Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Tonight, President Obama will host a town hall meeting on health care reform in the East Room of the White House, an event that ABC News will air at 10 p.m.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

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

Despite the continued objections of Fox News that ABC has turned into a White House infomercial, I'm looking forward to this. Given the strong debate going on, I'm afraid Obama may cave on this. I think any reform without a public option plan is not reform at all.

Obama leaves door open to tax on health benefits.

here's where the middle class take it up the ass again

"I think any reform without a public option plan is not reform at all."

I posted this on the other public option thread, but it seemed appropriate to post again

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com

He's caving (hopefully). And that's really a good thing. The doctors in this country weren't going to accept it so it will fail anyways.

Obama leaves door open to tax on health benefits.
here's where the middle class take it up the ass again
#2 | Posted by semtex111

But, but , I thought that only those making over 250k were going to get taxed??

Here's where obama is going to take it up the ass, and it won't be chris matthew's obama blow up doll.
That piece of shit in the White House has his fucking propaganda machine (ny times) lying on their poll of 72% in favor of this fucking travesty.
This should break the camel's back. Wake up America!
Anyone with any intelligence knows this free health care is going to the illegal aliens and blacks.

Welcome to camel lot, your head rag master obama and his 3rd world banana republic or better know as the obamination.

When are the fucking repubic skins going to grow a pair and start helping America? Whose side are they on? Is the whole fucking government in on this marxist sham?

"The doctors in this country weren't going to accept it so it will fail anyways."

Why would the doctors care if their payment comes from a public or a private payer???
Nonsense.

But, but , I thought that only those making over 250k were going to get taxed??

you didn't here obama right he said "anyone making over $250 dollars will be biting the big one"

Those who aren't faithful don't get more...

The federal government has NOT been faithful with Medicare and Medicaid, they should not be given MORE responsibility with health insurance.

"Why would the doctors care if their payment comes from a public or a private payer???
Nonsense.

#6 | POSTED BY DANNI"

Probably for the same reason a lot of doctors are scaling back the number of medicaid/medicare patients they take.

I had to see a specialist a few years back that did cash only, it sucked but it was worth it. Luckily I didn't have to see him too many times.

www.news-medical.net

"Fewer physicians are accepting Medicaid beneficiaries as new patients, in part because they say that reimbursements are too low and because of "administrative hassles," according to a study from the Center for Studying Health System Change, the AP/Long Island Newsday reports."

True this is from 2006, but I'm willing to bet a decent sum of cash things haven't really gotten better.

"The federal government has NOT been faithful with Medicare and Medicaid, they should not be given MORE responsibility with health insurance."

Huh? The administrative costs are very small, and they have a decent handle on cost control. Do you care for anyone on either? I do (Medicare), and it's relatively painless, despite the fact we're dealing with multiple ailments.

who's makin the koolaid

who's makin the koolaid

It appears we are still working on the antidote to the koolaid that the rethugs drank during the last 8 years!

As for all those who think Obama is going to "cave" on this issue think back to his campaign for Prez. You couldn't make him cave then and I don't think he will cave now. I look forward to some real Leadership on Health Care reform tonite.

GOBAMA!

It appears we are still working on the antidote to the koolaid that the rethugs drank during the last 8 years!

Bush served koolaid he was reforming the healthcare system? Did he mention the $1.4 trillion dollar cost the next ten years? Oh I get it...It's Bush's f a u l t. My bad.

I doubt he would have sent Rahm Emanuel to tell senators he's open to other options on the issue of a public plan if he were dead set for it and essential to his plans.

I don't think he's going to cave on healthcare reform, but it does sound like the public option is in a lot of trouble.

"Why would the doctors care if their payment comes from a public or a private payer???
Nonsense.

#6 | POSTED BY DANNI"


Probably for the same reason a lot of doctors are scaling back the number of medicaid/medicare patients they take.

I had to see a specialist a few years back that did cash only, it sucked but it was worth it. Luckily I didn't have to see him too many times.

#9 | Posted by GreenDad

Is this a rethug talking point Greendad? The single pay system managed by the government would be no different than what the HMO's do do doctors now. Instead of a HMO manager between you and your doctor it would be a government COTR managing the contract.

Maybe you should ask your doctor what they think of HMO's and PPO's now.

"Nonsense"
~Danni

BINGO!

That's why my doc is cash only.
He refuses to put up with any insurance nonsense.

Bush served koolaid he was reforming the healthcare system? Did he mention the $1.4 trillion dollar cost the next ten years? Oh I get it...It's Bush's f a u l t. My bad.

#15 | Posted by crispee_oc

no dingbat... you drank the "Iraq has WMD koolaid" and there are still diehard rethugs who still believe that shit and that the Iraq War was justified...hence the need for an antidote. You probably think he reformed Medicare to help the "people" and not the Pharmaceuticals too.

no dingbat... you drank the "Iraq has WMD koolaid" and there are still diehard rethugs who still believe that shit and that the Iraq War was justified...hence the need for an antidote. You probably think he reformed Medicare to help the "people" and not the Pharmaceuticals too.

Wow. Thanks for taking the time to spell it out. G;ad you were sharp enough to pick up on the sarcasm as well. God only knows how you can stretch Obamas future failed plan to Bush's past failed plan. Make sure you call others out about sipping the koolaid as you mix the Obama jug of grape flavor. The glass you swallowed claiming there would be no change from the HMO's to COTR says it all.

Ideological retards who think medicare is a model for some sort of public option.

A public option is fine with me but it is apples and oranges when u try to hold it up as some sort of example

Donner,
Maybe you should be more concerned about what Obama and Congress are trying to do with TRICARE. Before championing their failed plans for the rest of Americans.

Maybe Donner should read this after he gets back from his puff break.

www.leatherneck.com


End Of TRICARE For Life?

------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------

This is a "Heads Up" on a battle we are facing now and down the road
with the new Administration. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
has already drafted proposed legislation that would basically reduce
our TRICARE for Life benefits to a system whereby we pay deductibles
and co-pays up to $6,301 the first year for you and your spouse,
with future years being indexed to increase with inflation.


TRICARE FOR LIFE'S FUTURE....
TRICARE For Life was instituted to correct the broken promise that
military retirees would receive free healthcare coverage for life
and it covers the Medicare co-pay. Now a heavy assault has begun on
Veterans'/Retirees' benefits to pay for other programs our President
promised during the campaign. An it is a high priority of his
administration. The one item of most interest to Retired Military is
in Article 189. If approved by Congress the first assault wave would
hit in 2011 and would hit hard. It would initiate cost sharing to
require retirees to pay the first $525 of medical cost and 50% of
the next $4,725 for a first year cost of $2,888 per person. It would
be indexed to increase with inflation. A reason given for this
action (for PR effect) is "overuse" by Retirees.

obama's got ABC
bush had FOX
clinton had CNN
hw bush had CNN too
nothing new
next one will have, uh... TBS! Yeah, that's the ticket!
to be president you HAVE TO have a network and a newspaper in your pocket, or you're screwed. obama was giving ALL the networks money during the campaign, so one of the biggest networks doing him the favors back shouldn't really shock anyone.
rupert murdoch is probably pissed it's not FOX because there's so much money there... y'know he doesn't give a fuck about the politics.
at least ABC is an american company, for now...

obama's got ABC

Do a search on Linda Douglass. It explains why Obama has ABC.

RE: Linda Douglass

ok well yeah there ya go!

Obama's Folly. Ur, Second Folly.

Is this on now?

Looks like I have to stream it--not showing on the channel menu??

OMG--it won't show here until 10:00 CA time!

boycotting abc like all good conservatives. will read the transcript at politico or real clear politics.


OMG--it won't show here until 10:00 CA time!

#29 | Posted by MURPHY

He is hoping it is to late for most people on the west coast to watch his 3 ring circus of bullshit.

Hope and change

SUCKERS

The democrats are looking at treating employer paid health insurance as income and taxing it + 10% for people making $100,000 or more for single people and $200,000 married couples (union workers are exempt). During the campaign Obama mocked Sen. McCain for making this proposal and now he is heading in that exact direction (real surprise there). He's leaned that being honest doesn't get you elected and dems are a pretty gullible lot to begin with as long as someone else is paying for it LOL. Keep in mind this only cover 1/3 of the uninsured. Not sure if illegal aliens are covered but it would not surprise me. They are still hashing out the details and what ever they come up with I'm sure will be twice the amount of money to actually provide the care they are proposing. I'm sure they will be hiding the true cost and how they intend to pay for all because it would never pass and when it does the program will me as much of a mess as Medicare and Medicaid currently is.

I agree something has to be done about the spiraling cost of medical care but the thought of government playing such a big role just spells "disaster". Hay, just think about all the new administrative jobs this will create for liberals who like this kind of thing god forbid they were ever forced to work in the privet sector.

I'm sure all the people who actually won't be paying for all this and receiving the benefits will be ticked pink getting a new perk and the people who are paying for their own healthcare and now will be forced to pay for someone else's won't be very happy ya think?

Funny, 40% of the workers don't pay any income taxes and 20% of those actually get paid by the government. Now they will be getting free healthcare to boot!. Soon there won't be enough people who actually pay taxes to pay the ones who don't. At some point there will be little incentive to work. Then again those nasty Republicans hate paying taxes and the Democrats love being paid taxes......Kinda like a Tom & Jerry cartoon.

Everyone should be paying taxes and contribute to the country regardless. Golly what a novel idea!


If there is no talk about litigation having a direct impact on medical care in the US then there is no talk at all.
Medicare is a Government run system that is pay as you go. It will run out of solvency in just a couple of years.
What makes you think Obamas plan will be any different?
Obama is lying out of his ass by ignoring this problem.
Check the charts below,zoom them and look.They go as far as '03

Defensive Medicine Costly

The direct costs of health care litigation only scratch the surface of the toll such lawsuits exact on the U.S. economy and on health care, the Manhattan Institute report emphasizes. "Med-mal lawsuits tend to inflate health care costs by encouraging 'defensive medicine'--unnecessary procedures and referrals that doctors and hospitals prescribe in order to limit their exposure to future litigation," explains the report. "Studies suggest that defensive medicine costs are several times higher than the direct liability costs themselves."

www.triallawyersinc.com

www.heartland.org

www.triallawyersinc.com

www.triallawyersinc.com

"40% of the workers don't pay any income taxes..."

Well, there are two main reasons. Either their earnings are so low (under $9000), they don't make enough to exceed the standard deduction and the personal exemption, or second, they do, but their kid(s) reduce the tax bill by $1000 a pop. So...standard deduction, personal exemption, child tax credit. Which do you want to eliminate so some of these 40% pay more in income taxes?

"Everyone should be paying taxes and contribute to the country regardless"

Okay...we'll call them gasoline taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, utility taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes....

When they start prosecuting doctors for obvious malpractice or plain old quackery then you have an argument in favor of curbing civil suits. Personally I think it is a failure of our syustem that we allow doctors and lawyers to decide whether or not to revoke a license as well as setting the ethical standards of the profession. As it is they only sanction the most egregious acts.

Let's all keep in mind that a malpractice suit requires the expert testimony of a physician.

Not easily obtained.

Let's all keep in mind that a malpractice suit requires the expert testimony of a physician.

LOL
Dr.Phil is an expert.
Think Ozark,its not to hard to find sympathetic juries and deep pocket payoffs.
The small aircraft industry was ruined because of it.

I don't have health insurance. My wife and I paid for two deliveries and take care of our kids. As with the births they were $3,500 and 5,000 respectively. We got a loan from the bank and paid it off. No big deal.


Why would the doctors care if their payment comes from a public or a private payer???
Nonsense.

We just started the cabinets for a othorpedist, (I think his wife is a doctor too.) This place is awesome and will keep our shop busy for probably 4-5 weeks. I just had two weeks off and 3 months off before that.

I WILL NOT GET JOBS LIKE THIS FROM DOCTORS IF THIS GOES THROUGH. No that is going to fucking hurt ME.

Another broadcast of decent questions and evasive answers.. NOBAMA is at it again...
as to malpractice, there is a way to accomodate this by determining the level of malpractice and applying a matrix to the extent of damage versus the age and earning average of the individual.. these are simplistic terms, but there are definite ways of applying damage amounts other than the subjective and often emotional judgements of a jury..leave them to determine malpractice and put the awarding of damage amounts in a more equitable and reasonable manner..
Government rarely manages any 'business' program in a successful way..there is no reason or evidence to believe that it will be any different.. there is too much room for manipulation with the government getting more involved in the 'free enterprise' system..
I have not heard anything new this evening ..same old rhetoric..'everything is debatable', 'not going to happen overnight', 'we are looking at that'..(and, who the hell is we??? and, what are their real credentials??).. no real substantive direct answers..just 'hang on for the ride'..
and, more scare tactics...

"I don't have health insurance. My wife and I paid for two deliveries and take care of our kids. As with the births they were $3,500 and 5,000 respectively. We got a loan from the bank and paid it off. No big deal."

You should be thanking your lucky stars she didn't have a complication. Those bills could easily have been ten-fold. Big deal.

What makes you think Obamas plan will be any different?
Obama is lying out of his ass by ignoring this problem.
Check the charts below,zoom them and look.They go as far as '03

Apply that to the billions SCHIP would cost according to the CBO back in 2007. Yet lo and behold the dems couldn't wait to get it back to the Presidents desk. Now of course the so called reform (which only covers some) will cost $1.4 trillion over the next decade. Imagine the costs when the other half gets coverage.

And..Wurster...what you paid for out of pocket for deliveries may well have been cheaper than a years worth of premiums..etc..

Get your insurance quote here--


www.ehealthinsurance.com


My wife and I paid for two deliveries and take care of our kids. As with the births they were $3,500 and 5,000 respectively.


LOL

Barter babies.


rwd

Barter babies.

My FB is a midwife and often does barter babies. She has had some nice work done to her home from them.

Get your insurance quote here--


www.ehealthinsurance.com

#42 | Posted by MURPHY

I just did that real quick. The least expensive of the plans was $144/month and had a $10,000 deductible.

Ouch!

The plan closest to the one I have now was 45% more expensive.

"The least expensive of the plans was $144/month and had a $10,000 deductible."

By the way, that was just for 1 person.

She has had some nice work done to her home from them.

I'm having a deck installed because of it.

rwd

The plan closest to the one I have now was 45% more expensive.

Are you self employed> Does your figure include what your employer contributes?

You should be thanking your lucky stars she didn't have a complication. Those bills could easily have been ten-fold. Big deal.

Well we didn't. I'm 27, my wife 26, kids 6 and 3. We are healthy. We take care of ourselves. There are people desperately in need of health care. If every joe shmuck gets free health care than those who really need it get less. It's simple.

I don't need it. And if something dire happened the government would pay most of it. I am considered poor afterall.

I got, $129 a month for a plan similar to the one I get through work (PPO, $30 copay), $2,500 deductible. The lowest was $112.

I don't need it. And if something dire happened the government would pay most of it. I am considered poor afterall.


Yet Danforth/danni, all the problems lie with the insurance companies.


LOL

"If every joe shmuck gets free health care than those who really need it get less."

Absolutely wrong. I've served on health committees for well over a decade, and we've never seen a study or survey that didn't show when people get more basic care, they need less overall care. Prevention is much, much, MUCH cheaper than cure.

"if something dire happened the government would pay most of it"

Oh, so you are willing to take a government handout. Got it.

"Yet Danforth/danni, all the problems lie with the insurance companies."

What's with your comprehension these days? I suggested he have insurance.

I suggested he have insurance.

I realize that. however part of the problems we have is with folks like this.

no insurance solution will address people like this.

I've served on health committees for well over a decade, and we've never seen a study or survey that didn't show when people get more basic care, they need less overall care. Prevention is much, much, MUCH cheaper than cure.

I agree in principle but I haven't seen any studies concluding that.

"I agree in principle but I haven't seen any studies concluding that."

Have you looked?

Our "health-care system" is primarily a disease-care system. Last year, $2.1 trillion was spent in this country on medical care, or 16.5 percent of the gross national product. And 95 cents of every medical care dollar went to treat disease after it had already occurred. At least 75 percent of these costs were spent on treating chronic diseases such as heart disease and diabetes that are preventable or even reversible. A RAND study projected nearly $81 billion in annual national health expenditure savings due to prevention and disease-management programs. Incentives are often perverse. For example, insurance companies pay more than $30,000 to amputate a diabetic foot even though most amputations are preventable by scrupulous foot care, which is usually not covered by insurance. When I lecture, I often begin by showing a slide of doctors busily mopping up the floor around an overflowing sink, but no one is turning off the faucet.
~Dean Ornish M.D. , from Newsweek

Here's another. The title of the first chapter grabbed me:

books.google.com

Oh for Christ sake Danforth.

I thought you meant something real.

all of that is complete bullshit. the assumptions made in that bullshit study are that people would actually value their health enough to take action before developing these problems.

they won't.

people in the country don't value their health (as a whole)
look around you man!!! fat people smoking their brains out.

a preventative health care plan doesn't solve that.

I'm for a 100% socialistic government run plan if people valued their health in the first place.

As long as most dont, I choose to not be "pooled" with them.

"I thought you meant something real."

Our wellness program led to a flattening of payments over a decade. How much more real do you need?

"look around you man!!! fat people smoking their brains out.
a preventative health care plan doesn't solve that."

It can help. More frequent short visits to the doctor can prompt discussions of better health habits. Mine certainly does, and it's partly due to our wellness program.

I don't want to get my health care from some affirmative action government bureaucrat who gets paid 20 bucks and hour to give lousy care.

Our wellness program led to a flattening of payments over a decade. How much more real do you need?

that is impressive. Are you talking about a self insured plan?

"people in the country don't value their health (as a whole)"

But watch for "health" to get a bigger spotlight as the baby boomers age.

" the assumptions made in that bullshit study are that people would actually value their health "

And your assumption is they wouldn't, ever. I respectfully disagree.

But watch for "health" to get a bigger spotlight as the baby boomers age.


"spotlights" won't change peoples values or behaviors.

All of these people are already fully aware of what they are doing and they don't care.

You are naive to think otherwise.

"that is impressive. Are you talking about a self insured plan?"

Partially self, and partially secondary. We may have gone back-and-forth for a few years, iirc, especially right after the AIDS scare of the late 80s. BTW, by "flattening", I mean we beat the curve, once accounting for inflation. But we did it year after year, in part due to a maniacal drive for efficiency, and in part because the trustees were sensibly frugal.

""spotlights" won't change peoples values or behaviors."

You're joking, right? How do you think trends begin?

"All of these people are already fully aware of what they are doing and they don't care. "

Until it's happening to their own bodies. Once the baby boomer generation has its first collective heart attack, you'll see a palpable change.

Partially self, and partially secondary. We may have gone back-and-forth for a few years, iirc, especially right after the AIDS scare of the late 80s. BTW, by "flattening", I mean we beat the curve, once accounting for inflation. But we did it year after year, in part due to a maniacal drive for efficiency, and in part because the trustees were sensibly frugal.

Good information. your insight is very relevant.

All of this was done without a govt healthcare option?

(you had to know I would respond with this)

Until it's happening to their own bodies. Once the baby boomer generation has its first collective heart attack, you'll see a palpable change.

and that's not preventative, it's being reactive. It is already way way too late and the cost are coming anyway.
the babyboomers are absolutely going to kill us with this.

Hell, everybody changes their diet after a heart attack or a bypass surgery. what I am talking about is living a healthier life before that stuff happens.....not after.

I am willing to bet that the nations who are beating us in healthcare have people living healthing lives.

The sense of entitlement we have in this country and you expect a change in behaviors because we ask them to?

Why not just do that right now?

"All of this was done without a govt healthcare option?"

Good point.

But from the day I joined, the earnings amount to qualify for health care has jumped 650%. Inflation during that same time only rose 120%. Those disparities are only going to get worse. And I'm sure you've seen medical inflation wildly outpacing regular inflation over the last two decades, as I've seen.

And I'm sure you've seen medical inflation wildly outpacing regular inflation over the last two decades, as I've seen.

absolutely.

"the babyboomers are absolutely going to kill us with this. "

Exactly why an investment now might serve to save billions or trillions in the future.

"I am willing to bet that the nations who are beating us in healthcare have people living healthing lives."

It depends on definitions. France eats higher fat content, but between sensible wine consumption, more exercise, and less processed, fresher food, has lower incidence of heart disease. (Actually, now that I think about it, that's win-win. I should pack!)

"The sense of entitlement we have in this country and you expect a change in behaviors because we ask them to?"

I have a feeling the next decade may knock that attitude right out of America. Who knows? But your overall point is dead-on: without something 'giving', we're going to get killed by the costs.

I hope we all get our taxes raised. I don't mind taxes. I want the republicans to pay some serious taxes.

I hope we all get our taxes raised

I'm sure if you want to send in more than your obliged to on April 15 that Uncle Sam won't say 'no'.

If you want to pay more, go for it, ratsa. Don't wait for legislation.

a proposal to make it harder for taxpayers to itemize their medical expenses was drawing renewed interest among key democrats as one way to raise revenue.
At the White House, Obama sidestepped when asked if he was open to taxing health care benefits, a proposal he opposed vigorously in the campaign for the White House.

where can i find a doctor to extract the liberals greedy fingers out of my wallet?

Why would the doctors care if their payment comes from a public or a private payer???
Nonsense.

#6 | Posted by danni

When the Federal Goverment mandates the number of patients a doctor can see in one day, what do you think is going to happen? The pay remains the same?

wisgod - i venture to say a child with an ear infection wouldn't need as much care as one with appendicitis - can you hear the doc, "i'm sorry sir, but you've only got ten minutes to either snap out of it or die!"?

prov. 14:34 - "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people."

we are soooooooooooooooo being paid back - they ARE a bitch.

so it was just another dog and pony act:

www.businessandmedia.org

I've served on health committees for well over a decade, and we've never seen a study or survey that didn't show when people get more basic care, they need less overall care. Prevention is much, much, MUCH cheaper than cure.


Considering all the information the Government has provided the last few decades on diet, exercise and health, two thirds of Americans are still overweight. What makes anyone think free basic care will change this statistic? Or reduce the cost of healthcare? How much does exercise and reducing your consumption cost?

here is a much more interesting 'debate' on the subject than this obama ass kissing frenzy,,,

and matthews once again proves that he is little more than a vicious biased moron.,.,..


www.mrc.org

and matthews once again proves that he is little more than a vicious biased moron.,.,..


www.mrc.org

It is a hell of a lot easier to read the transcripts as opposed to seeing Matthews spit and drool. Doesn't make him any less ignorant though. How many times did Scarborough have to repeat the same answer?

mattews made a real dick of himslef

AND last nights black ass kissing extravaganza

was just an extension of what abc has done lately
in the past short time there have been 58 pro obama care stories on that network as opposed to only 18 against..virtually 3 to 1

and Melanie Morgan...a former employee of abc for 20 years said this morning there is not doubt that abc is run by liberals with a liberal agenda and that last night there were protests outside of abc stations around the country.
ANYone see THAT COVERED ON GOOD MORNING AMERICA..
I thought not...

I didnt watch it after the opening with tim johnson who talked about the three areas..went into detail on the pros and had a 'throw away one comment on the con

typical STATE RUN MEDIA BULLSHIT

Who's Afraid of a 'Public Plan,' and Why?

Private Sector May Not Have as Much to Fear From a Public Plan as it Thinks

If private companies are better at whatever might be the task at hand, mainly because they have already accrued the benefits of prior healthy competition, why would our nation's private health insurance companies so desperately fear the presence of a public sector alternative as part of that very competition?

Surely they would expect to be able to easily thrash such a public alternative in the marketplace. After all, they have the head start of being better at doing this from the outset, they have the advantage of being more nimble and responsive going forward, and the public program, whatever its final form, will be disadvantaged by the inevitable ineptitude of government.

To be sure, if the same public program that competes with the private entities also gets to write and enforce the rules of the competition, that might create a problem. But almost all serious observers anticipate that the public program alternative currently being proposed will not also control the regulatory framework in which services are offered; it will simply be available as another option, and will survive only if it can succeed as a genuine alternative to those private companies.


Clearly, if the certain ineptitude of a public program and the obvious superiority of the private sector are true, there would be no reason for the latter to fear the former. Given the passion of such fear in today's health policy conversation, one cannot help but wonder what else might be going on here.

abcnews.go.com

Primetime Special
Intro/Outro/Pre-Taped Segments 6:53
Sawyer/Gibson 7:42
Audience Questioners 5:45
Obama 29:42
TOTAL: 50:02

"Nightline"
Intro/Outro 2:19
Sawyer/Gibson/Johnson 4:14
Audience Questioners 2:49
Obama 15:05
TOTAL: 24:27


Overall
Intro/Outro 9:12
Sawyer/Gibson/Johnson 11:56
Audience Questioners 8:34
Obama 44:47
TOTAL: 74:29

Yeah, that was not an infomercial at all.
All
Barack
Channel

We are like a frog in a pot of water begining to boil.



sounds good as long as you forget reality and history..

ford auto is now beginning to complain about the unfair advantage that the GOVERNMENT MOTORS company is beginning to felx with deals they cant make and stay in the shape they are in
same thing will happen in other areas no matter how much smoke barry blows up the publics ass

:"My name is Wendell Potter and for 20 years, I worked as a senior executive at health insurance companies, and I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick - all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors."

Potter testified that

I know from personal experience that members of Congress and the public have good reason to question the honesty and trustworthiness of the insurance industry. Insurers make promises they have no intention of keeping, they flout regulations designed to protect consumers, and they make it nearly impossible to understand -- or even to obtain -- information we need. As you hold hearings and discuss legislative proposals over the coming weeks, I encourage you to look very closely at the role for-profit insurance companies play in making our health care system both the most expensive and one of the most dysfunctional in the world.

Woof! Wendall Potter may be the secret weapon that wins passage of health care reform in America. Read his full testimony here.

www.huffingtonpost.com

#82 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

I confess - I didn't get to watch the program so I don't know the answers, but...

In a question and answer situation with the audience wouldn't the balance of time go heavily to the person answering the questions? I mean, what does it take, 10-15 seconds to ask a question vs. 2-3 minutes to respond?

Same with the anchors interacting with the President. Was some, or most of that them asking questions and him responding?

So I'm not sure I see that your posting of time, without additional information, is necessarily meaningful.

According to a recent NYT/CBS News poll, a whopping 72 percent of the public favors the public option. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll had the number even higher: 76 percent. And yet you can already feel it slipping away. As Matt Yglesias writes, "So just keep in mind that when people talk about political obstacles to a robust public plan, they're not talking about mass public opinion as an obstacle -- they're talking about the wealth and power of relatively narrow interests."

In 1993, the Clintons tried to bypass the minefield of having Congress play a part in developing health care legislation; they simply presented their completed plan to Congress. As we know, that approach failed miserably. But, according Robert Reich, who was there, Obama appears to have overlearned the lessons of that fight.

"Right now," he said on This Week, "the president has got to get involved, twist arms and say if I don't have A, B, and C I'm not going to sign this bill."

The response of George Stephanopoulos, who was also there, was illuminating. He noted that when the process began, Clinton had the support of several in the GOP. But, said Stephanopoulos, "the politics changed and it wouldn't matter what was in the bill at the end, the Republican Party decided they weren't going to go along with this... This week, you started to see that developing now."

Of course, the politics didn't just change by itself in 1993 -- those Republican senators had some help in "deciding" not to go along. That same dynamic is at play right now. Check out Nate Silver's fascinating statistical analysis of the impact insurance industry lobbying is having on the process.

As usual, you have to dig deep and crunch the numbers to see the anti-reform termites gnawing away at foundational change. They prefer to do their dirty work in the dark. But you can see the results when you hear a seasoned politician such as Dianne Feinstein start making statements like the one she offered this weekend on CNN: "I don't know that he has the votes right now. I think there's a lot of concern in the Democratic caucus."

"Concern"-ing a bill to death is an old Washington favorite. And that's how reform dies. We know those who represent the past are ready, armed -- and funded -- to stand up and fight. What about those who represent the future?

www.huffingtonpost.com

According to a recent NYT/CBS News poll, a whopping 72 percent of the public favors the public option.
#86 | Posted by Corky


Corky, I watched Obama last night and I was impressed by his appearance and his ability to respond!!! It was refreshing.

However, 9 out of 10 of his responses did not answer the question. In fact, every response changed the subject.

I was disappointed and after 30 minutes, I concluded that Obama is just too Slick and anyone who thinks he's trustworthy is just wishful.

I am deeply concerned that Obama is going to screw this up with his stupid agenda of Socialized Medicine and not listen to American Medical Industry.


Don't worry, Eddie. What you take for "slickness" is just that he's much brighter than you.

The "American Medical Industry", whatever that is, is an undeniable failure, and doesn't have your best interests at heart, Eddie.

According to a recent NYT/CBS News poll, a whopping 72 percent of the public favors the public option.
#86 | Posted by Corky

You mean 72% of Obama supporters favor public option...
blogwonks.com

good, my nationwide call for a conservative boycott of abc is panning out:

www.thrfeed.com

fed up with msm.

I've served on health committees for well over a decade, and we've never seen a study or survey that didn't show when people get more basic care, they need less overall care.
Prevention is much, much, MUCH cheaper than cure.
----------------------------
If that Prevention results in preventing a cure than it saves money.

But you have to take a careful look at Prevention, I know cure is expensive, but spending money to save money latter has its draw backs. No doubt if the Prevention strategies we are talking about are behavioral things like eat better, lose weight, exercise more, smoke less, wear a seat belt then they cost very little and they do save money by keeping people healthy.
If your Prevention strategy is Medical it involves doctors and that gets expensive. Case in point if you are treating a population, keep in mind that you may have to treat several hundred people to prevent one heart attack.

I'm not saying I disagree with Danforth, but I think we need to take a more careful look.

Here is link to a WSJ article titled the Myth Of Prevention.
online.wsj.com

"Here is link to a WSJ article titled the Myth Of Prevention."

The WSJ has proven time and again it's willing to lie for big business. "Tax cuts increase revenue" was just lie one in a long line for the publication that never met a tax cut or a business bailout it didn't like.

"If your Prevention strategy is Medical it involves doctors and that gets expensive."

Again, the long-term data I've seen has always shown otherwise. More expensive up front, but MUCH cheaper in the long run. What have you seen, other than from a publication who has a dog in the hunt?


According to a recent NYT/CBS News poll, a whopping 72 percent of the public favors the public option.
#86 | Posted by Corky




and according to USA TODAY....certainly not a conservative paper

80 something per cent are happy with the health care they are getting today.......

wonder what percentage of people are just lapping this obama shit up like dogs like many here

Again, the long-term data I've seen has always shown otherwise. More expensive up front, but MUCH cheaper in the long run. What have you seen, other than from a publication who has a dog in the hunt?

If two thirds start out unhealthy, how can expensive upfront costs become cheaper in the long run? Knowing the percentage of health related problems to being overweight?

fed up with msm.

#90 | Posted by nanc at 2009


yes nanc and me as well...

woman on this morning who was with abc for 20 years says they are righteously liberal

and that there were protests all around the country and will be more..not that you would EVER see anything of it from the state run media

hannity is correct

Journalism is dead!

just shut up and choke down nationalized health care. when your kid has an appendicitis, hopefully he or she won't die while some fucking wonk looks up whether it's covered or not. maybe, just maybe they'll get some morphine to make the pain of death a little easier.

"when your kid has an appendicitis, hopefully he or she won't die while some fucking wonk looks up whether it's covered or not"

You've overlooked the fact that, under UHC, it's covered, and no 'fucking wonk' has to look up anything.

"If your Prevention strategy is Medical it involves doctors and that gets expensive."


Again, the long-term data I've seen has always shown otherwise. More expensive up front, but MUCH cheaper in the long run. What have you seen, other than from a publication who has a dog in the hunt?

-------------------------
This is the same paper that predicted the Tech Crash, and the current recession, but they don't know what they are talking about.

This was doctor that wrote this article, and yes the Doctors, AMA, and Obama have an agenda.

The Doctor that wrote the article is talking about the population of the U.S. not a small sample.

Both sides have a stake we are just the pawns in a chess game.

"This is the same paper that predicted the Tech Crash, and the current recession, but they don't know what they are talking about."

So what? If they're willing to print lies for big business, they're willing to print lies for big business. The fact they get one right now and then doesn't change the fact "tax cuts increase revenue" was a lie, and anyone who can pass an Econ 101 midterm knows that. And now they've found one doctor who agrees with their already-in-place agenda? Stop the presses!

"the Doctors, AMA, and Obama have an agenda."

Just not the same one. And the WSJ has taken a position against the Democrats. Anyone surprised?

And for those who always argue our healthcare is not the best I offer some cancer survival rates:

For prostate cancer, 5-year survival was higher in the USA (92%) than in all 30 of the other participating countries. - just one example

www.sciencedaily.com

Unlike other statistics which are so often touted here - like average life expectancy - 5-year cancer survival rates are directly impacted by the quality of health care rather than heredity and eating habits which affect longevity as much as health care.

keithhennessey.com

Interesting analysis of the mythical 46 million uninsured number.

America is great with the big diseases, but horrible with general care and maintainence. Other countries catch problems quicker than we do in America because the health system encourages regular check ups where as America tends more to encourage only dealing with something lifethreatening.

Both sides have a stake we are just the pawns in a chess game.

#98 | Posted by 90c2cab

That doesn't mean we don't have power...pawns can become any piece in the game... I have won many a chess game after being reduced to only having pawns to defend my king.

That doesn't mean we don't have power...pawns can become any piece in the game... I have won many a chess game after being reduced to only having pawns to defend my king.


The problem is, as a country we are fat, lazy and unhealthy pawns.

#98 | Posted by Danforth
The fact they get one right now and then doesn't change the fact "tax cuts increase revenue" was a lie, and anyone who can pass an Econ 101
------------------------------
-------

Anybody who takes Econ 101 also knows that economics is not a science, saying tax cuts increase revenue was not a lie it was an opinion/theory.

"Anybody who takes Econ 101 also knows that economics is not a science, saying tax cuts increase revenue was not a lie it was an opinion/theory."

Anybody who takes Econ 101 also knows that to properly compare two disparate years, you must factor inflation into the equation. That has nothing to do with any opinion or theory. It's using nominal dollars versus constant dollars, and if you use nominal dollars on your freshman midterm, you'll flunk the test. The WSJ is either that stupid, or (more likely) believes its readership to be that gullible.

"tax cuts increase revenue" was a lie, and anyone who can pass an Econ 101 midterm knows that"

Why do you constantly post this? It isn't always true. For example, if tax rates were at 100%, economic activity would be stifled to the point where a tax cut would in fact increase revenue by creating an incentive to produce.

Look up the Laffer curve. As you would say, "anyone who has taken Econ 101" should have heard of it.

"Why do you constantly post this? "

Because idiots will point to the WSJ article and the Bush tax cuts and conclude incorrectly.

"For example, if tax rates were at 100%, economic activity would be stifled to the point where a tax cut would in fact increase revenue by creating an incentive to produce."

And if you couild find a time in history where this actually happened, you'd have a point. Until then, it's just a ludicrous strawman.

"anyone who can pass an Econ 101 midterm knows that"

106 | Posted by JOE
absurd statement by high school drop out, Im sure


And for those who always argue our healthcare is not the best I offer some cancer survival rates:

For prostate cancer, 5-year survival was higher in the USA (92%) than in all 30 of the other participating countries. - just one example

www.sciencedaily.com

Unlike other statistics which are so often touted here - like average life expectancy - 5-year cancer survival rates are directly impacted by the quality of health care rather than heredity and eating habits which affect longevity as much as health care.

#100 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-06-25 01:39 PM

In that one metric, the US was the best, but by how much? Does that 92 percent take into accounts for blacks, who have a 85 percent survival rate? And the other metrics, other countries were ahead of the US (Sweden, Japan, Finland) in rectal cancer and breast cancer.

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT,
those countries pay MUCH MUCH LESS for their healthcare, and their numbers are as good or better than ours. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, while you drink the kool aide.

I am soooo happy that the Obama informercial failed miserably with horrible ratings. It was in last place in the ratings. Don't networks know that America is sick of seeing Obama's face. He is like a dictator that has to see his image everywhere. Even super libs like Bill Mahr are sick of seeing him. The other great part is that ABC lost its journalistic integrity and got nothing to show for it.

"The one-hour ABC News special "Primetime: Questions for the President: Prescription for America" (4.7 million viewers, 1.1 preliminary adults 18-49 rating) had the fewest viewers in the 10 p.m. hour. The special tied some 8 p.m. comedy repeats as the lowest-rated program on a major broadcast network."

www.thrfeed.com

This quote was from the Hollywood Reporter and every tv exec in America reads it daily. The chances of a major network giving another special to Obama just dropped dramatically - thank goodness!

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT,
those countries pay MUCH MUCH LESS for their healthcare, and their numbers are as good or better than ours. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, while you drink the kool aide.

Are two out of three people in those countries overweight?

Shit. I missed the Health Care Special while watching Goober sew up his arm on The Andy Griffith Show?

Shit. I missed the Health Care Special while watching Goober sew up his arm on The Andy Griffith Show?

Do your Gary Cooper imitation...

"Judy, Judy, Judy"

"And if you couild find a time in history where this actually happened, you'd have a point"

The theory of taxes eventually being so high that they reduce revenues doesn't only apply at 100%. It was an easy example to demonstrate how the theory works. Are you actually this dumb?

Sombody Pull this Monkey off the stage already... He has no regard for what it will cost us... They could all care less...

The Cap and Trade thing will crush the US under a storm of joblessness and depression. We could burn our garbage to stay worm or sell some of our organs to pay for heat...

We are so screwed with these people in power...

Once again Bashthis uses many words to do what "DUH' would have achieved just as easy.

Al Gore.... Crapped and Traded our asses

Does anyone remember when Hillary came up with her medical plan?
She presented it on a huge card like they do in congress when making a point,...a picture worth a thousand words.
On it was all the departments and bureaucracy's that would run her program.
She had an answer for every question by tracing all around the card showing how her program would work.
Does anyone know if there is a picture of this thing around?

rwd

Why do we have to pay for this shit.

I was born into a world where I have no control over what type of energy is used in my home..

It has never been up to me to create a new way of heating american homes..

I keep my thermostat at 65 all winter and I pay
$700 per month in dec,jan,feb,and march for gas to heat my home... I can not afford cap and trade.

" It was an easy example to demonstrate how the theory works."

But it wasn't a real example, it was reductio ad absurdum. I'm sure lots of theories can be turned over on their head if one extreme or another is used. When the WSJ made the bogus claim about tax cuts increasing revenue, they were using nominal dollars, something that would get an Econ 101 student a failing grade. Now, if you can find an real-life example of it actually being true, that's one thing. But real-life example after real-life example proves tax cuts don't increase revenue, at least not when you compare apples to apples.

Does anyone know if there is a picture of this thing around?

Posted by rightwingdon

Yes, but I think the President flushed it before he washed his hands.

no regard for what it will cost us... They could all care less...

The dannis of the world.

Me first... fuck what it costs.....I live in a shithole.... won't better myself...might as well get mine before I die....my kids to...and theirs...and theirs...fuckin'repubs.

rwd

" It was an easy example to demonstrate how the theory works."



The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

"The dannis of the world"

We shall see if your opion changes when you're paying what has been projected to be the real costs of these two bills.

Please Google "Duncan Lowne" real quick (Cleveland Medical Devices, St. Cross Oxford University, Brain Computer Interfaces, ROBO-ONE) He was diagnosed w/ Glioblastoma (aggressive brain cancer) while living in the UK. The whole experience was more like a circus event rather than medical treatment. Parliament used him for about two weeks or so as a "poster child" to reflect the flaws in their socialized medical system. He died soon after. My question is why would we consider following in the footsteps of the UK system when they themselves have been looking for a way out of the trap?

For some reason (supposedly because he had a seizure), they wouldn't let Duncan fly to the US where good ol Sen. Kennedy's oncologist was, at that time, willing to treat him if we could get him to the States (note: he had dual citizenship). We weren't allowed to bring the experimental treatment to him (even if the expense came out of pocket) and the treatment he did receive came out of his pocket anyway because parliament (who, mind you, has little to no knowledge in medicine) decided the ratio of cost vs. chance of survival wasn't in the people's best interest (wasn't tax payer's money worthy). Yeah, they have a nifty algorithm to determine these things, but they have trouble understanding anomalies in their numbers how could the results possibly differ? My point being, when it comes down to it it's all black and white robotic calculated rubber-stamped faith in a flawed methodology absent of humanity. Who you are as a person doesn't count.

I'm saying this from experience not a bunch of Googled/Wiki "facts". This is real-world real people stuff. Duncan was 28 with plenty of fight left in him, but didn't have the options that could have bettered his chances of survival. I highly doubt ObamaCare will be factoring in will and hope into their equations as much as you OB elites talk about hope, you aren't dispensing any.

The only way I can see govt. health care saving us money is by limiting ones options to the degree where those sick enough to die, just are left to do so. Statistically, the govt. would better off too a dead person isn't a sick person is it? It all comes down to action people. There's a reason UK-ers are queuing much of their life away bureaucracy!

Perhaps this is coming off a bit incoherent now that I re-read this post, but screw it this is something I'm pretty compassionate about. I'm posting a BIG "NO" to any sort of socialized medicine.

Do your Gary Cooper imitation...


"Judy, Judy, Judy"

#113 | Posted by crispee_oc

Bwhahaha...I keep forgetting about that.

"The only way I can see govt. health care saving us money is by limiting ones options to the degree where those sick enough to die just are left to do so."

Thus far you haven't even seen what will be proposed but the one thing we do know for sure is that they system they are discussing is nothing like Britain's. What they are discussing also isn't "socialized" medicine. And lastly, I seriously doubt that an American for profit health care insurance company would have flown a patient to Europe for some "experimental" treatment either so blaming the British government for not wanting to seems ridiculous.
I must say though that your post reads like the made up scare tactics which the insurance industry is now posting all over the internet. I don't recall ever seeing your name here before so I sort of suspect that is what it was.

#113 | Posted by crispee_oc
It was Cary Grant - and he never actually said it. Only on looney toons.

It was Cary Grant
Posted by ELCIDCE90

Hells bells. That's right.

104 | Posted by Danforth
Anybody who takes Econ 101 also knows that to properly compare two disparate years, you must factor inflation into the equation. That has nothing to do with any opinion or theory. It's using nominal dollars versus constant dollars, and if you use nominal dollars on your freshman midterm, you'll flunk the test. The WSJ is either that stupid, or (more likely) believes its readership to be that gullible.
---------------
I did a search on the internet and economist all over the place on whether increased tax revenues result in higher tax revenues

The state of Texas has low taxes per GDP and the state of California has high taxes per GDP. I will take Californias weather of Texas, but I will take the Texas economy over California.

"I did a search on the internet and economist all over the place on whether increased tax revenues result in higher tax revenues"

And that's all you could come up with? The fact that Texas taxes it citizens less than California?!?

Look at Bush's tax cuts. Then look at the ensuing revenue each year. Then factor in inflation from 2000, the last year of the Clinton tax codes.

Then compare the two numbers, and you can answer the question yourself: Do tax cuts increase revenue? And more specifically: did Dubya's tax cuts increase revenue?

130 | Posted by Danforth
And that's all you could come up with? The fact that Texas taxes it citizens less than California?!?


Look at Bush's tax cuts. Then look at the ensuing revenue each year. Then factor in inflation from 2000, the last year of the Clinton tax codes.


Then compare the two numbers, and you can answer the question yourself: Do tax cuts increase revenue? And more specifically: did Dubya's tax cuts increase revenue?

----------------

Danforth there are thousand variables that affect the tax revenue of the United States not just tax rates, and that my friend is why Economist all over the place on this issues.

My disagreement with you is that it's not as black and white as you say it is.



"Danforth there are thousand variables that affect the tax revenue of the United States not just tax rates. My disagreement with you is that it's not as black and white as you say it is."

And my disagreement with you is until the tax revenues actually increase (adjusted for inflation), it IS black and white. Bush's tax cuts DID NOT increase revenue. That IS black and white.

#132 | Posted Danforth
And my disagreement with you is until the tax revenues actually increase (adjusted for inflation), it IS black and white. Bush's tax cuts DID NOT increase revenue. That IS black and white.
------------
Let me get this straight, except for Tax Rates all the other economic variables that play a role in Tax Revenue were the same between the Clinton and Bush economies? No they were not


"Let me get this straight, except for Tax Rates all the other economic variables that play a role in Tax Revenue were the same between the Clinton and Bush economies?"

NO.

I'll type slowly so you can understand.

Once adjusted for inflation, the highest Federal tax revenues were in tax year 2000.

Once you factor inflation, which every freshman Econ student much do, no year's revenues have exceeded TY 2000.

Any claim Bush's tax cuts increased revenue is a smokescreen hidden by nominal dollars, not constant dollars. IOW, if revenue was $2T in 2000, and $2.01 trillion in 2007, while that's an increase in nominal dollars, once you factor in inflation and use constant dollars, the $2T is higher.

All the other variables you speak of become moot when the revenues haven't yet increased.

Speaking of the Bush tax cuts - all you, who have claimed time and again that the cuts were just for the rich, should have no worries about your taxes rising next year when the dems let the Bush tax cuts expire. Obviously only the rich will have an increased tax liability.

Thus far you haven't even seen what will be proposed but the one thing we do know for sure is that they system they are discussing is nothing like Britain's. What they are discussing also isn't "socialized" medicine.

I think it's pretty clear what OB is proposing.
Please explain how you can claim that what is being proposed is NOT like socialized medicine. Typical semantics. Please, let's just call a spade a spade.

And lastly, I seriously doubt that an American for profit health care insurance company would have flown a patient to Europe for some "experimental" treatment either so blaming the British government for not wanting to seems ridiculous.

Read it again... they weren't allowing him to leave the country ON HIS OWN TAB... not the tax payers!

Never should ANYONE'S life be at the mercy of the bureaucrats.

I must say though that your post reads like the made up scare tactics which the insurance industry is now posting all over the internet. I don't recall ever seeing your name here before so I sort of suspect that is what it was.

Nope. No scare tactics here. That IS simply how it played out in reality. REALITY... not just behind the anonymity of some computer screen. I'm not on some soapbox shouting pro insurance company BS! But, you better bet I sure as hell believe OB's proposal is the wrong path... on a multitude of levels!

What can I say about the frequency of my posts on this site... It rarely ever matters what we posters write and neither one of our minds will change as a result of reading posts.

In any event, I've gotta' got to the grocery.

"But, you better bet I sure as hell believe OB's proposal is the wrong path... on a multitude of levels!"

And are you being compensated in any way for that belief?

#134 | Posted Danforth

All the other variables you speak of become moot when the revenues haven't yet increased.
--------------------
If you say so.

I just looked up the numbers and in Current Dollars the 2000 Tax receipts were 2,025.5, and for 2007 they were 2,568.2, in FY 2000 Dollars the 2000 tax receipts were 2,025.5, and the 2007 tax receipts were 2,128.8.

I'm not say it's because of the tax cuts, I'm saying there are two many factors to prove either way.

I wonder if the Congress will exempt themselves from the health care legislation?


Yes

Okay, back from the grocery...

DANFORTH:
And are you being compensated in any way for that belief?

I'm curious as to how many times you ask that question. Surely it must be frustrating trying to conclude why anyone would have differing takes on subjects such as these.

To answer your question... I have in fact been compensated. However, not financially as you may have wanted to believe. My reward is more personal... in simply knowing this countries greatness doesn't involve the government getting its hands on every aspect of our lives. A little dramatic maybe but you can't dispute my passion. :-D

I keep my thermostat at 65 all winter and I pay
$700 per month in dec,jan,feb,and march for gas to heat my home... I can not afford cap and trade.

#119 | Posted by bashthis at 2009-06-25 03:27 PM


Sure you can your rich bastard! It's high time you uppity sob's live in studio apartments or have room mates like the rest of us. It's high time to make the ambitious unambitious like the rest of us.

When we're finished with you you'll learn once and for all it's not worth it to try.

"I'm curious as to how many times you ask that question."

Really? Because counting that time, it's been once.

"I have in fact been compensated. However, not financially as you may have wanted to believe."

There are other ways to be compensated than financial. So what bona fides do you bring to the table?

ABC must be positioning themselves for the coming Government bailout of the Liberal media.

ABC sure needs one too...

...or else they will be out of business within the next few years.

DANFORTH:
Really? Because counting that time, it's been once. There are other ways to be compensated than financial.

Who are you trying to convince here? ...because frankly I don't see the point of telling me that. Just as there are other means of compensation so too are there other comment boards. Are you SURE you haven't left any out of your count? :-D

So what bona fides do you bring to the table?

See, ya lost me. Who am I to prove anything to anyone? I am but a voting citizen of the USA. That should more than suffice as "credentials" for my position in a discussion that regards politics.

Wait, let me get this straight... are you suggesting that I am planting posts all over the internet because it was not in support of your belief? Is that actually an occupation? Someone pays people to post comments on boards? That's a completely ridiculous idea and waste of money I would think. I mean, don't you agree? These posts seldom change minds (and I only say seldom because I'd hate to use "never" just because I've never seen it). They're mostly rant sessions for those w/ a thorn up their butt or some students wanting to flex all those big words they paid for in college.

"Is that actually an occupation?"

yes

"Who are you trying to convince here? ...because frankly I don't see the point of telling me that."

Really? Because it was the first time I asked, and you pretended like I'd been hounding you for weeks.

So what bona fides do you bring to the table?

"See, ya lost me."

See...again, you come off as this paid shill who feigns ignorance when confronted.

"are you suggesting that I am planting posts all over the internet because it was not in support of your belief?"

No. I'm suggesting you are planting posts because you're a paid shill.

"Is that actually an occupation?"

Yes, Pollyannna.

"That's a completely ridiculous idea and waste of money I would think. I mean, don't you agree?"

Oy. The non-denial denials are rife with this one....

No. I'm suggesting you are planting posts because you're a paid shill.


You know, it is possible to be opposed to socialized health care for reasons other than shilling.

Besides, who's gonna pay Danforth to anything except keep crows out of their field?

"Besides, who's gonna pay Danforth to anything except keep crows out of their field?"

Hopefully not the person who taught Cookie proofreading.

"You know, it is possible to be opposed to socialized health care for reasons other than shilling"

And it's possible to be a new paid shill on the blogs for one industry or another.

"Besides, who's gonna pay Danforth to anything except keep crows out of their field?"

I think Danny is worried that he'll be out of work for an extended period in the current economy. With reduced government largesse, those acting jobs in the "arts" will be scarce and he won't find a part in the new sequel to "Brokeback Mountain" which the government was talking about bailing out.

"and he won't find a part in the new sequel to "Brokeback Mountain""

D'ya think we can all pitch in and get Jest a new joke? The old man is so addled, he thinks this is funny the 33rd time he's posted it.

"Really? Because it was the first time I asked, and you pretended like I'd been hounding you for weeks."

That's a little dramatic don't you think? In my defense, your prior response was so general it could easily be one of those habitual spewings much like the ones that, as you say, appear to be a "paid post".

"See...again, you come off as this paid shill who feigns ignorance when confronted."

Ever hear he phrase "you assume too much"? The sentences following "see ya lost me" contained all the words worth noting. Is it always a habit of yours to post/reply to segmented quotes? Apart from filling out a resume with references, what would you propose I do to to "prove" that I disagree w/ you? It appears we are at an impasse.

"No. I'm suggesting you are planting posts because you're a paid shill."

Now this just supports my claim that you reflect prejudicial conjectures against those who don't share your point of view. What is more likely here? Out of the thousands of people posting, you encounter someone on this board who simply disagrees w/ you? Or, you encounter "sold souls" attempting to convert the ignorant to their side on a site where the opposing convictions are already prone to be unwavering? To further support my stance, I would like to see where you gather I am pro-insurance company. Remember, that is what this is all about.

Given the June '09 Gallup Poll of potential voters - 40% declare themselves as being conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberals. Given those odds and the discussion we're engaged in, I'd think you'd have a better chance of getting it right by simply calling me a conservative versus a shill. Also, if this was my job, why am I wasting my time w/ you? I would do much better dropping a post here and bailing heading off to the next comment board never to return for a follow-up.

ah, here's the right one...

anyone listening to C-SPAN right now?

300 page addendum added to the 1200 page bill at 3 AM last night, Pelosi trying to push a vote right now. Dem party transparency in action...

CRAP! I did it again. sorry guys... jeezus, where is a thread about the frigin' energy bill they are voting on right now?

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable