Posted by Charity on June 25th, 2009

No, I did not watch the infomercial for Obama’s health care reform, but I have been wanting to say this.

According to President Obama,

“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan, period.”

Last night, the president clarified that statement.

“When I say if you have your plan and you like it, . . . or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don’t have to change plans, what I’m saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.”

The reality is that, for most people, their employers will choose whether or not to abandon the private system for the government plan.

Think about that for a minute.  The government is going to come along with this low-cost, taxpayer-subsidized health care plan and your employer will get to choose between that and the plan they currently offer you.

Cheap government insurance vs. expensive private insurance.  What will they choose?

Hint: your employer probably cares about the cost, not so much the quality – and not so much about how much you like your plan.

Bottom line: You will not be able to keep your health insurance plan.

Once the government has a monopoly, how good do you think your health care will be?

Every honest conversation about health care reform has included talk about changing what we in America expect from our health care system, which is a nice way to say we have to expect less from it, if we want a public system.

One of the proposed savings measures is eliminating “unnecessary” tests.  I don’t know about you, but I want my doctor – not the government – deciding what tests are necessary.

And once the government controls health care, they will be able to regulate almost every aspect of our lives (the few they don’t already) because it is for the common good to keep us healthy, according to what the government deems necessary to that end.

On the bright side, maybe we won’t have to hear that tired old phrase “for the children” any more.  Now it will be “for our health.”

73 Responses to “You Will Not Be Able To Keep Your Health Insurance Plan”

  1. Simple question for you. If Bob got laid off and you lost your insurance- would you leave your children uninsured, or would you apply for Dr. Dynasaur?

  2. If Bob got laid off we would keep the insurance we already have. It would be expensive, but not as expensive as having a medical emergency while uninsured.

    What does Dr. Dyno have to do with it? Last I checked, gov. health insurance for kids already exists under the current system.

    That reminds me, when I worked at Bank North, the HR director actively encouraged people to apply for Dr. Dynasaur. That is why they priced family coverage out of reach; they could pawn it off on the state. I am sure they are very excited that soon they will be able to pawn all coverage off on the government, leaving more profits for them!!!

    Haik, you cannot try to use my own life to convince me that gov. health care is good. I grew up on welfare, for Pete’s sake. I am quite aware of how government programs work.

  3. If Bob got laid off we would keep the insurance we already have. It would be expensive, but not as expensive as having a medical emergency while uninsured.

    And how will you pay for it without the income? What will you do when the money runs out?

    I grew up on welfare, for Pete’s sake.

    Then why aren’t you grateful it’s there?

  4. And how will you pay for it without the income? What will you do when the money runs out?

    Savings, unemployment, getting a new job.

    How will we pay our rent? How will we buy food? Should we expand government housing and food stamps to cover everyone, too, like we want to do with health care?

    Then why aren’t you grateful it’s there?

    That’s a post on its own. There is a huge difference between welfare for the poor and putting hundreds of thousands of able-bodied Americans, who already have insurance, on the public dole. Apples/oranges.

  5. That reminds me, when I worked at Bank North, the HR director actively encouraged people to apply for Dr. Dynasaur.

    Exactly. Wal-Mart does that too. Don’t you see? Public health insurance is good for business. Think how many more people they could hire without the crushing burden of insuring their workers. Our idiotic system makes puts American companies at a huge disadvataged compared to their global competitors.

    And speaking of having a medical emergency while uninsured- why do we treat uninsured people who can’t pay at the emergency room? Isn’t that socialist? Don’t you think we should just let them die so other people don’t have to pay for them? Why do they think they’re entitled to have their lives saved?

  6. Savings, unemployment, getting a new job.

    Unemployment? That’s socialism. Savings run out. A new job might not come with benefits. COBRA expires.

    The fact is people who never thought they would ask for assistance, who have voted for Republicans their whole lives, who have looked down their noses at others who need help- find themselves needing help more and more every day.

    The only reason you attack public health insurance is because you happen not to need it right now. When you need it, you will be just like anyone else in a tough situation. You will insist it be there for you and be more than happy to accept it.

    It happens to people, just like you. Every day. All the time.

  7. You know, good policy is not based on my, your, or anyone’s personal situation. Anyone who bases public policy on what is best for themselves is beyond selfish.

    It has been pointed out plenty of times that my policy positions are often not in my personal best interest, at least short-term.

    America is bigger than me and I am not so egotistical to think it isn’t.

    If you want to personally attack me rather than discuss the merits of a government system, this conversation is over.

    As I said before, temporary help for those in need is not the same as driving out private insurers and putting everyone on the taxpayer funded system.

  8. I certainly don’t mean to attack you personally. If it came across that way, I apologize.

    But answer my question about the hypothetical person at the emergency room. He has no insurance and no money. If he’s treated, he will live. If he’s not treated he will die. If nobody is entitled to health care, then why shouldn’t we let him die?

    It’s a serious question which I think goes to the heart of this whole debate, and, respectfully, I’d like to hear your answer.

  9. “their employers will choose whether or not to abandon the private system for the government plan”

    …just like they do now under our current health care system. Most employers can change health care plans whenever they want to. My Dad’s old company changed health care plans to a plan that he thought wasn’t very good, so he had so go out on his own & buy into a plan by himself, out of his own pocket.

    “your employer probably cares about the cost, not so much the quality – and not so much about how much you like your plan.”

    This, of course, assumes that any “public option” (which is far, far away from being defined) will be of “less quality”, which is a wild assumption at best. I’ll bet that there are plenty of companies out there that are unionized that won’t be able to just switch health care plans at the whim of a corporate leader, which is one of the many reasons why more people, IMHO, should belong to unions.

    “You will not be able to keep your health insurance plan”

    …and the fear-mongering continues…

    “Once the government has a monopoly, how good do you think your health care will be?”

    Well, assuming that where we are headed for is a “govt. monopoly”, given the the success rates of every other country in the world that has a single-payer system in place…our health care will improve significantly.

    “I don’t know about you, but I want my doctor – not the government – deciding what tests are necessary.”

    LOL…why are these tests being ordered in the first place?? Because private insurers are demanding them, and because health care providers are scared of being sued if they do something wrong.

    The really funny thing about some the “rage” from the Right-wing in Congress on this issue is that *they* get their health care insurance through the federal govt. right this second. Heaven forbid that the rest of the country get the same type of choices that they do in Congress…ugh…

    “And once the government controls health care, they will be able to regulate almost every aspect of our lives (the few they don’t already) because it is for the common good to keep us healthy, according to what the government deems necessary to that end”

    …and the fear-mongering continues…does this kind of thing happen right now in other countries with a government-run health care system?? Nope…

    “I am sure they are very excited that soon they will be able to pawn all coverage off on the government, leaving more profits for them!”

    Heaven forbid that private companies flourish once the burden of providing their employees with health care (which no one else in the industrialized world has in place) is removed.

  10. You know, good policy is not based on my, your, or anyone’s personal situation. Anyone who bases public policy on what is best for themselves is beyond selfish.

    I don’t agree with this. It’s gotta be based on somebody’s personal situation, or else who the heck is it helping? What makes good policy good? It’s good if it improves the personal situation (aka life) of the most people possible. So what if a policy maker fits into that category? That’s not beyond selfish. That’s representative democracy. I’d worry more about actual corruption where only the lawmaker benefits with a bribe, rather than the millions he would happen to be amongst if something passed that benefited them all, including him.

    One can learn a lot from one’s own personal situation. Are you telling me it was beyond selfish for John Glenn to have supported NASA as a senator? (Well maybe actually, since he got to fly the shuttle in 98 becoming the oldest human in space. Bad example.) How about a veteran who runs for office on a platform of improving veterans’ benefits? No. That’s not beyond selfish, because the soldier knows a thing or two about thousands of other people in his same situation. He speaks for them, and for all of his constituents who want him to support veterans like himself.

    The consideration of what might benefit you personally should inform your political positions to some extent, because your situation on any given issue probably isn’t unique. I’m not dissing the greater good here, I’m saying take your own life experience into account and maybe extrapolate a little to the rest of society. Maybe throw a little dash of the golden rule into your politics.

    People need health insurance. Everybody needs health care. It’s a moral imperative. We cannot let so many people go uncovered and we cannot continue to pay so much for health insurance. The private health insurance system is literally killing our people and suffocating the economy. It’s an existential threat to the United States, and the president must act. We cannot let people get sick and die for lack of money. That’s just totally amoral and retarded. I can’t stand this anymore.

    I have to go call my brother and tell him I’m sorry about Michael Jackson. Part of our childhood just died.

  11. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 26th, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    Keep Your Laws Off My Health Care.

    It is worth noting that the majority of doctors, at least in this fair state, oppose the sort of reform plans offered by Mr. Obama. Despite all the headaches, and the red-tape yanking and cutting, associated with health insurers, doctors here would prefer NOT to work with the government. Ask them about that awesome plan called Medicare.

    Politically, this is all about the rather infantile tendency in America, fostered by the left, to push egalitarianism on the populace. This is about “leveling the playing field,” about destroying any advantage one family may have over another, no matter how justly that advantage may have been attained. “It’s not fair!” is the true chant here. It’s ressentiment unleashed.

    The LAST thing health care reform is about is health care. And the penultimate thing such reform is about is actual justice.

  12. It is worth noting that the majority of doctors, at least in this fair state, oppose the sort of reform plans offered by Mr. Obama.

    Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

  13. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 26th, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    By “this fair state”, I was referring to NH. A recent survey published in NH Magazine, I believe, showed that a large majority of doctors opposed government-run medical coverage. Granted, I may have this wrong, but it is the sentiment I also hear among my peers — at least the doctors among them.

    And I can’t even begin to tell you how often health professionals role their eyes when Medicare billing issues come up. It seems there is not a one I speak with who does not find Medicare wanting in a big way.

  14. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 26th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    For a view that contradicts my assertion re: doctors opposing nationalized health insurance, read this.

  15. “This is about ‘leveling the playing field,’ about destroying any advantage one family may have over another, no matter how justly that advantage may have been attained.”

    No, *real* health care reform is about spending our collective health care dollars more wisely & effectively, getting better health care results for our money, and covering everyone with health care coverage. Whether Obama will truly reach this goal or not is unclear to me at this time.

    The rich will *always* have more than the rest of us…it’s always been that way & it always will be that way IMO. They’ll be fine…don’t worry about them at all…they sure as heck don’t give a damn about you…

  16. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 27th, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    Our “collective” health care dollars? That’s a curious way of putting it, don’t you think?

    What if “everyone” does not want health care coverage? And who are these people who do not have health care coverage?

    Yes, yes. The RICH. They are so, so bad. They don’t give a damn about anyone but themselves. Of course, Barack Obama is rich, filthy rich, really. So there goes everything: Even Robin Hood hates the poor.

  17. “What if ‘everyone’ does not want health care coverage?”

    So, you’d rather pay through the nose when you eventually try & get health care?? The sum paid to a doctor for a service rendered to an insured patient is generally *less* than that paid out of pocket by an uninsured patient yanno.

    “And who are these people who do not have health care coverage?”

    Most uninsured Americans are working-class persons whose employers do not provide health insurance, and who earn too much money to qualify for one of the local or state insurance programs for the poor, but do not earn enough to cover the cost of enrollment in a health insurance plan designed for individuals. An estimated 5 million of those without health insurance are considered “uninsurable” because of pre-existing conditions. According to the Census Bureau, in 2007, there were 8.1 million uninsured children in the U.S..

    The costs of treating the uninsured must often be absorbed by providers as charity care, passed on to the insured via cost shifting & higher health insurance premiums, or paid by taxpayers through higher taxes. On average, per capita health care spending on behalf of the uninsured is a bit more than half that for the insured. When charity care is not available, the unisured sometimes simply go without needed medical treatment.

    In 2007, 45.7 million people in the U.S. (15.3% of the population) were without health insurance for at least part of the year. Among the uninsured population, nearly 37 million were employment-age adults & more than 27 million worked at least part time.

    A 2003 study in Health Affairs estimated that uninsured people in the U.S. received approximately $35 billion in uncompensated care in 2001. This study noted that this amount per capita was half what the average insured person received. Another study by the same authors in the same year estimated the additional annual cost of covering the uninsured (in 2001 dollars) at $34 billion (for public coverage) & $69 billion (for private coverage). These estimates represent an increase in total health care spending of 3–6% (ever wonder why health costs go up so fast from year to year?). Another study published in the same journal in 2004 estimated that the value of health forgone each year because of uninsurance was $65–$130 billion and concluded that this figure constituted “a lower-bound estimate of economic losses resulting from the present level of uninsurance nationally.”

    http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

    http://content.healthaffairs.o.....haff.w3.66

    http://content.healthaffairs.o......250v1/DC1

    http://content.healthaffairs.o.....f.w4.157v1

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/.....BEIIi_OauQ

    http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451-03.pdf

    http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451-04.pdf

    http://www.kff.org/uninsured/u.....Tables.pdf

    http://www.acponline.org/advoc.....s/cost.pdf

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes......uninsured/

    “Of course, Barack Obama is rich, filthy rich, really.”

    I dunno…is roughly $7 million “filthy rich”?? Unlike a lot of wealthier Americans, Obama wouldn’t mind paying a much higher tax rate due to his higher income.

  18. Will somebody answer my question? Should we let someone die in the emergency room waiting area if they have no insurance or money? Say they are the victim of a hit-and run and they’re bleeding to death? Let them die? They aren’t entitled to health care?

  19. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 28th, 2009 at 6:45 am

    Yes, HAIK, of course they are entitled to health care. By law emergency rooms cannot withhold care from those who cannot pay. Nor can ICUs. If someone shows up at a hospital with legitimate health concerns, they will receive full treatment.

    Who pays? Sometimes the government; most of the time those consumers who can afford to pay (prices are inflated to cover unforeseen expenses).

  20. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 28th, 2009 at 6:45 am

    Yes, HAIK, of course they are entitled to health care. By law emergency rooms cannot withhold care from those who cannot pay. Nor can ICUs. If someone shows up at a hospital with legitimate health concerns, they will receive full treatment.

    Who pays? Sometimes the government; most of the time those consumers who can afford to pay (prices are inflated to cover unforeseen expenses).

  21. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 28th, 2009 at 6:46 am

    Sorry about the double posts.

  22. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 28th, 2009 at 6:47 am

    Here’s a worthy read on the private vs. public health care coverage debate.

  23. Yes, HAIK, of course they are entitled to health care.

    There you go Charity and everybody else. People are Entitled to health care. The only question is, are we going to continue being idiots who deny that right up until someone gets to the emergency room, or are we going to wake up and grow up and start treating each other with some basic human decency from the start of our lives until the end. Waiting until someone gets to the emergency room makes care much much more expensive and much much less effective. People supposedly opposed to government health still don’t seem to realize the dissonance between accepting the entitlement in an emergency, or being happy that Medicare is there for a parent or Dr. D is there for a child, and their foolish, foolish belief that nobody is entitled to shit, and they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and pull the bullet out of their arm with their teeth, because God helps those whom God has helped and screw everybody else unless it’s me. WAKE UP! Your position is cruel, incredibly expensive and utterly, utterly hypocritical. Somewhere deep down you must know that.

  24. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 28th, 2009 at 12:58 pm

    HAIK,

    But they are entitled to it because others create wealth for them; others, fueled by the private sector engine, can afford to share — freely, without compulsion of law — that wealth.

    These folks are entitled, not because of an intrinsic right, but because they are humans in need. Fine. Let’s provide health care coverage ONLY for those who need it; for those who can’t afford it. Oh, my gosh. We already do that.

    Please note something. For years we have heard Democrats and liberals gripe — just gripe! — about health care in this country. But notice how they never DO anything about it. No, no. They want OTHER PEOPLE to do something about it. What do I mean? I mean this: In 2000, some 50 million people voted for Al Gore. In 2004, some 50 million people voted for John Kerry. Both of these men talked about health care; John Kerry was specifically talking about health care reform. But notice what NEVER happened. All those people in the Democratic Party who voted for these men never once got together to pool THEIR resources together to create a privately-distributed health care fund for the “43 million people without health care.” Not ONE dime was put in such a trust; no one thought that things were so bad that perhaps the Democratic Party itself could spend its vast wealth — or any portion of it — on health care for the poor, the needy. And then Barack Obama comes along; he and his party raised and SPENT $250,000,000 to buy the White House — a quarter of a billion dollars! — and no one sees the sick irony. Couldn’t this money have been spent on the poor? No, no, no. Democrats have instead long wanted to gain power so they can FORCE compassion by law: they want OTHERS to pay for everybody else. This is not about caring for one’s neighbor, or being your brother’s keeper. This is about making someone else — those who actually create real wealth — care for one’s brother.

    The hypocrisy is stunning, and the greed behind the Democrats’ plan is utterly confounding. Not merely the greed for money, mind you, but also the greed for moral authority, for looking more compassionate. It is a covetousness for the appearance of moral excellence.

    If Democrats really wanted to care for their neighbors’ health care, they could have easily contributed $10 apiece to their own health care fund. With 50 million contributors, there would have been easily $500 million at hand for those 43 million who are without funding. In other words, there would have been $10 million for each person enrolled who does not have insurance. Add to this the fact that Warren Buffett and George Soros, Democratic and/or liberal billionaires, could have contributed for more than $10. Hence, if Democrats really gave a crap about actual health care, and not government largess for their own private financial gain (the enormous kickbacks Democrats stand to gain is noteworthy), then they would have done something privately to fix the problem.

    In the end, this is about FORCING OTHER PEOPLE to be compassionate so Democrats can continue convincing themselves that they are the party that cares.

  25. But they are entitled to it because others create wealth for them; others, fueled by the private sector engine, can afford to share — freely, without compulsion of law — that wealth.

    You said that sharing was by law in your earlier comment…

    “…By law emergency rooms cannot withhold care from those who cannot pay…”

    *****

    These folks are entitled, not because of an intrinsic right, but because they are humans in need.

    That’s as close as it gets to an intrinsic right. You’re contradicting yourself.

    Fine. Let’s provide health care coverage ONLY for those who need it; for those who can’t afford it. Oh, my gosh. We already do that.

    Not for everybody we don’t. There are lots of people who can’t afford it, and cannot get it. If everyone who could not afford it had it provided anyway, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
    ****

    If Democrats really wanted to care for their neighbors’ health care, they could have easily contributed $10 apiece to their own health care fund. With 50 million contributors, there would have been easily $500 million at hand for those 43 million who are without funding.

    That’s about $11 per uninsured person.

    I think we’re done here.

  26. Haik, dramatics aside, there is a big difference between providing subsidized health care to children, the elderly, and those in dire need and having everyone on a government system.

    If the only way you can support your side is to accuse people of being hypocrites and cruel, among other things, you obviously haven’t thought your position out very well.

    I would also like to point out that it is not the government subsidizing emergency care. It is people like me, who have private insurance. You seem to be conflating emergency care that is not paid for by the recipient and government health care programs.

    The reason I do not support government health care for all is because it is not the best way to provide health care. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain why – besides, there are many people better suited at that than I – but, neither do I think ill of those who hold a different opinion, however wrong they may be. Except, of course, for those who are deliberately misleading the public about how this will impact their current health care plans and/or how much it will cost.

    Here are a couple of articles from Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Willams, both economists.

    Sowell, Sowell, Williams.

    The second Sowell link is from 2004, but entirely apropos. Actually, the Williams link is a little old, too – 2007. Regardless, these are timeless arguments.

    Sowell sums up the argument of us cruel hypocrites quite nicely:

    “Somehow, the notion seems to be insinuated that the government can do it cheaper and better. But name three things that the government does cheaper and better than private individuals and organizations. It would be no trick at all to name dozens of things that the government does worse and at higher costs.”

  27. “But they are entitled to it because others create wealth for them; others, fueled by the private sector engine, can afford to share — freely, without compulsion of law — that wealth.”

    Riiiight, because when the entity that pays is “sometimes the government; most of the time those consumers who can afford to pay (prices are inflated to cover unforeseen expenses)”…those entities are *not* paying more (through taxes or higher premiums) “without compulsion of law”. My goodness, this idiot from NH wouldn’t know a logical argument if one hit him on the head…wow…

    “These folks are entitled, not because of an intrinsic right, but because they are humans in need.”

    Forgetting, of course, that our rights come from the fact that we are humans, and no where else…ugh…

    “But notice how they never DO anything about it”

    …maybe not in NH (no surprise there), but they do as much as the GOP will let them in plenty of other states.

    “In 2000, some 50 million people voted for Al Gore.”

    Actually, it was more like 51 million, when Gore actually won…but was denied taking office through a full recount in FL by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    “In 2004, some 50 million people voted for John Kerry.”

    Actually, it was more like 59 million people.

    “But notice what NEVER happened”

    …neither of them got into office, so they couldn’t affect the change that they wanted…what a novel thought…for those that aren’t moronic that is…

    “And then Barack Obama comes along; he and his party raised and SPENT $250,000,000 to buy the White House”

    Actually, it was more like $730 million. You’re not very good with numbers, are you?? LOL…

    “Couldn’t this money have been spent on the poor?”

    Sure, if you can tell me a way that someone can be elected President of the USA without spending ANY money, moron.

    “the greed behind the Democrats’ plan is utterly confounding.”

    Greed?? Exactly *how* will they will be making money on this issue??

    “Not merely the greed for money, mind you, but also the greed for moral authority, for looking more compassionate.”

    So much for “compassionate conservatism” eh??

    “Add to this the fact that Warren Buffett and George Soros, Democratic and/or liberal billionaires, could have contributed for more than $10.”

    LOL…actually, that’s a part of the plan for health care as I understand it now…have the rich pay more. Thanks for letting us know that you’re already onboard with this concept! :)

    “the enormous kickbacks Democrats stand to gain is noteworthy”

    From who???
    ———————-

    “You’re contradicting yourself.”

    What else is new…lol…

    “That’s about $11 per uninsured person.”

    LMAO! Not very good with numbers indeed!
    —————————————-

    “I would also like to point out that it is not the government subsidizing emergency care.”

    Of course it is…I already showed that above…with *real numbers* & citations even.

    “Here are a couple of articles from Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Willams, both economists”

    …far Right-wing economists that is.

  28. I would also like to point out that it is not the government subsidizing emergency care. It is people like me, who have private insurance. You seem to be conflating emergency care that is not paid for by the recipient and government health care programs.

    It’s the law that emergency treatment can’t be refused. The government makes the law. Therefore it is a government health care program. And I doubt very much no public dollars at all support emergency rooms, but even if this subsidy is provided entirely by people like your husband who pay for private insurance, I haven’t heard you say you disagree with that mandate and entitlement.

  29. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 29th, 2009 at 9:41 am

    Haik. You are SO right. I made a fundamental mistake in math. Egads, I am embarrassed.

    But please, tell me. Why have the Democrats NOT taken care of those they deem so needy? Why, pray tell, take SO long to intervene? Why NOT create a health care trust fund — ON YOUR OWN — without DEMANDING that others be forced to contribute?

    OK. So now look at the numbers this way: If every person who voted for John Kerry in 2004 had contributed $10 to a health care fund for the truly needy, that would amount to $500,000,000. Right? And what if Democrats who voted for Mr. Kerry contributed this much every year for three more years? Why, now we’d have $2 billion to spend, plus interest accrued. And now let us posit that on the fifth year the fund now becomes active. Do you believe that $2 billion will not cover health care for 43 million citizens?

    Remember, the demographics indicate that this 43 million includes millions of people who do not WANT health care. Also, the demographics include those who are least likely to need it — namely the 18-30 year old set. So NOT all 43 million people will apply for care; the subset is really much smaller.

    But let me stipulate that even this health care trust fund is still too small. Again, note that I am only using $10 contributions; many contributions — all voluntary — would be much higher because — or so it goes –Democrats care so much for the needy. OK. The fund is FAR TOO small. But isn’t it still better than nothing? How could Democrats allow for one second anyone go without SOME safety net, no matter how inadequate?

    As far as my “contradicting” myself, the short answer is that I have not. I can only be caught in such a trap if I had first said I believe legislated charity is good, and then said legislated charity is bad. You actually do not know my opinion on forced charity at the emergency room, do you? Of course not. But let me add this: there are hospitals that have cared for the needy without seeking compensation for their services WITHOUT compulsion of law. In fact, many hospital policies stipulate that care WILL be given to all who seek it. This is the right of a private hospital to be charitable without extrinsic compulsion. Charity is only charity when it is intrinsically driven.

    In the end, you have prematurely left this discussion, thinking, foolishly, that because I made a simple arithmetical mistake, you were dealing with a dunderhead. Perhaps you are. But I fail to understand why Democrats more often than Republicans TALK about caring for their neighbors without actually doing so themselves. Perhaps such indifference is rooted in the same place that separates liberals and conservatives who give to charity: conservatives always give more than liberals, even when RELIGIOUS gifts are factored out.

  30. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 29th, 2009 at 9:53 am

    Monsieur Guy The Obscure,

    If you would like to challenge me in logic, please, throw down the gauntlet. You have proven yourself, thus far, ill-equipped to handle the very rudiments of discourse. I have in this thread acknowledged a simple arithmetical mistake. And since I have made such an admission, please note what it means: I DO understand logical arguments when they hit me in the head. Hence, my actions have contradicted your foolish assertion. What can we conclude? Your pomposity once again leads you into trouble.

    And boy, I do love those red-herrings you drag across the trail. Not that I follow them (well, some are just irresistible). But I would think that such a master of logic as yourself would not be so prone to fallacies. How DO you justify your many fallacies with the rules of logic you consider so important?

    Alas, you prove yourself as dull as I suspected.

    Good luck with all that.

  31. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 29th, 2009 at 10:46 am

    Since MISTER GUY fails to understand that I have been asking why Democrats, after the 2000 and 2004 elections, did not band together to create a PRIVATELY-managed health care fund to distribute cash to the most needy Americans, I feel compelled to pose the question again, but with slightly changed terms. Imagine the 50 million Democrats who voted for John Kerry donated a mere $100 each for four years to a PRIVATE health care fund; these compassionate members of the compassion party would have created a fund worth $20 billion. Let us stipulate that the fund will not be activated until the fifth year. Let us further stipulate that this fund will not be sufficient for the 43 million people without insurance. Instead, let us merely say the fund will simply provide coverage for the neediest people. Let us say that the fund is only good for 1 million people. Nay, let us say it is only good for 100,000.

    I ask again: Why have no Democrats EVER come forward to create such a plan? Why have they not cared enough to help people — YESTERDAY! — to PRIVATELY come together and deal with this alleged health care tragedy in America? And let me even return to $10 donations: why NOT provide care for just 1000 people, or 100 people?

    And because I have been purposely using rather spare numbers, let us for a moment focus on the $750 million Democrats raised — much of it in a few short months — to buy the White House for Mr. Obama (the first time — by the way — in American history when the White House actually was bought, don’t you think?). How is it that Democrats can raise SO MUCH money on a candidate’s mere PROMISE of health care reform and yet don’t raise a dime to PRIVATELY distribute to the needy who are SO desperate? Where, pray tell, is the compassion in that?

  32. “Do you believe that $2 billion will not cover health care for 43 million citizens?”

    That’s about $46/person moron. My current co-pay is $30/visit. My goodness, you really are stupid…

    “Remember, the demographics indicate that this 43 million includes millions of people who do not WANT health care.”

    Now you can read minds too, moron?? I doubt it…

    “But isn’t it still better than nothing?”

    46 bucks?? I don’t think so moron.

    “As far as my ‘contradicting’ myself, the short answer is that I have not”

    …because you’re simply too stupid to realize it.

    “You actually do not know my opinion on forced charity at the emergency room, do you?”

    Well, you did say this about it:
    “By law emergency rooms cannot withhold care from those who cannot pay. Nor can ICUs. If someone shows up at a hospital with legitimate health concerns, they will receive full treatment.”

    Are you against the rule of law then??

    “thinking, foolishly, that because I made a simple arithmetical mistake, you were dealing with a dunderhead.”

    Which is still obviously the case, unfortunately…ugh…

    “Perhaps such indifference is rooted in the same place that separates liberals and conservatives who give to charity: conservatives always give more than liberals, even when RELIGIOUS gifts are factored out.”

    Nonsense.

    “If you would like to challenge me in logic, please, throw down the gauntlet.”

    No thanks, you’re obviously *not* up to it…lol…

    “I have in this thread acknowledged a simple arithmetical mistake”

    …and then you followed up by making another one & then another…and another…and…oh, you get the picture…

    “Your pomposity once again leads you into trouble.”

    You’re projecting again there Billy-boy…

    “that I have been asking why Democrats, after the 2000 and 2004 elections, did not band together to create a PRIVATELY-managed health care fund to distribute cash to the most needy Americans”

    I understand your utter nonsense just fine, moron. You are trying, unsuccessfully BTW, to get the discussion to be focused around a privately-administered health care system, which a majority of Americans AND their health care professional are simply NOT in favor of, period.

    “Imagine the 50 million Democrats who voted for John Kerry donated a mere $100 each for four years to a PRIVATE health care fund; these compassionate members of the compassion party would have created a fund worth $20 billion. Let us stipulate that the fund will not be activated until the fifth year. Let us further stipulate that this fund will not be sufficient for the 43 million people without insurance. Instead, let us merely say the fund will simply provide coverage for the neediest people. Let us say that the fund is only good for 1 million people. Nay, let us say it is only good for 100,000.”

    Gee, $200,000/person for only about 0.2% of the uninsured in the USA…sounds like a real bargain…not…

    Please, please, please, for the love of Mike…give it up moron…you’re wasting everyone’s time here!

    “Why have no Democrats EVER come forward to create such a plan?”

    Because we’re NOT in favor of such a moronic plan, period end of story. Now, please…do us all a favor & stop talking about an issue that you obviously know *nothing* about…

    “Why have they not cared enough to help people — YESTERDAY! — to PRIVATELY come together and deal with this alleged health care tragedy in America?”

    “Alleged”?? Now it’s not even a *real* issue?? Wow…

    “And let me even return to $10 donations: why NOT provide care for just 1000 people, or 100 people?”

    Hmmmm, you mean a really, really, really expensive plan that will only cover 0.002% or 0.0002% of the uninsured in the USA?? Man-o-man…sign me up for that…not…

    “the first time — by the way — in American history when the White House actually was bought, don’t you think?”

    No, but thanks for asking, moron.

  33. Oh stop calling him a moron Mr. Guy. Name calling isn’t nice. Everyone’s heart is in the right place. We just have different ideas and opinions.

    I didn’t call anyone a cruel hypocrite, by the way charity. I called opposing universal coverage cruel and hypocritical. There is a huge difference.

    Thanks for hosting this debate and thanks for hosting this fine blog. It’s been a pillar and it will be sad to see it go.

  34. “Name calling isn’t nice”

    …even when if it fits so well?? I think not…this guy’s earned the moniker quite nicely IMHO…

  35. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 30th, 2009 at 7:42 am

    MONSIEUR GUY THE OBSCURE,

    Yes, I am a moron, Monsieur Guy. Of course, you assume — and that’s all you do — that EVERY person will need health care at any give instant. But since you are not all that informed, let me explain something to you. The 43 million people who are allegedly without health care are ALWAYS presented as simply that; they are NEVER presented as 43 million people who ARE SICK AT THE SAME TIME. Do you understand this? No, you don’t.

    The fact is that health care insurance of any kind is dispensed “unequally” throughout any given system, and this for the simple reason that most people who have insurance of ANY kind are not sick. Of the 43 million people who are without health insurance — the number Democrats throw out as a sign of grave injustice — what percentage of them actually NEED care? You don’t know, nor do you care to know. You come to berate, largely because I continue to demonstrate that you are simply a crank, and not a thinker. And note that I DEMONSTRATE that fact, while you merely throw out amateurish insults.

    Moreover, since you can’t think out of the box, parroting, as you do so well, the things that you believe you MUST believe so you can maintain membership in the club of “better people,” I have several times now tried to present my PRIVATE health care plan in numbers that better reflect reality: I have asked you, and others here, why Democrats have not felt compelled by the grave injustices before them to actually DO something about it, ON THEIR OWN. You have, because of your thoughtless partisanship perhaps, got lost in the numbers; you’ve hidden behind them solely to avoid the bigger question. Why have the Democrats waited since Hillary Clinton’s attempt to reform health care back in the 1990s to again press for health care for all when they could have been filling the gaps — even if only a few of them — for the last 15 years?

    Answer: Because this issue is NOT about health care. It is about power. It is about greed. It is about funneling money toward special interests that heap cash on Democrats, their leaders and their projects. This is not about caring for the needy at all. This is about corruption, exploitation and, as is the habit of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, it is about using fear (DEMOCRATS favorite tool, with ENVY a close second), to gain political and FINANCIAL control over the citizenry.

  36. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 30th, 2009 at 9:42 am

    FYI: Another interesting read can be found here (by Thomas Sowell).

    I am one of those rare folks, perhaps, that believes that far too many things have become expensive because of insurance and subsidies. I might be wrong — I usually am — but I believe there is a directly proportional relationship between the cost of college education and the amount of federal (and state and local government) monies available for assistance. I also believe that some, if not many, medical services have an inflated cost because providers know that X number of insurance dollars are available to cover expenses; there is probably a directly proportional relationship between health insurance coverage and medical expenses.

    Sowell does not speak directly to these issues, but he seems to come rather near them. Medical costs are also high for OTHER reasons; and the fact is that the American health care system, insofar as survivability rates of certain major diseases, fares exceedingly well (and is, in many instances, the very best system in the world.)

    However, my overall conviction on the matter is that Democrats are not really interested in health; and by Democrats, I mean those who serve as our leaders. I am not really that much of a fool to commit myself to any over-generalization; I recognize that the nurse who is right now speaking to my mother is a Democrat. So was the eye surgeon I spoke with yesterday. And I recognize that it never crossed many Democrats’ minds to create a health care plan funded entirely by themselves. And, my word, had they done so, well, what persuasive power they, as a party, would NOW possess. As it now stands, they lack gravitas. At least with me. And that’s a shame, really.

    But I am also going to admit that I am grateful for the safety net my mother has, a safety net that provides for the home health aide that left here 20 minutes ago, the nurse that arrived 5 minutes later, and the physical therapist that will arrive at noon. Medicare may be loathsome to administrate and ridiculous to fund, but right now, for those who need it, it is working on the street level.

    BUT, I also recognize that excellent health care, including preventive care, creates an elderly population that would have died off at a younger age than we presently see. I KNOW THIS INTIMATELY: America’s elderly population is placing a huge burden on the health care system; and the need for caregivers is unbelievable. And, as an intimate witness to the plight of our elderly (not just my mother, mind you), I can testify that the life many of these people lead, lives maintained by advances in medicine and sustained by public financing, are lives as atrocious as those lived in death camps (in many ways). Preventive and excellent health care have created a different kind of suffering, and I have seen its horrors. Perhaps Medicare is not really that caring.

  37. “that EVERY person will need health care at any give instant.”

    Keep trying to back-peddle from your nonsense…it’s not working…

    “The 43 million people who are allegedly without health care are ALWAYS presented as simply that”

    There’s that “allegedly” word again…wow…it must be very dark in the world that you live in Billy-boy…

    “Of the 43 million people who are without health insurance — the number Democrats throw out as a sign of grave injustice — what percentage of them actually NEED care?”

    ALL of them at some point.

    “I have several times now tried to present my PRIVATE health care plan in numbers that better reflect reality”

    Riiiight…and it sure was some “reality” too…an alternate reality where no one has a calculator to do the math on them…lol…

    “why Democrats have not felt compelled by the grave injustices before them to actually DO something about it, ON THEIR OWN”

    …because the collective actions of ourselves (like acting through our own govt., for example) can easily outweigh the actions of a few. Learn that simple fact.

    “You have, because of your thoughtless partisanship perhaps, got lost in the numbers”

    No, the numbers MATTER of course, but that’s OK…keep trying to back-peddle from them anyways…

    “Why have the Democrats waited since Hillary Clinton’s attempt to reform health care back in the 1990s to again press for health care for all when they could have been filling the gaps — even if only a few of them — for the last 15 years?”

    They haven’t been “waiting”, either at the national level OR *especially* the state level, but I wouldn’t expect the likes of you to know anything about that.

    “It is about funneling money toward special interests that heap cash on Democrats, their leaders and their projects.”

    Again, where-oh-where will this “payoff” be coming from?? Conspiracy theorize much??

    “it is about using fear (DEMOCRATS favorite tool”

    LMAO!! Never heard of all the bogus “terror alerts” issued by the Bush Regime while they were in power eh?? My goodness…your powers of projection are quite vast there Billy-boy…

    “I believe there is a directly proportional relationship between the cost of college education and the amount of federal (and state and local government) monies available for assistance.”

    No, there isn’t…so don’t bother trying to change the subject.

    “there is probably a directly proportional relationship between health insurance coverage and medical expenses”

    …except that you can’t prove that either…ugh…

    “the fact is that the American health care system, insofar as survivability rates of certain major diseases, fares exceedingly well (and is, in many instances, the very best system in the world.)”

    Except if you are a child:
    “US Infant Survival Rates Lower Than Most Developed Nations’”
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/43094.php

    or are poor (and likely have no health care insurance) & have breast cancer:
    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/.....t/dyp193v1

    This, of course, is completely beside the obvious point that for the amount of money that the USA pays for health care, it’s medical outcomes are rarely head-and-shoulders above the rest of the world, which is the whole point. We *waste* health care dollars needlessly in this country on profit, administration costs, etc., etc….

    “And I recognize that it never crossed many Democrats’ minds to create a health care plan funded entirely by themselves”

    …because that would be pointless, as we’ve shown *very clearly* here in this very thread!

    “I can testify that the life many of these people lead, lives maintained by advances in medicine and sustained by public financing, are lives as atrocious as those lived in death camps (in many ways)”

    …which is why death-with-dignity laws are so important. Those tough decisions near the end of life should lie between a patient, their doctor, and their family, period.

  38. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    July 1st, 2009 at 10:03 am

    MONSIEUR GUY THE OBSCURANTIST.

    I have nothing to back-pedal from. And please note that I know how to spell back-pedal, while you clearly don’t. And you scoff at me!

    The fact is that you’ve run away; you’re the one hiding (and please, I beg you to stay hidden). You REFUSE, of course, to demonstrate how the party of compassion is compassionate when it ONLY acts when your dear “collective,” as you put it, comes to the rescue. Like the collective is at all helpful, really. Please name one invention that came from the collective; name just one medical breakthrough or even ONE standard in art, poetry, architecture, music, athletics or philosophy that the collective gave to the world. Name the time the “collective” put out a fire, or rescued a cat, or raised the bar in gymnastics or golf. Please, which collective was it that founded Buddhism, Christianity? Which collective created Microsoft, the Model T, the iPod?

    If Democrats REALLY CARED about the health of REAL people, they WOULD HAVE pooled ANY resources they had to care for even JUST ONE PERSON. They have not done this, despite Barack Obama repeatedly citing Jesus’ words in the gospels about caring for the poor, the needy and the sick. Jesus also said, and this apparently eludes even you, that the GOOD shepherd LEAVES THE COLLECTIVE to help the ONE LOST SHEEP; since Democrats don’t get this simple Christian moral, their ideas now regarding health care are absurd. They could’ve helped just one sheep with the millions of (and near billion) dollars spent to get the White House, but they chose not to. Shame on them.

    In response to my question regarding how many of the 43 million Americans who have no health care will need it (and in context I meant in any given year of funding), you wrote this:

    “ALL of them at some point.”

    Amazing. You have the temerity to mock my alleged deficiencies in math, and yet you commit such a ridiculous blunder here I am nearly incredulous; rarely do I stumble upon such a faith-based statement as yours. No, GUY, not EVERYONE will need health care at some point; not EVERY person of the 43 million will have to see the doctor at all! Ever. Do you not comprehend this? And you dare suggest I am a moron! The irony you fail to see is boundless!

    As for the politics of fear: Which party constantly tells Americans that their health is in jeopardy unless the state takes control of health care? Which party constantly tells American women that they will lose what it means to be truly a woman if Roe v. Wade is reversed? Which party’s candidate said during last year’s campaign in the same paragraph that he was tired of the politics of fear and that America was less safe than ever?† Which party constantly peddles the fear (see how I spell peddle) that Iraq was “all about oil,” that the economy MUST BE SAVED RIGHT NOW, that certain Americans are a threat because they have rifles, that America has lost its “standing” in the eyes of the world, that immigration reform is xenophobia, and that America tortures enemy combatants? Which party peddles the fear that criticism of their president is racism, or that opposition to gay marriage is a homophobic perversion? Nearly every time a Democratic leader of any kind opens his or her mouth some sort of fear-based statement spills out. (I will aver that such is the nature of politics in general.)

    To think, as you must, that the Democratic Party does not peddle fear at every turn is proof that partisanship is truly blind.

    As for projection, well, there is not much to say to you here. You are the projectionist par excellence; you accuse me of things you CLEARLY and DEMONSTRABLY do every time you write a comment.

    (Infant survival rates, Monsieur? You do not understand what you’ve cited. The standards of measurement — the methods of quantification — differ from country to country here. Besides, do you REALLY want to explore where infant mortality in this country is the highest, and why? Would it be at all beneficial to explore the real possibility that infant mortality in certain parts of America HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE? Shall we explore the OTHER social causes of infant mortality?)

    Lastly, your red-herring “end of life” comment is ridiculous. The DNR notation on nearly every person’s file in any given nursing home is reached freely and expressed openly. Death with dignity is the very essence of a nursing home, and hospice, and home health care. Are you suggesting that assisted suicide is somehow synonymous to death with dignity? No one is “forced” to live.

    †That would be the Democrats’ Barack Obama.

  39. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7NwsMPMZSg

  40. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    July 2nd, 2009 at 6:06 am

    Egads, I am losing it. I see I posted above a link to a Charlie Chaplin video showing Mr. Chaplin performing a moonwalk! How that happened, well, I’ve no idea! Weirdness, for sure.

    The link I intended to send was to Thomas Sowell’s recent column, “Alice In Medical Care”. As I said, it is a worthy read.

    But the moonwalk video is also quite the read. Check it out.

    I would further suggest reading today’s WSJ editorial re: Medicare fraud. It can be found here.

    http://jewishworldreview.com/c.....63009.php3

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....83347.html

  41. “Like the collective is at all helpful, really.”

    Thanks for railing against people working together through their own govt….I wouldn’t expect any more from a Right-winger like you Billy-boy…

    “Please name one invention that came from the collective; name just one medical breakthrough or even ONE standard in art, poetry, architecture, music, athletics or philosophy that the collective gave to the world.

    In the Cornish mining district, during the early 19th century, a notable collective invention setting emerged, and it was capable of generating a continuous & sustained flow of improvements in steam pumping technology, which, in the end, greatly contributed to improve the thermodynamic efficiency of the steam engine (see Von Tunzelmann, 1978).

    How about the development of mass production steel in the
    U.S. (1866-1885), and early personal computer development (1975-
    1985)?? There are many more, not that you’d know anything about them Billy-boy…

    http://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/ec030050.pdf

    Art?? How about every, single, solitary movie or play that you’ve ever seen??

    “Name the time the ‘collective’ put out a fire, or rescued a cat, or raised the bar in gymnastics or golf.”

    That would be your local fire department…working together of course, and your local gymnastics or golf team…again, working together of course.

    “Please, which collective was it that founded Buddhism, Christianity?

    Christianity?? How about Christ & the Twelve Apostles??

    “Which collective created Microsoft, the Model T, the iPod?”

    See above.

    “If Democrats REALLY CARED about the health of REAL people, they WOULD HAVE pooled ANY resources they had to care for even JUST ONE PERSON”

    …which they’ve already done…both at the federal & state level, period.

    “They could’ve helped just one sheep with the millions of (and near billion) dollars spent to get the White House, but they chose not to.”

    And, of course, the GOP gets a pass for spending $370+ million in 2008…sure, sure…

    “You have the temerity to mock my alleged deficiencies in math”

    LOL…they are not “alleged” (that’s one of your favorite words eh Billy-boy?)…they are *proven*, period.

    “No, GUY, not EVERYONE will need health care at some point; not EVERY person of the 43 million will have to see the doctor at all! Ever.”

    Once again, you’re simply wrong. People should be a seeing a doctor once a year for a physical. They should be going to a dentist at least twice a year to get their teeth checked & cleaned. They should be going to an eye doctor once every 1-2 years to get their eyes examined. This, of course, ignores the FACT that people (yes, ALL people) get sick or injured at some point in their lifetime. Yes, Billy-boy, once again you are a proven moron.

    “Which party constantly tells Americans that their health is in jeopardy unless the state takes control of health care?”

    I’ve never heard this specific argument at all.

    “Which party constantly tells American women that they will lose what it means to be truly a woman if Roe v. Wade is reversed?”

    Hmmmm, “what it means to be truly a woman”…I think that translates into the right to privacy in having dealings with your doctor. Would YOU like to lose that??

    “Which party’s candidate said during last year’s campaign in the same paragraph that he was tired of the politics of fear and that America was less safe than ever?”

    Where is this supposed quote from Obama??

    “Which party constantly peddles the fear (see how I spell peddle) that Iraq was ‘all about oil,’ that the economy MUST BE SAVED RIGHT NOW, that certain Americans are a threat because they have rifles, that America has lost its ‘standing’ in the eyes of the world, that immigration reform is xenophobia, and that America tortures enemy combatants?”

    LOL…you’re quite desperate at this point, and you’re *intentionally* warping the definition of fear.

    Was Iraq “all about oil”?? No, just mostly, since it was *never* about connections with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda or WMDs. I don’t remember that many people saying that the U.S. economy did need ANY help at all.

    Are “certain Americans a threat because they have rifles”?? Well, to themselves & their family members mostly, but they don’t seem to care about that.

    If you’re going to argue that America did *not* lose much of its ‘standing’ in the eyes of the world during the Bush Regime after 9/11, then I dunno what to do with you, except laugh at you…lol… Also, if you’re going to argue that at least *some* of the GOP concern over “immigration reform” is all about xenophobia, then I also don’t know what to do with you, except laugh at you some more…lol…

    Finally, America *hasn’t* tortured people that it’s labeled “enemy combatants”? Of course it has you moron!!

    “Which party peddles the fear that criticism of their president is racism, or that opposition to gay marriage is a homophobic perversion?”

    Hmmmm, you really don’t think that *some* of the criticism of Obama is race-based or that a lot of the opposition to gay marriage (yours included there Billy-boy) is based on homophobia?? Please…

    “The standards of measurement — the methods of quantification — differ from country to country here.”

    No, they really don’t.

    “Would it be at all beneficial to explore the real possibility that infant mortality in certain parts of America HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE?”

    No, but since when do you have *any relevant facts* to bring to the table??

    “The DNR notation on nearly every person’s file in any given nursing home is reached freely and expressed openly.”

    Do Not Resuscitate does not necessarily equal death with dignity, as any that knows anything about the subject is aware of by now.

    “Are you suggesting that assisted suicide is somehow synonymous to death with dignity?”

    There you go!

    “The link I intended to send was to Thomas Sowell’s recent column, ‘Alice In Medical Care’.

    “I would further suggest reading today’s WSJ editorial re: Medicare fraud.”

    Ugh…more Right-wing opinion pieces being pawned off as “fact”.

    “We were not spending nearly as much on high-tech medical procedures in the past because there were not nearly as many of them, and we were not spending anything at all on some of the new pharmaceutical drugs because they didn’t exist.”

    Does ANY of this have *anything* to do with the rising costs of health care in the USA (at multiple times the rate of inflation)?? Nope.

    “Cars didn’t cost nearly as much in the past, when they didn’t have air-conditioning, power steering and high-tech safety features. Homes were cheaper when they were smaller, had fewer bathrooms and lacked such conveniences as built-in microwave ovens.”

    Have the cost of cars or homes been going up at multiple times the rate of inflation for many, many years now?? Nope.

    “The cost of developing a new pharmaceutical drug is now about a billion dollars”

    …which, compared to the amount of money spent marketing those same drugs, is chump change.
    —————————–

    The latest letter that I got from my health insurance provider gave me quite a laugh. It says:

    “Medical advances have made new, more costly treatments available, and Vermonters are using more services than in past years.”

    Those damn Vermonters…going to the doctor when they are sick or injured…damn them! LOL…

    “Overall, the premiums for your health insurance will increase only about 2% in 2009 – the smallest increase in several years.”

    But wait, there’s more:

    “your annual deductible for prescription drugs has been increased from $100 to $275″…or 275%!

    So, I pay *more* money out-of-pocket for *less* coverage, just like always…thanks American health care industry!

  42. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    July 3rd, 2009 at 10:09 am

    Egads, MONSIEUR THE EQUIVOCATOR, you are an absurdist, and an ordinary one at that.

    “Golf team”? I laugh in your general direction. Yeah, yeah. Golf teams SET STANDARDS for the rest of all golfers. Never mind Bobby Fisher, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods. No, it’s the famous Mister Guy Golf Team that has changed the world of golf — a sport that is, in the end, an individual sport.

    You initially meant by collective the totality of the citizenry of the United States. You KNOW you meant that; you invoked it because I asked you (et al) why Democrats did not, as a group, pool their OWN resources together to care for those who do not have health care. Here is our exchange:

    MOI: …Democrats have not felt compelled by the grave injustices before them to actually DO something about it, ON THEIR OWN…

    VOUS: …because the collective actions of ourselves (like acting through our own govt., for example) can easily outweigh the actions of a few.

    So, CLEARLY, you rejected the idea that the Democratic Party was a “collective”; you felt that such a small subset of Americans was unable to accomplish what the collective — ALL Americans — could do. For you, 65 million Democrats — even ALL Democrats — working for themselves PRIVATELY on a common goal is “the actions of a few.”

    And then — get this! — you begin to cite, not the COLLECTIVE OF ALL AMERICANS, but small groups, i.e. “the few”, as examples of collective actions that were INDEED successful. Thinking yourself incredibly clever, you listed examples of small “teams” that got things done; these examples you believed contradicted my assertion that no COLLECTIVE, meaning no total set (as you argued above), had ever invented a thing. You cite a tiny subset of people working to create the computer industry; you cite a tiny subset of people — in Cornish! — who improved on an invention that was not itself invented by a collective!

    So, what do we conclude from all this? First, we can conclude that you have equivocated. You started with one definition of collective and ended with another. Second, we can conclude that you have FALLEN INTO MY TRAP; You have PROVEN my point for me! And what was that point? That the “team” of Democrats COULD INDEED HAVE MADE A HUGE IMPACT on health care if they worked, as you just argued, as a “team.”

    I love it! Your contradiction and equivocation not only prove my point for me — and hence prove my larger point that Democrats DON’T really care to work as a collective voluntarily but seek to force care by law; but your contradiction and equivocation also prove that you are not at all competent with logic and the fundamental rules of discourse. EVERY example you listed of “teams” working together — Jesus and the Twelve stands out — proves MY point, not yours: that a small private group could have — and CAN! — change the world.

    ________________

    REGARDING THE “43 MILLION UNINSURED”

    Your list of shoulds and oughts regarding the 43 million folks is quite noble; it is inspiring that you care for these people so much you believe that they each need a physical at least once a year. But let’s return to what is essential: You boldly asserted that EVERY ONE of these people will need health care coverage “at some point.” Guess what? You are simply wrong. Why? Because YOU, not I, said EVERYONE. Had you said “most” I might have ignored you, but you didn’t. And since you said ALL, you failed to attend to the simple fact that some of these people will die instantly in accidents, crimes, and catastrophes; that some will die instantly — irrespective of health care — because of genetic and other medically related causes. SO, again, you are wrong. Not ALL will need health care. Some won’t need it, EVER.

    But you are again wrong, and this for another reason: there are a whole bunch of people in this country who DO NOT WANT HEALTH CARE COVERAGE, and these are a subset of the 43 million we are discussing. In fact, there are quite a few people who do not even want a doctor. Some WANT to pay for their own care; they can handle paying for a physical; 20-somethings, who rarely get sick, want to pay for their own physicals because that payment is far less than the premiums paid on insurance they don’t use or even need. Others don’t want to visit a doctor because — and this is demonstrably true — people often are made WORSE because of the health care they receive from the doctors they visit. Where, pray tell, are you highly likely, if not most likely, to get a flesh-eating bacterial infection? That’s right, the hospital. Fear, believe it or not, keeps a lot of people OUT of the health care system.

    So, AGAIN, you are wrong on several fronts. Besides, your list of oughts and shoulds is an offense to freedom.

    ___________

    DEMOCRATS: The Party of Fear?

    You ask me for the supposed quote from Mr. Obama. How could you even for one second doubt me?

    On January 15, 2008, during the MSNBC-televised Democratic presidential debate in Nevada, Barack Obama said this:


    “There is no doubt we’ve been dominated by a politics of fear since 9/11… But I have to say that when Sen. Clinton uses the specter of a terrorist attack … during a campaign, I think that it is part and parcel with what we have seen, the use of the fear of terrorism in scoring political points, and I think that’s a mistake. Now, I don’t want to perpetuate that. I think that’s part of why we ended up going into Iraq and made a big strategic error that has made us less safe.

    [emphasis mine]

    If you do not see the forked-tongue quality of Mr. Obama’s comments, well, then I can’t help you. A man cannot voice a more idiotic contradiction in a political campaign, and yet, somehow, Mr. Obama is president. How can this happen? Because he is the fear-monger par excellence. Check out the fear-mongering in this statement he made this week:

    “…there is no longer a disagreement over whether our dependence on foreign oil is endangering our security. It is. [emphasis mine]

    This is patently a statement designed to generate fear and anxiety. In fact, Barack Obama EXCELS at using the fallacy of anxiety. (By the way, Obama’s statement is demonstrably false.)

    Your snarkiness, MONSIEUR GUY, really gets in your way. The reality is that you do not know what you think you know; nor do you know what I do not. You have been routinely bested here, especially in this last exchange.

    Irony is hard because it has iron it: Keep walking into it and you’ll eventually change course. Eventually.

    Be well. Seriously, be well.

    (You know who.)

    PS. Have I ONCE pitched here any defense of the GOP? Answer: No. In fact, regarding fear, I’ve chided BOTH parties for fear-mongering. I have actually opined that fear and politics are inseparable. Doubt that my disgust is “bi-partisan”? Try me. Read “The Audacity of Fear.” (Please show me the courtesy of reading all of it, if you read it at all.) Peace.

  43. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    July 3rd, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    MONSIEUR GUY THE PERENNIALLY FALLACIOUS,

    Oh, and one last thing. You suggested earlier that child mortality rates were rather atrocious in the United States. I challenged that. I wrote:

    Infant survival rates, Monsieur? You do not understand what you’ve cited. The standards of measurement — the methods of quantification — differ from country to country here.

    And how did you reply? With this:

    No, they really don’t.

    It’s amazing how certain you are about everything, especially when you are so certainly wrong:

    First, it’s shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don’t reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.

    If you need help with this, you can ALWAYS read Wikipedia’s entry on infant mortality rates.

    The ONLY saving grace you have at hand is that you initially said “child” while I said “infant.” But that is not going to help you, because you challenged my assertion about infant mortality rates. You were wrong to make such a challenge, obviously, and there is no escaping that fact. If you would like to present evidence that contradicts this, please step forward with it; show us that the “child” mortality rate statistics are compiled equally in every country that submits such data.

    Good luck.

  44. “Golf teams SET STANDARDS for the rest of all golfers.”

    Hmmmm, did I ever say that?? Nope, I just said that teams of golfers learn how to better play their sport while playing together. Ask your local high school Billy-boy…

    “You initially meant by collective the totality of the citizenry of the United States.”

    No, I didn’t, since “totality of the citizenry of the United States” *does not* comprise the U.S. govt., but oh well…

    “So, CLEARLY, you rejected the idea that the Democratic Party was a ‘collective’”

    Once again, your *intentional* twisting & turning of remarks is getting you nowhere.

    “65 million Democrats”

    Actually, the latest number is 72 million voters (42.6% of 169 million registered in 2004) are Democrats. Again, not too good with numbers at all, eh??

    “you listed examples of small ‘teams’ that got things done”

    No, they weren’t “small” at all, but I wouldn’t expect you to know that Billy-boy…

    “it is inspiring that you care for these people so much you believe that they each need a physical at least once a year.”

    LOL…it’s not MY belief moron…it’s their doctors…ugh…

    “you failed to attend to the simple fact that some of these people will die instantly in accidents, crimes, and catastrophes; that some will die instantly — irrespective of health care — because of genetic and other medically related causes”

    …without having EVER been to a doctor for ANY reason in their ENTIRE LIFE?! What a moron…

    “Others don’t want to visit a doctor because — and this is demonstrably true — people often are made WORSE because of the health care they receive from the doctors they visit.”

    Sure, sure…”demonstrably true”…maybe in that alternative universe that exists where math doesn’t matter…

    “How could you even for one second doubt me?”

    Oh, I don’t know…because you’ve been *wrong* at every, single turn??

    “On January 15, 2008, during the MSNBC-televised Democratic presidential debate in Nevada, Barack Obama said this”

    Nice ellipses there, now here’s what he *really* said (with a citation even!):

    “Well, I think there’s no doubt that we’ve been dominated by a politics of fear since 9/11. Now, some of that’s understandable. We have real enemies out there. The tragedy in New York was a trauma to the country that it is going to take a long time for us to work out.

    And Senator Clinton did good work in terms of helping the city recover. But I have to say that when Senator Clinton uses the specter of a terrorist attack with a new prime minister during a campaign, I think that is part and parcel with what we’ve seen the use of the fear of terrorism in scoring political points. And I think that’s a mistake. Now, I don’t want to perpetuate that.

    I think that’s part of why we ended up going into Iraq and made a big strategic error that has made us less safe. Resources that could have been spent on homeland security have been spent in Baghdad. Resources that could have been spent hunting down bin Laden have been diverted to Iraq.

    And that’s what happens when your judgment is clouded. And what I intend to do as president of the United States is to be honest and straightforward with the American people about how I’m going to implement all the 9/11 Commission report findings, make sure that we are hunting down bin Laden, getting out of Iraq so that we can refocus our attention on building the networks and alliances that are required to reduce terrorism around the world.

    That’s going to be my priority, and that’s part of the reason I’m running for president of the United States.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01.....&_r=1

    Everything Obama said in that quote is true & honest. You might not agree with it (what a surprise there Mr. GOPer), but it’s statements like these that allowed Obama to whip your boy McSame in 2008.

    “Check out the fear-mongering in this statement he made this week”

    Again, nice ellipses there, now here’s what he *really* said (with a citation even!):

    “We have been talking about energy for decades. But there is no longer a disagreement over whether our dependence on foreign oil is endangering our security. It is.”

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_.....n-Economy/

    Nice try at taking Obama’s comments out of context…it’s not working. Only a moron like you Billy-boy would try & argue that the USA’s dependence on foreign oil isn’t a national security issue…lol…

    “The reality is that you do not know what you think you know; nor do you know what I do not.”

    LOL…and your pomposity is your *massive Achilles’ heel*, and it’s been a pleasure exploiting it…

    “I have actually opined that fear and politics are inseparable.”

    Of course you have Billy-boy, because you are simply a moron, period.

    “First, it’s shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries.”

    LOL…

    “Some claim that the method of calculating IMR may vary between countries based on the way they define a live birth. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat.

    UNICEF uses a statistical methodology to account for reporting differences among countries.”

    “The infant mortality rate is reported as number of live newborns dying under a year of age per 1,000 live births, so that IMRs from different countries can be compared.”

    “However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.”

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality

    “In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless”

    …because these births are almost uniformly before the point of viability.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

    “US infant mortality rate now worse than 28 other countries”

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2.....-o18.shtml

    “U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report says”

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH.....ers.index/

    “US Infant Death Rates Among Worst in World”

    http://childbirth.amuchbetterw.....-worst-in/

    “show us that the ‘child’ mortality rate statistics are compiled equally in every country that submits such data.”

    I already did, you moronic liar.

    BTW, Billy-boy…thanks for confirming what we all already knew about you…that “Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy” = “Contratimes” or Bill Gnade from NH…just like I said that it did…LOL!!

    I really, really think that we’re done here…

  45. You have been wrong more times than I can count, Mr. Guy, and no one has ever been as disrespectful to you as you are to other people with whom you disagree. You are what is wrong with political discourse in America. I hope you are indeed “done here.”

  46. MISTER GUY!

    Since it was I who brought up golf, it behooves me to remind us what I said:

    Please name one invention that came from the collective; name just one medical breakthrough or even ONE standard in art, poetry, architecture, music, athletics or philosophy that the collective gave to the world. Name the time the “collective” put out a fire, or rescued a cat, or raised the bar in gymnastics or golf.

    How did you respond to this? This way:

    That would be your local fire department…working together of course, and your local gymnastics or golf team…again, working together of course.

    Please notice the words I used, such as “standard” and “raise the bar.”

    Of course, when I showed you that you had essentially been hoisted by your own petard; when I scoffed at you for suggesting that golf teams set standards and raise the bar in golf, you NOW say this:

    Hmmmm, did I ever say that?? Nope, I just said that teams of golfers learn how to better play their sport while playing together.

    Alas, MISTER GUY, the record shows that you said no such thing. Maybe you MEANT to say it, but, well, you didn’t.

    So in your very first sentences here we see that you are wrong about one amazing thing: You are wrong about yourself!

    AND THEN, you REALLY do back-pedal. You posit that by “collective,” you merely meant the US government. Nice. Of course, somehow it escapes you that the US government is a government of the people, by the people, for the people: that the US government and the totality of the US citizenry (my phrase) are the same thing. And you call yourself a Democrat? Well, maybe you don’t.

    Alas, I am truly laughing at you in your absolutely vain attempt at suggesting I am guilty of using ellipses. Fine. Go ahead and ADD the omitted words from the damningly insane and self-contradictory remarks of the now President of the United States. Please note how they do not change the fact that Barack Obama contradicted himself; note how he is still guilty of sowing fear in the very sentences in which he declares he will not sow fear. And this also escapes your grasp: Mr. Obama’s assertion that we are “less safe” was not QUANTIFIED by him; his remark was sheer opinion. He had NO data to show us that America’s invasion of Iraq has made anyone in American “less safe.” In short, it was a faith-based statement uttered solely to generate anxiety.

    You fail to understand that my use of ellipses in that ONE context was simply about expedience, and not manipulation. Yet, in simple prose, you CONSTANTLY use ellipses without knowing why. As I said, your dependence on such punctuation is telling.

    As for accusing me that I’ve quoted Mr. Obama “out of context,” all I can say is you are out of your mind. Even if I “contextualize” the remark, his claim is meant to instill anxiety in his listeners; he uses that anxiety to impel his listeners to look to him to deliver them from their fears and to call them to support his grand solution. Moreover, his assertion that “there is NO LONGER A DISAGREEMENT” [my emphasis] is patently false: along with countless others, I disagree with his inane claim. So, clearly, he is both fear-mongering and, to be nice, patently wrong.

    (Every quote is, by the way, out of context — by definition. Otherwise, the only contextualized quote would have to include the entirety of a text, speech or even oeuvre. And to say that anyone has taken a quote out of context is nearly one of the weakest criticisms one can offer.)

    I LOVE, too, that you essentially deny that infant mortality rates are figured differently in other countries by explaining WHY other countries figure those rates differently (see your own remarks about Belgium and France).

    If you had read with any semblance of attention or care the Wikipedia entry on infant mortality rates, you would have seen that it proves you wrong. Your CNN citation is a joke; clearly CNN failed to read what I quoted for you, i.e., Dr. Bernadine Healy’s article in USNWR explaining the disparities between countries’ methods of reportage. It appears to me (with your chronic LOLs it’s hard to tell what you mean) that you believe I am the writer of “First, it’s shaky ground to compare US infant mortality rates…”). LOL, indeed.

    Again, let me return to my favorite theme of irony. You have finally announced that you are done here. If you understood irony, you would realize that you’ve actually been done for quite a while.

    LALYLOLTNTFFLAYRI!

  47. “You have been wrong more times than I can count”

    …and you’re always too busy to point out any of those times Charity, but oh well. All that is safely in the past now.

    —————————

    “Please notice the words I used, such as ‘standard’ and ‘raise the bar.”

    Please note that I answered your question, period.

    “You posit that by ‘collective,’ you merely meant the US government”

    …since that is, of course, a collective (something which you seem to be against BTW…no surprise there either).

    “that the US government and the totality of the US citizenry (my phrase) are the same thing.”

    No, they are not, and quit trying to twist & turn…it’s not working. The U.S. govt. was originally formed by the people for the collective good of the people, but not everyone participates in the actual nitty-gritty governing, since, of course, we have a representative democracy in the USA.

    “Alas, I am truly laughing at you in your absolutely vain attempt at suggesting I am guilty of using ellipses.”

    You didn’t intentionally take those Obama quotes out of context?? You *know* that you did Billy-boy, and it didn’t work.

    “Mr. Obama’s assertion that we are ‘less safe’ was not QUANTIFIED by him; his remark was sheer opinion”

    …which was merely the opinion of the majority of Americans or the will of the American people.

    “He had NO data to show us that America’s invasion of Iraq has made anyone in American ‘less safe.’”

    Except, of course, that Iraq had become a breading ground for Al-Qaeda only AFTER we invaded, and that Al-Qaeda, as the Bush Regime asserted, was even more powerful than they were on 9/11.

    “You fail to understand that my use of ellipses in that ONE context was simply about expedience, and not manipulation.”

    Baloney, you’re already a proven liar Billy-boy.

    “his claim is meant to instill anxiety in his listeners”

    No, he is merely stating a FACT…something which you fail to understand, especially in your inane commentary on your website about the issue. Stating alone something that is true does not equal fear-mongering.

    “Moreover, his assertion that ‘there is NO LONGER A DISAGREEMENT’ [my emphasis] is patently false: along with countless others, I disagree with his inane claim”

    …why, we have no idea, since claiming that the USA’s over-dependence on foreign oil is NOT a national security concern is truly, breathtakingly stupid. Even the far Right-wing agrees that it is at this point!

    “Every quote is, by the way, out of context — by definition.”

    Wrong again.

    “I LOVE, too, that you essentially deny that infant mortality rates are figured differently in other countries by explaining WHY other countries figure those rates differently”

    Wrong again moron…read this again:
    “UNICEF uses a statistical methodology to account for reporting differences among countries.”

    “The infant mortality rate is reported as number of live newborns dying under a year of age per 1,000 live births, so that IMRs from different countries can be compared.”

    “However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.”

    The way that the rates are calculated has been *standardized now* for well over a decade…now wake up.

    “It appears to me (with your chronic LOLs it’s hard to tell what you mean) that you believe I am the writer of ‘First, it’s shaky ground to compare US infant mortality rates…’).”

    Wow, your Wikipedia entry merely quoted from portions of that article, and then it proceeded to rebut the article very nicely…just like I did. The U.S. News & World Report article only tells half the tale, at best, period. Read your own links you fool!

  48. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    July 5th, 2009 at 6:34 am

    MISTER GUY,

    The best way out of a hole is to stop digging. You have lost, are losing, will continue to lose.

    I laugh in your general direction. Just listen to yourself:

    Wrong again moron…read this again:
    ‘UNICEF uses a statistical methodology to account for reporting differences among countries.’

    Ah, so there are reporting differences among countries.

    You have the temerity to suggest I should read my “own links.” Is this like telling me I should read my greens? Of course, that little joke just went right over your head. Fore!

    Notice, my young apprentice, that the article you cited from the SOCIALIST PARTY website (now that’s funny) cites an October 2008 report published by the NCHS. Notice also, if you can, that UNICEF is NEVER mentioned as a source for the data. Nor does it mention WHO. And by your own assertion, this “standardized method” is an ex post facto adjustment of data submitted by participant countries who themselves use differing methods of quantification.

    Was it C. Everett Koop, that flyweight, who pointed out that America’s “higher” infant mortality rate was actually due to medical advances he was instrumental in creating as a pediatric surgeon? Wasn’t it he who pointed out that America’s medical advances empower it to try — at least try — to save pre-term infants that otherwise would not even be considered births (other countries would not recognize these as births or infants)? Indeed, I think it was. And, if I remember correctly, Koop’s medical post-natal breakthroughs for preemies changed the whole notion of viability: Dr. Koop’s efforts were a huge threat to pro-abortion activists.

    Notice, too, that the reports on infant mortality in America ALWAYS discuss racial differences; notice that they ALL refer to America’s ethnic diversity as an explanation for the alleged differences between America and, let’s say, Sweden, that bastion of ethnic diversity (I jest, of course)? I asked you earlier if you wanted to explore the social causes for America’s “higher” infant mortality rates, and you simply dismissed me. As usual.

    “Read your own links you fool” indeed!

    You can play the semantical game all you want, but you have floundered like a hooked fish on a bottom of a boat throughout this thread: you have been bested regarding your equivocal use of the term “collective,” and you HAVE contradicted yourself into oblivion. I appreciate these last gasps, your herculean effort to save your credibility. But the best thing, really, is for you to just let it all go. You’ve been wrong, repeatedly, and the healthiest thing you can do is to free yourself of the notion that you have been right (or that you will ever best me in logic, as you boasted).

    Oh, and thanks for ripping almost every thing I’ve written “out of context.” Really, you are truly a lesson in irony — no — in irony deficiency.

    QUESTION: Why did the “collective” or “team” (your terms) of the Democratic Party choose NOT to care for poor, needy people, despite having millions of dollars at hand and despite selling, get this, Democracy Bonds?

    ANSWER: Because the Democratic Party — and the SOCIALIST PARTY — do not care about real people, they only care about power. Their many remonstrances about health care are only a disgusting political ploy, exploiting fear and anxiety. Though they have had the means to collectivize, they have chosen not to because they are — at least in pragmatic terms — heartless, greedy and selfish. Fear and envy are their greatest political weapons. Dominance and control of wealth are their goal.

    MISTER GUY — You are wrong. Period. Ellipsis. LOL. Whatever. Stop digging yourself deeper.

    (Of all the interlocutors I’ve ever experienced, you definitely “go to 11.”)

  49. “Ah, so there are reporting differences among countries”

    …in PAST years (or pre-C. Everett Koop to the likes of you…ugh…), that have been taken into account for comparisons at a later date, period.

    Once again, just ignore these FACTS Billy-boy:
    “The infant mortality rate is reported as number of live newborns dying under a year of age per 1,000 live births, so that IMRs from different countries can be compared.”

    “However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.”

    “The way that the rates are calculated has been *standardized now* for well over a decade”

    “Is this like telling me I should read my greens?”

    I hope not, unless your caddy does all your online reading for you.

    “And by your own assertion, this ‘standardized method’ is an ex post facto adjustment of data submitted by participant countries who themselves use differing methods of quantification.”

    Wrong again…try reading what I have already posted on this topic three times now. You’re simply wrong, period.

    “Was it C. Everett Koop, that flyweight, who pointed out that America’s ‘higher’ infant mortality rate was actually due to medical advances he was instrumental in creating as a pediatric surgeon?”

    I doubt it.

    “Wasn’t it he who pointed out that America’s medical advances empower it to try — at least try — to save pre-term infants that otherwise would not even be considered births (other countries would not recognize these as births or infants)?”

    Again, I doubt it.

    “Koop’s medical post-natal breakthroughs for preemies changed the whole notion of viability”

    Nope, wrong again.

    “Notice, too, that the reports on infant mortality in America ALWAYS discuss racial differences”

    Really?? Tell that to this article that I already cited:
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/43094.php

    Wrong again moron.

    “you HAVE contradicted yourself into oblivion.”

    Again, your projecting again there Billy-boy, but what else is new, eh??

    “Oh, and thanks for ripping almost every thing I’ve written ‘out of context.’”

    LOL…nonsense…now go away moron…

    “Why did the ‘collective’ or ‘team’ (your terms) of the Democratic Party choose NOT to care for poor, needy people, despite having millions of dollars at hand and despite selling, get this, Democracy Bonds?”

    Ugh…once again, for the who knows what time now, Democrats are committed to getting people elected to make changes while in office, and there have been PLENTY of positive changes made by Dems at the state & even federal level on the issue of health care, period.

    “Dominance and control of wealth are their goal.”

    Now you’re projecting the goals of the GOP onto the Dems…give it up Billy-boy…really…

  50. My gosh, MISTER GUY, you are persistent. Persistently wrong. You definitely don’t have the embarrassment gene.

    OK. Let me stipulate (please realize what stipulate means) that you are right, Let me even stipulate that the infant mortality rate in America is the worst in the world. FIne. So stipulated. (I do this merely as a remedial service here.)

    The question remains, and it is this question that has made you so, well, peevish: HOW, as a collective, have Democrats as a PRIVATE ENTITY helped reduce this infant mortality rate with their private resources pooled together for that end? Why have they WAITED to gain power over OTHER people’s resources to demonstrate that they care for the health of infants? If they truly cared, why have DEMOCRATS — as a PRIVATE COLLECTIVE — not taken action immediately to resolve what IS A CRISIS in the lives of even a FEW PEOPLE?

    Is not the answer that Democrats have never banded together PRIVATELY to care — PRIVATELY — for the needy they claim are so desperate?

    The fact is, MISTER GUY, you can’t answer my fundamental question because, until I asked it, the thought had never occurred to you before: Maybe DEMOCRATS don’t really care for the needy. (This is an especially sharp criticism when one reflects on the truth that conservatives give far more money to charity than do liberals; Joe Biden’s charitable giving would make Mr. Scrooge blush).

    Also funny: You have not read the reports, have you? You are link happy; you’re the Happy Clicker. For everything I’ve read (and I am not talking about reports of reports but the studies themselves) about the disparities in infant mortality in the US mentions the disparity between African-American women and white women vis-å-vis live births. So, for you to deny this fact — facts clearly outlined in your own links — proves, ONCE AGAIN, that you are WRONG.

    Perhaps you should take the sage advice of someone you respect (and I don’t know why): Read your own links.

    What is funny, MISTER GUY, is that you have been shown to be an equivocator, a vacillator, and a fallacious reasoner. You have indeed contradicted yourself; I have SHOWN you have contradicted yourself. And these are not petty charges I bring against you; these are not me picking on minor details, You have contradicted yourself at the very core of your argument here (the whole “collective” thing is all the more embarrassing because you keep defending it so sophomorically) . So, you who have used the fallacy ad verecundiam, fallacy ad hominem so often (and yet so fecklessly) and the fallacy of equivocation , AND argued yourself into a series of contradictions (if I include the other thread here), cannot with any due sense of accuracy aver that I’ve contradicted myself.

    And, as I’ve already said once this morning, you also don’t understand projection.

    I have not really offered any advice here, but please, permit me to dispense some now: As I’ve already suggested, you should go to your nearest health club and ask for help with an elliptical trainer. You see, the coolest thing about the trainer is that it allows you to, as you might say, “back-peddle.” Clearly, you should work on that.

    (Now that’s LOL. And it also proves another point: YATM!)

  51. “”Let me even stipulate that the infant mortality rate in America is the worst in the world.”

    Wrong again Billy-boy, NO ONE ever said that it was the worst in the world. The point is that, given the *massive* amount that we collectively spend on health care in the USA, our medical outcomes (like infant mortality) are no where near as high as they should be.

    “HOW, as a collective, have Democrats as a PRIVATE ENTITY helped reduce this infant mortality rate with their private resources pooled together for that end?”

    Again, you’re *intentionally* trying to shift the debate into an area where you *think* that you can win, and that is solving the health care crisis through “private means”, which is something that many (myself included) reject outright.

    One of my good friends has been helping out organizing on behalf of a 3-year-old boy here in VT that has a very rare form of leukemia. His family has been forced into begging the community for money to try & save the boy’s life, and they appear to have been successful so far. The point is that it’s extremely sad IMHO that in one of the richest country’s in the world that regular, ordinary people must beg & plead with people to give money to save the life of the there own son. Many, many other smaller & much less wealthy countries have collectively solved a huge amount of the problems that we still face here in our health care system. We’ve *tried* the private sector for providing our health care needs, and it’s failed! It’s way past time to move onto something else that actually *works*.

    “This is an especially sharp criticism when one reflects on the truth that conservatives give far more money to charity than do liberals”

    Repeating the same nonsense again & again does not make it “true”.

    “Joe Biden’s charitable giving would make Mr. Scrooge blush”

    Biden was one of “poorest” members of the Senate BTW.

    “For everything I’ve read (and I am not talking about reports of reports but the studies themselves) about the disparities in infant mortality in the US mentions the disparity between African-American women and white women vis-å-vis live births.”

    Again, repeating the same nonsense over & over again does not make it “true”. I’ve already *shown you* studies that don’t mention race as it relates to infant mortality. That’s a canard, and I suspect that even the likes of *you* knows that at this point Billy-boy.

    “You have indeed contradicted yourself; I have SHOWN you have contradicted yourself.”

    No, you really haven’t Billy-boy…keep dreaming though…

  52. Egads, MISTER GUY, you are something else. Here you attack me — again — for suggesting something I actually did not suggest.

    I clearly wrote:

    Let me even stipulate that the infant mortality rate in America is the worst in the world. FIne. So stipulated. (I do this merely as a remedial service here.)

    Not only that, I urged you to consider what “stipulate” means in a debate. Perhaps I should have said, solely to assist you, that I was “conceding the point for purposes of debate.” I did not see any need to write such a rubric, as I thought you would at least choose not to be obtuse.

    Here’s your “rebuttal”:

    Wrong again Billy-boy, NO ONE ever said that it was the worst in the world. The point is that, given the *massive* amount that we collectively spend on health care in the USA, our medical outcomes (like infant mortality) are no where near as high as they should be.

    Did I ever, anywhere, say that anyone said such a thing about the United States? No, I didn’t. Conclusion: You are wrong — again!

    What this shows is something you’ve denied — wrongly — already in this thread, namely, that you quote me “out of context.” Clearly you do. But let me for a moment argue that you are not one whit prone to such slovenliness. The fact remains that you have purposely distorted and misrepresented what i actually said; in your equivocating way, you have created a straw man and diversionary tactic.

    But I ask you: how do you know that America should have far better outcomes for the money the country spends on health care. What SHOULD the outcomes be for the money spent? Moreover, are you not suggesting that America should be spending less money to get the health care that it currently provides? Does spending more money or using government largess improve outcomes at all? How do you know that?

    You are an extremely confusing interlocutor, and this is me praising you.

    ______________

    ON CHARITABLE GIVING

    You have accused me, essentially, of spouting nonsense. Nonsense. But permit me to commit the fallacy ad verecundiam without blushing as I defend my assertion that conservatives give more money to charity than do liberals. First, the credentials:

    Arthur C. Brooks is Professor of Public Administration and Director of the Nonprofit Studies Program at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. In 2007, he will be a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He holds a PhD and MPhil in policy analysis, and an MA and BA in economics.

    Notice, among other things, that Dr. Brooks is director of the Nonprofit Studies Program; it would seem he comes somewhat qualified to speak on matters related to charitable giving.

    Second, the blurb:

    In “Who Really Cares,” [Dr. Brooks] demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate – far more compassionate than their liberal foes.

    Finally, a link to an excerpt.

    Surely you can dismiss Dr. Brook’s conclusions and his methodology. Fine. Go for it. But please don’t accuse me of “[r]epeating the same nonsense again & again” in some vain effort to make fantasy “true.” I am all eyes; show me where Dr. Brook’s is wrong. But don’t just spout out nonsense; just saying “No!” and “Wrong!” repeatedly does not make you right. And please don’t suggest that I am inventing something out of whole cloth; to say that I am is actually an invention of your own.

    __________________

    ON HEALTH CARE’S HEALTH

    I am sorry, truly sorry, to hear about the 3-year-old boy with leukemia. Alas, there are so many tragic stories like this around the world it’s a wonder we can find time for mirth. But we do. How many times in my own part of the globe have parents and friends held fundraisers for medical treatment for children, I do not know. Lord knows I do not give enough of my own cash for others; I fail every day in nearly everything. But I also know that in countless stories in this region where the money for care IS RAISED, the child still dies, and often then it’s a disgusting, slow and horrific death. I am not saying that medical care should be denied. What I MIGHT be suggesting is that humanity has yet to fully deal with mortality, especially child mortality, and the pain that medical care actually creates. There was a time, not too long ago, when parents of a child were clueless about illnesses; the flu was as deleterious as a bacterial infection. Parents had to wait for nature to take its course; hope had to be the default setting for most of humanity’s existence. But now we have “science” and “medicine” at our disposal, and parents can quickly know whether their child is merely fighting a cold or fighting a tumor. Weirdly, anxiety and fear seem to be the new default setting of enlightened humanity: Americans rush towards doctors and pills in a flash. That’s just one side of the gloom of “progress.” The other side is the accuracy of prognoses: we can now tell parents that all hope is lost, that a child is terminal; that the flue-like symptoms are really death.

    I wonder, really, if something is lost in all this “care” and “compassion.” Clearly, for some, such advances are not really advances. How can they be, when all hope is dashed? But this other side of “progress” also needs to be addressed, this shadowy side, the side that has people truly imprisoned to ideals of health and vigor: that every person NEEDS health care every second of their lives. Does this not actually create a culture of fear, of anxiety? Were our ancestors more or less frightened of death and illness than we are today? I wonder.

    All this reiterates something I said earlier in this thread: Your sweeping statements about mandating health care for everyone, particularly those 43 million who do not have it, ignore this very real thing: a lot of people avoid doctors for a whole host of reasons, many legitimate, because they do not want to live in fear and anxiety. Just think of the people, even if they are few in number, who even believe such talk jinxes them in some way. I guess what I am saying is that there is no reason to believe — always or even much of the time — that medical care is all that beneficial. Egads, all I hear about is how expensive prescription drugs are in this country, that they should be far more affordable than they are. And then I hear — and know — that far too many drugs actually CAUSE massive problems to the human body; that our health care actually sickens us. I note the contradiction, and it reminds me of something Woody Allen once said about a restaurant’s fare: “The food is lousy here and the portions are far too small.”

    Today, while driving in my car, I heard a doctor announce that the number one cause of infant death in the United States is premature birth. Interesting. Did that doctor (and the hospital he was advertising) argue that increasing health care coverage would solve this problem? No, he did not. He might have if that is what he was selling. But the fact remains — and you can deny this — that there are social and cultural disparities in America regarding infant mortality that have nothing to do with access to health clinics. Deny this all you want. I don’t know why you would deny it; it makes no sense to me. Perhaps you are afraid to address these cultural and social issues, but I don’t see why that would be the case.

    ______________

    ON CONTRADICTIONS

    Yes, you have contradicted yourself. Your whole equivocating argument about the collective was a contradiction. Simple. Plain. Fact. A contradiction. (So what? Just admit it and be done with it.)

    ______________

    ON JOE BIDEN

    OK. So Joe Biden was the poorest dude in the Senate. From last fall:

    Last Friday, Sen. Joseph Biden, the Democratic candidate for vice president, released his tax returns for the years 1998 to 2007. The returns revealed that in one year, 1999, Biden and his wife Jill gave $120 to charity out of an adjusted gross income of $210,979. In 2005, out of an adjusted gross income of $321,379, the Bidens gave $380. In nine out of the ten years for which tax returns were released, the Bidens gave less than $400 to charity; in the tenth year, 2007, when Biden was running for president, they gave $995 out of an adjusted gross income of $319,853.

    According to the data, Biden gave about 1/8 of 1 percent of his adjusted gross income to charity. I will let you do the math, but suffice it to say that for every dollar poor Joe Biden earned, he gave away less than a half cent.

    And let us not forget the richest man in CONGRESS, John Kerry. While filing his Massachusetts state income tax return for 2004, Mr. Kerry, who is worth an estimated $250 million, chose not to pay taxes at the voluntary higher rate to help his poor state solve its budget woes. Perhaps he was too busy giving his money elsewhere.

    If you would like to post an address or link where I might donate some money to the care of the little boy with leukemia, please do. I would be grateful.

  53. Oops! That should be Dr. Brooks’ and Dr. Brooks, not Dr. Brook’s. And man, I hate that I missed that diminutive i pretending to be an I.

  54. “Perhaps I should have said, solely to assist you, that I was ‘conceding the point for purposes of debate.’”

    The point is that that’s NOT the point that anyone was making here. You were “conceding” a point that was never made in the first place!

    “The fact remains that you have purposely distorted and misrepresented what i actually said; in your equivocating way, you have created a straw man and diversionary tactic.”

    Wrong again Billy-boy, and you’re intentional overreaction to this point is merely you grandstanding…give it up…

    “how do you know that America should have far better outcomes for the money the country spends on health care.”

    Uhhhh, the rest of the modern world spends LESS than we do on health care, and they get generally better results than we do.

    “Moreover, are you not suggesting that America should be spending less money to get the health care that it currently provides?”

    Yes, I am. I and many other single-payer system advocates have pointed out again & again (even here in this thread) that there are many obvious costs that are system bears that are unnecessary.

    “You have accused me, essentially, of spouting nonsense.”

    You’ve got that right! You don’t have your facts straight at all, you can’t do simple math, and you twist & turn the meaning of “logic” so much that, by the time you are done with it, it’s completely meaningless.

    Arthur C. Brooks is the president of The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), which is merely a “conservative” think tank, period.

    What Brooks did was play up the role of religion too much, since the so-called “charity gap” is largely erased when religious giving is not considered. Eugene Volokh writes, “Although the liberal v. conservative split is the hook for the book, the data are not nearly as stark as the hype surrounding the book might indicate.” According to Beliefnet, “Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did. To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.”

    http://www.volokh.com/posts/1164012942.shtml

    http://stevereuland.blogspot.c.....rooks.html

    “Surely you can dismiss Dr. Brook’s conclusions and his methodology.”

    No, I’ll let the people above do that for me…lol…

    “And please don’t suggest that I am inventing something out of whole cloth”

    …since you do that all the time…when you pull your ideas out of your behind.

    “that every person NEEDS health care every second of their lives.”

    Who’s advocating for that?? Not I.

    “Your sweeping statements about mandating health care for everyone”

    No, I believe that everyone should have health care coverage that will allow them to see a medical professional for whatever problems that they have. I am NOT in favor of mandating that everyone MUST go to the doctor x-number of times per year (nor do I know of any health care systems that are in place across the world that do this).

    “I guess what I am saying is that there is no reason to believe — always or even much of the time — that medical care is all that beneficial.”

    What an amazingly ignorant statement to make Billy-boy…ugh…

    “all I hear about is how expensive prescription drugs are in this country, that they should be far more affordable than they are.”

    This is true, and the powers that be in the pharmaceutical industry would like to keep it that way…so they can have plenty of money to do more marketing to increase their profits.

    “Did that doctor (and the hospital he was advertising) argue that increasing health care coverage would solve this problem? No, he did not.”

    Well, he probably should have, since that’s what the experts that discuss these matters suggest. The idea that infant mortality rates would NOT decline even further from where they are now in the USA if every mother had full access to decent health care whenever she needed it is just silly.

    “Yes, you have contradicted yourself.”

    No, I haven’t. YOU on the other hand have come up with wild explanation after wild explanation for why your “logic” makes any sense at all.

    “Last Friday, Sen. Joseph Biden, the Democratic candidate for vice president, released his tax returns for the years 1998 to 2007. The returns revealed that in one year, 1999, Biden and his wife Jill gave $120 to charity out of an adjusted gross income of $210,979. In 2005, out of an adjusted gross income of $321,379, the Bidens gave $380. In nine out of the ten years for which tax returns were released, the Bidens gave less than $400 to charity; in the tenth year, 2007, when Biden was running for president, they gave $995 out of an adjusted gross income of $319,853.

    According to the data, Biden gave about 1/8 of 1 percent of his adjusted gross income to charity.”

    Close, it’s about 0.2% of the three years-worth of numbers from above.

    A spokesman for Biden, David Wade, said that “the figures on Biden’s tax return do not reflect the true extent of his giving. The charitable contributions claimed by the Bidens on their tax returns are not the sum of their annual contributions to charity. Like most regular churchgoers, they contribute to their church, and they also contribute to their favorite causes with their time as well as their checkbooks, whether it’s Jill Biden’s volunteer work with military families or the Biden breast-health initiative, or the way in which the family pitched in driving supplies to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina, or the ways Sen. Biden has supported charities that help women, police, and veterans. Like a lot of families that put three kids through college and have an aging parent move in with them, the Bidens aren’t divorced from the realities of everyday life.”

    http://hotlineoncall.nationalj.....aritab.php

    “And let us not forget the richest man in CONGRESS, John Kerry.”

    Nope, that would be Jane Harman (D-CA), followed by Darrell Issa (R-CA), THEN John Kerry.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pfd.....8;filter=C

    “While filing his Massachusetts state income tax return for 2004, Mr. Kerry, who is worth an estimated $250 million, chose not to pay taxes at the voluntary higher rate to help his poor state solve its budget woes.”

    What is the MA “voluntary higher rate”?? Last I heard they had a flat income tax rate in MA, despite many tries by liberal groups to get them to adopt a progressive income tax.

    http://www.friendsofjoseph.org/index.html

  55. I stumbled upon this website and was finding the discussion very interesting and enlightening…until I got to Mr. Guy’s post calling another person a moron over..and over..and over. :::sigh::: that’s all the further I read. The only one who sounds like an unintelligent moron is the one acting like a name-calling child.

  56. Somehow, MISTER GUY, I missed your comment. Alas, I have a few minutes to pen a reply.

    Let’s see. John Kerry. You claim he’s not the richest person in Congress. Of course these sorts of things are hard to determine exactly: this link, for example, surely has something wrong. As does this link. And this.

    But why fuss over such minor points?

    Of course, you must not be aware of the voluntary higher tax rate that is presented as an option on the Massachusetts tax forms. Apparently Massachusetts voters agreed not awfully long ago to a lower flat rate, but the former 5.85% rate is still offered as an option on the state’s tax form. Mr. Kerry did not pay at that higher rate.

    OK.

    Now it is you who are spouting nonsense. America fares extremely well when compared to the rest of the world when it comes to health care.

    Despite being intimately involved with all kinds of gravely ill people in my life, I have NEVER known anyone who wanted to leave America for health care in some other country. No, I have read a few stories about parents taking their child to some foreign land for some experimental treatment in the face of desperation, but these stories are rare and usually if not always end rather sadly. Nevertheless, I suggest you read one doctor’s outline as to how America leads the world in medical treatment (Dr. Atlas is both a radiologist and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Med School).

    I won’t disagree that there are imperfections in the American medical system, but there are imperfections in everything everywhere. Life is replete with injustices; injustice will never be overcome by justice. So when you write

    Uhhhh, the rest of the modern world spends LESS than we do on health care, and they get generally better results than we do…

    I have to stop myself and ask what you really mean.

    _________

    ON BIDEN AND YOUR MATH SKILLS

    I submitted a quote from a journal for your consideration. Here it is again. Read closely.

    “Last Friday, Sen. Joseph Biden, the Democratic candidate for vice president, released his tax returns for the years 1998 to 2007. The returns revealed that in one year, 1999, Biden and his wife Jill gave $120 to charity out of an adjusted gross income of $210,979. In 2005, out of an adjusted gross income of $321,379, the Bidens gave $380. In nine out of the ten years for which tax returns were released, the Bidens gave less than $400 to charity; in the tenth year, 2007, when Biden was running for president, they gave $995 out of an adjusted gross income of $319,853.

    According to the data, Biden gave about 1/8 of 1 percent of his adjusted gross income to charity.”

    How did you respond to this? I will let others judge:

    “Close, it’s about 0.2% of the three years-worth of numbers from above.”

    While I applaud you for doing your own math, I need to point out that the numbers I presented were calculated from TEN YEARS of returns. So why would you have focused on three? Weird. (And I love that you, of all people, think you have an intellectual advantage over me because I committed a simple math blunder, which I admitted. Notice the dozens of blunders you’ve made — ones you ignore! — and your incapacity to admit a single error. I will say this: your blindness to irony is really quite entertaining!)

    Anyone who knows ANYTHING about politicians knew immediately — upon the release of Biden’s returns — that he would declare that he made contributions in cash to his church, etc. This, of course, means there is no paper trail. But what it also means is that Mr. Biden has no idea how much he gives at all; he may still give very little. And if he is willing to claim a deduction for a mere $120 (who does that at his income bracket?), then surely he would be mindful of all the pennies he could legally deduct, no?

    Also, it is nice to hear that the Bidens volunteer, but, at least according to my lawyer, TIME is not recognized by the IRS as “charitable donations.” All KINDS of people give time AND money, and do so more generously and, get this, do so as conservatives.

    _______________

    ON DR. BROOKS

    Your ad hominem fallacy regarding Mr. Brooks is stunning, and stunningly ignorant. I am sure you are utterly consistent; you dismiss anyone’s opinions because he or she is associated with a think tank of any ideological persuasion. But I digress. Please read what Mr. Lindgren wrote at The Volokh Conspiracy (remember, this is YOUR expert):

    On the whole, I think that “Who Really Cares” [by Dr. Brooks] is a valuable book with much sound analysis, but it appears that some of its main conclusions are based on the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, some of whose demographics don’t appear to match national representative samples such as the GSS and ANES. And in Brooks’s book, sometimes liberals are accused of being ungenerous when it appears that they may be more generous than political moderates. Generally, his otherwise strong analysis is weakened by focusing too little on what I have called the forgotten middle: moderates[bold added for emphasis]

    Note, too, what your expert says about the SCCBS data compared to the GSS and ANES:

    Although I don’t have the ANES data handy, my recollection is that the economic differences between conservatives and liberals are usually in the same direction and even larger in the ANES than in the GSS[bold added for emphasis]

    That’s some heady, and damning, analysis, don’t you think? As you might say, “lol.” Again, it looks like you are not REALLY reading your own links. I’ve asked you this before: Who is actually laughing at whom?

    Oh, before I forget. Here’s what your other expert had to say about Mr. Brooks:

    In nearly every case, the GSS data [used by Dr. Brooks] show that liberals contribute more and volunteer more than do conservatives. There are exceptions of course (for example, conservatives donate far more to religious organizations, which do some charitable work but are otherwise just social clubs), and there are many, many cases in which the data is ambiguous. But the general trend is that liberals are more generous than conservatives.[bold added for emphasis]

    Wow! Compelling stuff! One must ask two things: “Ambiguous” to whom? And, how is it that one “expert” finds that liberals give more compared to “moderates” while another concludes that liberals give more to conservatives, and yet both “experts” are reading the same data? (By the way, liberals actually do give more: they give more to laugh at.)

    I will definitely make sure to note that the Roman Catholic Church in NH is only a “social club” (that just happens to donate more food to food banks than anybody else, [a mere 5 million pounds of food annually]).

    Nice.

    ___________

    ON HEALTH CARE FOR “EVERYONE”

    You just wrote:

    I am NOT in favor of mandating that everyone MUST go to the doctor x-number of times per year.

    Good for you. But you can see why I find you so confusing. Earlier you wrote the following:

    Once again, you’re simply wrong. People should be a seeing a doctor once a year for a physical. They should be going to a dentist at least twice a year to get their teeth checked & cleaned. They should be going to an eye doctor once every 1-2 years to get their eyes examined.

    Surely you mean by “should” that they “ought to,” meaning that it is in their own self-interest to see a doctor without a mandate to do so, right? Or are you mandating that everyone should see a doctor once a year for a physical?

    Surely you can see why I find you so confusing.

    Bliss!

  57. “John Kerry. You claim he’s not the richest person in Congress”

    …which he’s simply not. That honor goes to Jane Harman (D-CA).

    Your own links say that “John Kerry and family” are worth “$525 million” as of February 2004…John Kerry is worth “$230.98 million” as of September 2008 (from a conservative website)…and John Kerry is worth “between $164 million and $211 million” as of July 2003.

    My unbiased link says that John Kerry is worth between “$284,157,594 & $388,292,172″ as of 2007.

    How did he gain all that wealth from 2003 to 2004 (ignoring, of course, that number includes his entire “family”, whatever that means) only to lose a huge amount of it between 2004 & 2008??

    “Apparently Massachusetts voters agreed not awfully long ago to a lower flat rate, but the former 5.85% rate is still offered as an option on the state’s tax form. Mr. Kerry did not pay at that higher rate.”

    Why would anyone (you included Billy-Boy) pay a tax rate that you’re *not required to* by law?? This idea sounds exactly like the “use tax” that people here in VT are supposed to report when they buy something from out of state (like from NH) where’s there’s no sale tax. I’m sure a whole lot of Vermonters just ignore that option entirely, and I don’t blame them one bit.

    “America fares extremely well when compared to the rest of the world when it comes to health care.”

    No, it really doesn’t, but we’ve already been over that several times now.

    “I have NEVER known anyone who wanted to leave America for health care in some other country.”

    So what?? I’ve never known any of my Canadian friends that ever wanted to seek health care in the USA. What does any of that prove??

    “I suggest you read one doctor’s outline as to how America leads the world in medical treatment”

    …from a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of all places…ugh…

    We’ve already been over the cancer issue.

    “Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.”

    As if the *only* treatment for reducing cholesterol and protecting against heart disease is statin drugs. Please…

    Where is this guy getting his stats from otherwise…out of thin air??

    “Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom”…for elective surgeries. Yea, and??

    “More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either ‘fundamental change’ or ‘complete rebuilding.’”

    “Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.”

    Again, he’s just making these numbers up. No other Western country on the planet would take our health care system over theirs, period.

    “injustice will never be overcome by justice.”

    That’s a nice, constructive attitude to have…not…

    “While I applaud you for doing your own math, I need to point out that the numbers I presented were calculated from TEN YEARS of returns.”

    No, they weren’t, since your data didn’t have ten years worth of returns in it, period end of story.

    “And I love that you, of all people, think you have an intellectual advantage over me because I committed a simple math blunder, which I admitted”

    …and then repeated over & over & over again. That’s the point Billy-boy.

    “This, of course, means there is no paper trail”

    …which, of course in your warped, Right-wing mind, means that he’s “lying”. Nonsense.

    “And if he is willing to claim a deduction for a mere $120 (who does that at his income bracket?”

    Why would he NOT try & take a deduction that’s he’s eligible for??

    “TIME is not recognized by the IRS as ‘charitable donations.’”

    Sure it is…try reading up on the IRS code there Billy-boy. You can deduct both time & mileage, if it’s above a certain level.

    “you dismiss anyone’s opinions because he or she is associated with a think tank of any ideological persuasion.”

    No, I merely note their obvious embedded biases, and then move on to their arguments with that info in mind.

    Let’s try this again for those that like to tell *half-truths* instead of the whole truth. My link says:

    “I am skeptical of basing so much on the SCCBS, in large part because it reports that liberal families make more money than conservatives (it is not clear from Brooks’s book whether the survey is of a representative national sample). In the 2000, 2002, and 2004 General Social Surveys, which are representative samples of the US, conservative families make $2,500 to $5,600 a year more than liberal families in each one.”

    “This problem comes to a head in Brooks’s probit and regression models analyzing SCCBS data (pp. 192-193). After controlling for a lot of things that you might not want to control for (i.e., being religious or secular), Brooks concludes that ‘liberals and conservatives are not distinguishable’ in whether they have made any donation in the last year. This is literally true, but he fails to note that in the model liberals give significantly more than moderates, if a traditional .05 significance level is used, while conservatives do not differ significantly from moderates.”

    “But what the model actually shows is that liberals give significantly more money than moderates, while conservatives give significantly more than both moderates and liberals. Moderates would seem to be the ungenerous ones, not liberals.”
    ———————————
    “Again, it looks like you are not REALLY reading your own links.”

    Wrong again Billy-boy.

    Again, let’s read what my other link *really* says:

    “Those of you who read this blog regularly (both of you) may remember Arthur Brooks, the guy who claimed that the entire country would soon be hard-core conservative (within fourteen years!) because conservatives were out-breeding liberals. Of course not only is this sheer nonsense because he ignored little things like immigration, it turned out that Brooks’ numbers weren’t even right.”

    “My previous experience with Brooks has led me to believe that he is highly disingenuous and not beyond jimmying the numbers to fit his thesis.”

    “So I checked the General Social Survey, one of his sources, to see if the raw data do indeed fit his thesis. What a surprise, they don’t.”

    “The most salient thing is that there is a huge variance in charitable giving among individuals within any one group. A small number of people give a whole lot, and a whole lot of people give very little. Effectively the same thing is true of volunteering, but even worse. The vast majority of people don’t volunteer at all. This makes comparisons among arbitrarily selected groups rather meaningless, because in each group it’s only a select few who are doing the giving. To me the central question that Brooks puts forth makes about as much sense as asking who is better at basketball, Americans or Chinese. If you limit the comparison only to the professionals, then Americans are probably better, but it would be meaningless to compare the entire populations of each country because most people either don’t play basketball or don’t take it very seriously if they do. Additionally, this makes appending percentages (as in, group A volunteers 50% more than group B) very misleading. A tiny number plus 50% is still a tiny number. Such differences would be far more meaningful if volunteering were widespread.”

    “Surveys are very good at telling us some things, but notoriously unreliable at others. One thing that they are definitely not good at is giving us an accurate gauge of how often people commit behaviors perceived as socially desirable. For example, twice as many people claim to attend church when asked in a survey than actually do attend church. Whether they’re fooling themselves or trying to fool the interviewer, people will consistently overestimate how often they do things that they are ‘supposed’ to do. (And they will likewise underestimate how often they do things they’re not supposed to do, like drink alcohol.) It’s impossible to believe that charitable giving doesn’t fit the same pattern. So when Brooks claims that a religious person is 57% more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person, does that mean that he’s really more likely to do so, or just more likely to say that he did? Without some method of resolving this issue, Brooks’ claims are pretty much meaningless, even if we accept his numbers at face value (which I do not).”

    “Earlier you wrote the following:

    ‘Once again, you’re simply wrong. People should be a seeing a doctor once a year for a physical. They should be going to a dentist at least twice a year to get their teeth checked & cleaned. They should be going to an eye doctor once every 1-2 years to get their eyes examined.’”

    Ugh…as I clearly explained when we discussed this issue earlier, what I was stating is what MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS recommend for how often people should see someone. Trying to conflate that simple fact with the idea that “the govt. will be telling people when & when not to go to a doctor” is just silliness…but, unfortunately, par for the course for the likes of you Billy-boy…

  58. MISTER GUY FROM INCOGNITO:

    Your “unbiased” link. That’s beautiful.

    Another good one.

  59. MISTER GUY THE UNINFORMED:

    I posited for your consideration the fact that TIME cannot be deducted as a charitable donation. The context of our conversation was nothing other than charities; charitable giving was the very pith of our topic. In fact, we were SPECIFICALLY discussing Joe Biden’s pathetic contributions to charity as revealed in his tax returns. In defense of his penurious ways, you cited a Biden spokesman, whom you quoted at length:

    The charitable contributions claimed by the Bidens on their tax returns are not the sum of their annual contributions to charity. Like most regular churchgoers, they contribute to their church, and they also contribute to their favorite causes with their time as well as their checkbooks, whether it’s Jill Biden’s volunteer work with military families or the Biden breast-health initiative…[bold added for emphasis]

    What was your reply to my assertion that the IRS does not recognize, i.e., value, TIME; that TIME was not deductible? Here it is:

    Sure it is…try reading up on the IRS code there Billy-boy. You can deduct both time & mileage, if it’s above a certain level.

    Here’s the truth that eludes you:

    Volunteer time at a nonprofit organization is not tax deductible.

    You can always check this link, too, if you have problems understanding tax law, er, Boy Guy.

    You appear to have a doctorate in getting things wrong. Shall I continue pointing out your blunders? (How much time do you have? Maybe I can deduct my services here come tax time.)

    REGARDING JOHN KERRY

    I don’t know why you resist admitting that John Kerry is, indeed, listed as the wealthiest person in Congress. But since you are given to such resistance, let’s say he is NOT the wealthiest; I will concede (for argument’s sake) that he is in the top five. OK. Fine. Wow.

    Let’s review the timeline: You initially doubted that Massachusetts had an optional tax rate that was higher than the standard tax rate. I then showed you that you were wrong to doubt something so readily evident. And then you responded by doing what must seem utterly natural: You changed the subject! (Red Herring alert!) You wrote:

    Why would anyone (you included Billy-Boy) pay a tax rate that you’re *not required to* by law?? This idea sounds exactly like the “use tax” that people here in VT are supposed to report when they buy something from out of state (like from NH) where’s there’s no sale tax. I’m sure a whole lot of Vermonters just ignore that option entirely, and I don’t blame them one bit.

    How, pray tell, is the Vermont “use tax” one whit germane here? Answer: It isn’t! It’s utterly irrelevant. The point under discussion is charity, compassion; it is about whether liberals or conservatives CARE MORE for those without medical insurance. I have repeatedly asserted that Democrats (where the liberals find their home) do not actually care for the health of the needy. One bit of proof of this is that liberals, by and large, give less to charity than do conservatives. One specific example of a filthy rich American — John Kerry — who chose NOT to DONATE money to the state in which he lives (a state in fiscal crisis) by filing his taxes at the optional, voluntary rate, speaks EXACTLY to my point: Liberals ONLY care about giving SOMEONE ELSE’S money towards the injustices they believe must be addressed.

    If John Kerry REALLY cares about the health of his state; if he believes MORE MONEY would help the less fortunate in Massachusetts, then it follows that he would be willing to give more money — voluntarily — toward that end. He did not. But boy, does he really, really care!

    INJUSTICE WILL NEVER BE OVERCOME

    In the midst of our conversation about health care in America, I freely admitted that there are imperfections in the health care system we enjoy — or don’t enjoy — in the US. I will even now add that such an admission implies that I support reform. If I did not think the system needed reform, I think I could be accused of believing the system is perfect, since what does not need reform is arguably without blemish or spot. But I am not given to such idealism. The garment needs washing.

    But the fact remains that, at least in this life, perfection is not possible. Justice ideally is a state of perfection, but since there is no perfection, there is no state of perfect justice. Besides, PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS GRIPE! People, the most imperfect of God’s creations (I exaggerate?), are not an easy lot to please. No matter how effective a system, no matter how near perfect, no matter how just, SOMEONE WILL find fault, or will demand a new RIGHT, or claim to be a victim. Resentment and envy, these are a bottomless pit. As the historian I spoke with last night at the gym said, “Vice is bottomless.” SInce resentment and envy are a vice, they will NEVER be placated or appeased.

    Hence, I stand confident in my assertion that “injustice will never be overcome by justice.” And this despite your amateurish attempt at sarcasm (“That’s a nice, constructive attitude to have…not…”).

    YOU CAN’T ADMIT YOUR FALLIBILITY

    Each time I post here I show that you are wrong. And wrong again. And then again. In fact, if it were possible, you might be the first interlocutor I’ve ever engaged who is wrong about everything.

    You were flat out wrong in your defense of Biden’s tax returns: you “did the math” without reading the excerpt I posted here. The data was based on ten years, not your invented three. YOU were wrong, not necessarily mathematically, but polemically. TO deny this is insanity: You prove yourself not so much a plain fool but a pitiable fool. I am sorry for hurling such an insult your way; I try hard not to be mean. But egads, whoever you are, you should maintain your anonymity. Please, don’t let anyone know who you are, because, well, you just shouldn’t.

    And as for your “experts” allegedly debunking Dr. Brooks’s work, well, since I have shown REPEATEDLY throughout both threads here at “She’s Right” that you are irrational, given to petulance, name-calling and fallacies, then I will leave you to turmoil in the world of un-reason you seem to enjoy. I am sure the flowers are nice there this time of year. That you don’t even see that both “experts” equivocate is truly amazing.

    Good luck with aaalllll that, my pettifogging friend.

  60. Dear Charity,

    I want to thank you for your very tolerant and patient moderation of this thread. You have provided a decent and open forum, and I appreciate that.

    I will be stepping out from this discussion now so I can attend to some challenging health issues facing my family. Care is a full-time job, and I have to move my attention elsewhere. There is no respite, if you know what I mean, from suffering, and from serving in the face of it. You do what you can and must, and that’s all you can do.

    Peace, and much thanks.

    Bill Gnade

    (I may still drop a line or two, but the formal polemics will stop.)

  61. “I posited for your consideration the fact that TIME cannot be deducted as a charitable donation. The context of our conversation was nothing other than charities; charitable giving was the very pith of our topic.”

    “Volunteer time at a nonprofit organization is not tax deductible”

    …and the mileage that you use for charitable volunteering is deductible.

    http://www.bargaineering.com/a.....ering.html

    “You initially doubted that Massachusetts had an optional tax rate that was higher than the standard tax rate.”

    No, I simply wondered what the rate was in the first place & why anyone in their right mind would use it if they weren’t required to.

    “How, pray tell, is the Vermont ‘use tax’ one whit germane here?”

    Because it’s another tax rate that’s not used very widely…just like the completely *optional* higher tax rate in MA, period.

    “I have repeatedly asserted that Democrats (where the liberals find their home) do not actually care for the health of the needy”

    …and you’ve been simply WRONG on that point, no matter how many times you choose to bring it up!

    “One bit of proof of this is that liberals, by and large, give less to charity than do conservatives”

    …which isn’t the least bit true at all, as I have clearly shown here in this very thread.

    “One specific example of a filthy rich American — John Kerry — who chose NOT to DONATE money to the state in which he lives (a state in fiscal crisis) by filing his taxes at the optional, voluntary rate”

    …which he’s not required to use at all. What you are simply doing, yet again, is conflating the issue of charitable giving with what one’s effective tax rate is, which is simply ridiculous.

    “But the fact remains that, at least in this life, perfection is not possible.”

    So why even try right?? Nice dodge there…it isn’t working…

    “Justice ideally is a state of perfection”

    Nonsense. Justice is simply the maintenance or administration of what is just, especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments OR the quality of being just, impartial, or fair. It’s not a hard concept to grasp or to make real.

    “Besides, PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS GRIPE!”

    Just because people “gripe” doesn’t mean that they have a valid point in their griping.

    “Each time I post here I show that you are wrong.”

    LOL…you wish Billy-boy…

    “you might be the first interlocutor I’ve ever engaged who is wrong about everything.”

    Once again, you’re projecting here…lol…

    “You were flat out wrong in your defense of Biden’s tax returns: you ‘did the math’ without reading the excerpt I posted here. The data was based on ten years, not your invented three.”

    It’s kind of hard to say that the data was based on 10 years when there were only 3 data points in your original post there Billy-boy. This is NOT a difficult concept to grasp BTW, except for some like you that has a well demonstrated, really, really hard time with math.

    “And as for your ‘experts’ allegedly debunking Dr. Brooks’s work”

    There’s that “alleged” word again…used inappropriately yet again…ugh…

    Bye-bye Billy-boy…

  62. Actually, “allegedly” is used precisely. Notice that it is not an “alleged” word, as you suggest, but a very real one.

    Again, you are wrong. Ad infinitum.

    (FW)

  63. MISTER GUY, before I forget. Notice that the original quote I posted CLEARLY STATED that TEN YEARS of tax data were used to determine the percentage of Mr. Biden’s adjusted gross income that went to charitable donations. You hastily and arbitrarily chose to compute using three data points (you ARE a dreadful reader); you did this partly because you smugly assumed you have superior math aptitude, and that the report I cited was wrong. It wasn’t. You were.

    Again. Ad infinitum.

    (FW)

  64. EVERYBODY!

    Please note that Mr. Guy, or Boy Guy, or whatever he is, is not only wrong ad infinitum, he’s also given to plagiarism (that nasty habit).

    In his response to my claim that “Justice ideally is a state of perfection,” Mr. Plagiarizing Guy wrote:

    Nonsense. Justice is simply the maintenance or administration of what is just, especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments OR the quality of being just, impartial, or fair. It’s not a hard concept to grasp or to make real.

    Such amazing prose, Mister Guy!

    Now, go check out THIS LINK if you want a great laugh. Seriously, click on it to discover just how original — and capable — Mister Guy actually is! Talk about “ROTFL,” Mister Guy. You’re the gift that just keeps on giving.

    Let me repeat myself: The irony you cannot see is just so beautiful!

    (Maybe you should have first tried to understand what I meant by “ideally.”)

    (FW)

  65. “Notice that the original quote I posted CLEARLY STATED that TEN YEARS of tax data were used to determine the percentage of Mr. Biden’s adjusted gross income that went to charitable donations.”

    My goodness, how dense can one person possibly be?? This is YOUR original quote from above Billy-boy (from where it actually came we might never know):

    “Last Friday, Sen. Joseph Biden, the Democratic candidate for vice president, released his tax returns for the years 1998 to 2007. The returns revealed that in one year, 1999, Biden and his wife Jill gave $120 to charity out of an adjusted gross income of $210,979. In 2005, out of an adjusted gross income of $321,379, the Bidens gave $380. In nine out of the ten years for which tax returns were released, the Bidens gave less than $400 to charity; in the tenth year, 2007, when Biden was running for president, they gave $995 out of an adjusted gross income of $319,853.”

    There are only THREE data points in that quote. You can read, can’t you?? I fully understand that Biden released 10 years worth of tax returns when he was running in 2008, but your quote only has THREE numbers. Give it up moron.

    “he’s also given to plagiarism (that nasty habit).”

    Wow…YOU cite a direct quotation (from above) with NO source, and I *modify* a common definition of justice to prove that your claims about it are totally false…and I’M the one that’s the plagiariser??

    “Maybe you should have first tried to understand what I meant by ‘ideally.’”

    Quit your nonsensical back-peddling, you moron.

  66. Dear Mister Guy The Avowed Plagiarist,

    Are you still around? You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Let’s discuss who can’t read. Here’s what was originally posted (I will cut to the chase, so to speak):

    In nine out of the ten years for which tax returns were released, the Bidens gave less than $400 to charity; in the tenth year, 2007, when Biden was running for president, they gave $995 out of an adjusted gross income of $319,853.”[bold added for emphasis]

    IMMEDIATELY you should have figured out the source† of that quote: just cut and paste it into Google’s search bar and you instantly find from whence I culled that excerpt.

    And then I wrote in the subsequent paragraph:

    According to the data, Biden gave about 1/8 of 1 percent of his adjusted gross income to charity. I will let you do the math, but suffice it to say that for every dollar poor Joe Biden earned, he gave away less than a half cent.

    By “according to the data,” what did YOU think was meant? Did you think the DATA were the three data points given? WHY?! Who in their right mind would make such an inference? Don’t you realize that the data are Joe Biden’s tax returns; that the data source is Joe Biden himself?

    So here is what you expect us to believe: YOU KNEW the data were from 10 years’ worth of returns, but since you only saw three data points, you figured you’d DISPROVE the overall analysis by computing from those three points. Is this your idea of a sound defense of your obvious incompetence?

    We are all laughing in your general direction.

    ______________

    Yes, you are a plagiarist. You presented something that was not your own as if it was.

    ______________

    Truly, you are the funniest thing going right now. This is perfect:

    Quit your nonsensical back-peddling, you moron.

    Let’s see. Nonsensical back-peddling. Not to be confused with sensical back-peddling. Or just back-PEDALING. It’s not everyday one meets someone fluent in jabberwocky. I think the White Knight is talking backwards, don’t you?

    You know what I am thinking of right now? I am thinking of Dick Cheney talking about “death throes.” Death throes, indeed.

    (URAFW)

    †I will freely admit (something you will not do) that had I submitted the source of the quote over which you continue to embarrass yourself, you MIGHT have an excuse for your ridiculous blunder. BUT note that I NEVER suggested that the words I quoted were my own: I masked no such thing. You, however, not only lifted a definition from Merriam-Webster, you tried to conceal it by making subtle modifications in punctuation. There is NO DOUBT you meant those words to appear as your own. For that, you are a plagiarist. I, on the hand, was, at worst, too hasty. And I was wrong to assume you would show a little circumspection before leaping to your wild, erroneous calculation. I regret expecting too much of you. I will gladly take the blame for that.

  67. Egads. Another mistake on my part. Sorry. I see my blockquote tag must have wandered. The final quote above ends at “…you moron.” (That just cracks me up every time I see it.)

    Here is what should have appeared in plain text:

    Let’s see. “Nonsensical back-peddling.” Not to be confused with sensical back-peddling. Or just back-PEDALING. It’s not every day one meets someone fluent in jabberwocky. I think the White Knight is talking backwards, don’t you?

    You know what I am thinking of right now? I am thinking of Dick Cheney talking about “death throes.” Death throes, indeed.

    (URAFW)

    †I will freely admit (something you will not do) that had I submitted the source of the quote over which you continue to embarrass yourself, you MIGHT have an excuse for your ridiculous blunder. BUT note that I NEVER suggested that the words I quoted were my own: I masked no such thing. You, however, not only lifted a definition from Merriam-Webster, you tried to conceal it by making subtle modifications in punctuation. There is NO DOUBT you meant those words to appear as your own. For that, you are a plagiarist. I, on the hand, was, at worst, too hasty. And I was wrong to assume you would show a little circumspection before leaping to your wild, erroneous calculation. I regret expecting too much of you. I will gladly take the blame for that.

  68. EVERYONE!

    MISTER GUY at least tacitly admits he doctored (modified) a Merriam-Webster definition of justice to make it look like his own. But I wonder if the authors of Merriam-Webster would agree with mister guy (he is just shrinking away) that THEIR definition is a “common definition”? Really?

    Here’s JUSTICE as defined by the Oxford American Dictionary:

    1. just behavior or treatment : a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people. a. the quality of being fair and reasonable. b. the administration of the law or authority maintaining this. 2. a judge or magistrate.

    Here’s JUSTICE as defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary (Third College Edition):

    1. the quality of being righteous; rectitude. 2. impartiality; fairness. 3. the quality of being right or correct.

    So far, the Merriam-Webster definition is not particularly “common,” is it?

    mister guy (just wasting away). He’s wrong again, ad infinitum.

    URAFW

  69. To whom it may concern:

    I know I said I’d be leaving formal polemics in this thread, and I have. But this is all a bit like renovating a kitchen: the job is done but now it’s time to clean up.

  70. “IMMEDIATELY you should have figured out the source† of that quote: just cut and paste it into Google’s search bar and you instantly find from whence I culled that excerpt.”

    Too bad you can’t be bothered to add *actual citations* to your stolen “quotes” here, which is a pretty standard practice.

    “By ‘according to the data,’ what did YOU think was meant?”

    Once again Billy-boy, quit your nonsensical back-peddling. Show us the 10 data points that you used to calculate your phony numbers, or just go away.

    “But I wonder if the authors of Merriam-Webster would agree with mister guy (he is just shrinking away) that THEIR definition is a ‘common definition’?”

    And yet more useless back-peddling from you…ugh…it’s all you really have at the end of every, single day, eh Billy-Boy??

    “So far, the Merriam-Webster definition is not particularly ‘common,’ is it?”

    Maybe to those that need to use a dictionary for every word that they come across, moron.

    “I know I said I’d be leaving formal polemics in this thread”

    …and you lied…just like I knew that you would.

  71. Please, “mister guy,” don’t presume to lecture me on form. You are exceptionally slovenly as a writer, thinker and researcher. You couldn’t be more fallacious if I paid you. (Maybe YOU can deduct the time you spend here when you file your 2009 1040.)

    “Non-sensical back-peddling.” What exactly is that? Have you not YET learned how to spell — or think? It’s “back-pedaling,” not ‘back-peddling.” (The laughs truly do not stop.)

    Truly, URAFW.

    Here is a richly ironic sentence if there ever was one, and YOU wrote it:

    Maybe to those that need to use a dictionary for every word that they come across, moron.

    Please recall, if you can, that YOU sought a dictionary to define “justice.” YOU’RE the one who turned to the dictionary for help — and then PRETENDED you had not, plagiarist. I wasn’t the first to turn to a dictionary, you were. Moreover, it was YOU who turned several ridiculous times to the dictionary for help during our conversation regarding historic district commissions and gay marriage (in another thread here, “City Won’t Give An Inch”); recall how in that discussion, I schooled you in how a dictionary actually works. Well, to be accurate, I actually I could not have schooled you, because you are so utterly uncomprehending.

    So, ONCE AGAIN, you are wrong, AND you have once AGAIN projected on to me what YOU YOURSELF have committed.

    Still having trouble with those “ten” data points, there mister diminutive guy? Wow.

    As I’ve said several times, you are rich. Good luck with aaaallllll that.

  72. “YOU’RE the one who turned to the dictionary for help — and then PRETENDED you had not”

    Wrong again Billy-boy.

    “it was YOU who turned several ridiculous times to the dictionary for help during our conversation regarding historic district commissions and gay marriage (in another thread here, ‘City Won’t Give An Inch’); recall how in that discussion, I schooled you in how a dictionary actually works.”

    LOL…you mean those dictionaries that almost all define marriage as not only between a man & a woman?? Wow…

    “Still having trouble with those ‘ten’ data points, there mister diminutive guy?”

    No, YOU are, but there’s another nice bit of projection on your part there Billy-boy.

  73. mister diminutive guy.

    Wrong once again. You mean the ONE dictionary you cited — the Merriam-Webster dictionary — that had only recently changed the definition of marriage to conform to current, though still not majority, trends.

    You find pleasure in being wrong, don’t you?

    Yes, yes. The ten data points are tough for you, even though when defending your silly flub you said you KNEW that there were ten data points. You do have problems, that’s for sure. Let’s see what you said:

    There are only THREE data points in that quote. You can read, can’t you?? I fully understand that Biden released 10 years worth of tax returns when he was running in 2008, but your quote only has THREE numbers. Give it up moron. [bold added for emphasis]

    So, tell me, MISTER GUY THE PLAGIARIST, how is it you “fully” understood that there were ten data points and yet chose to only use three? I am sorry, but your defense is looking spectacularly stupid. (And what you are actually doing is looking for an external locus of control, which is a fairly liberal strategy: you are looking to blame me for your blunders. You are playing the victim rather poorly, but you are playing the victim. Unfortunately the cause of your difficulties is internal, not external.)

    How many times must you be wrong before you realize that you live in denial?

    As I’ve said repeatedly, you are wrong ad infinitum.

    And ad nauseam.

    Good luck.