Health Care

[guitarfool2002]

"More efficiently" doesn't say very much. I mean, it worked just fine for some in an "I got mine" sort of fashion, but was dismal for many.... But why are we even arguing? It's obvious neither the federal government nor private industry is capable of much other then taking care of the bottom line and staying in office. My point is blaming the enture universe on liberals will get no one anywhere.... Might as well blame Darth Vader or Bruce Johnston.

And the problem I had with your recent replies is that they're not correct, when the charge is that the grand scheme here was a collusion between the feds and the private insurance industry. In fact, it was not, and if that's the story being presented in order to make someone or some entity a "villain" in order to shift blame, then I'll call it out. Let me state this again, for as many flaws as there were within the private insurance industry, and as many issues that needed to be addressed and fixed, the fact that the original intent of the health care bill was to dismantle, render obsolete,  and replace the entire notion of private insurance. That's been a goal for one particular political ideology for decades now, from Teddy Kennedy to Hilary Clinton up to the present day "architects" like Zeke Emanuel. But even with a democrat majority in the Senate and one in the House, they simply could not muster enough yes votes to push it over the finish line.

Which is how, and where, and why the current Affordable Care Act which is nothing but an embarrassment came to exist. They did not want private insurance to be a competitor, even with the compromises, but it became clear that they simply could not in one fell swoop take away everyone's current private insurance and replace it with government-controlled insurance along the lines of Medicaid, which still exists and which the majority of "new" enrollments are going into. And that new system now has to take on millions of new recipients, and a lot of that will now fall to the states to fully fund such a program. ironic, isn't it? Fed says this is the law, states pick up the balance of the tab. See how long that works.

Again, though, falling into the narrative, there needs to be a boogieman to blame for the chaos, after the "organizers" have already either created or exploited the chaos already in existence.

And if we follow the Alinsky theory, that boogieman has now become the insurance industry.

And Obama's "fix" will do not much more than throw the entire system into even more chaos, to add onto the website debacle, the mass-cancellation debacle, the "extension" and "exemption" to the mandates debacle, and any number of other debacles we have seen play out just this fall.

When that chaos hits at full-speed, there can be a boogeyman to have the finger of blame pointed at, and there can also be the "organizer" who can step in and start organizing and providing all the answers the panicked public is longing to hear from a voice of authority.

Guess who is the boogeyman? Guess who is the saving grace organizer? And guess what the solution proposed will be to calm the chaos and soothe the hurting masses?

Classic, and I mean *classic* Saul Alinsky theory, "Rules For Radicals".

So tell me, if such a plan fits neatly into the design of a man and his book which espouse a very specific political ideology, why can't that ideology be called out or at least called into question when the sh*t really starts hitting the fan and it simply does not work in practical terms, or everyday life?

Or can any of these failures never be attributed even slightly to a failed principle or a failed theory on which it was based rather than finding a boogeyman to blame for getting in the way of the progress?

And what is not correct?

Speaking of efficiancy (as you put it) the US has had one of the least efficiant health care systems in the first world for years and that system had (and is still) been controlled by private industry. It was/is not only a vastly more expensive system than others but it is one that not every citizen could actually benefit from. For the most part, as many a study has shown, it was those private aspects of health care that were far more inefficiant than the public aspects such as Medicare. In fact, the reason why health care prices are so high is because the amount of money invested into private companies wasting money on research and development to concoct copycat drugs to compete in the marketplace and because of outrageously expensive high administrative costs of private health care in comparison to public systems and because the US is THE only country in the industralized world where it is illegal for the government to use it's purchasing power to negotiate drug prices. And that's putting aside the fact that the main players/shapers/framers of the health care policy noted in the 70s that what made the system work was that private industry could profit by denying care. I mean, it was a terrible and completely inefficiant system. The boast that "private industry" does it better is terribly deliusional, when in reality, other countries provide health care for everyone at lower cost to the taxpayer..... But, as I've stated, it seems clear that such facts can be easily and happily brushed off when the real motivating factors for your opinions are the spectral, fantasy boogeyman of "liberalism" and your dream image of the "free market" .... I take issue with this because it is a very dangerous mindset when people want other's lives and health to be determined and left to the fate of willfull delusions which feed a convoluted self image.... Do I advocate being a blind "liberal" and bending over for Obama and waving that flag? Hell no! But denouncing him and his policy is really waging a weak battle. Bean Bag is correct in that knocking down the phoney heroic Obama totem is a crucial act in waking people up but it's not enough. Losing EVERY sort of willfull delusion is the way. And that includes such misty eyed faith in the "free market" that has been displayed in these threads.

Some choice reading.... A bit slanted, but still.....

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/75077/how-they-did-it

I've already explained what is not correct. Next. 

Speaking of costs, let's tackle that one for just a few lines before moving on.

Interesting how the issue of TORT reform, medical malpractice, and the entire meddling of the ever-present trial lawyers' lobbying muscle is not mentioned when we're gnashing teeth over the "high costs" of medical care in general.

Again, consider seeing it for what it is on all levels and layers. It's easy, in fact downright compliant to point one finger squarely at the "Big Pharma" industry for all the inflated costs, as you have done yet again.

But did you ever consider why in the past decade or so, whenever you go to a doctor or specialist for a procedure or a diagnosis, you first need to have blood drawn and screened for all manner of maladies or warning signs? Some would rightly suggest - and I would agree - it's better to cover all the bases, and screen for everything under the sun in order to be 100% sure.

The problem is, the very act of diagnosing anything, in any field or science, is not always 100% accurate nor exact. As close as we can get to the 100%, yeah that's a good thing.

But transfer this to the field of medicine. Why do you now need to pay a visit to a bloodwork storefront lab like we have "Quest Diagnostics" in this area? There were times I had to go or take someone there for bloodwork, and the waiting room was literally full to standing room only capacity. Each person there with a doctor form ordering blood to be drawn and screened.

Look at how much THAT adds to the overall health care bill. And what is a part of WHY all of that takes place now versus the past?

In part, doctors and medical offices in general are doing a CYA by over-ordering tests and screens. CYA = Cover Your Ass.

They already carry far, far too much insurance liability coverage to protect themselves against malpractice suits. Now they are in fact overly eager to order 10 blood screenings to confirm a diagnosis and back up a treatment plan rather than the perhaps necessary 2 or 3, in order to protect themselves against multi-million dollar lawsuits.

Those lawsuits...the kind that made a real piece of sh*t like John Edwards a very, very wealthy man. The kind of lawsuits that made the old-school image of the "ambulance chaser" lawyer who would monitor a police scanner for ambulance and accident calls, and show up at even the most minor fender-bender armed with a briefcase and a "horse collar" to put on the patient for whiplash...whether they had suffered whiplash or not.

It was and is big bucks. At it's worst, it was responsible for all manner of fraud, dishonesty, and resulted in a major payday for dishonest, fraudulent lawyers.

Now it's in the mainstream.

And guess who one of the biggest campaign donors and supporters of the democratic party (again, the 'architects' of this bullshit health care law) happens to be?

The trial lawyers' lobby. Including the John Edwards brand of medical malpractice attorneys who make a fortune ruining doctors and laughing all the way to the bank.

Which is why, in part, medical costs and health care costs are so damn high.

But mention TORT Reform in these debates, and just sit back and observe the denials, the backpedaling, the distractions, etc.

NO, NO, NO! That's a small part, and not even a factor!

It's...wait for it..."BIG PHARMA" and all of the capitalist abuses the industry exploits!

Again, the ideology needs a boogieman to promote its agenda and hit on all the talking points. Here, "Big Pharma" is always the bad guy, most responsible for the troubles.

And just like all of these debates, it ignores other key factors if not whitewashes them entirely out of the equation, because the other key factors *MAY JUST BE* issues like malpractice suits and TORT and all of that crap...issues on which the major supporters of politicians toeing the ideological line (at least in public) make their living.

Paging John Edwards. He's just one, but what an example. I hope he's enjoying living the luxurious life in his mansion(s). I wonder if he still rolls up the sleeves of his (blue) dress shirt before he tells his maid to clean the master bathroom again, she missed a spot. 

[guitarfool2002]

And since it was raised, and ties into the "health" topic in general, let's look at choices. Specifically choices in public schools, in efforts to promote "healthy choices" through government mandated changes to diets and menus offered to students.

This was a major push of the administration. Healthy choices. Get the bad stuff off of the school menus, offer healthy stuff instead. Get the sodas and sugary drinks out of the schools. Limit what is served, and what is available to buy.

Look what is happening. You may need to search deeper but you'll find similar reports.

Kids - all ages - in some schools are simply rejecting the healthy foods being given to them under the mandates.

The schools are ordered to give some kind of fruit option to the kids' lunches. Guess where some schools report most of the fruit has been going?

Right into the ol' trash can. That's right, the "mandate" is to give the kids fruit so a healthy diet can be promoted.

And how successful is it overall if so much of the fruit, perfectly good food, gets thrown in the trash?

Do they mandate that kids actually eat that fruit? See how long that works.

But that's one example of removing choice in order to promote another behavior, which in turn does not solve anything beyond the point of saying "well, we provided the fruit instead of potato chips."

Emotion, ideology, feel-good notions...but the result is that perfectly good fruit ends up in the trash, where no one can benefit from it.

Tell me, is that a good result?

How about another Obama "mandate" designed to get kids to eat healthy...along the same lines.

There was an effort to make local corner stores in certain city neighborhoods order and stock more fresh fruit and vegetables. The thought was, the kids in those neighborhoods would buy more healthy foods if the healthy foods were more available, and more visible in the stores they'd frequent before and after school. Instead of buying unhealthy chips and candy, the store instead would increase their orders of fresh fruit and veggie-based items which would steer the kids into buying them...and eating healthy.

Trouble was, just like the fruit mandate in the public schools, no one was buying the fruit. Store owners were made to buy and stock the fruit, in greater quantities than they knew the market would actually demand and purchase from them, and the customers did not buy the fruit. And therefore, they had to throw away a lot of what they had just purchased, and take a loss.

Because even if their stores promoted fruit and veggies over snacks and candy, the kids didn't buy it. Nor did their parents. And if the store stopped carrying the unhealthy snacks, the kids would find a place that did, and buy there.

While a lot of good, fresh fruit went bad, and a mandate for stores to promote healthy choices looked great in theory, but in the reality of those neighborhoods, the results don't back up the theory and ideology.

But that doesn't matter...results don't matter, right? As long as the *intent* is there, as long as the theory results in action from the people being "mandated" to do something, the results could fall flat on their face...at least "we meant well".

Yes, and there are some dumpsters which are full of uneaten fruit to back this up.

[SMiLE Brian]

The Republicans have a golden opportunity to reorganize for the 2014 Midterms right now since obamacare isn't doing so well.

[Bean Bag]

And since it was raised, and ties into the "health" topic in general, let's look at choices. Specifically choices in public schools, in efforts to promote "healthy choices" through government mandated changes to diets and menus offered to students.

This was a major push of the administration. Healthy choices. Get the bad stuff off of the school menus, offer healthy stuff instead. Get the sodas and sugary drinks out of the schools. Limit what is served, and what is available to buy.

Ah yes.  Deliciously ironic.  The Government, which has total control of what goes in/out of pubic schools (Kremlin?) still manages to struggle with choice.  Even with something as basic as food.  One does not need to have a vivid imagination to experience an ObamaFood takeover.  After the success of the ObamaCare takeover.

Choice.  Or mandate?
Leftists get those two words confused.  They freaked out when Conservatives proposed school vouchers.  Vouchers would have allowed Parents "choice" in attending schools.  Choice to a leftist does not mean "citizens have the freedom to choose."  It means, it's their "choice" in what gets "mandated" to you.

What's the Big Deal?
So what.  Leftist have a different meaning of the word choice.  What's the difference.

As you pointed out, kids (who are also people) chose quite differently from what their Progressive superiors in Government chose (for them).  When it came to their mandated lunches -- healthy or otherwise -- people (just simple kids) acted on their own.  Naturally, they chose what they wanted.  They chose.  Choice.  It just happens, naturally.  Like water flowing downhill, people naturally have the instinct and ability to choose what they want.  Right or wrong -- choice persists.  It's a natural, untameable (and beautiful) force in the universe.  And, why..  liberalism, by contrast, appears to be quite unnatural.  Contrived.  Struggling.  Website's down.  Plans canceled.  Care, diminishing.

Choice/Mandate.  Natural/Unnatural.  Don't take my word for it -- just ask these ladies.  They know what's good for you.

[Bean Bag]

The Republicans have a golden opportunity to reorganize for the 2014 Midterms right now since obamacare isn't doing so well.

Exactly.  They do.  The question is do they want to.  There's a tendency among "powerful" people to hold on to that power, under the claim that they'll manage it better.  We as citizens must demand that they return the power to We the Peeps.


EDIT:  ...or maybe give the power to those honeys, in my post above.  No... no... the Peeps.  Give it back to the peeps.  

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

You sure have a strange way of agreeing with me Pinder!  

Nevertheless, I'm not backing down -- and you're not convincing me that I should.  My point was -- a free market is best suited to provide the best services for the masses.  And at the best possible price.  To back up my claim, I cited the successes in other essential services.  I used food as an example, since I believe food is one of the most essential of all essential services -- necessary for all life.  And with the food industry, I for one, love the freedom, affordability and variety that the free market provides the food industry.

To your point -- if I choose to eat healthy -- I see that the market is vastly more capable of providing and responding to my dietary demands.  And as more people get in the health food racket -- something amazing happens Pinder...



...more and more abundance and variety occurs as a result.  It's a cornucopia of choice!  MORE CHOICE.  BETTER OPTIONS.  And all of it at increasingly BETTER PRICES.  It's a miracle!  I'm not talking right-wing ideology or professorial dreams.  But hard, microwavable FACTs.  Real results, in minutes or your pizza's free.  This is NOT what happens in Socialist models -- where demand CRUSHES supply with the cold iron fist of LIMITED SUPPLY.  That's sad.    Socialism is scam.

The same applies to health care.  Yes it does, dammit.  


What's the Role of Government?
Glad you asked.  Government has the fancy role of officiating.  Just like in a sporting event.  They get the stripe shirts and whistles.  But they should NOT be players in the game.  They should NOT be quaterbacking, calling the plays, or deciding who wins and who doesn't (affirmative action).  Likewise, they shouldn't be manning the drive-thru, for that matter.  They're should NOT be choosing the menu and serving the meals.  They should NOT be controlling doctors, giving us shots and putting their fingers up our b5tts.  They should NOT have access to my "files."





Listen, everyone:  The US Federal Government is not a provider.  It's not a care-giver.  Government is not a chef.  That's not opinion, just reality.


"You sayin'... I'm not a care-giver?"

I used fast food and soda as the lowest common denominator.  It's hard to miss how "well fed" our citizens are, eh Pinder?  But the same applies to tofu, if that's how you decide you must see it.  If tofu was good (even if it's not, but you think it is) there's a place to buy it.


I just don't understand how people can see the abundance and say:  "No, not a good model.  It's not working."  How is it they look past the overflowing options we are blessed with in a free country -- and spit at it.  Do they not realize that if their favorite option doesn't exist, that the free market allows them to start providing it themselves, for a profit?!  How can they say that the abundance, affordability and endless choice THAT WE ALL ENJOY in every other aspect of our lives -- from fancy restaurants to greasy diners, from bars and nightclubs to shoes and hats, from music and movies to sweaters and pants -- is something that we must deprive other services -- essential or not?

But I digress.  O'Blamo is destroying the healthcare system and lying about it, cuz he thinks we're too stupid -- and that he has enough control over the information pipeline, that he can maintain the lie.

Once again: no one is pushing for socialism ....... Not much more to say.

[guitarfool2002]

EDIT:  ...or maybe give the power to those honeys, in my post above.  No... no... the Peeps.  Give it back to the peeps.  

What if we give it to the real Peeps, and they're declared "unhealthy" and therefore banned? Then the power reverts back to...oh no. It could happen. Maybe if we can find a way to make healthy "Vegetable Peeps", we can sidestep the ban temporarily.   

Just don't sell them in packages larger than 32 oz, at least not in New York City.

[guitarfool2002]

Political writer/commentator Mark Shields, on PBS NewsHour Nov.15 2013:

MARK SHIELDS: It wasn't -- it wasn't, this is mine and I'm going to make sure that it never happens again. I mean, this has got to work.

Judy, this is beyond the Obama administration. If this goes down, if the Obama -- if health care, the Affordable Care Act is deemed a failure, this is the end -- I really mean it -- of liberal government, in the sense of any sense that government as an instrument of social justice, an engine of economic progress, which is what divides Democrats from Republicans -- that's what Democrats believe.

And that's what Democrats believe. Time and again, social programs have made the difference in this country. The public confidence in that will be so depleted, so diminished, that I really think the change -- the equation of American politics changes.


Maybe that explains even just a little bit what is also behind this health care issue to explain the intensity of some of those defending it, or at least what is perceived as being "at stake" if this plan continues to fall apart at the seams.

[Bean Bag]

Once again: no one is pushing for socialism ....... Not much more to say.

I think you're way off on that.  I care little for the artificial flavor, I just know the company that makes the poison -- whether it's Socialism, New Euro-Quasi-Commie-LibroMarxism or just good ol' fashion Fascism (which is probably the more precise answer) -- I don't care.  It's bad.

I admit, I not certain of your preference, though.  Other than your belief that the Free Market is fantasy.  Do you enjoy the free market with everything else though?  I do.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Once again: no one is pushing for socialism ....... Not much more to say.

I think you're way off on that.  I care little for the artificial flavor, I just know the company that makes the poison -- whether it's Socialism, New Euro-Quasi-Commie-LibroMarxism or just good ol' fashion Fascism (which is probably the more precise answer) -- I don't care.  It's bad.

I admit, I not certain of your preference, though.  Other than your belief that the Free Market is fantasy.  Do you enjoy the free market with everything else though?  I do.

I enjoy reality in all it's contradictions and don't need to be a religious fundamentalist for the "free market" in order to do so, nor do I need inflated boogeymen to bash in order to prop up my self image.

[Bean Bag]

Political writer/commentator Mark Shields, on PBS NewsHour Nov.15 2013:

MARK SHIELDS: It wasn't -- it wasn't, this is mine and I'm going to make sure that it never happens again. I mean, this has got to work.

Judy, this is beyond the Obama administration. If this goes down, if the Obama -- if health care, the Affordable Care Act is deemed a failure, this is the end -- I really mean it -- of liberal government, in the sense of any sense that government as an instrument of social justice, an engine of economic progress, which is what divides Democrats from Republicans -- that's what Democrats believe.

And that's what Democrats believe. Time and again, social programs have made the difference in this country. The public confidence in that will be so depleted, so diminished, that I really think the change -- the equation of American politics changes.


Maybe that explains even just a little bit what is also behind this health care issue to explain the intensity of some of those defending it, or at least what is perceived as being "at stake" if this plan continues to fall apart at the seams.

Charles Krauthammer said something similar - that this ObamaCare debacle could be the end of Liberalism.  I'd love for that to be true.  But we've yet to rid the world of evil, and it's a fool's errand to think it can be done.  You just have to defeat the next thing, and the next thing.

It's why I mentioned, Prohibition.  Sure, Prohibition did the Progressives in... but for how long?  FDR became President in '32 and wouldn't go away -- giving us all sorts of Government bullsht-promises and failed programs -- not too mention, a lost decade we call the Great Depression.  How much did that cost us?  Sht, how much have you paid into the Social Security scam?  We're still paying for that!  They don't go away.

After Prohibition, the nastiest of the hardcore Progressives just changed their name to Liberal (corrupting a good word) and have worked hard over the last 100 years at reprogramming minds.  Now they have our kids' brains hostage in Pubic Schools.  They've convinced many women that their men are evil -- and that the baby growing in their womb -- their own child -- is a disease.  How they did that defies even mother nature!  But this is what they do.  They're good.  Praying on emotions or something.

They of course own the media -- newspapers, TV (that's starting to change, thank you internet).  And they're so far up Hollywood's azz it's sad.

Should we even mention Colleges and Universities?  It's like a petri-dish growing all sorts of weaponized Left Wing Progressive fungi and spores.  Barrack Obama came from Harvard.  Nuff' said.  So you can right that place off.  Big Business can be bought (GM, GE, Google) to do their bidding -- they even got science (Global Hottening) and some kooky demonic religions (Jeremiah Wright/Black Liberation Theology) - in addition to their own brand of Christmas-hating, Christian-bashing secularists.

But, I'll take this victory -- once it's repealed.  We have to stop them on this.  This gives them way too much power.  They jumped the shark, again.

[Bean Bag]

Once again: no one is pushing for socialism ....... Not much more to say.

I think you're way off on that.  I care little for the artificial flavor, I just know the company that makes the poison -- whether it's Socialism, New Euro-Quasi-Commie-LibroMarxism or just good ol' fashion Fascism (which is probably the more precise answer) -- I don't care.  It's bad.

I admit, I not certain of your preference, though.  Other than your belief that the Free Market is fantasy.  Do you enjoy the free market with everything else though?  I do.

I enjoy reality in all it's contradictions and don't need to be a religious fundamentalist for the "free market" in order to do so, nor do I need inflated boogeymen to bash in order to prop up my self image.

Kind of a Nihilist then, eh?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Once again: no one is pushing for socialism ....... Not much more to say.

I think you're way off on that.  I care little for the artificial flavor, I just know the company that makes the poison -- whether it's Socialism, New Euro-Quasi-Commie-LibroMarxism or just good ol' fashion Fascism (which is probably the more precise answer) -- I don't care.  It's bad.

I admit, I not certain of your preference, though.  Other than your belief that the Free Market is fantasy.  Do you enjoy the free market with everything else though?  I do.

I enjoy reality in all it's contradictions and don't need to be a religious fundamentalist for the "free market" in order to do so, nor do I need inflated boogeymen to bash in order to prop up my self image.

Kind of a Nihilist then, eh?

Not at all.... I'm just not going to go to the alter for an idea just because it sounds good on paper (your fantasy of a "free market" IS very appealing) but which does not work for a vast majority of the population in reality.... Kneeling down with your hands in the air does not make something work unless you'vre drifted into having a basically religious faith in it.... The free market needs much work and until then, I will call it out on it's faults just as you rightly call out liberals on theirs, but your belief that it is liberals and liberalism/socialism/every kind of "ism" you dislike as the sole reasons for the faults of such a system, you're just kidding yourself.

[Bean Bag]

No system is perfect, because people aren't perfect.  Nothing's perfect.

The difference with the Free Market is, at any point, without approval, penalty or any forfeited monies that the government stole from you via "taxes" -- you can just say "I want nothing to do with McDonald's."  And that's that.  No forms to fill out.  No trip to the DMV or visits to "the website" that don't work.  You just make it happen.  That's choice.  Not that fake sht the Demorats are selling.

So in a sense, it is perfect.  I guess, as perfect as anything can be.  If you disagree... I suggest you put me in charge of all your food for the next week.  Just a little trial.  Don't worry, like Obama, I care 'bout you.  I know what's best for you and everybody else you care about -- or whatever Progressive people say to get themselves off.

Sound like a deal?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

No system is perfect, because people aren't perfect.  Nothing's perfect.

The difference with the Free Market is, at any point, without approval, penalty or any forfeited monies that the government stole from you via "taxes" -- you can just say "I want nothing to do with McDonald's."  And that's that.  No forms to fill out.  No trip to the DMV or visits to "the website" that don't work.  You just make it happen.  That's choice.  Not that fake sht the Demorats are selling.

So in a sense, it is perfect.  I guess, as perfect as anything can be.  If you disagree... I suggest you put me in charge of all your food for the next week.  Just a little trial.  Don't worry, like Obama, I care 'bout you.  I know what's best for you and everybody else you care about -- or whatever Progressive people say to get themselves off.

Sound like a deal?

I actually grow my own vegetables and don't pay for groceries for weeks on end, so the free market really doesn't do much for my food needs, nor does the government..... So, no deal. Sorry.....

How about this sort of a trial: you spend an entire week worth of posting on here without using the words "liberal" or "Obama" ? .... You could still discuss all the same issues/raise all the same points, but your mind just might be blown.

I'm not letting Obama off the hook at all, mind you. And you know the fallicies of your free market analogy damn well. Once again: something looking really great on paper does not necessarily work that way in real life. You know this, I know this, and the criminals you worship through blind choice (and those you rightfully despise) know better than anyone and take it all the way to the bank.

[guitarfool2002]

Once again: something looking really great on paper does not necessarily work that way in real life.

Man, I've been saying that for years. Although when I've said it before, it was along the lines of something looking (and sounding) really great in a college classroom coming from a tenured professor or in the conference room of a "think tank" but not working as well when real people are involved as more than statistics on paper.

The free market needs much work and until then, I will call it out on it's faults just as you rightly call out liberals on theirs, but your belief that it is liberals and liberalism/socialism/every kind of "ism" you dislike as the sole reasons for the faults of such a system, you're just kidding yourself.

I'm not stepping into the two-person debate here, but the last sentence raised an eyebrow...

Would you in turn use that statement to suggest the "Occupy" movement and its proponents were kidding themselves when they directed most of their blame and ire about the "1%" at "capitalism", in their case capitalism being that "ism" which they dislike?

I think they were kidding themselves in many ways, but am curious if it works the same when plugged into the last sentence's formula.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Once again: something looking really great on paper does not necessarily work that way in real life.

Man, I've been saying that for years. Although when I've said it before, it was along the lines of something looking (and sounding) really great in a college classroom coming from a tenured professor or in the conference room of a "think tank" but not working as well when real people are involved as more than statistics on paper.

The free market needs much work and until then, I will call it out on it's faults just as you rightly call out liberals on theirs, but your belief that it is liberals and liberalism/socialism/every kind of "ism" you dislike as the sole reasons for the faults of such a system, you're just kidding yourself.

I'm not stepping into the two-person debate here, but the last sentence raised an eyebrow...

Would you in turn use that statement to suggest the "Occupy" movement and its proponents were kidding themselves when they directed most of their blame and ire about the "1%" at "capitalism", in their case capitalism being that "ism" which they dislike?

I think they were kidding themselves in many ways, but am curious if it works the same when plugged into the last sentence's formula.

No. I would not say the same thing in regards to the Occupy Wall St movement. For one, they had a clear and direct mission statement as to what their exact beef was with, to quote: " the lack of legal consequences for those who brought about the global crisis of monetary insolvency, and an increasing disparity in wealth." (the words "liberal/conservative" were not relevant in this case) ...... That's a whole lot different than simply disparaging and blaming (as far as to advocate it's destruction as has been suggested on this board) a mere mindset or political ideological identity usually used/propped up by the opposing political ideological identity in order to make their views seem less severe..... (it's much easier to get away with a lot when one particular mindset is simply seen as battling another. We are a war loving and violent people, so it works) ... So, no. The comparison does not work....... Do I think Occupy Wall St was making the issue a bit too black and white? Sure. Do I think their tactics were mostly pointless, sure? You're barking up the wrong tree since I was no Occupy participant or cheerleader (you guys seem to think anyone less batshit angry at "liberals" than you just must be Occupy supporters) ....  Not that I think their basic point was invalid, but rather their tactics/plan of action was useless.

[guitarfool2002]

Once again: something looking really great on paper does not necessarily work that way in real life.

Man, I've been saying that for years. Although when I've said it before, it was along the lines of something looking (and sounding) really great in a college classroom coming from a tenured professor or in the conference room of a "think tank" but not working as well when real people are involved as more than statistics on paper.

The free market needs much work and until then, I will call it out on it's faults just as you rightly call out liberals on theirs, but your belief that it is liberals and liberalism/socialism/every kind of "ism" you dislike as the sole reasons for the faults of such a system, you're just kidding yourself.

I'm not stepping into the two-person debate here, but the last sentence raised an eyebrow...

Would you in turn use that statement to suggest the "Occupy" movement and its proponents were kidding themselves when they directed most of their blame and ire about the "1%" at "capitalism", in their case capitalism being that "ism" which they dislike?

I think they were kidding themselves in many ways, but am curious if it works the same when plugged into the last sentence's formula.

No. I would not say the same thing in regards to the Occupy Wall St movement. For one, they had a clear and direct mission statement as to what their exact beef was with, to quote: " the lack of legal consequences for those who brought about the global crisis of monetary insolvency, and an increasing disparity in wealth." (the words "liberal/conservative" were not relevant in this case) ...... That's a whole lot different than simply disparaging and blaming (as far as to advocate it's destruction as has been suggested on this board) a mere mindset or political ideological identity usually used/propped up by the opposing political ideological identity in order to make their views seem less severe..... (it's much easier to get away with a lot when one particular mindset is simply seen as battling another. We are a war loving and violent people, so it works) ... So, no. The comparison does not work....... Do I think Occupy Wall St was making the issue a bit too black and white? Sure. Do I think their tactics were mostly pointless, sure? You're barking up the wrong tree since I was no Occupy participant or cheerleader (you guys seem to think anyone less batshit angry at "liberals" than you just must be Occupy supporters) ....  Not that I think their basic point was invalid, but rather their tactics/plan of action was useless.

I'm not barking up any tree, but was just curious about the scenario when the -ism being blamed was capitalism. I don't know and could care less what groups you are or aren't involved with directly, and I never assumed you were an "occupier". Oh those occupiers, bravely clutching their iPad with full WiFi access and feverishly texting other occupiers using the latest model iPhone while rallying against "the rich" and lending a hand when the kid with the beard and his friend with the dreads and the baja start hammering together boards with a total lack of carpentry knowledge or skill, yet "meaning well" and feeling like they're really getting back to the salt of the earth ethic by hammering in a few nails to build their shelter while the camera crews are still there...

Sorry, I get carried away. 

Now if you suggest those Occupy rallies were not railing against capitalism, I'll have to disagree. But in all honestly, I was just curious to hear the opinion.

[Rocky Raccoon]

I think OWS was (and is as it still exists in some sort of incarnation) a very flawed movement and I think there were too many people there for the wrong reasons but there was one thing that it did prove and that was showing that people can still get together and peacefully protest in the spirit of the civil rights movement.  Because there were a lot of people who really knew what they were doing out there and they got their message across and that's at least something.  But I do think it could have been something so much more.

[guitarfool2002]

It took a simple Google image search of "occupy" and "capitalism" and less than a minute to find these...So once again, the Occupy movement seemed to either be railing against capitalism or else they just liked painting the word on their signage.  

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

"Guitarfool: "I'm not barking up any tree, but was just curious about the scenario when the -ism being blamed was capitalism. I don't know and could care less what groups you are or aren't involved with directly, and I never assumed you were an "occupier". Oh those occupiers, bravely clutching their iPad with full WiFi access and feverishly texting other occupiers using the latest model iPhone while rallying against "the rich" and lending a hand when the kid with the beard and his friend with the dreads and the baja start hammering together boards with a total lack of carpentry knowledge or skill, yet "meaning well" and feeling like they're really getting back to the salt of the earth ethic by hammering in a few nails to build their shelter while the camera crews are still there... Grin"


Ha! Yeah, that's a pretty apt description. I knew more than a few people down there badgering me to show up and "support" and I was like "Yeah, um, but I'm too busy working to make a living and not living off a trust fund like you"  

Some of them pehaps railed against Capitalism in general, but there are always those types in every crowd like the angry villagers at the very back of the crowd in Frankenstein who just picked up and torch and ran whatever way everyone else was.... The more asture of Occupy kids named names....

Bean, of course there were idiots out there just like I said there was. I could pull up just as many pictures of signs that don't mention capitalism but why bother? And wouldn't you agree that in this country people should be free to hold up a "f*** Capitalism" sign if they feel like it?

Nor was EVERY SINGLE PERSON in that movement a trustafarian. Capitalism does not work for a vast number of people. You should be able to accept this fact without some great religious crisis of faith being necessary...... Capitalism is kind of like The Beach Boys: it can give us Today/Pet Sounds/Holland and it can also give us Summer In Paradise or nothing at all from 1996 to 2012 other than shameless repackaging/re-selling.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Er, wait! No one bought Summer In Paradise, so I suppose it's better used as an example of the free market working perfectly!!!

[Bean Bag]

I actually grow my own vegetables and don't pay for groceries for weeks on end, so the free market really doesn't do much for my food needs, nor does the government..... So, no deal. Sorry.....

Self-sufficiency is commendable.  But, you're ducking.  Put me in charge of your food.  And in charge of the food of those you care about.  For a week.  This will be a wonderful example of the wonders of Progressivism.  And NOT being free.  And living under the rule of your superiors, just like how the 'Rats want to control your healthcare.  Why wouldn't you accept this?  

How about this sort of a trial: you spend an entire week worth of posting on here without using the words "liberal" or "Obama" ? .... You could still discuss all the same issues/raise all the same points, but your mind just might be blown.

No dice.  You didn't accept my terms, so I can't accept yours.  And frankly, my terms had your own best interest at heart.  To educate you.  To school you on the horrors of sacrificing your freedom.  And the freedom of those you care about.  Now, you're right -- I'm no "nutritionist" of course.  But, it's not your decision once you accept my terms.  I'm a Capitalist, yes.  And to prove a point, I will be acting like a Progressive snot.  Making you eat things you may not want (and paying waaaaay more for them.  But... you didn't hear that from me.  That was to be a surprise).  So, you can imagine... I'm going to make you eat things you wouldn't normally choose.  Can you say biggie size that?

I'm not letting Obama off the hook at all, mind you. And you know the fallicies of your free market analogy damn well. Once again: something looking really great on paper does not necessarily work that way in real life. You know this, I know this, and the criminals you worship through blind choice (and those you rightfully despise) know better than anyone and take it all the way to the bank.

Tell us the fallacies of a Free Market then.  I've been bashing Progressivism to no end.  I think I've done a good job.  What's your beef with freedom and its market?  Be honest, though.  I am able to recognize hypocrisy fairly quickly.

[guitarfool2002]

It's pathetic when even a woman whose story was cited by Obama as an example of how great the plan is working ends up getting screwed by the very plan she supports.

And it will be more stories like this which continue to crack the foundation of the entire scam, erode public trust in this government and specifically the party behind this, and as that commentator said, perhaps take down with it the policies and ideology behind this plan.

If it weren't real life and a real person who got stung by a bunch of lies and liars, one who still seems to be a loyal supporter nonetheless, I'd have something sarcastic or funny to add. But this stuff just isn't funny anymore, it's affecting real people.

Feel free to toe the ideological line.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/19/woman-cited-by-president-as-obamacare-success-story-frustrated-by-sign-up-process/

Woman cited by President as Obamacare success story frustrated by sign up process
Posted by CNN Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta   
Updated 1:20 a.m. ET, 11/19/2013

(CNN) – Washington state resident Jessica Sanford was bursting with pride when President Obama mentioned her story during a Rose Garden event on health care reform last month at the White House.

"Who wouldn't?" Sanford asks. "I'm a nobody really to have him mention my story."

Back in October, Sanford had written a letter to the White House to share her good news. The 48-year-old single mother of a teenage son diagnosed with ADHD had just purchased what she considered to be affordable insurance on the Washington state exchange.

"I was ecstatic. I couldn't wait to call the doctor for an appointment on January 2nd," Sanford told CNN about the feeling she had when she first enrolled.

Her heartfelt letter made it to the President's hands and then into his October 21 speech.

"'I was crying the other day when I signed up. So much stress lifted.'" Obama said, reading from Sanford's letter.

The president said Sanford's story was proof, despite the technical problems with the healthcare.gov website, that the Affordable Care Act was working.

"That's what the Affordable Care Act is all about. The point is, the essence of the law – the health insurance that's available to people – is working just fine," Obama said.

But then, after Obama mentioned her story, Sanford started having problems. Sanford said she received another letter informing her the Washington state health exchange had miscalculated her eligibility for a tax credit.

In other words, her monthly insurance bill had shot up from $198 a month (she had initially said $169 a month to the White House but she switched plans) to $280 a month for the same "gold" plan offered by the state exchange.

Sanford said she was frustrated with the state's error. But she decided to purchase the new plan and thought everything was fine.

It wasn't fine. Last week, Sanford received another letter from the Washington state exchange, stating there had been another problem, a "system error" that resulted in some "applicants to qualify for higher than allowed health insurance premium tax credits."

The letter said the state exchange was "disappointed to have discovered this issue" and apologized.

The result was a higher quote, which Sanford said was for $390 per month for a "silver" plan with a higher deductible. Still too expensive

A cheaper "bronze" plan, Sanford said, came in at $324 per month, but also with a high deductible – also not in her budget.

Then another letter from the state exchange with even worse news.

"Your household has been determined eligible for a Federal Tax Credit of $0.00 to help cover the cost of your monthly health insurance premium payments," the latest letter said.

"I had a good cry," Sanford said about her reaction to the latest news from the state.

As a self-employed court reporter, the new quote was simply out of her range.

"This is it. I'm not getting insurance," Sanford told CNN. "That's where it stands right now unless they fix it."

Sanford, an Obama supporter who voted for the president twice, is careful to say she blames the state of Washington's online marketplace for the mixed signals and not the White House.

She is sorry Obama mentioned her during the October 21 speech.

"I feel awful about it. I support (the Affordable Care Act)," Sanford said.

But the messy rollout in the other Washington, the nation's capital, was not far from her mind.

"What the hell? Why is it the same story as the federal government?" Sanford says in disgust with the Washington state exchange. "They didn't have it ready."

"They screwed up," she added.

Sanford reiterated her frustration in a post to the Washington HealthPlanFinder's Facebook page last Friday.

"Wow. You guys really screwed me over," Sanford wrote. "Now I have been priced out and will not be able to afford the plans you offer. But, I get to pay $95 and up for not having health insurance. I am so incredibly disappointed and saddened. You majorly screwed up."

In response, a HealthplanFinder posting tried to direct Sanford to a broker for help.

"Jessica, we are very sad and disappointed that the tax credit miscalculation affected you so heavily," the comment read, suggesting she try to find a new plan on the site. Sanford responded on Facebook the issue was affordability.

Bethany Frey, a spokeswoman for Washington HealthPlanFinder told CNN on Monday night, "I'm already looking into this with our client specialist team. I'll let you know what I hear."

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I actually grow my own vegetables and don't pay for groceries for weeks on end, so the free market really doesn't do much for my food needs, nor does the government..... So, no deal. Sorry.....

Self-sufficiency is commendable.  But, you're ducking.  Put me in charge of your food.  And in charge of the food of those you care about.  For a week.  This will be a wonderful example of the wonders of Progressivism.  And NOT being free.  And living under the rule of your superiors, just like how the 'Rats want to control your healthcare.  Why wouldn't you accept this?  

How about this sort of a trial: you spend an entire week worth of posting on here without using the words "liberal" or "Obama" ? .... You could still discuss all the same issues/raise all the same points, but your mind just might be blown.

No dice.  You didn't accept my terms, so I can't accept yours.  And frankly, my terms had your own best interest at heart.  To educate you.  To school you on the horrors of sacrificing your freedom.  And the freedom of those you care about.  Now, you're right -- I'm no "nutritionist" of course.  But, it's not your decision once you accept my terms.  I'm a Capitalist, yes.  And to prove a point, I will be acting like a Progressive snot.  Making you eat things you may not want (and paying waaaaay more for them.  But... you didn't hear that from me.  That was to be a surprise).  So, you can imagine... I'm going to make you eat things you wouldn't normally choose.  Can you say biggie size that?

I'm not letting Obama off the hook at all, mind you. And you know the fallicies of your free market analogy damn well. Once again: something looking really great on paper does not necessarily work that way in real life. You know this, I know this, and the criminals you worship through blind choice (and those you rightfully despise) know better than anyone and take it all the way to the bank.

Tell us the fallacies of a Free Market then.  I've been bashing Progressivism to no end.  I think I've done a good job.  What's your beef with freedom and its market?  Be honest, though.  I am able to recognize hypocrisy fairly quickly.

I'm "ducking"? Hilarious! And why would myself or anyone put someone in charge of their food who spends their days/nights scouring Google for pictures of Obama to make fun of? There is no point answering such questions to a religious zealot who already knows the answers anyway.... Bashing "progressives" is just your thing, your fetish, what gets you off. Nothing will ever change this. You can sure spot hypocrisy alright unless it's coming from yourself which is why "true belivers" are always so frightening...You've found your calling in this world and you'll stay on that bus all the way over the cliff..... Ok, back to Google Images....