PaulSpoerry.com

Social Media, technology, and geeky stuff for your brain.

You are here: Home / Google+ Posts / Sarah Palin has a hard time with books and stuff

Comments

  4. Every once in a while the crap I say when I am drunk is accurate…it does not make me Nostradamus, or invalidate the other stupid stuff I say.

  7. How short a memory must one have to give her credit for intelligence?

    All you have to do is review the embarrassing idiotic nonsense that came out of her mouth continually while she was campaigning and since. She was insisting on the existence of Obamacare "Death Panels" which supposedly would decide which seniors would be murdered in line with the program, long after other liars had given it up, she couldn't name a single periodical, when asked which ones she reads, but said she "reads them all", couldn't remember a single supreme court decision she agreed with, thought her proximity to Russia gave her insight that would help her deal with foreign policy issues….and on and on.

    That's just a tiny sample of the stupid Palin, although the "Obamacare death panels" also touches on another lovely subject: the nasty, dishonest Palin. A real winner, she is…of beauty contests in her youth, and later the governor race of the crazy state, and finally the lust of a million teabaggers. Not so much when it comes to being able to hold up her end of a conversation with someone of average or above average intelligence.

  8. I suspect a lot of people sprouting the Death Panel nonsense didn't believe it themselves, but thought the public was gullible enough too and that's all that mattered.
    To this day I don't know which is worse, and nor which group Palin fits in.

  9. Okay I hate to nitpick the meme but it was Sam-I-Am that was trying to get the other character to try the green eggs and ham. The other character is never given a name.

    I only know this because I about have it memorized after reading it to the 4 year old multiple times over the last 1.5 years we've had the book. lol

  11. Yes, Sarah Rios is right, but the moral of the story is don't be afraid of what is new and different. That's the message that apparently Palin took to mean the opposite, regardless which character was peddling the green eggs and ham, which btw, is a poor metaphor for Obamacare anyway. You won't catch me eating meat anyway, but I do eat eggs, and I won't touch them once they turn green. Not particularly fond of "death panels" either.

  12. +Thomas Wrobel
    I agree with you on that Thomas. I imagine some of the faithful sheep believed it, but most of the players probably knew they were lying. As dumb as Palin is, she probably did understand that she was peddling a lie. In my book, that's much worse than being stupid. Her mean spirit has been revealed before, so it's nothing new. Stupid and malicious; just the qualities we need in a leader, and apparently the qualities that get you elected in the crazy state.

  13. In no way am I saying the Democrats are wearing halo's… but the GOP, along with their TV channel Faux News, seem to just flat out lie and twist the facts all the time.

  14. I agree +Paul Spoerry the Democrats are simply the lessor evil. Obamacare is a great accomplishment; not good enough, but pretty good considering the hysterical opposition.

    But on the other hand, Obama, and most congressional Democrats have been terrible on many other fronts, and I am no fan. They are the more honest and decent of the two branches of our single, pro-corporate pro-capital party system, but that bar is set so low, it's an embarrassing distinction to claim.

    I do enjoy how much Obama's skin color tortures the tiny, pinched little minds of the bigots among us. They just can't stomach a black family…gasp… in the WHITE house. 😉 Obviously, it is fair enough to criticize any president, and not all criticism of Obama is racist, but a lot of the most vociferous, slanderous, hysterical criticisms probably are, possibly including the "death panels" lie that the ugly beauty queen joined in on.

  15. Has anyone ever listened to Biden speak? Seriously…
    As for lesser of two evils, we're still choosing evil. FFS as much as folks gripe about any given party, the other party is doing the same. Of course people like to justify their parties actions and demonize the other. Or ad hominem reasoning comes into play. I could quote a fact from MSNBC but conservatives would ignore the fact and attack the source. Same for Fox News. Side note, funny listening to people read aloud when saying faux. 
    Even though both are controlled by corporations and big money, we act like one party is for the common man and the other for the rich man. Each party is for its self, not the people who voted them in. 
    /end of my rant of the American political system

  16. A couple of years back the official GOP handbook stated that they wanted to cut education because they could more easily control the less educated. They then said they didn't mean it when it went public and changed it. Fuck them. Seriously. Fuck… them.  

  18. Obamacare blows. It jus isn't goin to work for me. And I'm not ok w giving my hard earned money to ppl who refuse to work. Yall r encouraging a society of deadbeat wimps.

  19. +brent smith a) You don't have to use coverage offered under the Afforable Care Act. B) The Affordable Care Act requires people have insurance. C) It isn't free; so I have no idea where you're coming up with giving your money to those who refuse to work. 

  20. +brent smith   You always did pay for everyone. Hospitals have been treating people that cant pay all along. No one uninsured "just died" – they got treated, and the hospital raised fee's for everyone else to cover it.
    The difference is now, legally, you cant freeload by not having insurance. 

    Also, fyi, you just called a lot of 9/11 first responders "wimps" as many of them had to remortgage their homes to pay for cancer treatments. ACA isn't anywhere near perfect – far from it – but its a much more fair system for those that are unlucky in life. Everyone can get horrible deceases and accidents, everyone can get born with deceases, so everyone has to pay, and everyone gets insured. That's fair. 

    (also, insurance company's cant turn you done for pre-existing conditions anymore. In a society where "everyone's equal" you shouldn't have to pay vastly more in life because of your genetics)

  21. I'm with +Thomas Wrobel I don't think this is the end all be all. Far from it… what should have been done is the govt either offer insurance directly or create the ability for non-Group insurance covered individuals to form a group. People who work for large companies tend to get better rates because those companies can say "listen we have xxx,xxx participants and ABC insurance company says they'll give this rate… can you  LMNOP insurance company do better?" Doing so would have put downward pressure on the insurance companies and their run away rates. 

  22. It's ironic that people rail against social safety net programs because they don't want any of their money helping anyone who doesn't work (never mind that a huge chunk of the unemployed are too old or physically or mentally disabled and can't work; I guess the stingy among us would be fine letting those folks die), given that the programs they hate often represent a net savings for our government.

    Certainly, it would be much better to cut out the insurance companies entirely, be a self insured nation (saving us something like 27% of our health care dollars, which goes to insurance profits, if memory serves), and cover everyone with the savings.

    I believe it is less expensive to provide universal healthcare like every civilized country on Earth, than to deal with the very bad problems that often eventually turn into emergencies for those who don't have coverage.

    To those who are really concerned about not paying for other people, I say, your impressive level of greed should overpower your appalling stinginess and cruelty in this case, and you should be advocating prevention; meaning, cover those who can't pay so that they won't cost us a lot more later. Forget being decent; I know that's a painful stretch. Just do it for your bank account.

  25. TL;DR – There's got to be a better way than following party lines to fix the problem. And my thoughts ramble along, not trying to impress the web

    I didn't care much for Bush Jr,  but that's a popular sentiment. Initially though the Patriot Act was great, then realized how much it is abused. Obama's mom is white, but it's popular to stick with the black. Was raised not to judge based on the color of skin yet I've lost count of how many people told me they voted for Obama because of his skin color. I've also learned not to look at the D or R behind a name to make a choice. Though posting in a die hard D thread is asking for it lol /shrug

    ACA has been in the works for what, 4 years? I don't see why what the ACA is supposed to do that couldn't have been done by the private insurance companies at a cheaper cost. Tell them they have to do what the ACA is trying to do. The POTUS has delayed the law several times, why not just require the private industry to do the work. Not like Congress would have been any help. Though the same morons keep getting elected, go figure.

    POTUS has stated 46 million uninsured, as of a March NYT article 4 million have signed up. $100-300 million (choose your flavor of math) spent on a website. The website launch was shitty at best. Government received help from the private sector to fix their website. And we trust them to manage our healthcare. There's got to be a better way. If folks aren't signing up, it isn't getting the cash flow that was expected.

    As for cheaper healthcosts in other countries, I've seen so many contradicting reports. It's like asking a D and a R to describe the POTUS. Having lived in Germany for many years, healthcare is awesome. But I'm also a healthy person. My friends in the UK and Canada like their healthcare, but they are healthy. Though one did get sick and their time to see a specialist was a couple of weeks longer than what I could find in the US.

  26. Group accident insurance first arrive in 1847/ What is considered to be health insurance in its current form started around the 1920s and 1930s. ACA became law in 2010 but the vast majority of it didn't go into effect until 2014. So it's not REALLY been around for four years. Either way… if we take 1930 as the start date private insurance hasn't cut the muster. They have no incentive to do so. 

    Oh and FYI… since the 1930 the government has tried to get private insurance to do what the ACA has done but they always opposed it. 

  27. +Catv Kilo Its unlikely you could get a cheaper cost without forcing those not covered to get insurance, or those giving the insurance to take lower margins. You could force insurance company's to not reject prior conditions, that much is true, but without lower margins or more money coming in, insurance wasn't going to get cheaper.

    Id say its pretty definite health-care is cheaper elsewhere – 10 times as many people leave the US to get healthcare elsewhere, then go to it; 
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism#United_States
    Thats because procedures themselves are cheaper in countries with universal healthcare. (that is, you could fly to europe, get a hip replacement and fly back, and your insurance would still have to pay less in total). Admittedly though, the reasons its cheaper are a combination of things – partly its hospitals in the US overcharging, partly its some drugs being way more expensive, and partly its over-testing.  
    In theory ACA should help with the first of those things long term, as hospitals are guaranteed an income from every patient – which they dont have to chase up, they shouldn't have to overcharge everyone else to make up for it.

  28. Trying since the 30s? Thought the government made the rules, wait, forgot about those pesky lobbyist!
    Anyhow, curious to see how things are a decade from now.

  29. +David Veloz In fact, it was only a McCain staffer — after the 2008 election — who said she thought Africa was a country.  It likely isn't true.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html

    Compare this to President Obama, who said there 57 states in the U.S., and we have it on video.

    And the Death Panel stuff is actually mostly true, and it always was.  People can call it "lie of the year" all they like, but — though generally not at the level of individuals — government does decide what treatments will be included in certain coverages and what won't.

    Is she brilliant?  Nope.  If she smarter than most people?  Yeah, probably.

  30. +Paul Spoerry Really?  The GOP and Fox lie all the time, and the Dems and MSNBC don't?  Wow.  That's … just nuts, frankly.  Harry Reid cannot speak in public without lying.  Literally.  I've never heard him talk without lying.  And the DNC chair, DWS, is just as bad.  And as bad as Fox can be sometimes, MSNBC is far worse.

    As to your claim that some "official GOP handbook stated that they wanted to cut education because they could more easily control the less educated," I call bullshit.  I defy you to back up this claim.  It never happened.

    As to Obamacare, yes, you don't have to use the coverage, but it's the only coverage you're allowed to have, and you're required to have it.  So saying "you don't have to use it" is basically the same as saying "you don't have to get medical care."  Was that supposed to be serious?

    And you appear to not know that, in fact, many people do get insurance for free under Obamacare, paid for by us taxpayers.  It's the subsidies provision of the law (which Obama is violating by giving the subsidies to people in the federal exchange, when the law explicitly says the subsidies are only available to folks in the state exchanges).

    You're right that there's better ways, and I think you're on to something about group insurance, but there's a similar, better (IMO) way, I think: get rid of the coupling of insurance to employment, and put the power of purchasing in the hands of individuals.  You don't even need to have group plans at that point: the individual market would necessarily bring prices down by massively increasing competition (look at auto insurance).

    You do this primarily by eliminating the corporate subsidies for providing health insurance to employees, replacing it with an individual tax credit.  Most employers would put a bump corresponding to what they were paying for medical (adjusted for taxes etc.) into the employees' wages, and then the employee would purchase the insurance on their own, essentially tax-free.

    And I really hate the claim that Jesus would be in favor of using government to forcibly take money from some people to give things to other people.  That has nothing to do with anything Jesus ever said.  It's just irrational.  Jesus said to feed the poor, yes; but he didn't say to vote for people who would take money from other people to give to other people who would feed the poor.  He said feed the poor.

  31. +Greg Vinson says, … social safety net programs … often represent a net savings for our government.

    That's the argument, but it's exceedingly difficult to actually demonstrate it, counterfactuals being what they are.

    However, you're leaving out the fact that even if there is an actual net savings over time, it could have other negative effects (e.g., creating a dependent class, which hurts our culture … like when I saw a bunch of college idiots complaining in the state legislature that somehow they were owed free tuition, because, well, just because, and then these folks vote for damaging policies like the Affordable Care Act).

    Also, can we please stop calling these things "safety net" programs?  If that is what they actually did, fine.  I am in favor of safety nets.  But Social Security and Medicare and the ACA are literally for everyone, whether you want it or not.  It's not a safety net.  If it were, it would only apply to the people who needed it.

    Certainly, it would be much better to cut out the insurance companies entirely

    Nothing is certain about that at all.  While yes, we can see some X portion of health care dollars going to insurers, a. that is in an existing suboptimal insurance system that is massively manipulated and controlled by government (yes, even before Obamacare became law), and b. that doesn't tell us whether the system without insurance companies might be even worse, in dollars or outcomes.

    I believe it is less expensive to provide universal healthcare like every civilized country on Earth

    In dollar figures, perhaps.  Perhaps not.  In quality of life, there's zero evidence to suggest that we'd be better off overall with universal health care.  We know that many of the problems people have today would take months and years instead of days and weeks to get attention in places like Canada.  This is just true.

    You're right that getting care to people is the problem, but by far the biggest problem we have in doing that is the cost of care, which is much higher than it should be mostly due to the aforementioned massive manipulation by government.

    To those who are really concerned about not paying for other people, I say, your impressive level of greed should overpower your appalling stinginess and cruelty in this case

    You should try harder to understand the people you disagree with.  This is an untrue caricature.

  32. +Chris Nandor I explicitly said the Dems don't wear Halo's. 

    "As to Obamacare, yes, you don't have to use the coverage, but it's the only coverage you're allowed to have, and you're required to have it." You do not have to use the ACA, you can get insurance from any provider, you just have to have insurance. So nope… not a joke. 

    "Most employers would put a bump corresponding to what they were paying for medical (adjusted for taxes etc.) into the employees' wages…" Right… just like how when their stock prices soar that trickles down to the employees. 

    IMO the better way is to say that we value our people and get rid of the insurance companies and have it government sponsored.

    WWJD:
    Matthew 6:24 
    “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money 

    Luke 12:33 
    Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.

    Acts 20:35
    In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

    1 Timothy 6:18
    They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share,

    Proverbs 19:17
    Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.

    Leviticus 19:9-10 
    “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.

    Luke 12:33-34
    Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

    etc, etc, etc… but if you don't want to follow Jesus that's cool with me. 

    Safety nets: Social Security and Medicaid keep the elderly from living in poverty. The only reason they aren't 'safety nets' in the way you've described is because people who don't need that money take it anyway. They think it's their money because they paid into it… which is a crock of shit. It should be for those in need. 

    "In dollar figures, perhaps.  Perhaps not.  In quality of life, there's zero evidence to suggest that we'd be better off overall with universal health care.  We know that many of the problems people have today would take months and years instead of days and weeks to get attention in places like Canada.  This is just true."  That's a very broad statement with nothing to back it up. 

    "You're right that getting care to people is the problem, but by far the biggest problem we have in doing that is the cost of care, which is much higher than it should be mostly due to the aforementioned massive manipulation by government." This is absolutely false. We have price rigging by insurance companies. There is no standard way of knowing what care will cost. If I have to go to the ER a) I can't compare the costs of one hospital vs the other because the prices aren't published (and the eventual price is manipulated by the insurance companies after the fact… you see if on every EOB you receive) b) in a legitimate emergency you wouldn't have time to price compare anyway. The auto industry used to be filled with people who would gauge consumers… and there was no way for the consumer to know until the government passed legislation requiring auto dealers to show the MSRP and all options listed on the window. The 'free market' didn't correct itself because enough individuals were shopping for cars. Without checks and balances (via government regulation) greed will go unchecked. 

  33. +Paul Spoerry says, You do not have to use the ACA, you can get insurance from any provider, you just have to have insurance.

    That's just incorrect.  The law is very clear that every insurance policy must abide by the provisions of the ACA, including minimum coverages, maximum coverages, network size, and so on.  (Some plans are grandfathered in, but that's temporary, and any new plan must conform to the ACA right now.)

    Right… just like how when their stock prices soar that trickles down to the employees.

    No, it's not like that at all.  That's not how stock works.  When stock prices increase, that doesn't make the company richer, unless the company owns stock in itself.  And even if it did, it's still not the same thing, because when stock prices go up, employees don't lose anything.

    But in this situation, employees would be losing a benefit.  If employers don't provide it back in additional wages or benefits, their employees will literally be taking a pay cut just to decrease expenses by the company, and they will lose employees to companies that don't cut their employees' pay.  That's how these things work in the real world.

    If you hate having employees, by all means, cut thousands of dollars out of their annual compensation.  They will leave you.

    IMO the better way is to say that we value our people and get rid of the insurance companies and have it government sponsored.

    So you value people, but not their liberty?  That doesn't compute.

    Also, we know that for people with insurance, other than cost, we have a great health system today: we just need to lower the costs, which means more people have access.  And the biggest reason we have high costs is because of a lack of competition, which is mostly caused by "government sponsorship."

    So, you want to take away the system we have now that gives me great health care … because you value me?

    etc, etc, etc… but if you don't want to follow Jesus that's cool with me.

    Um.  Not a single quote you offered even remotely supported your claim, or rebutted my response to your claim.

    Do I need to explain it again?  You are not making the case that we should help those in need, you are making the claim that we should elect a government who will force other people to help those in need.  Jesus never said we should do that.  Never even hinted it.  His words were for us to help people, not for us to get people to force other people to help people.  Do you really not see the difference?

    If I did sell everything I have to give to the needy, and spent all my time helping the needy, but voted against the use of government force to take money to buy things for the needy … according to you, somehow I would be disobeying Jesus.  That's pure nonsense.

    Please understand that your argument, that Jesus would want us to support government forcing people to give money to help those in need, has absolutely no basis in the Bible.  Please stop making liberals look stupid by repeating this daft tripe.

    The only reason they aren't 'safety nets' in the way you've described is because people who don't need that money take it anyway.

    They are forced to participate in the programs, yes.  Exactly.

    They think it's their money because they paid into it… which is a crock of shit.

    No, it's not.  It's how it actually works.  Both of these programs are sold to the public as "you pay into it now for others, so that it will be there for you later."  Regardless of your wealth.

    But Social Security in particular … you actually get payouts relative to your contributions.  So far from being a "crock of shit" that you paid into it, that's literally what you did: you paid into a retirement system and get money out of that system relative to that contribution.  For lower incomes, I think it's about 90% of what you paid in, and 75% for higher incomes.

    It should be for those in need.

    I agree, but the left disagrees with you.  The real reason why everyone is forced into it is because that's the best way to sell it.  So while you're griping that everyone wants payouts they are literally entitled to, realize that this is by design the way to get broad public support so that the system will be maintained.

    That's why the left — not the right — is so adamantly opposed to means testing for Social Security, because they fear it will reduce support for Social Security, if not everyone is getting its benefits.  It's truly an insane system, and I would love for it to only apply to those in need.  But I am not holding my breath.

    That's a very broad statement with nothing to back it up.

    Really?  There's been hundreds or thousands of news stories over the last decade or so written about Canada's waiting times for non-critical treatments.  I don't think I need to go over all the evidence here.  That's why Canadians come to the U.S. for treatment: not because it's better (sometimes it may be), but because they can actually pay to see a doctor when they want to for non-critical treatment … something they cannot easily do in Canada.

    This is absolutely false.

    Well, in fact, no.  It's absoultely true, as I will demonstrate below.

    We have price rigging by insurance companies.

    Exactly: made possible — hell, inevitable — by government manipulation!  Government forces businesses to provide insurance and provides a tax subsidy for them to do so, which means individuals have virtually no say in their insurance, which means the people getting the care are almost completely dissociated from the actual cost, which means the costs rise, and the people don't change providers when the costs rise — if they notice it at all — because they have no other option anyway.

    This was a system, molded by government, that one couldn't be faulted for thinking was designed to have high costs.

    There is no standard way of knowing what care will cost. If I have to go to the ER a) I can't compare the costs of one hospital vs the other because the prices aren't published (and the eventual price is manipulated by the insurance companies after the fact… you see if on every EOB you receive) b) in a legitimate emergency you wouldn't have time to price compare anyway.

    And this is mostly because people do not care about the costs, because government set up a system where they are dissociated from those costs.  There's not even any question that this is what's going on.  All the experts know it, full well: government manipulation — through regulation (HMOs), mandated insurance, tax subsidies, and so on — massively reduces competition, which necessarily inflates prices (unless you counteract that with price controls, which have their own problems).

    The auto industry used to be filled with people who would gauge consumers… and there was no way for the consumer to know until the government passed legislation requiring auto dealers to show the MSRP and all options listed on the window.

    Meh.  While that may have been a good idea in the 50s (and that is not nearly as clear as you make it out to be), it certainly is mostly pointless today.  We have Kelley's Blue Book and Consumer Reports and dozens of car magazines and the Internet.  When I bought my first new car in 1995, I figured out the car I wanted, the options I wanted, and the price I would pay before I entered the dealership … all without government help.

    Without checks and balances (via government regulation) greed will go unchecked.

    You say that like it's a bad thing.  It's not.  I am as greedy, as a consumer, as the businesses are.  I want the best deal.  So I get it.  I do not need, or want, government's help in doing so.

    All I want government for, in these areas, is to punish people who commit fraud.  The rest I can do on my own, and so can most people.  But due to moral hazard, they don't.  They trust government to make sure nothing will go wrong.  And then when things do go wrong, well, it's just because government didn't do enough!

    It's nonsense, of course.  Government cannot protect us, and we should stop pretending it can, because that's when shit really goes bad.

  34. I see… so when you want to refer to the coverage that you don't already have and have to get (such as through Healthcare.gov) then it's Obamacare but when it serves to act as a blanket for all coverages then it's the ACA. Is that how your arguement works +Chris Nandor? That's clever I should have thought of spinning the meaning everytime I refered to it. 

    "No, it's not like that at all.  That's not how stock works.  When stock prices increase, that doesn't make the company richer…"  It sure trickles to the corporate execs.  
    "The AFL-CIO’s average CEO-to-worker multiple at big U.S. companies is 357. Bloomberg’s average ratio for Standard & Poor’s 500 companies is 204; the average of the top 100 companies on our table is 495. That is, CEOs of the companies on that table averaged 495 times the income of nonsupervisory workers in their industries." http://goo.gl/V9AzwA

    " If employers don't provide it back in additional wages or benefits, their employees will literally be taking a pay cut just to decrease expenses by the company, and they will lose employees to companies that don't cut their employees' pay.  That's how these things work in the real world."  That may be true for upper-middle income+ people, you know… the ones who can afford insurance anyway… it's not like that for the poor and to say otherwise is completely disingenuous. 

    WWJD… dude if you want to be an asshole and let poor people suffer, increase the gap between the haves and have-nots that your prerogative. I will continue to champion a society where, as a people, we decide that there is a right thing to do. And yes… the government absolutely should do that. We once had slaves and at some point decided that shit wasn't cool and the government did what needed to be done. 

    has absolutely no basis in the Bible.  Please stop making liberals look stupid by repeating this daft tripe.  As soon as conservatives stop using it to discriminate against others. 

    Canada's waiting times for non-critical treatments.  Noncritical is what you're standing on? Seriously?! We could have an entire nation with access to health care but people might have to wait for noncritical treatments? boo hoo. 

    Both of these programs are sold to the public as "you pay into it now for others, so that it will be there for you later."  Regardless of your wealth.  I agree… I intended to say it's a crock of shit that it works that way. 

    If I understand your next few arguments they go like this, "people didn't have health care, government made companies provide health care, that caused a problem, so instead of government acting to get more people care we should go back to when companies didn't have anyone telling them they should provide care and people will just magically handle it themselves?  And that would somehow, without knowing the costs of what medical treatment really is, provide individuals the ability to put market pressure on insurance companies to compete with lower rates? You do realize without know the cost of procedures, the part behind the curtain, that would never be possible right?  And for the record, if we made everything transparent I would consider this a viable options. But that hasn't happened and what we have today is what we have today. 

    And this is mostly because people do not care about the costs, because government set up a system where they are dissociated from those costs. I can only argue that I very much care about my ever increasing costs, as do most people I personally know. The problem is there isn't another option. 

    Meh.  While that may have been a good idea in the 50s (and that is not nearly as clear as you make it out to be), it certainly is mostly pointless today.  We have Kelley's Blue Book and Consumer Reports and dozens of car magazines and the Internet.  When I bought my first new car in 1995, I figured out the car I wanted, the options I wanted, and the price I would pay before I entered the dealership … all without government help.  Which came first… KBB, CR, etc or the government forcing the auto industry to slap MSRP with exactly what you're getting on the window?   Based on your argument I should be able to use the Internet to do the same for medical procedures yet I don't seem to have the ability to do that… hmmmm… 

    You say that like it's a bad thing.  It's not.  I am as greedy, as a consumer, as the businesses are.  I want the best deal.  So I get it.  I do not need, or want, government's help in doing so. Um dude… history shows greed unchecked produces monopolies…. and that's just in the business sector. It's even worse in politics. 

    In order to have "fraud" you have to have laws (legislation) to break. Where do you think those laws come from?!?!?

    The rest I can do on my own, and so can most people.  Really? Listen I have no doubt that you are a very intelligent person (actually… it's pretty obvious based on your methodical and thought out replies), but do you believe everyone has the same capabilities as you or I do? Do you REALLY think someone who grows up in a low income inner city, without access to decent food or education, has the same abilities as you do? Did you know that nutrition literally changes brain structures so lack of good food puts you at a biological disadvantage? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776771/)  Low income families have lower rates of health insurance coverage. Health problems are more prevalent among low-income families, and these families 
    are more likely to be uninsured and that health problems are more prevalent among low-income working families. 

    "The poverty rate for children in female-headed families was 44.3 percent…. In 1950, 6.3 percent of families with children were headed by a single mother. By 2010, 23.9 percent of families with children had single-mother heads." http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/06/05-poverty-families-haskins

    It's a nice idea to say that we're all equal and everyone should be able to make smart decisions and that we all have the ability to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps equally… it's simply not reality. 

  35. +Paul Spoerry says, so when you want to refer to the coverage that you don't already have and have to get (such as through Healthcare.gov) then it's Obamacare but when it serves to act as a blanket for all coverages then it's the ACA.

    No.  I use the terms interchangably in all situations, as most Democrats do, including our President.  In this case, I used "ACA" because you did, in the portion of the comment I was responding to.  That's the only reason.  If you'd used "Obamacare," I likely would've too, because I find that following the other person's convention reduces friction.  Obviously not, in this case, probably because the first time I mentioned it I was responding to +Greg Vinson, who used the term "Obamacare."  So I was using both.

    So, call it what you want, but everyone (except for a small number of exempt persons) is required to be covered by insurance that meets the requirements of the ACA.  That's what the ACA says, and you were wrong to say otherwise.  That's the point, and you didn't respond to it, and instead focused on what I called it.  Which is weird.

    That is, CEOs of the companies on that table averaged 495 times the income of nonsupervisory workers in their industries.

    A CEO is not the company.  A CEO does usually own stock, but that is his, not the company's.  Your argument is literally claiming that the CEO and the company are one and the same, for the purposes of this discussion, and that's completely wrong.

    Your quotes about CEO salaries have literally nothing to do with your argument, which is that companies would not increase wages or benefits for employees after reducing their health benefits.

    That may be true for upper-middle income+ people, you know… the ones who can afford insurance anyway… it's not like that for the poor and to say otherwise is completely disingenuous.

    I didn't say otherwise.  And this is actually perfectly in line with my point, in two ways.

    First, as I've already demonstrated, this plan would drastically lower health care costs, which means more people will be able to afford insurance.

    Second, again, if this program were an actual safety net program, instead of being for everyone, then we could easily afford the program without forcing all of these mandates and regulations on the rest of us.  Yes, really.  Especially since the costs would be massively reduced due to the increased competition, so we'd the safety net would need to catch even fewer people than it does now.

    WWJD… dude if you want to be an asshole and let poor people suffer … that your prerogative.

    Seriously?  I never implied anything like that.  At all.  Please do not grossly misrepresent me.  I simply said you are clearly wrong to claim that Jesus would ask us to use government to force people to give money to help those in need, not that we shouldn't help people in need.  I think we should help people in need without using force, which is what Jesus actually advocated for (not that he said "don't use force" per se, but every time he advocated for helping people, he was explicitly telling us to do it directly, not by using a proxy who would do it by force).

    You're the "asshole" for avoiding my argument and pretending that you made your case.  You have not even addressed my argument, at all, in any way.  Saying you think government should use force is fine, but that is not your argument: your argument is that Jesus would want us to have government use force.  And you can't back that up.  And I think you know you can't back it up, so you don't even try, and instead you dishonestly pretend that I didn't even make the argument at all.

    increase the gap between the haves and have-nots

    Every serious economist knows this is nonsense.  There is simply no claim to be made that the income/wealth gap actually hurts anyone.  Ever.  If Bill Gates makes billions instead of millions, or millions instead of thousands, that hurts no one.  On the contrary, that Bill Gates is able to be a billionaire has increased the wealth of millions of other people, because he has expanded opportunities for everyone else.  What hurts is when our income goes down (adjusted for inflation), and … it doesn't.  Incomes continue to rise against inflation (though slowly), across all quintiles.

    We once had slaves and at some point decided that shit wasn't cool and the government did what needed to be done.

    You realize government is the reason we had legal slavery, right?

    As soon as conservatives stop using it to discriminate against others.

    So you'll stop misrepresenting what the Bible says when other people stop using the Bible to an effect you dislike (that, in this discussion, you've provided no examples of, so I don't even know what you mean anyway)?

    See, to me, being truthful is a virtue on its own, not something to be abandoned out of spite.

    (If you're takking about discrimination regarding homosexuals, as most people in my experience are when they say what you did, I can only say that the Bible never condones what we think of as "discrimination," except in terms of the church body, regarding sinful behavior.  Just as Romans 1 clearly says homosexuality is sinful, so too does it say covetousness, malice, strife, deceit, gossip, slander, insolence, boastfulness, disobedience to parents, etc. are sinful.  We're all in the same boat.  We all sin and fall short of the glory of God.  So yes, the Bible says homosexuality is sinful.  And it says we should not allow people actively living in such sin to be leaders in the church, and so on.  But it does not say we should use government force to disallow free people from exercising their liberty in ways that do not directly harm other people.  So yes, many Christians are wrong.  But again, that doesn't justify misrepresenting what Jesus said.)

    Canada's waiting times for non-critical treatments.  Noncritical is what you're standing on? Seriously?!

    Yes.  "Noncritical" is any treatment that isn't imminently required to keep you alive.

    Now, I haven't looked at wait times for the last few years, but a few years back, about half of people had to wait more than a month to see a specialist, and 10% more than three months, and that was for each appointment.  When you need to see a specialist dozens of times to solve a tough problem, it can take years longer to solve a problem in Canada than in the U.S.

    We could have an entire nation with access to health care but people might have to wait for noncritical treatments? boo hoo.

    So when a child has to have enemas monthly because she can't pass stool, and in the U.S. she could see a specialist in weeks, and in Canada would need to wait months to see a specialist and years longer to see an eventual resolution … you're OK with that?  The parents and children are … just big whiners?

    Because that sort of thing can often be the difference between Canada and the U.S.

    I don't think that is what you're saying, though; I think you just don't understand how bad the wait time problem can be for some people in Canada.  Quality of life, in terms of health care, is about noncritical treatments, for most people.  Most of us have never needed critical care.

    If I understand your next few arguments they go like this, "people didn't have health care, government made companies provide health care, that caused a problem, so instead of government acting to get more people care we should go back to when companies didn't have anyone telling them they should provide care and people will just magically handle it themselves?

    Not remotely, no.  People DID have health care.  There wasn't a time when they didn't.  What happened is that due to various social circumstances, companies started offering the benefit.  Government colluded with companies to get that to be tax-deductible.  Because of that, insurance through your employment was much cheaper than individually, so government offered other encouragements and mandates for companies to do so.

    But none of it is necessary.  At all.  If government eliminated the tax subsidies and mandates, and employers keep compensation level, and government gave a tax credit to families, more people would have better insurance at a lower price than today.  It really is that simple.

    And that would somehow, without knowing the costs of what medical treatment really is, provide individuals the ability to put market pressure on insurance companies to compete with lower rates?

    No.  The pressure from consumers — who are now responsible for the cost themselves, directly — would force the companies to be more transparent, because the consumers will gravitate toward the companies that are.  It really is that simple.  I was not implying that the price transparency isn't necessary, I was assuming — because free markets always work this way — that the price transparency will happen.

    If I thought it wouldn't happen, or it didn't happen, I would be in favor of legislation that forced transparency.  But that is unreasonable, because when you and I are buying our own insurance, we are going to be asking those cost questions, and a company that won't tell us cost information will be crossed off our lists.

    I can only argue that I very much care about my ever increasing costs, as do most people I personally know. The problem is there isn't another option.

    You care about costs in general, but most people — maybe you're different — don't care about the specific costs of the treatments you're getting, when you're getting them.

    I went to the doctor today.  I got x-rays, knee braces, and more.  I didn't once ask about cost, because I am not paying most of it, and it's not worth my time to try to figure it out, since there's little I can do about it anyway.

    So I am saying that the lack of ability to do something about it (caused by government essentially forcing us into a company-provided insurance plan) is what causes us to "not care."  Yes, I care about costs in general, but not specifically in my situation, usually.  And that attitude causes costs to rise, no matter how much we "care."

    Which came first… KBB, CR, etc or the government forcing the auto industry to slap MSRP with exactly what you're getting on the window?

    First, I made a distinction between then and now.  I said "that may have been a good idea in the 50s."  Second, if government had done nothing, these other institutions would've come along anyway.

    Based on your argument I should be able to use the Internet to do the same for medical procedures yet I don't seem to have the ability to do that… hmmmm…

    Right, because we don't care, because we mostly have no alternatives anyway.  If we decoupled insurance from employment, we would all care a lot, quickly, and this would just naturally happen.

    In order to have "fraud" you have to have laws (legislation) to break. Where do you think those laws come from?!?!?

    You say this as though it argues against anything I've said.  Why?  In your mind, do you imagine me to be someone who is against all laws?  I've never said anything that implies that.

    do you believe everyone has the same capabilities as you or I do?

    To do basic research about cost, given the tools and opportunity?  Not everyone, but most people, yes.  And again, I am not voicing opposition to a safety net for those who really cannot do for themselves: but why force all of us into Medicare, Social Security, ACA, and so on just to help needy people?  The ACA for everyone is a "crock of shit" just like you said Social-Security-for-all is.

    Back to Bill Gates.  He has literally no need for any health insurance.  He can self-fund any medical problem he has.  It is a waste of money for him to have insurance, because the idea of insurance is that you pay more into it than you are likely to take out of it, but just over time, on the off chance that you DO need more than you'd be able to cover.  That's how insurance works.

    Or consider my friend, unmarried and without kids and making a ton of money as a self-employed bloke, and travels the world running marathons.  Very fit, very healthy … he needs insurance, but only needs catastrophic insurance.  It is best for him to pay for the rest out of pocket.

    We are making things worse for people who don't need the same insurance I want.  You can say "they can afford it," but why should they have to, when we can simply cover those truly in need in a better way?

    Did you know that nutrition literally changes brain structures so lack of good food puts you at a biological disadvantage?

    Well, as someone who is reasonably intelligent and capable and never eats vegetables … 😉

    But again: if the goal is to help the needy, we should've done that instead of what we did.  You can't — to me — make the case for the ACA by appealing to helping the needy, unless you make the case that this is the only/best way to help the needy, which I doubt you can do (I think, on the contrary, there's much better ways, including the one I've outlined about decoupling insurance from employment … which, incidentally, was McCain's proposal in the 2008 election).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.