Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Two key proposals to improve access to health insurance could reduce the ranks of the uninsured but cost $1 trillion over 10 years, according to preliminary estimates released Monday by the Congressional Budget Office. The estimates are the first in a series over the next few months that will attempt to quantify the costs and benefits of various health reform options. President Obama, citing the huge part health care spending plays in the economy, has made passing reform this year a top priority.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

MURPHY

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

1 trillion dollars for 16 million to get coverage of the 47 million supposedly not insured?

Is Obama friggin nuts?

So they want to destroy the present health care system.

Ignore the rising costs which is the problem.

Screw up Medicare--bring that to broken faster.

Obama needs to be fired!

that equates to three+- trillion for our uninsured...

In the end, we will find out that Obama and the Dems will do far more damage than Bush. The deficits being run up by Obama are what, twice (and some project three times) that of the 42 presidents combined.

So should we just leave these people without insurance? Just because you got yours fuck them right?

"I will pay for this with "chump change"

--- Obama ---

I'm one of those uninsured. If Obama wants to give me free insurance, I'll take it. It's the prisoners' dilemma writ large: my taxes will be going to cover all the other uninsureds--may as well get in on the party.

I think it has already been stated that the CBO report is incomplete and it was the republicans that made this incomplete report public for political gain. The same republicans who have not offered any other opinion than NO! The same republicans that released a budget with no numbers. Why do republicans hate America?

I support universal health coverage for all US citizens. A healthy country is a productive

This is not universal health care.

And it will not lower costs.

Prolix follows the party koolaid. Can you think for yourself? I mean that in a nice way. The CBO is incomplete because it is too conservative.

More liberty gone out the window.

This will only ration services and the cost is out of control.

#8 | Posted by MURPHY

I am in the insurance business and an Independent, I have never been affiliated with either major party.

I see that premiums are no longer affordable and benefits have been cut to the bone. Insurance affordability is one of the reasons our economic recovery will be slow. By alleviating people of premiums they can no longer afford, people will be able to put money back into the economy at large.

Simple concepts here.

I am not simply a party before people kind of guy. You on the other hand are

This will only ration services and the cost is out of control.

#8 | Posted by MURPHY

Don't you think private insurance companies ration services? And their costs are out of control?

Hey, enough about health care, we need that money to blow people to smitherins with. First things first, who knows how much longer we can print the stuff.

"By alleviating people of premiums they can no longer afford, people will be able to put money back into the economy at large.

Simple concepts here."

How does health care get paid for? Is it free? From your over simplification, health care is going to cost the same. Who foots the bill?

Muphy puts forth a prefectly reasonable question, as you indirectly emphasize, its costs that are the problem. So why not address costs to lower the premiums, so poeple will be able to put money back into the economy at large.

Simple concepts here.

#12 | Posted by AndreaMackris

I have read many different options, The one I agree with the most is an additional 3% increase in payroll taxes with no caps or exclusions.

www.democracyforamerica.com

FTA -

Whether for profit or non profit, the private health insurance industry is lucrative. In fact, of the $1.8 trillion private health insurance industry, 31% goes directly to private health insurance industry administrative costs and income. So, for every US health care dollar spent by privately insured Americans, an average of 31 cents goes to the US private health insurers' administration and income, or approximately $580 billion annually.

But What do I know, Right?

#12 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Did you see that stat?

31% of all our premiums DO NOT go towards health care. That is why we pay so much...

Wanna guess what the admin fees for Medicare are?

Look it up I dare you...

I see that premiums are no longer affordable and benefits have been cut to the bone.

The nature of insurance (quasi-socialist?) means that the most reliable solution to high rates is to broaden the base of coverage.

The actuarial solution to high insurance rates is almost always to sell more insurance. Intentionally restricting the covered cohort opens the possibility of a mathematical death spiral.

Insurance works best when everyone has it. Then cost containment can proceed in a rational fashion.

#1 | Posted by MURPHY

Serious question Murphy..Do you think there is a problem with healthcare? I agree that the current plan coming from Obama sucks. There is NO viable plan from the repubs either. Rather than do nothing but crack on the with the partisanship, what would you like to see done to fix healthcare?

#15 | Posted by Prolix247

Why are you convinced that once they have a virtual monopoly on health care that their admin fees will not increase? Right now they say their about to go broke.


In the end, we will find out that Obama and the Dems will do far more damage than Bush. The deficits being run up by Obama are what, twice (and some project three times) that of the 42 presidents combined.

#3 | Posted by sawdust

Actually, the "damage" that Bush did, if he did it... The Federal Reserve printed money to buy bank stock and the money went into the banks' reserves to keep them from insolvency during the changing regulations.

The money never got into the money supply.

Now, the banks are paying the money back.

Moreover, if Obama spends the money that's paid back, he will be putting it into the money supply.

Therefore, Obama will now own the problem.

If he puts the money back into the Fed and destroys it, then the problem goes away.

Murphy works in the insurance industry she only cares about profit not the american people

It's a great concept - but insanely expensive. I'm torn on this issue.

It should be fixed but I don't know how we would go about doing that. I think one of the reasons it is so expensive is due to all the lawsuits? Is that right?

10K per year per person?

So a family of 4 costs 40K?

So should we just leave these people without insurance? Just because you got yours fuck them right?

#4 | Posted by rastaninja

How many are you paying insurance for? You got the big heart, belly up and pay.

#18 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

There will be a public and private option to attempt to keep premiums and costs in check.

so how many people don't have insurance?42 million,47million,to days quote is 50,million and does this include the 15 million illegals or my son and his friends who can afford it but would rather spend the money on skiing trips.

FTA -

Whether for profit or non profit, the private health insurance industry is lucrative. In fact, of the $1.8 trillion private health insurance industry, 31% goes directly to private health insurance industry administrative costs and income. So, for every US health care dollar spent by privately insured Americans, an average of 31 cents goes to the US private health insurers' administration and income, or approximately $580 billion annually.

But What do I know, Right?

#14 | Posted by Prolix247

But, still this is not the problem.

The major problem is malpractice.

Ask any doctor.

So much waste goes into avoiding malpractice claims.

not to mention the cost of malpractice insurance premiums.

The administrative costs of insurance companies and medical practices is secondary to this cost.

There would have to be a fundamental change in tort laws and procedures to fix this.

That's the way I understood it. It's so expensive because of malpractice lawsuits.

Prolix 247,

Before you crow on, you might want to read up on the subject a bit.

www.cahi.org

Also, you can't limit a benefit to US Citizens. As soon as you do that the libs, the illegals and the lobbies for the illegals will riot, claim some sort of 14th Amendment violation and demand to get the benefits. Think about the welfare system and other health care benefits that cater to illegals only because it is "discrimination" to turn them away.

Sniper we both need to pay more

#24 | Posted by Prolix247

Can you give me an example on the federal level, where the public can compete with the government on a level playing field?


So should we just leave these people without insurance? Just because you got yours fuck them right?

#4 | Posted by rastaninja

I am sick of this lying attitude!

You fool!

Mot of the uninsured don't want to pay the premiums to protect their families.

THEY ARE DEADBEATS, YOU FUCK!

Now, the real problem is that there is a very small number of people who can't get insurance because they have a condition that no insurance company will cover or they are diabled and can't work to buy it or they simply don't make enough to pay for the premiums. This number is a small fraction of the 48 million who DON'T have health insurance.

Anyway, I am for revising Medicare/caid to allow these people to get covered without having to sell off all of their assets to get it, especially for the people who are sick or have a condition that prevents them from getting health insurance.

10K per year per person? So a family of 4 costs 40K?

#22 | Posted by eberly
I'm not sure where you went to school but..... it is $62,500 per person. So a family of 4 costs $250,000 a year. Your tax dollers at work.

I heard on the news last night there is a government program to give cell phones to the poor. The gov pays $10 for $3 worth of service.

So should we just leave these people without insurance? Just because you got yours fuck them right?

#4 | Posted by rastaninja

Again, I am stunned how stpid some people are!

The health insurance is affordable and these people will not buy it to cover their kids.

BUT THEY WANT ME TO!!!

Yes, FUCK YOU very much Rasta. Fuck YOU!

Again, I am stunned how stpid some people are!
#33 | Posted by Eddie| Flag: You're Telling Us?

I heard on the news last night there is a government program to give cell phones to the poor. The gov pays $10 for $3 worth of service.

ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?!?!

I'm off to look into that!

The nature of insurance (quasi-socialist?)

I think the types of insurance we have now largely originated from the Mob type protection rackets.

Malpractice...bullshit.

You take someones kidney out when it was suppose to be an appendix your ass should be sued and for as much as the individual is capable of getting.

I just laugh at these righties,.....tariffs bad bad bad, but then think they are good good good when the tariff protects the rich through mistakes.

Semtex when your son gets I'll will you laugh when he can't afford treatment? Eddie you greedy ass, good insurance is not cheap. My insurance would be 490.00 a month if I wasn't in the union

I don't care what it costs. In this country health care should absolutely be a right. Goes against the standard Party of No I-Me-Mine mantra. Now, that would be some change even they might recognize.

I can clearly see this article is bullshit, just have to wonder why these righties here can't.

You take someones kidney out when it was suppose to be an appendix your ass should be sued and for as much as the individual is capable of getting.

True! In that case yes!

So lets change it to the frivolous malpractice lawsuits.

That only works out to $67,500 per person. I can see now why we decided to put this guy on the job. Between Tax Dodgin' Timmy running Treasury, and Cost Cuttin' Barack running health care, we'll be back in the black in no time flat.

this totals sixty-two thousand five hundred dollars per person. buehler - buehler.

what DOES one trillion dollars look like?:

www.dailycognition.com

RiR why in the hell would you not have INS? Are you stupid? One accident and u are wiped out

Nanc only cares about her family pay her no mind

I'm not sure where you went to school but..... it is $62,500 per person. So a family of 4 costs $250,000 a year. Your tax dollers at work.

I heard on the news last night there is a government program to give cell phones to the poor. The gov pays $10 for $3 worth of service.

I'm sorry, the cost was for 10 years, not 1.

You guys WANT someone like George W Bush in charge of healthcare?

THAT is the BIG problem with federal government run healthcare---some freakin' politician YOU don't agree with will be making decisions that directly affect you and yours.

Sniper we both need to pay more

#29 | Posted by rastaninja

Speak for yourself. My fed tax was over $27k last year. That is way more than my 'FAIR SHARE'.

Canada's healthcare spending is expected to reach $171.9 billion, or $5,170 per person, in 2008. Health expenditures are expected to be 10.7% of the gross domestic product. Hospitals account for the largest segment in spending at $48.1 billion, however, this amount is declining. According to the OECD, spending was second amongst other countries, behind the United States and ahead of Norway, Switzerland and Luxembourg[3].

100 billion a year for 16 million is pretty close to 171 billion for 30 million. Still cheaper than what the US spends per person now....

The United States spends the most in the world on health care about $2 trillion annually. Yet, the U.S. ranks 37th in world in terms of the quality and fairness of its health care, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

THAT is the BIG problem with federal government run healthcare---some freakin' politician YOU don't agree with will be making decisions that directly affect you and yours.

#48 | Posted by kirk

Exactly! I don't like the current administration but as much as I don't like them I can imagine things being worse under someone else.

I could be a product of public schools, but isn't the number $6,250? just asking. I pay more for that as a healthy adult in insurance. I'm positive that if they go with this, there will be rationed care up the ass. Old folk'll and those who need lots of care are going to be given drugs and allowed to die. Bet ya, bet ya.

You know, this might just work, if we were not responsible for thugs getting shot during gang wars, etc., and illegals assuming they have free medical care, not to mention the already useless pos americans who only want to milk the system. Obama is right, but only for honest people with a set of values that includes not screwing your society. God knows, we get enough of that from our leaders!!

For every dollar the gov't spends they steal it from the private sector.

Anyone: Cite the section of the Constitution that bestows upon the Congress the authority to enact legislation for the purpose of paying the personal expenses of any person. Medical expenses are personal expenses just as are clothing expenses, entertainment expenses, etc. Medical care is not an enumerated right under the Constitution.

Serious question Murphy..Do you think there is a problem with healthcare? I agree that the current plan coming from Obama sucks. There is NO viable plan from the repubs either. Rather than do nothing but crack on the with the partisanship, what would you like to see done to fix healthcare?

#17 | Posted by Whatsleft

I see people need to have skin in the game.

The people in 'poverty' are morbidly obese. How does that happen?

Everyone needs to buy their own policy and where ever they go it goes with them. And I mean everyone. Take $100 from everyone's paycheck per month. They are then covered. They can go into the wheel of carriers to be insured. All health carriers share with these insureds.

Everyone needs to have that cost--a basic catastrophic policy tax deductible.

It needs to cover 100% and they would have a high deductible--like $2500--for the family. Physicals should be a minimal cost.

Medicare and Medicaid is broke in 7 years. All these Dem pols were screaming at Bush when he wanted to cut the budget--Teddy and Pelosi (2006). But now Obama wants to cut and everything is ok.

And the Reps do have a plan.

When Obama screw up our health care we can still go to China for our medical problems. No waiting list in China for body parts.

Here--

House GOP leaders pledged their plan would lower health care costs, improve the private marketplace, and expand accessibility and they promised to keep government bureaucrats out of the process. The Republican plan allows for dependents to stay on their parents' health plans until they are 25 years of age and provides a small business tax credit to employers who offer health care.

Read more: www.politico.com

#56 | Posted by MURPHY

they're not being allowed to present it.

www.reuters.com

which doesn't seem to be that much better than this one on the surface:

www.huffingtonpost.com

Everyone needs to have that cost--a basic catastrophic policy tax deductible.

It needs to cover 100% and they would have a high deductible--like $2500--for the family. Physicals should be a minimal cost.

Damn!

Will miracles never cease?

Murph and I agree on something.

The solution is universal coverage with everyone required to pay something for it unless they are truly disabled and indigent.

It broadens the risk base, guarantees a steady revenue flow and lets insurance work they way it is designed to.

Good job, Murph!

Here from Newt Gingrich--

I know some folks don't like him--but he is the smartest man on the planet.

He gives the outline on the problems with health care--this was in 2006--and it's the same problems today.

www.ontheissues.org

We need an alternative to the harsh and unfair practices of the health insurance industry. The right approach recognizes that we are all part of the solution. We need a guarantee of quality, affordable health care for all of us. We need government to be an advocate for us and set and enforce the rules so insurance companies put our health care before their profits. We need to be able to keep the health care that we have, and we need the choice of a public health insurance plan so we're not left at the mercy of the same private insurance companies that have gotten us into this mess.

------

If you think rationing is bad under private HC--wait till you see what the gov't does.

Why don't we call a spade a, uh , ah a spade? what they fail to tell you is that 38 million of the 45 million are illegal criminal aliens and the other 7 million are those who have elected not to hav health coverage, why those no goot sniveling healthy Americans, how dare they be healthy? What will the sick say when they find out that there are healthy people in America? The gaul of it all.

hmmm 1 Trillion. How much was that unnecessary war of choice in Iraq again?

The gaul of it all

The goddamn French have got nothing to do with it!

They want to destroy the HC system for 120 million Americans.

Most of the people without insurance are making 50k and they don't want to pay for health insurance.

The gov't makes everyone buy car insurance--by law.

They should do the same for health care. And make it tax deductible.

Concentrate on prevention. If you catch the illness early--billions are saved--like diabetes.

Make a week--maybe a month--of "Get Your Physical Month Campaign". PSA ads would go well. Let the gov't pay for the physicals.

No more denials for pre-existing conditions--if they are high risk--throw the person into the pool of carriers--they all will get their share.

Doesn't sound democratic--but the tyranny plan by Obama is worse.

How much was that unnecessary war of choice in Iraq again?

#63 | Posted by donnerboy

All wars are choice--I bet you are ok with the attacking Afghanistan.

Well--hello--they didn't attack us either.

And this plan will cost 10 billion a month for 10 years.

And you criticize the war in Iraq which was a measley 1 billion a month.

And you criticize the war in Iraq which was a measley 1 billion a month.

Uses Vernon's calculator.

You've got Hospitals livid over cuts to medicare and medicaid payments, you've got the AMA saying it won't support a public government insurance program, unions and most Americans won't take too kindly to their health benefits being taxed, now its going to cost trillions to cover them all.

I kind of get the feeling like this is going to be for President Obama what Social Security reform was for President Bush. Yeah, its a good idea and something needs to be done, but it probably won't.

Just the facts Mama, Bushes War of choice has already in 7 1/2 years cost near One Trillion Dollars, what did this fucking War benefit the Country? So you Repubs can find the money when it calls to kill BROWN PEOPLE on the other side of the World. But no way to insure Americans for the next ten years....FUCKING LOUSY REPUBLICANS SON OF A BITCHES!!!!!!

Thats $6,200 per year for those he plans to cover. Of course government estimates are always low.

How will this get hospitals to lower prices? They are for profit companies. Does Obama plan to take them over also? Will he name a Czar to be sure doctors don't get paid too much?

More democrat bullshit that won't work.

I take it that there is no one on this site that is educated in, or cares about, the restraints imposed on the Congress by the Constitution. This country that used to be is history.

I think it is foolish for Americans to argue about what sort of health care system we should have without really knowing what other countries have and how well they work.
The WHO did a survey in 2000 which rated France #1 and America #37. So, are the French going broke with such a generous system????
I did some googling...

"The Cost Of Care

It's expensive to provide this kind of health care and social support. France's health care system is one of the most expensive in the world.

But it is not as expensive as the U.S. system, which is the world's most costly. The United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. In 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was $3,300."

www.npr.org

This NPR article is very enlightening about the French health care system and, surprisingly, it is not what most of us think it is. It is a combination of government with private insurance companies and the French are very happy with it and think the British and CAnadian systems are poor compared to it. They demand the same "choices" as Americans do, it just delivers much cheaper.
Perhaps you should take a minute and read about it because it seems as though Barack Obama apparently already has because it is virtually what he is proposing. It also will quell the idiotic scare tactics of the Republicans who claim that the government option is an attempt to bankrupt the private insurance companies. Truely a short but informative read.

All wars are choice--I bet you are ok with the attacking Afghanistan.

Well--hello--they didn't attack us either.

Hmm that is debatable as to whether they (Afghanistan) "attacked" us. They were complicit in the attack. Granted the hijackers did come from SA but they were trained by AQ from Afghanistan. And they harbored Bin Laden.

And honestly I don't believe in any war unless they are attacking us but at least Afghanistan was justified in that the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden and allowing Al Queda to train more criminals to attack us again and were even "laughing" in our faces about it.

Iraq on the other hand was truly a war based on the BIG LIE and entirely avoidable. The entire world supported us in our efforts in Afghanistan. Not so much in Iraq right? THAT should tell you something.

And so the point is IF we had taken a more reasonable approach to the Saddam regime (and outlasted it instead of attacking it) we would have that trillion dollars readily available to us to provide Health Care to millions of Americans WHO NEED IT.

As one of the most advanced civilized nations on the planet don't our law abiding citizens deserve at least the same kind of health care our prisoners get? I wonder why it is they have a "right" to health care but regular hard working law abiding folk do not.

"This country that used to be is history."

#71 | Posted by gluon at 2009-06-17 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Just noticed.

But then any gluon's memory time constant is the time constant for re-hadronization.

I'm faster.

So should we just leave these people without insurance? Just because you got yours fuck them right?

#4 | Posted by rastaninja at 2009-06-17 06:27 AM

You're the biggest dummy on here dummy. Use your computer for more than blogging.

Young people have the money to buy insurance policies, but they're invincible and would rather spend their cash on booze n babes, cell phones and rides etc. etc. etc.

Also many of the insured are only temporarily uninsured and have over extended themselves with more home, autos etc. than the really need and insurance isn't/wasn't a priority for them.

Use your computer to educate yourself and stop believing all the bs you read on blogs, newspaper reporters with an agenda etc. etc.

Stop being a dummy, dummy.

We'd all be better off if no one had insurance. Over 25 percent of the cost of health care is administration.

Stop being a dummy, dummy.

I'd bet if you look at the people you know and truly recognize and observe reality you know a few people from the examples I posted above. My guess is you're one of them, dummy.

DONNERBOY, I too supported the war in Afghanistan, I now regret it because it was a false dichotomy.
The choice presented to us was whether to invade or not. It should have been whether to use covert means to take out Al Quaeda or not, or to use police powers if any Al Quaeda members left Afghanistan or any other imaginative way of dealing with the problem. By invading we didn't catch Al Quaeda and we did take on the responsiblity of defending Afghans from their own former government the Taliban. I was wrong, most of us were wrong.
We allowed emotion to make our decision.
We should have used our brains.

I'm one of those uninsured. If Obama wants to give me free insurance, I'll take it. It's the prisoners' dilemma writ large: my taxes will be going to cover all the other uninsureds--may as well get in on the party.

#6 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-06-17 12:24 PM

I'm suprised to see you type such a statement. I hope you aren't serious. The, "if you can't beat em join em" syndrome is no way to go through life.

"I'm one of those uninsured."

RisR might be momentarily uninsured but he isn't poor, he's just shopping for a better plan or something. He is also a shill for everything Republican so don't believe anything he says, ever.
If he makes a claim, Google it, cuz half the time it is bull shit.

Muphy puts forth a prefectly reasonable question, as you indirectly emphasize, its costs that are the problem. So why not address costs to lower the premiums, so poeple will be able to put money back into the economy at large.

Simple concepts here.

#12 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2009-06-17 06:02 PM

People desire insurance that pays 100 percent for a hangnail not catastrophic insurance. If everyone carried catastrophic insurance and paid for all the other bs that is covered under the present system things would be much different.

Anyone: Cite the section of the Constitution that bestows upon the Congress the authority to enact legislation for the purpose of paying the personal expenses of any person. Medical expenses are personal expenses just as are clothing expenses, entertainment expenses, etc. Medical care is not an enumerated right under the Constitution.

#55 | Posted by gluon at 2009-06-17 07:58 PM

The constitution is a living, breathing document and has no basis in reality til we decide what reality is.

Got it?

Stop being a dummy, dummy.

We'd all be better off if no one had insurance.

Self-retorting retort.

The truth?

We'd all be much better off if everyone had insurance.

Then we could have legitimate arguments about level of care, since no one class of people would consistently 'fall through the cracks' by being completely uninsured.

The law currently requires payment of SS premiums and FICA. The framework for mandatory health insurance is already there.

Let's use it and spread our health cost risk over the entire population, then work to reduce costs on an equitable basis across the board.

That's insurance working at it's best.

No, we'd all be better off if no one had insurance. We'd buy the services for what they're truly worth. Markets would vary from region to region, administration costs would plumet and people wouldn't run the damn doctor the first time they had to blow their nose.

"We'd all be better off if no one had insurance.

I recognize your logic and if doctors could be educated for free then I would agree with you. Perhaps free education would be a better, long term answer. It would probably be much cheaper to educate doctors (and other professions too) for free and require a certain number of years of service treating those who can't afford health care insurance than to make them pay for their education and then need huge incomes to pay off the loans they incur.

We'd buy the services for what they're truly worth.

Say you make $50K a year.

You find out you have leukemia, which is treatable at a cost of $500K.

When your employer finds out you have it, you are fired.

Still like your free-market choices?

Guess you didn't take the time to read this post.

People desire insurance that pays 100 percent for a hangnail not catastrophic insurance. If everyone carried catastrophic insurance and paid for all the other bs that is covered under the present system things would be much different.

#79 | Posted by Washboard at 2009-06-17 10:19 PM

Anyone: Cite the section of the Constitution that bestows upon the Congress the authority to enact legislation for the purpose of paying the personal expenses of any person. Medical expenses are personal expenses just as are clothing expenses, entertainment expenses, etc. Medical care is not an enumerated right under the Constitution.

LOL!

And what does this have to do with the constitution?

Welfare? I am not sure but it doesn't always mean poor.

I'm sorry you have leukemia. I don't know what you do for a living, however, if you didn't miss large portions of time from your job I don't know why you couldn't have reached some sort of resolution with your employer to keep your job.

People desire insurance that pays 100 percent for a hangnail not catastrophic insurance. If everyone carried catastrophic insurance and paid for all the other bs that is covered under the present system things would be much different.

LOL!

People can't even afford the hangnail, and the prescriptions but I guess you're right....too funny.

"People desire insurance that pays 100 percent for a hangnail not catastrophic insurance. If everyone carried catastrophic insurance and paid for all the other bs that is covered under the present system things would be much different."

First you'd have to define "catastrophic." A diabetic needs health care but he/she can live a fairly normal life with appropriate care. So is diabetes "catastrophic." Is pregnancy "catastrophic."
What if you son breaks his leg???

If American ever considered the reduction in cost of other insurances if we had real national health care they would realize that it would be the best bargain of our lives. Even medical malpractice would drop in cost by a huge percentage because all of the care necessitated by the doctor's error would be covered by our health care plan.
There is a good reason EVERY OTHER MAJOR COUNTRY has a national health care plan....because it bankrupts your country if you don't.

Everyone needs to buy their own policy and where ever they go it goes with them. And I mean everyone. Take $100 from everyone's paycheck per month. They are then covered. They can go into the wheel of carriers to be insured. All health carriers share with these insureds.

#56 | Posted by MURPHY

Thank you for an honest answer. You do realize of course that what you are proposing is universal healthcare, with a government enforcement of a requirement that everyone participate and that premiums should be withheld from paychecks (Even if said premiums are then turned over to private insurers, isn't that pretty much the definition of a tax?). Your proposing that the government determine the basic premium and force coverage for all necessary procedures. As you've just proposed higher taxes to fix healthcare, I have to say that I would think most people expect to pay more taxes as part of the solution anyway.

Since your plan is essentially universal healthcare I can't imagine it being very popular with your fellow Republicans.

Much of your plan does have merit but there are a lot of details that would need to be considered. A few examples:

Not everyone gets a paycheck.

Many families may not be able to afford $100 per each family member, especially at Wal-Mart wages for example.

I find it highly unlikely that $100.00 will be anywhere near sufficient.

And the Reps do have a plan.

Your links give very few details to any such plan. If the Reps do have a plan and the Dems indeed won't allow it to be aired, the Reps should take it directly to the people. I find the Reps claim to have a plan less than inspiring given their past volumes of rhetoric without details.

#73 | Posted by donnerboy

DB--first it was not a big lie. Everyone knew Saddam had WMD and he was supporting terrorists as much as Afghanistan.

Sending suicide bomber families 25k, providing harbor in the north and they were able to train without concern by Saddam.

There were what 30 resolutions over 12 years and sanctions against Saddam--never changed him and his prodigal sons were worse and would have been the next to take over.

And it's funny you should bring up the HC for prisoners--I agree---stop all the doctors and dentists at the prisons. They should be charged for insurance too.

People are choosing not to buy insurance.

The system promotes catastrophes and not prevention.

Take it out of the person's pay.

Tort reform all the way.

Some retards on this issue just can't learn anything.

I could rip into every stupid idea but there is no point.

The retards who post them will just show up tomorrow and repost them.

But then again......... They are retards

It's only health care....not health care coverage.

Take the time to read it.

#90 | Posted by Whatsleft

You can get coverage for a Cat policy with 100% coverage (not the 80/20)--higher deductible like $2500 to $3500 for $120.00 a month.

The kids are $70.00 each per month.

-----------
And the premiums would be tax deductible at the end of the year.

Everyone has to pay something--otherwise they won't care. Not that many of them care now.

And what do you think the Obama plan is?

It is the gov't destroying the health care system as we know it. Not to mention 2 million more job layoffs.

The 'rationing' will be 100 times worse. People will die just like they do in the UK and Canada because of waiting lists.

And Wal-Mart is starting to have Doc in the Box at their stores and their employees get to go to the same.

"And what do you think the Obama plan is?"

Murphy, obviously, will not read links supplied to her.
Murphy, you make stupid accusations, don't you ever tire of looking like a dope???

Murphy you are out of your mind.

I pay 200 a month for my entire family and you want 100 a paycheck, guess I will ask to have one paycheck a year.

Danni--you are a statist pure and simple.

You wouldn't listen to someone against Obama--you cover your ears and yell blah blah blah.

The CBO is pretty clear and of course Obama says it is not complete.

Meaning the numbers are worse.

"Everyone needs to buy their own policy and where ever they go it goes with them. And I mean everyone. Take $100 from everyone's paycheck per month. They are then covered. They can go into the wheel of carriers to be insured. All health carriers share with these insureds."

OH, Murphy, there are so many Americans who would so welcome having health care insurance for $100.00 per month. Your plan sounds like SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Thank you but I prefer the French model.

"You wouldn't listen to someone against Obama--you cover your ears and yell blah blah blah."

I will listen to any intelligent criticism of the president. I haven't seen one in any of your posts.
That is not to say that he is above criticism and I have, myself, criticized him. However, he is basically trying to do what he was elected to do against rather strong opposition.
I do wonder though, do you really think that his opposition does so with your welfare in mind???
I hope not, I would hate to think you are that foolish.

#96 | Posted by moneywar

I am picking a number of $100.00. make it $50.00! Shit everyone should pay something!

If 47 freakin million people paid $100.00 a month--that would pay the vast majority of the cost.

What is the math on that????

Amd make physicals free. Some standard physical with blood work and catch things early.

There is no way to pay for this boondoogle--Medicare/caid is going broke in 7 years.

We need the cost to come down.

-------
And Money--how many in the family for $200.00?

Danni--you are a statist pure and simple.

...
#97 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-06-17 11:09 PM | Reply | Flag: You're no Dagny Taggart

Danni--why don't you go sign up for Anthem or go to healthinsurance.com and put in your information for a basic CAT policy--100% (not 80/20) and pick the deductible and you will see the price differences.

And you get your doctor.

The higher the deductible the lower the premium.

All this nonsense about costing 12,000 a year for insurance is a lie.

#101 | Posted by nullifidian

That was really funny!

Murphy thinks America is too stupid to do what every other civilized nation on the planet has done. Murphy isn't concerned with saving American lives. Fetuses, on the other hand, are worth billions.

I don't know why you couldn't have reached some sort of resolution with your employer to keep your job.

#87 | Posted by Washboard

Maybe the boss just wanted to be a dick and fire you because the leukemia would hinder productivity.

Speak for yourself. My fed tax was over $27k last year. That is way more than my 'FAIR SHARE'.

#49 | Posted by Sniper

That tax cuts stimulate the economy is taken as a matter of faith, but the brute facts suggest otherwise.

The Myth

Do tax cuts stimulate the economy?

Yes. Tax cuts allow people to keep more of their own money. Therefore, they have more to invest and spend into the economy, and they have more money to start business and create jobs, therefore also helping to stimulate the economy. -- Yahoo Answers

I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they'll recognize tax cuts work. They have made a difference. -- George W. Bush

The Realities

The brute facts are these:

o Large income tax cuts are followed by a bubble and then a crash.

o High income taxes correlate with economic growth.

o Income tax increases are followed by economic growth.

o Moderate income tax cuts are followed by a flat economy.

o All of this is especially true as applied to the top tax rates, the amount paid on income that exceeds the highest bracket.

The Three Great Tax Cuts: Boom, Bubble, Crash

1. Hoover

During World War I, the top marginal tax rate went up to 73 percent -- not the highest ever, but pretty high.

In 1922, a series of rate cuts began. Down to 56 percent, 46 percent, and finally, in 1925, it went down to 25 percent.

The stock market took off. There was a boom. But the boom was a bubble.

It was followed by the Great Crash of 1929.

There were bank failures and the Great Depression.

2. Reagan

From Franklin Roosevelt's second term all the way through to Jimmy Carter -- from 1936 until 1982 -- the top rate was in the 70 to 92 percent range.

Then along came Reagan in 1981. In 1982, he cut that down to 50 percent.

The economy went into "the worst recession since the Great Depression."

His supporters argued that it was all Carter's fault and that the new policies would take time to work. The tax cuts stayed in place. In 1987, there was another round of tax cuts. They took the top rate down to 38.5 percent. It would stimulate the economy!

There was a boom. But it was a bubble.

Then, in October 1987, there was a crash -- the worst since '29. It was called Black Monday.

Much of the bubble money had gone into -- ohmigod! -- real estate.

Suddenly there were bank failures! More than during the Great Depression. There was a Savings & Loan crisis! There had to be a bailout.

3. Bush II

George Bush came into office with the healthiest, post powerful economy in American history.

He immediately cut taxes. The top marginal rate went down from 39 percent to 35 percent. He also cut capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes. A recession immediately ensued. But he persisted.

Eventually, the economy began to grow.

Employment didn't grow very much. Median income went down. The stock market was pretty flat. But the financial sector -- and only the sector -- grew.

Which should have made it obvious to someone, that it was a bubble.

There was a crash.

Bank failures. A bailout.

The three worst economic disasters in American history follow the exact same pattern: tax cuts, boom, bubble, crash.

High Taxes Correlate with Strong Economic Growth

The four periods of greatest economic growth in American history, by pretty much any measure, are:

o World War II (1941-45): top tax rate varied from 88 to 94 percent

o Post-war under Truman and Eisenhower: top rate bounced around from 81 to 92 percent

o Clinton years: Clinton raised Bush's top rate of 31 percent to 37 percent and then to 39 percent

o First two Roosevelt administrations (1933-40). When Roosevelt came into office, Hoover had already raised the tax rate in 1932 from 25 percent to 63 percent. Roosevelt raised it again in 1936 to 79 percent.

A lot of ink, sweat and ranting have gone into proving that the New Deal did not end the Great Depression. Nonetheless, the economy grew 58 percent from the time Roosevelt came into office and when the United States entered the war.

Some of that anti-New Deal rhetoric also claims that the recovery began under Hoover. Perhaps, but to say so is also to say that it began with tax hikes.

www.alternet.org

Tax cuts hurt the economy Sniper, Tax increases helps it.

Danni,

RisR might be momentarily uninsured but he isn't poor, he's just shopping for a better plan or something. He is also a shill for everything Republican

Are you talking about the guy who constantly announced during the run-up to the general that he was voting 3rd party in lieu of McCain?


So should we just leave these people without insurance? Just because you got yours fuck them right?

#4 | Posted by rastaninja at 2009-06-17 06:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

How much of your personal net income (percentage or dollar amount) would you be willing to donate annually to provide insurance for those who otherwise would have none?

I have read many different options, The one I agree with the most is an additional 3% increase in payroll taxes with no caps or exclusions.

#13 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2009-06-17 06:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Which doesn't reduce costs at all; just passes them on to everyone working for a living. The medical profession and the insurance industry (your industry as you admit) definitely would benefit from that approach. Would that mean a raise for you? How nice.

Semtex when your son gets I'll will you laugh when he can't afford treatment?

that's the point the government will pay for anyone making less than $88,000 a year or if your sick and can't work medicaid will pay it for you,so if your single and young go skiing.

The reason health care is more expensive in the United States versus, say, France, is that we're willing to pay more. A home in San Francisco will cost more than one in Toledo or Detroit, but nobody's asking for government to move in and reduce the housing costs in downtown Manhattan: it's because the residents there are willing to pay more. There is a cost to having the most innovative medicines and technologies: virtually all the innovative pharmaceutical companies are here in the States, for example. How many French companies exist like Human Genome Sciences, or Novavax, or Sequenom, or Savient, or Genzyme? Not to mention, there is an enormous drag on the system from defensive medicine, practiced to avoid lawsuits which the Obama plan does nothing about, and which doesn't exist in your France's and your Canada's.

But let's give Obama what he wants. He has a mandate, don't you know? And if you oppose him, you must be a racist. For the past 30 years, government has been "helping" with our cost of college--have the costs gone down? Or up?

Government IS the problem. But nobody will listen. And big money will be made shorting the HMO's and, eventually, 10-year treasuries. It's too big for Curious Obama to have a clue about.

o First two Roosevelt administrations (1933-40). When Roosevelt came into office, Hoover had already raised the tax rate in 1932 from 25 percent to 63 percent. Roosevelt raised it again in 1936 to 79 percent.

#107 | Posted by rastaninja

Rasta, Rasta, Rasta,

The economy did not begin to get better until after the war... After taxes came down.

Every time you lower taxes, the economy gets better.

Obama is printing money and raising taxes. That will kill the economy!

But for the benefit of your pointed head, we are headed into a terrible economic time and Obama will own it.

"Every time you lower taxes, the economy gets better."

Utter bull shit. Every time you lower taxes you create a bubble economy which seems like prosperity until it pops.

"The reason health care is more expensive in the United States versus, say, France, is that we're willing to pay more."

Riiight. France is a third world country now.

Obama will be worse and more hated that Jimmy Carter in a few years.

Carter was more popular than Obama during his early term, which is ironic.

Obama is going down in history as top 5 worst Presidents, sitting right beside George W. Bush.

Which makes me laugh.

Kuma

Danni is right. Lowering Taxes creates a bubble which ultimately ruins the economy. The healthiest economies are from having high tax rates. Companies invest back in their own businesses rather than pulling the money out.

WOAH, higher taxes does what? LOL

So what you are saying is the first 150 years of the USA was a disaster because taxes were almost non-existent.

And your argument holds no water because the higher taxes a place has, the less buying power the people of the place have.

The more buying power people have, the more demand for goods and services, which creates jobs and MORE tax revenue.

How come you liberals don't get that?

Giving the GOV more money results in more wasted money, and more inefficiency. Why do liberals think the GOV having more money is better?

name 1 fucking thing the GOV has not RUINED.

Social Security? Bankrupt.
Medi-cal? Bankrupt.
Gov workers? Higher paid average than private, with better pensions who face no consequence whatsoever from ANY downturn in the economy.

Danni, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, and everyone knows you are a mother fucking socialist.

Name 1 country that is doing great as a result of Socialism?

You do know that that your attitude toward the economy is similar to HITLERS right?

NAZI = NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY

Which is what you want, the GOV in control of everything.

Its amazing how much Hitler has in common with democrats...

First thing he did was take away all the private gun ownership. Then he took over all the business's, then he eliminated the opposing party (fascism) for 1 party rule.

That is what all democrats want. No opposition, gov control of everything, and eliminate gun rights.

Its amazing to me democrats don't see the similarities to the worst governments this earth has ever seen.

a NAZI is the exact opposite of freedom, and conservatism. We want gov OUT of our lives, we want more gun ownership, we want many voices in the GOV, not just 1 party rule. As many ideas are always better than 1 view.

I have no idea why you liberals don't see how much in common you have with Hitler.

National Health care, puts us 1 step closer to socialism.

And any step closer is the wrong step, as history proves EVERY FUCKING TIME, without fail.

Kuma

Why do people sign their posts when their name is posted every time? Is their ego that big? It makes no sense. For example, the above post:

Kuma

#119 | Posted by Kuma at 2009-06-18 11:39 AM |

Does he just like signing his name or does he think he words are that important?

#119 | Posted by Kuma at 2009-06-18 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag: Failed 20th century history.

Failed 20th century history - By a long shot.

Typical Liberal response, ignore the arguments, and start in with the mis-direction.

I am going to start calling you democrats, NAZI's, you stand for so many things in common.

KUMA

#123 | Posted by Kuma at 2009-06-18 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Just plain dumb.

"So what you are saying is the first 150 years of the USA was a disaster because taxes were almost non-existent."

True, they were able to finance the government with....wait for it.....tariffs.


Danni is right. Lowering Taxes creates a bubble which ultimately ruins the economy. The healthiest economies are from having high tax rates. Companies invest back in their own businesses rather than pulling the money out.

#118 | Posted by rastaninja at 2009-06-18 11:06 AM

Exactly. When the top personal rate was 91% do you think the CEO's took every bit of profit out of the company? Hell no. They invested in equipment and people.

Make tax rates too low and the reinvestment suffers, employees wages are cut or held stagnant and jobs are sent overseas to boost the profits so more can be taken out by top managemet.

Do that for too long and the standard of living is eroded. The middle class stops buying large ticket items and you end up in a recession.

The 1980's and 90's taught us one thing. You can exploit the labor pool and take away good paying jobs, create the illusion of national prosperity by funding it through ever increasing debt and enrich the ruling class at the expense of the middle class.

The 2000's taught us that you need to shift labor to ever lower wage enviroments to provide the increase in profits necessary to pretend to have a strong company. Refi your home to get rid of credit card debt to continue funding an increase in standard of living through credit.

The next decade will teach us just how wrong we have been for the past three decades. The US is nearing bankruptcy. Corporate America will not allow the government to enact meaningful regulations and laws to restore the middle class as they futily try to wring the last bit of earnings growth that they can out of China. The well is dry. There is no cheaper nation to shift labor to. Stagnant wage growth has caught up as inflation has eaten into the standard of living. Banks will indeed fail as loan default.

Sad how the greed and corruption of Corporate America has ruined America.

My insurance would be 490.00 a month if I wasn't in the union

#38 | Posted by rastaninja

Well, your union is lying to you to make you think you are getting a better deal being with them. Because a single male around your age can get full medical coverage for around $200.00 a month. I know because I just did it.

Unions are the bane to the economy, they suck your taxes like fat girls suck down vanilla shakes.

Kuma

name 1 fucking thing the GOV has not RUINED

the Weather?

Would that mean a raise for you? How nice.

#111 | Posted by MACV1972

No it would not mean a raise for me. I already get paid a percentage of every policy I write and that percentage is not going to increase. It is just a simple streamlined way to pay for the program with the least disruptions in my humble opinion.

EDDIE wrote:
But, still this is not the problem.

The major problem is malpractice.

Ask any doctor.

So much waste goes into avoiding malpractice claims.

not to mention the cost of malpractice insurance premiums.

The administrative costs of insurance companies and medical practices is secondary to this cost.

There would have to be a fundamental change in tort laws and procedures to fix this.

-----------------
I know several Surgeons and they told me that one of the biggest expenses is their malpractice insurance.

There was a study on the richest counties in the U.S. and who lived there, and it was Hollywood Stars, and Trial Lawyers who lived in these counties.

This is true. I know doctors I work with who pay upwards of $60,000 a year just in malpractice premiums.

The reason health care is more expensive in the United States versus, say, France, is that we're willing to pay more. A home in San Francisco will cost more than one in Toledo or Detroit, but nobody's asking for government to move in and reduce the housing costs in downtown Manhattan: it's because the residents there are willing to pay more. There is a cost to having the most innovative medicines and technologies: virtually all the innovative pharmaceutical companies are here in the States, for example. How many French companies exist like Human Genome Sciences, or Novavax, or Sequenom, or Savient, or Genzyme? Not to mention, there is an enormous drag on the system from defensive medicine, practiced to avoid lawsuits which the Obama plan does nothing about, and which doesn't exist in your France's and your Canada's.

But let's give Obama what he wants. He has a mandate, don't you know? And if you oppose him, you must be a racist. For the past 30 years, government has been "helping" with our cost of college--have the costs gone down? Or up?

Government IS the problem. But nobody will listen. And big money will be made shorting the HMO's and, eventually, 10-year treasuries. It's too big for Curious Obama to have a clue about.

----------------------
Spot On, we also pay more for cars, but that is not becasue cars sold in America are more expensive, it's because we have more disposable income, and buy more expensive cars.

But let's give Obama what he wants. He has a mandate, don't you know?

Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the following:
Creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase:
Strongly support53 percent
Somewhat support30 percent
Somewhat oppose5 percent
Strongly oppose9 percent

That's 83%, from a Conservative organization. Of course they buried the results, and you have to actually open the PDF file, not just read their spin. www.ebri.org

Or you can to with the NBC/WSJ poll:

"Indeed, 76 percent of respondents said it was either "extremely" or "quite" important to "give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance."

www.seiu.org

I just saw this. I think the insurance companies just shot themselves in the foot and all but guaranteed a public option.

www.latimes.com

FTA -
Late in the hearing, Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."

The answer from all three executives:

"No."

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said that a public insurance plan should be a part of any overhaul because it would force private companies to treat consumers fairly or risk losing them.

"This is precisely why we need a public option," Dingell said.

Proponents of a public plan seized upon the hearing, saying it showed why access to healthcare cannot be left to private insurance companies.

Late in the hearing, Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."

The answer from all three executives:

"No."

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said that a public insurance plan should be a part of any overhaul because it would force private companies to treat consumers fairly or risk losing them.

"This is precisely why we need a public option," Dingell said.

Proponents of a public plan seized upon the hearing, saying it showed why access to healthcare cannot be left to private insurance companies.


This is exactly why privatizing is worthless to the greater good of society, the private industry could careless about the best interest of who they are suppose to serve.

This is exactly why privatizing is worthless to the greater good of society, the private industry could careless about the best interest of who they are suppose to serve.

So you want all doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics etc to be government owned and controlled?

You will always have the poor.

The poor will not pay for insurance, even if it is cheaper.

More people that can afford insurance will buy it, but we will still hear that everyone must be covered.

Those that pay for their insurance will pay for those that do not.

Those that don't pay for their insurance and can expect to be free won't bother paying for any.

Those that can afford it will choose to have free care and drop what they have. Why pay and pay for others?

The gov't will have to force those that can pay to pay and force those that pay to pay for those who can't.

There is no cheaper to get more on it. There is no free insurance. Someone is going to pay for it and it ain't the poor.

Finally, sometimes the poor gets nothing because it just is true.

Sometimes you have to work for it or die.


Would that mean a raise for you? How nice.

#111 | Posted by MACV1972

No it would not mean a raise for me. I already get paid a percentage of every policy I write and that percentage is not going to increase. It is just a simple streamlined way to pay for the program with the least disruptions in my humble opinion.

#130 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2009-06-18 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, the fact that more people would have insurance and you would be able to write more policies of which you would get your current percentage wouldn't put more money into your pocket. Really?

We need health care more than we need the military. When we get invaded, all the gun nuts will naturally run out to save our country. That's what the second amendment says they will do--right? So we don't need the military. Every American will need medical attention--not every American needs military protection. So if you need money for national health care, shut down the military and take care of the citizenry. After all, America survived very well with a very small military until WWII---we need to stop wasting billions on arms we can never use, and start using those billions to save American lives and educate American children.

We need health care more than we need the military.

We have both thankfully.

We have both thankfully.

#141 | Posted by eberly at 2009-06-18 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag

Maybe you should look into the difference between the words "we" and "I". You would expand your knowledge considerably.

You have both.

That is not to say that he is above criticism and I have, myself, criticized him.-Danni

I must have missed that day.

Obama has had lots of criticism from dems. Bush could have eaten a baby on live TV and he would still be supported by the reps on this site.

#139 | Posted by MACV1972

If there is a public option, I have read they are going to use people called "Navigators" to help people enroll. I don't know if that will mean me or a different type of entity, if they will get a commission or a contracted amout of dollars for X-amount of enrollments or what?

So the most honest answer is No, I do not think I will make more money off it.

We need health care more than we need the military.
Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Mental Health Care for some.

#137 | Posted by eberly

That is a straw man response.

Does the government own the Medicare infrastructure or do they contract out to American Heritage Insurance Company to administer Medicare for a fixed dollar amount while hospitals and doctors remain private sector?

Or do you even know the difference? I thought you said you are in the business?

The history of medical care in the US illustrates that doctors now take a disproportionate share of our income, and the insurers and corporate providers all get a cut off the top, whereas in earlier times doctors were willing to bargain & barter, just as attorneys and other professionals did with their clients.

The gold rush started with the exclusive privilege of prescribing medicine, then a constraint on the number of doctors to be trained, and finally Medicare established "usual and customary fees" which have risen at rate exceeding inflation for every year since.

Solution: Expand the med schools and offer public service clinics - not just in the poverty areas - but everywhere. At least this would take the pressure off emergency services and give talented individuals the opportunity to work off their obligations.

Same for nurses.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a 24/7 clinic nearby?

ObamaMamas' plan does none of this.

Hey BOooB...BObBB

I am not a Republican, never will be, and I hate GW Bush.

Both parties are completely corrupt, do not fear the people, do not care about us at ALL, waste our money endlessly and love power too much.

If you and I ran the government, and 20,000+ of our people died brutally to just illegal aliens in our country we ran together BooB, what would we do about it if we truely cared for our people.

We would fucking FIX IT, and FIX IT RIGHT NOW.

Since the Republicans and Demcrats both sit on their hands while thousands die ever year to illegals, they are both traitors and do not give a flying fuck about us.

If we ran the place BooB there would be no illegals, we would not tolerate it, nobody that cares would.

Kuma

Kuma

Illegals have not killed 20,000 Americans. You have let your delusions seep into reality. The deaths are fictional--only in your mind. See a doctor.

AMA,Big Pharma's "Orgy of Gouging!"

One Trillion Dollars could provide most of Africa with health care for the next 10 years - but of course in America the public has to first be thoroughly "Screwed" out of their money,in an orgy of price-gouging starting with the AMA,Big Pharma etc!

So most of this discussion includes comments of those who only read the headline. Nice!

The article says this figure is over 10 years.

So, that means it's only $6250 per year, per person.

That's if the cost stays the same, which it doesn't. So in the earlier years it costs less, but in the later years, it costs more. If you were to average the TOTAL cost OVER TEN YEARS it's $6250 per person, per year.

This is obviously less than what insurance companies charge about every 4 months; this is why they profit so handsomely, and why we need public insurance.

Another point: confirmatory bias.... is beautifully illustrated by the critics posting comments against public insurance, by for example, not reading the article, and instead reading the headline.

$6260 per person per year would be 2 trillion dollars a year.

You are full of shit.

Just over 4 months ago, Obama said the economy and the housing market was going to colapse and he needed several hundred billion to 'fix it'. He was going to buy the toxic loans that were Greenspan's brain child. What happened to that plan? I thought that was one of the reasons he was given hundreds of billions in the bailout. if he didn't buy the toxic loans, where did the money go? Into
Rahm Emanuel's former 'investment company'?

Actually B BOOB, since 9/11, we have a "9/11" body count EVERY YEAR since then because of illegals.

www.freerepublic.com

I was wrong, the body count is higher than 25,000 since 9/11.

It was 22,000 in 2005. LOL!

You ready to get on board the "The united states gov primary responsibility is to protect its citizens from external threats at ALL COSTS" bandwagon?

Or do you want to be like ALL politicians and just feed the unions and grow your powerbase not caring at all about the citizens.

Maybe your mom and dad gets killed BOOB, and your wife, your kids, by illegals.

Watch the tune change, real fast.

We are at war. Against illegals. They are murdering us at a rate that dwarfs the iraq and afgan war and 9/11 combined.

Of course, you don't care. because you are a traitor.

Kuma

Kuma,
Just type "duh." It will convey the exact same depth of thought in half the time.

Into
Rahm Emanuel's former 'investment company'?

#154 | Posted by slicksterWilly at 2009-06-19 09:16 AM | Reply

WHA??????????

are you suggesting that POLITICIAN FROM CHICAGO might do something like this....

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

next thing you know, you will try and tell me that somebody whose only experience is as a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER can be president..........

Kuma

From your link:

Using the mean of Mr. Johnson's range, there are 2,158 murders committed annually by illegal aliens crimes that never would have happened if they weren't here. This is part of the collateral damage of tolerating illegal immigration.

First of all, this is some guys opinion---a guess---based on nothing. But if it were true, and you divide 2158 by 365 (the number of days in the year), it shows that there would be almost 6 murders ever day by illegal aliens on the average. Using your numbers, that would be over 60 murders a day by illegal aliens.

If illegal aliens were murdering 6 people a day, this would be serious news, and it would be all over the media---not just some nutjob article in Free Republic---home of 88 year old museum guard shooting pedophiles who love to wave the flag.

If what you say were true, you could link to some of those murders this week--there should be at least 24, taking Sunday off, and not counting today. We could use your figures of 240 murders by illegals this week.

If you can't do it, maybe you should rethink your stance, and beliefs. Then see a doctor.

afkababble

No one has experience being President until they get the job. Bush was a failed oil man, a failed baseball team owner(who used public domain to steal land from a private owner for his private business), and a failed governor before he became President. That's how some of us knew what was coming.

It seems obvious people weren't looking for experience that much, otherwise we would be talking about Hillary Clinton. Being that close to another President for 8 years, she knew how everything worked, and what players were on which team. It would be like a back up quarterback given plenty of training before taking over the job. I'm sure Bill told her about everything except the BJ's. He was probably planning on her Presidency way back then.

What I was looking for was someone who I thought was intelligent and honest. That's it. It could have been a college professor---it could have been a professional sports player or actor. As long as I thought they were intelligent and honest--they had my vote. Obama was the closest to that ideal. I think many people shared that view.

Who cares? You're nuts.

he lies also.

BuffaloBoOb is poor and can't afford health insurance! Hahahahahahaha!

It's because you sucked at your so-called profession as a comedian.

How do you pay for the nursing home you broke old fuck?

How do you pay for the nursing home you broke old fuck?

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2009-06-19 03:09 PM

HE doesn't; you do. Remember, he voted Democrat =D

Hey BOOOB, why don't you do some mother fucking research so you can learn the facts? You are so dimwitted and ignorant.

The statistics are clear. 6+ People PER DAY die from illegals in the USA. Lately that statistic hovers around 12 PER DAY. 12 PER DAY.

If you refuse to believe it, it doesn't mean its not true, it just means you are too lazy and partisan to believe it.

Do you just have no clue how many people die in the USA every day from car crashed, murders?

That doesn't even include the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of victims there are from illegal aliens where they didn't die, thats just the people That DIED.

You are a fucking traitor. Fuck you.

Kuma

Kuma

So you admit you lie. 20,000 were not killed.

So you admit you can't link to any of these murders.

You take those numbers on faith---just like Jesus. You don't need any proof--you have your faith to back your bigotry.

You do the research. Link to it or STFU. Simple isn't it.

Link to it or STFU. Simple isn't it.

If providing links is so simple, why don't you ever do it to make a counter-point, bOoB? Though simple, it is still too demanding of a mental exercise for your three remainging brain cells maybe? LOL

"three remainging(sic) brain cells"

#166 | Posted by goatman at 2009-06-19 06:01 PM | Reply | Flag: chuckle

Is that a contraction of remaining and mangy?

Lets see if Bboob fucktard can do some math,.

archive.newsmax.com

How many illegals are in FEDERAL PRISON? Is it 10,000? 100,000 or over 250,000?

I particular love this statistic.

"Ninety-five percent of warrants for murder in Los Angeles, Calif. are for illegal aliens"

Got an answer? BBOOB?

When will one kill your family? And if they do, you still will say all these numbers are made up...and want to legalize them.

RIGHT BOBBOOBBB?

Kuma

BOO!

www.youtube.com

Kuma

Read the headline of your link. It is one persons opinion, back up with buillshit numbers pulled out of someones ass.

Link to all these murders or STFU. It should be simple---why are you having so much difficulty?

Here's a link to illegal immigrants being shot in the back.

www.americanchronicle.com

See how it's done? Now see if you can link to a credible newsource to back your loud muth.

Here BuffaloBob -- take your pick of articles.

More Americans killed by illegal immigrants than have been killed in the Iraq War

It's not prejudice, it is FACT.

We are being flooded with international gang members who don't play very nice.

Maybe in Ohio everything is like it was back in 1950, but that is not the reality of Los Angeles today and these international drug cartels and criminals have now spread across the USA. You just keep denying it because it doesn't fit it with your liberal philosophy we should have open borders and welcome in the entire third world.

Invite our Los Angeles gangbangers to Ohio to live if you want them here so much.

Link to all these murders or STFU. It should be simple---why are you having so much difficulty?

Shit, bOoB -- you are the king of spouting BS and not providing links. Why do you have such difficulty? Look in the mirror, dude, and quit being such a hypocrite.

CalifChris

The same standards apply to you. Link to a news story about the tens of murders this week by illegal aliens. Link to a major news source that backs your claim. Not some whacko web site like Free Republic. That has already been rejected. If it is true--ABC--CBS---NBC--CNN--
FOX--MSNBC---SOMEBODY should be carrying it. Otherwise, you are just believing some crap some bigots put out because that's what you want to believe.

BuffaloBob

CalifChris

The same standards apply to you....

I know they do. I've never asked for special treatment from you.

Just came back to let you know I will get you some of your links tomorrow (even though I gave you pages after pages of links tonight on Google) but it will have to be tomorrow.

I'm kind of fighting off a bit of a cold the last day or two and don't feel like doing research this late at night right now. Look back on this thread tomorrow and you'll get your butt handed to you on a silver platter. LOL.

Good night.

BuffaloBob

Here are more links. You will rarely get whether or not the person is here in this country illegally. The corporate media bends over backwards to not give out the info. The Los Angeles Times is one of the biggest ones at fault for doing this. Why? Because Bush wanted wide open borders for illegals to work underpaid for his corporate buddies and the Democrats wanted open borders for their belief that every third world person has the right to come here.

If it was known how much crime was attributed to them there would be a public outcry so loud the media shuts it up and never mentions it..

That is fact. Also, Los Angeles, NYC, San Francisco and many other cities are "sanctuary cities" -- meaning that if an illegal immigrant commits a murder or any other crime the police are NOT allowed to ask him/her if they are in this country illegally. In CA with our overcrowded prisons the prisoners are often let out early. If it was known they were illegals we could deport them but we are not allowed to even ask their status.

Here is an article from the Iowa House of Representatives. Start reading at section H 2093

read section H 2093 -- a government document

Here's another link from a group in Ohio who have pictures and stories of victims.

VICTIMS

There are cops-- Officer March, for one -- who was killed here in Los Angeles because he stopped a car for a traffic stop. The illegal alien who was a gangmember shot him in the stomach and then finished the job with a shot to the face. It was a huge deal here in LA.. and just one of many. An 18 year old Black kid was shot and killed a couple blocks from his house last year. WHY? Because he was Black. The illegal alien who killed him because of the color of his skin had just gotten out of jail the day before and got a gun from his buddies on the street. The 18 year old boy he killed had a mother in serving in Iraq. He was a good kid, no gang affiliations, and was going to be getting a football scholarship.

But you won't believe anything because to you everyone is "wonderful" and no one "will ever shoot you with a gun" the the clouds in the sky are made of cotton candy.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable