched. Think the reaction from the media / officialdom would be
different?]
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Frank E
2010-04-06 18:26:35 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 00:54:03 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Frank E
Post by Briarroot
Have you noticed the recent attention the Justice Department has been
paying to those marginal nutball groups who like to run around in the
woods in full camo gear? They're now being branded "white supremacist
militias intent on overthrowing the government." As laughable as that
may be,
What part of that description do you disagree with?
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
... didn't seem to attract much attention from the Justice Department,
the Secret Service,
I just skimmed that link but I didn't see anything there that I
haven't seen from the loony fringe of the tea party protestors. Or,
for that matter, from people that I work with. While they might take
note, I doubt the secret service is too concerned with those people.
Or do you really think the secret service cares more about protecting
Obama than they did Bush?
Post by Giftzwerg
or the leftist media.
No argument there.
Post by Giftzwerg
[Note the vast numbers of protesters depicting a noose around Bush's
neck. Now imagine a single sign at a Tea Party rally depicting Obama
being lynched. Think the reaction from the media / officialdom would be
different?]
Which media, FOX or MSNBC? <g>

Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
2010-04-07 19:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank E
Post by Giftzwerg
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
... didn't seem to attract much attention from the Justice Department,
the Secret Service,
I just skimmed that link but I didn't see anything there that I
haven't seen from the loony fringe of the tea party protestors.
Cite? Obama with noose around neck?

I mean, go wild, dude, let's compare your examples to zombietime's, one
on one, head to head. You just post those pics of Tea Partiers
asserting that Obama should be *murdered*.

I'll wait.
Post by Frank E
Post by Giftzwerg
[Note the vast numbers of protesters depicting a noose around Bush's
neck. Now imagine a single sign at a Tea Party rally depicting Obama
being lynched. Think the reaction from the media / officialdom would be
different?]
Which media, FOX or MSNBC? <g>
Neither, since I doubt you can cite a single example of an "Obama
Lynching" depiction.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Frank E
2010-04-06 19:38:03 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 15:11:49 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Giftzwerg
Neither, since I doubt you can cite a single example of an "Obama
Lynching" depiction.
I think you're right. At least a quick google search didn't turn any
up and it probably would have since there seem to be a lot of people
that would love to find one.

Rgds, Frank
Ray OHara
2010-04-08 01:13:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank E
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 00:54:03 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Frank E
Post by Briarroot
Have you noticed the recent attention the Justice Department has been
paying to those marginal nutball groups who like to run around in the
woods in full camo gear? They're now being branded "white supremacist
militias intent on overthrowing the government." As laughable as that
may be,
What part of that description do you disagree with?
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
... didn't seem to attract much attention from the Justice Department,
the Secret Service,
I just skimmed that link but I didn't see anything there that I
haven't seen from the loony fringe of the tea party protestors. Or,
for that matter, from people that I work with. While they might take
note, I doubt the secret service is too concerned with those people.
Or do you really think the secret service cares more about protecting
Obama than they did Bush?
Post by Giftzwerg
or the leftist media.
No argument there.
Post by Giftzwerg
[Note the vast numbers of protesters depicting a noose around Bush's
neck. Now imagine a single sign at a Tea Party rally depicting Obama
being lynched. Think the reaction from the media / officialdom would be
different?]
Which media, FOX or MSNBC? <g>
Rgds, Frank
all those holding the "KILL BUSH" were duly investigated by the SS.
the Dems never defended them nor did they show up at any rally where those
types were the majority.
the Repubs routinely defend them.
and they also make baseless accusations based on their own ignorance.
"Obama uses a teleprompter" yeah he does, I can hunt up pix of both Bushs,
and Saraquitter all using teleprompters
all public speakers use them
George C Marshall used one. he was one of the first.are we to say he was
stupid?

Bush with Telepompter
Loading Image...&imgrefurl=http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/sou/&usg=__7xpC9bMFhjJ6onVvRHuayk-IM7o=&h=577&w=386&sz=98&hl=en&start=14&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=DC-aQJpNBBQJNM:&tbnh=134&tbnw=90&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgeorge%2BBush%2Bstate%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bunion%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG%26tbs%3Disch:1
Tinyurl
http://tinyurl.com/y8s8gec

Sarah
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Briarroot
2010-04-07 15:21:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank E
Post by Briarroot
Have you noticed the recent attention the Justice Department has been
paying to those marginal nutball groups who like to run around in the
woods in full camo gear? They're now being branded "white supremacist
militias intent on overthrowing the government." As laughable as that
may be,
What part of that description do you disagree with?
All of it!
Post by Frank E
Post by Briarroot
I don't think the sudden interest of federal law enforcement in
these groups is a coincidence. Call me overly suspicious,
Nah, not you. Perish the thought! :p
I'm not paranoid, it's just the Bushitler tapped my phone! <looks
around furtively>

;-)
--
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, - in
proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, - in
proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above
their vanity and presumption, - in proportion as they are more disposed
to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the
flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power
upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is
within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal
constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.
Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Juarez
2010-04-06 16:50:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Briarroot
Have you noticed the recent attention the Justice Department has been
paying to those marginal nutball groups who like to run around in the
woods in full camo gear? They're now being branded "white supremacist
militias intent on overthrowing the government." As laughable as that
may be, I don't think the sudden interest of federal law enforcement in
these groups is a coincidence. Call me overly suspicious, but I think I
see the handiwork of the Democratic Party hierarchy at work. It's
classic spin doctoring.
Really? Then explain why I have seen redneck trash posting on the
internet how it is time for a revolution ever since Obama became
President? If it is just big talk and no action then they have only
themselves to blame for posting such idiocy on public forums.
Giftzwerg
2010-04-07 04:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
By now, I'm a racist so many times over that it's sort of ...
liberating. Empowering. Yes. By gosh. I'm a racist. A genocidal
racist. I thought Mark Fuhrman didn't frame OJ. I thought Rodney King
was a wretched little criminal. I think Mumia Abu-Jamal deserves to
fry. I think Ward Connerly has the right idea. I like<gasp!> Clarence
Thomas, and think he has a sort of quiet strength of character that I
find inspiring."
Whenever my criticism of Obama gets tagged as racist, I point my
Professor Walter Williams of George Mason University, and economist
Thomas Sowell, both of whom happen to be a whole lot blacker than Obama!
Hell, I'd even settle for radio jock Larry Elder in preference to
Obama. At least he's a straight shooter.
I'd rather have Alan Keyes than President Clodhopper.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Briarroot
2010-04-05 15:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by KG_Jag
...
Social Security and Medicare are insolvent and unsustainable, so
instead of addressing these problems the elites come up with a whole
new "health care" entitlement that will cost billions more, even after
stealing money from troubled Medicare.
All of these elite sponsored initiatives should be labeled "don't try
this at home" because if you did, you'd be living in a washing machine
box.
Not to mention that if any member of the public attempted those things
they would become liable for criminal prosecution because all of those
schemes are based on defrauding the 'investors.'
Post by KG_Jag
Keep your elites. Give me leaders with common sense; math skills that
exceed those of Mr. Ed; and in format of a small and limited federal
government, as called for in the Constitution.
Why do we need "leaders" at all? I don't follow leaders - unless they
are paying my salary. That appears to the entire basis of the strategy
adopted by the post-Kennedy Democratic Party. They pay the voters and
the voters keep returning them to office.

As an American, I was taught that I was born in a land where individual
liberty was the foundation upon which our government was erected.
Obviously, I was deceived.

I think we need a moratorium on all new legislation - about 20 years
ought to do it. During that time the various local, State and Federal
legislative bodies should focus their attention on the unintended
consequences of the laws already on the books and what might be done, if
anything at all, to correct their mistakes.

Who was it that noted: "When there were only ten laws, people respected
them even if they sometimes broke them. Now there are ten thousand laws
and people have lost respect for law itself!"
--
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
2010-04-05 19:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Briarroot
As an American, I was taught that I was born in a land where individual
liberty was the foundation upon which our government was erected.
Obviously, I was deceived.
Rather say that you were successfully propagandised by extremists. Any
civilisation requires the curtailment and (usually) the voluntary
surrender of absolute personal freedoms.

Absolute personal freedom works well when your nearest neighbour is
160kms away.

The last time THAT happened was when total world population was only
in the millions, not the billions.

Welcome to the 21stC where there are too many rats in the same cage.
Giftzwerg
2010-04-05 21:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Post by Briarroot
As an American, I was taught that I was born in a land where individual
liberty was the foundation upon which our government was erected.
Obviously, I was deceived.
Rather say that you were successfully propagandised by extremists.
...because, of course, anything that doesn't fit the retarded socialist
narrative is the product of <sob!> "extremism."
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Any
civilisation requires the curtailment and (usually) the voluntary
surrender of absolute personal freedoms.
Dear dumbass;

Nobody is talking about *absolute* personal freedoms; that's your
strawman.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Briarroot
2010-04-06 14:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Post by Briarroot
As an American, I was taught that I was born in a land where individual
liberty was the foundation upon which our government was erected.
Obviously, I was deceived.
Rather say that you were successfully propagandised by extremists.
<laughter>

This has got to be the first time that Sister Mary Rosario was ever
called an extremist!
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Any
civilisation requires the curtailment and (usually) the voluntary
surrender of absolute personal freedoms.
Absolute personal freedom works well when your nearest neighbour is
160kms away.
The last time THAT happened was when total world population was only
in the millions, not the billions.
Welcome to the 21stC where there are too many rats in the same cage.
<sigh> The Fallacy of the False Dichotomy rears its ugly head once again.

The typical knee-jerk idiot response is to point to the extreme and yap
about how impossible it is. Yeah, shithead, I get it, and so did the
writers of the US Constitution. You probably haven't read it so perhaps
you can be forgiven your ignorance and misunderstanding.

The founders of my nation knew that times change, that populations grow,
that nations expand; thus they favored the general over the specific.
Their *intent* however they made quite clear: the government they
created was charged with maintaining liberty and justice - and little
more! For that reason, the US Constitution has far more to say about
the *limits* of Federal power than it does about the limits on
individual liberty. Over and over again, the idea is repeated that the
national government was founded by individual citizens for their own
protection. The government was to hold in trust the principle of
individual liberty. The government owes a duty to the people, not the
other way 'round.

"The essence of Government is power, and power, lodged as it must be in
human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. Government is instituted to
protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various
rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses.
This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which
impartially secures to every man whatever is his own." - James Madison,
one of the principal authors of the US Constitution and later President
of the USA.

The problem of course is that the founders all died long ago and their
successors have proven incapable of upholding their principles. Nothing
lasts forever, I suppose. :-(
--
"The 2008 elections gave liberals the curse of opportunity, and they
have used it to reveal themselves ruinously. The protracted health-care
debacle has highlighted this fact: Some liberals consider the
legislation's unpopularity a reason to redouble their efforts to inflict
it on Americans who, such liberals think, are too benighted to
understand that their betters know best. The essence of contemporary
liberalism is the illiberal conviction that Americans, in their
comprehensive incompetence, need minute supervision by government, which
liberals believe exists to spare citizens the torture of thinking and
choosing." - George Will
e***@hotmail.com
2010-04-06 06:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Why do we need "leaders" at all?  I don't follow leaders - unless they
are paying my salary.  That appears to the entire basis of the strategy
adopted by the post-Kennedy Democratic Party.  They pay the voters and
the voters keep returning them to office.
Oh, but that's a *perfect* system as you can always print more money
to pay for it ...

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Briarroot
2010-04-06 14:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by Briarroot
Why do we need "leaders" at all? I don't follow leaders - unless they
are paying my salary. That appears to the entire basis of the strategy
adopted by the post-Kennedy Democratic Party. They pay the voters and
the voters keep returning them to office.
Oh, but that's a *perfect* system as you can always print more money
to pay for it ...
The Dems roped in the aged with Social Security and Medicare. Then they
got the poor with Welfare. Now they want the middle class with
Obamacare. Their problem is that it could backfire on them. The high
*cost* of medical care was the chief complaint of the middle class, not
the *availability* of care. That was a red herring designed to win
votes. Those "32 million" that Obama keeps saying were without
insurance were not cut off from health care, they simply did not buy
insurance. They paid cash (like me) for just those services they
thought necessary. In essence, they (we) are now going to spend more
than we would like to spend on health care because we're going to have
to buy insurance. That's the exact opposite of what was needed and what
everyone was clamoring for. We didn't want *more* insurance, we wanted
*cheaper* insurance. The idea that because everyone will now be "in the
pool" means cheaper insurance is a stupid pipe dream as demonstrated by
the experience of those states who already had insurance mandates!

And of course, there is no money in the federal till to pay the
subsidies announced for the poor and middle classes, so.... taxes will
have to increase, and not just on the 'rich.' There aren't enough rich
individuals or corporations to pay for Obamacare so they will either
have to print more money (which after the last few years is a recklessly
dangerous course) or wait for inflation to devalue the dollar. Neither
is a pleasant prospect! :-/
--
"The 2008 elections gave liberals the curse of opportunity, and they
have used it to reveal themselves ruinously. The protracted health-care
debacle has highlighted this fact: Some liberals consider the
legislation's unpopularity a reason to redouble their efforts to inflict
it on Americans who, such liberals think, are too benighted to
understand that their betters know best. The essence of contemporary
liberalism is the illiberal conviction that Americans, in their
comprehensive incompetence, need minute supervision by government, which
liberals believe exists to spare citizens the torture of thinking and
choosing." - George Will
Giftzwerg
2010-04-07 03:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Briarroot
The Dems roped in the aged with Social Security and Medicare. Then they
got the poor with Welfare. Now they want the middle class with
Obamacare. Their problem is that it could backfire on them. The high
*cost* of medical care was the chief complaint of the middle class, not
the *availability* of care.
This is exactly it. And the chief component of these costs is the *one*
thing the Democrats had no intention of reforming; the broken tort
system that encourages defensive medicine.

Consider this example. Five months ago I took a bad spill on a
mountainside. My back, from the beltline to left shoulder, was one
solid black bruise. The next morning, I was pissing blood. OK, I went
to see my doctor, just to make sure I hadn't ruptured some internal
organ. The doctor examined me, theorized that I had bruised a kidney in
the fall, explained that this was common with trauma to the lower back
...

... and then sent me for a full thoracic and urological examination.
Ultrasounds of all internal organs. Full CT scan. Cytoscopic
examination of everything. Complete blood and urine panel. A week's
worth of tests.

Cost like a bastard, and the whole thing was almost certainly
unnecessary.

But from my perspective, why not? I got a 100% full urological and
thoracic workup, soup to nuts. No stones, no tumors, no masses,
nothing; and if there'd been the slightest problem found, it would have
been found much, much, much earlier than it would have been otherwise.
[1]

If the doctor didn't have 1,000,000 legal sharks swimming around him,
though, he'd almost certainly have examined me and said, "Hey, G., it's
probably just the fall; give it a couple of days and get back to me if
the problem persists."


[1] This was my wife the NP's take on it; it was a golden opportunity.
"Man up and do it, ya fucking baby."
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Vincenzo Beretta
2010-04-06 18:16:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
The Dems roped in the aged with Social Security and Medicare. Then they
got the poor with Welfare. Now they want the middle class with
Obamacare. Their problem is that it could backfire on them. The high
*cost* of medical care was the chief complaint of the middle class, not
the *availability* of care.
This is exactly it. And the chief component of these costs is the *one*
thing the Democrats had no intention of reforming; the broken tort
system that encourages defensive medicine.
Consider this example. Five months ago I took a bad spill on a
mountainside. My back, from the beltline to left shoulder, was one
solid black bruise. The next morning, I was pissing blood. OK, I went
to see my doctor, just to make sure I hadn't ruptured some internal
organ. The doctor examined me, theorized that I had bruised a kidney in
the fall, explained that this was common with trauma to the lower back
...
... and then sent me for a full thoracic and urological examination.
Ultrasounds of all internal organs. Full CT scan. Cytoscopic
examination of everything. Complete blood and urine panel. A week's
worth of tests.
Cost like a bastard, and the whole thing was almost certainly
unnecessary.
But from my perspective, why not? I got a 100% full urological and
thoracic workup, soup to nuts. No stones, no tumors, no masses,
nothing; and if there'd been the slightest problem found, it would have
been found much, much, much earlier than it would have been otherwise.
[1]
If the doctor didn't have 1,000,000 legal sharks swimming around him,
though, he'd almost certainly have examined me and said, "Hey, G., it's
probably just the fall; give it a couple of days and get back to me if
the problem persists."
[1] This was my wife the NP's take on it; it was a golden opportunity.
"Man up and do it, ya fucking baby."
Uhm... you know, I could do exactly the same over here - no questions asked,
almost no money involved. I would simply ask for a complete check-up (if the
doctor doesn't ask for it first), pay the "ticket" (I think that for your
exams it would be around 100 Euros in Italy) and go to the nearest clinic.

Really: the answer to most of the Frequently Used
Terror-Tact^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Objections to UHC lies just right over the
border, in the dozens of countries who have it since the XIX Century and
didn't sink under the seas Atlantis-like. I'll concede that looking over his
own border is, for an USAnian, no small feat - but it is not that UHC is an
Untested Weapon System that Could Destroy the Sun and, as such, not to be
experimented lightly...
Giftzwerg
2010-04-07 19:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Uhm... you know, I could do exactly the same over here - no questions asked,
almost no money involved.
<falls over laughing>

"No money involved?"

Here's the difference between you and me. I understand that modern
medical tests and treatments are *tremendously* expensive, involving
technology and skills so advanced as to be almost magic.

You think the treatments are "no money involved," apparently falling out
of the magic ass of The Wizard of Oz.

Here's a clue. You pay the same as I do. The difference being you'd
pay whether you had the tests of treatments or no.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Vincenzo Beretta
2010-04-06 19:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Here's the difference between you and me. I understand that modern
medical tests and treatments are *tremendously* expensive
Ah, but I know that. Part of my tax money is pooled and then used to pay for
treatments when someone needs them.

Some obvious advantages of using this scheme:

- Subtracting money from the common pool is not called "making a legit
profit" but "unlawful appropriation of public money" and thus prosecuted

- I can pick up the phone, go to the hospital, be (hopefully) cured and
return home. No worries about "pre-existing conditions", "the insurance will
pay for X but not for Y", "creative deductibles", various. Oh, and the
ambulance is paid for.

- I can ***CHOOSE*** (a marketing buzzword, I understand, in the States) to
ask for what I feel being a more qualified opinion - let's say in the
States - paying it out of my pocket. I still get the basic check ups, the
medications and maybe even the whole treatment after the problem is
diagnosed paid all by UHC.

- People don't risk bankrupt because of a medical problem. This has two
effects: first a worker is given back to the society (amazingly enough, that
everybody gives, in a general sense, to his country more than he gets, and
that this is the reason why creating a safety net for health-related
problems is a benefit for the country as a whole and not a charity is
something that USAnians do not seem able to grasp); second, no
hospital/doctor/private institution/whatever risks to lose money because
part of the patients went bankrupt thanks to some creative "pre-existing
condition".

Some years ago I was unable to work for almost an year, and I had to undergo
some costly treatments. Who paid for them? Me? My father? Our esteemed PM?
In 2007 my father had to undergo some serious surgery. Who paid for that?
Me? My father? Our esteemed PM?
Our esteemed PM recently had surgery - some suggest of a serious kind, some
suggest of the plastic kind. Who paid for it? Himself? Me? My father?

Does anyone care?

This is the whole point of UHC.
Post by Giftzwerg
Here's a clue. You pay the same as I do. The difference being you'd
pay whether you had the tests of treatments or no.
Here is another clue: people fightning against UHC are waging a battle so
that a third party can legally take part of the money needed to cure those
in need and pocket it. And that's it. Meanwhile, the same kind of
corporation that wails against socialism when they are about to see a source
of free money go away, merrily pockets government bailout money without
screaming about how the financial system is about to "go communist". This is
being called by the anti-UHC crowd RIGHT TO CHOOSE. I guess that one can
choose to be stupid, if he really wants.
Giftzwerg
2010-04-07 20:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Here's a clue. You pay the same as I do. The difference being you'd
pay whether you had the tests of treatments or no.
Here is another clue: people fightning against UHC are waging a battle so
that a third party can legally take part of the money needed to cure those
in need and pocket it. And that's it. Meanwhile, the same kind of
corporation that wails against socialism when they are about to see a source
of free money go away, merrily pockets government bailout money without
screaming about how the financial system is about to "go communist". This is
being called by the anti-UHC crowd RIGHT TO CHOOSE. I guess that one can
choose to be stupid, if he really wants.
But here's the part I don't understand; why do *you* care what system of
medicine *my* country adopts?

I mean, I don't give a flying fuck what you people do. I literally have
no idea how you work things.

Why would it matter to me? Why would I care?

See, this is the part that amazes me; how foreigners are always so
brainlessly interested in American politics.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Vincenzo Beretta
2010-04-06 21:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
But here's the part I don't understand; why do *you* care what system of
medicine *my* country adopts?
In a general sense, well, you know: "If the Americans do it, it must be
smart!!" This landed us in Iraq and *almost* created a subprime crisis -
luckily the bubble brust just when local banks were putting out big ads of
the "You have no means and you need money? No problems!!!" (around 9/2008
the ads were quickly retired).

Now they are proposing to privatize public water services in Rome "the way
Chicago privatized parking services!!!" I'm not making this up. Nor I'm
making up what happened in Chicago. Do a check.

In a globalized world, there is no stupidity that stays in its own country.
This is why people always hope that people in other lands, too, wise up.
Post by Giftzwerg
I mean, I don't give a flying fuck what you people do. I literally have
no idea how you work things.
Again in a general sense, I can see how this is true - for example by
looking at Iraq. The thing I do not understand is if it is something
considered worth boasting about, or if it is an healthy recognition of
cluessness and thus the first step towards clearer thinking.
Post by Giftzwerg
Why would it matter to me? Why would I care?
See, this is the part that amazes me; how foreigners are always so
brainlessly interested in American politics.
Well, just see how "the economy for a new century!!!!" mess stayed in the
USA - not. Having said that, I admit that being brainlessy interested in
some other country politics - to the point of, let's say, invading such a
country because you don't like them - risks to become unhealthy.
Giftzwerg
2010-04-07 22:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
But here's the part I don't understand; why do *you* care what system of
medicine *my* country adopts?
In a general sense, well, you know: "If the Americans do it, it must be
smart!!" This landed us in Iraq and *almost* created a subprime crisis -
luckily the bubble brust just when local banks were putting out big ads of
the "You have no means and you need money? No problems!!!" (around 9/2008
the ads were quickly retired).
But haven't you guys been stupid enough to enact socialized medicine
*already*?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Now they are proposing to privatize public water services in Rome "the way
Chicago privatized parking services!!!" I'm not making this up. Nor I'm
making up what happened in Chicago. Do a check.
Again, your point is that you're too stupid to make your own decisions,
regardless of Americans and their choices?

Jeepers.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
In a globalized world, there is no stupidity that stays in its own country.
This is why people always hope that people in other lands, too, wise up.
<laughter>

Trust me, Americans pay *zero* attention to Italian politics. You guys
could enact a law calling for free steak, beer, and ice cream ... and we
wouldn't even notice.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
I mean, I don't give a flying fuck what you people do. I literally have
no idea how you work things.
Again in a general sense, I can see how this is true - for example by
looking at Iraq. The thing I do not understand is if it is something
considered worth boasting about, or if it is an healthy recognition of
cluessness and thus the first step towards clearer thinking.
Hmmm. Didn't you guys invade Iraq right along with us? Was this
because:

(a) You're all a bunch of weak, mindless sheep who follow their betters
blindly.
(b) You felt the invasion was justified, just like we did.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Why would it matter to me? Why would I care?
See, this is the part that amazes me; how foreigners are always so
brainlessly interested in American politics.
Well, just see how "the economy for a new century!!!!" mess stayed in the
USA - not.
How'd that happen? I mean, weren't you guys all wisely staying out of
the "toxic" American system?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Having said that, I admit that being brainlessy interested in
some other country politics - to the point of, let's say, invading such a
country because you don't like them - risks to become unhealthy.
<shrug>

So don't invade. It's not like you're much use at it anyhow.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Vincenzo Beretta
2010-04-07 05:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Again, your point is that you're too stupid to make your own decisions,
regardless of Americans and their choices?
With Berlusconi around? The "communist hater" who counts Putin among his
best friends? The "The "staunchy ally of G.W. Bush against the raghead
fueled terrorism" who kisses Qaddafi's hand?
(Loading Image...) What
do you think?
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
In a globalized world, there is no stupidity that stays in its own country.
This is why people always hope that people in other lands, too, wise up.
<laughter>
Trust me, Americans pay *zero* attention to Italian politics.
This is why Americans swallow that UHC = death squads for grandma and
grandpa, I guess. I still don't understand why to boast about it, but that's
me.
Post by Giftzwerg
Hmmm. Didn't you guys invade Iraq right along with us? Was this
(a) You're all a bunch of weak, mindless sheep who follow their betters
blindly.
(b) You felt the invasion was justified, just like we did.
(c) Our Conducador looks for gains in whatever place he can find them - be
it with Putin, Qaddafi or Bush. 80% of the population was against the war -
an higher percentage than those who were against entering World War Two. The
Conducador lost the next general elections.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Well, just see how "the economy for a new century!!!!" mess stayed in the
USA - not.
How'd that happen? I mean, weren't you guys all wisely staying out of
the "toxic" American system?
Was your system toxic? I guess that neither your leaders nor the big-ups had
a clue about it :^D

Anyway, yep - the smarter guys stayed of of the "toxic" American system.
They only had to give an hard look to it to see how it was a recipe for
disaster, even if it was, amazingly enough, in another country. This is why
they are called "smarter".
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Having said that, I admit that being brainlessy interested in
some other country politics - to the point of, let's say, invading such a
country because you don't like them - risks to become unhealthy.
<shrug>
So don't invade.
This is a big achievement. Pity that the US could use it seven years ago.
Now it's a moot point.
Giftzwerg
2010-04-08 08:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Again, your point is that you're too stupid to make your own decisions,
regardless of Americans and their choices?
With Berlusconi around? The "communist hater" who counts Putin among his
best friends? The "The "staunchy ally of G.W. Bush against the raghead
fueled terrorism" who kisses Qaddafi's hand?
(http://www.presstv.ir/photo/20100327/dastmalchi20100327172811670.jpg) What
do you think?
*You* elected him. Not me.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Hmmm. Didn't you guys invade Iraq right along with us? Was this
(a) You're all a bunch of weak, mindless sheep who follow their betters
blindly.
(b) You felt the invasion was justified, just like we did.
(c) Our Conducador looks for gains in whatever place he can find them - be
it with Putin, Qaddafi or Bush. 80% of the population was against the war -
an higher percentage than those who were against entering World War Two. The
Conducador lost the next general elections.
But didn't you just elect him *again*?!?! Isn't he your leader *now*?

Gawrsh, but it almost sounds like that "80% against" number is either
too lazy to vote or lacking in memory braincells.

Or just made-up bullshit on your part.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Well, just see how "the economy for a new century!!!!" mess stayed in the
USA - not.
How'd that happen? I mean, weren't you guys all wisely staying out of
the "toxic" American system?
Was your system toxic? I guess that neither your leaders nor the big-ups had
a clue about it :^D
Anyway, yep - the smarter guys stayed of of the "toxic" American system.
They only had to give an hard look to it to see how it was a recipe for
disaster, even if it was, amazingly enough, in another country. This is why
they are called "smarter".
So what are you bitching about? Could it be that you're one of the
"dumber" ones?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
So don't invade.
This is a big achievement. Pity that the US could use it seven years ago.
Now it's a moot point.
Why? President Clodhopper could have pulled out a year ago. He didn't.

I wonder why?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Vincenzo Beretta
2010-04-07 12:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
With Berlusconi around? The "communist hater" who counts Putin among his
best friends? The "The "staunchy ally of G.W. Bush against the raghead
fueled terrorism" who kisses Qaddafi's hand?
(http://www.presstv.ir/photo/20100327/dastmalchi20100327172811670.jpg) What
do you think?
*You* elected him. Not me.
Well, not me, but let's say my country - who was smarter enough not to give
him a second term after, you know, Iraq. Pity: Berlusconi learned the lesson
:^(
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
(c) Our Conducador looks for gains in whatever place he can find them - be
it with Putin, Qaddafi or Bush. 80% of the population was against the war -
an higher percentage than those who were against entering World War Two. The
Conducador lost the next general elections.
But didn't you just elect him *again*?!?! Isn't he your leader *now*?
The main issue with the left here is there is only one Obama - and he isn't
around here :^D But if you look at the actual percentages - exp. after the
just held local elections - Berlusconi survives thanks to the Northern
League. They keep it as a figurehead, and mostly because his control of the
media is useful, but he doesn't hold anymore the majority of the right wing
votes (and Italy is traditionally center-right). Which will now make for
some interesting months since Berlusconi is still a little bit strong in the
south and the Northern League (whose support he needs to stay out of prison)
is, you know, a Northern Separatist party :^D
Post by Giftzwerg
Gawrsh, but it almost sounds like that "80% against" number is either
too lazy to vote or lacking in memory braincells.
It is entirely possible to disagree with some policies but still being
right-winged. Jumping on the Iraq bandwagon (or assembling the bandwagon in
the first place) was beyond stupid - as everyone knew (well, almost
everyone...) Since then, the "foreign military adventures" chapter (never
something that brings luster to Italian history anyway) was closed again -
and Berlusconi got back part of his votes. Part.
Post by Giftzwerg
Or just made-up bullshit on your part.
There is a lot of that from every part in every debate about "going to Iraq"
I agree - not to talk about debates on UHC (which usually - like this very
one - derail into something else as soon as the anti-UHC crowd discovers
that they have about as much ammo as Saddam had WMD in 2003).
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Anyway, yep - the smarter guys stayed of of the "toxic" American system.
They only had to give an hard look to it to see how it was a recipe for
disaster, even if it was, amazingly enough, in another country. This is why
they are called "smarter".
So what are you bitching about? Could it be that you're one of the
"dumber" ones?
I have another brand new clue for you: a ***recession*** doesn't care if you
are dumb or not. But having some smart people around helps - both in
lessening its effect and in keeping liquidity around. Of course having some
smart people at the top could have helped in avoiding the recession in the
first place. You know, people smart enough to understand that lending
without guarantees is not going to end well - i.e. what the whole spectrum
of US big honchos failed to grasp.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
So don't invade.
This is a big achievement. Pity that the US could use it seven years ago.
Now it's a moot point.
Why? President Clodhopper could have pulled out a year ago. He didn't.
I wonder why?
Isn't this another amazing item? Those who spend half of their time wailing
about how Obama will ruin their country never fail to spend the other half
by pointing out how Obama is continuing what Bush started.
Giftzwerg
2010-04-08 12:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
But didn't you just elect him *again*?!?! Isn't he your leader *now*?
The main issue with the left here is there is only one Obama - and he isn't
around here :^D But if you look at the actual percentages - exp. after the
just held local elections - Berlusconi survives thanks to the Northern
League. They keep it as a figurehead, and mostly because his control of the
media is useful, but he doesn't hold anymore the majority of the right wing
votes (and Italy is traditionally center-right). Which will now make for
some interesting months since Berlusconi is still a little bit strong in the
south and the Northern League (whose support he needs to stay out of prison)
is, you know, a Northern Separatist party :^D
TRANSLATION: "Yes. Berlusconi is our leader again, despite my
blabberings."
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Gawrsh, but it almost sounds like that "80% against" number is either
too lazy to vote or lacking in memory braincells.
It is entirely possible to disagree with some policies but still being
right-winged. Jumping on the Iraq bandwagon (or assembling the bandwagon in
the first place) was beyond stupid - as everyone knew (well, almost
everyone...) Since then, the "foreign military adventures" chapter (never
something that brings luster to Italian history anyway) was closed again -
and Berlusconi got back part of his votes. Part.
TRANSLATION: "The voters never really gave a shit about the Iraq war,
and so didn't mind electing him again."
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Or just made-up bullshit on your part.
There is a lot of that from every part in every debate about "going to Iraq"
I agree - not to talk about debates on UHC (which usually - like this very
one - derail into something else as soon as the anti-UHC crowd discovers
that they have about as much ammo as Saddam had WMD in 2003).
Your comparison is fucked, though, by the fact that the Iraq War had
broad bipartisan and public support when Congress voted to authorize it.
Obamacare is about as popular as herpes.

And the anti-Obamacare side does appear to be holding most of the
"ammo" in the debate. 55% are against it - and most of them *strongly*
against it, IE, they're voting on that principle.

Ask our retarded mailman how a Republican ended up in Ted Kennedy's
senate seat.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
So what are you bitching about? Could it be that you're one of the
"dumber" ones?
I have another brand new clue for you: a ***recession*** doesn't care if you
are dumb or not.
Oh, but it does. I had ever dime out of the stock market in early 2008,
when the Dow was at about 12,500. And the company I work for was debt-
free and sitting on a mountain of cash. Seems pretty smart, in
retrospect.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
But having some smart people around helps - both in
lessening its effect and in keeping liquidity around. Of course having some
smart people at the top could have helped in avoiding the recession in the
first place. You know, people smart enough to understand that lending
without guarantees is not going to end well - i.e. what the whole spectrum
of US big honchos failed to grasp.
Actually, they turned out to be the smartest people of all. They
invested in the riskiest sort of schemes available and raked in massive
profits when the going was good. Then, when their schemes collapsed and
they faced ruin, in stepped Obama and his bailout spree, ensuring
they're still getting monstrous pay and bonuses.

What's "dumb" about that?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
President Clodhopper could have pulled out a year ago. He didn't.
Post by Giftzwerg
I wonder why?
Isn't this another amazing item? Those who spend half of their time wailing
about how Obama will ruin their country never fail to spend the other half
by pointing out how Obama is continuing what Bush started.
Well, but after eight solid years of listening to leftist caterwauling
about the policies of Evil Genius Supervillain / Retarded Chimp Bush
"shredding the Constitution" and "illegally warring on innocent
people," it is kinda sweeeeeeet to see all that blabber exposed as
ignorant hypocrisy as Obama just rubber-stamps all those same "evil"
Bush policies.

And there's really no dichotomy here; it's perfectly logical to praise
Obama for continuing a great number of wise Bush policies (IE, not
cutting and running in Iraq...) while simultaneously disliking his
ruinous / insane spending spree.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
e***@hotmail.com
2010-04-07 09:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Again, your point is that you're too stupid to make your own decisions,
regardless of Americans and their choices?
With Berlusconi around?
(c) Our Conducador looks for gains in whatever place he can find them - be
it with Putin, Qaddafi or Bush. 80% of the population was against the war -
an higher percentage than those who were against entering World War Two. The
Conducador lost the next general elections.
You had big regional elections like a week ago - Berlusconi won,
didn't he ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
e***@hotmail.com
2010-04-07 09:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
In a globalized world, there is no stupidity that stays in its own country.
Ooooh, you're in for a treat then when the "brilliant" ideas of our
politicians hit the Italian peninsula.

What I hate most are well-meaning social engineers without a clue as
to how things work IRL. It always goes wrong because in their rosy
world they think all people will react the way they would.

Surely, people with a runny nose won't go to clog-up the emergency
services of a hospital because it's "free" - right - they'll wait a
day, then maybe visit their GP - right ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Jaylord
2010-04-10 17:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Here's the difference between you and me. I understand that modern
medical tests and treatments are *tremendously* expensive
Ah, but I know that. Part of my tax money is pooled and then used to pay
for treatments when someone needs them.
- Subtracting money from the common pool is not called "making a legit
profit" but "unlawful appropriation of public money" and thus prosecuted
- I can pick up the phone, go to the hospital, be (hopefully) cured and
return home. No worries about "pre-existing conditions", "the insurance
will pay for X but not for Y", "creative deductibles", various. Oh, and
the ambulance is paid for.
- I can ***CHOOSE*** (a marketing buzzword, I understand, in the States)
to ask for what I feel being a more qualified opinion - let's say in the
States - paying it out of my pocket. I still get the basic check ups, the
medications and maybe even the whole treatment after the problem is
diagnosed paid all by UHC.
- People don't risk bankrupt because of a medical problem. This has two
effects: first a worker is given back to the society (amazingly enough,
that everybody gives, in a general sense, to his country more than he
gets, and that this is the reason why creating a safety net for
health-related problems is a benefit for the country as a whole and not a
charity is something that USAnians do not seem able to grasp); second, no
hospital/doctor/private institution/whatever risks to lose money because
part of the patients went bankrupt thanks to some creative "pre-existing
condition".
Some years ago I was unable to work for almost an year, and I had to
undergo some costly treatments. Who paid for them? Me? My father? Our
esteemed PM? In 2007 my father had to undergo some serious surgery. Who
paid for that? Me? My father? Our esteemed PM?
Our esteemed PM recently had surgery - some suggest of a serious kind,
some suggest of the plastic kind. Who paid for it? Himself? Me? My father?
Does anyone care?
This is the whole point of UHC.
Post by Giftzwerg
Here's a clue. You pay the same as I do. The difference being you'd
pay whether you had the tests of treatments or no.
Here is another clue: people fightning against UHC are waging a battle so
that a third party can legally take part of the money needed to cure those
in need and pocket it. And that's it. Meanwhile, the same kind of
corporation that wails against socialism when they are about to see a
source of free money go away, merrily pockets government bailout money
without screaming about how the financial system is about to "go
communist". This is being called by the anti-UHC crowd RIGHT TO CHOOSE. I
guess that one can choose to be stupid, if he really wants.
I know I'm coming late to this, but as an American who lived in Europe for 5
years I think I can point out some facts about the US health care system
that might not be obvious to your average European, especially given the
slanted news coverage I'm sure you've been getting:

1) The whole argument really wasn't about health care itself, but about
HEALTH INSURANCE. In fact, it was about who's pocket was going to be picked
to pay for someone else's health care bills. It was mostly a vast income
redistribution scheme that gave the federal government (and by extension the
party of government, the Marxist/Democrats) the power to pick winners and
losers; to reward their friends (labor unions, minorities, illegal aliens)
and punish their enemies (small business owners). Also, if the government
has the power to choose what health care you get, you tend to try and stay
on the good side of government (i.e. shut up, pay your taxes and do as your
told) and vote for the party of government. In fact, it did almost nothing
to improve people's access to health care procedures. Something that most
Europeans probably don't know is that hospitals in the US cannot deny care
to anyone for lack of insurance or ability to pay. If you are poor and go
to the hospital they will find some program to enroll you in (Medicaid
usually) or work out a plan where you pay a small fraction of the bill and
they pass the rest of the expense on to those of us who have insurance, ~85%
of Americans.

2) The only provisions in the bill that will impact actual HEALTH CARE are
the setting up of the framework for future rationing of health care.
Despite what the denizens of the Marxist/Democratic party claim, there is
stuff in to bill to start setting up "Comparative Effectiveness Research"
which when you catch them in a moment of honesty they admit is the precursor
to the so-called "Death Panels". This research is to set up a system that
will give everyone a life score that will be compiled from your age, weight,
medical history, whether you smoke/smoked, your income, career (Congress
critters get super-duper bonus points!), your party affiliation (only partly
kidding about that), etc. Then every procedure will have a threshold; if
your life score is above this threshold, you get the procedure. If it
doesn't, it's Soylent Green time. The UK is already well advanced in this
process and look at what a nightmare the NHS is.

3) One huge difference between rest of the world and the US is that the rest
of the world isn't saddled with the US Tort system and the hordes of
creatures like John Edwards (hey Ray, weren't you a big supporter of his!)
latched onto the US economy like lampreys on a shark. These creatures add >
30% to the US health care bill through direct tort costs, malpractice
insurance costs and defensive medicine. They also make it hard to root out
fraud and waste in Medicare because every time you go after a huckster the
lawyers come out of the woodwork and make it almost impossible to prosecute
(they claim that the investigators are picking on these poor, old, senile
people who didn't know better) so the government doesn't even pretend to go
after medicare fraud. The Trial lawyers give hundreds of millions of
dollars to Marxist/Democrats every election cycle in campaign contributions,
bribes and kickbacks to keep the scams going so that's why their was no Tort
reform in the health care bill.

4) The 35-40 Million uninsured they talk about is really not that big of a
problem. ~1/3 are young, healthy people who have access to insurance but
rationally choose not to buy it because it is overpriced for them (to
subsidize the rates for oldsters like me) and the expense cuts into their
beer money. ~1/3 are illegal aliens and I'm sorry, but their health care
bills are Mexico's problem, not ours. They aren't covered in the bill
anyway. Most of the rest are already eligible for some other program like
Medicaid or SCHIP. If they have to go to the hospital the first thing
admissions will do will be to sign them up aid (see #1 above). In fact,
when the Marxist/Democrats whine about how it's all for "the children", it's
a total crock since SCHIP covers pretty much all these children already.
People on unemployment get COBRA subsidies so they are covered if they had
insurance when they were laid off. So that leaves a few million people who
honestly can't afford (not doesn't want to pay for it like that wealthy
family from Baltimore that the media hyped a few years ago during the SCHIP
battle) or can't get health insurance because of medical preconditions etc.
These people could be helped with a plan (like the one Rep. Paul Ryan put
forward) for a small fraction of the cost of the Marxist/Democrats $2.5
Trillion boondoggle.


The so-called Health Care Bill is a crock full of pork, bribes and extension
of power for the Marxist/Democrats and does nothing to improve the health of
Americans. In fact, one of it's main purposes is to hasten the bankruptcy
of the US so as to pave the way for what the Marxist/Democrats consider the
Mother Lode, the V.A.T.
--
| Jay Schamus
|
| "Don't rejoice in his defeat, you men.
| For though the world stood up and stopped the bastard,
| The bitch that bore him is in heat again."
| Bertolt Brecht
Briarroot
2010-04-11 18:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jaylord
...
The so-called Health Care Bill is a crock full of pork, bribes and extension
of power for the Marxist/Democrats and does nothing to improve the health of
Americans. In fact, one of it's main purposes is to hasten the bankruptcy
of the US so as to pave the way for what the Marxist/Democrats consider the
Mother Lode, the V.A.T.
You nailed it. The outrageous lies repeated by the supporters of the
bill, for example that those 32 million were being "denied health care"
and that a vote against the bill was consigning them to death, pretty
much told the whole story. This bill will *not* lower health care costs
but have the opposite effect.

Several years ago, Massachusetts adopted a 'reform' scheme remarkably
similar to the just passed federal bill. The result has been a disaster
and the cost of health insurance in Massachusetts has increased by a
factor from 20-40% *faster* than the national average! Just this week,
the state's entire health insurance industry practically shut down as
the state refused to grant what they felt were necessary rate increases.
http://tinyurl.com/yazsfql

I expect something very similar will occur nationally when Obamacare
gets up and running. If I were a health insurance industry executive,
I'd be looking for a new job right about now. I hear government is a
growth industry!


It's worth noting that both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty
of flouting the Constitution in this matter. Republican candidate for
President in '08, John McCain, proposed similar 'reform' measures (e.g.
forcing everyone to buy private health insurance), and Massachusetts'
then Republican governor Mitt Romney pushed hard for his State's plan,
so this isn't *just* a Democratic Party ploy. It's consistent with the
trend for those in government to gather ever more power unto themselves,
something that the framers of the US Constitution tried very hard to
prevent.

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices [checks &
balances] should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But
what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human
nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels
were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government
would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered
by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first
enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place
oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt,
the primary control on the government. ... The essence of Government is
power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be
liable to abuse." - James Madison
--
"The principle that the end justifies the means is, in individualist
ethics, regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it
becomes, necessarily, the supreme rule." - Friedrich August von Hayek
Giftzwerg
2010-04-11 19:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Briarroot
Post by Jaylord
The so-called Health Care Bill is a crock full of pork, bribes and extension
of power for the Marxist/Democrats and does nothing to improve the health of
Americans. In fact, one of it's main purposes is to hasten the bankruptcy
of the US so as to pave the way for what the Marxist/Democrats consider the
Mother Lode, the V.A.T.
You nailed it. The outrageous lies repeated by the supporters of the
bill, for example that those 32 million were being "denied health care"
and that a vote against the bill was consigning them to death, pretty
much told the whole story. This bill will *not* lower health care costs
but have the opposite effect.
Heh. I know a couple of 20-somethings who are now livid that President
Clodhopper is going to *force* them to buy healthcare. Welcome to the
pool, dumbheads.

Hahahahahahaaha! Oooooops. Fucking idiots. Voted for a Democrat. And
now getting a very swift lesson in reality.
Post by Briarroot
It's worth noting that both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty
of flouting the Constitution in this matter. Republican candidate for
President in '08, John McCain, proposed similar 'reform' measures (e.g.
forcing everyone to buy private health insurance), and Massachusetts'
then Republican governor Mitt Romney pushed hard for his State's plan,
so this isn't *just* a Democratic Party ploy.
"There are a lot of bad Republicans - but there are *no* good
Democrats."
- Ann Coulter

My point here is simply that neither McCain nor Romney would have been
willing to jam their plan up America's ass in the face of solid public
opposition. Obama was. So it's not useful to argue, "Republicans also
pushed for reform." The question is how hard they would have pushed.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Muslim woman strangled by her burkha in freak go-kart accident"
- Headline, Daily Mail
"Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"
- Giftzwerg
Briarroot
2010-04-12 16:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
...
Post by Briarroot
It's worth noting that both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty
of flouting the Constitution in this matter. Republican candidate for
President in '08, John McCain, proposed similar 'reform' measures (e.g.
forcing everyone to buy private health insurance), and Massachusetts'
then Republican governor Mitt Romney pushed hard for his State's plan,
so this isn't *just* a Democratic Party ploy.
"There are a lot of bad Republicans - but there are *no* good
Democrats."
- Ann Coulter
My point here is simply that neither McCain nor Romney would have been
willing to jam their plan up America's ass in the face of solid public
opposition. Obama was. So it's not useful to argue, "Republicans also
pushed for reform." The question is how hard they would have pushed.
I dunno about that. As I recall it, Romney pushed pretty hard for that
bill in Massachusetts. It's likely that mandatory health insurance was
far more popular back then in the Bay State than it has been nationally
recently, but the idea that a *Republican* governor would so eagerly
embrace the concept shows me that their party's philosophy is as corrupt
as their opponent's. And as for McCain, he's already shown that he
would heedlessly trample on the Constitution if it would polish his
image among the electorate. (See: McCain-Feingold)

It appears that the more moderate 'conservative' Democrats have been
(are being) pushed aside by the party's extreme socialist left wing,
just as a few years ago the more moderate Republicans were pushed out by
their party's extreme religious right wing. Bart Stupak, the
Congressman from Michigan who held up the vote in the House while
pushing for a ban of abortion funding (which is about as far right a
position as anyone in the Democratic Party ever takes these days) just
announced he's not running for re-election. I translate that to mean
the DNC has had it with him and informed him that they will be giving
money to another Democrat to stand as his primary opponent.

This would be the perfect time for the Libertarian Party to get its
house in order and run a viable slate of candidates in every state.
Even if they can't find a national spokesman to run for President, they
now have a wonderful opportunity to explain why their philosophy would
be best for America and how the gradual abandonment of the
Constitutional limitations on federal power is at the root of so many of
our nation's problems today. They could use the energy of the Tea Party
movement, not to mention the media coverage, to spread their message.
--
"The kind of people who are apt to push for government-imposed solutions
are those who are also apt to believe they will be the ones imposing
decisions, not the ones who have to live with decisions imposed by
others. Their trust in government reflects their confidence that they
have all the answers and that it's government's job to enforce them." -
William McGurn, The Wall Street Journal
Giftzwerg
2010-04-12 16:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
My point here is simply that neither McCain nor Romney would have been
willing to jam their plan up America's ass in the face of solid public
opposition. Obama was. So it's not useful to argue, "Republicans also
pushed for reform." The question is how hard they would have pushed.
I dunno about that. As I recall it, Romney pushed pretty hard for that
bill in Massachusetts.
I would argue that there's a *huge* difference between healthcare
programs enacted by individual states, and a sweeping nationwide
initiative from the Federal Government. In Romney's case, he was the
governor of Massachusetts - not Texas - and the voters were much, much
more amenable to the plan they actually got. I mean, if the voters were
in favor of something, and Romney stopped it, wouldn't he be thwarting
the will of the electorate as badly as Obama just did?
Post by Briarroot
It's likely that mandatory health insurance was
far more popular back then in the Bay State than it has been nationally
recently, but the idea that a *Republican* governor would so eagerly
embrace the concept shows me that their party's philosophy is as corrupt
as their opponent's.
I think we have to be careful about this line of thinking, though. The
danger is we get *exactly* what happened in 2008, where solid
conservative voters were so sour on McCain that they stayed away from
the polls. Shit, I know people who were so steeped in this "there ain't
a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats" that
they voted for *Obama*. Biiiiiiig mistake.
Post by Briarroot
And as for McCain, he's already shown that he
would heedlessly trample on the Constitution if it would polish his
image among the electorate. (See: McCain-Feingold)
I don't like that anymore than you do. But I'd sure as hell rather have
McCain in office right now - for hundreds of reasons, big and small -
than The Clueless Wonder Boy.
Post by Briarroot
It appears that the more moderate 'conservative' Democrats have been
(are being) pushed aside by the party's extreme socialist left wing,
just as a few years ago the more moderate Republicans were pushed out by
their party's extreme religious right wing. Bart Stupak, the
Congressman from Michigan who held up the vote in the House while
pushing for a ban of abortion funding (which is about as far right a
position as anyone in the Democratic Party ever takes these days) just
announced he's not running for re-election. I translate that to mean
the DNC has had it with him and informed him that they will be giving
money to another Democrat to stand as his primary opponent.
Oh, I think you're wrong. I think it simply means Stupak realized that
the voters in his district were going to chuck him out on his ass.
Post by Briarroot
This would be the perfect time for the Libertarian Party to get its
house in order and run a viable slate of candidates in every state.
Even if they can't find a national spokesman to run for President, they
now have a wonderful opportunity to explain why their philosophy would
be best for America and how the gradual abandonment of the
Constitutional limitations on federal power is at the root of so many of
our nation's problems today. They could use the energy of the Tea Party
movement, not to mention the media coverage, to spread their message.
Yep, and then - at best - the results of the election will be:

Barack Obama: ................ 43%
Republican: .................. 29%
Libertarian: ................. 27%
Other: ....................... 1%

... and we'll get another four years of Obambi. Ross Perot all over
again, say hello to President Clinton.

Plus another 2 -6 years of one-party rule, as this 3rd-party splitting
of the right-wing vote happens all down the ticket.

Disaster.

"Hold your nose and vote Republican."
- Giftzwerg's default
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Muslim woman strangled by her burkha in freak go-kart accident"
- Headline, Daily Mail
"Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"
- Giftzwerg
Briarroot
2010-04-13 16:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
My point here is simply that neither McCain nor Romney would have been
willing to jam their plan up America's ass in the face of solid public
opposition. Obama was. So it's not useful to argue, "Republicans also
pushed for reform." The question is how hard they would have pushed.
I dunno about that. As I recall it, Romney pushed pretty hard for that
bill in Massachusetts.
I would argue that there's a *huge* difference between healthcare
programs enacted by individual states, and a sweeping nationwide
initiative from the Federal Government. In Romney's case, he was the
governor of Massachusetts - not Texas - and the voters were much, much
more amenable to the plan they actually got. I mean, if the voters were
in favor of something, and Romney stopped it, wouldn't he be thwarting
the will of the electorate as badly as Obama just did?
We elect our representatives to exercise their own judgment, not to kiss
our asses. In a land where *millions* of people hold millions of
different opinions yet must be governed equitably, it is impossible for
any governor/president to please everyone; trying to do so is not only
futile, it's downright dangerous.

While I recognize that the the US Constitution sets great limits on
Federal power and far fewer on State power, and while I remain fully
aware of the people's right to vote themselves bread and circuses if
that's what they really want, I think Romney was wrong - dead wrong. A
tax-funded government healthcare agency is one thing, forcing everyone
to buy private health insurance is quite another. I detest the whole
idea of the former but would grudgingly pay my taxes anyway. In the
latter case however, the legislature is saying to me that we are all
wards of the government and no longer free men, and that is unacceptable!
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
It's likely that mandatory health insurance was
far more popular back then in the Bay State than it has been nationally
recently, but the idea that a *Republican* governor would so eagerly
embrace the concept shows me that their party's philosophy is as corrupt
as their opponent's.
I think we have to be careful about this line of thinking, though. The
danger is we get *exactly* what happened in 2008, where solid
conservative voters were so sour on McCain that they stayed away from
the polls. Shit, I know people who were so steeped in this "there ain't
a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats" that
they voted for *Obama*. Biiiiiiig mistake.
It's time for the Republican Party to fold its tents and slink off into
the sunset - just as their predecessors, the Whigs, once did. The
Libertarian Party should take their place by advocating a return to
strict constitutional principles.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
And as for McCain, he's already shown that he
would heedlessly trample on the Constitution if it would polish his
image among the electorate. (See: McCain-Feingold)
I don't like that anymore than you do. But I'd sure as hell rather have
McCain in office right now - for hundreds of reasons, big and small -
than The Clueless Wonder Boy.
Yes, McCain would have been the lesser of two evils, but that's hardly a
recommendation. Mud makes a better meal than shit but that doesn't mean
I want to eat it! Maybe after having elected Obama and watched him make
a mess of things, America will awaken to the fact that socialism is
inherently unfair and unworkable, that we've forgotten the principles
upon which this nation was founded, what those principles are and why
they are so important. In other words, maybe the example of Obama will
wake people up. Or not. (Yeah, I voted for McCain, too <frown>)
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
It appears that the more moderate 'conservative' Democrats have been
(are being) pushed aside by the party's extreme socialist left wing,
just as a few years ago the more moderate Republicans were pushed out by
their party's extreme religious right wing. Bart Stupak, the
Congressman from Michigan who held up the vote in the House while
pushing for a ban of abortion funding (which is about as far right a
position as anyone in the Democratic Party ever takes these days) just
announced he's not running for re-election. I translate that to mean
the DNC has had it with him and informed him that they will be giving
money to another Democrat to stand as his primary opponent.
Oh, I think you're wrong. I think it simply means Stupak realized that
the voters in his district were going to chuck him out on his ass.
According to the polls that I read, his home district (Upper Peninsula &
northern lower) was solidly behind his stand against publicly funded
abortion. Of course, by caving in last month he probably lost a good
deal of that support, but he could have passed that off as a decision to
end his "lonely vigil against the Terrible Power of the Liberal White
House." I think that would have played well with the kind of rural
'conservatives' that elected him.

Whatever the case, the DNC is not going to want to replace him with an
even *more* conservative Democrat, which is the kind who has the best
chance to win up there. They want somebody who talks tough but will
play ball with them; i.e: owes them his seat. Thus they move Stupak out
and groom his replacement.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
This would be the perfect time for the Libertarian Party to get its
house in order and run a viable slate of candidates in every state.
Even if they can't find a national spokesman to run for President, they
now have a wonderful opportunity to explain why their philosophy would
be best for America and how the gradual abandonment of the
Constitutional limitations on federal power is at the root of so many of
our nation's problems today. They could use the energy of the Tea Party
movement, not to mention the media coverage, to spread their message.
Barack Obama: ................ 43%
Republican: .................. 29%
Libertarian: ................. 27%
Other: ....................... 1%
... and we'll get another four years of Obambi. Ross Perot all over
again, say hello to President Clinton.
Plus another 2 -6 years of one-party rule, as this 3rd-party splitting
of the right-wing vote happens all down the ticket.
Disaster.
This ain't 1996 and Ross Perot was no Libertarian!

If the various factions of the Libertarian party would unite and find a
charismatic spokesman to carry their banner, they might be able to knock
the Republicans out of the picture. The Republicans are weaker now than
they've ever been since Nixon resigned. The Tea Party movement is
evidence that a whole lot of voters are disgusted about the direction
*both* parties have been taking. Maybe they're finally ready to listen
to someone who's willing to tell them the truth - and *not* kiss their
asses.

If the Libertarians could get it together, the 2012 election results
might look like this:

Libertarian ......... 41%
Obama............... 38%
Republican ........ 20%
Other ................ 1%
Post by Giftzwerg
"Hold your nose and vote Republican."
- Giftzwerg's default
And we get another 4 years of Republicans acting like Democrats? Ugh,
that's what got us Obama in the first place! Okay yeah, that *would* be
better than another 4 years of Obama acting like Fidel Castro, but does
that really have to be the only result? Why *can't* the Libertarians
replace the Republicans? Political parties have risen and fallen before
in our history. Why not once again?
--
"Only a large-scale popular movement toward decentralization and
self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism. A really
efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful
executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a
population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love
their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in
present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper
editors and schoolteachers." - Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)
Giftzwerg
2010-04-13 22:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
I would argue that there's a *huge* difference between healthcare
programs enacted by individual states, and a sweeping nationwide
initiative from the Federal Government. In Romney's case, he was the
governor of Massachusetts - not Texas - and the voters were much, much
more amenable to the plan they actually got. I mean, if the voters were
in favor of something, and Romney stopped it, wouldn't he be thwarting
the will of the electorate as badly as Obama just did?
We elect our representatives to exercise their own judgment, not to kiss
our asses.
Whoa!

Isn't that what Congress *just did*?!?! In passing ObamaCare against
the wishes of the people?
Post by Briarroot
In a land where *millions* of people hold millions of
different opinions yet must be governed equitably, it is impossible for
any governor/president to please everyone; trying to do so is not only
futile, it's downright dangerous.
Yep. And Congress, by the latest polls, is only pleasing about 30% of
the people in passing ObamaCare.

Are they heros?
Post by Briarroot
While I recognize that the the US Constitution sets great limits on
Federal power and far fewer on State power, and while I remain fully
aware of the people's right to vote themselves bread and circuses if
that's what they really want, I think Romney was wrong - dead wrong. A
tax-funded government healthcare agency is one thing, forcing everyone
to buy private health insurance is quite another. I detest the whole
idea of the former but would grudgingly pay my taxes anyway. In the
latter case however, the legislature is saying to me that we are all
wards of the government and no longer free men, and that is unacceptable!
So you're essentially saying that government-run healthcare is "Just
Plain Wrong" regardless of popularity or willingness of state or federal
governments to enact it?

I feel the same way about government-funded schools. It's "Just Plain
Wrong," regardless of <insert anything here>, and I want my money back.
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
It's likely that mandatory health insurance was
far more popular back then in the Bay State than it has been nationally
recently, but the idea that a *Republican* governor would so eagerly
embrace the concept shows me that their party's philosophy is as corrupt
as their opponent's.
I think we have to be careful about this line of thinking, though. The
danger is we get *exactly* what happened in 2008, where solid
conservative voters were so sour on McCain that they stayed away from
the polls. Shit, I know people who were so steeped in this "there ain't
a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats" that
they voted for *Obama*. Biiiiiiig mistake.
It's time for the Republican Party to fold its tents and slink off into
the sunset - just as their predecessors, the Whigs, once did. The
Libertarian Party should take their place by advocating a return to
strict constitutional principles.
"Coulda, woulda, and shoulda - plus 50 cents - will buy you a small
coffee at Tarrant's General Store in Belvedire, VT."
- Giftzwerg

We have to live in the world of the practical, and while it's nice to
imagine a rock-ribbed libertarian party ruling the nation ... it just
ain't gonna happen. The optimal move for Libertarian / Tea Party is to
co-opt the Republican Party - grab the levers from within - not to start
a third party that will do nothing but guarantee another 20 years of
rule by Democrats.
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
I don't like that anymore than you do. But I'd sure as hell rather have
McCain in office right now - for hundreds of reasons, big and small -
than The Clueless Wonder Boy.
Yes, McCain would have been the lesser of two evils, but that's hardly a
recommendation.
Sure it is. Politics is *always* the art of picking the lesser of two
evils.
Post by Briarroot
Mud makes a better meal than shit but that doesn't mean
I want to eat it! Maybe after having elected Obama and watched him make
a mess of things, America will awaken to the fact that socialism is
inherently unfair and unworkable, that we've forgotten the principles
upon which this nation was founded, what those principles are and why
they are so important. In other words, maybe the example of Obama will
wake people up. Or not. (Yeah, I voted for McCain, too <frown>)
But this is just my point; voting for Obama in hopes that he would
overreach catastrophically and Chernobyl the left is a *dangerous* idea
that flirts with giving the hard left *four years* to fuck up the
country - perhaps putting it beyond hope.

And we did it. I hope we survive.
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
Barack Obama: ................ 43%
Republican: .................. 29%
Libertarian: ................. 27%
Other: ....................... 1%
... and we'll get another four years of Obambi. Ross Perot all over
again, say hello to President Clinton.
Plus another 2 -6 years of one-party rule, as this 3rd-party splitting
of the right-wing vote happens all down the ticket.
Disaster.
This ain't 1996 and Ross Perot was no Libertarian!
A real Libertarian would have fared even worse. I mean, there *is* a
Libertarian Party, no? How did they do in the last five elections?
Post by Briarroot
If the various factions of the Libertarian party would unite and find a
charismatic spokesman to carry their banner, they might be able to knock
the Republicans out of the picture. The Republicans are weaker now than
they've ever been since Nixon resigned. The Tea Party movement is
evidence that a whole lot of voters are disgusted about the direction
*both* parties have been taking. Maybe they're finally ready to listen
to someone who's willing to tell them the truth - and *not* kiss their
asses.
If the Libertarians could get it together, the 2012 election results
Libertarian ......... 41%
Obama............... 38%
Republican ........ 20%
Other ................ 1%
Feh. I see this as pie-in-the-sky. Much as we might wish this, it just
ain't gonna happen.

And even if it does happen, it won't happen overnight. The proximal
result will be to hand election-after-election and district-after-
district to Democrats as Libertarians and Republicans split the right-
of-center vote.
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
"Hold your nose and vote Republican."
- Giftzwerg's default
And we get another 4 years of Republicans acting like Democrats?
The real question, though, is whether we want the (average) $250 billion
deficits from a free-spending George W. Bush and a scummy Republican
Congress ... or $1.3 *trillion* deficits under the current regime.
Post by Briarroot
Ugh,
that's what got us Obama in the first place! Okay yeah, that *would* be
better than another 4 years of Obama acting like Fidel Castro, but does
that really have to be the only result? Why *can't* the Libertarians
replace the Republicans? Political parties have risen and fallen before
in our history. Why not once again?
<shrug>

Show me the Libertarian with the ghost of a chance to beat Clodhopper
and initiate The Glorious Revolution, and you've got my vote.

Who is (s)he?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Muslim woman strangled by her burkha in freak go-kart accident"
- Headline, Daily Mail
"Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"
- Giftzwerg
e***@hotmail.com
2010-04-14 06:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
In article
I feel the same way about government-funded schools.  It's "Just Plain
Wrong," regardless of <insert anything here>, and I want my money back.
But that actually works in the Real World (tm) - when properly
organized that is.

Over here the government sets a budget per pupil - private enterprise
schools compete to get as many students as possible in order to get
the government money. This doesn't make them lower their standards,
quite the reverse actually as every parent wants a good school for his
kids. Some government-run schools remain but 75% of children over here
go to privately run schools and I've yet to meet someone who's unhappy
with the system.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
2010-04-14 09:00:02 UTC
Permalink
In article <a60b5117-cb5e-4c4e-b5bb-22e8e0087731
@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, ***@hotmail.com says...
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by Giftzwerg
I feel the same way about government-funded schools.  It's "Just Plain
Wrong," regardless of <insert anything here>, and I want my money back.
But that actually works in the Real World (tm) - when properly
organized that is.
Over here the government sets a budget per pupil - private enterprise
schools compete to get as many students as possible in order to get
the government money. This doesn't make them lower their standards,
quite the reverse actually as every parent wants a good school for his
kids. Some government-run schools remain but 75% of children over here
go to privately run schools and I've yet to meet someone who's unhappy
with the system.
I don't have a problem, in principle, with a government run school; what
I object to is this:

Giftzwerg's 2009 school tax amount ........ $4,735.17
Number of children in Giftzwerg household .. 0

There's something kinda fucked up about that, no? Why should my school
tax payment be based on the value of my *house*, and not the number of
*children* inside it? It's nuts; if I put a solarium or a bigger deck
on my house, my school taxes go up. If I have three children, they
don't go up.

It's beyond nuts. It's surreal. If I live in this house another eight
years, the amount of school taxes I will have paid on it will be greater
than the original cost of the house.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Muslim woman strangled by her burkha in freak go-kart accident"
- Headline, Daily Mail
"Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"
- Giftzwerg
e***@hotmail.com
2010-04-14 09:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
In article <a60b5117-cb5e-4c4e-b5bb-22e8e0087731
@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, ***@hotmail.com says...
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by Giftzwerg
I feel the same way about government-funded schools.  It's "Just Plain
Wrong," regardless of <insert anything here>, and I want my money back.
But that actually works in the Real World (tm) - when properly
organized that is.
Over here the government sets a budget per pupil - private enterprise
schools compete to get as many students as possible in order to get
the government money. This doesn't make them lower their standards,
quite the reverse actually as every parent wants a good school for his
kids. Some government-run schools remain but 75% of children over here
go to privately run schools and I've yet to meet someone who's unhappy
with the system.
I don't have a problem, in principle, with a government run school; what
Giftzwerg's 2009 school tax amount ........ $4,735.17
Number of children in Giftzwerg household .. 0
There's something kinda fucked up about that, no?  Why should my school
tax payment be based on the value of my *house*, and not the number of
*children* inside it?  It's nuts; if I put a solarium or a bigger deck
on my house, my school taxes go up.  If I have three children, they
don't go up.
It's beyond nuts.  It's surreal.  If I live in this house another eight
years, the amount of school taxes I will have paid on it will be greater
Two points : it seems to me that not introducing some sort of
"capitalist" competition in schools will result in rampant spending
and decreasing performance.

Also, having a highly educated workforce helps you in the long run
because it ensures a better performing economy so I've got no problem
with paying taxes when they're used for the long term benefit of the
society AND used wisely in a system that promotes competition even
when I'm not directly a beneficiary of that spending.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
2010-04-14 11:18:27 UTC
Permalink
In article <c4fe3139-8b11-4106-ae1d-
***@s9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by Giftzwerg
I don't have a problem, in principle, with a government run school; what
Giftzwerg's 2009 school tax amount ........ $4,735.17
Number of children in Giftzwerg household .. 0
There's something kinda fucked up about that, no?  Why should my school
tax payment be based on the value of my *house*, and not the number of
*children* inside it?  It's nuts; if I put a solarium or a bigger deck
on my house, my school taxes go up.  If I have three children, they
don't go up.
It's beyond nuts.  It's surreal.  If I live in this house another eight
years, the amount of school taxes I will have paid on it will be greater
Two points : it seems to me that not introducing some sort of
"capitalist" competition in schools will result in rampant spending
and decreasing performance.
Oh, agreed. Absolutely. But you only get actual free market
performance if my neighbor with three children has to spend *his own*
money on educating them ... not *my* money.

Under your system, the only consideration the parent has is the quality
of the school, if I read your point correctly; schools only compete on
quality (from the perspective of the parent, that is...). What I want
is for schools to compete on cost, also, and if every citizen wasn't
footing an equal bill for school taxes, then parents would have to think
about sending their kids to cheaper schools.

Suppose you have a store selling computers. The analogy to our system
is that every family goes to the store and can take home as many
computers as it wants. The store bills the town for the number of
computers sold, and the town apportions the total computer costs based
on the value of every townsperson's house - even to citizens who don't
have a computer and don't want one. The store has no incentive
whatsoever to build a quality computer or care what it costs.

Your system, as I understand it, has several computer stores, all
building different computers. Townspersons can decide which computer is
best, and how many they want, and that store is paid by the town based
on how many computers it "sells". Stores that sell a lot of computers
get more money, stores that don't sell any go out of business, so the
stores are careful to make nice computers. But the government still
collects money from every citizen based on <whatever>, and apportions
the cost among the various stores.

I want a *real* free market. If you want a computer, you pony up your
money and go buy one, from whatever store you want. Stores that sell
quality computers at a reasonable price get the business. Inefficient
or low-quality stores are in trouble. If you want three computers,
you'd better have the money for three. If you want a really, really
nice computer, you'll have to spend more. And if you want a cheap
computer, you can save some bucks. You can even elect *not* to have a
computer, and spend your money on something else.
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Also, having a highly educated workforce helps you in the long run
because it ensures a better performing economy so I've got no problem
with paying taxes when they're used for the long term benefit of the
society AND used wisely in a system that promotes competition even
when I'm not directly a beneficiary of that spending.
And I'm OK with that. I'm not necessarily suggesting that a family with
no children should have zero stake in the education system, just that
people who have *elected* to have children - or more children - feel the
burden of the expense of the educational system more than people who are
not causing the system to incur any costs at all.

And that's my only point, that it's surreal that my neighbor with three
children pays *less* in school taxes than I do - based on the fact that
my house is a little nicer than his!
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Muslim woman strangled by her burkha in freak go-kart accident"
- Headline, Daily Mail
"Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"
- Giftzwerg
e***@hotmail.com
2010-04-14 11:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
In article <c4fe3139-8b11-4106-ae1d-
Your system, as I understand it, has several computer stores, all
building different computers.  Townspersons can decide which computer is
best, and how many they want, and that store is paid by the town based
on how many computers it "sells".  Stores that sell a lot of computers
get more money, stores that don't sell any go out of business, so the
stores are careful to make nice computers.  But the government still
collects money from every citizen based on <whatever>, and apportions
the cost among the various stores.
Yup. The fine point here being that overall good education improves
the general economy of which I profit as well.

It also ensures that students from a poor background can go to the
best school in the area provided they can cut it academically and that
all the money in the world cannot buy you a degree from a good school.
That is a huge bonus for a society - if you've got a good degree here,
you've earned it yourself, not because your parents had money and
could afford to send you to the local equivalent of Yale or Harvard.
Post by Giftzwerg
I want a *real* free market.  
I'm generally in that camp too, unless if there's an alternative and
better system that's proven itself for decades. Take it from a kid who
came from a relatively poor family background where we didn't have a
car or even a tv until in my teens and I still went to the best
schools, which my parents could have never afforded in your system. So
today I'm paying a lot of school taxes to make sure some other poor
kid gets the same chance. Like I said : a system everybody over here
pretty much agrees with is a system that works and I don't care it
doesn't really adhere to the total free market principle.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
2010-04-14 12:22:29 UTC
Permalink
In article <8a1af46c-19a8-408a-a02e-e5b14a7d63e8
@z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, ***@hotmail.com says...
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by Giftzwerg
I want a *real* free market.  
I'm generally in that camp too, unless if there's an alternative and
better system that's proven itself for decades. Take it from a kid who
came from a relatively poor family background where we didn't have a
car or even a tv until in my teens and I still went to the best
schools, which my parents could have never afforded in your system. So
today I'm paying a lot of school taxes to make sure some other poor
kid gets the same chance. Like I said : a system everybody over here
pretty much agrees with is a system that works and I don't care it
doesn't really adhere to the total free market principle.
The problem with both of our systems, though, is that the essentially
fixed nature of the amount the government will pay for each student to
attend school means that there's zero impetus for schools to become
*efficient* stewards of the taxpayers' money. Your system is a bit
better, in that the school will make more "profit" if it can provide
high-quality instruction at lower costs to itself, but from the
taxpayer's point of view, it's still an exercise in fixed costs ...
regardless of results.

And again, I'm not suggesting that people with zero children should pay
zero in school taxes; I think the base rate should be the same for every
property owner in the community, with a surcharge added for each child a
family inserts into the system. Bill the base rate to the property
owner and the surcharge directly to the parents, and you've even
addressed the issue of renters in nonstupid fashion.

And you can apply this schema to most all city services. For example,
based on the value of my house, I pay a ton of money for our excellent
local police department. But I've needed their services exactly *once*
in 12 years. Yet there are crummy, low-value houses in the town that
generate essentially zero taxes to maintain the police - but that the
police need to visit on virtually a daily basis. This is a huge suck on
police resources, and one that necessarily reduces the police protection
available to my home. Why not a base tax for the police department to
ever property owner, and a co-payment billed directly to those using the
police services?

Why shouldn't *every* service of local government inherently contain
costs for those actually using the resources?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Muslim woman strangled by her burkha in freak go-kart accident"
- Headline, Daily Mail
"Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"
- Giftzwerg
Holdit
2010-04-14 12:39:58 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@localhost>, giftzwerg999
@hotmail.com says...
Post by Giftzwerg
And you can apply this schema to most all city services. For example,
based on the value of my house, I pay a ton of money for our excellent
local police department. But I've needed their services exactly *once*
in 12 years. Yet there are crummy, low-value houses in the town that
generate essentially zero taxes to maintain the police - but that the
police need to visit on virtually a daily basis. This is a huge suck on
police resources, and one that necessarily reduces the police protection
available to my home. Why not a base tax for the police department to
ever property owner, and a co-payment billed directly to those using the
police services?
Slightly off the point: isn't it a bit unfair to be taxing people based
on the value of their property at all? After all, property value isn't
income. It's a theoretical sum that can only be realised on the sale of
the house. Wouldn't it be both simpler and fairer to base all taxes on
income?

(I remember the days of domestic rates in the UK, where a pensioner
could be paying the same rates as someone earning a six-figure salary
who lived the same street.)

Holdit
--
"Madame, they told me you were ugly; they did not exaggerate."

- Napoleon
e***@hotmail.com
2010-04-14 13:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
@hotmail.com says...
And you can apply this schema to most all city services.  For example,
based on the value of my house, I pay a ton of money for our excellent
local police department.  But I've needed their services exactly *once*
in 12 years.  Yet there are crummy, low-value houses in the town that
generate essentially zero taxes to maintain the police - but that the
police need to visit on virtually a daily basis.  This is a huge suck on
police resources, and one that necessarily reduces the police protection
available to my home.  Why not a base tax for the police department to
ever property owner, and a co-payment billed directly to those using the
police services?
Slightly off the point: isn't it a bit unfair to be taxing people based
on the value of their property at all? After all, property value isn't
income. It's a theoretical sum that can only be realised on the sale of
the house. Wouldn't it be both simpler and fairer to base all taxes on
income?
Our system is dual. It's income based, but as income tax evasion if
massive there's also a portion based on property value and general
expenditure (VAT) so that even guys who officially earn next to
nothing pay taxes through the stuff they acquire.

... and taxes certainly are way too high over here, but the point
remains that people complain about government squandering money on a
zillion stupid things, but I don't think I've ever heard a complaint
about our educational system. Except that it's tough. Which is a Good
Thing (tm).

http://www.investinflanders.com/en/workforce/default.aspx

"Fifteen-year-olds in Flanders are the world's best in mathematics
according to the OECD's PISA survey, fifth at sciences and also score
highly in problem-solving."

"In sciences, the Flemish were ranked eigth with an average score of
529, with Finland as the only European country beating them."

"A survey published in the Global Competitiveness Yearbook 2007-2008
also showed that on the whole Belgians believe their education system
meets the needs of a competitive economy."

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
2010-04-14 14:56:51 UTC
Permalink
In article <55cfe2e5-d585-4570-809b-5a3f21be9120
@r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, ***@hotmail.com says...
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by Holdit
Slightly off the point: isn't it a bit unfair to be taxing people based
on the value of their property at all? After all, property value isn't
income. It's a theoretical sum that can only be realised on the sale of
the house. Wouldn't it be both simpler and fairer to base all taxes on
income?
Our system is dual. It's income based, but as income tax evasion if
massive there's also a portion based on property value and general
expenditure (VAT) so that even guys who officially earn next to
nothing pay taxes through the stuff they acquire.
We only have income taxes (federal and state), property taxes (local),
sales taxes (state and local), and a host of ancillary taxes (taxes on
phones, taxes on cable TV, taxes on services, to name but a few...) to
contend with.
Post by e***@hotmail.com
... and taxes certainly are way too high over here, but the point
remains that people complain about government squandering money on a
zillion stupid things, but I don't think I've ever heard a complaint
about our educational system. Except that it's tough. Which is a Good
Thing (tm).
It's certainly sounds better than our insane system.
Post by e***@hotmail.com
"Fifteen-year-olds in Flanders are the world's best in mathematics
according to the OECD's PISA survey, fifth at sciences and also score
highly in problem-solving."
And that's a great point, because USAians would complain less about the
schools if they weren't churning out a generation of dimwits who can't
color their own state in on a map.

We had two high-school interns working here last summer, and one of my
co-workers (Karl from Iceland) was in the process of taking his US
citizenship test. We were joking around one day with this:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm

... practice test, and Karl got a perfect score. Then I got a perfect
score. Then two of my assistants got (near) perfect scores. The
student interns got at least half of them wrong. I guess I can
understand not remembering that our WW2 enemies included Italy ... but
one of the kids didn't know what the state capital was.

Dumbass. Great job, South Burlington schools.
Post by e***@hotmail.com
"In sciences, the Flemish were ranked eigth with an average score of
529, with Finland as the only European country beating them."
"A survey published in the Global Competitiveness Yearbook 2007-2008
also showed that on the whole Belgians believe their education system
meets the needs of a competitive economy."
Americans would be *slightly* less enthused.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Muslim woman strangled by her burkha in freak go-kart accident"
- Headline, Daily Mail
"Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"
- Giftzwerg
e***@hotmail.com
2010-04-15 06:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
It's certainly sounds better than our insane system.
Post by e***@hotmail.com
"Fifteen-year-olds in Flanders are the world's best in mathematics
according to the OECD's PISA survey, fifth at sciences and also score
highly in problem-solving."
And that's a great point, because USAians would complain less about the
schools if they weren't churning out a generation of dimwits who can't
color their own state in on a map.  
Expensive and under-performing uh ?

<puts hands over eyes>

Lemme guess the cause of that : government runs schools - right ?

Good luck with your government running UHC.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
2010-04-14 14:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Holdit
Post by Giftzwerg
And you can apply this schema to most all city services. For example,
based on the value of my house, I pay a ton of money for our excellent
local police department. But I've needed their services exactly *once*
in 12 years. Yet there are crummy, low-value houses in the town that
generate essentially zero taxes to maintain the police - but that the
police need to visit on virtually a daily basis. This is a huge suck on
police resources, and one that necessarily reduces the police protection
available to my home. Why not a base tax for the police department to
ever property owner, and a co-payment billed directly to those using the
police services?
Slightly off the point: isn't it a bit unfair to be taxing people based
on the value of their property at all? After all, property value isn't
income. It's a theoretical sum that can only be realised on the sale of
the house. Wouldn't it be both simpler and fairer to base all taxes on
income?
That's how I'd do it. It hurts the hell outta people like my parents
who, after my father retired, were living in a very nice, highly-taxed
home. It was one thing to pay the taxes when my dad had an income, and
another when he was living on his pension, retirement, and savings.
Post by Holdit
(I remember the days of domestic rates in the UK, where a pensioner
could be paying the same rates as someone earning a six-figure salary
who lived the same street.)
Exactly. And again, how is it even *logical*. One's consumption of
city services, generally speaking, is *inversely proportional* to the
value of one's home; upscale folks living in fine houses generally need
town, police, educational, and emergency resources *less* than the great
unwashed.

Mrs. G. wants to convert a deck on the side of our house into a
greenhouse, so that she can enjoy green, growing things even in the ugly
Vermont winters. Why in holy hell should that cause my *school taxes*
to increase!?!?

It's bizarre.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Muslim woman strangled by her burkha in freak go-kart accident"
- Headline, Daily Mail
"Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"
- Giftzwerg
Briarroot
2010-04-14 17:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
@hotmail.com says...
Post by Giftzwerg
And you can apply this schema to most all city services. For example,
based on the value of my house, I pay a ton of money for our excellent
local police department. But I've needed their services exactly *once*
in 12 years. Yet there are crummy, low-value houses in the town that
generate essentially zero taxes to maintain the police - but that the
police need to visit on virtually a daily basis. This is a huge suck on
police resources, and one that necessarily reduces the police protection
available to my home. Why not a base tax for the police department to
ever property owner, and a co-payment billed directly to those using the
police services?
Slightly off the point: isn't it a bit unfair to be taxing people based
on the value of their property at all? After all, property value isn't
income. It's a theoretical sum that can only be realised on the sale of
the house. Wouldn't it be both simpler and fairer to base all taxes on
income?
Fairness and taxes don't mix - at least not in the US of A! :-/
Post by Giftzwerg
(I remember the days of domestic rates in the UK, where a pensioner
could be paying the same rates as someone earning a six-figure salary
who lived the same street.)
IMNSHO, every citizen should pay the same rate (%) regardless of income.
--
"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what
should be the reward of such sacrifices?' ... If ye love wealth better
than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of
freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch
down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains sit lightly
upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" - Sam
Adams
Briarroot
2010-04-14 17:28:31 UTC
Permalink
In article<c4fe3139-8b11-4106-ae1d-
says...
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by Giftzwerg
I don't have a problem, in principle, with a government run school; what
Giftzwerg's 2009 school tax amount ........ $4,735.17
Number of children in Giftzwerg household .. 0
There's something kinda fucked up about that, no? Why should my school
tax payment be based on the value of my *house*, and not the number of
*children* inside it? It's nuts; if I put a solarium or a bigger deck
on my house, my school taxes go up. If I have three children, they
don't go up.
It's beyond nuts. It's surreal. If I live in this house another eight
years, the amount of school taxes I will have paid on it will be greater
Two points : it seems to me that not introducing some sort of
"capitalist" competition in schools will result in rampant spending
and decreasing performance.
Oh, agreed. Absolutely. But you only get actual free market
performance if my neighbor with three children has to spend *his own*
money on educating them ... not *my* money.
And that's why private schools children consistently outperform public
schools children: because their parents (the one's footing the bills)
shop for the best school before enrolling little Johnnie. To many
parents of private school kids, cost isn't even the #1 consideration,
the quality of the education comes first.
--
"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what
should be the reward of such sacrifices?' ... If ye love wealth better
than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of
freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch
down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains sit lightly
upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" - Sam
Adams
Briarroot
2010-04-14 17:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
I would argue that there's a *huge* difference between healthcare
programs enacted by individual states, and a sweeping nationwide
initiative from the Federal Government. In Romney's case, he was the
governor of Massachusetts - not Texas - and the voters were much, much
more amenable to the plan they actually got. I mean, if the voters were
in favor of something, and Romney stopped it, wouldn't he be thwarting
the will of the electorate as badly as Obama just did?
We elect our representatives to exercise their own judgment, not to kiss
our asses.
Whoa!
Isn't that what Congress *just did*?!?! In passing ObamaCare against
the wishes of the people?
Yes, but that isn't the point. I object when Congress does things I
don't like, but I reconcile myself to that fact (i.e: I pay my taxes)
because I believe that Congress also does things which are beneficial,
compromise being a necessary ingredient in a successful democracy. With
Obamacare however, we are being saddled with an individual mandate to
buy private health insurance, and I think this is an unconstitutional
and outrageous usurpation of my liberty. Aside from the moronic notion
that forcing the insurance companies to sell policies to those already
sick (pre-existing conditions) and preventing them from dropping those
individuals whose contracts are no longer profitable, both of which will
inevitably vastly increase the premiums paid by the rest of the insured,
it's that mandate which has me most upset, and IMO is primary source of
the indignation fueling the Tea Party movement.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
In a land where *millions* of people hold millions of
different opinions yet must be governed equitably, it is impossible for
any governor/president to please everyone; trying to do so is not only
futile, it's downright dangerous.
Yep. And Congress, by the latest polls, is only pleasing about 30% of
the people in passing ObamaCare.
Are they heros?
The Democrats are certainly acting like they think they are!

My point is that it is impossible to please everyone and Congress is
supposed to act for the good of the whole, even if that means going
against the popular will. Desegregation anyone?

Obamacare isn't really all that unpopular anyway; the polls show only a
slight majority look upon it with disfavor.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
While I recognize that the the US Constitution sets great limits on
Federal power and far fewer on State power, and while I remain fully
aware of the people's right to vote themselves bread and circuses if
that's what they really want, I think Romney was wrong - dead wrong. A
tax-funded government healthcare agency is one thing, forcing everyone
to buy private health insurance is quite another. I detest the whole
idea of the former but would grudgingly pay my taxes anyway. In the
latter case however, the legislature is saying to me that we are all
wards of the government and no longer free men, and that is unacceptable!
So you're essentially saying that government-run healthcare is "Just
Plain Wrong" regardless of popularity or willingness of state or federal
governments to enact it?
I think health care is a personal responsibility not a "right." A
"right" is something that government guarantees that citizens cannot be
denied the free exercise thereof. Rights are inherent in the being of
every citizen, they are not something that government provides.
Governments exist to amass, control and exert force, and the US
Constitution specifically enjoined the Federal government to protect the
rights of individuals, not to commandeer them. The use of government to
dispense, provide and/or distribute food, shelter, clothing and now
health care is a clear violation of the founders' intentions; and,
acting as it does to take from those who have to give to those who do
not have, it violates the compact between free citizens that is the very
bedrock of society. Charity *must* be voluntary or it is not charity at
all, it is, in plain language, theft.

What I was saying above is that government dispensed health care, much
like Welfare, Social Security and Medicare, is anathema to me, but I can
swallow that bitter pill more easily because those programs are
*voluntary* - I do not have to participate, I just have to pay for them.
With Obamacare, I am *forced* to participate. I'll pay my taxes
because I have to (they have more guns than I do) but my body is not
government property!
Post by Giftzwerg
I feel the same way about government-funded schools. It's "Just Plain
Wrong," regardless of<insert anything here>, and I want my money back.
I feel the same about *all* property taxes, no matter how they're used!
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
It's likely that mandatory health insurance was
far more popular back then in the Bay State than it has been nationally
recently, but the idea that a *Republican* governor would so eagerly
embrace the concept shows me that their party's philosophy is as corrupt
as their opponent's.
I think we have to be careful about this line of thinking, though. The
danger is we get *exactly* what happened in 2008, where solid
conservative voters were so sour on McCain that they stayed away from
the polls. Shit, I know people who were so steeped in this "there ain't
a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats" that
they voted for *Obama*. Biiiiiiig mistake.
It's time for the Republican Party to fold its tents and slink off into
the sunset - just as their predecessors, the Whigs, once did. The
Libertarian Party should take their place by advocating a return to
strict constitutional principles.
"Coulda, woulda, and shoulda - plus 50 cents - will buy you a small
coffee at Tarrant's General Store in Belvedire, VT."
- Giftzwerg
Heh.
Post by Giftzwerg
We have to live in the world of the practical, and while it's nice to
imagine a rock-ribbed libertarian party ruling the nation ... it just
ain't gonna happen. The optimal move for Libertarian / Tea Party is to
co-opt the Republican Party - grab the levers from within - not to start
a third party that will do nothing but guarantee another 20 years of
rule by Democrats.
The Republicans are rotten to the core and saddled with baggage (the
religious right) that can't be easily ignored or shunted aside. In
modern lingo, their brand has been tainted. I'm not saying it would be
easy for the Libertarians to replace the Republicans as the nation's #2
major party, I'm saying there's never been a better opportunity than
right now.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
I don't like that anymore than you do. But I'd sure as hell rather have
McCain in office right now - for hundreds of reasons, big and small -
than The Clueless Wonder Boy.
Yes, McCain would have been the lesser of two evils, but that's hardly a
recommendation.
Sure it is. Politics is *always* the art of picking the lesser of two
evils.
I disagree. Call me a pie-eyed idealist if you wish, but nothing is
ever accomplished without a willingness to *try* - even if we end up
falling flat on our faces sometimes. Even if the Libertarians failed to
replace the Republican Party, their attempt could promote their values
and reacquaint the nation with first principles. That *can't* be a Bad
Thing!
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Mud makes a better meal than shit but that doesn't mean
I want to eat it! Maybe after having elected Obama and watched him make
a mess of things, America will awaken to the fact that socialism is
inherently unfair and unworkable, that we've forgotten the principles
upon which this nation was founded, what those principles are and why
they are so important. In other words, maybe the example of Obama will
wake people up. Or not. (Yeah, I voted for McCain, too<frown>)
But this is just my point; voting for Obama in hopes that he would
overreach catastrophically and Chernobyl the left is a *dangerous* idea
that flirts with giving the hard left *four years* to fuck up the
country - perhaps putting it beyond hope.
And we did it. I hope we survive.
I don't want to appear overly dramatic, but I think we're balanced on a
knife-edge, both economically and politically. What's that ancient
Chinese curse about "interesting times?"
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
Barack Obama: ................ 43%
Republican: .................. 29%
Libertarian: ................. 27%
Other: ....................... 1%
... and we'll get another four years of Obambi. Ross Perot all over
again, say hello to President Clinton.
Plus another 2 -6 years of one-party rule, as this 3rd-party splitting
of the right-wing vote happens all down the ticket.
Disaster.
This ain't 1996 and Ross Perot was no Libertarian!
A real Libertarian would have fared even worse. I mean, there *is* a
Libertarian Party, no? How did they do in the last five elections?
Harry Browne got a significant number of votes in Ohio in the 2000
Presidential election, unfortunately he's deceased and the Libertarians
are currently split into several warring factions. The most prominent
appears to be the one led by Ron Paul, but he's so scarily reactionary,
he's acting like an anchor.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
If the various factions of the Libertarian party would unite and find a
charismatic spokesman to carry their banner, they might be able to knock
the Republicans out of the picture. The Republicans are weaker now than
they've ever been since Nixon resigned. The Tea Party movement is
evidence that a whole lot of voters are disgusted about the direction
*both* parties have been taking. Maybe they're finally ready to listen
to someone who's willing to tell them the truth - and *not* kiss their
asses.
If the Libertarians could get it together, the 2012 election results
Libertarian ......... 41%
Obama............... 38%
Republican ........ 20%
Other ................ 1%
Feh. I see this as pie-in-the-sky. Much as we might wish this, it just
ain't gonna happen.
Nothing is ever accomplished without effort.
Post by Giftzwerg
And even if it does happen, it won't happen overnight. The proximal
result will be to hand election-after-election and district-after-
district to Democrats as Libertarians and Republicans split the right-
of-center vote.
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
"Hold your nose and vote Republican."
- Giftzwerg's default
And we get another 4 years of Republicans acting like Democrats?
The real question, though, is whether we want the (average) $250 billion
deficits from a free-spending George W. Bush and a scummy Republican
Congress ... or $1.3 *trillion* deficits under the current regime.
And that's a conservative estimate! <gulp>
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Ugh,
that's what got us Obama in the first place! Okay yeah, that *would* be
better than another 4 years of Obama acting like Fidel Castro, but does
that really have to be the only result? Why *can't* the Libertarians
replace the Republicans? Political parties have risen and fallen before
in our history. Why not once again?
<shrug>
Show me the Libertarian with the ghost of a chance to beat Clodhopper
and initiate The Glorious Revolution, and you've got my vote.
Who is (s)he?
I'll let you know when/if I find him/her. <g>
--
"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what
should be the reward of such sacrifices?' ... If ye love wealth better
than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of
freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch
down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains sit lightly
upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" - Sam
Adams
Giftzwerg
2010-04-14 19:54:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
Isn't that what Congress *just did*?!?! In passing ObamaCare against
the wishes of the people?
Yes, but that isn't the point. I object when Congress does things I
don't like, but I reconcile myself to that fact (i.e: I pay my taxes)
because I believe that Congress also does things which are beneficial,
compromise being a necessary ingredient in a successful democracy. With
Obamacare however, we are being saddled with an individual mandate to
buy private health insurance, and I think this is an unconstitutional
and outrageous usurpation of my liberty. Aside from the moronic notion
that forcing the insurance companies to sell policies to those already
sick (pre-existing conditions) and preventing them from dropping those
individuals whose contracts are no longer profitable, both of which will
inevitably vastly increase the premiums paid by the rest of the insured,
it's that mandate which has me most upset, and IMO is primary source of
the indignation fueling the Tea Party movement.
I'm not so sure. "Dropping those who are no longer profitable" is in
many cases a grotesque abuse of the system. Yeah, if I get <insert
horrific condition here>, I will "no longer be profitable," but the
lousy fuckers running the insurance companies have no right to just
*drop me* because they're having to pay my claim.

With regard to "pre-existing conditions," it's true that individuals
shouldn't be able to wait until they need treatment to purchase
insurance - but it's also true that their *previous* insurer should
continue to be on the hook for a condition developed while a previous
policy is in force.
Post by Briarroot
The Democrats are certainly acting like they think they are!
My point is that it is impossible to please everyone and Congress is
supposed to act for the good of the whole, even if that means going
against the popular will. Desegregation anyone?
Desegregation was broadly popular in the population at large when it was
enacted. It wasn't popular everywhere, but Congress is a national body,
not a regional body.
Post by Briarroot
Obamacare isn't really all that unpopular anyway; the polls show only a
slight majority look upon it with disfavor.
I dunno. The last poll I saw showed that 55% are so incensed that they
advocate outright *repeal*.
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
So you're essentially saying that government-run healthcare is "Just
Plain Wrong" regardless of popularity or willingness of state or federal
governments to enact it?
I think health care is a personal responsibility not a "right." A
"right" is something that government guarantees that citizens cannot be
denied the free exercise thereof.
Is public education at taxpayer expense a "right?" Cuz everyone sure
behaves as though it's right - even though I find no mention of it in
the Constitution. And so far as an "individual mandate" goes, the
government forces me to buy public education even if I haven't got any
kids. Why is this so very different from forcing everyone to buy
insurance?
Post by Briarroot
Rights are inherent in the being of
every citizen, they are not something that government provides.
But they are things that the government guarantees. Who but the
government (in this case, the judicial branch) can I go to if, for
example, a federal, state, or local cop violates my 4th Amendment
rights?
Post by Briarroot
Governments exist to amass, control and exert force, and the US
Constitution specifically enjoined the Federal government to protect the
rights of individuals, not to commandeer them. The use of government to
dispense, provide and/or distribute food, shelter, clothing and now
health care is a clear violation of the founders' intentions; and,
acting as it does to take from those who have to give to those who do
not have, it violates the compact between free citizens that is the very
bedrock of society. Charity *must* be voluntary or it is not charity at
all, it is, in plain language, theft.
School. Taxes. They force me to buy an education for someone else's
children. Samey-same.
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
We have to live in the world of the practical, and while it's nice to
imagine a rock-ribbed libertarian party ruling the nation ... it just
ain't gonna happen. The optimal move for Libertarian / Tea Party is to
co-opt the Republican Party - grab the levers from within - not to start
a third party that will do nothing but guarantee another 20 years of
rule by Democrats.
The Republicans are rotten to the core and saddled with baggage (the
religious right) that can't be easily ignored or shunted aside. In
modern lingo, their brand has been tainted. I'm not saying it would be
easy for the Libertarians to replace the Republicans as the nation's #2
major party, I'm saying there's never been a better opportunity than
right now.
We'll have to disagree on this one. I see it as the fast-track to 20
more years of "Madam Speaker Pelosi."
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
A real Libertarian would have fared even worse. I mean, there *is* a
Libertarian Party, no? How did they do in the last five elections?
Harry Browne got a significant number of votes in Ohio in the 2000
Presidential election, unfortunately he's deceased and the Libertarians
are currently split into several warring factions. The most prominent
appears to be the one led by Ron Paul, but he's so scarily reactionary,
he's acting like an anchor.
And yet ... now's the time to act?

<falls over>
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
Show me the Libertarian with the ghost of a chance to beat Clodhopper
and initiate The Glorious Revolution, and you've got my vote.
Who is (s)he?
I'll let you know when/if I find him/her. <g>
I think the optimal path is primary fights within the Republican Party
to replace RINOs with strong fiscal conservatives - something virtually
everyone on the "right" agrees with. Let the fur fly in the primaries
... but let's make sure both Republican candidates agree up front to one
Iron Law; if you lose, you *lose*. No running as an independent, no
sniping from the fringes, no swapping parties - and the partisans of
each candidate agree to support their opponent in the general election.

We don't want any more NY-23s, where all the "Tea Party" candidate
accomplishes is getting a Democrat into a formerly Republican seat.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Americans are now pretty evenly divided about whether they would rather
have Barack Obama or George W. Bush in the White House. 48% prefer Obama
while 46% say they would rather have the old President back."
- Public Policy Polling
"And counting."
- Giftzwerg
Briarroot
2010-04-15 16:52:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
Isn't that what Congress *just did*?!?! In passing ObamaCare against
the wishes of the people?
Yes, but that isn't the point. I object when Congress does things I
don't like, but I reconcile myself to that fact (i.e: I pay my taxes)
because I believe that Congress also does things which are beneficial,
compromise being a necessary ingredient in a successful democracy. With
Obamacare however, we are being saddled with an individual mandate to
buy private health insurance, and I think this is an unconstitutional
and outrageous usurpation of my liberty. Aside from the moronic notion
that forcing the insurance companies to sell policies to those already
sick (pre-existing conditions) and preventing them from dropping those
individuals whose contracts are no longer profitable, both of which will
inevitably vastly increase the premiums paid by the rest of the insured,
it's that mandate which has me most upset, and IMO is primary source of
the indignation fueling the Tea Party movement.
I'm not so sure. "Dropping those who are no longer profitable" is in
many cases a grotesque abuse of the system.
What system? Health insurance is a business *designed* to generate profit!
Post by Giftzwerg
Yeah, if I get<insert
horrific condition here>, I will "no longer be profitable," but the
lousy fuckers running the insurance companies have no right to just
*drop me* because they're having to pay my claim.
All insurance policies includes specific wording that permits either
party to terminate the contract if or when certain conditions apply. In
other words, it's not only entirely legal for the companies to drop
clients if those conditions occur, it's even spelled out up front -
before anyone signs on the dotted line - and that makes it ethical as
well. It is the insured's responsibility to investigate the conditions
of the policy he buys *before* deciding entering into any agreement.
Post by Giftzwerg
With regard to "pre-existing conditions," it's true that individuals
shouldn't be able to wait until they need treatment to purchase
insurance - but it's also true that their *previous* insurer should
continue to be on the hook for a condition developed while a previous
policy is in force.
What if there is no previous insurer?
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
The Democrats are certainly acting like they think they are!
My point is that it is impossible to please everyone and Congress is
supposed to act for the good of the whole, even if that means going
against the popular will. Desegregation anyone?
Desegregation was broadly popular in the population at large when it was
enacted. It wasn't popular everywhere, but Congress is a national body,
not a regional body.
Broadly popular? Not in any neighborhood where I ever lived! As I
recall, the implementation of school desegregation, forced busing, was
wildly *unpopular* everywhere it was implemented.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Obamacare isn't really all that unpopular anyway; the polls show only a
slight majority look upon it with disfavor.
I dunno. The last poll I saw showed that 55% are so incensed that they
advocate outright *repeal*.
That is a slight majority.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
So you're essentially saying that government-run healthcare is "Just
Plain Wrong" regardless of popularity or willingness of state or federal
governments to enact it?
I think health care is a personal responsibility not a "right." A
"right" is something that government guarantees that citizens cannot be
denied the free exercise thereof.
Is public education at taxpayer expense a "right?" Cuz everyone sure
behaves as though it's right - even though I find no mention of it in
the Constitution. And so far as an "individual mandate" goes, the
government forces me to buy public education even if I haven't got any
kids. Why is this so very different from forcing everyone to buy
insurance?
That's not the same thing. You aren't forced to send *your* kids to
public schools. You pay for the current system, but you aren't forced
to use it.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Rights are inherent in the being of
every citizen, they are not something that government provides.
But they are things that the government guarantees. Who but the
government (in this case, the judicial branch) can I go to if, for
example, a federal, state, or local cop violates my 4th Amendment
rights?
There is a huge difference between "guarantee" and "provide." In the
above instance, if you thought your right to avoid "unreasonable search
and seizure" was violated by a representative of the executive branch,
you would appeal to a member of the judicial branch to have {whatever}
evidence excluded from {whatever} case was made against you using that
evidence. The government would *not* be providing you with your right,
they *would* be guaranteeing that you retained it.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Governments exist to amass, control and exert force, and the US
Constitution specifically enjoined the Federal government to protect the
rights of individuals, not to commandeer them. The use of government to
dispense, provide and/or distribute food, shelter, clothing and now
health care is a clear violation of the founders' intentions; and,
acting as it does to take from those who have to give to those who do
not have, it violates the compact between free citizens that is the very
bedrock of society. Charity *must* be voluntary or it is not charity at
all, it is, in plain language, theft.
School. Taxes. They force me to buy an education for someone else's
children. Samey-same.
But they don't force you to use public education.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
We have to live in the world of the practical, and while it's nice to
imagine a rock-ribbed libertarian party ruling the nation ... it just
ain't gonna happen. The optimal move for Libertarian / Tea Party is to
co-opt the Republican Party - grab the levers from within - not to start
a third party that will do nothing but guarantee another 20 years of
rule by Democrats.
The Republicans are rotten to the core and saddled with baggage (the
religious right) that can't be easily ignored or shunted aside. In
modern lingo, their brand has been tainted. I'm not saying it would be
easy for the Libertarians to replace the Republicans as the nation's #2
major party, I'm saying there's never been a better opportunity than
right now.
We'll have to disagree on this one. I see it as the fast-track to 20
more years of "Madam Speaker Pelosi."
How many decades did the Democrats control the House of Representatives
before the "Gingrich revolution?" I don't think we should expect any
miracles from the hapless and foolish, not to mention leaderless,
Republican Party of 2010-12. In other words, Pelosi is probably going
to hold that post until she dies from Botox poisoning! :-(
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
A real Libertarian would have fared even worse. I mean, there *is* a
Libertarian Party, no? How did they do in the last five elections?
Harry Browne got a significant number of votes in Ohio in the 2000
Presidential election, unfortunately he's deceased and the Libertarians
are currently split into several warring factions. The most prominent
appears to be the one led by Ron Paul, but he's so scarily reactionary,
he's acting like an anchor.
And yet ... now's the time to act?
<falls over>
In military terms: sometimes the best strategy is to attack when the
opposition is weakest and least prepared, regardless of the state of
your own preparations, especially when you're the underdog - meaning
that if you take all the time you need to prepare you would more than
likely lose anyway.

Ron Paul, because he is the most visible, (Congressman, anti-abortionist
MD) gets the most attention and he was recently voted 'best candidate'
at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, but that
doesn't mean he's the man the Libertarians need to seize the national
imagination. The numbers looked like this: Paul 31%; Romney 22%; Palin
7%; Pawlenty 6%. That's not what I would call an overwhelming victory;
and of those in attendance at that conference, Republicans outnumbered
Libertarians by a wide margin. Ron Paul is popular among *some*
Libertarians and they seem to be the group making the most noise right
now, but as far as I know he is still a member of the Republican Party.
It isn't very likely that he'd ever become the spokesman for the
*entire* Libertarian movement. Still... stranger things have happened
in politics!
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
Show me the Libertarian with the ghost of a chance to beat Clodhopper
and initiate The Glorious Revolution, and you've got my vote.
Who is (s)he?
I'll let you know when/if I find him/her.<g>
I think the optimal path is primary fights within the Republican Party
to replace RINOs with strong fiscal conservatives - something virtually
everyone on the "right" agrees with. Let the fur fly in the primaries
... but let's make sure both Republican candidates agree up front to one
Iron Law; if you lose, you *lose*. No running as an independent, no
sniping from the fringes, no swapping parties - and the partisans of
each candidate agree to support their opponent in the general election.
We don't want any more NY-23s, where all the "Tea Party" candidate
accomplishes is getting a Democrat into a formerly Republican seat.
And you think that's going to happen? I just don't see it. I think the
Republicans have lost their way.
--
"One of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous
citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our
founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence." -
American historian Charles A. Beard (1874-1948)
Frank E
2010-04-14 20:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
I would argue that there's a *huge* difference between healthcare
programs enacted by individual states, and a sweeping nationwide
initiative from the Federal Government. In Romney's case, he was the
governor of Massachusetts - not Texas - and the voters were much, much
more amenable to the plan they actually got. I mean, if the voters were
in favor of something, and Romney stopped it, wouldn't he be thwarting
the will of the electorate as badly as Obama just did?
We elect our representatives to exercise their own judgment, not to kiss
our asses.
Whoa!
Isn't that what Congress *just did*?!?! In passing ObamaCare against
the wishes of the people?
Yes, but that isn't the point. I object when Congress does things I
don't like, but I reconcile myself to that fact (i.e: I pay my taxes)
because I believe that Congress also does things which are beneficial,
compromise being a necessary ingredient in a successful democracy. With
Obamacare however, we are being saddled with an individual mandate to
buy private health insurance, and I think this is an unconstitutional
and outrageous usurpation of my liberty.
Do you feel the same way about car insurance?

There are, I think, two good arguments for making everyone buy at
least a minimal level of health insurance.

First, do you turning people away at the emergency room if they don't
have health insurance? I wouldn't have a problem with doing that but
there are also kids of people who don' t have health insurance. What
about them?

Second thing is, what if you have a serious accident and get emergency
services or if you call an ambulance? Do you really want people
checking to see whether you have health coverage before they decide
whether to answer the call or not?

Everyone has access to some degree of medical coverage so why not make
them pay for it?

Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
2010-04-14 20:50:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank E
Post by Briarroot
Yes, but that isn't the point. I object when Congress does things I
don't like, but I reconcile myself to that fact (i.e: I pay my taxes)
because I believe that Congress also does things which are beneficial,
compromise being a necessary ingredient in a successful democracy. With
Obamacare however, we are being saddled with an individual mandate to
buy private health insurance, and I think this is an unconstitutional
and outrageous usurpation of my liberty.
Do you feel the same way about car insurance?
You're not forced to buy car insurance, unless you want to operate your
car on public roads built at taxpayer expense. If you just want to
drive around on your own property, you don't even need to register the
car or have a driver's license.
Post by Frank E
There are, I think, two good arguments for making everyone buy at
least a minimal level of health insurance.
First, do you turning people away at the emergency room if they don't
have health insurance? I wouldn't have a problem with doing that but
there are also kids of people who don' t have health insurance. What
about them?
Nobody gets turned away from the emergency room, even today. Nobody.
At all. The hospital just charges the paying customers (IE, you and me)
more to pay for treatment of the uninsured. At the hospital where my
wife works, the official policy is, "Treat everyone. Treat them the
same. Billing will worry about it later."
Post by Frank E
Second thing is, what if you have a serious accident and get emergency
services or if you call an ambulance? Do you really want people
checking to see whether you have health coverage before they decide
whether to answer the call or not?
Never. Ever. Happens.
Post by Frank E
Everyone has access to some degree of medical coverage so why not make
them pay for it?
I tend to agree with this. If I'm on the hook for educating the
neighbor's child, how can I argue my tax money shouldn't be used so the
neighbor's child is treated for leukemia?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Americans are now pretty evenly divided about whether they would rather
have Barack Obama or George W. Bush in the White House. 48% prefer Obama
while 46% say they would rather have the old President back."
- Public Policy Polling
"And counting."
- Giftzwerg
Frank E
2010-04-15 11:01:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:50:41 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Frank E
There are, I think, two good arguments for making everyone buy at
least a minimal level of health insurance.
First, do you turning people away at the emergency room if they don't
have health insurance? I wouldn't have a problem with doing that but
there are also kids of people who don' t have health insurance. What
about them?
Nobody gets turned away from the emergency room, even today. Nobody.
At all. The hospital just charges the paying customers (IE, you and me)
more to pay for treatment of the uninsured. At the hospital where my
wife works, the official policy is, "Treat everyone. Treat them the
same. Billing will worry about it later."
Right, that's the point I was trying to make. I'm currently paying for
the people using our local hospital that don't have health insurance
through higher state and local taxes and through increased medical
bills if I use the hospital. What's wrong with requiring everyone
have health insurance so that they pay their own way. With the current
system, why not allow hospitals to turn people away?

.... although I think that it's only public hospitals that have to
take anyone off the street. Afaik, a private hospital is free to turn
people away.

Rgds, Frank
Briarroot
2010-04-15 17:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank E
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
Post by Giftzwerg
I would argue that there's a *huge* difference between healthcare
programs enacted by individual states, and a sweeping nationwide
initiative from the Federal Government. In Romney's case, he was the
governor of Massachusetts - not Texas - and the voters were much, much
more amenable to the plan they actually got. I mean, if the voters were
in favor of something, and Romney stopped it, wouldn't he be thwarting
the will of the electorate as badly as Obama just did?
We elect our representatives to exercise their own judgment, not to kiss
our asses.
Whoa!
Isn't that what Congress *just did*?!?! In passing ObamaCare against
the wishes of the people?
Yes, but that isn't the point. I object when Congress does things I
don't like, but I reconcile myself to that fact (i.e: I pay my taxes)
because I believe that Congress also does things which are beneficial,
compromise being a necessary ingredient in a successful democracy. With
Obamacare however, we are being saddled with an individual mandate to
buy private health insurance, and I think this is an unconstitutional
and outrageous usurpation of my liberty.
Do you feel the same way about car insurance?
Apples and oranges!

1) I do not have to buy car insurance unless I own/lease a vehicle, and
in some states even that is unnecessary as a suitably large bond may be
posted in lieu of insurance.

2) Streets and highways are *public* property, my body (my health) is not.

If your attempted analogy held, then I would be forced to buy car
insurance so that everyone's car insurance rates were lower, and I would
be required to do so even if I did not own a car! The irony is that
wherever this silly scheme has been attempted (See: Massachusetts and
Tennessee) it has not only *failed* to accomplish its goal but insurance
rates have soared far beyond the national norm!
Post by Frank E
There are, I think, two good arguments for making everyone buy at
least a minimal level of health insurance.
First, do you turning people away at the emergency room if they don't
have health insurance? I wouldn't have a problem with doing that but
there are also kids of people who don' t have health insurance. What
about them?
It is a fallacy that those who do not have health insurance do not avail
themselves of normal health care services, i.e: doctors, dentists,
optometrists. They do, and I'm an example of the group. Therefore, it
is also false to suggest that the uninsured are a drain on emergency
services, they are not. The *poor* and *uneducated* are those most
likely to show up at Emergency Rooms in need of medical care. The two
sets of individuals, "uninsured" and "poor," though the first contains
the second, are *not* identical.
Post by Frank E
Second thing is, what if you have a serious accident and get emergency
services or if you call an ambulance? Do you really want people
checking to see whether you have health coverage before they decide
whether to answer the call or not?
LOL That's both unethical (doctors swear an oath before being granted a
license to practice) and illegal in every state. First they take care
of the emergency, *then* they figure out who pays.
Post by Frank E
Everyone has access to some degree of medical coverage so why not make
them pay for it?
I'm already paying for my medical care - in cash. I'm not buying health
insurance because I think I can more usefully employ my money elsewhere
- and that is my right.

What you are missing is the clear distinction between *allowing* me to
purchase health insurance and *forcing* me to purchase health insurance.
The first instance is an example of the government staying out of my
personal life, which is their appointed task (guaranteeing "life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness"); the second instance is an
example of the reverse, government interference with my rights as above.

The objective of providing medical care for the poor and uneducated is a
worthy one. I strenuously object, however, to the method that has been
chosen - using force to take a portion of what is mine - and I will not
willingly participate is such a charade. The actions taken by our
current government are immoral, and in my opinion they are also
unconstitutional.
--
"One of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous
citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our
founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence." -
American historian Charles A. Beard (1874-1948)
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
2010-04-06 19:44:02 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 20:16:46 +0200, "Vincenzo Beretta"
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Cost like a bastard, and the whole thing was almost certainly
unnecessary.
But from my perspective, why not? I got a 100% full urological and
thoracic workup, soup to nuts. No stones, no tumors, no masses,
nothing; and if there'd been the slightest problem found, it would have
been found much, much, much earlier than it would have been otherwise.
[1]
I'm actually pleased that Gifty is in good health.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
If the doctor didn't have 1,000,000 legal sharks swimming around him,
though, he'd almost certainly have examined me and said, "Hey, G., it's
probably just the fall; give it a couple of days and get back to me if
the problem persists."
[1] This was my wife the NP's take on it; it was a golden opportunity.
"Man up and do it, ya fucking baby."
Uhm... you know, I could do exactly the same over here - no questions asked,
almost no money involved. I would simply ask for a complete check-up (if the
doctor doesn't ask for it first), pay the "ticket" (I think that for your
exams it would be around 100 Euros in Italy) and go to the nearest clinic.
On 31st Dec last year (New Year's Eve, baby!) I fell down and broke
BOTH ankles, one of them quite badly. I was just released from
hospital last Wednesday (90 days!). I have two permanent pins and a
lateral screw was taken out the week before I was discharged.

While I was in hospital, I was also started on treatment for
hypertension, bone density was checked and lots of other stuff.

Total cost out of my pocket? $A350 - half the cost of the ambulance
ride plus $A100 yet to be charged, the cost for 3 months hire of
certain mobility aids - crutches, shower chair toilet frame - yet to
be paid.

Oh yes, it's also going to cost $A20 for a CD with all my X-rays
burned onto it - but that's not an "essential".

Went to my GP yesterday to hand over the hospital discharge
documentation and start a long-term prescription regime for the blood
pressure meds.

That doesn't cost me any out-of-pocket expenses, either but because it
was the first working day after a long Easter holiday, I had to wait
90 minutes.

Gee, that's SOOOOO unreasonable!
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Really: the answer to most of the Frequently Used
Terror-Tact^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Objections to UHC lies just right over the
border, in the dozens of countries who have it since the XIX Century and
didn't sink under the seas Atlantis-like. I'll concede that looking over his
own border is, for an USAnian, no small feat - but it is not that UHC is an
Untested Weapon System that Could Destroy the Sun and, as such, not to be
experimented lightly...
Giftzwerg
2010-04-07 20:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
On 31st Dec last year (New Year's Eve, baby!) I fell down and broke
BOTH ankles, one of them quite badly. I was just released from
hospital last Wednesday (90 days!). I have two permanent pins and a
lateral screw was taken out the week before I was discharged.
Hmmm. In 1987, I shattered my own ankle - clipped by a drunk driver -
and had it pinned back together surgically. I still have two metal
plates and eight screws on my left foot. Funny, though, that I only
spent two *days* in the hospital (twenty years ago!) - and was out of
the walking cast and back on light duty in six weeks.
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Gee, that's SOOOOO unreasonable!
*Three months* in the hospital for broken ankles? I'd say that's
fucking *ludicrous*.

Yeah. Whew. Great healthcare system you've got there.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Vincenzo Beretta
2010-04-06 21:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
*Three months* in the hospital for broken ankles? I'd say that's
fucking *ludicrous*.
Yeah. Whew. Great healthcare system you've got there.
Can't wait for the "battle of the X-Rays" :^D
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
2010-04-07 19:18:02 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 16:55:49 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
On 31st Dec last year (New Year's Eve, baby!) I fell down and broke
BOTH ankles, one of them quite badly. I was just released from
hospital last Wednesday (90 days!). I have two permanent pins and a
lateral screw was taken out the week before I was discharged.
Hmmm. In 1987, I shattered my own ankle - clipped by a drunk driver -
and had it pinned back together surgically. I still have two metal
plates and eight screws on my left foot. Funny, though, that I only
spent two *days* in the hospital (twenty years ago!) - and was out of
the walking cast and back on light duty in six weeks.
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Gee, that's SOOOOO unreasonable!
*Three months* in the hospital for broken ankles? I'd say that's
fucking *ludicrous*.
Classified "No Weight Bearing" for ten weeks out of the twelve. Once
the cast was off the left ankle, progress was rapid.

Hey, as you probably realise by now, Gifty, after age 50 you don't
heal like a 20 year old.
Post by Giftzwerg
Yeah. Whew. Great healthcare system you've got there.
Giftzwerg
2010-04-08 19:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Post by Giftzwerg
Hmmm. In 1987, I shattered my own ankle - clipped by a drunk driver -
and had it pinned back together surgically. I still have two metal
plates and eight screws on my left foot. Funny, though, that I only
spent two *days* in the hospital (twenty years ago!) - and was out of
the walking cast and back on light duty in six weeks.
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Gee, that's SOOOOO unreasonable!
*Three months* in the hospital for broken ankles? I'd say that's
fucking *ludicrous*.
Classified "No Weight Bearing" for ten weeks out of the twelve. Once
the cast was off the left ankle, progress was rapid.
Hey, as you probably realise by now, Gifty, after age 50 you don't
heal like a 20 year old.
After age 50, you need less New Year's Eve in your life.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
2010-04-08 17:04:02 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 15:40:17 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Post by Giftzwerg
Hmmm. In 1987, I shattered my own ankle - clipped by a drunk driver -
and had it pinned back together surgically. I still have two metal
plates and eight screws on my left foot. Funny, though, that I only
spent two *days* in the hospital (twenty years ago!) - and was out of
the walking cast and back on light duty in six weeks.
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Gee, that's SOOOOO unreasonable!
*Three months* in the hospital for broken ankles? I'd say that's
fucking *ludicrous*.
Classified "No Weight Bearing" for ten weeks out of the twelve. Once
the cast was off the left ankle, progress was rapid.
Hey, as you probably realise by now, Gifty, after age 50 you don't
heal like a 20 year old.
After age 50, you need less New Year's Eve in your life.
I could wish that had actually been the cause, but at 8:30am, bringing
in the empty wheelie bins, you need a lot less FALLING DOWN in your
life. Never got to "party time" and it was a week before a friend knew
where I was.
Giftzwerg
2010-04-08 17:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Post by Giftzwerg
After age 50, you need less New Year's Eve in your life.
I could wish that had actually been the cause, but at 8:30am, bringing
in the empty wheelie bins, you need a lot less FALLING DOWN in your
life. Never got to "party time" and it was a week before a friend knew
where I was.
8:30 AM? Man, you guys start *early* down under. I usually tap the
first keg around 8:00 PM.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
2010-04-09 18:24:01 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 13:20:03 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Post by Giftzwerg
After age 50, you need less New Year's Eve in your life.
I could wish that had actually been the cause, but at 8:30am, bringing
in the empty wheelie bins, you need a lot less FALLING DOWN in your
life. Never got to "party time" and it was a week before a friend knew
where I was.
8:30 AM? Man, you guys start *early* down under. I usually tap the
first keg around 8:00 PM.
Yeah! I missed the whole New Year celebration thing. At least I had
the GOOD pharmaceuticals. I was on the morphine drip for three days.
Mike Kreuzer
2010-04-08 08:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 16:55:49 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
On 31st Dec last year (New Year's Eve, baby!) I fell down and broke
BOTH ankles, one of them quite badly. I was just released from
hospital last Wednesday (90 days!). I have two permanent pins and a
lateral screw was taken out the week before I was discharged.
[snip]

SOAB - I was wondering what had happened to you . Welcome back, sorry to
hear about the fall.

Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
e***@hotmail.com
2010-04-07 07:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
I was just released from
hospital last Wednesday (90 days!). I have two permanent pins and a
lateral screw was taken out the week before I was discharged.
Sounds like nasty fractures - glad you're ok now.
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Total cost out of my pocket? $A350 - half the cost of the ambulance
ride plus $A100 yet to be charged, the cost for 3 months hire of
certain mobility aids - crutches, shower chair toilet frame - yet to
be paid.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.

The thing is : you've already paid for it in taxes or someone else has
paid for it with his taxes. Either way, the government has collected a
lot of money, "managed" it in the most bureaucratic way possible
(read : squandered half of it) and what's left pays for your "free"
healthcare.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
2010-04-08 09:06:17 UTC
Permalink
In article <3fed108b-38a9-4730-8dcb-66afb9f09bc1
@s9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, ***@hotmail.com says...
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Total cost out of my pocket? $A350 - half the cost of the ambulance
ride plus $A100 yet to be charged, the cost for 3 months hire of
certain mobility aids - crutches, shower chair toilet frame - yet to
be paid.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
The thing is : you've already paid for it in taxes or someone else has
paid for it with his taxes. Either way, the government has collected a
lot of money, "managed" it in the most bureaucratic way possible
(read : squandered half of it) and what's left pays for your "free"
healthcare.
But you'll never get the lefties to realize this. They have a little
child's view of economic reality. If they didn't have to pull any money
out of their piggybank, they got something "free."

How does it work over there? Are taxes withheld from paychecks
automatically? That must be true all over the world, given the lack of
realization about the impact of taxation and the widespread belief in
this dimwitted fairy tale about "free" healthcare.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Vincenzo Beretta
2010-04-08 07:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@hotmail.com
The thing is : you've already paid for it in taxes or someone else has
paid for it with his taxes. Either way, the government has collected a
lot of money, "managed" it in the most bureaucratic way possible
(read : squandered half of it) and what's left pays for your "free"
healthcare.
Or you can go for the alternative: give your money to AIG, watch AIG break
the Guinness Book of Records in the "Epic Fail" category, lose you job (and
your health insurance, and maybe your retirement funds) in the following
recession, and declare yourself "proud, free, and free to choose" :^D
e***@hotmail.com
2010-04-08 07:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by e***@hotmail.com
The thing is : you've already paid for it in taxes or someone else has
paid for it with his taxes. Either way, the government has collected a
lot of money, "managed" it in the most bureaucratic way possible
(read : squandered half of it) and what's left pays for your "free"
healthcare.
Or you can go for the alternative: give your money to AIG, watch AIG break
the Guinness Book of Records in the "Epic Fail" category, lose you job (and
your health insurance, and maybe your retirement funds) in the following
recession, and declare yourself "proud, free, and free to choose" :^D
Have you been putting all your eggs in the same basket again ?

Maybe ask some Greek guys what they think about putting all their eggs
in the government basket and seeing that fail - massively.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
2010-04-08 08:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Or you can go for the alternative: give your money to AIG, watch AIG break
the Guinness Book of Records in the "Epic Fail" category, lose you job (and
your health insurance, and maybe your retirement funds) in the following
recession, and declare yourself "proud, free, and free to choose" :^D
Have you been putting all your eggs in the same basket again ?
No: I have UHC, praise the Lord.
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Maybe ask some Greek guys what they think about putting all their eggs
in the government basket and seeing that fail - massively.
Yup. Which reminds me of another funny thing: should Germany withdraw
support and let Greece fail, the domino effect will involve the States too.
And, given their boasted "we don't care about what happens beyond Hoboken!"
instead of applying some diplomatic pressure they will get the slap and be
clueless about from where it came (as usual). This could thus lead to an
invasion of either Macedonia or the Bismarck Islands (after all it was him
who invented this criminal UHC scheme, not to mention the sinking of the
Hood) - and to another opportunity for Berlusconi to boast about his
friendships (trhis time for Obama, Angela Merkel and Mr. Hoboken, I guess).
:^D :^D :^D
e***@hotmail.com
2010-04-08 08:42:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Or you can go for the alternative: give your money to AIG, watch AIG break
the Guinness Book of Records in the "Epic Fail" category, lose you job (and
your health insurance, and maybe your retirement funds) in the following
recession, and declare yourself "proud, free, and free to choose" :^D
Have you been putting all your eggs in the same basket again ?
No: I have UHC, praise the Lord.
Until the Italian state fails and starts making serious cutbacks to
take the "U" and "C" out of UHC, but that'll never happen - right ?

Tell me again why people over here are taking out private health
insurance policies on top of those which are part of the usual wage
package which are on top of the "UHC" we pay so many taxes for ?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Maybe ask some Greek guys what they think about putting all their eggs
in the government basket and seeing that fail - massively.
Yup. Which reminds me of another funny thing: should Germany withdraw
support and let Greece fail, the domino effect will involve the States too.
I'm hoping the whole European Union house of cards comes crashing
down. Tell me again why I should pay taxes to bail-out untenable Greek
socialist policies they used to bribe people into voting for them ?
Let those dumb-asses suffer I say.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
And, given their boasted "we don't care about what happens beyond Hoboken!"
Neither do I (Hoboken, the original one, is near the Dutch border)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Briarroot
2010-04-07 15:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Briarroot
The Dems roped in the aged with Social Security and Medicare. Then they
got the poor with Welfare. Now they want the middle class with
Obamacare. Their problem is that it could backfire on them. The high
*cost* of medical care was the chief complaint of the middle class, not
the *availability* of care.
This is exactly it. And the chief component of these costs is the *one*
thing the Democrats had no intention of reforming; the broken tort
system that encourages defensive medicine.
Consider this example. Five months ago I took a bad spill on a
mountainside. My back, from the beltline to left shoulder, was one
solid black bruise. The next morning, I was pissing blood. OK, I went
to see my doctor, just to make sure I hadn't ruptured some internal
organ. The doctor examined me, theorized that I had bruised a kidney in
the fall, explained that this was common with trauma to the lower back
...
... and then sent me for a full thoracic and urological examination.
Ultrasounds of all internal organs. Full CT scan. Cytoscopic
examination of everything. Complete blood and urine panel. A week's
worth of tests.
Cost like a bastard, and the whole thing was almost certainly
unnecessary.
But from my perspective, why not? I got a 100% full urological and
thoracic workup, soup to nuts. No stones, no tumors, no masses,
nothing; and if there'd been the slightest problem found, it would have
been found much, much, much earlier than it would have been otherwise.
[1]
If the doctor didn't have 1,000,000 legal sharks swimming around him,
though, he'd almost certainly have examined me and said, "Hey, G., it's
probably just the fall; give it a couple of days and get back to me if
the problem persists."
[1] This was my wife the NP's take on it; it was a golden opportunity.
"Man up and do it, ya fucking baby."
The two largest sources of donations to the modern Democratic Party are
a) trial lawyers and b) labor unions.
--
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, - in
proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, - in
proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above
their vanity and presumption, - in proportion as they are more disposed
to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the
flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power
upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is
within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal
constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.
Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Ray OHara
2010-04-07 01:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Ray OHara
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Juarez
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/people/krudd-i-love-australia-will...
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Robin is right but it is also true the 80% of Americans are rednecks.
Americans and Aussies have a lot in common.
So I'm left with the conclusion that you put yourself with the
remaining 20%, which consists of burned out hippies and the self-
appointed "elite"--who know what is best for everyone (except possibly
themselves).
yep kill the "elite", we doant want no smart peeple leeding us.
we doant want no Yankee blue blood prep-school Yale/Harvard types in charge.
look what happened with the last wun.
yep we want those Sarah Palin dumber than a mud-brick leeders.
P.S. Fox news is lying to you.
So Ray--what's the U.S. unemployment rate more than a year after the
drunken-sailor-we-have-pass-it-now-because-I have-to-fly-to the
Vatican-to-see the-Pope-so-called-stimulus-bill? On top of that how
many have just quit looking for jobs?
How much has been added to the U.S. deficit since the summer of 2009
at the insistence of these elites, and how the hell--and when the
hell--are going to pay it off?
Social Security and Medicare are insolvent and unsustainable, so
instead of addressing these problems the elites come up with a whole
new "health care" entitlement that will cost billions more, even after
stealing money from troubled Medicare.
All of these elite sponsored initiatives should be labeled "don't try
this at home" because if you did, you'd be living in a washing machine
box.
Keep your elites. Give me leaders with common sense; math skills that
exceed those of Mr. Ed; and in format of a small and limited federal
government, as called for in the Constitution.
the jobless rate was put into a nosedive by Bush.
it will take a while to recover from his term.
do you call the body shop the day after you hit a tree to complain your car
isn't yet fixed?
and then blame the mechanic for the damage?

all you have{like all wingnuts} is the Faux News lies.
KG_Jag
2010-04-07 03:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray OHara
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Ray OHara
Post by KG_Jag
Post by Juarez
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/people/krudd-i-love-australia-will...
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Robin is right but it is also true the 80% of Americans are rednecks.
Americans and Aussies have a lot in common.
So I'm left with the conclusion that you put yourself with the
remaining 20%, which consists of burned out hippies and the self-
appointed "elite"--who know what is best for everyone (except possibly
themselves).
yep kill the "elite", we doant want no smart peeple leeding us.
we doant want no Yankee blue blood prep-school Yale/Harvard types in charge.
look what happened with the last wun.
yep we want those Sarah Palin dumber than a mud-brick leeders.
P.S. Fox news is lying to you.
So Ray--what's the U.S. unemployment rate more than a year after the
drunken-sailor-we-have-pass-it-now-because-I have-to-fly-to the
Vatican-to-see the-Pope-so-called-stimulus-bill?  On top of that how
many have just quit looking for jobs?
How much has been added to the U.S. deficit since the summer of 2009
at the insistence of these elites, and how the hell--and when the
hell--are going to pay it off?
Social Security and Medicare are insolvent and unsustainable, so
instead of addressing these problems the elites come up with a whole
new "health care" entitlement that will cost billions more, even after
stealing money from troubled Medicare.
All of these elite sponsored initiatives should be labeled "don't try
this at home" because if you did, you'd be living in a washing machine
box.
Keep your elites.  Give me leaders with common sense; math skills that
exceed those of Mr. Ed; and in format of a small and limited federal
government, as called for in the Constitution.
the jobless rate was put into a nosedive by Bush.
it will take a while to recover from his term.
do you call the body shop the day after you hit a tree to complain your car
isn't yet fixed?
and then blame the mechanic for the damage?
all you have{like all wingnuts} is the Faux News lies.
Ray, glad you're still getting a tingle up your leg by watching MSNBC.

The recession was caused by the cratering of sub-prime mortgages.
These were bad loans mandated or "encouraged" by politicians, most but
not all them liberal social engineers. Of course their were other
factors, but was the driver that drove the car off the cliff.
Vincenzo Beretta
2010-04-07 07:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray OHara
the jobless rate was put into a nosedive by Bush.
This is another thing that I find hard to understand.

Clinton's term ends. Bush comes to power, and 9/11 happens. OK, no one
disagrees with that.

Then, in two terms, his administration manages to:

- Fail to catch *a man* (Bin Laden)
- Start two wars - one of the two on fantastically coockoo pretenses - drag
them for more time than it was needed to win WWII against Nazi Germany and
Imperial Japan, and still fail to close even one of the two in satisfactory
terms.
- Give tax breaks to the rich so that they could invest the surplus either
in China or with Madoff and associates
- Having the financial system collapse under them for reasons a three-years
old could grasp (i.e. liberally lending money to people unable to repay it)
- Failing to help Lehman Brothers (an action now seen by many as the final
catalyst of the crisis) AND starting the practice of government's bailouts
AT THE SAME TIME.
- ...And I'll mention New Orleans only in passing.

The Obama comes to power (after seeing the financial markets collapse like
the twin towers on 9/11 - but for wholly internal causes - between the
moment he was elected and the moment he could factually do something)...

...And you actually still hear guys screaming "Grrrr.... Clinton!!!
Obama.... CLINTON!!! ARRRGH CLINTON AND OBAMA!!!! EYAAAAARGH!!!!"

Which, if true, would beg the question: what, then, the clueless chimp
actually *did* for eight years, uhu?

The problem is not "It is past water, move on". It is "this past water was
actually da best! let's try to drink some more!"
Giftzwerg
2010-04-08 09:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
This is another thing that I find hard to understand.
Clinton's term ends. Bush comes to power, and 9/11 happens. OK, no one
disagrees with that.
- Fail to catch *a man* (Bin Laden)
And, of course, Obama caught him immediately. But we knew this would
happen, since the left passionately explained that the only obstacle to
catching him was Bush.

Is at Gitmo? Oh, that's right, Obama immediately closed that evil human
rights violation.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
- Start two wars - one of the two on fantastically coockoo pretenses - drag
them for more time than it was needed to win WWII against Nazi Germany and
Imperial Japan, and still fail to close even one of the two in satisfactory
terms.
Here, again, Obama proved a miracle worker, having already ended both
wars as titanic victories.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
- Give tax breaks to the rich so that they could invest the surplus either
in China or with Madoff and associates
... running up a monstrous 4.8% unemployment rate over the course of the
eight year term and expanding the GDP by more than the total of Chinese
GDP.

The rat-bastard.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
- Having the financial system collapse under them for reasons a three-years
old could grasp (i.e. liberally lending money to people unable to repay it)
Which Genius Obama put a stop to immediately, wisely understanding that
the solution to the problem of massive debt is to run up a debt that's
ten times higher.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
- Failing to help Lehman Brothers (an action now seen by many as the final
catalyst of the crisis) AND starting the practice of government's bailouts
AT THE SAME TIME.
With fiscally-responsible Obama immediately stepping in and halting this
nonsense ... right?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
The Obama comes to power (after seeing the financial markets collapse like
the twin towers on 9/11 - but for wholly internal causes - between the
moment he was elected and the moment he could factually do something)...
...And you actually still hear guys screaming "Grrrr.... Clinton!!!
Obama.... CLINTON!!! ARRRGH CLINTON AND OBAMA!!!! EYAAAAARGH!!!!"
Some Americans probably do say this.

But those Americans complaining about American presidents still seem a
hundred times less retarded and insanely obsessed than some foreigner
who spent eight years screaming:

"Grrrrrr! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!
BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! ENRON! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!
BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! HALLIBURTON! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!
BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! VALERIE PLAME! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!
BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! EYAAAARGH!"
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Which, if true, would beg the question: what, then, the clueless chimp
actually *did* for eight years, uhu?
I do kinda miss the 4% unemployment rate and the 5% growth rate. Oh,
and I miss $200 billion deficits in the wake of $1.2 trillion deficits.

Yeah. Whew. Bush was the devil incarnate.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
The problem is not "It is past water, move on". It is "this past water was
actually da best! let's try to drink some more!"
I dunno about anyone else, but I did like the Bush years better than I'm
liking Obambi's regime.

And that's not even a self-centered viewpoint; $ork had the best year
ever in 2009, and 2010 is shaping up to be even better. I'm mostly
thinking about the half a million people who lose their jobs every month
under President Clodhopper's brilliant stewardship of the economy.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Do any of you fuckballs weeping about 'racism' imagine we'd all be
*liking* this Obamacare clusterfuck if Obama was *white*?!?"
- skatergrrl77
Briarroot
2010-04-07 15:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Ray OHara
the jobless rate was put into a nosedive by Bush.
This is another thing that I find hard to understand.
Clinton's term ends. Bush comes to power, and 9/11 happens. OK, no one
disagrees with that.
During whose administration did Al-Qaeda begin its campaign against
America? What steps did that administration take to prevent further
attacks like the: 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Khobar Towers
bombing, the African embassies bombing, and the USS Cole attack?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
- Fail to catch *a man* (Bin Laden)
But we *did* manage to catch his #2 man. How many further attacks has
Al-Qaeda managed to pull off against US targets since 9/11?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
- Start two wars - one of the two on fantastically coockoo pretenses - drag
them for more time than it was needed to win WWII against Nazi Germany and
Imperial Japan, and still fail to close even one of the two in satisfactory
terms.
What is your definition of "satisfactory terms?"
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
- Give tax breaks to the rich so that they could invest the surplus either
in China or with Madoff and associates
a) everyone got a tax break, not just the top income earners
b) the largest investor in China is the US government
c) Madoff is irrelevant and his con game began long before 2000
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
- Having the financial system collapse under them for reasons a three-years
old could grasp (i.e. liberally lending money to people unable to repay it)
Odd then that the world's foremost financial experts were caught so
unawares. Odder still the Nobel laureate economists are *still* arguing
about what caused it and how another such collapse can be prevented.
You must have exceptionally bright 3-year olds in Italy - or else you
don't understand what you're talking about.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
- Failing to help Lehman Brothers (an action now seen by many as the final
catalyst of the crisis) AND starting the practice of government's bailouts
AT THE SAME TIME.
Failing to rescue Lehman brothers was clearly a mistake, but that's only
in retrospect. As I said, the best financial minds did not, and still
cannot, fully grasp the complexity of the world's economy. Nobody can.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
- ...And I'll mention New Orleans only in passing.
Huh? You're blaming a *hurricane* on Bush? Why not ask why the people
of New Orleans would rather amuse themselves building football arenas
instead of improving their levees?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
The Obama comes to power (after seeing the financial markets collapse like
the twin towers on 9/11 - but for wholly internal causes - between the
moment he was elected and the moment he could factually do something)...
Obama is just as helpless as Bush was, something he has yet to learn.
The economic collapse had roots going back *decades* - it wasn't just
something that began during the Bush administration. It's roots lie in
political posturing, social justice (an oxymoron) and pandering to the
voters. You might want to google the following entities: FHA, Freddie
Mac, Fannie Mae, The Fair Housing Act. Follow the trail of footnotes
and come back in a month when you've digested all that. You'll then no
doubt be able to enlighten the world about economics and politics. I
can't wait!
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
...And you actually still hear guys screaming "Grrrr.... Clinton!!!
Obama.... CLINTON!!! ARRRGH CLINTON AND OBAMA!!!! EYAAAAARGH!!!!"
Which, if true, would beg the question: what, then, the clueless chimp
actually *did* for eight years, uhu?
Why aren't you calling Obama a "clueless chimp?"
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
The problem is not "It is past water, move on". It is "this past water was
actually da best! let's try to drink some more!"
Usenet, ya gotta love it! <looks at the sky>
--
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, - in
proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, - in
proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above
their vanity and presumption, - in proportion as they are more disposed
to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the
flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power
upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is
within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal
constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.
Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...