Kathaksung caught on camera

Well, I hope you enjoyed living in your shit pool called the Bush administration, because most of us didn't, and I sure as flaming hell would never want a Republican to try to siphon us out of it. You are a bore, sir.

 

Ah yeah .... I'm sure we all agree.

 

Hey Cydonia why is this?

The five states that are in the worst financial shape:

* Illinois
* New York,
* Connecticut
* California
* New Jersey

And the list of the five states in the best condition financially:

* Utah
* Nebraska
* Texas
* New Hampshire
* Virginia


So do we want to run the big show like:

* Illinois
* New York,
* Connecticut
* California
* New Jersey

Or should we take some notes from states like:

* Utah
* Nebraska
* Texas
* New Hampshire
* Virginia

For the first time since the Great Depression, Americans took more aid from the government than they paid in taxes.

Now ... let's look at the politics. The five states in the worst financial condition are solidly Democrat. They are the bluest of the blue. Of the three states in the best financial condition, three are solidly Republican; Utah, Nebraska and Texas. The other two lean Democrat, but only slightly.

The question, then, is why do heavily Democrat states seem to be in the poorest financial condition? According to Forbes, the problems in these Democrat-controlled states revolve around two facts ... stronger unions and more moochers. By more moochers I mean what Forbes refers to as "a stronger appetite for public programs." Stronger appetite for public programs? That means you have more people who are interested in using the government as an instrument of plunder (the moochers) than you have people who are interested in such arcane concepts as self-reliance and hard work.

Example? This from yesterday's Washing times: For the first time since the Great Depression, Americans took more aid from the government last year than they paid in taxes. Now just how long can we sustain this?

Sooner or later we're going to have to recognize that the proliferation of government sector unions and the growth of the moocher class are combining to bring this country to economic ruin. With unions you get less work for more money. With the moocher class you get no work - nothing productive - for vast sums of money. Productive American taxpayers pay the price.

Again (yup, I said this yesterday also), FDR was steadfastly opposed to government-sector unions. He had that right, but where is the politician today that has the nerve to bust these unions; to cut them off at the knees. Look at Greece, where the economy is in ruins. Perhaps it's important to know that over 50 percent of people with jobs in Greece work for the government, and most of them are represented by unions. Right now the unions are marching through the streets offering up threats and rhetoric as solutions to Greece's problems. Could that scene be repeated here?

From : http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2010/03/unions-and-red-ink.html

If you cannot reasonably and logically answer the questions regarding these FACTS just resort to accusing both me and Boortz in some demeaning fashion. Call me an asshole, jerk, mean guy cause I'm sure I'm to blame for it all. I mean we all know it is me who controls the laws of physics, human nature, and rules of economics. Were it not for assholes like me the world would be a Utopia.

 

Whatever.

 

nice well thought out,intellectual come back,dickface.

 

Remember the old adage: "Never wrestle with a pig; you just get dirty and the pig likes it." I won't waste any more of my time on some pissant will not see the damage his side is doing (and has done) and would give his right nut to kiss a Republican's ass.

I will comment no more on this, Tommyshitwit.

 

I half read that... I will tell you I know Neil on a personal level... and he is a great guy (with a few major crazy issues - you would surprised what he truly thinks... and what he says on a show. He has to keep his ratings and followers.

 

Nell? .... You mean Neal? That's cool he is a pretty straight shooter I do not agree with some of his more liberal positions but that's only say 5%

 

Joe, I don't have as much of an optimistic hope for our country as you do. You speak the truth when it comes to a government breeding dependency - I truly think it's far too late in the game to actually influence any real change for the better.

People are being trained to at first lean on the government, for support, then graduating to relying on the government... I don't need to tell you this, you already know. I think Ronald Reagan said it best when he stated that government is not the solution - it is the problem.

Another dead hero.

I fucking hope this nation wakes up before it's too late - we may not be seeing full-blown Socialism in our future, but it's offspring is already here.

 

Anyone ever thought of cooperatives as an alternative for public healthcare?

Let's assume a community gets together and sets up a fund for healthcare, the cooperative then goes to the healthcare provider or insurance provider and strikes a deal (guaranteed payments in exchange of lower prices). Only the individuals part of the cooperative benefit from the arangement, somewhat like a clubmembership. The members make payments into the coop monthly or quartely, in return, when a member gets sick his hospitalization is covered by the coop fund. At the end of the fiscal year whatever is left over in the fund is redistributed to its members based on past contributions. In essence, you become a shareholder in the cooperative.

The whole thing would be perfectly optional and a worthy alternative to insurance companies. Kinda like a neighborhood tax agreement, with returns on unspent money. Unlike insurance companies that pocket the profits, the cooperative gives something back and is not profit driven. That increases consumer benefits and lower costs by eradicating the need for advertising or market research.

I'm sure that there are ways to reach a compromise that would satisfy both parties. One thing is for sure, status quo cannot be maintained. American healthcare needs something different, whether it's a reform or a public option.

Food for thought anyway.

 

Yes Alabaster they certainly have as a matter of fact there have been various proposals that are good ones to increase competition also such as being able to have insurance from a provider across state lines. The problem is.....

The current party in control has been actively trying to sabotage the system all along they do not want it fixed they want it broke.

Some great alternative ideas have been proposed in both the House as well as the Senate. Nancy Pelosi controls one and Harry Reid controls the other. And both housed have REFUSED TO EVEN LOOK at the Republican proposals.

On top of that they have developed the bills they have in closed door secret sessions so they can use legalize terminology to hide all sorty of law that the public would not agree with and bury it in thousands and thousands of pages of filler to keep it hidden until it is law.

The media has allowed them to get away with it. About half the stupid population in the country goes around repeating the mantra that the Republicans are the party of "NO" but have proposed no solutions themselves.

Why?

Because that is the story the media puts out. :frown:

 

I think that over the years the democrats have proven themselves to be spineless idiots. Whenever they have power or control over one of the houses, they always find a way to step on their own dick. Maybe people are scared and worried to see a democratic president with the balls to see it through 'till the end. I have to admit that Obama isn't bowing down to anyone and that is a quality for any leader. People liked Bush's 'cowboy' talk and his decisive attitude, similar traits can be found in Obama.

Another thing, there is no such thing as 'socialized' healthcare. You read that right. It's a myth that countries like Canada and the UK have a nationalized healthcare. Let me explain. In a country where a product is said to be 'nationalized' or 'socialized', the control of that product belongs to the government. An example of such socialized product is the army, paid for by the people and controlled by the government. In Canada, the control of healthcare remains in the private sector. When you visit a clinic or a hospital, you are in fact visiting a private business with individuals earning a profit. The only 'public' aspect of the healthcare is the insurance. Rather than shopping around for the best company and worrying about making payments or being covered, the government provides you with the insurance. You make your premium payments through taxes, and in the end, the portion of healthcare paid for by Canadian citizens is lower than the average American citizen healthcare payments. But here in Canada we have 100% coverage where in the States it's below 70%. Look it up.

So really only the insurance is a public function, and even so, you still have the right to seek private healthcare if you wish. There is no law preventing you from privately paying a clinic or a hospital. It's all about choice. In the States right now you have no choice but to seek coverage from private insurance companies, I say that it's up to the citizens to decide what they want and if some feel better letting the government handling health insurance I say let them be. The democrats are all in favor of a public option. If you wish to remain with the private companies go right ahead, but the option of choosing the government should still exist. This will create competition and the insurance companies will have to provide better service or lose their customers, it's a reform through free-market competition. If the private companies do better than the government they will prosper nonetheless.

Sorry about the length, it turned into a kathaksung rant.

 

The public option does not encourage competition.

The option is so that the Government provides insurance at a loss and the insurance companies simply get out of the business they do not have the luxury of providing insurance at a loss for decades at a time.

 

There are goods that only a government can provide; the army, the police, firefighters, and relief efforts. Health care cannot rest on the principles of a profit-driven market alone. Insurance companies want to see a profit, so they do what any other firms do in their respective markets, they cut costs and expenditures. The problem is that these "costs" are in fact human lives.

Whenever an insurance firm pays out to you, they incur a loss. So it only makes sense to reduce these losses by paying out less than what they receive as payments. In a lifetime of premiums you cannot even come close to the actual cost of treating cancer or any major operations, so the insurance companies run at a loss from the beginning. As the population ages and the smokers get cancer or whatever, we see a rise in the demand for health care. The law of demand implies that a new price-demand equilibrium must be found, and it only goes up. The supply cannot be increased in the short-run (you can't build a hospital overnight to compensate for the demand), this has a double effect on the price. Demand goes up and supply is "frozen" in the short-run, this creates a shortage that has the effect of driving the price of health care through the roof. This is why health care cannot rest on the shoulders of a profit-driven market alone.

A government can run health care coverage at a lower cost because they have no need for advertising, market research, or a f*cking board of directors that demand six figure salaries. A government can get by at the break-even point just fine. In the end the small increase in taxes will be less than a lifetime of premiums, this means that the end user of the service (you) ends up paying less. Government also guarantees 100% coverage, something that the insurance firms cannot promise. I find it disgusting that millions are left incapable of getting minimal care just because they are poor or have a "pre-existing condition". It's hard to try and spread democracy and consider ourselves "civilized" when we kick the poor out of hospitals to the curb. What does that say about us?

 

So this is what they teach in Canadian economics.

The government does not have to advertise or have a six figure board of directors so can they run a more efficient school system?

Can the government more efficiently build a bridge?

Explore space?

Build roads?

Run healthcare?



Where do you study economics? Neverland?

 

Right right, so you would disagree that an increase in demand and shortage in supply increase prices? I've taken the most basic stuff in economics and applied it to the increase in insurance premium rates. The theory is sound, and I don't know what your schooling is but you better be a f*cking doctor to scoff at what I said.

That is a dumb reply to my point Joe. It's all about cost vs profitability, it has nothing to do with the educational system. Insurance companies spend money on advertisement and pay indecent salaries/dividends to its board members/shareholders. All of this takes money away from covering people or expending the firm's infrastructure. The government runs on a break-even system or non-profit, therefore they spend less on market research or salaries and more on covering people.

Another dumb reply, government doesn't build bridges and it doesn't run health care. It only run the insurance and coverage aspect of it. I've made a lengthy post all about the myth that government runs health care in Canada, when it only runs the insurance. Health care remains in the hands of private individuals and they still earn a profit, instead of getting paid by insurance firms they get paid by the government.

NASA is a government agency so I'm not too sure what point you're trying to get across.

See previous posts and replies.

What I'm taught in economics has nothing to do with my political opinions. I'm actually a progressive conservative and you know it. I just think that your system if f*cked up and that something has to be done about it, whether it's reform or government funded insurance.

 

Well click your heals together and come back to Kansas this is the real world and the government is not half as effecient as the private sector.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2005/04/Top-10-Examples-of-Government-Waste



Our cumulative running total of government waste is:

$1,230,956,867,592.00

 

Well click your heals together and come back to Kansas this is the real world and the government is not half as efficient as the private sector.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2005/04/Top-10-Examples-of-Government-Waste

http://www.hjta.org/tags/government-waste

Our cumulative running total of government waste is:

$1,230,956,867,592.00

http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Governmentwaste.htm

http://www.cagw.org/

 

Well yeah, government isn't as efficient as the private sector in a lot of ways. And there is a lot of wasting, but that's not a flaw inherit to governments. A properly managed government will spend little money and prevent corruption. You have to discern between your government and the government on an economic model. I always assume that the government is running at full capacity and at full efficiency. It's called Ceteris Paribus (pronounced kay-te-ris pay-ri-boos), it's a law of economics that govern assumptions. In order to make an educated guess you have to remove as many variables as possible, so I assume that the government isn't incompetent or wasteful. And usually they aren't, most governments are run pretty efficiently, the rest is just politics.

But my opinion on the subject is similar to yours. I believe that this kind of expansive change isn't a very good idea in this economic time. If I was american I would have voted against Obama, never liked him much.
But I also see a need for change; the people that fall between the cracks in the private insurance market end up on medicare. And that costs the government a lot of money. So to slash costs and save money in these times also mean to do something about the private insurance business. I think we can all agree on a reform of some sort.

 

By the way, the links you posted all lead to extremely conservative websites and anti-liberalism coalitions. It's even in the URLs.

Less biased references for your numbers would add weight to your posts. It's like you search for whatever fits your state of mind, you probably typed: "liberal government wastes" or "liberal spending" in Google.