Y2HH

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 08:39 AM) That's been the Republican alternative to the Stimulus since last January. And they're just as stupid as the democrats, what's your point? I don't like the GOP as much as I don't like the Liberal Dems.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 08:23 AM) The solution to this problem is a spending freeze. You mean a spending freeze on less than 0.5% of the total budget? Yea, ok. Also, let's not pretend they didn't know that the senate would strike down the so called freeze, so it's the very point/suggestion by Obama was moot from the start.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 08:33 AM) How is that exactly? If insurance companies start losing money because of new mandates placed on them, but the bills they're receiving from the hospitals are no lower (and they wont be) -- they'll be operating in the red, be it for profit or non profit -- thus they are forced to close down eventually. When they close down, someone has to pick up the tab, and here is where the government steps in, because who else is gonna pay it? Nobody? It's pretty simple, actually.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 11:48 PM) The problem is, you and others make this too simplistic. Forget the lobby money and the industry for a little bit - long enough to understand that one of the primary reason for the increase of costs is government itself. And yes, I said PRIMARY, not secondary. There's a lot of usual and customary fees tied to the medicare standard. Then, it's adjusted by contractual obligation down to some sort of pay scale to the physicians. Because the government has a heavy hand in regulating the base fees being charged, you get a skewed pricing index. That's a large problem. Now on to the government side. As I've said before and just get ignored and shunned because I'm a "republican shrill"... *gag* ... the whole damn bill is a "public option" because it sets the marketplace for insurance. It doesn't do ANYTHING to actually control costs. It just regulates the s*** out of the industry to back it into a corner that the government gets control. I know you all don't see it that way because you didn't get a specific, single payor government intervention (aka, the savior to all costs and health care issues... which in reality is a disaster because you destroy all supply and demand tencendcies in such an environment). The GOVERNMENT should not have say over a population like this. I know you all see it different, and it's a great "equalizing issue" and a "utopia" where everyone should be afforded the same rights, rules, and regulations to health care, but it's just not that simple, and people don't want what's a pretty damn good system taken away and a government plan shoved up their ass in its place. The people are speaking REALLY loudly about it, and yet, the liberal elite seem to know best. Some negotiations. And again, thanks for sticking to your point. I don't mind seeing this as your point of view at all. I've pointed out many times before, and have been ignored many times before, that this bill was merely a reform on insurance, but not the industry as a whole. Once again, the hospitals/doctors send the bills to the insurance companies, not the other way around. If you're not going to bother reforming hospitals and how costs are calculated, applied, and what have you, then reforming insurance will do nothing to lower the bills being sent. Therein lies the problem. While vilifying the insurance companies, and trust me in many ways they need to be, they've given a free pass to the rest of the industry, including pharma, doctors, hospitals, etc. In the end, this equates to insurance companies going out of business due to new restrictions/mandates while the bills they receive remain the same or higher. The government, in turn, would have to increase it's subsidies (and thus control), but it does nothing to save money. The money is just going to/coming from another place. Congratulations, you've successfully saved people 3000$+ a year on insurance costs they no longer have to pay, while simultaneously raising their taxes 3000$+ in various ways so the government can subsidize the cost. In the end, the people gained nothing, the bills from the hospitals remained the same, the insurance companies disappear, and the government pays -- only the government can't just pay with magical fairy money fresh off the printing press, so your taxes increase, be it soda, liquor, coffee, water, sales, internet fees, taxes, they'll all be rising in order to cover this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 08:16 AM) I'm willing to take bets that when it's revised downwards in a month or two that it winds up below 4.7%. I wouldn't take that bet.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 10:46 AM) Add another $75 billion to the price of the stimulus plan, as in its most obvious sign of failure to this point, the federal government is paying out way more than it expected in unemployment benefits. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/j..._cube_position1 Relax, the unemployment rate wont go above 8%, Obama said so. Oh, wait...

I'm sick of the entire thing, democrats, republicans, and people who think "that our deficit isn't bad". Even better about this stupid ass proposal from the WSJ: The freeze would affect $447 billion in spending, or 17% of the total federal budget, and would likely be overtaken by growth in the untouched areas of discretionary spending. It's designed to save $250 billion over the coming decade, compared with what would have been spent had this area been allowed to rise along with inflation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 08:02 AM) It still amazes me that people can on one hand scream about the deficit being awful (it's not, at least not right now) and then on the other hand oppose the strongest deficit reduction program proposed since the Clinton Tax Hike. I'm not against it at all -- what I'm against is a bulls*** version of "freeze". You don't raise budgets across the board, then say, oh "now lets freeze them". That makes no sense at all. And wake up...the deficit IS awful. And if it isn't, as you so boldly and blindly claimed, then why would we need to reduce it that strongly? Not that this 17% of the total budget to be frozen is any sort of real reduction anyway, but whatever.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 06:47 AM) I'm still waiting for a single Republican to articulate a clear vision for the country. It's quite easy to say no and be obstructionist, it worked in 1994 and 1995 for the GOP as well, but eventually the newly-elected representatives and Senators and governors will be expected to accomplish something that actually improves the lives of a majority of Americans. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Frank, Baucus, Nelson, etc., have obviously failed that test so far. However, I would love to hear a GOP platform of new/creative ideas that doesn't involve simply lowering taxes for the richest Americans and for corporations, getting rid of the Department of Education, stopping "judicial activism" and supporting traditional marriage, etc. Do Republicans really believe there isn't a health care problem in the US and/or that nothing should be done about it? Do Republicans really have no concern about the environment, global warming or the future over-polluted world their grandchildren and great-grandchildren will inherit? Do Republicans have any ideas for ending our dependence on foreign oil? For funding Medicare and Social Security for the next 50 years? It's easy to say "no" or complain or say what's wrong with the other side, but at some point, there needs to be a leg for them to stand on. Because I think we tried that approach (cutting taxes, capital gains, estate taxes, business taxes) for eight years and it didn't work very well....trickle down became more like a "drip, drip." With the new election financial contribution rules coming into play, I can just see a re-run of the Gore/Bush election in 2000, with the Democrats deciding to fight a do-or-die "populist" war against the GOP. By the way, for all those who don't believe Obama is a US citizen or that he was born out of wedlock, what's your strategy for getting us out of Iran/Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan? How is it any different than the current strategy of the administration? I'll be laughing in 2012 when the Tea Party is running someone like Sarah Palin or their new darling, the Penthouse Senator of the Month from Massachusetts. The republicans are just as stupid as the democrats. I leave you with one of the greatest explanations of our political system...ever. "The only thing dumber than a Democrat or a Republican is when those pricks work together. You see, in our two-party system, the Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas. It usually goes something like this: A Republican will stand up in Congress and say, "I've got a really bad idea." And a Democrat will immediately jump to his feet and declare, 'And I can make it s***tier!'" - Lewis Black

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 11:40 PM) If by 25% you mean 7%, you'd be right. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/26...ns-health-care/ Either way, raising the spending, increasing the deficits astronomically, then raising the debt ceiling once temporarily, and a coming second time permanently, and then calling for a "spending freeze" is f***ing stupid, and I don't care if it gets me banned, anyone that buys into this is f***ing stupid, too. Not only would they have to "freeze" everything, but they need to start CUTTING these over funded programs that have the worst job efficiency in existence, and maybe then we'll start getting somewhere.

Interesting question...and here is my answer: Buehrle, Danks, Peavy, Floyd, Garcia, Jenks, Linebrink, Pena, Thornton, AJ, Bacon, Kong, Kotsay, Ramirez, Teahen, Rios, Quentin, Jones, and Pierre. If they all perform to my high expectations, we will have a good year.

I wish it was even warmer.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 01:15 PM) Now, again, you may not realize it, but you've just lost the argument and given up. You argued now that it's not the fault of health insurance companies that costs are going up, that the system is fundamentally broken, that there is absolutely nothign we can do to control costs, and we're going to go from spending 17% of our GDP on health care to 25-30% within the next 15 years, as simple extrapolation of current cost growth predicts. You're arguing therefore that cost control is impossible. Therefore, it doesn't matter what we do to fix the system, it's bankrupt no matter what. In that case, it makes perfect sense to just spend the money on this bill and insure another 30 million +, because no matter what we do, we're going to go bankrupt in the end, so therefore, the cost no longer matters. It doesn't matter if the bill is $1 trillion, $500 billion, $200 billion, or $5 trillion. We may as well make sure that we cover as many people as we can, if bankruptcy is the 100% guaranteed end in 10 years regardless of what we do. Not at all. I'm saying that if you want to talk reform, stop talking about health insurance reform, when the ENTIRE thing needs to be reformed. I've never argued that it doesn't need to be reformed, I just didn't agree with the reform they proposed, because it wasn't reform on anything but insurance, and would have done nothing to control costs. I haven't lost an argument and given up at all...since it's obvious were talking about two different things here. I was against and REMAIN against the stupid reform they proposed. And I didn't say it's not the fault of the insurance companies, either. I said its not ONLY their fault. I thought when I said, "Acting as if the insurance industry is the sole cause is ridiculous.", would have kind of tipped you off that I wasn't blaming everyone but the insurance industry, because they're involved, but they're not the ONLY factor at all. To clear things up: I'm against the proposed reform. I'm not, however, against reform.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 12:51 PM) Actually, this is quite easy, more than a few people put out those numbers, they're recorded every single year. I gave 8% a year and that's actually pretty low. 10% a year has been more typical. If something goes up at 7-12% a year, it's really not that hard to project that it'll continue going up at 8% a year; I'm likely to have underestimated it rather than overestimated it. Source for raw data And somehow reforming "health insurance" was going to fix that? Again, I feel the need to remind you and everyone else that the hospitals send the bills, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. These increasing costs will CONTINUE to increase, because the costs of the services from the point of service (the doctors/hospitals, etc) are the ones that keep making things more expensive. Acting as if the insurance industry is the sole cause is ridiculous. You can reform health insurance until you're blue in the face, that will NOT stop the bills from going up...up...and up again. And therein lies the problem with this reform. It wasn't healthCARE reform, it was healthINSURANCE reform. And it was doomed to failure from the onset one way or another.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 12:46 PM) Kennedy.um.er.Anderson's promo last night was complete garbage. Throwing shots at E for not giving him opportunities. They gave him every opportunity and every chance and he continuously screwed himself. The guy is a decent talker guy nothing special in the ring. I love the "overrated" chants. I did like how Abyss was behind him for his whole interview reacting and Anderson didn't notice. I thought the Abyss behind him thing was funny. Heh.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 12:38 PM) It'd really suck when Quentin breaks his wrist down the stretch of that year That never would have happened if his bat had done it's job properly. Stupid bats.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 12:27 PM) But you've already accepted the tenet that having people rejected for health coverage because they got sick is a bad thing. Thus, the problem is not solved. Throw in a heaping vat of 8-10% a year increases in cost such that in 10 years out the system breaks for everyone, and viola. Can I borrow your DeLorean and get the lotto numbers for the next 10 years? Since you seem to have the exact percentage of increases on health care, you must have one...since it's doom and gloom and the whole system is sure to "break for everyone". Well...um, BS. The system isn't going to break for everyone in 10 years regardless of you knowing it does with your time machine. I thought only the GOP predicated on fear. Because you just tried to use a fear tactic to solidify your argument. Which I did enjoy, by the way. Welcome to the GOP.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 12:22 PM) So, basically, you've argued yourself backwards to the point where your plan requires determination of a person's intentions. If I got cancer, and then went to an insurance company, and they denied me because I had cancer, now I've met your standard for qualifying for the government plan. Either that, or you have to determine why exactly I was uninsured beforehand for both the government and the private markets to reject me, to make sure that you punish the right people. I don't think you realize how untenable this policy is, and you're stumbling backwards onto an individual mandate whether you realize it or not. Right, I'd then like to know why you weren't insured UNTIL you got cancer. But you are right about one thing, I don't have the answers...and you're right, my suggestions are bad, so I retract them ALL...I don't want any changes. I like it how it is now. Thank goodness it gets to stay that way. Problem solved. Change nothing! Want insurance that bad, move to Canada, I hear it's awesome there and they have to bestest system evar.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 12:14 PM) Because now you've destroyed the private insurance market. Now you've made it a sound financial decision for me to stay 100% uninsured until I get sick. If I get sick, then either the government will have to take me or the private market will have to take me because companies can no longer reject applications for coverage where they have pre-existing conditions. Wrong. Not what I said at all. I never said they can't reject pre-existing -- I said if you HAVE INSURANCE ALREADY they can't drop you WHEN you get sick. Two vastly different things. If you don't make less than a certain amount of money, you failed, because in that case the govt isn't required to pick you up. And pre-existing condition means something you've HAD, not something you just got. If you can't prove you've had it, then no sale. It's pretty simple to tell that, too. Like...show us your rejection papers from an insurance company that said you have a pre-existing condition which is why you didn't have insurance. Oh, can't produce it because you waited to get sick...your loss.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 12:02 PM) Not in the least. You've made one key mistake; instead of mandating that insurers pick up part of the tab for the uninsured, you've said not only that the government will pick up the full tab for them, but they'll also pick up the tab for anyone that the insurance companies can find a reason to dump. You've vastly increased the cost to the taxpayers. Yes, and that's how it should be. Also, if the insurance companies did that, they'd lose customers. Just put a simple mandate that they can't drop people who currently have insurance who get sick. Period, and done. Don't see why that's so hard. IBM doesn't pick up part of my f***ing tab because I can't afford a computer. How about if you want to be insured, work hard and get a good job that provides it. Rewarding hard work is what this country was founded on...now we like to reward the lazy. No thanks. I don't want a future like that in this country.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 11:52 AM) The answer to that is quite simple; it becomes a giant subsidy to the insurance companies and will wind up costing enormous sums of government money. The insurers have already been doing everything they can to dump their high-cost customers off of their rolls...now you've got the government expressing a willingness to take on basically anyone who isn't a profitable insurance purchaser if they meet the standard by which the insurance company can dump them. Over a ten year period, that's a hell of a lot more costly than the subsidy plan the Dems put together, because you've kept the advantage for people to dump them, but done nothing to require the insurers spend any money to cover them. Furthermore, you've basically come up with a brief outline of the exact subsidy plan the Dems were using to help people buy insurance, but you've stated that somehow it will cost less, without a reason, and you've also neglected to provide any funding mechanism to pay for it. The cost of your plan would be multiple trillions of dollars over 10 years. BTW, it's 2000 pages because each page contains less text than this post. They were willing to put 1+T of government money up for this, but now you say that it would cost enormous sums of government money? Well no crap...the bill they proposed was going to cost just as much, if not WAY more. This would simply make it a lot LESS. And note I didn't say they should take "anyone". Only people making less than a certain amount of money who can't otherwise afford it, which they do anyway, and only people who are otherwise uninsurable. Let's not act like these people aren't checking into hospitals anyway, despite not having insurance. They are, and the government is already paying for them...so they may as well just legitimize it so they can use more hospitals rather than county hospitals. The funding to pay for it is the 1T+ they already said they'd spend through voodoo means. Use that. And no, this isnt the same. The plan they have now is that ANYONE could have said insurance. Anyone shouldn't qualify for this. Just like "anyone" doesn't qualify for welfare. Regardless, I don't want any of this. Merely stupid suggestions on the level of their own already existing stupid suggestions. I like insurance as it is now. Leave it alone. And in the end, I think it will be left alone. Thank god. This bill is dead...thank god. Now we can move on and they can find other ways to create their money sucking nanny state tailor made for the lazy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 11:39 AM) I wonder, tactically, if anyone on the Left has thought about doing the real hard hit here...dropping everything else and proposing a ban on having insurance companies discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. Without the mandate, it's a bomb that would completely destroy the private health care system, and they could do it while looking all bi-partisan and saying "look, see, we pared the bill back to something the Republicans said they could support". How about the government create a simple "pre existing medicare plan" for those who have such conditions. It would probably cost a lot less than 1+Trillion dollars to do that and not affect other people who have no such conditions, since they're probably already paying for these peoples care anyway. And give people who make below a certain amount of money per year a complete tax refund on all moneys used to purchase health insurance, or a percentage thereof. So if you make less than 50k a year and have a family of four, but have to buy your own insurance, the government subsidizes it at the end of the year by refunding a % of the money on a sliding scale depending on what you make, etc. Of course people would rather have insurance through their companies, so it would be a benefit to companies to do it, in order to attract better talent/employees. Whatever the case may be -- this doesn't need to be 2000 pages of nonsense. It CAN be done, and done right, and be 20 pages long and understandable to all. I want them to keep their sneaky s*** OUT of this market, and believe me, that 2000+ page bill is FULL of sneaky s***.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 09:47 AM) Kinda sad that our health care system will continue killing tens of thousands because the Mass. Dems were lazy. Because in magical liberal land everyone would have ceased dying had this monstrosity been passed, because everything would have been fixed overnight and working perfectly! I'm glad this is dead.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 06:17 AM) No. HELL no. I would rather people kept their asses at home if they don't care enough to vote, and especially if they don't care enough to at least know SOMETHING about the candidates and/or issues before they go. That's my problem with voting as it stands in this country right now. People voting without knowing their candidates platform/stance, etc...I can't stand party voting, whether that be democratic or republican. Vote the candidates, not the parties, or stop voting.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 04:13 PM) Tough situation, we toss him out and we're not tolerant of his opinions. Leave him "in" and we're branded as intolerant. Well played 2k5 I think he was talking about the comments made by Olbermann being completely intolerant, from the guy/party who does nothing but talk about tolerance.