Whatever happened to the Obama sycophants?
- Thread starter steveinbsas
- Start date
The way I see it, under the current health care system those insured pay for the uninsured through outrageously high premiums. Someone has to foot the bill for the emergency room care hospitals are forced to provide for free.
I once was charged eleven dollars for a Band-aid - boxes of ten were two dollars at the local drugstore. That was full retail price, which meant the hospital was probably paying four cents per Band-aid, wholesale. I fought this charge for eight months, and finally was put through to the hospital director, who told me they had to balance their books, and we premium-paying idiots got charged for their uninsured patients. Well, not in those exact words, but that was the gist of it.
I once was charged eleven dollars for a Band-aid - boxes of ten were two dollars at the local drugstore. That was full retail price, which meant the hospital was probably paying four cents per Band-aid, wholesale. I fought this charge for eight months, and finally was put through to the hospital director, who told me they had to balance their books, and we premium-paying idiots got charged for their uninsured patients. Well, not in those exact words, but that was the gist of it.
bigbadwolf
Registered
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,210
- Likes
- 189
SaraSara said:
The primary cause of high premiums is not the uninsured. That is another red herring. It is unconscionably high profit margins among HMOs, insurance companies, and pharma companies. It is coupled with bureaucratic inefficiency. Thus, in 2005, the CEO of United Healthcare in Minnesota was awarded (awarded himself?) $124m. Even this sum pales in comparison to the tens and hundreds of billions that the health sector as a whole earns each year. That money is being extorted from the American population as a whole. The messiah's newest act of sabotage is to make the purchase of substandard and highly-priced insurance policies from these crooks mandatory. In short, state coercion will be used to further fill the coffers of these oligopolies. We usually call this "fascism."
Boy, you really have it for Obama...! Pardon, for the Mocha Messiah.
Now, why is it that people who despise President Obama keep referring to his skin color? I mean, you can love him or hate him, but his color has nothing to do with it. Or shouldn’t. If it does, it means latent racism, no matter how much the ”Mocha” abusers hate the term.
However, if you MUST bring skin color into a discussion, please do show a little more imagination How about “cafe au lait Messiah”? Maybe “cafe con leche Messiah”? Perhaps "Cortado Messiah"? Or “Lagrima Messiah”?
Come on, guys, you should be able to come up with something else besides “mocha” messiah. Where’s your creativity?
.........
Now, why is it that people who despise President Obama keep referring to his skin color? I mean, you can love him or hate him, but his color has nothing to do with it. Or shouldn’t. If it does, it means latent racism, no matter how much the ”Mocha” abusers hate the term.
However, if you MUST bring skin color into a discussion, please do show a little more imagination How about “cafe au lait Messiah”? Maybe “cafe con leche Messiah”? Perhaps "Cortado Messiah"? Or “Lagrima Messiah”?
Come on, guys, you should be able to come up with something else besides “mocha” messiah. Where’s your creativity?
.........bigbadwolf said:
bigbadwolf said:
Obama has no political “bones”, just cartilage. So bending here and there even permanently will not going to hurt him. There are no such things as “honesty” and “believes” in the House. Wake-up, fella.
He is a “front-end” pal to get our eyes on him, while the real shit is boiling somewhere behind.
Speaking of "uniformed" accusations about vaccination and birth control issues.
Here is some info that you, SaraSara may refer urself to, and educate urself a bit before snubbing in replies.
http://www.thinktwice.com/birthcon.htm
I've seen documentaries in some other languages to support that elite (Tora!Tora!Tora!) is “cooking” something besides just starting wars.
Of course you’re so intelligent and overall smart to figure out whose movie documentaries are biased and who’s not.
"10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore."
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore."
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
citygirl
Registered
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,928
- Likes
- 3,146
I bowed out of these threads a long time ago as there is very little room for thoughtful, intelligent discussions. Lots of strident accusations, very few facts and lots and lots of personal attacks.
But on a side note - while I'm a huge proponent of health insurance reform - in point of fact, insurance companies usually have very low profit margins (in terms of percentages)
But on a side note - while I'm a huge proponent of health insurance reform - in point of fact, insurance companies usually have very low profit margins (in terms of percentages)
SaraSara said:
sara nobody is saying that we don't need some kind of health reform. but this is not the way to accomplish it. you do not pass the most sweeping piece of legislation in generations in a matter of months while most congressmen have not even read the bill.
do you believe in the US constitution? do you believe that this document is the document by which we should still govern ourselves? i understand the document is over 200 yrs old and that times have changed and that it is subject to interpretation by the supreme court.
however, this health care bill is not the case of interpretation. the constitution does not allow the federal govt to dictate to a private citizen that they must buy something they may or may not want. i.e. the fed govt cannot tell me to buy health insurance if i do not want to. it is illegal according to the constitution. what if i don't want health care? what if i don't want to be a part of the system?
moreover, once this precedent has been set - what's next? what else will we be required to buy or do? you know it never stops there. it never does.
more importantly, the federal govt cannot force the STATES to enact a federal mandate. this is strictly forbidden and illegal according to the constitution. this is a direct assault on state sovereignty. it is the STATES that compose the union - not the other way around. if the states decide, they can come together and dissolve the federal govt.
what we are seeing with the health care bill is the attempt of the fed govt to impose its mandates on the states, many of which cannot afford it. this is why the attorney generals of at least a dozen states are suing the federal govt in order to challenge the constitutionality of the bill.
I've posted these thoughts of mine on health care in the US before, but can't remember if it was this forum or another.
I've had insurance in the US before, through a company that was paying for more than half of the coverage. This was up to the end of the 90s. The total cost of the package was about $800 a month for 4 people (2 adults and 2 kids). It had a $250 individual deductible with a family deductible of $1000 a year.
I don't think I ever actually used all of the family deductible, ever. I know on some occasions I used one or two of the individual deductibles in one year. I was paying about $300 a month myself of that $800 a month.
We were fairly healthy. About the only time we went to the doctor was for the sniffles, to get a relatively cheap treatment for one bacterial infection or another.
I was paying $3600 a year out of my own pocket to go to the doctor whenever I wanted (heh - event hough I had to pay deductibles in some cases and certainly co-pays for visits in others!), and only using about 10-20% of that at the most every year in real expenses toward health care.
When I went to work for myself in 2001, I dropped that expensive policy and we went 4 years without any health insurance. It made no difference in our health. There were plenty of little health clinics, we discovered, that would see us cheaper than our doctor would and often quicker.
It wasn't until I got divorced that I was forced by the State of Texas to buy health insurance for my kids.
Three kids, $200 a month. Why? Because it's a "catastrophic" policy. The deductible per person is $5000, with a $7500 family cap. We are responsible for our own healthcare unless something catastrophic happens. In that fashion, we are covered WITHOUT having to be bankrupted. If the kids get a runny nose, they go to the local clinic and pay $75 to see a doctor and get a prescription and another $50 or so for generic antibiotics. They shouldn't be taking antibiotics very often anyway, so that is another reason to limit the number of times one can go to the doctor for sniffles.
I think one of the single most largest issues with healthcare in the US is this thought that one must have insurance for every conceivable trip to the doctor. One tries to find the cheapest insurance, with the lowest deductible AND the lowest co-pay for services and prescriptions.
Instead, take responsibility for your own health and get an insurance policy that keeps one from going into bankruptcy to cover serious health issues.
There is no "health crisis" in the States that is not caused by those who are trying to sell you something that you don't need and have raised prices beyond what the free market would normally allow.
My grandmother, when she was alive (she died last year at the ripe age of 92) would tell me about when she got her first health insurance. She went to work for a bank in Tulsa, Ok. She had a family doctor who used to see her for about $2.
The first time she visited him with insurance, she was presented with a bill for $5. She was shocked and certain this couldn't be right. The doctor explained to her that he had to charge an extra dollar for administrative issues related to health care. The extra 100% above the normal bill - well, that was the rate that the insurance company set for the procedure and she didn't have to worry about it anyway, because the insurance company would take care of it.
Of course, that was in the beginning. Things just continued to get worse for the health industry.
I've seen this example posted elsewhere before, and it makes a lot of good sense:
Imagine how expensive your car insurance would be if it covered oil changes, tire changes and cleaning, not just problems related to wrecking it and getting it or the other car fixed!
Obama's health care plan is terrible. It does nothing to fix the problems, but does something that many "progressives" want to see - it enlarges the government, will make more people dependent on the government over time by creating an entitlement for those who can't afford what the government is mandating, paid for by those "who can afford it" leaving out the fact that those "who can afford it" in many cases would be buying other things within the economy, creating jobs, etc.
I've had insurance in the US before, through a company that was paying for more than half of the coverage. This was up to the end of the 90s. The total cost of the package was about $800 a month for 4 people (2 adults and 2 kids). It had a $250 individual deductible with a family deductible of $1000 a year.
I don't think I ever actually used all of the family deductible, ever. I know on some occasions I used one or two of the individual deductibles in one year. I was paying about $300 a month myself of that $800 a month.
We were fairly healthy. About the only time we went to the doctor was for the sniffles, to get a relatively cheap treatment for one bacterial infection or another.
I was paying $3600 a year out of my own pocket to go to the doctor whenever I wanted (heh - event hough I had to pay deductibles in some cases and certainly co-pays for visits in others!), and only using about 10-20% of that at the most every year in real expenses toward health care.
When I went to work for myself in 2001, I dropped that expensive policy and we went 4 years without any health insurance. It made no difference in our health. There were plenty of little health clinics, we discovered, that would see us cheaper than our doctor would and often quicker.
It wasn't until I got divorced that I was forced by the State of Texas to buy health insurance for my kids.
Three kids, $200 a month. Why? Because it's a "catastrophic" policy. The deductible per person is $5000, with a $7500 family cap. We are responsible for our own healthcare unless something catastrophic happens. In that fashion, we are covered WITHOUT having to be bankrupted. If the kids get a runny nose, they go to the local clinic and pay $75 to see a doctor and get a prescription and another $50 or so for generic antibiotics. They shouldn't be taking antibiotics very often anyway, so that is another reason to limit the number of times one can go to the doctor for sniffles.
I think one of the single most largest issues with healthcare in the US is this thought that one must have insurance for every conceivable trip to the doctor. One tries to find the cheapest insurance, with the lowest deductible AND the lowest co-pay for services and prescriptions.
Instead, take responsibility for your own health and get an insurance policy that keeps one from going into bankruptcy to cover serious health issues.
There is no "health crisis" in the States that is not caused by those who are trying to sell you something that you don't need and have raised prices beyond what the free market would normally allow.
My grandmother, when she was alive (she died last year at the ripe age of 92) would tell me about when she got her first health insurance. She went to work for a bank in Tulsa, Ok. She had a family doctor who used to see her for about $2.
The first time she visited him with insurance, she was presented with a bill for $5. She was shocked and certain this couldn't be right. The doctor explained to her that he had to charge an extra dollar for administrative issues related to health care. The extra 100% above the normal bill - well, that was the rate that the insurance company set for the procedure and she didn't have to worry about it anyway, because the insurance company would take care of it.
Of course, that was in the beginning. Things just continued to get worse for the health industry.
I've seen this example posted elsewhere before, and it makes a lot of good sense:
Imagine how expensive your car insurance would be if it covered oil changes, tire changes and cleaning, not just problems related to wrecking it and getting it or the other car fixed!
Obama's health care plan is terrible. It does nothing to fix the problems, but does something that many "progressives" want to see - it enlarges the government, will make more people dependent on the government over time by creating an entitlement for those who can't afford what the government is mandating, paid for by those "who can afford it" leaving out the fact that those "who can afford it" in many cases would be buying other things within the economy, creating jobs, etc.