Price of Reform

[rollerswartz]

I can just look at Rove and tell he is dishonest..

[megarational]

Fox News and Karl Rove.

Two names you can trust.

(Yuk yuk)

[megarational]

Yet again it's Fox News yet again interviewing yet another Republican.

Republicans want to kill HC reform for purposes of bringing down Obama so that they can once again get back in power and screw things up.

[Budguy68]

Things will get screwed up either way.

[jtkirkfan2002]

Obama already screwed things up. Also it's no different than CNN, MSNBC, et al interviewing Democrats and the viewer expecting an unibased view.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Fox is the most biased propaganda pile on the networks.

Fox Fiction twists itself into a pretzel trying to shape the news and put the GOP spin on it.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Spoken like a true lib who realizes that the left's lock on the broadcasting of information is at an end. It must be terrible for you to know that your side's B.S. and propaganda isn't the only thing getting out anymore.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Fox ratings occur mostly because it is the only network that is always and only right wing. The rest of news networks are far more neutral and the rest of America is divided among the real news networks, and leaves Fox Fiction alone. Outside of wossy Colmes (if he's still there) name one Fox personality who is not extreme right wing. On MSNBC there is Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, plus right wing guests. CNN is pretty much neutral

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational The only fiction here is your contention that CNN or MSNBC are anything other than in Obama's hip pocket. Buchanan is unstable and Scarborough is no conservative.

Obama finally went on FOX and finally got real questions instead of the softballs he gets everywhere else.

Fox's ratings? The Cartoon Network has higher ratings than MSNBC and CNN combined. People are sick of getting thier news directly from the DNC.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Obama extended h. coverage to another 31 million and finally ended insurance company abuses like dropping your coverage if you get sick.

Now, Obama has saved taxpayers 61 billion and made higher education more accessible by increasing PEL grants and cutting out the Banks as unnecessary middlemen in no risk govt' backed student loans.

Naturally the GOP opposed cutting out the subsidies to the banks.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Obama has made it near impossible for insurance companies to do business in this country. How could he have extended coverage to 31 million when the number of people who didn't have insurance but wanted it was more like 12 million? Why wreck a salvagable system for such a small minority?

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Ask the CBO.

As for making things tough on those poor old insurance companies, don't make me puke.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Yeah, why would we want to keep more people working? Obama can't win a second term unless he gets more than 50% of the population sucking the government's teet. The problem with socialism though is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Did you use that argument when Obama bailed out the auto industry saving a vital manufacturing infrastructure and thousands if not tens of thousands of jobs?

[jtkirkfan2002]

You just attacked "corporate welfare". Do you even have any idea whose side your on? The auto bailout was supposed to prevent GM and Chrysler's bankruptcy. Yeah, that worked. Obama only bailed them out so he could get his mits into them and prevent them from being able to renegotiate union contracts. It also prevented their legitimate creditors from begin able to collect.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Thanks to Obama having the government take over student loans, 30% of Sallie Mae's workforce is going to be eliminated. Way to save those jobs, Lord Barack.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Sally Mae has had a sweet deal at taxpayer expense.

Sally Mae's free ride is over.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational What do you have against the private sector? You are obviously a true Obama-ite socialist. Once again the problem with his plan is that eventually he will run out of other people's money.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 What, you think welfare for people is bad but welfare for corporations is just great?

You are not alone. The GOP agree with you.

[jtkirkfan2002]

Who was it who bailed out the auto industry and now has a good portion of both GM and Chrysler under government control? I never said anything about corporate welfare. I think companies that can't compete in an open market should go under and be replaced with those that can. Obama seizing control of student loans from a private company isn't the same thing. Neither is the jobs that will be lost due to Obama seizing control of the healthcare industry.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 How dumb can you possibly be not to know that the only reason Sallie May ever got a sweet heart deal is that politicians pandered to special interests.

Anyone who complains about improving access to higher education while at the same time saving taxpayers 61 billion dollars is a lunatic.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational You are a complete and utter moron. Sallie Mae is basically the student loan version of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. IT wouldn't exist if it weren't for the student loan industry. You actually believe that this is going to improve anything? When has a Democrat program or idea ever improved anything?

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 It has already improved both access and cost.

You should know that if you listened to anything other than Fox Fiction.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Now you're just being stupid. It hasn't even gone into effect yet so it hasn't had a chance to improve anything. Because "Obama said it's so," doesn't make it true.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational This will balloon into another self-serving government bureaucracy riddled with layer upon layer of inefficiency and cost tax payers tens of billions of dollars more than it was ever promised to save. Name one government program, just one, that hasn't.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 When I want you opinion I'll listen to Glen Beck.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Leave Glen Beck out of this. I don't listen to Glen Beck. I asked you to name one government program, JUST ONE, that didn't end up costing BILLIONS more than it was said to. Now either name one, shut up or give me another chicken-shit answer like that one. I love asking liberals for facts. You don't have any.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 That's not the way it works. The way it works is that you do the research - then you make a claim of the research supports it - not the other way around.

And you have already admitted later on this thread you haven't done the research.

[jtkirkfan2002]

The only thing about jobs that Obama is "focused like a laser on" is how many people he can put out of work.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 now if that were true he would have just allowed the auto companies to fail. He could have put tens of thousands, more likely millions, out of work.

Come to think of it, if you wanted millions out of work you probably should have listened to people like yourself who criticized the auto co. bailouts and the money spent to do it.

Today, thanks to those bailouts, the domestic auto manufacturing industry is recovering and the jobs were not lost.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Obama only bailed out the auto industry for his buddies in the UAW. Do you honestly think he would have cared if union votes weren't at stake? Had there been no bailout, the companies would have filed bankruptcy anyway, but instead of ending up joint ventures between Obama Motors and the UAW, genuine creditors would have been first taken care of and the companies could have renegotiated insane union contracts.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 If the domestic car manufacturing industry failed the foreign manufacturers would have taken up the slack, with dividends, profits, and control going overseas.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Idiotic statements like that put you squarely in the lunatic fringe.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational People who say things like that in light of Obama's obvious agenda to ruin this country are either fools or believe that we deserve to get "taken down a peg".

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Another UFO sighting by the lunatic fringe.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Another useful idiot ready to swallow and regurgitate whatever his liberal masters tell him to.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Useful idiots are what the Tea-baggers are to the Republican party.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational You should know all about tea-bagging. Sorry, we're not into your deviate behavior. The TEA party is influencing polititcians. Useful idiots, (a real term from the Communist Manifesto), like you just absorb and repeat whatever the "Party" tells them to. We're free thinkers. You're parrots.

[jtkirkfan2002]

Still waiting for you to name one government program that hasn't come in tens of billions of dollars over budget. I love asking liberals for facts. You can hear their brains melting.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 National Parks.

Tea-baggers not used to deviate behavior?

Barf.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Yes, I'm familiar with National Parks. I've visited several of them. Not sure what that has to do with your sexually deviate behavior, though.

Still trying to come up with a government program that didn't come in tens of billions of dollars over budget? I'll make it easy for you. THERE AREN'T ANY!

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 There are hundreds of gov't departments and agencies. National Parks was just one. Go through the list and name any, outside of the defense department, that went billions over budget.

Your cheap trick of blanket statements like "name any government program that hasn't come in billions of dollars over budget" won't fly here.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Basically ANY government entitlement program based on the idea of transferring wealth.

National Parks is not a government program. It's a department. It's also not 100% taxpayer funded. Ever pay an admission fee? Perhaps I should have been more specific so your feeble mind could understand.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002

Of course social safety nets like Social Security are going to kick in when there is high unemployment. I didn't think i would have to mention something so obvious - but I guess I overestimate your intelligence - and that was hard to do since I already pegged you for an idiot.

So lets take Medicare, since you want to use it as an example:

read on

So go ahead, name some

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Every one of those programs, along with countless others, has ended up costing BILLIONS more than what the American public was told when they were sold to the public. I figured you would understand what I meant when we were discussing the new student loan setup and how it will overrun by billions in the long run.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002

Shallow thinkers confuse "efficiently run" with "adequately funded".

Medicare is efficiently run with a 3% overhead rate compared to 30% overhead for private insurance. The problem is that government chose to fund wars, massive tax cuts for the rich, pork and earmarks, white elephant projects for political purposes, but didn't plan for Medicare funding. That is not the fault of Medicare.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Once again: Medicare has cost tens of billions, probably hundreds of billions, of dollars more than what the American public was told it would cost at it's inception. Understanding this isnt' that difficult.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 It has become totally obvious to me that you have checked NONE of the hundreds of programs, departments and agencies administered by the Federal to see whether they operated over or under budget. You just parrot the major social safety net programs, which even the lowest fool knows will increase in costs during a depression, and then making a blanket statement without having done any research. So typical of your type.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational I'm only going to say this once more, so get it through that thick liberal skull of yours. I am not interested in budgets. Budgets for EVERY federal program go UP every year. I am asking you to name one, just ONE, federal program that didn't end up costing tens if not hundreds of billions more than originally promised. Do it or shut up.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 eg: American Medical News - The number of uninsured Americans increased by about 600,000 in 2008, despite government health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid enrolling in excess of 4 million more people than they did the year before. Of course budgets had to increase, your h.c. insurance stem was so fucked up that without Medicare & Medicaid you would have had tens of more uninsured on to top of the tens of millions already uninsured.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational The federal government is the largest insurer on the planet before Obamacare. It rejects a disproportionately large number of claims compared to private insurers. I still don't care about budget numbers. Name a program that actually cost what its creators promised it would.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Another uninformed person mentioning Medicare's higher claim denial rates without the critical info. necessary to interpret it.

1) demographics are differerent, 2) claim denial reasons are different & 3) those high denial rights are largely due to giving too much latitude to the private insur. co. "carriers" and their Local Medical Review Policies (LMRP's) to deny claims submitted for reimbursement under Medicare.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Another person outside of the medical industry trying to justify the governments ineptitude. My wife used to bill Medicare and Medicaid for a hospital. I've heard the chicken-sh-- reasons they use for denying claims. A claim can be 100% correct and it will still be denied. It was all about hanging onto the money.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Claims are reviewed and paid by private insurance companies serving as agents of the Federal Government, and their standards LRMP's vary from place to place. If the LRMP didn't deny a claim or treatment - Medicare would provide it.

Now, also remember that prohibiting denial for pre-existing conditions and minimum plans standards in the h.c. reform will reduce claim denials in both the private and government side.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational No, prohibiting denial for preexisting conditions, (even when the policy is bought on the day of diagnosis) will result in no claims as the insurance industry will cease to exist. Of course, then we'll need a "public option" to take over. Obama's plan all along.

Medicare routinely denied the first two or so claims simply to delay payment. Ask any doctor.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 "The insurance industry will cease to exist?????

You make me laugh so hard the tears roll down my face.

You are a COMPLETE idiot.

What else could one expect from you, since you already admitted you listen to and believe Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck.

Anyway, good to see you have kind heart to those poor old insurance companies, who just keep making ever higher profits at the same time the nation is an recession, wages decreased, and health care costs rose.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Do you think that insurance companies can simply print more money the way that Obama does? Their profit margin is already only about 2%. Forcing them to take on anyone and fixing their prices will run them out of business. If you knew anything about business and economics, you'd understand that. That's the problem with your lib's. You are ignorant of the things you want to control.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Not to mention the large administrative costs of trying go through medical records with a fine tooth comb trying to find a "pre-existing condition" or any other loophole in a effort to avoid paying claims, and fighting claim payments.

Insurance companies have denied claims for such "pre-existing conditions" as acne, bunions, and hemorrhoids.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational I can come up with anecdotal examples of your awful system too. Just be a kid in high school athletics who goes in for his or her physical and finds something "irregular" that requires and MRI to determine. May as well forget sports that school year. You'll get your MRI in about 11 months if you're lucky.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 You can come up with anecdotal examples of anything: someone who got great h. care in Canada, someone who got poor care in Canada, someone who got great care in the U.S., someone who got poor care in the U.S. You could even interview some of he families of the thousands who die each year in the U.S from lack of h.c insurance.

By the way, Cn'd gov't posts website w/ av. wait times. MRI's - 10.1 wks., but should come down as major investment underway.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational 10.1 weeks? You think that's good? Try one week or less in the US, dumbass.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Your exact works, cut & paste from above were that in Canada "you'll get your MRI in 11 months if your are lucky". Since the gov'ts of each prov. & nationally track wait times by procedure as a way of directing more investment - it was easy to prove what a lying sack of shit you are.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Then you pulled another figure out of your imagination: "try one week or less in the U.S".

Since you have proved to be a liar I researched MRI wait times in the U.S.

The results are on next comment.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002

There is no systematized collection of data on wait times in the U.S. That makes it difficult to draw comparisons with countries that have national health systems, where wait times are not only tracked but made public.

So did you do your own national statistical study?

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002

Now, if you actually want to do some study on wait times, try studying the wait times for those without insurance in the U.S.

I would do the same for Canada except that we don't have any uninsured here.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 And one last point about MRI average figure for Canada - wait times are based on urgency, not like in the U.S. where it depends on the size of your wallet, so emergency cases get priority and if the situation warrants the MRI is done immediately.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002

Do Canadians prefer their h.c. system?

2009 poll by Nanos Research:86.2% of Canadians surveyed supported or strongly supported "public solutions to..health care. 2009 Harris/Decima poll: 82% of Canadians preferred their healthcare system to the one in the United States, more than ten times as many as the 8% stating a preference for a US-style health care system.. Strategic Counsel survey in 2008: 91% of Canadians preferring their healthcare system to that of the U.S

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational That's good. You're old. Let's see how you like it when you develop real health problems. The ones who might have said something bad about it are already dead.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 You are right, I am old enough that that over my life I've had to see doctors many times, had operations, & hospital stays. To shed light on another Fox Fiction talking point, not once not never in all that time did any government bureaucrat interfere in any way with what doctor I saw or what treatment the doctor prescribed. I never had deductibles, co-payments, or caps. and never had to fight any insurance company to get a claim paid because I never even had to file a claim.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 You lie like a son of a bitch about your own system.

You get even more disgusting when you start lying about other countries.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Their profit margin is 3% but their overhead is 30%. That 30% includes advertising departments, sales forces and commissions, national anti-h.c.-reform media campaigns, massive CEO salaries & bonuses, advertising campaigns, political campaign contributions and massive lobbying - all paid for by your private health care premiums.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational So what? 80 cents of every dollar you spend on anything is spent on advertising and infrastructure. I'm personally glad that someone had the resources to get out and tell the truth about both the House (Draconian) version of Obamacare and the Senate (Draconian-lite) version.

I love how you find these oddball few and far between examples. Check Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and SCHIP for some better examples of denied claims.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Medicare has 3% overhead.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational You are a liar as well as an idiot. I said I didn't listen to Glen Beck. And Rush makes more sense in five minutes that you have this whole time. I'd accuse you of getting your talking points from Olberman and Matthews, but they only have about five viewers each and I've met all ten of those. Believe it or not, they are more insane than you are.

And Dummy, company profits are what gets us out of the recession.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 No fuck head - it's increased GDP, higher employment, improved balance of trade that will do it.

Give a corporation more money and it may invest it offshore, or simply play the stock market.

Give someone at the lower or middle class an extra dollar and they will be more likely to spend it and spend it domestically, stimulating demand.

Increased demand stimulates an economy.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational No it won't, dumbass (I can cuss too, dick head). Company profits go to stockholders which are no longer fatcats smoking cigars. They are mom's & dad's who own mutual funds, 401K's and have pensions. Tax cuts worked for JFK, Reagan, and Bush. Give the poor an extra dollar and he's going to to Walmart and buy something made in China or Mexico. Good God you are dense.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 You seem to be following the debunked Republican "trickle down" theory - give more and more to those with the most and we will all be better off. The Bush tax that primarily benefited the super rich were an example of that ideology. .

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational It worked for JFK. It worked for Reagan. It also worked for Bush. Federal revenues went UP after the tax cuts each time. It is a documented FACT, ASSWIPE! The only people who claim that the "trickle down theory" has been debunked are liberal parrots who believe that if they repeat it enough, it will become true. It's Obama's "spread the wealth" around crap that's been debunked again and again.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Obama gave tax cuts to 95% pf working Americans. There were some small taxes added for h.c. reform (mostly if you made more than $200K/yr, but between the tax cuts and tax credits for h. premiums and subsidies it amounts to a large tax cut for those at low and middle income.

Bush's years were marked by going from surplus to deficits, from bad balance of trade to horrible balance of trade, from average wages increasing to average wages stagnating.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Obama didn't cut anyone's taxes. Repeat ANYONE's. That is a blatant, bald-faced lie. He "decreased witholdings" without changing the tax brackets, leading sheeple to believe they got a tax cut, until they filed their returns this year and had to pay it all back.

There was also no Clinton "surplus". It was all fuzzy math. Clinton was heading us into a recession.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Where did you research all that?

Fox Fiction?

Rush Limbaugh?

"Conservative blogs?

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 In the election debate between Al Gore and George W Bush, Al Gore pointed out that Bushes "tax cuts" would pri9mparily benefit the rich, and most benefit the super rich.

Bushes exact response was "he's using 'fuzzy math".

Seems that tactic is still in use.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 I had to revisit your last comment again because it displays an almost unimaginable stupidity.

For a couple of decades corporate profits rose and the rich became richer while the average wage stagnated and actually decreased in real terms.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 And as for departments or programs not 100% government funded, that includes a whole host of them, so I don't know what your point is.

National Parks cost more than is received from admissions, yet still ran within budget. So much for your "claim".

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Once again, I am not talking about whether or not something came in "under budget". I also didn't claim the Parks Service didn't receive taxpayer funds. However I bet if you'll check, even allowing for inflation, that the Parks Service has cost more than what is was originally supposed to, like every government program.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 I bet if you'll check you'll see...

You made the claim that "all ....

You mean you made a claim without checking?

Coincidentally the same type of "assertion without fact" that you hear on Fox?

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational I didn't need to check. They all cost more than what their creators promise.

"Assertion without fact" is the tactic of MSNBC, CNN, New York Times, ABC, CBS, ABC...

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Import food safety inspection program. Bush gutted funding.

Result: thousands of Americans dying from tainted food from China.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational How much did it cost and how much was it PROMISED to cost. How hard is that for you to understand?

Bush never "gutted" funding to anything. Only liberals call reducing the amount a program gets increased a "gut" or a "cut". No program but the military was ever "cut" (i.e. getting LESS money).

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 "We have a food safety crisis on the horizon," said Michael Doyle, director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia.

Between 2003 and 2006, FDA food safety inspections dropped 47 percent, according to a database analysis of federal records by The Associated Press.

That's not all that's dropping at the FDA in terms of food safety. The analysis also shows:

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002

# There are 12 percent fewer FDA employees in field offices who concentrate on food issues.

# Safety tests for U.S.-produced food have dropped nearly 75 percent, from 9,748 in 2003 to 2,455 last year, according to the agency's own statistics.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Nowhere in the artical does it state that the FDA's budget was cut. Government agencies' budgets are NEVER cut. They always increase. It's called the "Baseline Budget Increase". Whenever you hear lib's whining about cuts, it means Conservatives want to lower the increase amount.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 I just love Republicans - they get elected by proclaiming that "government can't do anything right" - then they spend their elected term proving "government can't do anything right:"

Yet when their Opposition - Obama - ends no-bid defense contracts, or makes higher education more accessible while at the same time saving taxpayers 61 billion, - they simply claim "yea, well, blah blah blah".

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Now you're back to "Obama saving 61 billion blah blah blah".  While you have yet to mention a single government program that didn't end up costing tens of billions of dollars over what its creators promised, even if this has a snowball's chance in hell of delivering, Obama has already wasted trillions on a failed stimulus.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 "I'll bet that if you check..."

Listen fool, if you haven't already checked you should never have made the claim.

No one believes you checked. You just parroted the examples you hear on Fox Fiction and re[eat the lines you hear on Fox Fiction.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational I never said I checked. I said I didn't need to. I know from experience that I'm right. Besides, claiming that a program that hasn't even taken effect yet saved 61 billion isn't parroting? You are simply a liberal useful idiot. For whatever reason, you hate the free market, capitalism, liberty, freedom and everything else that made this country great. cont'

[jtkirkfan2002]

@jtkirkfan2002 cont' Well the sad truth for you is that most Americans don't think like you do. Unfortunately they sometimes get sidetracked and someone like Obama sneaks into office promising abstractions like "change". The majority of us who actually think for oursleves have already had enough of his brand of marxist change. Now we're going to change things.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002

Now you show your true colors (again).

Never look at pros and cons of any issue or any bill with an open mind, never do any real research (the Medicare claim denial rates and the gutting of food inspections above are perfect examples) - just use use whatever explanation you hear from Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Fox News.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational How much of an open mind did you have about the Bush tax cuts, or did you simply parrot the BS about them being "only for the rich"? Your true marxist colors have been flying ever since you first opened your mouth here. You have attempted time and again to cloud the issue that every, repeat every federal program ever created by liberals has always cost billions more than the public is told.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Per CBO on Bush tax cuts- the top 1% (w/ av income $1.2 M) will receive an av. tax cut of $40,990 in 2004, 40 times the av. tax break for those in the middle 1/5 of income. The gap is dramatic & does not even include the two major tax cuts that disproportionately benefit very high-incomes - the bonus depreciation business tax cut and the phase-out of the federal estate tax. The top !% will gain by far the most from the tax cuts - continuing the trend since the 1970's.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational When all tax brackets were reduced, of course the people who paid the most got to keep more of their money. However I'm not a class warfare warrior and was more interested in how much I got to keep. It's a plain fact that most of the taxes in this country are paid by the top 10% with the majority of that from the top 1%, even with the tax cuts. The cuts shifted even more of the burden to them.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 eg: CEO's of the financial institutions who played high risk gambling with peoples 401k's and wiped out the savings of millions of Americans and almost collapsed the economy got to keep their tens and millions of dollars salaries and bonuses. The country grew great over decades where the income gap between the middle class and the CEO types was a small fraction of what it is today. You seem concerned about insurance co.s and the rich but not so concerned about those w/o h. insur.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational The real number of people in this country who wanted insurance but couldn't get it was around 12 million. Hardly a number to gut a system that was working even with its flaws, raise taxes on millions and put millions more private insurance plans at risk.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 The system should have been gutted.

As it was it only ended some of the worst of insurance company abuses, made minor useful change like being able to stay on parents insurance until 26, and extending h.c. coverage for tens of millions.

It also provided money to close the doughnut hole for seniors & extend the life of medicare for another decade.

Unfortunately, private insurance companies are still in charge.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Keep you opinions about our healthcare system up in Canada where they belong. Who are you, but a pot-head, draft-dodging, sixties hippy burn out to comment on our healthcare system anyway.

BTW, Obamacare still has several Constitution challenges to dodge.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 The U.S. has one of the widest rich-poor gaps of any high-income nation, & it continues to grow. Prominent economists incl'd Alan Greenspan warned that the widening U.S. rich-poor gap is a prob. that could undermine and destabilize the U.S. economy and standard of living stating: "The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US pop. has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself".

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational So Obama's solution is to simply take money from the rich and keep it for the government. Social programs such as welfare, are at the very heart of this widening gap. People have learned that it's easier to sit on their asses instead of taking care of themselves.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Unemployment rose as a result of the gutting of the manufacturing sector and the outsourcing of jobs in all sectors as a result of one-sided and unregulated free trade agreements under both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Your simplistic Fox Fiction explanations for every phenomena grows more ludicrous withe each of your comments.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Unemployment was around 4.5% under Bush until the Democrats took control of Congress.

Companies will go where they can manufacture the product and still make money. It is insane that a union guy on an assembly line can make $30 per hour, more than a lot of college grads, doing a job that he can learn in about 30 minutes.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 By the end of Bush's term the nation was hemorrhaging jobs at the rate of 3/4 of a million a month.

Did you know that? Or did you just forget to mention it?

Or are you just a straight up goof who tries to mislead people?

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Let's see now. The end of the Bush term. You mean when the Democrats had taken control of Congress again? Right after that was when the "hemorraging" began. Or were you just hoping we'd forget that litttle detail?

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Democrats took control of Congress in about Nov, 2007.

If you think the roots of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, the worsening balance of trade, the gutting of the manufacturing sector and free trade agreements leading to outsourcing of jobs started AFTER Nov. 2007 your ignorance reaches truly gigantic heights.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 If the government "kept" the money - it would have a surplus now wouldn't it?

I have never lived on welfare, and I assume you haven't either. But I do know that it's not a good life and given a chance most people would rather be making a good living. Of course the Republican answer is always "stereotype those in poverty then there is no need to do anything".

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Then the difference between us is that I have been on public assistance thanks to double-digit unemployment keeping my father out of work during most of the Carter years. While we found it a humiliating experience, there are plenty who are content to live off if it, multigenerational single-parent households. That's the majority of those on public assistance. It's the only life they know.

[megarational]

So even with an open mind it disgusted me that Republicans borrow money from China to give their rich friends and corporate CEO's massive tax cuts, but those same hypocrites try to tell everyone not to extend health care to millions more.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational It disgusts me that Obama tripled the deficit in his first few months in office by borrowing from China for a "stimulus" that was the equivalent of throwing money down the toilet. The Bush tax cuts INCREASED federal revenue by putting people who weren't paying taxes to work.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 The stimulus was controversial. The majority of economists point out that the financial, credit, and automotive markets were on the verge of collapse. Demand was at a standstill, and without government spending to stimulate demand the nation would probably go into another great depression.

So Bush fucked up the nation, then the Republicans make hay out of their successor having to spend money trying to get the nation out of the hole the Republicans dug.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational There you go again, blaming everything on Bush. You closed-minded lib's are all alike. Bush didn't wreck the economy. A false housing bubble created by sub-prime mortgages, which were created by liberals, did. I was here. You weren't.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 I Have researched the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, read countless links on the subject, and watched a W5 documentary on it.

Your simplistic "created by Liberals" is something you will hear only from Fox, Limbaugh, and ultra-right wing rags. It would take too long to explain it to you, even if you had an open mind and an intellect higher than a gopher.

Try typing "sub-prime mortgage melt down", reading the page on Wikipedia, and following some links.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 You and your "billions more".

I asked you, see comment near the end of this thread, what programs and departments you would cut.

Republicans, for example, fought the implementation of Medicare - now they style themselves as the defenders of medicare.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational I asked you first which federal program didn't end up costing billions more than it was supposed to. Answer me or shut up. I also answered your question by listing the only two things in your list that are actually Constitutional responsibilities of the government. Once more, I asked what your side was going to do to fix all of your failed social programs.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 So you finally admit that you just made a claim you never checked (no surprise there).

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Did you ever check? You either didn't, or did and found out that I was right. You still haven't given me one example of a federal program that didn't cost billions of dollars more than what the public was told when it was conceived. There aren't any.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 So what fed. govt programs or departments to you want to get rid of? - food safety inspections? - national parks? Let private developers turn them into condos, strip malls, and theme parks? - Medicare? Kick those seniors off h. coverage and make them eat dog food if they can't afford their drugs? - Police departments & fire departments? - emergency rescue operations? - libraries? - vital statistics and census? - public education? - infrastructure? - military?

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Typical liberal response: Try to tug on emotions.  Medicare was created in order to get seniors dependent on entitlements, nothing more. The National Parks were a conservative idea, as was CONSERVAtion. Police and fire are local issues as are libraries. con't

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Emotions? It's a simple question. What federal government departments and programs do you think should be abolished?

After all, you claim they all cost more than estimated. Even if that were true (& you have no idea since you already admitted you didn't check) so what? Does that mean you want to abolish them and if so which ones?

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational If it were up to me, I'd get rid of everything not in the Constitution. That doesn't mean that they would all go away. Most of what you mentioned are local issues that the federal government only puts money into so it can have control. Think how much more efficiently they could be run under complete local control and with the tax burden shifted to local control to fund them.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 A hodge podge of state by state messes - with duplications of bureaucracies in every state (some states are only about 150 miles across) is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It's also a huge hassle and barrier to mobility of Americans from state to state.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational That's your opinion. It's a wrong one based on a convoluded statist mindset, but it's only your opinion. All of those things are already under local control, Police and fire protection under federal control? What are you smoking? There is no federal public school system either. My idea is to simply do away with the federal interference, which does no good.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Like I said, anyone who thinks a state by state hodge podge and duplications of bureaucracies is efficient or cost effective isn't playing with a full deck.

Why don't you go ever further and make it all on a municipality by municipality basis? Of course that's absurd but many of the reasons for it's absurdity also applies to breaking everything down on a state by state level.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational The census is in the Constitution. What passes for "vital statistics" are for the most part worthless and only serve to divide this country by race and other issues. Public education and infrastructure are also local issues. The military is only the 2nd item you listed that is mentioned in the Constitution. Your side came up with these wasteful ideas. Your side should admit they've failed and fix them.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 Universal public education is one of the factors that allowed the rise of a healthy and profitable middle class in America.

It was one of the foundations of the pride that in America you can be whatever you want to be.

Vital statistics worthless? Businesses from coast to coast use it for business decisions. State & Federal departments use it for everything from immigration policy to highway construction & infrastructure planning.

Your absurd bullshit is getting lamer and lamer.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational Public education is a local issue, not federal. It wasn't until the fed's stuck their fingers in it that people stopped believing that they could be whatever they wanted to be and never strived to move up from where they were born.

Vital statistics, i.e. the "longform" census form is BS, is not chartered by the Constitution and gathers oftentimes intrusive information "under the penalty of law". Stop judging us by the freedoms that you've given up in Canada.

[megarational]

@jtkirkfan2002 If I judged America by the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Fox Fiction, and crude insects like you who can only try their best to repeat the lines they hear from Beck, Limbaugh and Fox - I would say it's a nation of ignorant intolerant narrow-minded lying self-centered hate spewing hypocrites.

[jtkirkfan2002]

@megarational The opinion of a cowardly, draft-dodging, pot-head hippy burn-out from the 60's is of little concern to me. Do all of us a favor and STAY in Canada. Their loss is our gain. We have enough of you socialist radicals running around as it is. Besides, you have more important things to worry about like where you're going to go if you really get sick once our healthcare system is as bad as yours.

[megarational]

Careful, you don't want your high blood pressure to be seen as a "pre-existing condition".

I am a dual citizen, with family & friends in the U.S.

I will enter the h.c. debate if I so choose.

What makes me chose to is reading some of the lies and misinformation of people like you.