27 thoughts on “Saturday Morning Open Thread

  1. dbschmidt September 17, 2011 / 5:53 pm

    I was reading something last night that sounds a great deal like a combination of one of President Obama’s teleprompter recitals, the folks (mostly anarchists and hard-core lefties) at the “Day of Rage” in NYC, and our resident flapping trolls.

    “…that you must serve the happiness of others, the only way to achieve your joy is to give it up to others, the only way to achieve your prosperity is to surrender your wealth to others…and if you find no joy in this procedure, it is your own fault and the proof that you are evil; if you were good, you would find happiness in providing a banquet for others,…”

  2. watsonredux September 17, 2011 / 7:35 pm

    Hey db, the other day you told me to look at Galveston, Texas as an example of dealing with healthcare from a business perspective. I looked up the medical plans to which you refer in Galveston County:

    http://www.senioreducators.com/plans/list?county_id=135300&zip_code=77573

    These are all Medicare prescription drug plans that contract with the Federal government. You must be enrolled in Medicare to use these plans and Medicare, i.e., the government provides the bulk of the funding. Are you claiming that it’s good business to get paid by the taxpayer?

    No, you all claim that the free market will handle our heath care needs if only we let it. I’m stilling waiting for you all to explain to me how the pro-profit health care industry would pay for the health care of sick and old people. Please give it another try, db.

    • dbschmidt September 17, 2011 / 8:11 pm

      Watson,

      If they opted out of SS then Medicare / Medicaid is not an automatic enrollment. They could choose that if they wish but it is not forced on them and with the rate of payout retirement being 3+ times greater than SS–they can choose and not be forced onto a one-size-fits-noone plan our government has devised.

      Additionally, your zip code is incorrect so I will provide the matching link at the same location you listed with the proper zip code below. If you scroll to the bottom of the 1st page you will see the following;

      In Galveston County, Texas (zip 77518), you have at least 94 available plans to choose from, of which 41 meet your criteria.

      Above are 17 excellent plans that have high customer satisfaction.

      My criteria was Medicare/Medicaid and 94 plans available of which 41 are Medicare / Medicaid based leaving 53 (including 17 rated excellent) that on run from $14.80 to $143.00 per month. Compare that to a COBRA payment I have to make of $543.81 per month thanks in part to Obama’s new “jobs plan” with extended vacation [aka. unemployment] opportunities.

      Following my two scheduled surgeries, I have already talked with my primary care physician and have figured out what I will pay myself for my health care as I require it. I am researching catastrophic policies now as well. I will not leave it up to anyone but myself going forward and that includes any corporations I may work for in the future. You can read into this whatever you want but the folks that worked for Galveston county are much better off than their counterparts who have been forced into another poorly run government agency.

      http://www.senioreducators.com/plans/list?county_id=135300&limit=17&offset=0&zip_code=77518

      • watsonredux September 17, 2011 / 8:21 pm

        I guess I’m still a bit confused. Are these plans for the employees of Galveston County? I am interested in seeing plans that rely on no government or taxpayer funding whatsoever, for people over 65 years of age, who may or may not have pre-existing conditions, who never worked for the government. Maybe these are such plans, but I’m not seeing from your description or the website. I may have to have it spelled it for me. 🙂

        I applaud you for taking your health care into your own hands, but it sounds to me like you are not old enough to enroll in Medicare. Are you saying that if you were 65, or when you reach age 65, you will not enroll in Medicare?

        I intend to leave the corporate world soon, well short of the age of 65, so your experiences and advice in that regard are of interest.

      • dbschmidt September 18, 2011 / 3:34 pm

        The honest answer is I do not know at this point but I will do everything in my power not to require the Feds to support me. At this point I am 51 and plan on working until I am in my 70’s so there is a great deal of time I will need to cover myself because I will not take SS (and therefore Medicare) until then. Problem is, even though it is still too far out, is that no doctors are taking new Medicare / Medicaid patients now. I talk with my Mom who is on Medicare and 2 additional riders and doctors want nothing to do with the Feds payout schedule either. What happens between now & then is to be seen but I am not expecting or relying on either being there.

    • neocon1 September 18, 2011 / 10:38 am

      watstooge

      watsonredux September 17, 2011 at 8:21 pm #

      I guess I’m still a bit confused.

      it goes with the liberal brain damage.

  3. watsonredux September 17, 2011 / 8:30 pm

    The other thing we hear from conservatives such as Ron Paul is that charity is the best way to cover medical expenses for sick and old people. Just read an article about Ron Paul’s former campaign manager, Kent Snyder, who died in 2008 of complications from pneumonia. He was 49 years old. He died penniless and without insurance because it was prohibitively expensive due to a pre-existing condition.

    “Like the man in Blitzer’s example, the 49-year-old Snyder (pictured) was relatively young and seemingly healthy* when the illness struck. He was also uninsured. When he died on June 26, 2008, two weeks after Paul withdrew his first bid for the presidency, his hospital costs amounted to $400,000. The bill was handed to Snyder’s surviving mother (pictured, left), who was incapable of paying. Friends launched a website to solicit donations.”

    They raised less than $35,000. I guess his old-age mother, who no doubt lives on social security, should be kicked out of her house so it can be sold to the highest bidder so that the hospital can get their money. Capitalism at work.

  4. Green Mountain Boy September 17, 2011 / 8:57 pm

    Unless his mother was his legal guardian or had a lien on her property against his medical bills, I do not see how she could be held responsible for them.

    • watsonredux September 17, 2011 / 9:16 pm

      That would be my thought as well, but the fact that the hospital and doctors tried to force the mother to pay for her grown son says something about the hospital and doctors, doesn’t it?

      Then there is the idea that charity will handle cases like these. That failed. Even connections to one of the best known politicians in the country wasn’t enough to raise the money necessary to pay the hospital and doctors.

      At least we can give Ron Paul some credit. When asked by Wolf Blitzer if a person just like Kent Snyder should be left to die on the street, Paul said no, despite the urging of the audience to let him die. Maybe that cut a little too close to home for Paul.

      • Green Mountain Boy September 17, 2011 / 9:31 pm

        Watson, I honestly can not tell what happened in this situation. I do know from firsthand experience thathospital debt can be forgiven. At least with religious order hospital such as St. Francis and other catholic hospitals.

        Was this even tried?

  5. watsonredux September 17, 2011 / 10:16 pm

    Of course hospital debt can be forgiven, as can any debt. I do not know if that was tried. How often hospital debt is forgiven, I don’t know. I’m pretty sure they try hard to collect from anyone and everyone. If he was married, then they would be trying to collect from his wife instead of his mother, from which they would seem to have a much better legal basis.

    But even so, according to Ron Paul, a person such as Kent should do “whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself.” That’s great, except that in states such as mine, insurance companies are under no obligation to ensure anyone. They can deny anyone coverage without cause.

    If you look at their websites you will see that they tell you in advance that you may be rejected for coverage for any number of reasons, including being fat or pregnant. We know that Kent had a pre-existing condition that either made his insurance premiums prohibitively expensive or made it so that insurance companies would not offer him any insurance of any kind.

    This is not a good solution for administering health care in this country. That much is obvious. I’d love to hear an actual, practical solution form conservatives, but I’m not holding my breath.

    • Green Mountain Boy September 18, 2011 / 1:51 am

      Well, I know what you want. You want socialized medicine. Single payer health care. Have you been studying the problems Britain and Canada have been having.

      I’ll tell you what here. Lets do this. Lets have the single payer system but with one caveot. I am sick, I need treatment, I can go anywhere I want and have the doctor I choose, do the treatment. The government has no say in the decision. The only thing they do is cut the check to the hospital.

      No medical review boards and no rationing. How does that sound to you?

      • neocon1 September 18, 2011 / 10:41 am

        GMB

        crickets,
        marxists want control not choices..ANNNNND .the control ALWAYS comes at the end of a gun barrel.

      • watsonredux September 18, 2011 / 4:17 pm

        I do think single payer is the best option we have. It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. You can give it any name you want. It is simply the most efficient method that we have for providing health care.

        Still waiting to hear an actual, practical solution form conservatives. So far, nothing.

      • Amazona September 19, 2011 / 5:28 pm

        “I do think single payer is the best option we have. It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. You can give it any name you want. It is simply the most efficient method that we have for providing health care. ”

        So it has “nothing to do with being Liberal or conservative”, eh? Gee, thanks for the latest proof that you pseudo-Libs are absolutely and totally clueless about what “conservative” really means.

        Here we go, one more time. It’s not really all that complicated, so I am always baffled by the Lib inability to understand it.

        American conservatives, in the 21st Century, base their political position on the belief that the Constitution of the United States of America is the only legal form of governance for our nation. We go on to believe that it is by far the best form of governance ever devised, and that the Leftist model of governance is fatally flawed and leads only to economic misery, loss of freedoms, and often to mass murder.

        There. Is that really so hard to understand?

        Now for what is apparently a very complicated issue—that of explaining to you that the Constitution of the United States of America does not only NOT ALLOW the federal government to engage in health care, much less becoming the payer of health care costs, but that it is FORBIDDEN to do so.

        Therefore, the matter of single payer is, most definitely, a matter of Liberal vs Conservative, no matter how ignorant you may be regarding the actual definition of either term.

        As for the federal government being “the most efficient” at ANYTHING, that is so ridiculous it doesn’t even deserve a response.

    • neocon1 September 18, 2011 / 10:43 am

      waspstooge

      “but I’m not holding my breath”.

      too bad,but do try- say for 15 minutes.
      there are no easy solutions, but socialism is not one of them.

  6. Amazona September 18, 2011 / 10:54 am

    Watty “guesses” and he’s “pretty sure”. Yet he expounds at length on things about which he can only “guess” or, at best, be “pretty sure”—with no basis for the “pretty sure” part.

    This IS Liberalism in the United States. While there are a few who actually understand the political philosophy of Liberalism, and believe it is the best model for governance, the vast majority of those who support this model are just like Watty, emotionally invested in a weird concoction of animosity toward an invented and demonized Right and a giddy superstition that the Anti-Right will make everything wonderful for all.

    Here’s my bet: That Watson has never done any research into the history of the Left, into its true dogma and agendas, into its success/failure ratio, or into the reality of life in the countries where it has been imposed. No, Watson, like the other trolls who post here, is enamored of Liberal Lite, the frothy version of Liberalism which conveniently leaves out the gritty reality of the model and its unbroken history of economic failure and social misery—and even this is based more on antipathy for what they are told is conservatism rather than on an acceptance of the model itself, for its own ‘merits’.

    Call him a “useful idiot” or just a “dupe”, Watty and his ilk are the bulk of the Leftist movement, sucked in by validation of their need to hate and distrust by being fed an enemy, the Right, and distracted by the pretty promises of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.

  7. Amazona September 18, 2011 / 11:15 am

    Watson also lumps in federal programs and state and local programs.

    If the nation were run according to its own Constitution, the federal tax would be minimal, as it would need to cover far far less than it does now, and state taxes would be considerably higher to pay for the programs that belong to the states anyway. Or SHOULD belong to the states.

    According to the Liberal Lites like watson, if it isn’t done by the feds, it simply isn’t done.

    Colorado, for example, has a guaranteed-acceptance insurance plan for those who can’t get insurance anywhere else. It is subsidized by the state. Not by the federal government. By the state. And that is fine. This is something that is not an enumerated duty of the federal government, and it is not prohibited by any part of the Constitution, therefore it falls to the state, or to the people.

    • watsonredux September 18, 2011 / 4:21 pm

      Ah, Amasneera is back from her sabbatical. It’s hilarious how much you project, Amy. You are so desperate to prove you own supposed superiority that you make up complete personas for anonymous people on the Internet. Your such a child.

      • Bodie September 18, 2011 / 5:36 pm

        “It’s hilarious how much you project, Amy. ”

        For a while, I wasn’t sure Amazona wasn’t a spoof. But no, she really does have precisely zero self-awareness. Her mind has been absolutely pickled by right-wing lunacy, which makes her a comedy goldmine for those of us who aren’t deranged.

      • watsonredux September 18, 2011 / 6:36 pm

        Yeah, she hasn’t been around for a while. You can see that she immediately starts off by name-calling, a time-honored tradition here at b4v. Has she demanded that you explain your political philosophy yet? Hers is a strict reading of the constitution in which every possible interpretation demands that the federal government do absolutely nothing. And if the constitution doesn’t say what she wants, then she falls back to cheery picking quotes of the founding fathers as the ultimate authority.

      • Bodie September 19, 2011 / 11:13 am

        “Has she demanded that you explain your political philosophy yet?”

        Oh, constantly–and for added hilarity, when she asks somebody to explain their “political philosophy,” what she wants is a treatise in defense of outright Marxism. It doesn’t matter that you’re not a Marxist because in her mind, if you oppose her, then you have to be a Marxist. That’s what she considers reasonable, rational thought. Such is the consequence of being largely cut off from human contact and being immersed in right-wing bilge.

      • Amazona September 19, 2011 / 5:55 pm

        Awww, your little circle jerk is so amusing.

        Of course you can’t handle being asked to define your political philosophy, because neither of you HAS one, unless you define a pathological need to invade conservative blogs to hurl mindless insults a political philosophy.

        Poor ignorant watson just admitted that he simply does not comprehend the most basic element of political thought, in declaiming that gee, there is nothing Liberal or conservative in defying the Constitution to initiate federally-run single-payer health care. It was a blatant admission of abject political ignorance.

        You, Bodie, avoid that trap by merely refusing to write anything but insults, not exposing yourself to the inevitable revelation that you, too, have no true political compass. Well, you did skirt an actual statement when you lied and claimed that my only interpretation of the Constitution is that the federal government does absolutely nothing, but usually you just stick to plain old snottiness.

        Both of you are typical of what passes for Liberals these days—-social misfits seething with impotent rage and hostility, who have been convinced that if this pathology is directed toward an imaginary and demonized foe it is not crazy at all, but really just astute commentary.

        What neither of you has the integrity or intelligence to admit is that you are simply incapable of answering any direct question which requires even the most basic knowledge of and understanding of politics to respond. Your concept of politics is so primitive and mindless that no real idea is even considered valuable.

        Neither of you can identify or explain any political philosophy which goes beyond verbal vandalism. And this is quite clear to all who read the verbal excrement you deposit here.

      • Amazona September 19, 2011 / 6:02 pm

        “…cherry-picking quotes of the Founding Fathers…”

        So come up with some that contradict what I quote, brainiac.

        Or would that involve doing a little more than just regurgitating Lefty talking points and wallowing in irrational hatred of what you don’t even understand? You call it cherry-picking because you have no idea of what the Founding Fathers did or did not say, or what motivated them to do what they did, or how they explained and defined what they did, or how they defended what they did. So you just claim that the quotes I offer are selected to prove only one side of an argument.

        if that is the case, you ought to be able to provide some that dispute that side. Go for it……….

      • Bodie September 19, 2011 / 8:07 pm

        There she goes again–seething with impotent rage and hostility and insisting that no, you seethe with impotent rage and hostility! She’s not even in on the joke that she is–it’s great. Roger Ebert pointed out a while back: “A man wearing a funny hat is not funny. But a man who doesn’t know he’s wearing a funny hat … ah, now you’ve got something.” Amazona has that same lack of self-awareness as the man who doesn’t know he’s wearing a funny hat, and because of that, she’s quite funny.

    • watsonredux September 18, 2011 / 5:19 pm

      Amasneera, I looked up the Colorado guaranteed-acceptance insurance plan. It doesn’t cover everyone. They do have some plans subsidized by the state, but if you don’t qualify for them, then they direct you to the federal high risk pool, established by the Patient Protection and Affordability Act of 2010, and funded with federal dollars.

      Damn federal government. Please try again, Amy.

      • Amazona September 19, 2011 / 5:57 pm

        And without the federal intervention, Colorado would simply have stuck to the plan they had BEFORE the federal plan was implemented. As they will when the federal plan is found unconstitutional. Ahhhh, poor baby, all suckered into what you thought was a gotcha only to be proved ignorant, yet again.

        What’s that you Liberal snickerers like to say? Oh yeah—that’s gotta sting.

Comments are closed.