Originally Posted by Deb C

Just keep slamming the messenger, that always does a lot of good. I wish we were all as brillient as you, then the world's problems would be solved. But no, we are just mere humans and you are the all knowing one. sigh

Perhaps you could get a job on Obama's administration as his propaganda minister. Ugh, I mean, PR person.

One sure fire way to let our government take us down the road of fascism, is to have wonderful citizens, such as yourself, making excuses for a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Insurers still in control in Obamacare

By Jonathan D. Walker, M.D.
The Journal Gazette (Fort Wayne, Ind.), April 15, 2012




OR

Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job

Few people embody the corporatist revolving door greasing Washington as purely as Elizabeth Fowler

By Glenn Greenwald
The Guardian (U.K.), Dec. 5, 2012

All I'm asking of you is just a tad of critical questioning before you post the usual alarmist half-truth horseshit. If you on the Far-Out Man Left think doing otherwise gives you any credibility with those who actually make policy, you're mistaken. Do you really want to be seen as just the mirror image of the t-baggers? Take a break from the echo chamber and engage your own brain every once in awhile.

You may view that as harsh, but it’s not in the same league as suggesting someone is a fascist bootlicker.

Originally Posted by playwrite

All I'm asking of you is just a tad of critical questioning before you post the usual alarmist half-truth horseshit. If you on the Far-Out Man Left think doing otherwise gives you any credibility with those who actually make policy, you're mistaken. Do you really want to be seen as just the mirror image of the t-baggers? Take a break from the echo chamber and engage your own brain every once in awhile.

You may view that as harsh, but it’s not in the same league as suggesting someone is a fascist bootlicker.

What you said there? It's not harsh. It's an unintelligible‎ non-sequitir of vague insults and name-calling that says more about you - and what you consider acceptable political discourse - than it says about policy or anybody else.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

What you said there? It's not harsh. It's an unintelligible‎ non-sequitir of vague insults and name-calling that says more about you - and what you consider acceptable political discourse - than it says about policy or anybody else.

You see Debs who loves you? Or, do you think JohnMc82 gives a rat's ass about the social objectives you cherish?

Do you really think the road to govt provided health care is by getting into bed with those who hate govt???

Originally Posted by playwrite

Do you really think the road to govt provided health care is by getting into bed with those who hate govt???

I hate the government because it is wholly owned by private interests and defended by apologists who can't imagine it ever being anything different. I do not see our laws and taxes as things designed to promote justice or help those in need, I see them as enriching and protecting those who are already powerful.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I hate the government because it is wholly owned by private interests and defended by apologists who can't imagine it ever being anything different. I do not see our laws and taxes as things designed to promote justice or help those in need, I see them as enriching and protecting those who are already powerful.

Yea, yea, sure, and I'm sure you got a ticket to board a plane to some Libertarian wonderland. Where is that again? Next to gutless Hypocritlandia? I think that’s where Justin went to.

You're just pissed because the ACA brings insurance coverage to 35 million people by 2016.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44008
You would prefer that these people just go off and die somewhere, and likely complain about the lack of govt efficiency if you happen to have to step over one of their bodies on the sidewalk.

Deb complains because she thinks they all should get a magic pony. She doesn’t have a clue how that can come about but she sure can complain about it. And you like that.

Why can't we get magic ponies if the government is paying for it?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yea, yea, sure, and I'm sure you got a ticket to board a plane to some Libertarian wonderland. Where is that again? Next to gutless Hypocritlandia? I think that’s where Justin went to.

You're just pissed because the ACA brings insurance coverage to 35 million people by 2016.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44008
You would prefer that these people just go off and die somewhere, and likely complain about the lack of govt efficiency if you happen to have to step over one of their bodies on the sidewalk.

Deb complains because she thinks they all should get a magic pony. She doesn’t have a clue how that can come about but she sure can complain about it. And you like that.

I told you before, I'm relatively bullish on the EU because I think the states still have more influence and the system has been less corrupted by financial interests. The 21st century will belong to the country(s) that produce the most doctors and scientists, not billionaires and Bible-thumpers.

And, like most taxpayers surveyed from around the world, my willingness to pay is directly proportionate to my belief that my tax dollars are doing good things. As an American, I feel like my tax dollars are mostly used to inflate corporate profits and fund unnecessary wars, so that doesn't make me happy about paying them.

Originally Posted by playwrite;468137
[B

Deb complains because she thinks they all should get a magic pony.[/B] She doesn’t have a clue how that can come about but she sure can complain about it. And you like that.

Playwrite, please tell me which of your immediate family members, excluding yourself, would you choose to not have healthcare? Just think of three. Now tell me again how I'm so wrong by wanting everyone to get e magic pony.

Why tell me that I have no way of knowing how to get healthcare for everyone, when it was Obama who kept promising health care for all during his campaign. Maybe you should stop the transference of your anger at me, when it's really Obama that you might be angry with. You know, that guy in the White House who conned you into believing in magic ponies. I know, it's disappointing when all of that hopey changey stuff didn't really come true.

As we now know, what the president proposed changed daily, shifting each time one or another well-heeled lobbying group demanded a "compromise." Eventually there was no legislation that addressed health care, only legislation addressing health insurance. The Obama administration shifted its labeling from "health reform" to "health insurance reform." After that, the supporters of President Barack Obama's plan began to talk about jumping ship, but never got up the courage to actually do so.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Why can't we get magic ponies if the government is paying for it?

Our tax money is best used for the care of the citizens, not making sure the insurance industry makes record profits.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Playwrite, please tell me which of your immediate family members, excluding yourself, would you choose to not have healthcare? Just think of three. Now tell me again how I'm so wrong by wanting everyone to get e magic pony.

Why tell me that I have no way of knowing how to get healthcare for everyone, when it was Obama who kept promising health care for all during his campaign. Maybe you should stop the transference of your anger at me, when it's really Obama that you might be angry with. You know, that guy in the White House who conned you into believing in magic ponies. I know, it's disappointing when all of that hopey changey stuff didn't really come true.

Sadly we could have had a national health system that began in the early 70s if Teddy Kennedy hadn't put the kabosh on Nixon's plan, saying it didn't go far enough. (I know, Nixon. I couldn't believe it either.) There's been a lot of stupidity down the line regarding health care in the US.

My hope is that ACA is a start, just like Social Security in the 30s was a start, although FDR had to make all kinds of deals with the devil in the form of Dixiecrats. You know, like denying Social Security to farm workers because, well, in the South farm workers were black.

I think what Playwrite is saying, in an impolite way, is perhaps it isn't always wise to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

ACA has already helped my students immensely. Before ACA, I had a student with epilepsy who got booted off her parents' insurance and they couldn't afford her medication without insurance. She was having serious seizures every week in my class. ACA was kicking in the next September and she could resume treatment.

Is it enough. No. "Should" there be more? Of course! IMO. But "should" is what we aim for. To denigrate the unprecedented accomplishment of ACA because it "should" have been better, because it wasn't what you--or I--wanted, is short-sighted and defeatist.

Although I do think you'll keep fighting for more, and I thank you.

I am a firm supporter of some sort of universal health care. I'd like it yesterday and it's exactly how I'd like my tax dollars to be spent. What's interesting is that the physicians I know (including my own GP and now retired dermatologist) support universal health care, too. So does my MD ex. Heh, maybe it's the company I keep.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Perhaps you could get a job on Obama's administration as his propaganda minister. Ugh, I mean, PR person.

Sorry Deb, but the post of Mouth of Sauron already appears to be filled.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Our tax money is best used for the care of the citizens, not making sure the insurance industry makes record profits.

I don't think that's how he sees it, economically speaking.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I told you before, I'm relatively bullish on the EU because I think the states still have more influence and the system has been less corrupted by financial interests. The 21st century will belong to the country(s) that produce the most doctors and scientists, not billionaires and Bible-thumpers.

And, like most taxpayers surveyed from around the world, my willingness to pay is directly proportionate to my belief that my tax dollars are doing good things. As an American, I feel like my tax dollars are mostly used to inflate corporate profits and fund unnecessary wars, so that doesn't make me happy about paying them.

I tend to agree with your above statements.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah that's pretty much par for the course.
It's sort of sad when the idea of "healthcare" becomes more pills and more insurance.
But it looks like that's what many people want.
I also don't know why playdude is so grouchy if he thinks that everything is so fabulous!

P.S. Here's a pretty frickin awesome example of thinking outside the (pill) box:

I think the video shows another problem in modern nutrition that isn't even specifically limited to any politics. So much research has been based on identifying bare minimums: You're either dying of thirst, or well-hydrated; You've either got enough vitamin D, or you've got rickets; You've either got enough vitamin C, or you've got scurvy. It's relatively recent that the research has started looking for optimum levels rather than what it takes to prevent extreme deficiencies.

It's also really &(@^#&% difficult and time consuming to calculate, purchase, and prepare a complete diet. I thought I had it pretty well figured out until the Harvard follow-up brought pretty good evidence that I was eating too much red meat. Ok, then what about B12? It's all fish and red meat! Is fish safe? Which fish? Who the hell knows! So the B12 answer seems to be more pills and supplements, but they're actually all different analogs of the natural form. Cyanocobolamin? Methylcobolamin?

Then, of course, this doesn't even scratch the surface of environmental and ethical concerns.

Considering the typical household budget and the typical worker's schedule, it's really a bit of luxury and privilege to put time and money in to solving these questions...

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah that's pretty much par for the course.
It's sort of sad when the idea of "healthcare" becomes more pills and more insurance.
But it looks like that's what many people want.
I also don't know why playdude is so grouchy if he thinks that everything is so fabulous!

P.S. Here's a pretty frickin awesome example of thinking outside the (pill) box:

Really interesting study. It's amazing that something as simple as water can make such a difference. Good video to pass along to others.

To expose Obama as working for the corporations, is to be deemed a Traitor to the liberal class. I guess I'll just have to wear the scarlet letter T.

Here's another example of how our president punishes those who will not do the empire's bidding.

The Obama Administration has blacklisted India for standing up to Big Pharma.

Big Pharma, which runs the Obama Food and Drug Administration, requires people around the globe to pay massive sums for its pills, or die. Indians cannot afford to buy these drugs so the Indian government has made knock offs it sells at a tiny fraction of the Big Pharma cost. Because of this, poor people in the world now have a chance to be treated for AIDS and other serious disease. Big Pharma would have let them die in order to maintain its obscene profits.

Here in the USA, Americans are charged higher drug prices than anywhere else, and people die because of it. Big Pharma is often caught knowingly selling drugs that cause serious illness and death. If we had a system of justice based on justice, Big Pharma's executives, all of them, would be in prison. The numbers of people they kill are far greater than all terrorists or mass murderers, so a fair sentence would be life with no possibility of parole.

But India is not the only nation standing up to the Empire this morning. Evo Morales, in an International Workers Day rally, has kicked USAID out of Bolivia. USAID has a long tradition of undermining leftist governments under the pretense of doing good work.

Originally Posted by The Rani

IMO, this is a bit of a cop-out.
If the typical worker spent as much time researching his/her diet as he/she did watching reality TV or sports, that would be plenty.

But you're comparing something that is both phsysically and mentally active to something that is utterly passive. They're not easily substituted! Employers want 110%, so people turn to fast food to save time, which decreases energy levels, which means they need to save more time... It's a destructive cycle and like any addiction, the deeper one gets, the harder it is to get out.

And how much of the typical household budget goes towards ipads/iphones/iwhatevers (or cigarettes/booze for those with different kinds of lifestyle choices) instead of fresh produce?

Well, according to the latest CPI... the average household who responded to the surveys was spending about 15% of their budget on food, and 3.5% of their budget on audio, video, computer hardware, and peripherals. (All communication and recreation combined is about 9.5%, but that also includes more productive hobbies, phone bills, internet connection)

The CPI is also based on surveys skewed toward above-average households, so the median home probably spends even more on food and even less on luxuries. Remember: the median household has about 4-5 people trying to live off about $50,000 a year.

Originally Posted by The Rani

The way I see it, you can make excuses, or you can get your shit together.
It's up to the individual.
And hell, that applies to most things in life.

Unless people decide to help one another too. But maybe that's a Millie, not an Xer thing.

But yes, I've heard that these drug companies and their apologists and enablers actually think opium is not a dangerous drug. I wonder what planet they live on.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I told you before, I'm relatively bullish on the EU because I think the states still have more influence and the system has been less corrupted by financial interests. The 21st century will belong to the country(s) that produce the most doctors and scientists, not billionaires and Bible-thumpers.

And, like most taxpayers surveyed from around the world, my willingness to pay is directly proportionate to my belief that my tax dollars are doing good things. As an American, I feel like my tax dollars are mostly used to inflate corporate profits and fund unnecessary wars, so that doesn't make me happy about paying them.

Okay, I can understand that (particularly now that I've found my meds ). However, just to note, the unemployment in the EU is much worse than it is here and it is going to get even more so if they don't soon kick the austerity fetish. It's just that their safety nets are much better than ours -- for now.

The problem I have with Debs is her making it sound like Obama is 100% of the problem when he's actually about 0.001% of the problem - unless you believe he can click his heels together and make the Congresssional GOP groval at his feet.

Her viewpoint makes about as much since as blaming Eisenhower for all those nasty bullets flying around on Omaha Beach back in June 6, 1944

Originally Posted by Deb C

Playwrite, please tell me which of your immediate family members, excluding yourself, would you choose to not have healthcare? Just think of three. Now tell me again how I'm so wrong by wanting everyone to get e magic pony.

Why tell me that I have no way of knowing how to get healthcare for everyone, when it was Obama who kept promising health care for all during his campaign. Maybe you should stop the transference of your anger at me, when it's really Obama that you might be angry with. You know, that guy in the White House who conned you into believing in magic ponies. I know, it's disappointing when all of that hopey changey stuff didn't really come true.

I'll stop the 'transference' when you recognize reality and stop your transference of blame for no universal care or no public option to Obama when it factually, logically, and honestly should be put squarely where it belongs on GOP a-holes and their blue dog Dem turds (B. Nelson, B. Lincoln and most of all J. Lieberman).

10s of millions are going to get health care under ACA that was not available to them before. That is 10s of millions more people getting health care than you and your whiney friends at firedgolake ever provided.

Originally Posted by annla899

Sadly we could have had a national health system that began in the early 70s if Teddy Kennedy hadn't put the kabosh on Nixon's plan, saying it didn't go far enough. (I know, Nixon. I couldn't believe it either.) There's been a lot of stupidity down the line regarding health care in the US.

My hope is that ACA is a start, just like Social Security in the 30s was a start, although FDR had to make all kinds of deals with the devil in the form of Dixiecrats. You know, like denying Social Security to farm workers because, well, in the South farm workers were black.

I think what Playwrite is saying, in an impolite way, is perhaps it isn't always wise to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

ACA has already helped my students immensely. Before ACA, I had a student with epilepsy who got booted off her parents' insurance and they couldn't afford her medication without insurance. She was having serious seizures every week in my class. ACA was kicking in the next September and she could resume treatment.

Is it enough. No. "Should" there be more? Of course! IMO. But "should" is what we aim for. To denigrate the unprecedented accomplishment of ACA because it "should" have been better, because it wasn't what you--or I--wanted, is short-sighted and defeatist.

Although I do think you'll keep fighting for more, and I thank you.

I am a firm supporter of some sort of universal health care. I'd like it yesterday and it's exactly how I'd like my tax dollars to be spent. What's interesting is that the physicians I know (including my own GP and now retired dermatologist) support universal health care, too. So does my MD ex. Heh, maybe it's the company I keep.

That's pretty much nails it.

Maybe I'll hire you for polite translations. Have you any experience with movie critics?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Sorry Deb, but the post of Mouth of Sauron already appears to be filled.

The question was jobs. Those where coming back as a result of federal govt deficit spending after the worse economic contraction since the Great Depression. That is now in jeopardy because of morons like you helped elect idiot t-baggers to the US Congress who have now stymied federal deficit spending (e.g. payroll tax hike, sequestration).

This August, you scumbags will have another chance to really do some damage with the debt ceiling stupidity again - third time might just be the ticket. The silver lining is the consequences for everyone will destroy morons like you as a political force for decades.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I don't think that's how he sees it, economically speaking.

Then you haven't been paying attention - in two ways.

First, about citiziens care: point to any post of mine that you believe shows I don't "care [for] the citizens" and I can clear up YOUR misunderstanding.

Second, and I've been even more clear about this, I don't dwell in magic pony land. I deal in reality. The ACA is now the law of the land. There is NO F'IN way that health care, on any large scale is going to be taken up by the US Congress in our lifetimes. Get over it. Move along. Find some real way to help

If there is any hope for moving toward a more progressive approach, in our lifetimes, it is going to have to come from evolution of the ACA. Most likely through the evolution of state, regional and (less likely) federal exchanges. That is where a public option in some form might evolve, and if it works, taken up by at least other Blue states. There's also the possibility of expanding Medicaid - not just more states accepting the current ACA expansion but perhaps a more progressive Congress allowing for even more expansions to cover additional age and income groups. There are other possibilities in the ACA that will move us forward.

To me, that is more promising than putting one's head up their ass about political reality and whining about no magic ponies being in that echo chamber.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The question was jobs. Those where coming back as a result of federal govt deficit spending after the worse economic contraction since the Great Depression. That is now in jeopardy because of morons like you helped elect idiot t-baggers to the US Congress who have now stymied federal deficit spending (e.g. payroll tax hike, sequestration).

This August, you scumbags will have another chance to really do some damage with the debt ceiling stupidity again - third time might just be the ticket. The silver lining is the consequences for everyone will destroy morons like you as a political force for decades.

I'm glad that you completely missed the point of the joke.

Not surprised mind you, just glad. The entertainment value of watching you thrash around trying to service your hero(s) while you moan like a whore is far better than any other cheap internet porn.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Then you haven't been paying attention - in two ways.First, about citiziens care: point to any post of mine that you believe shows I don't "care [for] the citizens" and I can clear up YOUR misunderstanding.Second, and I've been even more clear about this, I don't dwell in magic pony land. I deal in reality. The ACA is now the law of the land. There is NO F'IN way that health care, on any large scale is going to be taken up by the US Congress in our lifetimes. Get over it. Move along. Find some real way to helpIf there is any hope for moving toward a more progressive approach, in our lifetimes, it is going to have to come from evolution of the ACA. Most likely through the evolution of state, regional and (less likely) federal exchanges. That is where a public option in some form might evolve, and if it works, taken up by at least other Blue states. There's also the possibility of expanding Medicaid - not just more states accepting the current ACA expansion but perhaps a more progressive Congress allowing for even more expansions to cover additional age and income groups. There are other possibilities in the ACA that will move us forward. To me, that is more promising than putting one's head up their ass about political reality and whining about no magic ponies being in that echo chamber.

Easy, sweatheart. I was pointing out that I don't believe you think of government spending as being "taxpayer's money". The comment about magic ponies was my teasing that you obviously believe that what Deb C is asking for is fiscally possible. As for politically, well, stranger things have happened.We'll see how it turns out.