Who fucking cares.

Rcades fair and balanced journalism I tell you...

A better question would be is Rcade interrupting Obama and asking him if he and all the members of congress would be required to have the same EXACT health care coverage as he is trying to ram down our throats right now.

Now that would be news.

rwd

POTUS interruptus?

I'd have to say, after reading President Clinton's response, he aquitted himself quite nicely and renewed my respect for the man. A truely great man who occasionally cheated on his wife. I doubt many other great men were truely without sin.
I'd still vote for him even though I can see what NAFTA did, but I think he can too.

Thanks for putting this here. I was going to post a Politico article tomorrow or Sunday about this with the headline: "Bubba Heckled by Gay Activist at Nutroots Conference." (Gee, I don't know whether that is 60 characters or not).

It is both funny and sad at the same time how the Democrats keep on stringing along the gay community, throwing them an ocassional bone but never really doing anything for them. Equally sad is how Republicans demonize gays to get their vote out.

Here is the article I was gonna post:

How dare this heckler interrup Clinton, he must be part of the gay nazi mob!

Sincerely

The Left

This guy thinks it's OK for him to disrupt Clinton's speech. How would he feel if another half-dozen people did it? There's something to be said for asking questions during the designated time and letting the speaker say his piece. Even at a gathering of bloggers.

A better question would be is Rcade interrupting Obama and asking him if he and all the members of congress would be required to have the same EXACT health care coverage as he is trying to ram down our throats right now.

Obama would undoubtedly love to extend to all Americans the same health plan enjoyed by Congress.

There is nothing more important than "don't ask, don't tell". Not even an asteroid hitting the earth should take precedence.

Obama would undoubtedly love to extend to all Americans the same health plan enjoyed by Congress.

When a Sen.Byrd gets a hip replacement or heart transplant or expensive cancer treatment while your mother goes on the waiting list or is denied, my point will become quite clear to you.

Congressmen/women have %72 of their premium paid by taxpayers,meaning they pay about $350 dollars a month and they have little or no deductibles.

A person making $73,000 will pay $8,500 a year with a $10,000 deductible on the basic plan.To start.

rwd

There is nothing more important than "don't ask, don't tell". Not even an asteroid hitting the earth should take precedence.

Funny and true.....in a sad way.

But!..we have Obama,... he will make things right all right.

rwd

Don't ask, don't tell? Oh please. Clinton is out of office so why bother him. Should have asked the tough questions when he was in office libs. Take it up with the CURRENT President who promised equality for gays and then went back on his word AGAIN (just like his lies on transparency in government, ending the wars, ending warrantless wiretaps and indefinite prison holds for detainees) and is keeping DODT.

DADT's is based on "I know, I know that you know, I know that you know I know.... Fun to play for 30 seconds or so when you're six years old but soon discarded as a waste of time going nowhere.

It was one of those useless political compromises arrived at to avoid a difficult situation and appease everybody. It just made things worse as such refusals to face facts always does. We'll end up in the same kind of mess with health care if the usual suspects are allowed to have their way.

just throwing the gay community another bone.

"just throwing the gay community another bone"

They have so many bones pilled up that you would think they were as important as the Israeli lobby.

I wonder if Fwthom and Utastaff -- say, who's Uta and what's with the staff? --ever get together down by the tracks near the international crossing at Matamoros , share some Sterno, mix up a few beans in a can over the raging bonfire of discarded truck tires, cough up some loogies, stare bleary-eyed into the rising (or is it setting?) sun, and cheerfully share their meds.

"Obama would undoubtedly love to extend to all Americans the same health plan enjoyed by Congress"

Spoken just like a politician Rcade. Turn the question around and skew the point. The question is "Will Congress go on the same health plan as all Americans?"

"Will Congress go on the sane health plan as Congress..."

Good question. However, massive dividends could be paid if it were possible for all Americans to get colonsocopies when they needed them. Just that.

Someone was spitting at public health care because people might have a delay in obtaining cancer treatments.

The realists out here wonder wbout the delays encountered in determining you have cancer at all.

A person making $73,000 will pay $8,500 a year with a $10,000 deductible on the basic plan.To start.

What are you talking about? My employer insurance costs me less than $2000 with a $5K total out of pocket and I've never been denyed coverage for anything. Since I'm in my 60's, "anything" turns out to be a lot more than I care to think about. And since I deal with headhunters quite frequently, I know this to be a fairly standard employee benefit.

"What are you talking about? My employer insurance..."

You just answered your own question.

Yes, I do believe that employer insurance should be provided as a benefit to all permanent employees. (but not part time school kids)

I also believe everyone should be required to join a market-driven plan, with tax encentives and subsidies if required.

And I believe that insurance companies should be required to cover pre-existing conditions.

And that medical costs should be reduced by capping malpractice awards.

What I do not believe is that the governmanet should be running a health insurance business when their regulatory power gives them an unfair competitive advantage. Would you like to play a competitive game where all the referees play for the other team?

"Would you like to play a competitive game where all the referees play for the other team?"

We already do.

#21

I was going to say that too Danforth. I've seen it far too often!

And totally eliminating all competition and putting the government in charge will solve all your health care problems that you can't solve for yourself. After all, they've done so well with everything else they touch.

"After all, they've done so well with everything else they touch"

Social Security and Medicare are the envy of the world with their efficiency. And before you (rightly) claim they're in financial peril, I'll remind you efficiency and funding are two separate issues.

Dan gets supercilious, "I'll remind you efficiency and funding are two separate issues."

See, Booji? This is one of your leaders ... follow his lead and dumb yourself down some more ...

Then, you too will be a dialectical 'genius.'

efficiency and funding are two separate issues

Agreed. But it's the funding part that scares me. Neither party seems to understand that part. How long will SS and Medicare last when the US can no longer sell their junk bonds to the Chinese. I've paid the maximum into these programs my entire life and all my contributions have been spent on wars and social programs.

Before we spend more money that we don't have without even trying other non-government options, like the ones I've mentioned above, I'd like to see my money put back to provide the benefits I've already paid for.

" follow his lead and dumb yourself down some more ..."

Efficiency and funding ARE two different issues.

Once again Tadly leads the Ignoramus Parade. Stooooopid, and damn proud of it.

"How long will SS and Medicare last when the US can no longer sell their junk bonds to the Chinese."

That screams for single-payer. When we look around at how other countries can cover more, for a lower % of GDP, with better overall health outcomes, the answers become fairly clear.

"Social Security and Medicare are the envy of the world with their efficiency."

I hardly find printing and mailing checks at a low overhead rate enviously efficient.

"And before you (rightly) claim they're in financial peril, I'll remind you efficiency and funding are two separate issues."

Are they? Would fraud its investigation, and thwarting have much to do with overhead, and financial peril? Prolly not in your world, its just easier to raise taxes, claim efficency, rather than actually fight fraud. Which when profit driven you must do.

That screams for single-payer

No, that screams for keeping government away from health insurance so they don't collect premiums and divert them for some other purpose.

Dan repeats, "Efficiency and funding ARE two different issues."

See, Booji? Parrots, and you want to squawk just like them?

"Once again Tadly leads the Ignoramus Parade. Stooooopid, and damn proud of it."

Wait, Dan! Aren't "Stooooopid" and "proud" different issues?
Whereas running over-budget is considered a problem of efficiency?

You are probably a Democrat MBA and can explain why being over budget is different that being inefficient ... go for it ... impress Booji, the new dupe.

Before we spend more money that we don't have without even trying other non-government options, like the ones I've mentioned above, I'd like to see my money put back to provide the benefits I've already paid for.

#26 | Posted by Redman

So would the people who bought into Bernie Madoff's version of the same type of scam. Your money is spent long before they receive it. They are unsustainable programs that were designed with little thought to the future. That's part of the irony of the situation.

"See, Booji?"

Stupid redux. The guy hasn't a clue, and is intent on rebroadcasting that fact at every turn.

"You are probably a Democrat MBA and can explain why being over budget is different that being inefficient ... go for it ... "

Efficiency is a factor of administrative costs divided by size of the program. Funding is whether or not those costs are realistically reflected in the budget. Anyone who confuses the two is just that: confused.

A blogger stands up and asks a question of Bubba at a Don't Ask him any questions event?

And gets booed down fer having the temerity to do so?

On Noes!!!!!

Was it, indeed, bad form?

Indubitably.

Was it, more importantly, a good question?

Affirmitive.

Rather than go into a Emily Post inspired tizzy perhaps we should listen to Bubba's answer to the guys question about DADT...

And, you know, the thing that changed me forever on Don't Ask Don't Tell was when I learned that 130 gay service people were allowed to serve and risk their lives in the first Gulf War, and all their commanders knew they were gay; they let them go out there and risk their lives because they needed them, and then as soon as the first Gulf War was over, they kicked them out. That's all I needed to know, that's all anybody needs to know, to know that this policy should be changed.

Good answer.

Be Well.

"I hardly find printing and mailing checks at a low overhead rate enviously efficient."

And you're foolish if you think that's all there is, and part of the problem if you know better yet pretend otherwise.

"Are they (in financial peril)?

Medicare is already under water, and the baby boomers will begin applying for it in a matter of months, not years. SS is not as bad, but will be underwater by 2016 or before, and the macro numbers portend a disaster: the payer-to-user ratio is dropping precipitously.

"Would fraud its investigation, and thwarting have much to do with overhead, (end) financial peril? Prolly not in your world, its just easier to raise taxes, claim efficency, rather than actually fight fraud."

During the height of Reagan's "waste, fraud & abuse" rhetoric, the state of CT spent $2M to investigate over two years. IIRC, they found six cases. Even if you rooted out every single instance of WFA, there's no way that will cover the 6-1 into 3-1 ratio.

Dan--there is estimates that the waste fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid is between 60 and 120 BILLION A YEAR!!

They bust doctors here in CA all the time.

They just busted someone in NY (?)

The doctor was putting in bills for like 975 charges per day or some such. Costing millions and millions of dollars. They finally caught him after years of fraudulent billing.

Why don't they hook up American Express billing system and catch the crooks the first week they do this nonsense.

I mean AE will call YOU if you use your card in the same store for three different purchases.

They don't call the next day or the next month--they call you THAT DAY!

"there is estimates that the waste fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid is between 60 and 120 BILLION A YEAR!!"

By all means, find them and string them up.

That still won't solve The Problem of The Intractable Macro Numbers.

Dan waves hands, "Efficiency is a factor of administrative costs divided by size of the program."

More 'dialectics,' and a translation is needed for those too dumb to question such seemingly erudite use of words: Efficiency is a measure of two factors: budget divided by cost. The more that budget is greater than zero, when all costs are divided into it, the more efficient it is.

Medicare/Medicaid is not efficient, obviously, and despite your effort to lie about it.

"Funding is whether or not those costs are realistically reflected in the budget. Anyone who confuses the two is just that: confused."

That's what I said, DanDevious! Funding does not have anything to do with the efficiency of the budget. Efficiency would, at the minimum, be when costs and budget are equal.

However, I'm sure you still have most of the party dupes in your stooge-like pocket. After all, the vast majority are just as stupid as you appear to be ...

And, since you appear to be so thick, maybe you are just anoter party dupe. Who thought up the dialectics you use, then? Who is it that is your stooge, parrot?

Turdly describes himself: ...a translation is needed for those too dumb to question such seemingly erudite use of words...

"Medicare/Medicaid is not efficient, obviously, and despite your effort to lie about it."

You're full of shit, and don't even know it. After explaining efficiency, you then pretend a model of efficiency isn't.

"Funding does not have anything to do with the efficiency of the budget."

What a laugh! Just earlier you posted:

Dan gets supercilious, "I'll remind you efficiency and funding are two separate issues."

Which is it, Turdly?

"Efficiency would, at the minimum, be when costs and budget are equal."

D-U-M-B.

"And, since you appear to be so thick, maybe you are just anoter party dupe."

Ya gotta love the self-retorting retort.

Dan asks, "Which is it, Turdly?"

Funding is a seperate issue from cost EFFICIENCY.

Funding is the act of setting a budget, not a factor in budget efficiency. The exception to the dialectic you propose to obfuscate the issue, would be the inefficiency of proposing a budget where costs exceeded that budget. Then setting a budget which was inadgequate, would display a planning deficiency.

However, it is obvious that you can't understand, and are now just trying to save your stupid, collective 'face.' I sure hope the Booji's of this site are noticing ...

Bloggers take themselves way too seriously. Stay in your mom's basement, losers.

Chew noshes, "Bloggers take themselves way too seriously. Stay in your mom's basement, losers."

Here's a classic example of one-liner intellectualism. This one is a baseball groupie bat bobber, however much teeth he says he puts into it.

I'm sure he'll come back and explain about medicaid medicare efficiency, won't you, Big League Steve?

"Funding is a seperate issue from cost EFFICIENCY."

Yes...that was my idea. Which you originally called supercilious, and then contradicted yourself.

"Funding is the act of setting a budget..."

No it's not. Those are two separate things. One could 'set a budget' and not fund certain programs.

"...not a factor in budget efficiency."

Why the fuck are you repeating MY point?

"However, it is obvious that you can't understand"

Too damn funny. The dumbshit contradicts himself, repeats MY point, and then tells me I don't understand. Super silly.

Dan, I mentioned dialectics because you were trying to use it to misdirect the fact that Medicare and Medicaid are inefficient.

You conflated the words "Funding and Efficiency" as explaining why someone else's denial of efficiency was incorrect.

They are related in *budget*, since funding levels are the budget, and although funding and efficiency are not related, per se, except in budget. Notice in your quote my stipulation?

"Funding does not have anything to do with the efficiency of the budget."

I said at the time, that that was what I was saying in your direct comparison of funding and efficiency, and where those words are seperated by budget, which is related to funding.

Your explanation that funding is not related, because funds may not be available to meet budget requirements is specious, and since the government will issue funds regardless of the unrelated nature of the two words, whatever the budget over runs might be, or whatever else may occur to restrict funding.

Not providing funds that were budgeted, or in over runs, is an indication of inefficiency, also, as mentioned.

Funding and efficiency are not related, dialectically, and that's the point, since the logical statements are used by you to misconstrue the reality that the systems of 'insurance' is NOT EFFICIENT, as you claim them to be.

You sure can quibble like a champ, though. Didn't someone say you were a lawyer?

"You conflated the words "Funding and Efficiency""

No, dumbshit, my first post on this thread in that regard was THEY ARE DIFFERENT. First you called it "supercilious", and then you pretended like that was YOUR point. You're either an idiot, or a chickenshit incapable of admitting your obvious contradiction, or both.

"I said at the time, that that was what I was saying in your direct comparison of funding and efficiency, and where those words are seperated by budget, which is related to funding."

S-T-U-P-I-D. You can't admit you contradicted yourself, so you've been reduced to blowing smoke. Sorry, Turdly, I see right through it. Better luck next time.

Dan says, "No, dumbshit, my first post on this thread in that regard was THEY ARE DIFFERENT."

As mentioned (again) the words *are* different, but you mix them together to misdirect the fact that in Medicaid and Medicare, they *are* related to *efficiency*, because the terms *funding* and *budget(ing)* are interrelated.

"As mentioned (again) the words *are* different, but you mix them together to misdirect the fact that in Medicaid and Medicare, they *are* related to *efficiency*, because the terms *funding* and *budget(ing)* are interrelated.'

Smoke....smoke....cough...coug h...

HACK!

You contradicted yourself, and you're not man enough to admit it. Then you tried to appropriate my point, and just ended up blowing smoke. The posts are there for all to see. All you're doing is digging your hole deeper and deeper.

So by all means, dig away, you addle-brained dipshit.

Dan says, "You contradicted yourself, and you're not man enough to admit it."

I *disagreed* with you, Dan, and have tried to explain how. I know, though, that even if I explained it perfectly and which I acknowledge I can't do to that degree, you wouldn't ever confirm whatever accuracy I did manage to achieve.

I was unclear to you, and maybe everyone else, in explanation ... and as with Rogers, I'm devastated. I may lose a few minutes sleep over it.

"Then you tried to appropriate my point, and just ended up blowing smoke."

Once again, I did not agree with your effort at dialectics. Funding and efficiency are as different as nouns and adjectives, but they are both directly related to budgeting ... and you can suck that up through those pursed, self-righteous lips, you liberal, lying loser.

"The posts are there for all to see. All you're doing is digging your hole deeper and deeper."

They sure are, and thank heavan's grace that I am not dependent on your ilk for my feelings of self worth. I'd sink in this abyssal pit of leftist lies and hatred, if I were so inclined.

"So by all means, dig away, you addle-brained dipshit."

Why not lie some more and claim that *Tadowe* agrees with you? Wouldn't that be a coup, huh?

No, you can't do that, since your goal is to discredit all I might have to say, over one instance where I was so unclear as to make you think I was agreeing with one of you wannabe communist creeps ... what's new in Liberalville?

Isn't it time this old joke should change his name to Bill ClinToon ???

"I was unclear to you, and maybe everyone else"

Ahhhhh....the broken calendar moment.

"Why not lie some more and claim that *Tadowe* agrees with you?"

You didn't, and then you did. Reread your own posts if you have any doubt.

"your goal is to discredit all I might have to say"

You don't need me for that. You do a bang-up job all by yourself.

Dan says, "You didn't, and then you did. Reread your own posts if you have any doubt."

When you say I did agree with you, do you see the word 'budget' used, in that putative concurrence?

Come on back and display some of the honesty that Rogers has all over you ...

If not ... ho, hum ...

"Come on back and display some of the honesty that Rogers has all over you ..."

Too funny, seeing as how you can't seem to display a shred of it. Do you realize you disagreed with me, before you agreed with me and tried to appropriate my point, or are you too dense for that?

Ho - hum

yes sir, you said it...mighty slow tonight...