why that was nice

[nastyaudioman 10+ year member]

I want to know who read the entire 1000+ page bill? Maybe that is the issue, have you thouhgt about that. A lot of money, no reading, rushing to pass = WTF?? Just because I make over $32K a year you are going to MAKE me have insurance and if I don't you are going to FINE me $2500?? (you-govt) So I pay to go to some of the best doctors money can afford but some piece of $hit that doesn't want to better themselves and collect govt money all their life can go to the same doctor as me?? Is it right that I bust my *** in the so called mid class and get nothing and struggle but the poor welfare b@stards can do nothing and not have a single worry in the world because the govt will support them till they die from old age then their family will sue the doctor because they let a family member die that was 100 years old??

People need to sit and actually think what is going on. Big govt is bad; no if, ands, or buts. Everything the govt touches gets fvcked up and so much bullshit required.

If they go about govt appointed doctors, then you are really screwed. You go in for simple procedure, yet they screw up since they have a pay cap for doctors and the smart people get out of the doctor profession because 8+ years of school can make you more money elsewhere. You are paralyzed and since the govt owns your insurance and healthcare, do you think you are going to fight them and recover your losses. Hahahaha, NO.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Faux ushered in the era of for profit infotainment. New reporting used to be something stations did as a public service and profit margins weren't the main goal. CNN created the model and Faux exploited it as much as possible to the point that all news has been pulled down to its level.
They're so successful at this point they practically have more control over the political agenda than the president does. They have mastered to art of public manipulation and carried it to heights unparalleled by any other media outlet.

Even on mute faux news is sickening. Have you noticed how everything is red white and blue? Their on screen graphics make it look like you're staring at an American flag, offering that subtle suggestion that if you disagree you hate America. They're great at fueling people's blind nationalism.

Addressing your example of a double standard, the problem is that Sanford ran as a family values traditionalist. All politicians do this to a point but the GOP certainly takes it further with their evangelical alignment.

Bill Clinton could have an affair and still have the support of his base. Sanford can't and that's why he is no longer a viable candidate.

When you are liberally biased, Im confident Fox News does seem like the station that started it all. And yet, the only reason Fox News gained so much exposure and popularity so fast was due to the amazing left-wing biased of virtually every other major news organization in this country. The idea that the media in this country was heavily left-biased existed long before Fox News came on the scene. The unfortunate part is they have let themselves become just as biased as a CNN, but only in the opposite direction.

Who cares if they plaster red, white and blue all over the screen. Its how they report the news, what they chose to report, and what they chose to not report that is important. They could plaster Soviet China colors all over the screen for all I care, so long as they would try harder to truly be 'fair and balanced'.

Ive often felt a big part of the problem is the media's inability to recognize their own bias, in either direction. New organizations are biased, and always will be, because they are controlled by human beings. The sooner we get away from these organizations trying to fool us into thinking they are unbiased, and simply being honest that they are indeed a liberal-biased organization, or a conservative-biased one, the sooner we could start sifting through what is fact, and what is opinion. Most news shows and papaers would tell you they work very hard to remain neutral, yet Im sure we all know this is untrue, and in fact, impossible. So when your entire philosophy is based on a lie, what can you expect to trickle down from it in the form of 10-second news bytes?

If an extra marital affair didn't affect Clinton's ability to do his job, why should this same situation so greatly affect Sanford's ability? Its interesting that liberals are now blaming conservatives (his base) for the man's downfall as a viable candidate. Personally I think Sanford should not be considered, but then, imo our pres getting a hummer in the oval office was grounds for stepping down as well. In a country with more than 250 million people, we cant find a single honest person who will keep his dick (or her vag) in their pants for 4-8 years for the sake of the country's well being? Yes, we can. Those people just dont exist in the system we call being a professional politician.

The founding fathers set up a system that was run for the people, by the people. A congressman or senator was envisioned as being a local banker, farmer or doctor, whom takes a few years off from his career to serve in the government. Now, if a politician losses his position, that IS his career going down the tubes. That alone leads to very fundamental issues with credibility, honestly and personal gain, at the very heart of our most important and trusted government positions. There's a good reason the founding fathers didn't set up a system that encouraged life-long careers in the government. But somewhere along the way we forgot that, and it has been kept from our eyes by people with vast political careers hanging in the balance.

I remember when everyone use to tell lawyer jokes. Like the one about what do you call a 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean... except now lawyers think to themselves 'it could be worse, I could be a politician'. Even the very word politician has taken on a meaning that is frowned upon and not trusted. There is something fundamentally wrong with this.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

A public option would not be able to dip into the general fund. It would have to support itself in the same way that all private insurers do. It would compete with them giving incentives for reducing cost.



FedEx/UPS compete just fine with the USPS. Private school seem to do just fine against public schools.

good point. obama said himself that this is what would happen, which is why i stuck it in there.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

I want to know who read the entire 1000+ page bill? Maybe that is the issue, have you thouhgt about that. A lot of money, no reading, rushing to pass = WTF?? Just because I make over $32K a year you are going to MAKE me have insurance and if I don't you are going to FINE me $2500?? (you-govt) So I pay to go to some of the best doctors money can afford but some piece of $hit that doesn't want to better themselves and collect govt money all their life can go to the same doctor as me?? Is it right that I bust my *** in the so called mid class and get nothing and struggle but the poor welfare b@stards can do nothing and not have a single worry in the world because the govt will support them till they die from old age then their family will sue the doctor because they let a family member die that was 100 years old??
People need to sit and actually think what is going on. Big govt is bad; no if, ands, or buts. Everything the govt touches gets fvcked up and so much bullshit required.

If they go about govt appointed doctors, then you are really screwed. You go in for simple procedure, yet they screw up since they have a pay cap for doctors and the smart people get out of the doctor profession because 8+ years of school can make you more money elsewhere. You are paralyzed and since the govt owns your insurance and healthcare, do you think you are going to fight them and recover your losses. Hahahaha, NO.

wow you actually know very little.

 

[nastyaudioman 10+ year member]

wow you actually know very little.

And you do? Because you read a certain website or....wait??? Did you read the bill? The only one in america that did???? No way? Shut up.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Without a public option, the other parties that comprise America's non-system of healthcare -- private insurers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies and medical suppliers -- have little or no incentive to supply high-quality care at a lower cost than they do now.
Which is precisely why the public option has become such a lightning rod. The American Medical Association is dead set against it, Big Pharma rejects it out of hand, and the biggest insurance companies won't consider it. No other issue in the current healthcare debate is as fiercely opposed by the medical establishment and their lobbies now swarming over Capitol Hill. Of course they don't want it. A public option would squeeze their profits and force them to undertake major reforms. That's the whole point.

Critics say the public option is really a Trojan Horse for a government takeover of all of health insurance. But nothing could be further from the truth. It's an option. No one has to choose it. Individuals and families will merely be invited to compare costs and outcomes. Presumably they will choose the public plan only if it offers them and their families the best deal -- more and better healthcare for less.

Private insurers say a public option would have an unfair advantage in achieving this goal. Being the one public plan, it will have large economies of scale that will enable it to negotiate more favorable terms with pharmaceutical companies and other providers. But why, exactly, is this unfair? Isn't the whole point of cost containment to provide the public with healthcare on more favorable terms? If the public plan negotiates better terms -- thereby demonstrating that drug companies and other providers can meet them -- private plans could seek similar deals.

But, say the critics, the public plan starts off with an unfair advantage because it's likely to have lower administrative costs. That may be true -- Medicare's administrative costs per enrollee are a small fraction of typical private insurance costs -- but here again, why exactly is this unfair? Isn't one of the goals of healthcare cost containment to lower administrative costs? If the public option pushes private plans to trim their bureaucracies and become more efficient, that's fine.

Critics complain that a public plan has an inherent advantage over private plans because the public plan won't have to show profits. But plenty of private plans are already not-for-profit. And if nonprofit plans can offer high-quality healthcare more cheaply than for-profit plans, why should for-profit plans be coddled? The public plan would merely force profit-making private plans to take whatever steps were necessary to become more competitive. Once again, that's a plus.

Critics charge that the public plan will be subsidized by the government. Here they have their facts wrong. Under every plan that's being discussed on Capitol Hill, subsidies go to individuals and families who need them in order to afford healthcare, not to a public plan. Individuals and families use the subsidies to shop for the best care they can find. They're free to choose the public plan, but that's only one option. They could take their subsidy and buy a private plan just as easily. Legislation should also make crystal clear that the public plan, for its part, may not dip into general revenues to cover its costs. It must pay for itself. And any government entity that oversees the health-insurance pool or acts as referee in setting ground rules for all plans must not favor the public plan.

Finally, critics say that because of its breadth and national reach, the public plan will be able to collect and analyze patient information on a large scale to discover the best ways to improve care. The public plan might even allow clinicians who form accountable-care organizations to keep a portion of the savings they generate. Those opposed to a public option ask how private plans can ever compete with all this. The answer is they can and should. It's the only way we have a prayer of taming healthcare costs. But here's some good news for the private plans. The information gleaned by the public plan about best practices will be made available to the private plans as they try to achieve the same or better outputs.

As a practical matter, the choice people make between private plans and a public one is likely to function as a check on both. Such competition will encourage private plans to do better -- offering more value at less cost. At the same time, it will encourage the public plan to be as flexible as possible. In this way, private and public plans will offer one another benchmarks of what's possible and desirable.

Mr. Obama says he wants a public plan. But the strength of the opposition to it, along with his own commitment to making the emerging bill "bipartisan," is leading toward some oddball compromises. One would substitute nonprofit health insurance cooperatives for a public plan. But such cooperatives would lack the scale and authority to negotiate lower rates with drug companies and other providers, collect wide data on outcomes, or effect major change in the system.

Another emerging compromise is to hold off on a public option altogether unless or until private insurers fail to meet some targets for expanding coverage and lowering healthcare costs years from now. But without a public option from the start, private insurers won't have the incentives or systemwide model they need to reach these targets. And in politics, years from now usually means never.

To get healthcare moving again in Congress, the president will have to be clear about how to deal with its costs and whether and how a public plan is to be included as an option. The two are intimately related. Enough talk. He should come out swinging for the public option

o o

:.:

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

And you do? Because you read a certain website or....wait??? Did you read the bill? The only one in america that did???? No way? Shut up.

no plan under consideration has anything about "If they go about govt appointed doctors" at least i know that much.

Plus your ranting just simply didnt make sense.

 

[nastyaudioman 10+ year member]

no plan under consideration has anything about "If they go about govt appointed doctors" at least i know that much.
Plus your ranting just simply didnt make sense.

No sh!t, that is why the word IF was typed. You are a tard.

 

[nastyaudioman 10+ year member]

Oh, and FYI good read........

Counseling, Section 1233, pg. 425. Upon reaching a certain age, you will be required to attend a counseling session on how to die, which includes different methods to help in this process. If you get a fatal illness such as cancer, you will need to be counseled again. There is a formula for rationing care determined by age and the proposed cost of the procedure to insure cost effectiveness. Government will determine the compensation of doctors.

Money, Section 163, pg. 59. This gives the government access to all of your financial information, checking and savings accounts, IRAs, etc., for electronic money transfer.

Tax, Section 401, 598, pg. 167. If you elect not to have health care, or cannot afford health care, the government will put a 2.5 percent tax on your income.

Free Healthcare, Section 152, pg. 50. However, health care to non-citizens (illegal aliens) will be free.

Section 2212, pg. 875. This section refers to the government education of medical students.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

Read the whole thing bud.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

When you are liberally biased, Im confident Fox News does seem like the station that started it all. And yet, the only reason Fox News gained so much exposure and popularity so fast was due to the amazing left-wing biased of virtually every other major news organization in this country. The idea that the media in this country was heavily left-biased existed long before Fox News came on the scene. The unfortunate part is they have let themselves become just as biased as a CNN, but only in the opposite direction.
Who cares if they plaster red, white and blue all over the screen. Its how they report the news, what they chose to report, and what they chose to not report that is important. They could plaster Soviet China colors all over the screen for all I care, so long as they would try harder to truly be 'fair and balanced'.

Ive often felt a big part of the problem is the media's inability to recognize their own bias, in either direction. New organizations are biased, and always will be, because they are controlled by human beings. The sooner we get away from these organizations trying to fool us into thinking they are unbiased, and simply being honest that they are indeed a liberal-biased organization, or a conservative-biased one, the sooner we could start sifting through what is fact, and what is opinion. Most news shows and papaers would tell you they work very hard to remain neutral, yet Im sure we all know this is untrue, and in fact, impossible. So when your entire philosophy is based on a lie, what can you expect to trickle down from it in the form of 10-second news bytes?

there is a big difference between a bias and a deliberate plan to manipulate public opinion and control the agenda.

If an extra marital affair didn't affect Clinton's ability to do his job, why should this same situation so greatly affect Sanford's ability? Its interesting that liberals are now blaming conservatives (his base) for the man's downfall as a viable candidate. Personally I think Sanford should not be considered, but then, imo our pres getting a hummer in the oval office was grounds for stepping down as well. In a country with more than 250 million people, we cant find a single honest person who will keep his dick (or her vag) in their pants for 4-8 years for the sake of the country's well being? Yes, we can. Those people just dont exist in the system we call being a professional politician.

No one is telling people not to vote for Sanford. If he thinks he still has the support of his base he is free to run and probably will if he believes this to be the case.

The people who elected Clinton didn't give a shit about his BJ but the people who would vote for Sanford care about infidelity.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Oh, and FYI good read........
Counseling, Section 1233, pg. 425. Upon reaching a certain age, you will be required to attend a counseling session on how to die, which includes different methods to help in this process. If you get a fatal illness such as cancer, you will need to be counseled again. There is a formula for rationing care determined by age and the proposed cost of the procedure to insure cost effectiveness. Government will determine the compensation of doctors.

Money, Section 163, pg. 59. This gives the government access to all of your financial information, checking and savings accounts, IRAs, etc., for electronic money transfer.

Tax, Section 401, 598, pg. 167. If you elect not to have health care, or cannot afford health care, the government will put a 2.5 percent tax on your income.

Free Healthcare, Section 152, pg. 50. However, health care to non-citizens (illegal aliens) will be free.

Compulsory Abortions, Section 1713, pg. 768.

Section 2212, pg. 875. This section refers to the government education of medical students.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

Read the whole thing bud.

Now i just think you're a troll.

You cant possibly be this stupid.

 

[lolumad over 10+ year member]

Well the point is they fired him not because he called out burgers, fries,chicken, and donuts...They fired him because he said eating at mcdonalds, kfc, and dunkin will kill your *** which is slander...he coulda downed chicken all he wanted to but dont fuq with the colonel...w3rd

More importantly, don't talk bad about establishments that local lawyers have a stake in. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

No sh!t, that is why the word IF was typed. You are a tard.

If they mandate that everyone has to cut off their own legs it would be bad too. But since no one is actually talking about doing that, it is completely irrelevant.

You wrote it because you believe it to be the case that this is what they're talking about doing.

 

[nastyaudioman 10+ year member]

Oh, and FYI good read........
Counseling, Section 1233, pg. 425. Upon reaching a certain age, you will be required to attend a counseling session on how to die, which includes different methods to help in this process. If you get a fatal illness such as cancer, you will need to be counseled again. There is a formula for rationing care determined by age and the proposed cost of the procedure to insure cost effectiveness. Government will determine the compensation of doctors.

Money, Section 163, pg. 59. This gives the government access to all of your financial information, checking and savings accounts, IRAs, etc., for electronic money transfer.

Tax, Section 401, 598, pg. 167. If you elect not to have health care, or cannot afford health care, the government will put a 2.5 percent tax on your income.

Free Healthcare, Section 152, pg. 50. However, health care to non-citizens (illegal aliens) will be free.

Section 2212, pg. 875. This section refers to the government education of medical students.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

Read the whole thing bud.

So does this really seem..... right? Remember, I just copy and pasted a few parts. Read the entire thing and you tell me what is and isn't right. It is ludacris and by far the biggest step to socialism ever by the USA.

Oh, and I LOVE the fact that illegals get free healthcare. When I do something "illegal", I get fined, go to jail, or prison. These fools get free heatlhcar and social security. Got to love this place throwing OUR money to everyone but US.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

lolhemad.