How many ways do I find thee stupid? Let me count the ways.
(06-27-2011 07:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: If you weren't so busy name-calling and being a jerk...
Be careful of hypocritical whiplash. You constantly bemoan name-calling, but regularly engage in it. You know what that makes you.
(06-27-2011 07:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: One point in passing for those who put forth claims that Medicare is somehow more efficient than private insurers--the management of Medicare is pretty much outsourced to guess whom? Those private insurers.
And you think this somehow proves me wrong when I say Medicare is much more efficient? It proves me right. Medicare is more efficient because of its economy-of-scale. It has the power to demand and extract lower prices from suppliers. Ever hear of Wal-Mart? What a dumba$$. Sorry, that wasn't nice of me. It's true, but not very nice.
(06-27-2011 07:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: There are three ways to reduce costs in health care--1) reduce the number of people covered, 2) reduce the scope of services provided, or 3) reduce quality (or increase delays, which amounts to reduced quality).
Talk about being wayyyyyy of base. Neither #1 or #2 reduce the cost of healthcare. In fact, they probably raise it. All those two do is shift the costs elsewhere and allow easily treated conditions to degenerate into costly conditions. And of course you mischaracterize #3 because you must in order to maintain your flawed arguments. I agree that spending less on the costly fixed assets and constraining supply of care for non-acute conditions (causing wait times) does lead to significantly lower costs. The Canadian system has had to grapple with supply issues for years now and has been fairly successful in dropping wait times. You will still wait longer in Canada for a knee or hip replacement, but it's getting to be fairly reasonable. My father had both of his knees replaced, and he waited several months here in the USA. It's not as though we don't have wait times for non-critical conditions here, they're just not nearly as long. If the Canadian system continues to reduce wait times like they have over the past five years, it won't be long before they're very similar to our own. I think Americans would accept some wait times if it meant solid finances for our nation. Of course I'm not touting the Canadian model for the USA because it would fail miserably here since each Canadian province is responsible for the actual provision of health care. Some states would flourish under such a system, but others would crash and burn. Given that you live in Texas, I understand why you wouldn't want to see a similar system in the USA.
(06-27-2011 07:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I'd say it's reasonable to describe the far right as wanting 100% spending cuts and no tax increases, and you've pretty much defined the far left position as 50% or more tax increases, leaving the middle somewhere close to 75/25. Your opposition to the deficit reduction commission report and other bipartisan efforts shows how far away from the center you are.
Rivlin-Domenici: Alice Rivlin - Clinton Director of OMB; Pete Dominici - Former GOP senator from New Mexico. Gee, that doesn't seem bipartisan. You're an idiot. Let me help you out - far right = 100% spending cuts; far-left = 100% tax increases; middle = 50/50. I hope your old, decrepit brain can still comprehend that.
(06-27-2011 07:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I think we should be adopting the deficit reduction committee recommendations and replacing Obamacare with a Bismarck approach. If that makes me a right-winger in your mind, then you are way off the left end of reality.
Oh, you're a right-winger through and through. You love Simpson-Bowles because you get to claim that 80% spending cuts and 20% tax increases (which still don't even begin to address the disparity instituted under the Bush tax cuts) is a moderate position. It's not such thing. The Rivlin-Domenici plan is a more moderate position, but you won't touch that with a 29.5 foot pole. And then there's the health care thing. We all know that health care costs are going to wreck the budget over the next several decades. So it seems like it ought to be a very important issue to you and anyone who cares about both health care and the fiscal stability of the nation. So you favor a pretty decent plan that could do wonders for costs in our nation, but you throw your hat in with the very lot who would shoot that plan dead long before it ever got a chance here. Could you even imagine the response if the President announced his intentions to work towards moving America to a European-style (specifically a French-style) health care system? Right-wingers would go nuts. You're not completely stupid, so I assume you know this. Yet those are the people you're running with. So I don't think you have much credibility on the issue. You just use it to camoflauge the fact that you favor every economic policy that puts a burden on the middle-class and enriches the wealthy even more. You're clearly a believer that whatever is good for corporations is good for America. I take the more moderate approach that whatever is good for corporations
might be good for America; and we have to weigh the costs and benefits for all of America before deciding if it is good or bad.
Anyway, I look forward to your next error-riddled, logic-impaired screed.
/
Jim DeMint: If you vote to raise debt ceiling, you're gone.
