Posted by jadam12 on August 27, 2008 at 12:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Our eyes remained on each other for the couple of seconds it took the lion to pass, about 10-feet away, then he continued on his way down the middle of the street."

Which further demonstrates the fact that lions and bears want nothing to do with humans.

One has to just got to love this whole, "for the safety of the children" bs. According to statistics, there is about 1 human death per year in all of North America from mountain lions. About the same for bears.

http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/lion_at...

Come on people, just let the lions and bears alone, as they prefer to let you alone. Stop falling prey to the over safety consciousness of America today.

Furthermore, go out and ride your bike without a helmet! Look how many of us survived our pre helmet bmx days.

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 6:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"This might sound ridiculous but I question, "Will there be laws about how I walk? What I wear to bed at night? How I boil water? Whether or not I subscribe to the newspaper?""

You are correct. That does sound ridiculous.

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I was very impressed and charmed by Michelle Obama's story at the Democratic National Convention and how she met her future husband."

So was the media. Brian Williams looked like he was going to wet himself he was so exited, and that before she even took the stage. Reminded me of the smirk on Dan Rather's biased face when Clinton won his first term.

I concede, if it were the other way around, I wouldn't complain a bit, but being against Obama, watching the media swoon over this guy makes me nauseous.

Posted by elguapo on August 27, 2008 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Diamond,
The term "liberal" has changed over the years. People like Adam Smith were liberals. People that believed in small government, the free market, and individual liberty.
Liberals now stand for progress towards the collective. All hail Putin.

Mr. Kelly,
I was not "you see" impressed by Mrs. Obama. At her pay grade, one might assume a better performance, "you see." The image guru David Axelrod has once again lifted a movie script for the Obamas "you see." The speech, "you see," came from the movie "300."

Posted by CSminer on August 27, 2008 at 7:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"This might sound ridiculous but I question, "Will there be laws about...."

Well Alice, in California a law is being considered that would enable the State to control your thermostat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us/...

This law is being brought to you by liberals, who, according to you [believe in] "... the autonomy of the individual..."

So much for autonomy and personal responsibility. But I guess if I don't take the "correct" personal responsiblity, it is the State's job to see that I do.

Regardless of the genesis of the two words, you primarily have the wrong attributes associated with each faction.

Posted by Canyonrunner on August 27, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John Kelly: Actually, I'm tired of the expectation that our political leaders be perfect. I didn't like Clinton for reasons other than the Monica scandal. In fact, it showed he was human and did have some redeeming qualities (but not many). Everyone makes mistakes -- its their beliefs and philosophies which govern the decisions they make that I am more interested in. I couldn't care less about their hormonal drives so long as it doesn't get in their way of taking care of business. In that respect, McCain's way of thinking is closer to mine. While there are a lot of things I don't agree with in McCain's platform, there is a lot more in Obama's that I disagree with.

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CS,

Aren't the same people trying to force us all to use mercury filled, toxic fluorescent light bulbs that require 20 minutes of room ventilation if broken and are all made in China?

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What we see from McCain is a man who wants to serve God and be obedient, but who doesn't always do so.

Hmmm... just like David in the Bible, and Thomas Jefferson.

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Like a cat swat team, non-lethal please, to drive lions out of the city, to put the fear of humans in them."

Good idea. Lets hike up taxes and get right on that. Put it to the City Council and you should have your swat team within 10 years max.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How about passing out rubber bullets to a "well regulated militia"?

Posted by CSminer on August 27, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

IXL:
Yes, and they want to: tell me what type of car to drive (regardless of what I can afford), manage my healthcare, tax carbon, withhold medical care from babies born alive during an attempted abortion, decide what I hear on the radio, etc., etc., etc.

Posted by gsegiet on August 27, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

“…the policies of our democratic government have generally favored a handful of rich people over the masses of poor people. But that's only because rich people are better at voting. We vote for candidates who actually will make us richer, while poor people vote for candidates who pretend that they are going to make them less poor while, in fact, doing nothing at all to help them. That's why we're rich and they're not.” – Michael Lewis – Bloomberg columnist and hedge fund manager

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So true. Populist politicians are nothing more than plantation owners.

Posted by CSminer on August 27, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

gsegiet:

This is an inane statement. Look at what he says:

"[The rich] vote for candidates who actually will make us richer."

"...poor people vote for candidates who pretend that they are going to make them less poor..."

In the above statements, the only differences between the two are the words "actually" and "pretend." The word "actually" is a prediction, the word "pretend" is mind-reading.

If he can get away with a gross over-simplification, perhaps so can I: For most people, the reason they are better off is because they have made better decisions than most people who are less well off.

"Rich" and "poor" are not so much economic indicators of wealth as they are class indicators.

Posted by umtanum on August 27, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Canyonrunner and QM, too bad you weren't on the forum a few days ago to defend Obama when certain people were smearing him, not for anything he did, but for the sins of his father. Or were you?

--Posted by IXLR82 on August 24, 2008 at 10:05 a.m.

"At least McCain knows how many brothers he has. Ask Obama that and the answer is between 8 and 12."

Ask him how many wives his father had. No one really knows, although he did have two at the same time.-----

Hypocrisy runs rampant.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The so-called "tobacco settlement" is one good example of how the modern plantation system works.

Posted by JohnGalt on August 27, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"There are people who feel it is right that working people be taxed, rich people be taxed more and poor people taxed less. "

Since the top 50% earners pay 80% of the total tax receipts, top 5% pay 97%, and the bottom 10% actually receive a rebate (earned income tax credit) and pay no taxes, I guess Alice is "conservative", as she would like the status quo to remain in place.

Posted by CSminer on August 27, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JohnGalt: "Since the top 50% earners pay 80% of the total tax receipts, top 5% pay 97%..."

I think you might have this wrong... if 50% pay 80%, then 5% must pay less than 80%??

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

umtanum on August 27, 2008 at 8:13 a.m."Canyonrunner and QM, too bad you weren't on the forum a few days ago to defend Obama when certain people were smearing him, not for anything he did, but for the sins of his father. Or were you?"

Delving into the sins of our fathers is not a libertarian shtick. I didn't comment on it one way or another.

If you study the word "libertarian" carefully I think you will know what I mean.

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Umtanum,

Don't use me in your argument against Q and Canyon. They are mature, rational guys; not me though....I'll smear with the best of 'em!

Posted by ken0519 on August 27, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

gsegiet,

I must disagree with one point in that statement (I know you didn't make it).

We do not vote for people that will make us rich, we vote for people that will allow us to make ourselves rich.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CSminer on August 27, 2008 at 8:23 a.m."I think you might have this wrong... if 50% pay 80%, then 5% must pay less than 80%??"

VERY GOOD! Obviously the numbers got transposed.

Posted by umtanum on August 27, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

QM, I know you didn't comment on it one way or another, that was my point, yet you felt the need to defend McCain, didn't you?

IXL, I have every confidence in you!

Posted by JG on August 27, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John, what you may not know is that while Mrs. O has been earning her big bucks as a lawyer and hating America, John's wife has spent a substnatial portion of her life doing charitable work, including providing medical treatment for poor kids overseas.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. "Umtanum, Don't use me in your argument against Q and Canyon. They are mature, rational guys; not me though....I'll smear with the best of 'em!"

My motto is inclusive pluralism!

Keep up the good work :-)

Posted by boulder_native on August 27, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Democracy quotes for the day

John Adams
“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

Aristotle
“In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.”

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

umtanum on August 27, 2008 at 8:37 a.m."QM, I know you didn't comment on it one way or another, that was my point, yet you felt the need to defend McCain, didn't you?"

TRUE.

Even though in my examples I allow that David and Thomas Jefferson were hypocrites.... and by extension so is McCain.

Posted by boulder_native on August 27, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John Kelly - So how many brothers does Obama have??

For that matter, according to his own words, he had period where he partied on crack and drink...so he might have fathered a few children that he does not know about too.

But then that is par for the course in the "inner-city culture", absentee fathers and all. You heard what Jesse Jackson called Obama when he heard him approach this subject with the objectivism of Bill Cosby??? Nice words not allowed here.

Posted by boulder_native on August 27, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

umtantrum - So, didn't the Democratic Party "swoon" over the drunk-driving murderer, Teddy Kennedy?

Hard to beat that level of corruption and hypocritical thinking.

Posted by foreign_correspondent on August 27, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ALICE DIAMOND ,

> Conservative literally means resistant to change.
> Liberal connotes broad-mindedness.

Besides dramatically oversimplifying and misstating the definition of Conservative (e.g., assigning conservative values such as critical thinking to liberalism), was there a point to your letter?

> There are people who recognize that any form of government is imperfect but
> strive nonetheless for some degree of equitability.

You did get that point right....

Liberals strive for equality (e.g., equal outcomes) and believe big government is the best hope for achieving that goal. Conservatives strive for in personal liberty, personal responsibility and equal opportunity, and view big government as a threat to all three. Your taxation example is a case in point.

> ... working people be taxed, rich people be taxed more and poor people taxed less.

In order to achieve equality, you advocate that government should deprive the rich person of their personal liberty (e.g., by taking a larger share of their earned income). You seem to be OK with the government enforcing unequal treatment under the law in order to achieve equality. I think that's "wrong". You feel that's "right".

Watching politicians from both ends of the spectrum speak, I've noticed an even simpler distinction between Conservative and Liberal: a Conservative makes decisions based upon what they think; a Liberal makes decisions based upon how they feel. Listen to them talk, you'll hear "I feel..." vs "I think...", just as I wrote in the paragraph above.

By the way, I've never met such a closed-minded lot as all the good Liberals in Boulder. So much for your definition of Liberal.

JOHN KELLY,

> I hope we will get the chance at the Republican National Convention to hear the
> same from John McCain's wives.

Well, Hillary didn't say much about her husband and she didn't mention Monica Lewinsky at all. And one thing's for certain, we won't be listening to or hearing about John Edwards at all.

Off to work. Ya'll have fun today.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Liberals now stand for progress towards the collective. All hail Putin."

And conservatives stand for smears and innuendo.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"So, didn't the Democratic Party "swoon" over the drunk-driving murderer, Teddy Kennedy?"

And conservatives stand for smears and innuendo.

Posted by EvanFromHeaven on August 27, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding yesterday's 9/11 "discussion," the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Richard Gage, AIA, will speak Sept. 25 at the Denver Mariott Tech Ctr.: http://colorado911visibility.org/ for details.

This is for respectful people willing to look at evidence, NOT for those with Homer Simpson's "Everyone's an idiot but me" attitude.

Posted by CSminer on August 27, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From the IRS website http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in12... (I am rounding numbers):

There were 138.4M returns filed. About half (48.7%) had Gross Incomes (GIs) of of $30,000 or less. These people paid 2.5% of all taxes paid.

About 97% of all returns showed GIs less than $200K. These people paid about 47% of all taxes.

So the top 3% of the GI earners pay 53% of the taxes. The same top 3% earned 31% of all the income. They earned 31% of all income and paid 53% of all taxes at an average tax rate of about 22%.

The average tax rate for the remaining 97% was about 8.7%, so the top 3% paid taxes at a rate that was about 22/8.7 = 2.5 times that of those in the bottom 97%. About 20% of all taxes are paid by those in the top one tenth of one percent of all returns. Those returns accounted for about 11% of all income, and they also paid taxes at a rate of about 22%.

Next question: If the Bush tax cuts are “skewed towards the wealthy,” exactly how would tax cuts be skewed towards the poor, who essentially pay no taxes as it is?

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"John, what you may not know is that while Mrs. O has been earning her big bucks as a lawyer and hating America, John's wife has spent a substnatial portion of her life doing charitable work, including providing medical treatment for poor kids overseas."

And conservatives stand for smears and innuendo.

Posted by Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yvonne,

I think you are being a bit sensitive and over-dramatic. I agree with you that in the name of security we are sacrificing a lot of ou civil liberties and that is soemthing we should definitely keep an eye on.

But honestly, I don't mind the security measures I have to go through to get on a flight. People are never rude to me and security at DIA is extremely efficient and fast. Outside of the terrorist threat, some people just tend to freak when they get into a tube and are jettisoned 500 MPH at 30,000 feet. I am glad we make sure these people don't have knives etc.

We should definitelty have a healthy fear of the excesses of our government and that is why we have to remain engaged and focused on what our leaders are doing. But I promise you, you will never be charged to breathe. That is unless you are one of the gullible idiots who frequesnt the Oxygen Bar on Pearl Street.

Posted by CSminer on August 27, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

EvanFromHeaven:

All of "you" 'truthers' are idiots, not us.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This election is about one thing, and one thing only:

Throwing the bums out.

Whether Democrats will be able to work miracles and shovel out the stables remains to be seen, but that is a red, red herring.

The bums are going to be thrown out, and even if McCain wins the presidency, that's what will have happened.

Conservatives do not consider McCain one of their own.

Posted by talven on August 27, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Liberals speak of peace, conservatives speak of liberty. There's a big difference.

Posted by flaven on August 27, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bm: "...he had period where he partied on crack and drink...so he might have fathered a few children that he does not know about too."

Sounds like Shrub...

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

boulder_native on August 27, 2008 at 8:42 a.m.

Democracy quotes for the day: John Adams
“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

It should also be noted that John Adams was a manic depressive, and without be too redundant, also a pessimist.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 9:01 a.m."But honestly, I don't mind the security measures I have to go through to get on a flight. People are never rude to me and security at DIA is extremely efficient and fast."

Coming from someone who supports both welfare for the poor and corporate welfare, why am I not surprised?

Posted by Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Qmmckenna,

What does welfare have to do with security lines at DIA?

And by the way, its not as simple as "I support welfare". I only support a welfare program which requires people to get a job within a reasonable amount of time. It does none of us any good to let these poeple live on the street. And all of these people are not there by choice. Your brilliant leader's policy of looking the other way on subprime loans has forced many hard working people out of their homes.

And if you are a conservative, how is huge tax breaks for oil companies not the same as welfare, except for entities which don't need it.

Posted by Flatirony on August 27, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JG--
"John, what you may not know is that while Mrs. O has been earning her big bucks as a lawyer and hating America,"

Your tin foil hat cannot be used as a floatation device. You are drowning in stupid.

Posted by patriot007 on August 27, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yvonne: "There are so many laws that just going through the day while minding my own business I wonder, "What law am I breaking?"

Tacitus (ca. 56 - ca. 117): "The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates."

Posted by patriot007 on August 27, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Democracy defined:

"tyranny of the majority" (de Tocqueville)
"mob rule dressed up in a sports coat" (Doug Casey)
"two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch" (Benjamin Franklin)
"the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people" (Oscar Wilde)

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." (Wilde)

For tomorrow: Democracy vs. Republic

Posted by CSminer on August 27, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dunk said: "...how is [sic] huge tax breaks for oil companies not the same as welfare..."

The oil companies provide us with gasoline so we can drive to work.

Also, why don't you research those "huge [oil company] tax breaks" before you spout off your mouth. Do you even know what you're talking about? From http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck...

"[Regarding presidential candidates wishing to remove oil company tax breaks], ... candidates are referring to H.R. 6, the 2005 energy bill that contained $14.3 billion in subsidies for energy companies. However, as we’ve reported numerous times, a vast majority of those subsidies (all but $2.8 billion) were for nuclear power, energy-efficient cars and buildings, and renewable fuels research. In addition, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the tax changes in the 2005 energy bill produced a net tax increase for the oil and gas companies, as we’ve reported time and time and time again. They did get some breaks, but they had more taken away."

Most of the remainder of the tax breaks give the oil companies the right to write off intangible drilling costs in the year they occur, instead of having to capitalize them over several years. Most other companies already have the right to expense intangible costs - why not oil companies? (Disclosure: Oil companies get an exemption to the passive loss limitation rules. This saves them less than $1bn/yr)

Posted by foreign_correspondent on August 27, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

> Democracy quotes for the day: John Adams

John Adams was talking about a simple democracy. That quote was part of his rationale for a republican/federalist form of government and the electoral college.

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Posted by EvanFromHeaven on August 27, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding yesterday's 9/11 "discussion"

Evan, thanks for dragging this nonsense into its second day. How was the trip to the continental divide you mentioned going on yesterday? You know it was built by aliens, don't you?

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's Bartlett's Day in the forum.

Posted by patriot007 on August 27, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

> "All of you truthers are idiots, not us."

"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are protected by public incredulity." (Marshall McLuhan)

Posted by CSminer on August 27, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One clarification to my above post: The tax subsidies and benefits mentioned are spread over 11 years, not one.

Posted by Greatgarloo on August 27, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ALICE-
The traditional definition of liberalism has nothing to do with what it has eroded into today.

Today's liberals are led by their ideology like bulls with nose rings. Common sense in these people is non-existant, nor is practicality and reason. This is exemplified by how they prefer censoring their critics(ala 'the Obamessiah', et al). Particularly when asked pointed questions which their ideology cannot deal with.

Just watch the debates(if his majesty 'the Obamessiah' doesn't wimp-out(again) that is). Watch him bumble, see him stumble, as he pathetically tries to think on his feet.

Tolerant, my butt! They only 'tolerate' those who they agree with. Sounds more like hypocrisy.

No, todays liberalism, sadly, is no longer a political philosophy, it is a mental disorder.

Posted by albanal on August 27, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"...how is [sic] huge tax breaks for oil companies not the same as welfare..."

If the phrase "huge tax breaks for oil companies" refers to a category, the singular is OK, I think.

Posted by Greatgarloo on August 27, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"And conservatives stand for smears and innuendo."

Dear kettle,
You are still black.

Sincerely,
The Pot.

Dear Billy-boy,
Fat, drunk and stupid are no way to go through life, son. Please, try not to speak.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"No, todays liberalism, sadly, is no longer a political philosophy, it is a mental disorder."

And conservatives stand for smears and slander.

Posted by CSminer on August 27, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Patriot, I'll take care of the moon landing. You handle the Holocaust.

Thanks

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Fat, drunk and stupid are no way to go through life, son. Please, try not to speak."

Your juvenile posts are mostly tired catchphrases and hoary insults strung together.

You embarrass yourself.

Posted by Greatgarloo on August 27, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"And conservatives stand for smears and slander."

Thank you for making my point. No intelligent answers. The ideology just cannot bear the strain. Slander? Prove it.

Sorry, denial isn't the river. Liberalism has indeed become a mental disorder.

On second thought Billy-boy, just keep talking....please.

Posted by Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To Cminer:

I understand that the oil companies provide us with gas so we can go to work. That is why they charge for their product and make a profit.

So fact check indicates that tax incentives are not the only reason U.S. companies do business overseas. Cheap skilled labor is another (not that it makes me feel any better). But it also says that oil companies receive 2.8 BILLION in subsidies not linked to renewable energy resources. That is a hell of a lot of money. My point is that I am fine with subsidies for companies who provide a needed dservice if they are struggling and need it. Like farmers. We can't do without them, but they struggle to get by. Like the airline industry, it will hurt us if they go under, but oil companies do not need this help. They make record profits so why are we subsidizing them.

Fact check states that oil companies are actually paying more in net taxes, but fails to explain that. Are they paying more taxes than before simply because they are brining in more money? They don't explain?

And by the way, calm down. I am not spouting off. i am just stating my opinion.

Posted by Greatgarloo on August 27, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Your juvenile posts are mostly tired catchphrases and hoary insults strung together."

And you figured that out by yourself, Billy? Good job! That's because liberals are like small children, (this is not meant as an insult to children) and must be dealt with accordingly.

"You embarrass yourself"-You, you, you. Petulanly point and shout. Never make a point. No answers.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 9:50 a.m."Qmmckenna, What does welfare have to do with security lines at DIA?"

It means Big Brother is taking care of us as we applaud how courteous and efficient he is.

posted by Dunkterfunk on August 25, 2008 at 12:58 p.m."I think if we had universal healthcare people would have a little more courage to get out there and start small businesses, which in the long run would strengthen our economy and capitalism."

Translation: Government freebies strengthen capitalism.

Of course corporations would like nothing more than to have government pay the health care costs for all their workers. In fact that is one of the top priorities of corporate lobbyists in Washington right now.

Who can blame them? Healthcare costs used to be a personal responsibility but somehow corporations got stuck with it.

Since passing the buck is becoming a full time occupation for everyone it's inevitable that everything will eventually all end up in the hands of the government. Truman had it right all along when he said the "buck tops here."

That's is why why we pay high taxes and the government still manages to spend beyond it's means.

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Most of the remainder of the tax breaks give the oil companies the right to write off intangible drilling costs in the year they occur, instead of having to capitalize them over several years."

Which means that other than time value of money, they would have gotten the write off over time anyway. The vast majority of people who whine about tax-breaks for Big Oil don't know what it means, but they love the cliché. You have to admit it is politically effective. Just like Gore and his "tax cuts for the rich" and "lock box" nonsense.

It sounds much better for Obama to say:

"give working families a $1,000 tax break"

than to say

"I don't believe 70% of the income tax burden is enough for the top 10% of earners, so I promise to take more from them and give it to people who vote for me".

But he could, it is the plan after all.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Liberalism is a mental disorder."

If you didn't exist, I'd have to invent you.

From the standpoint of the RAB wing of the electorate, almost everyone's a lib'rul.

"I was watching the endorsement of Senator McCain by Governor Schwarzenegger in California. What a picture this was. And I'm looking at the picture, and I'm seeing McCain surrounding himself with the left wing of our party. These guys are Republicans, but they're the left wing of our party. So he just got the endorsement of a big-taxing, big-spending, socialist health care, eco-extreme governor who says the Republican Party needs to follow him to the left."

- Rush

Posted by CSminer on August 27, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dunk:
Keep in mind that the $2.8 bn in subsidies is over 11 years, so that's $250 mn a year. perhaps the oil companies do not now "need" the incentive, but (and I admit to changing the subject a bit) do you trust the government to use the money more wisely than the oil companies? If oil companies lose money, are you in favor of bail-outs, or should the government only confiscate from business when business is good, and stand silently by when it is bad?

Some statistics:

For 2006, Exxon's EBT (earnings before tax) was $67.4 billion, it paid $27.9 billion in taxes (41.4% tax rate), and its NIAT (net income after tax), or profit, was $39.5 billion. Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. So, in other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers. (Previous excerpts from http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131...)

The above figures are for one oil company. Oil companies have contributed over 2 trillion in taxes since 1980. Take a look at http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/sho....

Anyhow, in the grand scheme of things, the $2.8 bn is a drop in the bucket.

And sorry about accusing you of spouting. I get weary of the mindless oil company bashing.

Posted by CSminer on August 27, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

AND BY THE WAY...

When a politician says we need to wean ourselves off of oil, he needs to ask himself what would the government do without all the taxes from oil??

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 10:57 a.m.'Liberalism is a mental disorder.'

"If you didn't exist, I'd have to invent you."

You have just made the case that Liberalism is not only a mental disorder, but it is also a disease that is spreading.

But wait.... alcoholism is also a disease. Does that mean they are not responsible?

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CSminer on August 27, 2008 at 11:04 a.m."When a politician says we need to wean ourselves off of oil, he needs to ask himself what would the government do without all the taxes from oil??"

Answer: They won't.

Big Government and Corporatism are really two faces on the same coin.

Posted by Horace on August 27, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Tolerant, my butt! They only 'tolerate' those who they agree with. Sounds more like hypocrisy."

said the person who dismisses dissenting viewpoints as mental disorders.

Posted by Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, in a perfect world everyone would make enough money to be responsible for their own healthcare. However, that is not the relaity of the situation. The cost of healthcare is so high that a majority of Americans could not afford it on their own. The result would be that people would not go get things checked out until it was too late. Cancer treatment can cost more than 500K. Are you saying we should get rid of corporate sponsered helathcare and just let people die?

See that is the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe in every man for himself, if you can't keep up then it is fine if you just up and die.....unless of course you are a fetus.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One penultimate example of a corporate state is Nazi Germany.

The Messerschmitt Company, who made them fighter aircraft for them during WWII, paid 97% of their corporate income back to the state. However, all of their health care was paid for.

Posted by ken0519 on August 27, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have one question for some of the posters here...

If the tax breaks for the oil companies are taken away and the oil companies have to keep their profit margins to stay in business, what will happen?

ANSWER: Gas prices will go up to cover that deficit.

Who will pay? Go look in the mirror.

Posted by Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well we all need someone to blame. Oil companies, liberals, democrats, bush, clinton, Muslims.

Personally, I like to blame the children. No working, no tax paying drains on society. The contribute nothing except the stomach flu and sticky fingers. :0)

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 11:19 a.m."Well, in a perfect world everyone would make enough money to be responsible for their own healthcare."

You keep making a circular, yet non sequitur, argument. You start with the premise of helping those who can't help themselves.... but then you shift over to UNIVERSAL health care.

Which is it?

... Or are you trying to say that NONE of us can take care of ourselves?

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"No working, no tax paying drains on society"

Sounds like the profile of an Obama supporter!

;-)

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"the oil companies have to keep their profit margins to stay in business"

Obviously, if they are now making record profits, they have done well at much lower margins in the past.

Posted by Horace on August 27, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Conservatives strive for in personal liberty, personal responsibility and equal opportunity, and view big government as a threat to all three..."

Doesn't sound like republicans I know of. Sure doesn't sound like McCain or Bush. The conservatives that FC describes are a fringe ideology, as evidenced by the fact that you could probably count on one hand the representatives with beliefs anywhere close to this. Bush, Cheney, McCain, Romney... these are the people who conservatives choose to represent them. Therefore, they define conservatism. Alice's definition is therefore more accurate.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Sounds like the profile of an Obama supporter!"

In reality, affluent, college-educated, white middle-classers.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 11:30 a.m."Personally, I like to blame the children. No working, no tax paying drains on society. The contribute nothing except the stomach flu and sticky fingers."

The sad thing is that many of them don't outgrow it. When they get older they join government and use their "sticky fingers" for cronyism.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Conservatives detest McCain, and pro-lifers don't trust him. Mitt is a nouveau conservative.

McCain avoids GWB like plague, and there was actually a discussion over whether Cheney should attend the convention.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 11:40 a.m."Obviously, if they are now making record profits, they have done well at much lower margins in the past."

I think one of the first thing an Obama Administration should do is to outlaw business cycles, and relieve us of the uncertainties of supply and demand.

Posted by Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Qmmckenna:

I am not making a circular argument. I am for universal healthcare. The reason being is that I think it is an abomination that in the richest country in the world people are without healthcare.

Providing healthcare covers those who can't help themselves, but also covers everyone else. You may have to raise taxes, but you also wouldn't have to contribute to your employee healthcare plan or pay for sevices if you now pay as you go. Corporation can then use that saved money to expand and hire more people, creating jobs.

We are not pure capitalism as it is. We provide healthcare for the elderly through medicare and we have social security.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I think one of the first thing an Obama Administration should do is to outlaw business cycles, and relieve us of the uncertainties of supply and demand."

Speaking of non-sequiturs ...

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 11:55 a.m."Corporation can then use that saved money to expand and hire more people, creating jobs."

What "saved money" do they have to hire more people? Is Universal health care free?

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 11:55 a.m.'I think one of the first thing an Obama Administration should do is to outlaw business cycles, and relieve us of the uncertainties of supply and demand.'

"Speaking of non-sequiturs ..."

OK... substitute the word "windfall"

Posted by elguapo on August 27, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dunk,
If government would get out of healthcare/regulation, most people would be able to afford insurance if they so desired. This would especially be the case if they only wanted to cover the big ticket items (catastrophic illness). But, if you want to play in insurance, every state has unique mandates of entirety of coverage. You are not free to choose your items from the menu. Big brother know best.

Oh, I just heard the latest spot from our buddy TB Pickens. It sounds similar to my remarks of a couple weeks ago for those of you who weren't paying attention to what he was really saying. That's right, "drill, drill, drill."

Posted by foreign_correspondent on August 27, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

> Conservatives detest McCain

Wrong. Maybe some do, but not all and probably not even most. I'm conservative, very conservative. And while I disagree with McCain on some issues, I agree with him on many more. Detest? Not even close. I think he's the very best candidate the Republicans could have selected for this particular election. He's not ideologically "pure", but neither are the independent voters in the swing states that are necessary to win this time. Is McCain an Conservative ideologue? No. But an ideologue of either persuasion probably wouldn't win this election. A pragmatic maverick who's more conservative than liberal very well might.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dunkterfunk:"Corporation can then use that saved money to expand and hire more people, creating jobs."

Q: What "saved money" do they have to hire more people? Is Universal health care free?

Oh I get! YOU are paying for it instead of the corporations!

For the money you are giving them they can afford to hire you.

Posted by rasinden57 on August 27, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I hope we will get the chance at the Republican National Convention to hear the same from John McCain's wives: Carol, whom he dated while she was married to an Annapolis classmate, and Cindy, whom he dated while married to Carol"

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"So, didn't the Democratic Party "swoon" over the drunk-driving murderer, Teddy Kennedy?"

And conservatives stand for smears and innuendo

Billy--isn't that first quote from the letter today a bit of a smear and innuendo? Or is this letter writer a conservative?

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"If government would get out of healthcare/regulation, most people would be able to afford insurance if they so desired."

This bunk. Private third parties are raking off huge profits from both physicians and patients. This is why Americans pay more for less.

Posted by GoBuffs05 on August 27, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yvonne,
His name is not Adolf Huxley, it's Aldous Huxley.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"> Conservatives detest McCain

Wrong. Maybe some do, but not all and probably not even most."

It depends on whether your rhetoric comes from before or after the primaries. Here's Mitt in the primaries:

"Just a reminder for some of you on (John) McCain's history with the Republican Party. Senator McCain has been there for Democrats when they needed his votes against the Bush tax cuts and he was a reliable agitator against Republicans when the Democrats sought to prevent up-or-down votes against conservative judges nominated to the federal bench. Not surprising, in view of the fact that Senator McCain once considered serving as Senator John Kerry's running mate in 2004."

- Sarah Pompei, Deputy Press Secretary for Regional Media, Romney for President, 2/4/08

McCain's own candid Mother:

"John McCain's 95-year-old mother is legendary on the campaign trail for her blunt, no-nonsense comments. But her son must be hoping she limits her enthusiasm for interviews until after the GOP primaries are finished. C-SPAN caught up with Roberta McCain this week and asked how much support she thought her son had among the base of the Republican Party. 'I don't think he has any,' was her crisp reply. 'So can he then go on and become the nominee of this party?' asked C-SPAN's Steve Scully. 'I think holding their nose they're going to have to take him.'"

- John Fund of Political Diary

Posted by ken0519 on August 27, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Well we all need someone to blame. Oil companies, liberals, democrats, bush, clinton, Muslims."

I'm curious... Why no CAPS on the names but you did use a CAP on "Muslims"?

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"His name is not Adolf Huxley, it's Aldous Huxley."

I thought that was some kind of slam.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

elguapo on August 27, 2008 at 12:12 p.m."Oh, I just heard the latest spot from our buddy TB Pickens. It sounds similar to my remarks of a couple weeks ago for those of you who weren't paying attention to what he was really saying. That's right, 'drill, drill, drill.'"

Another news flash! Environmental hero Bill Gates just returned from Canada after checking out investment opportunities for tar sands.

I give Bill Gates lots of credit though. His stand to fight malaria is a much more worthy environmental cause than fighting global warming.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Or is this letter writer a conservative?"

I didn't say conservatives have an exclusive patent over smears and innuendo, merely that it's a mainstay of their political strategy, a kind of cottage industry. Note that quote was a retort to a stock right-wing smear being pushed over the internet.

You don't find me calling Shrub a "fascist," "warmonger," yadda yadda.

You guys are so cute when you act ingenuous. Keep it up.

Posted by Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To Ken,

No reason, I just do that sometimes. I capitalize random words when i am writing stream of conciousness.

Why does that bother you?

Posted by elguapo on August 27, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

B_G_G,
Let's compare some states (2004), courtesy of M. Matthews, Jr. Ph.D. director of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance
Avg $ for an individual.
NJ 4044
NY 3996
IA 1188
WY 1188
The reason? State mandates. Things like, contraception, in-vitro, chiropractors, podiatrists, nurse midwives, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and hairpieces, etc. Why should the coverage be mandatory? I don't have fertility issues, not going to get pregnant, feet are fine, don't need counseling, hair is fine, and don't take drugs. A logical person would see a huge wast of money, and government handing "big insurance" a huge check.
But, our freedom to choose what is right for us has been usurped by a government that knows what is better for the little serfs.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 12:20 p.m."This bunk. Private third parties are raking off huge profits from both physicians and patients. This is why Americans pay more for less."

Ever stop to consider how these third parties got involved in health care in the first place who are raking off these profits?

Like duh! Isn't the government also a third party? Who will then gladly sublet it off to other third parties?

That is how corporate states work.

Posted by Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If Universal Healthcare is so bad, I would like to hear from the conservatives how we make sure that people who can't afford healthcare get insurance or health services? Because so far the only thing I really hear is it is their fault they don't have enough money.

Posted by albanal on August 27, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I capitalize random words when i am writing stream of conciousness."

One child that was left behind.

Posted by albanal on August 27, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Like duh! Isn't the government also a third party?"

Like duh! No.

Posted by Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Elguapo,

The ones who generally tell me what is best for me is the insurance company. They routinely won't cover a medication which works best for me so I have to use something less effective. It ain't just big government who runs our lives. What about credit companies tracking your spending, credit card companies selling your info. I fera big business more than big government. Hell, at least we can vote them out of office.

Posted by Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes albanal. I am clearly lacking in intelligence because I make typos.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 12:53 p.m."If Universal Healthcare is so bad, I would like to hear from the conservatives how we make sure that people who can't afford healthcare get insurance or health services?"

We call that welfare don't we? The purpose is to help those who can't help themselves. That is part of being a civilized society.

What does that have to do with universal health care?

Posted by JakPott on August 27, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

" John's wife has spent a substnatial portion of her life doing charitable work, including providing medical treatment for poor kids overseas "

She is also a major distributer of alcohol and stole prescription drugs from that 'charitable' company for her own recreational use. Glad I dont have to wonder if that last drunk driving death might be a result of irresponsible use of my product, but guess it never bothered Cindy...

PS: Thats not slander or innuendo...it is fact.

Posted by SoBoPop on August 27, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BGG: Actually, Americans pay more for much more. More MRI machines, more cat scan equipment, more choice of doctors and facilities, more high tech medications and more high end tests than in every country with single payer systems. Our care is not rationed and we don't have long waiting lists for test and operations. In this country anyone needing dialysis can get it. In England, if you are over 55 years old and need dialysis, you die. To bad for you, that's the untold story of 'free' healthcare.

Also, I should point out that both corporate and individual taxes would need to be dramatically raised to pay for a single payer system. Look at the tax rates in Canada and western Europe. You can forget about corporate America finding more monery to hire you. Their incresed tax burden will eliminate any savings from no longer paying insurance premiums.

We'll all be stuck with some government bureaucrat making decisions about our healthcare (picture an HMO without enough money to help all it's members.)Yes, its fair; it sucks for everyone.

Posted by Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK QM, you don't seem to be getting my point. Yes we could keep the same system for the currently insured and then have a welfare system where those who can't afford healthcare are provided it. Or you could have universal healthcare where everyone is covered INCLUDING those who could not previously afford it.

You can call it universla healthcare or wlefare or happy fun wellness program but the end result is that those without are now covered AND everyone else under tha same plan.

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"In reality, affluent, college-educated, white middle-classers."

Affluent middle-classers? Oops, tried to get one too many in that generalization

Posted by Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SoBoPop. That is not an untold story. It is the most used argument against universal healthcare. Maybe I am naive, but I believe America can figure out a way to provide healthcare to all and maintain the level of healthcare.

Raising taxes to pay for this assumes we continue doing business the way we do now. If we could actually get the government to spend our tax money more wisely then we might be able to pay for this without a tax increase or a modest one.

I am admittadly no expert on the matter, but I am not okay with throwing my hands up and saying "well, if you can't afford healthcare then you are screwed".

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"MRI machines"

An MRI scan in Japan costs about $100. There is never a question of anyone being able to afford it. Despite this level of compensation, physicians, who are private providers, have not stopped providing the service.

I repeat: Other countries pay less, in toto, for medical care and receive more. That's because we don't have to pick up the tab for the CEO of Cigna's $250 million per annum salary.

We're already being "taxed" by Cigna. We're paying their lobbyists to use our own government to act against our interest. Their bureaucrats are making decisions about your health care.

We're already providing public health care; we're just doing it through the emergency room door at huge expense, and in other hidden costs that are public health related and get borne by the taxpayer.

The shills for Big Biz have one hoary tactic: to try and make people feel their government is some malevolent external force.

Use it or lose it.

Posted by talven on August 27, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

'If we could actually get the government to spend our tax money more wisely'

That would solve almost every problem we have. I wish we could, D - I wish we could.

Posted by CSminer on August 27, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DunK:

Can't the uninsured go to free health clinics now?

Emergency care is already free. They can't turn you away at many hospitals.

Here's an ethics question for you: Are all renal-failure patients equally deserving of kidney transplants?

If you make healthcare truly "free," it will have to be rationed.

Posted by elguapo on August 27, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dunk,
The point is almost everyone is being insured for things they don't need, don't want, or may consider unethical in the first place. It is not your choice. It is mandated by the state. This drives up the cost immensely.
Look at the numbers. NY and NJ are almost four times as much as WY. Take away the mandates and choose just what you need. What would the result be, (I don't know as I'm not in insurance) $500?

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Affluent middle-classers? Oops, tried to get one too many in that generalization"

Would you prefer "middle-classicists"? It implies a high regard for classical antiquity that is probably not really present.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"If you make healthcare truly "free," it will have to be rationed."

It is, always has been, and ought to be. No one's arguing for indiscriminate, unneeded heath care.

Posted by CSminer on August 27, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Billy says: "...An MRI scan in Japan costs about $100. There is never a question of anyone being able to afford it. Despite this level of compensation, physicians, who are private providers, have not stopped providing the service."

Billy, it may cost the recipient $100, but the total, actual cost has to be much more. How are doctors paid in Japan? Does the government compensate them?

Here's a summary of medical care in Japan. All's not perfect there either, and looks like trouble is ahead.

Notice I avoided smear, innuendo, etc.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/Japan.pdf

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

albanal on August 27, 2008 at 12:57 p.m.'Like duh! Isn't the government also a third party?'

"Like duh! No."

Six half dozen the other. Like it or not the government has become the primary contractor that is moving us into a maze of third party providers.

If that is not the corporate state I don't know what is.

Posted by MikeEllis on August 27, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"In England, if you are over 55 years old and need dialysis, you die."

While it may have been true in the 70s that many providers had a hard age limit, I don't think anything like this has been true for years.

Posted by CSminer on August 27, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Billy says: "[Healthcare] is, always has been, and ought to be [rationed]. No one's arguing for indiscriminate, unneeded heath care.

Under a government system, who gets to decide what's indiscriminate and / or unneeded? Compassionate bureaucrats?

If a previous poster is correct, the British government has decided that dialysis for over 55'ers is indiscriminate.

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Would you prefer "middle-classicists"? It implies a high regard for classical antiquity that is probably not really present."

Sorry, you misunderstood. I wasn't commenting on the grammar. You described Obama supporters as Affluent middle-class(whatevers). Those terms are mutually exclusive. I don't think when Obama says he's going to redistribute a grand to the middle class families, he wants to include the 'affluent'

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 1:15 p.m.

"OK QM, you don't seem to be getting my point. Yes we could keep the same system for the currently insured and then have a welfare system where those who can't afford healthcare are provided it. Or you could have universal healthcare where everyone is covered INCLUDING those who could not previously afford it."

Yes. But they are really two separate things.

By helping the needy it does not necessarily follow that we should have universal public health care.

Posted by MikeEllis on August 27, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The whole idea that employers are responsible for insurance is just kooky. It has led us to the mess we are in now. This is not the free market. An employee can't afford to go out and get insurance on top of the coverage they are already, essentially, paying for. The plans have to be one-size-fits-all, and people are stuck with whatever their employer happens to pick. Anybody who can't into a group is screwed. U.S. companies can't compete globally because of escalating health care costs. Companies can't compete for employees without offering good insurance. It's a mess.

My guess, most companies that currently provide health care benefits to their employees would love to have some way out of this.

Posted by Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CS, the uninsured can go to free health clinics. Although that can cost us a lot more in the long run than preventative care. That kind of thing is good for broken bones, but getting regular check-up could prevent chronic illnesses like diabetes.

I would like to see medical insurance companies pay for gym memberships. Might cut down on claims in the long term and drive down costs. On the other hand, they could be like me and use the gym for the first month and never go again.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Notice I avoided smear, innuendo, etc."

Good for you!

My point is merely that there is no societal benefit to having a sick population. There is no benefit to the mantra that we can't do it, and we'd better not try, the sky is falling, O merde! O cher! DON'T EVEN TALK ABOUT IT!

There is no reason the United States can't have better health care than the other western capitalist democracies.

Posted by SoBoPop on August 27, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One posibility would be to expand Medicaid and SCHIP to make more people elegible. Perhaps a sliding scale going up to 200% of the FPL. This would eliminate a large portion of people who are uninsured through no fault of their own.

However we end up reforming healthcare, it will cost our nation more not less.

Posted by umtanum on August 27, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In the spirit of bi-partisan healing, I would like to state that the admitted serial adulteries of John and Cindy McCain, or her past drug use and thievery, have no bearing IMHO on their ability to act as First Family of the U.S.

Thank you.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"it will cost our nation more not less."

You're just not counting the indirect costs, "taxes," if you will, being paid out the backdoor, and all the fat going to the insurance and managed care profit machine.

We now have a kind of cockamamie "socialized" medicine under a collection of assorted profiteers. "The government" could hardly do worse.

Posted by SoBoPop on August 27, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mike: McCain's healthcare plans would remove the employer mandate. I think his plan is as radical as Hilary's as far as how much it would change our healthcare delivery/finance system.

There seems to be broad agreement that reform is needed to provide better access to more people. As always lately, we seem to be separated into groups of those who believe that more government is the solution, and those who feel that government involvement will only make things worse.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"As always lately, we seem to be separated into groups of those who believe that more government is the solution, and those who feel that government involvement will only make things worse."

You left out those of us who think that, functionally, "the government" is an increasingly less useful abstraction. The blurring of lines between the borders of government and industry that Eisenhower remarked on has already proceeded very far at this late date.

I don't think citizens have much choice about using their government to protect their interests. Big Biz and the rich sure will.

Posted by ken0519 on August 27, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dunkterfunk

"I would like to see medical insurance companies pay for gym memberships. Might cut down on claims in the long term and drive down costs. On the other hand, they could be like me and use the gym for the first month and never go again."

Are you an idiot or just stringing us along?

Most of these folks smoke and are overweight and YOU think they would use a gym to get in better shape?

If they would cut back on the food, stop smoking and stop drinking maybe they could afford health care.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Are you an idiot or just stringing us along?"

I was just going to ask you that!

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"So, in other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers."

Interesting this comment go no rebuttals. Also interesting how those that pay no taxes tend to be the most vocal about extracting more from those that do. Without that top 10% of earners and profitable corporations (both despised), none of the redistribution programs touted by the left work. Kinda ironic, isn't it?

Posted by ken0519 on August 27, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice comeback gruff.

Shows a lot of maturity.

But, you are a Liberal so I should just expect things like that.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Without that top 10% of earners and profitable corporations (both despised), none of the redistribution programs touted by the left work. Kinda ironic, isn't it?"

I don't recall despising either of these lately.

Posted by Dunkterfunk on August 27, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well Ken, I guess I am an idiot since i don't agree with you. Apparently, I am not in possesion of the same poll you are which states that most uninsured people are fat and smoke.

I just didn't realize that one's monthly ho ho's and Newports budget was enough to get health insurance.

I am not going to assume just because you are conservative you believe in abstinance programs, but that idea is much more idiotic than the one I have proposed. But that would be saying that all conservatives agree with every conservative idea ever posited. That is what conservatives do when characterizing liberals.

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I don't recall despising either of these lately."

A bit egocentric today, aren't we?

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Shows a lot of maturity."

Hard to beat "Are you an idiot or just stringing us along?" for sheer class.

Most of the free world is liberal, if only because that's what the RAB wing of the booboisie considers anyone to be who's not on board their leaky little boat.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Are we?

Posted by foreign_correspondent on August 27, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

> Doesn't sound like republicans I know of.

Ever hear of Ronald Reagan? Here's a quote from his First Inaugural Address, 20 January 1981:

"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's downright Orwellian.

Posted by flaven on August 27, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kenL "Most of these folks smoke and are overweight..."

They are also, of course, on welfare, drive Cadillacs, deal drugs, sell sex real cheap, abuse their kids, sell their kids real cheap, flunked HS, illiterate, dirty, and--at this very moment--gathering on your front lawn...

The irony is staggering.

Posted by ken0519 on August 27, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Flaven,

I know what I'm talking about.... Not so long ago, I was one of them.

I do know, first hand, what I'm talking about.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 2:04 p.m."We now have a kind of cockamamie "socialized" medicine under a collection of assorted profiteers. "The government" could hardly do worse."

Oh yes they can.

It will just be a bigger box with a greater assortment.

Posted by flaven on August 27, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I do know, first hand, what I'm talking about."

At best, anecdotal (and invalid). At worst, prejudicial and in-grown.

Posted by foreign_correspondent on August 27, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

> While it may have been true in the 70s that many providers had a hard age limit,
> I don't think anything like this has been true for years.

Confirmation that this was true into the 80's:

"Many patients over the age of 55 with end stage renal disease in the United Kingdom are denied dialysis or transplantation." http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/arti...

While not "denied" dialysis outright, it's harder for older people to obtain:

"In 2000, 10% (n = 1465) of dialysis patients in England were 75 years of age or over, and 28% (n = 4103) were over 65 [2]. Though the number of elderly patients has increased in recent years, the acceptance rate to RRT is still lower than in other European countries [3]. Lack of resources, distance to renal units, regional imbalances in service provision and implicit rationing are factors that restrict access to RRT [4]." http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/con...

I especially like the phrase, "implicit rationing"...

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"gathering on your front lawn..."

They can't get through my gate.

Posted by SoBoPop on August 27, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BGG, I'm confused, please help me understand where you come from. Below are quotes from you just this afternoon.

"Without that top 10% of earners and profitable corporations (both despised), none of the redistribution programs touted by the left work. Kinda ironic, isn't it?"

'I don't recall despising either of these lately.'

'The shills for Big Biz have one hoary tactic: to try and make people feel their government is some malevolent external force.'

'I repeat: Other countries pay less, in toto, for medical care and receive more. That's because we don't have to pick up the tab for the CEO of Cigna's $250 million per annum'

'This bunk. Private third parties are raking off huge profits from both physicians and patients. This is why Americans pay more for less.'

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm getting all tingly awaiting the speech from the Chosen One tonight. The smart money is on Diane Sawyer having an orgasm when he takes the stage. Obama, running on the "I'll get other people to pay for all your free stuff" ticket, is expected to take time-out to sign autographs for the media.

Oh shoot! I have to wash my hair. Bummer, I'll miss it.

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

scratch that...he speaks tomorrow...shoot! I have to let the dog out tomorrow.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SoBoPop on August 27, 2008 at 3:43 p.m."I repeat: Other countries pay less, in toto, for medical care and receive more."

The only country I know of is Japan, but their system is rapidly going bankrupt.

Posted by billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The only country I know of is Japan, but their system is rapidly going bankrupt"

Citation? Of course, that would mean American could never hope to succeed.

How about Switzerland? Germany?

Posted by SoBoPop on August 27, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

QM@ 3:43, I didn't write that, BGG did. I believe and continue to argue that most countries with single payer pay a lot and get less.

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

On another complete tangent, Paul Campos, left wing CU law professor, wrote a piece today in the Rocky about dogmatic atheists and how similar they are to dogmatic fundamentalists.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...

I made this exact point, albeit not as eloquently, a few weeks back and was lambasted by, I think you BGG, apologies if I'm wrong.

I don't have enough respect for Campos to feel vindicated, but at least I'm not alone in my general annoyance at fanatical atheists (and no, I'm not a bible thumper)

now back to your regularly scheduled program....

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SoBoPop on August 27, 2008 at 4:02 p.m."QM@ 3:43, I didn't write that, BGG did. I believe and continue to argue that most countries with single payer pay a lot and get less."

Sorry SoBoPop my mistake.

billy_goat_gruff on August 27, 2008 at 4 p.m.'The only country I know of is Japan, but their system is rapidly going bankrupt'

"Citation? Of course, that would mean American could never hope to succeed. How about Switzerland? Germany?"

I recent broadcast on PBS, I think it was Frontline, compared health care systems in 7 countries, including for the United States.

All the different systems had their advantages and disadvantages. Japan stood out though as being the least expensive of all of them. Their system was based on private medical practices. They remained cheap for a very simple reason, the government adopted firm price controls on what must be charged on every specific medical procedure. The documentary also reported that medical practice bankruptcies throughout Japan were extremely high and increasing. The broadcast made clear that the system was unsustainable and that changes were going to have to be made.

I looked on the internet and the only article I could find on this subject was written in 2000. It predicted that Japan's health care system would go bankrupt by the year 2003.... Well here we are in 2008. I don't know what has happened since, or whether this PBS broadcast was dated or not.

Price controls though, in my opinion, never work, not for health care or for anything else.

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting how quite it gets around quittin' time...then picks up a few hours later. Just saying....

Posted by flaven on August 27, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

IXL: “I made this exact point, albeit not as eloquently…” — fortunately, for you.

As one of those posters succinctly noted: “…the 'a' in 'a-theism' does not mean 'anti-,' it simply means 'without' … There is no positive assertion in atheism, either that a god must, or must not, exist. This is the same usage as the word 'apolitical' in that one may be without or outside of, while not being against, politics. … Theism, conversely, does assert a positive: “There is an invisible force called God that has influence over the Universe.” That means, since Theism is asserting the positive, it's the responsibility of the Theist to provide evidence. … So, the real difference is that religious faith proudly proclaims it is [sic] belief without evidence (“that belief which passes all understanding”); while atheism simply reflects an unwillingness to accept non-provable supernatural claims based only on the surety and intensity of the person or entity making the claim.”

Show me the meat.

Posted by frozen_mackerel on August 27, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"dogmatic atheists"

How can pointing out there is a complete lack of evidence for something be "dogmatic"?

It's quite the opposite.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 4:04 p.m."On another complete tangent, Paul Campos, left wing CU law professor, wrote a piece today in the Rocky about dogmatic atheists and how similar they are to dogmatic fundamentalists."

Excellent article and very perceptive.

Being a fundamentalist myself, I wonder why everyone doesn't agree with it. It all seems so obvious to me :-)

Posted by frozen_mackerel on August 27, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Religions and grand conspiracy theories have much in common.

What can be seen by the senses and investigated by reason in the natural world is really wrong; there is an esoteric or supernatural meaning that is the real truth.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

frozen_mackerel on August 27, 2008 at 5:10 p.m.

"How can pointing out there is a complete lack of evidence for something be "dogmatic"? It's quite the opposite."

If it is rooted in certainty with the arrogance of infallibility, pursued with singleminded fervor, and intolerant of free thinking, the term "dogmatic" will just pop into my head.

Posted by frozen_mackerel on August 27, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"If it is rooted in certainty with the arrogance of infallibility, pursued with singleminded fervor, and intolerant of free thinking, the term "dogmatic" will just pop into my head."

Funny. So many of your posts fit that description.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

frozen_mackerel on August 27, 2008 at 5:25 p.m."What can be seen by the senses and investigated by reason in the natural world is really wrong; there is an esoteric or supernatural meaning that is the real truth."

I think you are confusing good marketing with conspiracies.

People don't need conspiracies to sell you a bill of goods.

Did they need a Tri-Lateral Commission to sell pet rocks?

Posted by IXLR82 on August 27, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Flav and fish,

All I said is I'm not alone in my annoyance at militant (if you don't like dogmatic) atheists. They are just as bad to me (and Campos), as fundamentalists. If you don't know who I am talking about, you are probably one of them.

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

frozen_mackerel- Admit it. Climate change is a franchise. It can't be a conspiracy any more than Wendy's restaurant chain can be a conspiracy.

Posted by trappist99 on August 27, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If I hear one more time that McCain was a PoW I'll gag.

I was a PoW! 7 houses? but I was a PoW!

All service men , current and past deserve respect, but we are talking about the Presidential candidate here. Is that the big comeback??

Hello Mr Putin, you shouldn't have invaded Ukraine, did I mention I was a PoW??

Posted by qmmckenna on August 27, 2008 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The correct term is "POW" not PoW.

Such disrespect. This not an old Batman re-run.

Posted by flaven on August 27, 2008 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The correct term is "POW" not PoW."

The correct term is "prisoner of war". "POW" or "PoW" is an acronym; acronyms generally take the first letter of each word in a phrase: p - o - w. Alphabetization is usually based on common usage (e.g., DoD). Trap is as correct as you are, but without the condescension.

Po