RoyalOrleans

These doctors are bunch of racists!

Arguably the most galling aspect about rising health care costs is the market distorting / virtual criminal role of politicians in enacting legislation covering healthcare insurance "mandates". Where 30 years ago we had 252 mandates, today we have some 1,900+! Today you as consumer simply cannot buy a high deductible, no-frills policy tailored to your needs. On top of that you can?t buy a health insurance policy across state lines because of various ?mandates?. This is a free market? In Canada, healthcare is perceived to be "free", but the system has to use ?deterrent fees? to dampen (ie. ration) unnecessary demand, caused by the scores of moms who bring their kids in for every little sniffle / cut / scrapes, hypocondriacs, and the scores of "little old ladies" who come in regularly mostly as a kind of social visit. These scenarios represent very real attracted costs to a universal health care delivery system. Its just human nature that if some good or service; be it provided by government, the free market or religious institutions; appears to be "free", its consumption is going to get overused / abused. Given the millions who remain uninsured today for various reasons, the introduction of a universal healthcare system would have to serve 10's of millions of them as new full fledged ?patients?. Couple this with the costs to address the scenarios described above, how can there not be some kind of rationing of services given there can be no near / medium term change in the number of doctors or nurses to address the increased demand for services? Its just plan illogical at best and disengenous (an outright lie) at worst on the part of politicians and supporters to argue that the introduction of such a system here wouldn't have the same issues! The best solution to address our healthcare needs here in the US is to move away from the largely (70+%) "employer provided" healthcare model in place today, to a true free market system unfettered by any connection to employers or government. What we need is a system where you as a consumer can actually pick your own plan tailored to your actual needs, offered in any state / across state lines, free from any government meddling and special interest lobbying. A system where you would be treated as a real "customer" as opposed to being treated like some "passive subordinate" (?patient?) as is the case with employer provided care today where you have little to no incentive to look at the actual cost of treatment options. In spite of the Leftist / Democrat rhetoric about the alleged problems with the "lack of universal coverage", its really about Democratic party politicians wanting to exert ever more control over us, making us ever more dependent on big government as the solution for every newly politicized "problem" in our lives. Forget about the rhetoric, big government control is what this is all about. Folks, its just that simple.

Fukken brilliant. How about a "Transparency in Spending Act" so that the public remains informed of the total cost of health care? Declare that "Health Care spending pay for Health Care services." Spending on health care should NOT come from the general treasury, but should be funded by taxes on other health care spending. That way, people can see how much of their health care spending dollar is spent on OTHER PEOPLE's health care instead of their own. The "rich" are going to be paying for health care services for the poor in ANY case. What does it matter if they pay through an increase in the income tax, or a tax on their own health care insurance premiums? The difference is that people will rally to resist the wealth transfer if they can see it more clearly. For reasons that are obvious, Democrats would not let this pass -- which is yet another reason to propose it, and talk about it. Opposing transparency in spending will have a political cost.

Up until recently, I thought a "boobyhatch" was Canadian slang for a PT Cruiser (JD Power and Associates "Douchebag Car of the Year 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2008" - Usurped in 2003 by the Chevy SSR).

You should do more post editing, Chi-baby. You answer your own damn questions faster than a Mexican can hurdle a fence.

Move out of the sticks, sister. Well... it is totally different. OS is a man, not a female. And don't you go rolling your eyes at me, little missy.

Except for the tax cuts and Supreme Court appointments, he's quite liberal. Consider this: Bush signed into law a campaign finance reform bill that is an affront to free speech. That's not very conservative. Bush, with Teddy Kennedy's help, pushed through the 'No Child Left Behind' act, which instituted unprecedented federal control over our school system. That's not conservative at all. Under President Bush, government spending has grown faster and government has grown larger than at any time in our history. An entirely new government agency has been created....The Department of Homeland Security. Growing government by leaps and bounds? Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave....and that's not very conservative. George W. Bush pushed and signed into law the prescription drug program for Medicare. This is billions and billions in new entitlement spending not even his fellow Texan LBJ could dream of. It was one of the single biggest expansions of welfare spending in decades. Not conservative. Bush's complete inaction on illegal immigration and his policy of looking the other way on border security and allowing as many illegal aliens in as want to come it not only outrageous, it's not conservative. I could go on, but I've run off the topic of discussion. Bottom line: Neither the Republicans or the Democrats have any intention of overhauling healthcare without seizing absolute control of the industry. To the average Washington politician, the government is the answer for what ails you.

It's a scam, folks, and Obama knows that he has to get it done quickly because real Americans, despite party affiliation, are sick of outrageous government spending.

The truth is that in Washington they don't care about the costs, either human or monetary. They care about the power. Nothing more. Power is the motivating factor behind government health care. These politicians know that when they control your healthcare they control you. All too many Americans are willing to give themselves to the government in return for healthcare. Sad.

It happened just as we predicted. Around 12:30 last Friday afternoon the switches were thrown and America's television stations turned off their analog signals. All that was left was digital. We've known about this for over a year. For over six months virtually all of these TV stations were broadcasting announcements about the switch. If you watch TV even a little you've seen hundreds of announcements telling you that the switch was coming and that you needed to take steps to make sure you could still watch your precious boob tube. The government was handing out coupons whereby the dumb masses could tap the taxpayers for the cost of a converter box. There were volunteers out there attaching the conversion boxes for people who still haven't managed to master the ballpoint pen. Everything that could be done was done. And yet ... on Friday afternoon the calls came pouring in to the TV stations ....... "What happened to my soap opera?" "Where can you get one of them converter things?" "I can't afford one of them converter things." "Where is Barack Obama's birth certificate?" "Why didn't you warn us this was going to happen?" "I have a right to TV." "The government needs to do something about this." We are presented with a great opportunity here. Let's get the names of all of the ignoranuses who couldn't figure this thing out by Friday and get them converted to digital ... with one condition. They surrender their voter registration cards. We have enough idiots voting in this country ... and since there is no Constitutional right to vote in a federal election, we need to find ways to cull the herd. Clearly anyone who couldn't figure out this analog-to-digital conversion thing isn't bright enough to cast an intelligent vote. Sure ... we need them. Someone has to cook the French fries ... but we don't need them voting.

You can ride with Bender.

Fukken brilliant.

History applies to every day and age, Bender. "The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." [Adolph Hitler, quoted in Hitler, A Study in Tyranny, by Alan Bullock (Harper Collins, NY)] "It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." [Adolph Hitler, 1933] There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual; between the State which demands and the individual who attempts to evade such demands. Because the individual, left to himself, unless he be a saint or hero, always refuses to pay taxes, obey laws, or go to war. [benito Mussolini] "Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." [Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party] "All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all." [Vladimir Lenin, as quoted in Not by Politics Alone] "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." [Hillary Clinton, 1993] "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." [President Bill Clinton, 'USA Today' March 11, 1993: Page 2A] I have not intention of trying to convince or turn or by the hand of God miraculously show you the light, but you have already succumbed to the fear mongering and live in fear of revoked cheese privileges.

You've got a point going there, snaffy. If abortion at the third term is legal, then why is assisted (a la Dr. Kevorkian) suicide illegal (save only Montana, Oregon, and Washington - Oregon Death With Dignity Act - which I think is a great piece of legislation)? Is abortion NOT assisted suicide? If life begins at conception, then you'd have to agree and yelp on about how the child has no choice. If you believe in women's right to choose, look at the semantics of the basic ideas. Think about it.

The smallest minority in the country is the individual. It is the individual's right to seek an abortion. Thus the state and/or federal government has no right to meddle in the affairs of the individual. And thus, should not fund said abortions.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0JkG1mZ05g&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Man With 21 Kids!!!![/ame] Opinions?

Meanwhile, Obama has officially appointed his compensation czar. Kenneth Feinberg will set the pay - salaries and bonuses -- for 175 top executives at the nation's largest companies that have received bailout funds. These include companies like Bank of America, Citigroup, GM and others. Then there is a second level of 80 other financial institutions that have received bailout money. Feinberg will come up with a compensation structure for these companies, but won't set the exact pay like he will for the big guys. He will also determine "whether it would be in the public interest to force any executives at companies receiving assistance who might have been overpaid to return some of that pay," according to the New York Times. We want these companies to succeed, don't we? Do we not want them to get on their feet again and get out from under the government's thumb? Now maybe it's just me, but if I was calling the shots for a major corporation in deep dog squeeze, perhaps I would see the sense in going out there and finding the best executive talent I could find to help bring things around. So ... how's it going to work for me when I tell a potential executive recruit that I really, really need their help bringing my billion-dollar corporation around, but that Barack Obama is going to be setting their pay scale? They're going to go somewhere else, right? You don't have to be, like, all that bright to figure that one out. Sittin' here just diggin' the change.

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). -Ayn Rand "The Virtue of Selfishness"

So... a person can't bitch on a forum called Off Topic Forum?

.

The Obama administration has laid out more details on how the government would like to see executives at corporations get paid. Now keep in mind that this is for all companies, not just bailout companies. Any publicly traded company. Here are the guidelines: assuring pay reflects corporate performance using standards beyond the company's stock price basing compensation on long-term performance, particularly by asking executives to hold stock for longer periods of time giving corporate risk managers more authority to prevent excessive risk-taking reexamining so-called "golden parachutes" and other retirement packages promoting transparency and accountability in how compensation committees set pay Geithner also wants Congress to adopt "say on pay" legislation that would give shareholders the ability to hold non-binding votes on compensation levels. But now for the "good" news ... Barack Obama has decided that the government will not put a cap on how much executives are paid. Somehow I'm not buying it. There's going to be something in the mix that will give the government some sway over what private companies pay their executives. Even though tax cheat Tim Geithner says, "We do not believe it's appropriate for the government to set caps on compensation.", they'll figure out a way. One obvious tactic would be to eliminate corporate tax deductions for pay above a certain level. The Obama crowd understands that Americans are getting really weary of all this government intervention, so they're sounding a bit conciliatory today. With all of these 'guidelines' and 'restrictions' I am sure that the government is going to have a lot more say than any of us would ever imagine.

The guy has a history. He was convicted in 1983 for running towards the boardroom of Washington's Federal Reserve building with a shotgun. He's an Alex Jones "911 was an inside job" believer. He's written a book about "white youth" and the Jews. He claims that "neoconservative" is a derogatory code word for "Jews." The guy is a barking moonbat. It is a shame that his loony ideas will get so much press consider this event. Two things will come of this ... at a minimum. One ... some of the left will use this to give credence to the Homeland Security department targeting "right wing extremists" as possible terrorists. Two ... the anti-gun lobby should be shifting into over drive quickly. It won't matter that this moron is a certifiable lunatic ... he'll be painted as typical of the right.

That's what SHE said.... (pausedface) Anyone? (what?face)

I thought your version replaced PEOPLE with PECKER?

Splooge, perhaps?