WAC-Utah Infests Tea Party
I enjoy the plaintive song they play when the Tea Partiers block their sign with the flags. Does he really think that the government is funding the Tea Party crowd?
posted by Pat @ 10:55 AM
108 comments
108 Comments:
[Nelson]
HA-HA!
[/Nelson]
It ain't censorship if the government isn't doing it, morons, it's a private organization treating you like the morons you are.
Now shut up and go away.
When you are being followed by mainstream media it is hard to believe that it is truly grassroots."
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Fucking morons.
Like I said on the ANSWER thread... the only organizations who will tolerate 9-11 Truthers are the ones desperate for new members. The Tea Party is big enough that they don't have to put up with Truther nonsense.
9/11 Troof = Future Terrorist Organization.
Arhoolie and his anger, Boris and his stalking (however hard he tries to deny it) and just general troofer insanity are proof of that.
Eventually they will do something very drastic to get attention and/or some attempt to bring "justice" to the people they claim are the perps behind 9/11 and they will end up killing a lot people over it and it will be the next 9/11.
"The Tea Party Movement accomplishes nothing..."
OMFG! The have as much self awareness as Michael Scott!
Who funds the "Tea Party Movement"?
Cui bono?
Notice that the "Tea Party's" goal is to "kill the Bill" (kill the health care bill).
Again, Cui bono?
"...The government"?
Yeah right! Obama and the Democrats are funding their own "opposition". Only a conspiratard could be that dense.
The obvious beneficiary of such a "grass roots movement" (read "Astroturf movement" or phony grass roots movement) is the insurance conglomerates who stand to loose billions in "profit" if the health care bill becomes law.
It doesn't take a genius to understand where the funding for the "Tea Party movement" originates.
That said, it's too bad that the jackasses and compulsive liars who staff "We Are Change" are as dishonest and malevolent as the "Tea Party" dupes.
Once again, sorry for the typo. The seventh paragraph should read:
"...The obvious beneficiary of such a "grass roots movement" (read "Astroturf movement" or phony grass roots movement) is the insurance conglomerates who stand to lose billions in "profit" if the health care bill becomes law."
Sorry, my bad.
"It doesn't take a genius to understand where the funding for the "Tea Party movement" originates."
Tea party members.
That was easy.
HAH!
My captcha is "unfog".
The Tea Party is NOT an sstroturf movement.
Hard to believe that you believe such bullshit.
You want astroturf, look up the so called "Coffee Party".
Once again, sorry for the typo. The seventh paragraph should read:
"...The obvious beneficiary of such a "grass roots movement" (read "Astroturf movement" or phony grass roots movement) are the insurance conglomerates who stand to lose billions in "profit" if the health care bill becomes law."
Sorry, I'm in sad shape today. (Brain-dead is more like it).
%^)
LL wrote, "...The Tea Party is NOT an sstroturf movement.
"Hard to believe that you believe such bullshit."
No offense intended, LL my friend, but the clown from "We Are Change" has a point.
Where did the money from? And we're talking about big money in this instance.
Again, cui bono (Who benefits)? And who stands to lose billions if the health care bill becomes law?
I think the answer is obvious, don't you?
Ask yourself, who fought tooth-and-nail against the Clinton administration's failed health care legislation?
The identity of the opposition to the Clinton health care plan is a matter of record, and can't be disputed: The insurance industry.
Do you honestly believe that the insurance industry won't fight the Obama administration and attempt to defeat the latest round of health care legislation? And why wouldn't the insurance conglomerates mask their opposition to the latest attempts at health care reform in "grass root movement" cover?
why wouldn't the insurance conglomerates mask their opposition to the latest attempts at health care reform in "grass root movement" cover?
Because there's no point. First, the health insurance industry has no difficulty making their demands through the usual Washington channels.
Second, I don't think the existence of a large grassroots anti-Health Care Act movement would sway things at all. This was Obama's white whale, and he was going to hunt it to the bitter end. If there's any positive to this, it's that maybe now our nation can move on to other pressing issues.
Finally, if the insurance industry were going to astroturf, they'd come up with something a lot more effective than the Tea Party movement.
Who sponsors the tea party movement? Fox News, Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks. In other words, the GOP. Yes, this is astroturfing. Just a tip from a truther. Note that the tea party was first a truther gathering before it was cunninly hijacked.
Have at it fellas. *Grabs popcorn*.
Titerope wrote, "...Finally, if the insurance industry were going to astroturf, they'd come up with something a lot more effective than the Tea Party movement."
On a certain level your argument makes a lot of sense; however, the main plank of the Obama administration's proposed legislation is health care reform.
Given the insurance conglomerates vigorous and well-publicized opposition to the failed Clinton health care legislation, and the popularity of President Obama, it's very likely that the insurance conglomerates chose to finance the "Tea Party" movement rather than face the heat from an angry and aroused public.
In my humble opinion, financing the "Tea Party" movement is a brilliant move by the insurance conglomerates--from a public relations standpoint, that is.
To be fair, my take on this situation is pure speculation; nevertheless, given the insurance conglomerates past opposition to health care reform, it makes sense that the big money players would take a more subtle approach in order to defeat health care reform.
And make no mistake, the insurance conglomerates did take a lot of heat for their opposition to the Clinton administration's health care plan.
Anonymous wrote, "...Fox News, Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks. In other words, the GOP."
Hmmmm...that's a definitive statement.
In that case, do you a have a credible source for that assertion?
Note that the tea party was first a truther gathering before it was cunninly hijacked.
In your dreams.
Titerope wrote, "...Because there's no point. First, the health insurance industry has no difficulty making their demands through the usual Washington channels."
That's true, provided the Republican Party maintains control the House and Senate ( and the executive branch, if possible).
Unfortunately, the Republicans suffered resounding defeats in the 2006 and 2008 congressional elections; thus, the votes to defeat health care reform through normal channels (control of Congress) are no longer a viable option.
Moreover, given the election of president Obama and two embarrassing congressional election defeats, it makes perfect sense for the insurance conglomerates to co-opt the "Tea Party" movement in order to mask their opposition to health care reform.
"In that case, do you a have a credible source for that assertion?"
Freedomworks website
Americans for Prosperity website
Anatomy of the tea party
Lobbyists planning tea parties
"While social conservative movements grew out of churches, the Tea Party has built its numbers online. Advocacy groups that have helped grow the movement, like Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works, have also emphasized the importance of focusing on economic conservatism."
— NY Times - Tea Party Avoids Divisive Social Issues
I suggest you do the rest of the sleuthing yourself, it's not that hard.
For good measure:
"Two separate groups affiliated with the Tea Party movement, Freedom Works and the Tea Party Patriots, told Fox News they had expected a large Pennsylvania contingent to be present at the rally."
..and AfP is again mentioned.
Source: Fox News
Titerope wrote, "...This was Obama's white whale, and he was going to hunt it to the bitter end."
LOL! I can't argue with that statement. :)
Titerope wrote, "...Second, I don't think the existence of a large grassroots anti-Health Care Act movement would sway things at all."
I agree. The Republicans, however, lost control of the Congress in 2006 and again in 2008. Of course, I could be wrong, but it appears, to me at least, that more subtle measures are required to mount opposition to health care reform.
Thus, if the insurance conglomerates can't rely on the Congress to defeat health care reform, the "grass roots" are their only real option--and, to their credit, it almost worked.
%^)
Anonymous wrote, "..."Two separate groups affiliated with the Tea Party movement, Freedom Works and the Tea Party Patriots, told Fox News they had expected a large Pennsylvania contingent to be present at the rally."
Nope, try again, anonymous. And this time don't try to change the definition of well understood words to suit your propaganda. For example, Affiliated is defined as follows: "...closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position [the university and its affiliated medical school]."
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Definition--Affiliated.
Thus, Freedom Works and the Tea Party Patriots are subordinate to the "Tea Party" movement, not the financiers.
Moreover, the article you offer as substantiation for your argument does not connect Faux Noose (Fox News) to the "Tea Party" movement in any capacity.
Try again, Anonymous, because so far you've offered nothing to substantiate your assertions.
Anonymous wrote, "...In other words, the GOP."
I don't really think it's a secret that the GOP represents the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate); thus, it's obvious that certain extreme right-wing elements of the GOP (but not all, to be sure) are connected to the "Tea Party" movement. That fact, however, does not prove that the GOP finances the "Tea Party" movement.
Okay GB, collection of links @ Wikipedia?
Tea Party Movement - Astroturfing allegations
I'm not sure what satisfies your norms. Perhaps you want to see bank statements? I can't offer that, sorry.
Anonymous wrote, "...In other words, the GOP."
Nope. The New York Times article you cite directly contradicts your assertions. For example,
GOP operative Ryan Hecker said, "'...This is a movement that rose largely because of the Republican Party failing to deliver on being representative of the economic conservative ideology. To include social issues would be beside the point.'"
Source: The New York Times: Tea Party Avoids Divisive Social Issues.
Thus, it's pretty clear, to me at least, that you're misrepresenting your source, Anonymous.
Did you honestly believe that I wouldn't read the articles you offer as "substantiation" for your argument?
Try again, and this try a little honesty, okay Anonymous?
I love how the the 9/11 denier suggests because the media is paying attention to the Tea Party, it is invalid.
9/11 deniers appeared in Russia Today, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, BBC, and probably numerous others I'm not aware of. To even suggest that 9/11 deniers didn't get any attention is bullshit. Alex Jones was on CNN not to long ago.
This guy is retarded.
The AFP, according to your own source, is controlled by the Koch family foundation.
Wikipedia wrote, "...Its foundation's chair and founder is David H. Koch of Koch Industries, which runs oil refining and pipeline companies. One of the Koch Family Foundations provides grant funding to AFP. Koch ranked #19 on Forbes magazine's 2009 list of the world's billionaires."
Source: Wikipedia: Americans for Prosperity.
Concerning Freedom Works, we find the following:
Wikipedia wrote, "...FreedomWorks is primarily funded by individual donations. According to the progressive media watchdog group Media Matters for America information center, FreedomWorks has also received funding from Verizon and SBC (now AT&T). Other FreedomWorks funders have included Philip Morris and foundations controlled by the conservative Scaife family, according to tax filings and other records. It also receives funding through the sale of insurance policies through which policyholders automatically become members of FreedomWorks...FreedomWorks is closely tied to its founder, corporate lobbyist and former Republican Congressman Dick Armey, whose former lobbying firm DLA Piper that he resigned in August 2009, represents Bristol Myers Squibb, among other pharmaceutical companies."
Source: wikipedia: Freedom Works--Funding.
Thus, Freedom Works is controlled by Verison, SBC, certain Scaife (Mellon) family foundations and Phillip Morris, while being chaired by former elements of the GOP--for example, Dick Armey.
These facts, however, do not explain the sudden influx of big money to the "Tea Party" movement.
For example, the multi-state "Tea Party" tour (see the end of the video) reads like a rock concert schedule. That takes money--big money.
So where did all that new money really come from?
The insurance industry fits the bill perfectly. Not only do they "have an iron in the fight", they have the deep pockets necessary to finance such a campaign.
Only time will tell.
GuitarBill, I think the issues of health care legislation and the Tea Party movement are far more convoluted for a strategy like "insurance conglomerates financing the Tea Parties" to make sense.
The Tea Party is a large, decentralized movement, with a lot of different agendas and different leaders. I'm sure somebody's getting financial support from somebody, simply because they have common interests. Does that constitute astroturfing? I don't think so. And who's to say who the "real" Tea Party is anyway?
As for the health care legislation, here's a good example: I know people who are angry about the health care bill because they think the insurance conglomerates are going to benefit from it. "Another bailout for big corporations," they say. In other words, they think the insurance companies are FOR the Health Care act. How can astroturfing be effective when the public doesn't know which side is which?
For all the things I find wrong with the Tea Party people, their sincerity is not one of them. They can't be just the creation of some PR hack. I know too many people who think just like them.
Titerope writes, "...For all the things I find wrong with the Tea Party people, their sincerity is not one of them. They can't be just the creation of some PR hack. I know too many people who think just like them."
I agree, with one exception. I never claimed that the "Tea Party" movement is the creation of a PR hack. On the contrary, I believe that the "Tea Party" movement was co-opted by the big money players and their PR hacks.
:)
There's a difference, wouldn't you agree?
I'm no fan of the Tea Party movement, but its my impression they aren't a big dollar organization, if they can even be described as an organization. Truthers are all-purpose vermin who will try in infect any grass roots cause. It's good to see even a decentralized group like the tea partiers know enough to ward them off.
ConsDemo wrote, "...I'm no fan of the Tea Party movement, but its my impression they aren't a big dollar organization, if they can even be described as an organization."
Okay, but the thing that bothers me are the tour dates listed at the end of the video titled, "Tea Party Express shuns We Are Change".
The tour is well organized and extensive (not to mention expensive)--a tour that would be the envy of any popular/professional rock band.
Of course, I could be wrong, but this extensive tour is not characteristic of a decentralized movement. On the contrary, it appears that the "Tea Party" movement has morphed from a decentralized movement into a highly organized movement.
Just my 2 cents.
On the contrary, I believe that the "Tea Party" movement was co-opted by the big money players and their PR hacks.
Fair enough. But I still don't see how your proposed co-opting of the Tea Party movement would work, when the TP itself has no overall leadership.
this extensive tour is not characteristic of a decentralized movement
The Tea Party Express is not the entirety of the Tea Party movement. That's my point.
Anonymous prevaricates, "...Note that the tea party was first a truther gathering before it was cunninly [SIC] hijacked."
Nope, wrong again, Anonymous.
Wikipedia wrote, "...The Tea Party movement is a populist United States protest movement focused on fiscal conservatism. The movement, originating in anti-tax protests, emerged in early 2009, partially in response to the 2009 stimulus package as well as the 2008 bailouts."
Source: Wikipedia: Tea Party movement.
So much for that BS.
Actually the majority of Wall Street donations during the last election went to Obama.
The insurance industry is not entirely opposed to the health care plan. After all, they are now the only industry in America where the Federal government will fine you if you do not buy their product. If only Microsoft had it so good.
James B. wrote, "...The insurance industry is not entirely opposed to the health care plan. After all, they are now the only industry in America where the Federal government will fine you if you do not buy their product. If only Microsoft had it so good."
That's true; however, it's well known that the GOP represents the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate), so the GOPs total opposition to health care reform indicates that there's a downside for the insurance sector (primarily competition, which the Insurance sector hates). Competition is guaranteed to lower the Insurance sector's profit margin.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a drop in the Insurance sector's profit margin is sufficient motivation to require total GOP opposition.
(And please, don't try to tell me that the GOP is "looking out for the little guy," because that assertion is laughable, given the GOPs history).
It is the GOP which has been arguing that you should be able to buy insurance over statelines, which would increase competition. The left wants no competition, a government run solution.
And as a rule, it is pointless to have a dicussion with people who say "don't tell me". That is usuallly indicative of someone who has their mind made up, and is not interested in a conversation.
Well, Anonymous is at least trying, which puts him a step above every other troofer so far.
James B. wrote, "...It is the GOP which has been arguing that you should be able to buy insurance over statelines, which would increase competition. The left wants no competition, a government run solution."
Two words: Public option.
James B. wrote, "...And as a rule, it is pointless to have a dicussion with people who say "don't tell me". That is usuallly indicative of someone who has their mind made up, and is not interested in a conversation."
Hmmmm...as I recall, the GOP had total control of the Congress for 6 years. Yet, the GOP did nothing while the uninsured population (over 40% of the US population) were thrown from the insurance roles. Approximately 50,000 Americans perished for lack of health care each year, while the Republican-controlled Congress did absolutely nothing. All attempts by the Democrats to rectify the situation were met with virulent opposition from the FIRE sector-controlled GOP.
Health Care Reform simply wasn't considered until president Obama took office in 2009.
Yes, I have made my mind up on this issue. And the GOP's refusal to address the issue for 8 years tells me all I need to know, James.
Would someone please explain the whole point of the public option?
It is either subsidized by the taxpayers, in which case it just becomes another overly expensive entitlement program like Medicaid, or it is another government sponsored GSE like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (yeah, there are some success stories).
Aside from the philosophical issue of whether the government in a free society should be competing against private business, the government has never shown that it can compete agrainst private business in a fair marketplace.
Take Medicare, a recent episode of 60 Minutes estimated that over $60 billion per year is lost to Medicare fraud alone. $60 BILLION. That is several times the total profit of every health insurance company combined, and just for one program.
Where the hell did you come up with 40%? That is 120 million people. Even the largest estimates have put this number at 31 million, and that include 11 million illegal immigrants, and another 10 or so million who could afford insurance, but simply choose not to buy it.
That 50,000 per year dying stat is a joke, worthy of troofer logic. They did a survey of people who didn't have health insurance, and then found out years later that some of them died, and then came up with that number. All that proves is that people who don't have health insurance at one point in their life are more likely to die at some other point in their life, not that they died from lack of insurance. As any stats 101 student will tell you, correlation is not casuality.
James B. wrote, "...Even the largest estimates have put this number at 31 million, and that include 11 million illegal immigrants, and another 10 or so million who could afford insurance, but simply choose not to buy it."
I stand corrected; nevertheless, 31 million uninsured, by any measure, is a travesty.
"...That 50,000 per year dying stat is a joke, worthy of troofer logic. They did a survey of people who didn't have health insurance, and then found out years later that some of them died, and then came up with that number. All that proves is that people who don't have health insurance at one point in their life are more likely to die at some other point in their life, not that they died from lack of insurance. As any stats 101 student will tell you, correlation is not casuality."
As I recall, preventive care is part of a good health care package, provided one can afford health care. Thus, the premature deaths attributed to lack of insurance were preventable, for the most part.
And what about the people who couldn't afford (or were flat out denied) health care as the result of a so-called "previously existing condition?
In fact, the situation spiraled out of control until pregnant women were defined as having a "pre-existing condition", which is ridiculous.
For example, when I worked as an independent consultant, I paid over $2000 per MONTH for a family of four. Does that sound "affordable" to you?
Yes, correlation is not causality; however, 31 million uninsured in the richest nation on earth is simply unacceptable in my opinion.
Here is a link explaining that ridiculous "study".
http://junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20090918.html
An Obama administration-funded study to published Sep. 17 in the American Journal of Public Health claims that the lack of health insurance causes as many as 45,000 deaths per year.
This is political science at its finest:
The study, which involved 9,004 subjects, is based on a single interview done with each study participant between 1988 and 1994. The interviews elicited a variety of self-reported information related to health, including insurance status. The interviewees were followed until 2000, when mortality status was determined.
The researchers report that the death rate was 40% higher among those who did not have health insurance at the time of the interview.
Among the many problems with the study, here are four of the most glaring; all of which will likely be missed by the media:
The researchers assumed that study subjects lacking health insurance at the time of the interviews did not subsequently gain or regain insurance coverage. In fact, a study subject could have received health coverage the very next day after the interview and this would not have been considered by the researchers.
The researchers essentially assume that lack of health insurance at the time of interview is the causal factor in the deaths that occurred. No data was gathered to back up this assumption.
None of the data collected during the interviews, including insurance status, was validated by the researchers.
The study result is statistically weak. Combined with the peculiar date-of-death cutoff (the year 2000 as opposed to any other year), it raises questions as to whether the study result was produced by “data dredging” – essentially cherry-picking data that provides the desired result.
Would someone please explain the whole point of the public option?
I think its primary appeal is to those who think "insurance company profit" is the big problem in health care. Actually health insurance company profits aren't that large, the real issue is payments to providers. American doctors earn much more than their foreign counterparts and their are few limits on the use of expensive technologies. If costs are going to come down, it is those two areas that need to be controlled (and yes, that is "rationing").
Having said that, the opposition to health care reform is being very disingenuous. You can be against government control of health care or opposed to "cuts" in Medicare (I use quotes because the cuts are really just slower growth in the program), but you can't be against both at the same time.
From Junk science.com we read:
"...The lead researcher, Andrew P. Wilper, was funded by the Department of Health and Human Services ─ i.e., the Obama administration -- to do the study."
I rather doubt that the DHH engaged in statistical fraud.
Junk science continues, "...The obvious purpose of this study is to provide Obamacare supporters with a scary statistic or factoid concerning the alleged impact of uninsurance."
Obamacare?????? There's no such thing, James. The health care legislation was drafted by the Congress, not president Obama.
Obamacare?????? That's right out the right-wing talking points megaphone.
No bias there, right James?
Exactly.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124947013703607453.html
"For every premium dollar that they take in, about 83 cents goes out in medical costs -- doctors, hospitals, and drugs," says Carl McDonald, health insurance analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. The rest is spent on overhead. Net income comes to just a few cents per dollar of premiums.
Consider WellPoint, the biggest private health insurer on Wall Street, which has about 35 million customers nationwide. Last year, it paid out 83.6% of revenues in expenses. Net, after-tax income as a percentage of total revenue came to a princely 4.1%.
In other words, simply eliminating profits would only allow the public option to undercut the private sector by 4% or so.
Now keep in mind that the "public option" even if it did not have an ongoing public subsidy, would still have to have its capital expenses underwritten by the government as its "cost of capital". And what do government bonds tend to run historically? About 4%. So there goes your cost savings, and that is assuming that the government is even as efficient.
I never said it wasn't biased. Do you have an actual counter argument?
I could do a perfectly valid study showing that BMW drivers have a lower death rate than non-BMW drivers. The richer you are, the better health you are in, and rich people tend to drive more BMWs.
I could then argue that 50,000 people per year die due to a lack of BMWs, and thus the government should buy everyone a new 300 series, and it would have just as much merit as this study.
The Wall Street Journal?
Oppenheimer & Co?
Yup, no bias there.
:)
" If there's any positive to this, it's that maybe now our nation can move on to other pressing issues."
Like repealing this socialist, wealth redistribution crap sandwich.
Do you have anything other than ad hominem response?
What would be a better resource for financial information, Tiger Beat magazine?
"In my humble opinion, financing the "Tea Party" movement is a brilliant move by the insurance conglomerates--from a public relations standpoint, that is."
Okay, I give you the same answer I give the conspirtard twoooofers:
Prove it.
"...opposition to health care reform indicates that there's a downside for the insurance sector (primarily competition, which the Insurance sector hates). Competition is guaranteed to lower the Insurance sector's profit margin."
Then why is it that one of the consistant demands of the reformers is to, you know, actually ALLOW and ENCOURAGE competition by allowind interstate sales of health policies?
You do know that your not allowed to but health insurance across state lines, right?
ConsDemo wrote, "...American doctors earn much more than their foreign counterparts and their are few limits on the use of expensive technologies."
Are you aware that an OB-GYN pays, on average, over $200,000 per year for insurance?
So who really drives health care costs?
"...few limits on the use of expensive technologies."
And who forces your physician to practice "defensive medicine" in order to avoid "frivolous lawsuits"?
Me thinks the Fox is guarding the Hen house.
%^)
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but a drop in the Insurance sector's profit margin is sufficient motivation to require total GOP opposition."
Oh, bullshit.
LL wrote, "...You do know that your not allowed to but health insurance across state lines, right?"
Yes, I'm aware that it's not possible to purchase health insurance policies across state lines.
I doubt, however, that purchasing health care across state lines will alleviate the problem. I also wonder why it took the GOP so long to acknowledge the problem. After all, the GOP could have implemented this change while they had total control of the Congress and the executive branch.
So what's the GOP's excuse? Wouldn't this solution make heroes of the GOP (assuming this solution will actually drive costs down)? Or was the GOP just fine with the situation as long as the insurance sector was rolling in the bucks?
Odd Bill, I don't recall any major tort reform in this bill. Could this be because of all the money the trial lawyers (like John Edwards) gives to the Democratic Party?
Believe me, John Edwards profit margin was much more than 4.1%. How do you think he bought the 25,000 square foot house and the mistress?
Are you aware that an OB-GYN pays, on average, over $200,000 per year for insurance?
I'm all for malpractice reform. I think it was a big mistake not to include it as part of the health care reform bill. Having said that, I don't think it would be a magic bullet cost saver. Most studies I've seen suggest malpractice adds about 2 percent to overall health care costs.
We have a culture of over-consumption of health care in this country. Malpractice helps drive it but it isn't the most important factor.
"I stand corrected; nevertheless, 31 million uninsured, by any measure, is a travesty."
Why?
"Net, after-tax income as a percentage of total revenue came to a princely 4.1%."
Oooogady boooogady, scary capitalism in action.
Shit, food stores have a notoriously slim margin and make more than that.
"Obamacare??????"
Yes, Obamacare.
Learn it, love it, revel in it.
Repeal it.
"Yes, I'm aware that it's not possible to purchase health insurance policies across state lines.
I doubt, however, that purchasing health care across state lines will alleviate the problem."
It's called Federalism.
If State A doesn't have the Hangnail Alleviation Rider the State B requires from all instate providers, and can offer health insurance at a cheaper rate, who does the market dictate will sell more insurance, State A or State B?
"I'm all for malpractice reform. I think it was a big mistake not to include it as part of the health care reform bill."
That wans't a bug, that was a feature.
Big Lawyer bribery saw to that.
"We have a culture of over-consumption of health care in this country."
Who died and made you God, CD?
Who died and made you God, CD?
Do you think we spend too much on health care in the US? If you do, then you have to look at consumption.
James B. wrote, "...Odd Bill, I don't recall any major tort reform in this bill. Could this be because of all the money the trial lawyers (like John Edwards) gives to the Democratic Party?"
Most likely the answer to your question is yes. I acknowledge the truth, so I won't deny that the trial lawyers have influence over the Democratic Party. But let's not forget that the GOP is almost entirely owned by the FIRE sector. Do you think the FIRE sector's influence over the GOP led to the GOPs refusal to address the issue?
"...Believe me, John Edwards profit margin was much more than 4.1%. How do you think he bought the 25,000 square foot house and the mistress?"
LOL!
:)
Yeah, and those Republicans would never take a mistress, or do "strange" things in a public restroom, now would they?
:)
And I think we can acknowledge that both parties are hardly above reproach. Right?
:)
LL wrote, "...If State A doesn't have the Hangnail Alleviation Rider the State B requires from all instate providers, and can offer health insurance at a cheaper rate, who does the market dictate will sell more insurance, State A or State B?"
Good point, LL.
James B. wrote, "...What would be a better resource for financial information, Tiger Beat magazine?"
The OMB.
"Do you think we spend too much on health care in the US?"
That's a null question. The amount of money spent on health care is the amount of money spent on health care.
What the fuck is "spend too much"?
Should I not have worried, ohhhh, I don't know, say....the time my daughter was diagnosed with turbucular menangitis? Shrugged and said it's in the hands of God, or spent every penny I had to save her life?
"If you do, then you have to look at consumption."
If you do, start with tort reform.
"The OMB."
The same people who lied about Obamacare?
LL wrote, "...'Obamacare??????'...Yes, Obamacare."
LL, you acknowledge that the Congress wrote the health care bill, not president Obama. Right?
Hey, I am not going to argue for the infallibility of the Republican Party, but they aren't the ones trying to take over 1/6 of the US economy.
LL wrote, "...The same people who lied about Obamacare?"
The OMB lied? That's news to me. Are there any specifics you can offer?
The OMB is reponsible for government budgets. They have absolutely no role in private finance, and there is no reason that they should.
Who broke the Enron scandals? Those savvy watchdogs at the SEC. The Federal Reserve? The US Treasury? No, it was the Wall Street Journal.
And yes, we know that Congress wrote the health care bill. So why is Obama claiming all the credit for it then?
Should we expect any actual leadership from him anytime soon, or is he just Nancy Pelosi's lapdog?
That's a null question. The amount of money spent on health care is the amount of money spent on health care.
What the fuck is "spend too much"?
Can you discuss the topic rationally? We're not talking conspiracy theories.
Let me rephrase it, if you are worried about taxes going up (or if they are too high already) then Medicare and Medicaid a big share of the budget and the fast growing part of it. As for private health insurance, employers complain about how much it ads to their costs. Have you tried to buy individual insurance.
Should I not have worried, ohhhh, I don't know, say....the time my daughter was diagnosed with turbucular menangitis? Shrugged and said it's in the hands of God, or spent every penny I had to save her life?
Nice straw man. I don't know anyone who says nothing should be spent on health care.
If you do, start with tort reform.
As I said earlier, I'm all for it. However, I've yet to see any credible evidence that tort reform, by itself, would solve the problem of skyrocketing health care costs.
James B. wrote, "...Hey, I am not going to argue for the infallibility of the Republican Party, but they aren't the ones trying to take over 1/6 of the US economy."
True.
I noticed, however, that no one decided to address my question, so I'll ask the question again: So what's the GOP's excuse? Wouldn't selling insurance across state lines make overnight heroes of the GOP (assuming this solution will actually drive costs down)? Or was the GOP just fine with the situation as long as the insurance sector was rolling in the bucks?
LL writes, "...Prove it."
I can't prove it, LL. And that's why I acknowledged in a previous post that my line of argument was pure speculation.
"LL, you acknowledge that the Congress wrote the health care bill, not president Obama. Right?"
Who pushed the Federal government taking over our poor little country's health care system through the long, long nomination process, who gave 7,453 speeches attacking the racist opposition to the Federal government taking over our poor little country's health care system"
Here's a hint:
His initials are BHO.
It's Obamacare, now and forever.
Wow! I just noticed that Republicans and Democrats are having a civil debate on the health care issue.
Obviously, SLC is a "uniter, not a divider."
Good on you, James and Pat.
(I'm mean that sincerely).
:)
LL wrote, "...Who pushed the Federal government taking over our poor little country's health care system through the long, long nomination process, who gave 7,453 speeches attacking the racist opposition to the Federal government taking over our poor little country's health care system"
Now LL, you know as well as I do that presidential candidates (and presidents) have every right to use "the bully pulpit" in order to influence potential legislation. Right?
And that fact certainly doesn't make president Obama the author of the Bill. Right?
"As I said earlier, I'm all for it. However, I've yet to see any credible evidence that tort reform, by itself, would solve the problem of skyrocketing health care costs."
ONE real factor that would reduce costs.
How much is spent on malpractice insurance?
How much is wated in defensive medicine.
Go to the doctor after bumping your head, get a CAT scan, even though the doctor KNOWS that is a simple, superficial injury.
A complete waste of time, money and resources, brought on by tort lawyers waiting to pounce.
"And that fact certainly doesn't make president Obama the author of the Bill. Right?"
Yes it does.
Now and forever.
Obamacare.
Well, wait, not forever.
Just until it's repealed.
LL wrote, "...Yes it does."
Okay, if you say so, but the fact remains that president Obama didn't get everything he wanted in the Bill.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call the Bill KennedCare or something similar?
Oh yeah if, like, Obamacare is all good and stuff then what about William Rodriguez who said there were bombs in the basement!?!?!?
(The above discussion is far too rational.)
This is pure gold. A Gem!
"Can you discuss the topic rationally? We're not talking conspiracy theories."
Cut right through to the raw essence of SLC there, ConsDemo! LOL!
GuitarBill, Triterope, you said the Tea Party "emerged" in 2009 and that the relation to 9/11 truth was "in my dreams" right?
Sure.
That video was posted in December 2006.
Why! Could that possibly mean Wikipedia is unreliable when it comes to politically charged topics? Tea party emerged in 2009? I think not.
"Nice straw man. I don't know anyone who says nothing should be spent on health care"
Straw man?
It's reactioanry leftist who trot out "Mary Jones of Bumfuck, Iowa, who's daughter had an untreatablae hangnail and she almost died" bullshit.
I call it legislation by anecdote.
"GuitarBill, Triterope, you said the Tea Party "emerged" in 2009 and that the relation to 9/11 truth was "in my dreams" right?"
Not your "dreams", your hallucinations.
Laz, I know this is futile, since you are the certified village idiot of this blog, but that Youtube video dates 2006, Boston Tea Party.
Cut right through to the raw essence of SLC there, ConsDemo! LOL!
Yes, precisely, we were discussing real issues. There isn't much point discussing your conspiracy theories rationally because you never offer any credible evidence to back up your assertions. ALl you offer is pure slander.
That video was posted in December 2006.
Run along, junior. The grownups are talking.
Well well well. No debunking of the fact that the tea party was already busy busy in 2006 with truthers dominantly present.
Oh please grownups! Pretty please tell me why that video is dated 2006! Puh-lease!!!
Ha ha ha ha. Look at you, scattering like cockroaches under a flashlight.
You know why you guys make it so hard on yourselves? If a truther were to defend the heliocentric model, you'd oppose it, out of pure spite. This leads to rather ridiculous and pathetic displays of hardcore delusion and bold-faced lying. It's also rather amusing. But I'm sorry to interrupt this little debate about health care. Obviously, GuitarBill is right, by the way.
All this health care debate is so much farting in the wind.
The real problem with health care costs is the fact that the science of medicine has progressed far beyond the point of diminishing returns.
The whole industry is still operating as if the next new drug or procedure will be as effective as penicillin.
The "low hanging fruit" of medicine, the things that will save zillions of lives for relatively little expenditure; stuff like the widespread use of antibiotics and Salk's vaccines have already been found.
There are limits to what medicine can accomplish, but for the last 150 or so years we've seen miracle after miracle, and we believe that science and medicine can cure anything.
It can't.
Dealing with the limits of something when you've reached the point of diminishing returns is a very difficult issue, to say the least.
It's much bigger than bickering about whose ideas work better for furthering the current system or tort reform or whatever you want to throw up.
This is just my opinion / observation. I've got no specific studies or anything like that to back this up.
Oh.... and Twoofers are morons.
"Anonymous said...
Well well well. No debunking of the fact that the tea party was already busy busy in 2006 with truthers dominantly present."
Nothing to debunk.
A buch of whackos runiing around constitutes the founding of.....nothing.
Go away, boy.
"Ha ha ha ha. Look at you, scattering like cockroaches under a flashlight."
WTF is that supposed to mean?
You're a moron.
"If a truther were to defend the heliocentric model"
He wouldn't be a twooooofer™.
You see it's been proven.
By science.
Uh no, Bud. Tea Party Boston, in 2006. Deal with it. I'm sure you want the loony corporate prostitutes that call themselves "protesters" to be real, but they ain't, Bud. They're astroturfing whores.
It was a truth movement thing, and it got co-opted by the sleazy Fox News/GOP corporate slime brigade for anti-Obama purposes. Very clever, they co-opted Alex Jones' "Obama Deception" target audience and ran with it.
Now go rim your sister, it'll relax you a little bit.
Anonymous, I went to bed last night at ~11:30 PM, so I haven't had a chance to watch the video you linked into your post. I'll watch the video now, and let you know my opinion.
Your argument is fatally flawed, Anonymous.
The video you linked into your post does not establish a connection between the "Tea Party" movement and the "9/11 truth movement."
Why?
The "9/11 truth movement" named their book burning ceremony "Boston 9/11 Tea Party 2006."
In fact, Robin Hordon admits that the "Boston 9/11 Tea Party 2006" was a progressive event.
Today's "Tea Party" movement is not progressive at all.
In fact, the "Tea Party" movement is a right-wing movement, as the following passage makes clear: "...The Tea Party movement is a populist United States protest movement focused on fiscal conservatism. The movement, originating in anti-tax protests, emerged in early 2009, partially in response to the 2009 stimulus package as well as the 2008 bailouts."
Notice that Today's version of the "Tea Party" movement does not mention 9/11 as a grievance.
Moreover, both groups certainly used the term "Tea Party", but the two groups have entirely different complaints.
This is a great example of the fallacy of false equivalence.
Do you see the problem, Anonymous?
Your argument is based on the fallacy of false equivalence precisely because you've falsely equated an act by one group (book burning, or tossing the 9/11 Commission Report into the Harbor) as being equal to that of another group (opposition to the TARP bailouts and health care reform) without considering the underlying differences that make the comparison invalid.
Am I making sense, Anonymous?
Thus, your argument is threadbare, at best.
"Am I making sense, Anonymous?"
Sure. I can live with most of that.
By the way, the tea party movement then was simply a Constitutionalist movement, not right or left per se.
Besides, who takes Hordon seriously anyway.
If a truther were to defend the heliocentric model, you'd oppose it, out of pure spite.
No, you're thinking of JREF. Our response would be more like "you're right, but 9-11 Truthers are still pathetic losers."
The latest insane conspiracy theory proffered by the ludicrous Debunker Cult:GitFiddlers insurance company angle.It's as good as any other,give it a whirl DogBoy! Did you major in Plausible Speculation in college? Are you Sackpiffles American cousin?
" Arhoolie the Cyber-Hero said...
The latest insane conspiracy theory proffered by the ludicrous Debunker Cult:GitFiddlers insurance company angle.It's as good as any other,give it a whirl DogBoy! Did you major in Plausible Speculation in college? Are you Sackpiffles American cousin?"
Wha....?!???!!???
Can anyone make heads or tails out of this pile of dog crap?
Sure, anybody with an IQ over room temperature. So why are you having trouble understanding it? Are you even allowed to go outside without a helmet and a GPS bracelet?
Face it truthers. People don't like you.
That must be why this blog is far below infowars.com in visitor numbers.
Self-delusion: an old friend of the pseudoskeptic state worshipping cult.
PornBoy is now relegated to the scrap heap where he perfects his "I'm an idiot" schtick.It was nice tearing you 64 new ones,jackoff!!
What's the matter, arsehoolie? Did you get sand in your vagina?
"...and his three lovely daughters (who have vaginas!)"
Post a Comment
<< Home