Instituting law . . . the Obama way

[thejuggernaut]

So do you have anything to contribute to this thread or not?

Let me know what happens for a "yes" answer, and a "no" answer, and I'll let you know my answer.

[Hames Jetfield]

Actually, I do care about fiscal responsibility. However the problem is, from what I can tell, the Republican Party (you know, the guys that are supposed to be Conservatives) in the last thirty years hasn't cared about that. They do care about lower taxes--but that isn't Fiscal Responsibility.

If you're going to cut taxes you have to cut spending--it's just that simple. When ol' Ronnie gave his first speech before a Joint session and basically said that the National Debt was out of control in 1980 and that he was going to do something about it, you thought he would. After all he is the messiah to the modern Republican/Conservative movement, but he didn't. And the national debt was tripled by the time he left, and has only increased under his successors.

So the real question is why does the Republican Party act like it can be fiscally responsible and tackle the debt when the last three presidents of the past thirty years, all Republicans mind you, couldn't? And no, Democrat obstructionism isn't an answer.

[Hames Jetfield]

So do you have anything to contribute to this thread or not?

Let me know what happens for a "yes" answer, and a "no" answer, and I'll let you know my answer.

Dude, you're a choade! You douche up every thread that you post in. It was quite funny, you going after this Ugmo fellow for voting in the U.S. and not living here when you claim, yourself, to be a duel citizen. So what makes your interest in U.S. internal politics more pertinent than his, even though he seems to just be living abroad while retaining his citizenship? Oh, I guess it could the fact that you claim to have U.S. clients in whatever it is you do.

[VinnieKulick]

Explain? Obama has passed enormous unfunded tax cuts and an enormous unfunded prescription drugs bill, and started an expensive war in a foreign country for no good reason?

Did you miss the Democrats, Progressives, and Obama himself talk about giving "95% of Americans a tax cut"?

Couple that with spending more in his first 90 days as President than all other Presidents COMBINED, makes him so much more irresponsible than Bush ever hoped to be.

[VinnieKulick]

Also, regarding LBJ, again, do we need to go back to Jr High civics class? A President doesn't make law. He merely signs it.

The GOP introduced the civil rights act, and the majority of Democrats in both houses voted against it. Plain, simple facts.

[thejuggernaut]

So do you have anything to contribute to this thread or not?

Let me know what happens for a "yes" answer, and a "no" answer, and I'll let you know my answer.

Dude, you're a choade! You douche up every thread that you post in. It was quite funny, you going after this Ugmo fellow for voting in the U.S. and not living here when you claim, yourself, to be a duel citizen. So what makes your interest in U.S. internal politics more pertinent than his, even though he seems to just be living abroad while retaining his citizenship? Oh, I guess it could the fact that you claim to have U.S. clients in whatever it is you do.

I didn't say my interest was more pertinent.

But hey, some crybaby adolescent dunce on the internet thinks I am a choade; time to reevaluate things.

P.S. I didn't "go after this Ugmo fellow for voting in the U.S. and not living here". You broached the subject when you said "Canada's got to suck if you're here arguing so adamantly about U.S. domestic policy so much."

I merely pointed out that "the other guy" ("As for the other guy, he claims to be an American citizen living abroad; I don't know. Here's to you pink man!") lives a lot further away.

[vlad]

Also, regarding LBJ, again, do we need to go back to Jr High civics class? A President doesn't make law. He merely signs it.

The GOP introduced the civil rights act, and the majority of Democrats in both houses voted against it. Plain, simple facts.

Uh....JFK "introduced it"....he sent the bill to Congress on June 19th, 1963. Your "simple facts" is a load of bullshit.

You do have a point about Southern Democrats....them boys weren't called Dixiecrats for nothing. And I give all kudos to the Republicans who helped pass the bill. But you are wrong about a majority of Democrats opposing it.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

You'll note that Southern Republicans weren't so stellar on it either. It's just that there weren't too many Republicans, period.

Why do you think that within less than a decade the GOP went with the "Southern Strategy"?
They picked up those very unhappy Dixiecrats who now make up the core of the GOP base. Congrats!


And here is LBJ's speech, or a part of it...in case you weren't aware of it...before Congress trying to get the bill passed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxEauRq1WxQ

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Vinnie, with all the schooling you get here, you ought to have a PhD.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

the alternative will be to go on and implement a public option, enlist all those who don't have private insurance into that plan, and use taxation to pay for it - much as the Europeans do.

Which is what will happen. This is just a first step. As they've said. America??? HA! European social democracy here we come.

Yayyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is the insurance industry in general, not just the health insurance industry, that are raping the citizens of this country, taking our money for decades and then fucking us and leaving us by the roadside when we need the insurance we paid for.

You've bought into the propaganda. Profit margins for the health insurance industry are generally around 3%. Much lower than most other major industries.

Too bad. If they can't compete, they will deservedly fall victim to the financial Darwinism that forms the foundation of capitalism.

It's no wonder, though, that the Health Insurers are frantically trying to head off competing with a public plan. Private insurance overhead and profits eat up 20% and more of health care premiums while Medicare overhead (and no profit) is closer to 3%. There is big money to be made in health insurance. The top 7 "for profit" health insurers made a combined $12.6 billion in 2007-- an increase of 170.2% from 2003. The same year, the average CEO compensation package for these health insurance companies was $14.3 million. Pay packages ranged from $3.7 million to $25.8 million.

All of that money could have gone to paying for health care for children, cancer treatments or diabetes screening -- in other words, health care.

By contrast, top Medicare administrators' salaries don't come close to these "free market" CEO salaries even though they are responsible for insuring millions more people than any of these private insurers.

In 2003, the "free market" Congress overhauled Medicare so that private insurers who enrolled the elderly were paid about 14% more than the government typically spent under traditional Medicare for service that was nearly the same. It was the same kind of wasteful spending as when we pushed student loans into private banks and increased the cost of a college education and the debt load of college graduates. Thankfully, Obama wants to take the banks out of the picture and provide direct government lower cost student loans.

Despite fear mongering about government run health care, seniors aren't asking for their Medicare to be taken away. Quite the contrary. People with Medicare can choose between public and private plans that contract with Medicare and an overwhelming 80 percent choose Medicare's public plan over the privately contracted plans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donald-co ... 79317.html

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Yayyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good. Clarity is important in defining ideologies in play.

This is like Larry Flynt preaching morality.

Too bad.

So then we all agree that the claim that the health insurance industry is raking in cash hand over fist is bullshit. This is getting easy.

It is.

The top 7 "for profit" health insurers made a combined $12.6 billion in 2007-- an increase of 170.2% from 2003.

Oh, those poor insurance companies.

Private insurance overhead and profits eat up 20% and more of health care premiums

Since they're getting so little in profits, most of this money must be going into a bloated and inefficient management system. If they were run better, they could provide better service and make more money.

while Medicare overhead (and no profit) is closer to 3%.

The other 97% is going toward actual medical care. That's damn efficient. If private insurers can't manage their businesses better than a 'bloated and inefficient government program', then fuck 'em.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Since they're getting so little in profits, most of this money must be going into a bloated and inefficient management system.

Or research and development of new drugs that will help millions of Americans. This is getting easy. Might want to look into this a bit more instead of lapping up all talking points politicians feed you for their own political gain.

Getting easier by the second.

How many new drugs do insurance providers develop? When did insurance companies become pharmaceutical companies? This ought to be good.

[tin00can]

The health industry is responsible for new drugs and treatments that come to the market to help people around the world thanks to their research and development efforts that cost them millions of dollars. A 3.3% profit margin is minimal. As you now know.

"Health industry" is a pretty broad term.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

The health industry is responsible for new drugs and treatments that come to the market to help people around the world thanks to their research and development efforts that cost them millions of dollars. A 3.3% profit margin is minimal. As you now know.

Again, this has nothing to do with health insurance industry, which is what we were discussing, you assclown. The health insurance and pharmaceutical industries are completely different entities. You know that and your dishonest attempt to cloud the issue is an insult to everyone.

You've bought into the propaganda. Profit margins for the health insurance industry are generally around 3%. Much lower than most other major industries.

You are an idiot. You fucked up because you don't know what you are talking about. Rather than admit your error, you decided to try this pathetic lie to cover your ignorance and again you failed. You don't even have your numbers straight. The pharmaceutical industry has 15.8% profit margin, medical products, equipment @15.2%, health insurance @6.2% and hospitals @ 3.3%.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ ... s/profits/

Although the pharmaceutical industry claims to be a high-risk business, year after year drug companies enjoy higher profits than any other industry. In 2002, for example, the top 10 drug companies in the United States had a median profit margin of 17%, compared with only 3.1% for all the other industries on the Fortune 500 list.1 Indeed, subtracting losses from gains, those 10 companies made more in profits that year than the other 490 companies put together. Pfizer, the world's number-one drug company, had a profit margin of 26% of sales. In 2003, for the first time in over 2 decades, the pharmaceutical industry fell slightly from its number-one spot to third, but this was explained by special circumstances, including Pfizer's purchase of another drug giant, Pharmacia, which cut into its profits for the year. The industry's profits were still an extraordinary 14% of sales, well above the median of 4.6% for other industries.2 A business that is consistently so profitable can hardly be considered risky.

Excess profits are, of course, the result of excess prices — and prices are excessive principally in the United States, the only advanced country that does not limit pharmaceutical price increases in some way. Of the top 10 drug companies in the world, 5 are European and 5 are American, but all of them have the US as their major profit centre. In the US, uninsured patients (of which there are many) are charged more for drugs than those who have large insurance companies to bargain for them, and the prices of prescription drugs are generally much higher to start with than in other advanced countries. Moreover, the prices of top-selling drugs are routinely jacked up in the US at 2 to 3 times the general rate of inflation

http://www.ecmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/12/1451

[tin00can]

Without them we'd be fucked. To try and paint them as the villian for political gain is pathetic.

Again...where did I do that?

You're awfully defensive.

[tin00can]

Again...where did I do that?

Where did I say that you did?

So you weren't replying to me then, just making a comment in general?

OK. I believe ya.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

The fact remains that the health insurance industry isn't the bad guy even though they've been portrayed as such by the left. That point was proven within this very thread. At least we can move on beyond that lie.

If an industry within the health industry itself has a higher profit margin than the health insurance industry does it make them the villian? Even if they do that much good for this country? My guess is yes if it's politically expedient to do so.

The only lies we need to move beyond are yours. that point has been proven time and again. Most of your claims were disproven. Your various attempts to obfuscate only serve to highlight these failures. The health insurance and pharmaceutical industries are not villains because they make money, they are villains because they value profit above all else, especially human lives and human suffering.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled lies, evasions and baseless denials.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Most of your claims were disproven.

Name them.

viewtopic.php?p=4645454#p4645454
viewtopic.php?p=4645014#p4645014
viewtopic.php?p=4638692#p4638692
viewtopic.php?p=4634866#p4634866
viewtopic.php?p=4634803#p4634803
viewtopic.php?p=4629875#p4629875
viewtopic.php?p=4630161#p4630161
The big one:
Dems lack votes for Health Care passage with simple majority
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=220474&start=0

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Did the democrats in the house lack votes to pass health care reform with a simple majority at the time that I posted that story? Right.

So much for that one. Next.

So were these guys. You stood behind it till the bitter end, as well as a spineless buffoon can. Nice job, Nostrodumbass.

[vlad]

Did the democrats in the house lack votes to pass health care reform with a simple majority at the time that I posted that story? Right.

So much for that one. Next.

So were these guys. You stood behind it till the bitter end, as well as a spineless buffoon can. Nice job, Nostrodumbass.

Perfect picture.

[tin00can]

Did the democrats in the house lack votes to pass health care reform with a simple majority at the time that I posted that story? Right.

So much for that one. Next.

How quickly you change the subject when you're wrong.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

How quickly you change the subject when you're wrong.

Except for that I didn't:

The big one:
Dems lack votes for Health Care passage with simple majority
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=220474&start=0

Did the democrats in the house lack votes to pass health care reform with a simple majority at the time that I posted that story?

We know the truth.