Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

EXPLAIN IT TO ME PLEASE.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

LarryMohr

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

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

but You are the same assholes who want to either cut medicare spending or eliminate it entirely??

Why are railing against this when Obama wants to cut Medicare by $200 to $500 billion?

You act as if You cut one bullet from the Defenese department You go into cardiac arrest.

that is a horseshit broadbrush.

But You get a fucking triple hard hard on for cutting medical care to Your lesser citizenry??

that is a horseshit broadbrush.

and not true.

Sorry Larry, but that was far too hostile and accusatory to be considered anything other than a troll attempt.

If You can't answer the question Kanrei then be quiet. If You aren't willing to answer that's fine. It's a fair question.

Larry

LarryM, I agree with you. Rightwingers are hypocrites, liars and assholes.
But Kanrei is also right. In order to get any nibbles on a thread like this, ya gotta phrase the outrage and hostility such that it is couched in non-partisan logic or is so condescendingly in-your-face self satisfied as to require response.

Ted Kennedy

1. How will the legislative math work? I have yet to see a proposal that unites the various factions of the Democratic Party in the Congress, so the question becomes how can party leaders get the 218 votes in the House then 60 in the Senate? The fact that there is still no clear signal on reconciliation, the principal benefit of which would be to reduce the burden from 60 to 51, is an indication that the leadership itself does not quite know how the votes will line up.

As of now, the conventional wisdom among the punditocracy is that the public option will be dropped as a way to pick up party moderates, under the assumption that the progressive caucus will go along for the ride. But will they? It is highly unlikely that all of them will. Most of them would presumably be willing to grant at least some small concessions to add votes - but how far are they willing to go? That depends upon individual legislators themselves, which means that - until you get to 218 in the House and 60/51 in the Senate - every concession the leadership makes had better add more moderates than it loses progressives. This is when legislative calculus begins to look like actual calculus!

There are indications that a compromise will be a hard pill for many progressives to swallow. This is Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, on the compromise coming out of the Senate Finance Committee:


I think the product that has come out from [Max Baucus's] committee and himself, I really believe that it has no legitimacy in this debate. It's an insider product. It's there to protect the industry. It is not there to try to look for that middle ground. He is key in holding up deliberations, has been key in trying to work on a consensus, but everything you see in his legislation had to be approved by the industry before it became part of the plan...I consider Senator Baucus's proposal to be essentially an insider trader move to protect an industry and really doesn't have validity at all, both political validity or content validity.[Emphasis Mine]

This is not the first time I have seen a progressive House member blast Baucus. John Conyers took a shot at him a few months ago, and Baucus does not appear to be terribly popular on the progressive sites.

The progressive caucus is going to do a head count this week to find out how many members agree with Grijalva on the following point:

And, you know, this political line in the sand that we have drawn is not a gimmick. We feel very strongly about it. We believe that it's not only good public policy that we're advocating, it's good political policy, because our base really needs to see its party and its leadership come through with a commitment that was made in this era of change. And this is one of them. Health reform is the biggie. And I think the progressives, while there will be an effort to label us, I think we're going to work hard these next two weeks to build not only the internal support that we need for the public plan, but, more importantly, the external support to also put pressure on our colleagues. [Emphasis Mine]
The House leadership can afford to lose about 40 of their members before a bill fails in the lower chamber, assuming no Republican votes (which at this point seems reasonable). Recently, 57 members of the House Progressive Caucus indicated that they would not vote for a bill that lacks "a robust public option". The big question is: how many of those members are making a credible threat? That the White House is sending the President out to campaign strongly for the public option just this weekend is a sign that the answer to this question is not as obvious as it might seem.

www.realclearpolitics.com

2. What's the common ground on the public option? Like the last query, I do not think the answer to this question is as obvious as it first appears. We might initially think it is something like Baucus's Senate Finance plan, but I would refer again to the progressive reaction to the Baucus plan. Grijalva goes out of his way there to suggest that the Baucus plan is not common ground.

In general I am not sure how progressives are going to view any kind of compromise bill that attracts the moderates. Their attitude seems to be one of deep suspicion of the for-profit health industry. Take away the public option, but retain employer and/or individual mandates, and that looks like a big boon to the insurance companies. They might consider that an outright defeat. In that case, the normal calculations of compromise - you get half a loaf versus a whole loaf, but you're still better off - would not apply. Progressives might think they have not gotten even half a loaf at all!

This points to one big problem with doing comprehensive reforms like this. Different factions have different diagnoses for what ails the system - and when a comprehensive bill is introduced, it inevitably favors one view over another. If the progressives' view is on the losing end, they might think the bill does not do much of anything. And remember: the President wants to be the "last" to tackle this issue - meaning that the stakes are very high. So, if the progressives think the bill will further solidify the insurance industry's hold over health care, they might bolt.

Everybody body wants reform.

Nobody wants to pay for it.

3. Can the party come together around a cost estimate? Obama's speech last week helped to unite the party, but it was a campaign style speech that did not even try to resolve the issues that have actually divided it (and forced the President to make the speech in the first place!). The public option is such an issue, but it is just one part of a broader divide among the various factions in the caucus.

Another issue is the price tag, and relateldy how it is funded. Can the leadership put together a bill that accomplishes policy goals to the progressives' satisfaction without exploding the deficit, which will drive away moderates? The first attempts at this - the House tri-committee bill and the Senate HELP committee bill - were unsuccessful. Again, progressives seem not to like the Senate Finance Committee outline, either. So, the search for a Goldilocks-style compromise - neither too hot nor too cold, but just right - continues.

4. How much work is left to be done? Last week, the President repeated the oft-quoted notion that there is agreement on 80% of an overhaul. That may be so, but it does not really answer the question. Historically speaking, the Democrats can always agree on the initial 80%; it's that final 20% that tends to trip them up!

Intra-party disagreements almost always happen behind closed doors; their public pronouncements tend to be little more than spin, so I don't even have a sense on this one. Here are things I am wondering. What items do they need to find agreement on? Do they at least have basic ideas about how to get to an agreement? How much from the original bills can be salvaged? Have they made positive progress on that 20%, or have they spent the last few months merely learning what will not work? Above all, can they get it done "in time?"

"In time" is in scare quotes because it's a purely political concept, which means the leadership might redefine it as it sees fit. Indeed, the timeline has already been altered once - there were no votes taken in July, as was initially demanded. The new deadline is Thanksgiving. There might be too much work left to do to meet that deadline, which in turn would suggest it might have to be pushed back again. Can it be? That would put the vote for passage in the second session of the 111th Congress, during the midterm election year. That could be dicey, which means the answer to this question is a politically consequential one.

5. How will the public react, and how will legislators react to that reaction? Clearly, the public response to the House tri-committee bill and the Senate HELP committee bill was less than positive. The town hall protests reflected the strong opposition of the right, and the President's sagging poll numbers indicated that the broad middle had its doubts, too. How will the public react to the new proposal, once it is actually produced? That's uncertain, to say the least. Few people expected the reaction we saw this summer, so who knows what will come next. Additionally, will moderate legislators want an opportunity to take the new bill back to their districts to gauge public reaction? Will the leadership give them an opportunity?

Relatedly, how will the right respond? It has essentially been shut out of this process - that agreement on 80% is agreement among Democrats to the exclusion of Republicans - but conservatives have nevertheless found ways back into the public debate. This weekend's "tea party" protest in Washington indicates at the least that the right is worked up enough to take to the streets - something that historically is a hallmark of leftwing activism. So, it will be interesting to see how the right attempts to inject its views into the process, and what result that will produce.

Final point on this. When gauging the legislative reaction, it's important not to commit a fallacy of division. For instance, if support for the bill is split 50-50 in a national poll - then you can probably expect that more Louisianans oppose it than favor it. This will affect the political calculations of Senator Landrieu and Representative Melancon, inclining them against the bill. Generally, the strong Democratic presence in red state Senate seats means that 50-50 might actually mean something less when it comes time to tally up the votes in the upper chamber.

I stand corrected.

I oppose Healthcare Reform because:
- I have zero faith in Gummit to do it effectively and cost efficiently.
- Just as is done with SocSec, Medicaid and many other social programs, Gummit will use these programs to divide the nation, instill fear and foster anger to engineer further vote manipulation.
- It is a conflict of interest in the highest order for one of the competitors (I.E., the Gummit) to be the regulator for all the other insurance providers. It is on this basis that I believe the courts will strike it down as illegal.

As for the colorful phrasing of your question, your vulgar and rather juvenile display of emotions puts you in a very poor strategic position to be taken seriously when posing your point of view. It tends to lend credibility to the notion that many on the left operate from a purely emotional perspective that often clouds rational thought. Perhaps you should consider a more elevated approach in the future.

Aside from that, such levels of continued stress and anger is bad for your heart.

At least I learned something in asking this serious(At least to Me)question. Tis best to ask questions silently than it is to ask them openly. For that I should thank You Kanrei for that lesson.

Larry

Larry,

The problem isn't whether you ask silently or openly. It is that when you ask a loaded question you are going to get called on it.

For example:

You start off asking why Republicans supported one thing (downsizing the military under Reagan and Bush), but complain about something you say is similar (downsizing the military under Clinton).

Then ask why they are pushing for something (Medicare cuts) that Obama is also pushing for ($200 to $500 billion cut from Medicare).

Your question was loaded and came across as partisan spin. You got called on it.

Then ask why they are pushing for something (Medicare cuts) that Obama is also pushing for ($200 to $500 billion cut from Medicare).


Your question was loaded and came across as partisan spin. You got called on it.

Posted by moomanfl at 2009-09-14 06:17 PM | Reply


Huge difference between having to cut something than it is to thirst to cut something. I betcha don't like PTing Your rig It's something You have to do. It's not something You particularly desire to do however. Huge difference.

Larry

Huge difference between having to cut something than it is to thirst to cut something.

If that were true then it would invalidate your military cuts analogy.

If you are doing it, you are doing it. Motive, in the context you attempt to use it is irrelevant.

Face it, you asked a loaded question and got your bullshit called.

I betcha don't like PTing Your rig It's something You have to do.

You assume incorrectly. I PT my rig because I don't want to drive an unsafe vehicle and get myself and others killed due to an equipment failure that could have been prevented. I take pride in PTing my rig.

It does not invalidate My question. The same fuck dicks who condemn Clinton for downsizing the Military are the same dicks(You may be included in this Christine) that have a hard on for wanting medicare to just go away. It's a valid question which hasn't been answered yet.

Larry

It does not invalidate My question.

Sure it does based on the comparison you make.

You are talking about a group that does one thing complaining about another group that does the same thing.

You got called on a loaded question with partisan spin.

If You are unwilling to answer the question Moomanfl then that's fine. It's that simple.

Larry

If You are unwilling to answer the question Moomanfl then that's fine. It's that simple.

I also refuse to answer the question "do you still beat your wife" on the same grounds: it is a loaded question.

Ask a serious question without loading it with partisan spin bullshit and you might get a serious answer.

I also refuse to answer the question "do you still beat your wife"

#23 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-09-14 07:06 PM


That would explain some things.

How is it loaded?? There is only one group and if I am beating My wife I'd love to know who She is. I can tell You don't want to answer the question which is fine Moomanfl. Cya

Larry

How is it loaded??

I have already explained this. Not wanting to admit it is true doesn't make it go away.

Hell, even Moder8 admitted your question was spun in a partisan manner, and he is about as partisan as they come. If even HE says it is so, then you KNOW it is about 10 times more partisan than he is letting on.

I also refuse to answer the question "do you still beat your wife"

#23 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-09-14 07:06 PM


That would explain some things.

#24 | Posted by jackass at 2009-09-14 07:20 PM

Yes, it explains why people think you are an idiot, AssNinja.

that is a horseshit broadbrush.

and not true.

#2 | Posted by eberly

Just like Universal Health Care would lead to Socialism is Horsehit broadbrush and not true.

Here it is again. The Same SOB's who decried Clinton for reducing the Military are the same SOB's who desire with every fibre of heir beingthe elimination of Medicare/Welfre whatever You want to call it. I wanna know why that is. If that question is too fricking hard for You to answer Moomanfl then say so. Or if You just refuse to answer that's fine too.

Larry

The Same SOB's who decried Clinton for reducing the Military are the same SOB's who desire with every fibre of heir beingthe elimination of Medicare/Welfre whatever You want to call it.

Again, your question is loaded. Restating it with more bullshit spin and bad logic doesn't make it any less loaded and unworthy of a serious answer the second time. Or the third, or the fourth, or the one thousandth time.

Yes, it explains why people think you are an idiot, AssNinja.

#27 | Posted by moomanfl

Oh not quite. We both know what I am talking about. I think your side of that story isn't the truth. Maybe you care to explain your situation as to what really happened over the last 8 years?

Then You refuse to answer the question Moomanfl that's fine.

Larry

Then You refuse to answer the question Moomanfl that's fine.

I know it is fine since you refuse to supply a serious question devoid of partisan hackery.

We both know what I am talking about.

Actually no I don't. Not surprising though.

I am just flattered that you spend so much time on me, donkey fluffer. You obviously care much more about me than any of us do about you.

Larry's initial question is correct and to the point. There is always money for war and military requirements, no matter where it comes from or if its borrowed (i.e. Iraq) There is a completely insane attitude that we cannot afford social programmes like every other civilized country in the world has. It is about deep-seated fear, which is simply emphasized and distorted by the Fox/Beck/O'Reilly/Coulter/
Malkin brigade of (very over-paid and with health care) hypocrites who still seem able to make that "fear" take hold among ignorant people who have been told all their lives that if something is "socialist" that is like "communist".

It is complete baloney, and it is time for the Democrats to get THEIR ignorant blue-dogs to get in line and pass the President's agenda. This is an opportunity that is so great, that will be looked back on with the kind of pride that people now have about those other Government Programmes like Medicare and Social Security, enjoyed by most of the demonstrators in DC this weekend (and in spite of Republican opposition and Norquist/Cheney/Bush attempts to privatize them) still intact and functioning.

Go Democrats! Get your act together and get the Obama programme moving!

This is an opportunity that is so great, that will be looked back on with the kind of pride that people now have about those other Government Programmes like Medicare and Social Security, enjoyed by most of the demonstrators in DC this weekend (and in spite of Republican opposition and Norquist/Cheney/Bush attempts to privatize them) still intact and functioning.

Posted by sitdown

Yes sir! 2 great programs. One that contains billions in fraud, and the other is slated to go belly up. Can I get a hell, yeah?

THANK YOU Sitdown. At leat Yu was willing to answer the question. God Bless You.

Larry

THANK YOU Sitdown. At leat Yu was willing to answer the question. God Bless You.

Larry

A perfect example of the echo-chamber mentality.

"One that contains billions in fraud, and the other is slated to go belly up"

So a) where were the Republicans during their 8 years in power regarding the fraud, and b) are you another idiot who doesn't understand the difference between funding and efficiency?

I'd rather hear an echo than a fucking thud because someone was unwilling to answer the question.

Larry

a) where were the Republicans during their 8 years in power regarding the fraud

Irrelevant since you assume they have had no reason to change (a major beat-down in the last two election cycles is plenty of reason). Doubly irrelevant since doing it different before doesn't mean they are doing it wrong now. Should we start to count the number of times that Democrats have flip-flopped before?

b) are you another idiot who doesn't understand the difference between funding and efficiency?

Are you another idiot that asks loaded questions?

I'd rather hear an echo.

Larry

#40 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-09-14 08:25 PM

FTFY

Still intact and functioning is what I said, Wisgod, and that is true. If Grover Norquist had had his way they would not be, and the number of people without government assisted health care would be far higher than it is.

I would like to see a 10% cut in the Defense Budget every year for the next five years. That would pay for everything and reduce the deficit, and you people who think that would make us vulnerable or defenseless are just wrong and simply pawns in the game the Right plays with your minds and your emotions and your money.

Don't fuck with My posts Moomanfl. I don't fuck with Yours.

Larry

Don't fuck with My posts Moomanfl. I don't fuck with Yours.

I call it as I see it. I did nothing that isn't normally done around here. Quit whining.

So Moomanfl doesn't have any class I see. Why doesn't that surprise Me. Oh and if everyone around here was jumping off of bridges would You Moomanfl??

Larry

So Moomanfl doesn't have any class I see. Why doesn't that surprise Me.

Larry doesn't haven't any stones I see. Why doesn't that surprise me?

Oh and if everyone around here was jumping off of bridges would You Moomanfl??

Depends on the bridge and the circumstances. I have jumped off a few of them in my time. There is a nice little bridge over the Yadkin River in North Carolina that I have jumped off more than once. I also wouldn't mind trying my hand someday at BASE jumping off of a larger span.

"The same fuck dicks who condemn Clinton for downsizing the Military are the same dicks(You may be included in this Christine) that have a hard on for wanting medicare to just go away."

The Same SOB's who decried Clinton for reducing the Military are the same SOB's who desire with every fibre of heir beingthe elimination of Medicare/Welfre whatever

#29 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-09-14 07:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

who?

But You get a fucking triple hard hard on for cutting medical care to Your lesser citizenry??

Larry, I think you mean

"You get a fucking triple hard hard HARD on for cutting medical care to Your lesser citizenry??"

"Doubly irrelevant since doing it different before doesn't mean they are doing it wrong now."

Let us know when you get your head out of the sand. We've seen medical inflation outstrip actual inflation for decades. If a rube like me could see the problem ten years ago, why couldn't the Republican experts?

are you another idiot who doesn't understand the difference between funding and efficiency?

I'll take your answer as a "yes".

So a) where were the Republicans during their 8 years in power regarding the fraud, and b) are you another idiot who doesn't understand the difference between funding and efficiency?

#39 | Posted by Danforth

Well, there you have it. I feel so much better now that Danforth has chimed in.

"Well, there you have it. I feel so much better now that Danforth has chimed in."

I must have really burned Wissy for his vagina to still hurt this much.

I must have really burned Wissy for his vagina to still hurt this much.

#52 | Posted by Danforth

No, when you site the last 8 years, I know I'm dealing with a dumbfuck. Did Bush sign the SS and Medicare acts, simpleton?

"I must have really burned Wissy for his vagina to still hurt this much."


This place cracks me up. Boys calling each other pussies. Carry on.

"Did Bush sign the SS and Medicare acts, simpleton?"

No. But while he was in power, did he fix all the problems Republicans have suddenly discovered, ballsucker?

I must have really burned Wissy for his vagina to still hurt this much.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-14 08:59 PM

Making a vagina sore, or raw usually means you did a good job in the sack, or were a little to rough depending on the lady.

When you make a vagina burn, however, that only means one thing:

You need a shot of penicillin

"when you site the last 8 years, I know I'm dealing with a dumbfuck."

*Sigh* Yet another member of The Party of Responsibility who wouldn't be caught dead taking any responsibility.

"When you make a vagina burn, however, that only means one thing:
You need a shot of penicillin"

Obviously Wissy has a lot of sand, probably garnered from the stuff falling out of his ears when he stands upright.

Let us know when you get your head out of the sand.

Just as soon as you dislodge yours from your ass.

We've seen medical inflation outstrip actual inflation for decades. If a rube like me could see the problem ten years ago, why couldn't the Republican experts?

They did. They just didn't agree with the Democrats on the reasons for it. They have also attempted some measures like tort reform before to address it. Efforts that were largely opposed by the Dems.

Again, your question was loaded with presumptions and "gotcha" logic.

Are you another idiot that asks loaded questions?

are you another idiot who doesn't understand the difference between funding and efficiency?

I'll take your answer as a "yes".

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-14 08:53 PM

I'll take your answer as a "yes".

Obviously Wissy has a lot of sand, probably garnered from the stuff falling out of his ears when he stands upright.

#58 | Posted by Danforth

Wow. Top notch stuff tonight. When did those 2 programs take effect again? Was Clinton in office or is this playground debating, Danfroth style?

Obviously Wissy has a lot of sand

Denial won't get you that cure you need, Danforth. One shot is all it takes. Penicillin does wonders.

"Denial won't get you that cure you need, Danforth. One shot is all it takes. Penicillin does wonders"

That assumes Wissy isn't a little slut, sleeping with anyone willing to trash those with a (D) after their name. Actually, the perp may be you, since I know I'm clean.

That assumes Wissy isn't a little slut,

Sorry, Danforth, but you made it perfectly clear that you were the cause of the burning.

I must have really burned Wissy for his vagina to still hurt this much.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-14 08:59 PM

Still trying to spin your way out of things as usual.

Penicillin, man. Getcha some.

Bwahaha. Danforth is pissed. Poor Baby. Next time don't bring up 8 years on those 2 programs and I won't make you my bitch, waterboy.

"Danforth is pissed. Poor Baby. "

Posts the guy who leaped in, after suggesting last time I pointed out a self-retorting retort not to leap in.

"Next time don't bring up 8 years on those 2 programs"

Why? Because you refuse to take any responsibility for programs idiots like you just realized were underfunded? Too rich.

"I won't make you my bitch"

Dream on, little girl.

"Penicillin, man. Getcha some."

Be happy to. In the meantime, try to keep his hermaphrodite dick out of your mouth.

Oh snap. What are you drinking with your dinner of crow tonight?

In the meantime, try to keep his hermaphrodite dick out of your mouth.

Ooooo... sounds like someone is jealous. You thought it was all for you, eh?

"You thought it was all for you, eh"

Nah...I've always known Wissy would spread for anyone offering a steak and a compliment to Bush.

Most people would learn after stepping into a pile of shit that it doesn't make sense to roll around in it. Danforth is the exception tonight.

Please would one of You righty tighties explain it to Me?? I would dearly love to know where Your priorities are??


Well Larry you big bib overall wearing young whippersnapper I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you (erroneously) think that I am one of those "righty tighties" (actually I'm a conservative leaning, boxer brief wearing Libertarian) and answer your question.

I want LESS government both on the federal and state level but rather than get into the overall specifics here I'm just gonna address your concerns about health reform Mister Mohr.

A - there is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution that either requires or even allows the federal government to institute government healthcare for the general citizenry

B - inefficiencies and cost overruns are the time-honored hallmark of ANY and ALL government operations

C - yes it is unfortunate that a considerable number of Americans (including myself) in need of medical care can't get it because of their finances but the ONLY acceptable solution is for individuals to independently and WITHOUT government interference help those in need.

In sum Larry stop bitching, if you really feel so strongly about this issue get off your big lazy Kansas duff and start a foundation to help these people. It doesn't have to be nationwide just your little corner of Kansas. Talk is cheap Larry walk the walk by setting an example for others or STFU!!!!

Have a nice day now big guy

Nah...I've always known Wissy would spread for anyone offering a steak and a compliment to Bush.

#69 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-14 09:37 PM

Nah, it was just that you bent over and spread them so nice he couldn't resist you. Don't worry, I am sure he will be willing to give you the treatment as often as you want as usual. The only obstacle is getting it in past your head.

Virtual High Five, Moonmanfl. Danforth should stick to something he's good at. Spellchecking and simple housework.

"Most people would learn after stepping into a pile of shit that it doesn't make sense to roll around in it. "

Aw, c'mon, Wissy...don't be so hard on yourself. You're not always a pile of shit.

"Nah, it was just that you bent over and spread them so nice he couldn't resist you. Don't worry, I am sure he will be willing to give you the treatment as often as you want as usual. The only obstacle is getting it in past your head."

Are you addressing Wissy, or are you that unaware of the direction of fucks?

You poor bastard.

Are you addressing Wissy, or are you that unaware of the direction of fucks?

Nope, I was speaking of you and the "hermaphrodite dick" you say he has. Don't be embarrassed, Danforth. Gayness is much more accepted today. Nobody will think less of you for coming out of the closet.

I want LESS government both on the federal and state level but rather than get into the overall specifics here I'm just gonna address your concerns about health reform Mister Mohr.


A - there is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution that either requires or even allows the federal government to institute government healthcare for the general citizenry

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;



B - inefficiencies and cost overruns are the time-honored hallmark of ANY and ALL government operations

Talk to Danforth on how effecient Medicare is


C - yes it is unfortunate that a considerable number of Americans (including myself) in need of medical care can't get it because of their finances but the ONLY acceptable solution is for individuals to independently and WITHOUT government interference help those in need.

That's nice in theory but where do You think You are going to go to gather the 150,000 a pop for some medical procedures?? You poor pricks(I am very much a poor prick) going to do?? You can't gather turnips and expect to get blood from them.


In sum Larry stop bitching, if you really feel so strongly about this issue get off your big lazy Kansas duff and start a foundation to help these people. It doesn't have to be nationwide just your little corner of Kansas. Talk is cheap Larry walk the walk by setting an example for others or STFU!!!!

If I had the money I would. I'd buy one of those conversion motorhomes and fill it with medical supplies and I'd be on the road. As it is I can barely obtain bandaids for Myself(Not Totally destitute so don't offer any money to Me)I'd love nothing more than to help

First off THANK YOU for being willing to answer My question.

Larry

Ok this ain't fair now. What happened to My type??

If I had the money I would. I'd buy one of those conversion motorhomes and fill it with medical supplies and I'd be on the road. As it is I can barely obtain bandaids for Myself(Not Totally destitute so don't offer any money to Me)I'd love nothing more than to help


First off THANK YOU for being willing to answer My question.


Larry

"Nope, I was speaking of you and the "hermaphrodite dick" you say he has. "

On that I was merely assuming, since you have that and his balls in your mouth on such a regular basis.

On that I was merely assuming, since you have that and his balls in your mouth on such a regular basis.

Quite being so shy. You know you found out about it at the same time you gave him that burning vagina. Own it, Danforth. There is no shame in being such a Rainbow Warrior. I actually applaud you for making the admission.

"Quite being so shy."

Quite, indeed.

"I actually applaud you for making the admission."

Why are you so intent? Something you'd like to tell the class, or are you merely trolling for dates?

Sorry Larry but the section of the Constitution does not say what you want it to say as was explained to you more than adequately the other day.

Talk to Danforth on how effecient Medicare is

Joe Isuzu? LMFAO!!!!

That's nice in theory but where do You think You are going to go to gather the 150,000 a pop for some medical procedures??

Sorry Larry but I don't even expect private insurance companies to pay for most (if any at all) expensive medical procedures. Hey wait are you wanting to bankrupt the U.S.?

If I had the money I would. I'd buy one of those conversion motorhomes and fill it with medical supplies and I'd be on the road.

I wasn't suggesting you had money Larry I was saying get off your duff start a foundation and pound the asphalt with your size 15 shoe leather seeking donations instead of bitching and whining like a little kid "Me want, me want baaaawaaah!"


Sorry Larry but the section of the Constitution does not say what you want it to say as was explained to you more than adequately the other day.


Talk to Danforth on how effecient Medicare is


Joe Isuzu? LMFAO!!!!


That's nice in theory but where do You think You are going to go to gather the 150,000 a pop for some medical procedures??


Sorry Larry but I don't even expect private insurance companies to pay for most (if any at all) expensive medical procedures. Hey wait are you wanting to bankrupt the U.S.?


If I had the money I would. I'd buy one of those conversion motorhomes and fill it with medical supplies and I'd be on the road.


I wasn't suggesting you had money Larry I was saying get off your duff start a foundation and pound the asphalt with your size 15 shoe leather seeking donations instead of bitching and whining like a little kid "Me want, me want baaaawaaah!"

Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch at 2009-09-14 10:30 PM | Reply


First off sure it does. The American mental faculties have been programed to think otherwise because of capitalistic greed. As far as Medicare. It saved My Family Countless times for medical procedures. Oh and for God sake why wouldn't You expect insurance companies to pay most of the cost of High dollar medical proceedures?? Why the fuck would one want insurance then?? I mean My God You get car insurance so You don't have to bay big bucks when You crash and burn. Lordy have mercy and people think I am out of touch. Start a foundation?? With what money?? I don't have a pocket to piss in and I barely have a boot to pour it out of. But I Thank You once again for at least Trying to answer My question even if You didn't.

Larry

Something you'd like to tell the class,

Nah... you already told them plenty, Penicillin Boy.

or are you merely trolling for dates?

I have told you before to quit asking me out. You would think all your buddies at the Blue Oyster Club would be enough for you.

"Joe Isuzu? LMFAO!!!!"

Funny. But Medicare's efficiency is the envy of the world. Of course, I wouldn't expect a repeat criminal to know that.

"You would think all your buddies at the Blue Oyster Club would be enough for you."

WTF is the Blue Oyster Club?

I mean My God You get car insurance so You don't have to bay big bucks when You crash and burn.

Wrong, Larry.

You don't get car insurance to protect yourself. You get it to protect those you might hurt in an accident. Study up on insurance and minimum requirements before you try talking about it next time.

#88

A gay bar from the 1st Police Academy movie

You don't get car insurance to protect yourself. You get it to protect those you might hurt in an accident. Study up on insurance and minimum requirements before you try talking about it next time.

Posted by moomanfl at 2009-09-14 10:42 PM | Reply


PIP is Personal Injury Protection that is found in Your God damned CAR INSURANCE. Sure it protects You. It protects You in the event You wind up in the hospital and incur a huge medical bill because of an accident. It protects You from having to shell out Your own money in an accident and depending upon a policy will repair or replace Your car if it's Your own fault. How doesn't Car insurance not protect You??

Oh and I think You need to study more Yourself Mr I think I know Everything Moomanfl because You obviously don't.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WTF is the Blue Oyster Club?

#88 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-14 10:41 PM


See... playing shy again. I think you were the one in the police style cap.

www.youtube.com

"playing shy again."

Not playing at all. I honestly had no idea. But it speaks volumes you were so familiar.

'Nite, closet-boy.

Later too. Study up next time Moomanfl. Even I know car insurance protects You. bwhahahaha

Larry

Larry, you are proving ignorance once again. You aren't required to insure for yourself. There are 3 numbers in minimum required coverage.

The first number is the maximum each person injured could receive. The second is the maximum total payout per accident.

This is to insure that if you injure someone else, you can pay for damages.

personalinsure.about.com

PIP is not required in most states, however coverage for others is required in all states.

www.4carinsurancequotes.com

Like I said... read up on insurance requirements before trying to school people on something.

"Joe Isuzu? LMFAO!!!!"

Funny. But Medicare's efficiency is the envy of the world. Of course, I wouldn't expect a repeat criminal to know that.

#87 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-14 10:40 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose) Not As Open-minded As He Portrays Himself On The DR

"Not As Open-minded As He Portrays Himself On The DR"

Flag / Even More Addled That He Portrays Himself On The DR

Not playing at all. I honestly had no idea. But it speaks volumes you were so familiar.

Sure ya didn't, Danforth. You and your fascination with Wisgod's supposed vagina and "hermaphrodite dick". Not to mention admitted need of a penicillin shot.

You just keep projecting to hide your embarrassment. Stand up and be proud, I say. Don't be afraid to show who you are. We don't care if you dress up in miniskirts, chiffon blouses, and a pink feather boa while you sing Liza Minnelli songs.

We will still like you for who you are.

For Moomanfl

Kansas No Fault Insurance

Address:www.dicksonandpope.com

For Moomanfl

Kansas No Fault Insurance

Good for Kansas they are indeed one of the few that require PIP. Notice it was the State that makes the determination of what is required.... not the Federal Government. Most States don't require PIP.

You want universal health care using the car insurance requirement as the rationale? Get your State government to give it to you then.

moomanfl's right Larry a lot of states don't require anything more than personal liabilty insurance. Which is a good thing for folks who have a paid off piece of junk. Or don't you care about the less fortunate?


moomanfl's right Larry a lot of states don't require anything more than personal liabilty insurance. Which is a good thing for folks who have a paid off piece of junk. Or don't you care about the less fortunate?

Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch at 2009-09-14 11:24 PM | Reply

Yeah and guess who gets stuck with the medical bills if You crash Your Hooptymobile?? Guess who pays for Your medical bills if You crash and burn in that vehicle that has both doors wired shut cause the latches won't close?? The Federal Government if You don't pay off Your emergency bills. Your point again Gimme??

Larry

WTF is the Blue Oyster Club?

#88 | Posted by Danforthat 2009-09-14 10:41 PM | Reply | Flag: mildly retarded or drunk; call it in the air.

#103

"Hooptymobile"??

LOL

HUH??

Yeah a Hooptymobile. You know those big assed boats people drove in the 60's and 70's. Those things.

Larry

Oh, ok.

You know those big assed boats people drove in the 60's and 70's.

Like the old '78 Dodge Coronet I used to have. We called it "The Big Green Tank". My ex drove that thing into the brick wall of a Burger King and cracked the bricks all the way through. Absolutely ZERO damage to the car.

Correction... was a '72 Coronet. I got that mixed up with the '78 Dodge Diplomat station wagon I had.

Yeah and guess who gets stuck with the medical bills if You crash Your Hooptymobile??

#103 | Posted by LarryMohr

If they don't have medical insurance then in Kansas LarryMohr's Benevolent Medical Charity For The Less Well Off Foundation pays. Course you might wanna shorten the name for your official stationary.

First, I agree that the question was silly. However, I think Gimme-a-scotch was pretty damn accurate in his response.

So, instead of attempting to add anything to his response, I have a question for Larry et al.

If we could cut 10 - 20% of the cost of medical procedures in the ENTIRE country in 1 simple bill... would you be interested?

Here's my simple bill. Looser Pays. If the plaintiff looses, the judge can order both the plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney to pay to legal cost of the defense. As the cost of the defense could be HUGE in some of these, it would virtually bankrupt lawyers that file frivolous lawsuits. It would also allow companies to fight these cases, instead of paying for nuisances to go away.

Want another bill that would decrease the cost of health care by a huge amount? Any drug company that makes the ENTIRE results of their trials public cannot be held liable for harm caused by the drugs. If you are not comfortable taking the drug, then don't.

Want another way to lower the cost of health care? How about you allow people to go the a pharmacist and write themselves a prescription? If you have the same sinus condition every year, why waste the money to see the same doctor, have the same series of tests, etc? Just go get the same meds you had last time, if you want to take a chance.

If ANY of these were the reform that was being discussed, I would be supporting them. Of course, as the dem party has been purchased by the trial lawyers, you can't expect any change in that direction.

1Libertarian,
There is one big reason "Looser Pays" would be as popular as pulling teeth with Congress...
I will answer that with a question...

Where do many Congressmen and Senators look for work after they leave office?

Where do many Congressmen and Senators look for work after they leave office?

#112 | Posted by libertarian

ummm, they DON"T leave office unless preceded by their own funeral

however, IF they leave office alive . . . it's mostly off to prison

Where do many Congressmen and Senators look for work after they leave office?

#112 | Posted by libertarian_gi at 2009-09-15 05:00 AM | Reply |

They become lobbyists

Larry is a moron and does not deserve an explanation. The world needs morons, Larry. Continue to be one, and support Obama's healthcare reform. Nobody needs to convince you otherwise. Just go for it. It's a good thing.

The headline is misleading so I can't contribute anything to this thread. I don't oppose reform, but I do oppose a government takeover.

I am sure its been mentioned before larry but you see
according to the constitution..defense of our borders is the MAIN reason for the federal govt to even exist.
sorry that this pisses you off so much.

Why would ANYONE oppose health insurance reform? If your employer provides it wouldn't you feel better knowing they won't drop you if you get sick, that premiums won't rise so far so fast that you might, just might, get a raise your employer would otherwise be spending on insurance for you, that if you lose your job you'll be able to get affordable insurance?

The logic in the opposition is baffling to say the least.

Re#117

AFKbabble goes to the back of the government class again!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

It is more accurate to say that the Governments are established to protect the Natural (unalienable) Rights of Man. Providing for the Common Defense is JUST ONE WAY of doing this. I would go so far as to say that Universal Health Care would also be a form of providing for the Common Defense.

Carry on with the LOD (Lie of the Day)!

I stopped reading right after "but You are the same assholes". No use to continue reading the pointless blathering drivvle.

Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.

More than 800,000 doctors were practicing in 2006, the government says. Projecting the poll's finding onto that population, 360,000 doctors would consider quitting.

More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% the most lopsided response in the poll answered "no" when asked if they believed "the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better."

What the hell do doctors know about health care, they aren't even good gov't employees, yet.

Jeez.

Just looking back at the last few posts... and I didn't read that anyone disliked the simple changes I proposed...

Wonder why congress doesn't look for ANY of these type of changes? Could it be that the desire isn't to fix the system (from either party) but to keep people arguing so they can get elected for doing nothing?

Ok... call me a cynic.

Carry on with the LOD (Lie of the Day)!

#119 | Posted by donnerboy

OKAY

congressman Bart Stupak just this morning said that in its current form he and enough other pro life dems will vote no because it has the 'caps amendment' which directs TAX MONEY TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS.
minimum of one dollar not more than 12 from health care costs of public option

so THAT BULLSHIT is over now. and you liberal fucks who called us all sorts of names and liars will how be able to apologize to each of us
AND IF YOU DONT< I will call for an official ruling from the DR committee in order to keep a civility and decorum here........you know.. WASTE TIME like dems did all day yesterday on joe wilson

SO THERE IS YOUR ANSWER LISA about tax money going to kill innocent life in the womb

and its not ME or beck or hannity or orielly telling this.
its a DEMOCRAT

AND new rassmusson poll

last weeks LIEFEST from obama produced only a small bump and numbers now going down again

45% for
52% against

obamacare


AND HERE IS another example of how democrats lie about this issue

this AM on cspan a lady called in and raised hell about the sign from the protests that said bury obama with kennedy.
I guess she just missed the TRUTH of what the sign actually said.

Dems hold majority in house and senate. They also hold WH. Why does it matter what the Repub's think?

Only the shit for brains haven't realized what the Dems know. That Wilson told the truth, and not just about the illegals. That is why there is no healthcare bill that is understandable.

#119 | Posted by donnerboy

Two words: General Welfare"


James Madison Jr., House of Representatives, February 1792:


I, sir, have always conceived--I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived, and it is still more fully known, and more material to observe that those who ratified the Constitution conceived--that this is not an indefinite Government, deriving its power from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers, but a limited Government tied down to the specified powers which explain and define the general terms. The gentlemen who contend for a contrary doctrine are surely not aware of the consequences which flow from it, and which they must either admit or give up their doctrine.


It will follow, in the first place, that if the terms be taken in the broad sense they maintain the particular powers afterwards so carefully and distinctly enumerated would be without any meaning, and must go for nothing. It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what they please, and then that they may do this or that particular thing; after giving Congress power to raise money, and apply it to all purposes which they may pronounce necessary to the general welfare, it would be absurd, to say the least, to super add a power to raise armies, to provide fleets, &c. In fact, the meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumeration which limits and details them, or they convert the Government from one limited, as hitherto supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a Government without any limits at all.


I shall be reminded, perhaps, that according to the terms of the Constitution, the Judicial Power is to extend to certain cases only not to all cases. But this circumstance can have no effect in the argument, it being presupposed by the gentlemen that the specification of certain objects does not limit the import of general terms. Taking these terms as an abstract and indefinite grant of power, they comprise all the objects of Legislative regulation as well such as fall under the Judiciary article in the Constitution, as these falling immediately under the Legislative article; and if the partial enumeration of objects in the Legislative article does not, as these gentlemen contend limit the general power, neither will it be limited by the partial enumeration of objects in the Judiciary article.


There are consequences, sir, still more extensive, which, as they follow clearly from the doctrine combated, must either be admitted, or the doctrine must be given up. If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other than post roads. In short, everything, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called if Congress pleased provisions for the general welfare.


I believe James Madison, Jr. said it best. Don't you think?

Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, page 170 (1794-01-10) [3]. The Annals summarize speeches in the third person, with the actual text of Madison's quote as follows: "Mr. Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." The expense in question was for French refugees from the Haitian Revolution.

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

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