Rug Burn Junky on 29/8/2009 at 02:14

---

Christ, you really believe this shite dogma?

We're talking about health care, an industry in which the major providers spend over 30% of their overhead LOOKING TO DENY COVERAGE. And you seriously suggest that an industry that is actively looking to DENY SERVICE will do a better job of PROVIDING SERVICE than the OMG-it's-the-federal-government-bogeyman.

It's really quite sad that you believe this, but you are talking out of your ass, and really don't understand basic intro level economics:

No. Blatantly motherfucking no.

You couldn't be more ignorant if you tried. Health care demand is not elastic and sensitive to price fluctuations. Competition will not lead to lower prices. Read a fucking economics textbook and get back to us.

It'd be one thing if you actually had some intellectual heft, but christ, you're like a wind-up Sarah Palin doll repeating tropes that you don't even comprehend. It'd be more productive having Barney Frank's dining room table pounding away at that keyboard of yours.

CCCToad on 29/8/2009 at 03:27

---

Lets argue one point: "the stimulus worked and saved jobs...unemployment has dropped"

A: the only reason unemployment dropped is because they no longer count discouraged workers.

B: the official figures are grossly inaccurate.

(http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4452bed82adf3124e5884678e236d7fb.361&show_article=1)










The problem with healthcare is something that, I think, can't be attacked as easily as most of us want to. High legal costs and the "free ride" factor do contribute significantly, but thats not all to it. Legal costs affect everything Americans do: Its been estimated that most american families would have seven thousand dollars more expendable income each year if legal costs were reduced to the level in most European countries.

Starrfall on 29/8/2009 at 03:42

---

'In the hours immediately following Senator Ted Kennedy's death, Breitbart called Kennedy a “villain,” a “duplicitous bastard,” a “prick” and a "pile of human excrement".'

At last a voice of reason!

CCCToad on 29/8/2009 at 04:20

---

I do think Kennedy was a slimeball, but thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'm not familiar with the history of Breitbart, but in this case of kennedy I think he's pointing out the obvious by calling him "a prick".

I mean, its not every guy who slams waitresses on the table and dry humps them while he is already with a date.

Rug Burn Junky on 29/8/2009 at 05:41

---

Do you ever fucking give up? I mean, really, shut the fuck up. Where the fuck did you come from, and can we make you go away? All of a sudden you come out of nowhere and fag up everythread you touch, it's pretty fucking annoying, and nobody likes you.

Again, You're being an economitard taking on things beyond your comprehension by vomiting up bad analysis and cherrypicking. So yes, let us indeed argue that point, because you UTTERLY FUCKING FAIL.

As an aside, I hope you understand at least that there's more to economic numbers than just jobless claims. Or that unemployment can still be getting worse but at a slower rate - which would be an improvement over no action. I'm probably giving you too much credit for that, but I can dream.

If you understand anything about economics, you know that when economic growth slows, you cut interest rates to spur investment. Of course, once interest rates hit 0, there is nothing else that can be done on that front.

What's the only other option at that point? If you guessed "You have to pump money into the economy." you win a prize!

Have to, otherwise everything grinds to a halt. You have to spend money - EVEN IF YOU INCREASE YOUR DEBT LOAD TO DO IT. The reason that we DIDN'T have a second great depression (yet) is that we had the stimulus package, and that money is being coursed through the economy. Saying the stimulus was a bad idea is like telling someone who's unemployed that they shouldn't put that new suit on his credit card and should start showing up to interviews in jeans and a T-Shirt. Sometimes you have to spend money you don't have so that you'll have money later.

Now, was it perfect? no, not by a long shot, in fact the biggest reason it hasn't been as effective as it could be is that it simply wasn't big enough to do the whole job, necessitated by a bunch of fucktards whining about it in the first place. But even in spite of that, it averted the worst possible scenario, and has certainly made things better than they would be otherwise. So yes, it worked, and to suggest otherwise is "grossly inaccurate."

You're welcome.

And trying to yell that medicare "isn't working" is ridiculous. That's ludicrous on its face. It works. You said nothing to counter that.

What you did say, was that it's "running out of money." Now, the little piece you quoted suffered from the same failure that most of your information does - it's incomplete at best, and is a gross distortion at worst. For one thing, the sudden "OMG it's going to run out of money two years faster" is because of a current dip in payroll taxes dedicated to medicare - due to the current recession. Over the immediate term, that affects calculations, over the longer view (even just 10 years), the excess capacity in the economy currently means that future growth will most likely exceed their assumptions, so that's a wash.

Now, Medicare is not going to suddenly "OMG run out of money." Why? because that Medicare trust fund doesn't cover but a fraction of Medicare's costs. Medicare's expenses on a year to year basis are roughly $450B. The trust Fund itself is less than $400B. It's a rainy day fund. What the report itself is saying is that "Get your ass in gear, cut expenditures, increase the payroll tax, and balance Medicare's budget." That's profoundly different from "It's going to run out of money and go bankrupt," as you imply.

Nevermind the fact that part of the reason that shit's getting ugly in the medicare budget is that for the last 6 years of the Bush administration, proposed caps on fees paid to doctors were overridden, causing expenditures to inflate, to the glee of the medical industry. Or because medicare is unable to negotiate drug prices because of restrictions placed on it by the Prescription plan Part D legislation.

So, yeah, at the end of the day, Medicare works, and has been mostly stable for it's entire history, but faces some budgetary needs at the moment. But I'm sure that subtlety is lost on you because, well, you're fucking retarded.

-------------------------------
And not to belabor the point, but Thief13x's mental capacity is obviously being taxed beyond its limits, because seems to be confused by my question about the DMV to the point where he needs to repeat it. I fail to see how his quote of my question does anything to explain his distinct inability to offer any sort of support for his assertion. At least CCCToad does us the favor of including his comic parroting of talking points by others, Thief13x just plays the know-nothing card.

So I ask again, what exactly does the DMV fuck up?

Are they so bad at licensing drivers that people need to take to the roads without a license? Are there scores of cars driving around your hillbilly neck of the woods without license plates? Enlighten us all, please, because last I checked, the worst anybody had to say about the DMV was that you had to wait in line.