rehmwa 2 #26 September 27, 2011 Quote>It likely could have - but then the red states would have been in an even worse bind perhaps - perhaps they would have been able to take care of themselves with what they had - without the government money laundering and all the strings attached then this whole concept of who is 'getting' more or less charity in return for their forced contributions would be moot most times the answers are easy - they just are not palatable to small voting demographics ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #27 September 27, 2011 Quote perhaps they would have been able to take care of themselves with what they had - without the government money laundering and all the strings attached I'm missing your point. Are you suggesting California solve it's budgetary problems by seceding from the union? I thought only Texas could do that. (and only in their drunken fantasies) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #28 September 27, 2011 you can infer whatever point you like - including that strawman extrapolation - but I won't bite however, one might consider that there are areas where the the feds don't need to be involved and it would be advantageous to get the feds out of it and allow the states to take of those areas on their own - identify those areas - one factor could be trade off of the large inefficiencies the fed brings vs cross support between the states or one might not - I don't much care ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 September 27, 2011 Quoteyou can infer whatever point you like - including that strawman extrapolation - but I won't bite I'm waiting for you to make any lucid point here. I tried filling in the blanks for you. Instead you're vaguely proposing some non workable something that would be DOA in Congress, as most states enjoy being subsidized by California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and a few more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #30 September 27, 2011 QuoteMaybe citizens of those "red states" that freeload off the others should pay more. That would be "fair". Wow, that is the best you can do? Lame Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #31 October 3, 2011 If the healthcare plan really is so bad, why does Cain need to lie about it? www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/27/herman-cain/herman-cain-said-government-bureaucrats-will-deter/... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 October 3, 2011 Quote If the healthcare plan really is so bad, why does Cain need to lie about it? www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/27/herman-cain/herman-cain-said-government-bureaucrats-will-deter/ I'm don't agree with their analysis. 10 years back, when I had an HMO plan with a primary care physician approving all actions, it took 6 weeks to get approval for a simple hep A booster shot. Since then, I've stuck to somewhat more expensive PPO plans where I make the decisions. And the price of that PPO plan puts me pretty close to that supposed "Cadillac Plan" limits, which are also being attacked by this new health care structure in order to encourage cost cutting by medical providers. The PCP or other review processes before expenditures is a common aspect. I have seen this is action as well, though fortunately after the fact. I had a CAT scan claim rejected as medically unnecessary and therefore to not be paid by some back office doctor with Blue Shield. Funny enough, they did pay for the intervention that was performed as a result of the "unneeded" CAT scan. It took nearly 2 years of back and forth between them and the hospital before it was paid for good. --- So is his statement true, possibly true, an exaggeration, or outright lies? Sorry, it's definitely not the last one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #33 October 4, 2011 QuoteQuote If the healthcare plan really is so bad, why does Cain need to lie about it? www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/27/herman-cain/herman-cain-said-government-bureaucrats-will-deter/ I'm don't agree with their analysis. 10 years back, when I had an HMO plan with a primary care physician approving all actions, it took 6 weeks to get approval for a simple hep A booster shot. Since then, I've stuck to somewhat more expensive PPO plans where I make the decisions. And the price of that PPO plan puts me pretty close to that supposed "Cadillac Plan" limits, which are also being attacked by this new health care structure in order to encourage cost cutting by medical providers. The PCP or other review processes before expenditures is a common aspect. I have seen this is action as well, though fortunately after the fact. I had a CAT scan claim rejected as medically unnecessary and therefore to not be paid by some back office doctor with Blue Shield. Funny enough, they did pay for the intervention that was performed as a result of the "unneeded" CAT scan. It took nearly 2 years of back and forth between them and the hospital before it was paid for good. --- So is his statement true, possibly true, an exaggeration, or outright lies? Sorry, it's definitely not the last one. Your experience with a PPO several years ago is not evidence of anything at all relating to Cain's lies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 October 4, 2011 Quote Your experience with a PPO several years ago is not evidence of anything at all relating to Cain's lies. ouch...such a devastating response from the professor! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #35 October 4, 2011 QuoteQuote Your experience with a PPO several years ago is not evidence of anything at all relating to Cain's lies. ouch...such a devastating response from the professor! It's all that's necessary, though.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 October 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Your experience with a PPO several years ago is not evidence of anything at all relating to Cain's lies. ouch...such a devastating response from the professor! It's all that's necessary, though. to a physics professor, perhaps. But since you called him a liar, you have a higher burden of proof to make and you failed. Typical for you, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #37 October 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Your experience with a PPO several years ago is not evidence of anything at all relating to Cain's lies. ouch...such a devastating response from the professor! It's all that's necessary, though. to a physics professor, perhaps. But since you called him a liar, you have a higher burden of proof to make and you failed. Typical for you, though. Politifact called him a liar and gave the reasons. Your argument is just silly. Rather like saying a Mercedes will cause accidents because a Pinto's gas tank exploded some years ago.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #38 October 4, 2011 Quote Politifact called him a liar and gave the reasons. No, you called him a liar. They simply declared his conclusion false, but their reasons are not authoritative given that we have yet to see any implementation of ObamaCare, and with the likely Supreme Court defeat coming this year we may never. Cain and I made rather logical conclusions about how it is likely to play out. While PolitiFact wants to dismiss the Canadian experience, it's apparent that OC is a false compromise between the status quo and a single payer system. Either we have to go all the way, or we give up on it and revert to the current system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #39 October 6, 2011 9" pizza, 9 toppings, for 9 dollars Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #40 October 7, 2011 QuoteQuote Politifact called him a liar and gave the reasons. No, you called him a liar. They simply declared his conclusion false, but their reasons are not authoritative given that we have yet to see any implementation of ObamaCare, and with the likely Supreme Court defeat coming this year we may never. Cain and I made rather logical conclusions about how it is likely to play out. While PolitiFact wants to dismiss the Canadian experience, it's apparent that OC is a false compromise between the status quo and a single payer system. Either we have to go all the way, or we give up on it and revert to the current system. FactCheck.org calls him a liar too. Maybe it's you that is mistaken. "Cain’s Cancer: Cain told a whopper when he said he “would be dead under Obamacare” because the cancer that was detected in 2006 was found early and “I was able to get the necessary CAT scan tests, go to the necessary doctors, get a second opinion, get chemotherapy.” But, “If we had been under Obamacare and a bureaucrat was trying to tell me when I could get that CAT scan that would have delayed my treatment.” But the truth is that nothing in the new law would require any patient to clear CAT scans or medical treatment with “a bureaucrat.” Cain is simply reviving the old “death panel” claim, which topped our list of the “Whoppers of 2009.”... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 October 7, 2011 Quote But the truth is that nothing in the new law would require any patient to clear CAT scans or medical treatment with “a bureaucrat.” Well, the truth is that this absolute is a lie. 'The Cadillac tax isn't intended as a way to generate a lot of income for the government. Instead, it's designed to hold down health costs by making people more aware of the costs of medical care. It taxes high-cost insurance policies provided by employers, with the idea that employers will instead buy lower-cost, nontaxed plans. ' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,466 #42 October 7, 2011 >Cain’s Cancer: Cain told a whopper when he said he “would be dead under >Obamacare” because the cancer that was detected in 2006 was found early and “I was >able to get the necessary CAT scan tests, go to the necessary doctors, get a second >opinion, get chemotherapy.” Well, there's always the Tea Party solution - "let him die!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #43 October 7, 2011 Quote>Cain’s Cancer: Cain told a whopper when he said he “would be dead under >Obamacare” because the cancer that was detected in 2006 was found early and “I was >able to get the necessary CAT scan tests, go to the necessary doctors, get a second >opinion, get chemotherapy.” Well, there's always the Tea Party solution - "let him die!" Hah, now there's a misplaced dig.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #44 October 7, 2011 QuoteQuote But the truth is that nothing in the new law would require any patient to clear CAT scans or medical treatment with “a bureaucrat.” Well, the truth is that this absolute is a lie. 'The Cadillac tax isn't intended as a way to generate a lot of income for the government. Instead, it's designed to hold down health costs by making people more aware of the costs of medical care. It taxes high-cost insurance policies provided by employers, with the idea that employers will instead buy lower-cost, nontaxed plans. ' The truth is that you are not being truthful.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 October 7, 2011 QuoteQuote>Cain’s Cancer: Cain told a whopper when he said he “would be dead under >Obamacare” because the cancer that was detected in 2006 was found early and “I was >able to get the necessary CAT scan tests, go to the necessary doctors, get a second >opinion, get chemotherapy.” Well, there's always the Tea Party solution - "let him die!" Hah, now there's a misplaced dig. You make it sound like that's not the case for the majority of them.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 October 7, 2011 Quote The truth is that you are not being truthful. right back at you. too bad you can't articulate any further. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #47 October 7, 2011 QuoteQuote The truth is that you are not being truthful. right back at you. too bad you can't articulate any further. Don't need to, both Politifact and FactCheck articulated it very well, in contradiction to your anecdote.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #48 October 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote The truth is that you are not being truthful. right back at you. too bad you can't articulate any further. Don't need to, both Politifact and FactCheck articulated it very well, in contradiction to your anecdote. no, they ignored the subject entirely. And you hide behind them, rather than represent them in the debate. Of course it's easy to overlook something that won't be implemented for years, and may morph considerable by then. Were Obama somehow got a landslide victory next year, it might morph into the single payer system the advocates really wanted. The Cadillac tax may never come into being. But it's there now and the obvious way to reduce plan fees is to reduce plan costs via the PCP process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #49 October 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The truth is that you are not being truthful. right back at you. too bad you can't articulate any further. Don't need to, both Politifact and FactCheck articulated it very well, in contradiction to your anecdote. no, they ignored the subject entirely. And you hide behind them, rather than represent them in the debate. Of course it's easy to overlook something that won't be implemented for years, and may morph considerable by then. Were Obama somehow got a landslide victory next year, it might morph into the single payer system the advocates really wanted. The Cadillac tax may never come into being. But it's there now and the obvious way to reduce plan fees is to reduce plan costs via the PCP process. Been taking debate lessons from daVinci?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #50 October 17, 2011 He is not proposing a sales tax on used items, so the poor will still be able to get food tax-free.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
