Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Using the verbal equivalency of circling the wagons, top Dems claim balancing the budget now would actually be a bad idea   (foxnews.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, Democrats, President Obama, balanced budgets, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, entitlement reform, David Axelrod  
•       •       •

941 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Sep 2012 at 11:35 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



321 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-03 01:08:27 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: Single-payer means rationing and a lower standard of case. Everyone in those "single payer countries" who can afford to come here and buy care, does.


You can't possibly be so stupid as to believe the nonsense you type. Every word I've quoted here is demonstrably, blatantly, magnificently untrue. Pure trollery, and not particularly high quality trollery at that.
 
2012-09-03 01:08:39 PM  

coeyagi: 10 U.S.C. 311: Clonod: just look at health care as a percentage of GDP in single payer countries, and you will become very jealous.

Ryan's plan doesn't fix anything. All it does is shift costs away from the federal government, and onto the elderly, or onto the states.


Single-payerA mandated public option means rationing and a lower standard of case. Everyone in those "single payer countries" who can afford to come here and buy care, does.

Ryan's plan shifts the costs onto the people who incur them, with government support to a defined benefit (i.e., a universal safety net).

It's "equal opportunity" vs. to "each according to his need."

FTFY


In the case of a mandate it of course wouldn't be an option, but you get the idea...
 
2012-09-03 01:08:41 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: Clonod: just look at health care as a percentage of GDP in single payer countries, and you will become very jealous.

Ryan's plan doesn't fix anything. All it does is shift costs away from the federal government, and onto the elderly, or onto the states.


Single-payer means rationing and a lower standard of case. Everyone in those "single payer countries" who can afford to come here and buy care, does.

Ryan's plan shifts the costs onto the people who incur them, with government support to a defined benefit (i.e., a universal safety net).

It's "equal opportunity" vs. to "each according to his need."


No. It doesn't. That's not how insurance works. Insurance is - by definition - an "each according to his need" proposition, whether the premiums are paid publicly or privately. That's the whole point. All you're doing is shifting costs with the voucher program.
 
2012-09-03 01:08:53 PM  

Clonod: So vote for the Republicans who refuse to cut DoD spending promises to increase defense spending by $500 Billion/year in ten years.


That will pay off our debt in no time!!!

The GOP really is looking out for us aren't they?
 
2012-09-03 01:09:02 PM  

12349876: So vote for the Republicans who refuse to cut DoD spending.

Mitt will also find efficiencies throughout the Department of Defense budget that can be reinvested into the force. The Department's bureaucracy is bloated to the point of dysfunction and is ripe for being pared. In the years since 2000, the Pentagon's civilian staff grew by 20 percent while our active duty fighting force grew by only 3.4 percent. That imbalance needs to be rectified. During World War II the United States built 1,000 ships per year with 1,000 people employed in the Bureau of Ships, as the purchasing department of the Department of the Navy was then called. By the 1980s, we were building seventeen ships per year, with 4,000 people in purchasing. Today, when we are building only nine ships a year, the Pentagon manages the shipbuilding process with some 25,000 people. That kind of excess must be brought to an end along with the byzantine rules and wasteful practices that riddle the military procurement process.

link
 
2012-09-03 01:09:19 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: Single-payer means rationing and a lower standard of case. Everyone in those "single payer countries" who can afford to come here and buy care, does.


Our current system rations based on income. There's tons of Americans going to third world countries because they can't afford healthcare here. And most single payer people coming here are doing treatments that are too expensive or too experimental to be available in countries that only have a few million people.
 
2012-09-03 01:09:21 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: Monkeyhouse Zendo: So what do you propose cutting? Social Security benefits? Medicare? Medicaid?

Yes. Plus an additional 10% reduction across the board (15% for the DoD).


You suck at specifics. So basically you want to cut retirement benefits for the elderly even though they've been paying into the system their entire lives, cut health coverage for the poor and indifent even though hospitals still have to treat them when it is an emergency, and you want the elderly to pay more for health care.

Good luck with that. Those programs are the few tangible benefits returned to the average American for their tax dollars.
 
2012-09-03 01:11:03 PM  

BMulligan: You can't possibly be so stupid as to believe the nonsense you type. Every word I've quoted here is demonstrably, blatantly, magnificently untrue. Pure trollery, and not particularly high quality trollery at that.


Hey now, he may just be painfully stupid. I think he falls well into the Poe zone.
 
2012-09-03 01:11:22 PM  
For all his reputation as a budget hawk, Ryan has been a dove when it comes to defense spending - so much so that he accused Pentagon leaders of misleading Congress earlier this year when they said President Barack Obama's budget was adequate for the job they had to do.

"We don't think the generals are giving us their true advice," Ryan said in March. "We don't think the generals believe that their budget is really the right budget."


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79596.html#ixzz25QZiXdXn
 
2012-09-03 01:11:24 PM  

Clonod: No. It doesn't. That's not how insurance works. Insurance is - by definition - an "each according to his need" proposition, whether the premiums are paid publicly or privately. That's the whole point.


Insurance is a tool for spreading risk. But insurers get to set criteria for managing that risk.

In a single-payer system, there's no limiting criteria. Calling single-payer "insurance" is a lie.
 
2012-09-03 01:12:05 PM  

12349876: Our current system rations based on income.


That's called life.
 
2012-09-03 01:12:15 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: Insurance is a tool for spreading risk. But insurers get to set criteria for managing that risk.


Like saying fark you if you have preexisting conditions. So much for "right to life"
 
2012-09-03 01:12:44 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: Mitt will also find efficiencies throughout the Department of Defense budget that can be reinvested into the force. The Department's bureaucracy is bloated to the point of dysfunction and is ripe for being pared. In the years since 2000, the Pentagon's civilian staff grew by 20 percent while our active duty fighting force grew by only 3.4 percent. That imbalance needs to be rectified.


So you're saying the privatization doesn't work?
 
2012-09-03 01:13:02 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: 12349876: So vote for the Republicans who refuse to cut DoD spending.

Mitt will also find efficiencies throughout the Department of Defense budget that can be reinvested into the force. The Department's bureaucracy is bloated to the point of dysfunction and is ripe for being pared. In the years since 2000, the Pentagon's civilian staff grew by 20 percent while our active duty fighting force grew by only 3.4 percent. That imbalance needs to be rectified. During World War II the United States built 1,000 ships per year with 1,000 people employed in the Bureau of Ships, as the purchasing department of the Department of the Navy was then called. By the 1980s, we were building seventeen ships per year, with 4,000 people in purchasing. Today, when we are building only nine ships a year, the Pentagon manages the shipbuilding process with some 25,000 people. That kind of excess must be brought to an end along with the byzantine rules and wasteful practices that riddle the military procurement process.

link


Every president ever has promised to tackle "inefficiencies" in defense spending. Obama is the first to ever do it.

What Romney is *not* doing in that quote is promise to reduce defense spending. Even if he finds those inefficiencies, he will use those savings to fund other defense programs. Your own quote says that. Again, he has promised to peg defense spending to 4% of GDP, which would inevitably lead to a *massive* increase in defense spending.

You want to reduce DoD spending by 15%, which is noble. Romney is light years apart from you on this issue.

Admit it.
 
2012-09-03 01:13:24 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: 12349876: Our current system rations based on income.

That's called life.


Thanks for outing yourself as a "fark you i've got mine" person. No reason to continue debating with you, because you don't give a shiat about those less fortunate than you are.
 
2012-09-03 01:13:43 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 10 U.S.C. 311: Monkeyhouse Zendo: So what do you propose cutting? Social Security benefits? Medicare? Medicaid?

Yes. Plus an additional 10% reduction across the board (15% for the DoD).

Simple solutions for the simple minds.

 

greenobles.com

Hey! Hey! Hey!

 
2012-09-03 01:14:37 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: 12349876: Our current system rations based on income.

That's called life.


Not in just about every other first world nation, it isn't. This is why I encourage Americans to travel outside the nation. Our health care and social policies border on sociopathic.
 
2012-09-03 01:19:25 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: Clonod: No. It doesn't. That's not how insurance works. Insurance is - by definition - an "each according to his need" proposition, whether the premiums are paid publicly or privately. That's the whole point.

Insurance is a tool for spreading risk. But insurers get to set criteria for managing that risk.

In a single-payer system, there's no limiting criteria. Calling single-payer "insurance" is a lie.


Semantic arguments are for losers.

Let me ask you a question - do you think individuals in this country have a right to healthcare if they get sick? What about the elderly?
 
2012-09-03 01:19:44 PM  
Some examples of rationing based on income:

images.newcars.com

www.historicproperties.ky.gov

2.bp.blogspot.com

lorcaserinweightloss.com

4.bp.blogspot.com

Outrageous!

www.suburbanjungle.net
 
2012-09-03 01:20:36 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: 12349876: So vote for the Republicans who refuse to cut DoD spending.

Mitt will also find efficiencies throughout the Department of Defense budget that can be reinvested into the force. The Department's bureaucracy is bloated to the point of dysfunction and is ripe for being pared. In the years since 2000, the Pentagon's civilian staff grew by 20 percent while our active duty fighting force grew by only 3.4 percent. That imbalance needs to be rectified. During World War II the United States built 1,000 ships per year with 1,000 people employed in the Bureau of Ships, as the purchasing department of the Department of the Navy was then called. By the 1980s, we were building seventeen ships per year, with 4,000 people in purchasing. Today, when we are building only nine ships a year, the Pentagon manages the shipbuilding process with some 25,000 people. That kind of excess must be brought to an end along with the byzantine rules and wasteful practices that riddle the military procurement process.

link


Yeah, todays hi-tech ships and advanced weapons systems shouldn't require any more oversight than the relatively simple machines of WWII. Go back just a few more years and you'll find that Ogg could tie a rock to a stick all by himself.
 
2012-09-03 01:21:53 PM  

Clonod: do you think individuals in this country have a right to healthcare if they get sick?


No. However, I do value charity.

Clonod: What about the elderly?


Only those who qualified by paying into the system.
 
2012-09-03 01:23:27 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: Clonod: do you think individuals in this country have a right to healthcare if they get sick?

No. However, I do value charity.

Clonod: What about the elderly?

Only those who qualified by paying into the system.


Okay, fair enough. So you think we should repeal Reagan's law that guarantees emergency room treatment regardless of coverage, and you want to get rid of medicaid.

What about kids?
 
2012-09-03 01:23:39 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: Yeah, todays hi-tech ships and advanced weapons systems shouldn't require any more oversight than the relatively simple machines of WWII.


Right. That's the problem...

I'll just leave this here: http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-lcs-sausage-factory.htm l
 
2012-09-03 01:24:24 PM  

BMulligan: And by the way, in what universe do transfer payments not create economic activity? What do you think happens to all those Social Security checks, anyway?


They think that because you're not purchasing a good or service, it means that there is no economic activity. Strangely, they also think that such transfer payments, despite the only "spending" being on limited administrative costs, are crowing out private activity. Even worse, they often act like government spending means that the money just disappears. And if you press them further, that this disappearing money will be the cause of hyperinflation.

Basically, their view on economics is exemplified by their response to Keynes.

"If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is."

They regularly bring this up as an example of how crazy/stupid/etc. Keynes was. Yet if you asked any of them if digging up Gold, smelting it, and then burying it again in vaults produced economic activity, they would answer with a resounding "Yes!". The acts are almost identical. To them, economic activity has nothing to do with work being done but, instead, is based on whether that activity was allocated by markets. To them, markets are always more efficient than central planning.. and it's true, but only because they define "efficiency" as having been allocated by markets. If it was legal to pay someone to bomb a competing company's headquarters, we could have entire cities burning with efficiency.

While there are most certainly arguments to be made about the long-term efficiency of central planning, they don't make these arguments. They prefer to screw with semantics until they can claim possession of the words of power. In the process, they manage to completely misdiagnose our economic problems.
 
2012-09-03 01:27:12 PM  
Clonod:Okay, fair enough. So you think we should repeal Reagan's law that guarantees emergency room treatment regardless of coverage.

Not really, but there's a slippery slope there. I do have a soft spot for care for truly emergent conditions, but we both know that it's just a gateway...

Clonod: and you want to get rid of medicaid.

Drastically scale back. It's a state program anyway. If we start by returning it to the states entirely, we might not have to go further.

Clonod: What about kids?

S-CHIP is also a state program (that's what the S is for). See above.
 
2012-09-03 01:29:57 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: No. However, I do value charity


How do you feel about the fact that our lack of affordable health care for all citizens is a significant drag on business and negatively affects our ability to compete with other nations?
 
2012-09-03 01:30:36 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: Some examples of rationing based on income:

Outrageous!


Those are all examples of goods or services which are efficiently allocated by market forces. Health care, on the other hand, is not. All of the hallmarks of a well-functioning market - equality of information and bargaining power, the ability to walk away from a transaction if the price is unacceptable, the existence of other goods or services which can be substituted - are all missing from the market for health care.
 
2012-09-03 01:30:38 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: Clonod:Okay, fair enough. So you think we should repeal Reagan's law that guarantees emergency room treatment regardless of coverage.

Not really, but there's a slippery slope there. I do have a soft spot for care for truly emergent conditions, but we both know that it's just a gateway...

Clonod: and you want to get rid of medicaid.

Drastically scale back. It's a state program anyway. If we start by returning it to the states entirely, we might not have to go further.

Clonod: What about kids?

S-CHIP is also a state program (that's what the S is for). See above.


Sorry but that's nonsense. You JUST SAID that you don't think individuals have a right to health care. So why is it okay for state governments to pay for it. You should oppose it on that level as well, correct?
 
2012-09-03 01:30:40 PM  

falkone32: Yet if you asked any of them if digging up Gold, smelting it, and then burying it again in vaults produced economic activity, they would answer with a resounding "Yes!".


That activity isn't economic activity, it's the product of economic activity, as gold is a medium of exchange (or decoration).

falkone32: The acts are almost identical.


No, they're complete opposites. On involves inflating a fiat currency to cause activity, and the other involves a market-driven production process.
 
2012-09-03 01:31:48 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: Clonod: What about kids?

S-CHIP is also a state program (that's what the S is for). See above.


"State and Federal Funding for CHIP
Like Medicaid, CHIP is administered by the states, but is jointly funded by the federal government and states. The Federal matching rate for state CHIP programs is typically about 15 percentage points higher than the Medicaid matching rate for that state (i.e. a State with a 50% Medicaid FMAP has an "enhanced" CHIP matching rate of 65%). Every state administers its own CHIP program with broad guidance from CMS."

medicaid.gov
 
2012-09-03 01:32:09 PM  

Clonod: You JUST SAID that you don't think individuals have a right to health care. So why is it okay for state governments to pay for it. You should oppose it on that level as well, correct?


I do. Reread my comment, particularly the "start by" part.
 
2012-09-03 01:33:16 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: 10 U.S.C. 311: No. However, I do value charity

How do you feel about the fact that our lack of affordable health care for all citizens is a significant drag on business and negatively affects our ability to compete with other nations?


Stop being obtuse. The next time someone needs a heart transplant, they can just hold a chicken dinner benefit to raise the hundreds of thousands of dollars they need.

When a kid has leukemia, the parents can hold a bake sale to raise the money.

Duh. Charity totally works.
 
2012-09-03 01:33:46 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: How do you feel about the fact that our lack of affordable the crushing burden of federal regulations regarding health care for all citizens is a significant drag on business and negatively affects our ability to compete with other nations?


FTFY.
 
2012-09-03 01:34:46 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: Clonod: You JUST SAID that you don't think individuals have a right to health care. So why is it okay for state governments to pay for it. You should oppose it on that level as well, correct?

I do. Reread my comment, particularly the "start by" part.


But why "drastically scale back" on Medicaid? Philosophically, you would prefer it doesn't exist at all, correct? Same with S-CHIP?
 
2012-09-03 01:36:25 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: More_Like_A_Stain: Yeah, todays hi-tech ships and advanced weapons systems shouldn't require any more oversight than the relatively simple machines of WWII.

Right. That's the problem...

I'll just leave this here: http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-lcs-sausage-factory.htm l


So how does fewer people, and especially fewer civilians involved in the process, alleviate this? Because that was your original complaint, right? The expansion of the number of people involved with building warships, and so many of those people being non-military.
 
2012-09-03 01:37:58 PM  

gimmegimme: Stop being obtuse. The next time someone needs a heart transplant, they can just hold a chicken dinner benefit to raise the hundreds of thousands of dollars they need.

When a kid has leukemia, the parents can hold a bake sale to raise the money.

Duh. Charity totally works.


I know, if Medicare and Medicaid were just disbanded, everyone would suddenly start donating that portion of FICA to charities.

I sometimes wonder if people who espouse charity over guaranteed government assistance just want to see the poor and hungry beg.
 
2012-09-03 01:38:24 PM  

Clonod: But why "drastically scale back" on Medicaid? Philosophically, you would prefer it doesn't exist at all, correct? Same with S-CHIP?


Yes. But philosophically I would also prefer that the government not do a lot of things. I was trying to give you a reality-based answer.

Make these programs manageable and we can keep the benefits without being smothered by the costs.
 
2012-09-03 01:39:01 PM  

gimmegimme: When a kid has leukemia, the parents can hold a bake sale to raise the money.


greylining.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-03 01:40:16 PM  

BMulligan: Health care, on the other hand, is not. All of the hallmarks of a well-functioning market - equality of information and bargaining power, the ability to walk away from a transaction if the price is unacceptable, the existence of other goods or services which can be substituted - are all missing from the market for health care.


And this is why it should be left to the free market rather than single-payer or public option insurance?
 
2012-09-03 01:41:07 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: gimmegimme: When a kid has leukemia, the parents can hold a bake sale to raise the money.

[greylining.files.wordpress.com image 400x331]


Hey, maybe we could make it a business transaction. The government will pay to fix your childhood leukemia, but you have to give the government 20% of everything you make for the rest of your life.

Good idea!
 
2012-09-03 01:41:34 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: Monkeyhouse Zendo: How do you feel about the fact that our lack of affordable the crushing burden of federal regulations regarding health care for all citizens is a significant drag on business and negatively affects our ability to compete with other nations?

FTFY.


You're starting to migrate out of the area of uncertainty where I think you're just poorly informed and into the 'likely trolling' area.

If you're going to whine about crushing federal regulations, be specific. If they're that burdensome you should have no problem finding examples of how the government boot is on the neck of American business despite record profits and markets.
 
2012-09-03 01:41:37 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: Clonod: But why "drastically scale back" on Medicaid? Philosophically, you would prefer it doesn't exist at all, correct? Same with S-CHIP?

Yes. But philosophically I would also prefer that the government not do a lot of things. I was trying to give you a reality-based answer.

Make these programs manageable and we can keep the benefits without being smothered by the costs.


Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure I fully understood where you were coming from. So the fact is, you don't really give a crap about the quality or availability of health care under these programs. If that's the case, then I fully encourage you to support Mitt Romney on the issue of health care.
 
2012-09-03 01:42:47 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: BMulligan: Health care, on the other hand, is not. All of the hallmarks of a well-functioning market - equality of information and bargaining power, the ability to walk away from a transaction if the price is unacceptable, the existence of other goods or services which can be substituted - are all missing from the market for health care.

And this is why it should be left to the free market rather than single-payer or public option insurance?


Um - no. If that's what I seemed to be saying then I misspoke, because I actually intended the opposite.

10 U.S.C. 311: fiat currency


DRINK!
 
2012-09-03 01:43:11 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: Clonod: just look at health care as a percentage of GDP in single payer countries, and you will become very jealous.

Ryan's plan doesn't fix anything. All it does is shift costs away from the federal government, and onto the elderly, or onto the states.


Single-payer means rationing...


We already have rationing. I'd rather have the government's bureaucrats do the rationing than the HMO's bureaucrats, since the HMO's people get paid more when they make a profit.

... and a lower standard of case.

Define "lower standard of care" -- lower than what? -- then compare it to the standard of care afforded to the average worker at Walmart.

Everyone in those "single payer countries" who can afford to come here and buy care, does.

You sure you want to go with "everyone"? Because the last time I heard, Harley Street hadn't turned into a slum.

Ryan's plan shifts the costs onto the people who incur them, with government support to a defined benefit (i.e., a universal safety net).

It's "equal opportunity" vs. to "each according to his need."


Supply-side Jesus approves of vouchers.
 
2012-09-03 01:44:39 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: www.heritage.org


You realize things would be a lot better if wages hadn't been stagnant for 30 years? Also, your graph

No. However, I do value charity.

So you'd support mandating non-profit hospitals, which as part of their existing promise charity care, actually deliver charity care to a certain percentage of patients each year?
 
2012-09-03 01:44:50 PM  
GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

If C, I, and (X-M) aren't performing, you're only left with G.

/it's really not that goddamned hard to understand, conservatives/libertarians
 
2012-09-03 01:45:51 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I sometimes wonder if people who espouse charity over guaranteed government assistance just want to see the poor and hungry beg.


Yes they do. And they think the late 1800s were awesome, what with the people living in squalor, with no protections to speak of.
 
2012-09-03 01:46:02 PM  

10 U.S.C. 311: Single-payer means rationing and a lower standard of case.


(1) MARKETS RATION and (2) No.
 
2012-09-03 01:47:23 PM  

gimmegimme: Hey, maybe we could make it a business transaction. The government will pay to fix your childhood leukemia, but you have to give the government 20% of everything you make for the rest of your life.

Good idea!


You know, we could probably generalize that such that everyone above the poverty level gave the government some fraction of their income and the government, in turn, would guarantee that their health care would be paid for.
 
2012-09-03 01:48:08 PM  

gameshowhost: (1) MARKETS RATION and (2) No.


I suspect he has no problem with insurance companies refusing to cover treatments and shoving people out of hospitals when they refuse to cover recovery times doctors want.
 
Displayed 50 of 321 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report