I wouldn't bother. These guys believe in taxing the sick and that there is a magic 500 billion savings in medicare. They also believe that spending 829 billion will save them 81 billion LOL.
This is fucking hilarious, liberals cant add up money and their party fights to keep Rangel who is the biggest tax cheat ever...he writes the fucking tax code and claims he doesn't know how to report millions in income/property? Liberal lies and total corruption
It's not a question of "punishing" the unemployed-it's a question of the state having fucked us once with the fed's monetary policy from 2001-2004, then fucking us again when the inevitable bust came and they used it to bail our their well-connected friends, and our tender asses not being able to tolerate any more. The people you're trusting to "stimulate" the economy are by and large the same idiots who pushed for the bailout. The two are part and parcel of the statist clusterfuck.
All of this stuff about democracy and equality is just a smokescreen. Its a lure to catch fish. And you and other "liberals" bite on it every time. Your sense of being conned by the bailouts is a perfect example. That's not to say that "conservatives" don't have their own favorite illusions, but the end result is the same in any event.
Pal, YOU and your statist friends got conned with the bailouts. Americans were largely opposed to all the bailouts and we "free market fundamentalists" were saying all along that the money would go to politically well connected business, banks etc. You now play the hurt and surprised card and say "soak the rich! This is their fault!" But the rich you'll be soaking will be the rising rich and the upper middle class, NOT the politically protected BILLIONAIRES who constitute the State.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Unfortunately stimulus packages don't do much to decrease unemployment, what matters is not money being thrown into public works but the proper allocation of capital. The state has no real incentive to allocate resources properly. In all fairness the stimulus is less than a year old, but I doubt it will significantly dent unemployment in the long run.
I made a video concerning Moore sometime ago. A tax on "the rich" is overly punitive, the real punishment is to let those responsible fail.
Unfortunately, as I said, the wealthy were first in line for their bailouts. The banks were allowed to grow too big to fail, that is all a part of capitalism end game. The state needs to keep people afloat. It could be as simple as that. It would make sense longer term to invest in things that would benefit productivity. Investment in public infrastructure is one of those things . . . roads, schools, etc.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There's no such thing as too big to fail, it is a myth fed to us by the fascist government and its offspring of cartels.
Remember, recession = necessary correction. Thinking of companies as too big to fail allows the crap in the economy to continue. Letting them fail would mean a year or so worth of bad times, but this is much better than letting the drag on the economy continue.
Investment in infrastructure is Keynesian bunk. Capital needs to be reallocated to allow stable jobs to form.
Well, I daresay that you're now resorting to name-calling and strawmen. I'm sorry, but your magic state is an abject failure. I should have known better than to talk to the highly religious.
The unemployed need a president who wants to create jobs not choke them out. Obama had over a trillion dollars to do so and he blew it on his liberal fuckfest.
What choked jobs was the disparity of wealth. Trickle down was an ABJECT failure. The wealthy took their ill gotten gains and invested somewhere else. We were screwed by Reaganomics.
No it wasn't. Are you really this fucking stupid? Hey John you smart guy who is the number 1 and number 2 refuser/denier of fucking healthcare in this country? What acts did Clinton sign in 1999 and after? NAFTA? Who on the Banking Committees refused to do oversight? Who lowered lending standards for over 7 million people? Your dumb ass will ignore these questions and bastardize them and when you do I will accept that as you admitting you don't like the truth.
Private Health Insurance is number 1,2,3,4 . . . denier of healthcare. NAFTA was pushed by Republicans under the banner of free trade. As you saying you are against NAFTA? Or just obfuscating as usual. The lending standards under Clinton were vastly superior to when the banking industry was deregulated.That charge was led by Republicans, namely Phil Gramm. You can accuse Clinton of being weak, but Republicans are EVIL.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Medicare and Medicaid by almost a 2 to one margin so you fail that one.
NAFTA was pushed by Clinton and Gore. If he disagreed with the idea why push it? It was deregulated under Clinton and another bill that fucked up things like the price of gas was signed in known as the "Modernization Act". What I call evil are liberals trying to protect Fannie and Freddie under the pre tense of racism when anyone with 2 brain cells knew shadey bs was going on, you ignore facts and you also bastardized them!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Only company close to medicare denies is Aetna everyone else is about half. Reason I counted medicaid should be obvious, since over 30% who qualify for it don't have it! My source is the AMA!
You are reading the meaning of the figures wrong, as a matter of fact it appears that they were intentionally designed in the survey to deceive and make the insurers look better than they are. If one were to look at the Metrics given in the report, That is; the details of how they arrived at their figures, than it would become apparent that they are not counting ALL of the denials but only those where there is an approved allowed amount but no payment.
It is not shown how many are denied overall. It States: "A denial is defined as: allowed amount equal to the billed charge and the payment equals $0." In other words it does not list how many are denied because of UNallowed amounts or to put it even another way, the figure they give does not represent the overall denial rate of the private insurers.
When a non-coverage situation occurs the insurance co. states that the amount is "NOT Allowed" the AMA does not reference those. That survey really serves only to give a pat on the back to insurance companies, the AMA is the protector of corporate medical profits, it is not surprising that they have their head up the insurance co's arsch, but an honest and deeper look at the metrics makes it obvious that it is a deception as I have just shown, problem is most don't read the fine print.
OH really? Then tell me why the AMA is for medicare and the health care bill? Why do you need supplimental insurance if you have medicare? This is before the medicare cuts. Also the new bill it seems cuts 10% +++ on many special treatments common and uncommon. I know the bill is not written but many parts are out there.
If government run Medicare is so great why do older people need extra insurance? Also there is information not shown to either prove or disprove your point. All I know is every old person I know at one point or another has been raked over the coals by Medicare and needed their supplemental insurance. Robert Reich puts it pretty well.
John's figures do not come ultimately from the Daily Koz, they come from the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee which also found that "CNA/NNOC researchers analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, six of the largest insurers operating in California rejected 47.7 million claims for care -- 22 percent of all claims." A more independent source than the AMA
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That source is also a vocal union from the left..they actually give merit to the WHO. Anyone with 2 braincells would know life expectancy doesn't mean deadly shit unless it is directly health care related. You can live to be 90 and never see a doctor. What does that say? Health care? Lifestyle? Diet? Genetics?
"0o0o0o yet I could more than likely buy you 10 times over and I have a college degree with over a 3.0."
so, you're richer than me, which means you're better than me? a true democrat value.
you have a college degree with a +3.0 average? ... and? i have a 4,937 average (out of 5 max EU grading system). does that matter? is it relevant? no. but hey, if you feel like your balls are getting weaker, fell free to pump your ego in front of the mirror.
as i've said, my grades are irrelevant. you insisted on mindless bragging.
"Funny to be so smart and yet you do not know how to use your talent LOL. Yes it matters, as it shows the world people are slackers."
of course it matters to a conservative. slackers... right. to a rich idiot it might look as people are lazy because they do not make as much money as him. unfortunately, that's not how the world works.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Lazy? I didn't put slacker in the context of being lazy. Working hard and working smart are 2 totally different things. You called me stupid then I posted. Then you went on your little rant bragging and ended up looking worse than me LOL. You are more ignorant than I would ever hope to be. You seem to be the type of Emo that would get offended by a swift kick in the pants rather than do something for the common good from it.
status quo? putting words in my mouth is always a good strategy.
unexceptionalism is something more indicative of people who are incapable of making a point without gloating about their ego and trying to prove their alfa position.
go trim the hair on your balls. i'm done with you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'll remove that, fact is John like most libs ignore facts. Only reason the EU wants capitolism to fail is to level out the playing field so the socialists can sink their teeth in farther without having people flee from Europe to th US.
"Only reason the EU wants capitolism to fail is to level out the playing field so the socialists can sink their teeth in farther without having people flee from Europe to th US."
what a true fact, my sir! you have bedazzled with your outstanding knowledge of european politics. of course, european socialists are trying to destroy capitalism.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
But then again you are so smart and think the government can spend your money more wisely. Nothing like having the poor pay 50% of their income in taxes. I guess since the people never hold that money it is no big deal huh?
I think I know where the money went. The money went to cover all the losses on magical derivatives on the corporate books. They saved face to the ignorant public to maintain their non-competitive dominance.
I don't think a "little guy" bailout would be particularly effective in the long run either, that money would end up in the banks anyway. We're gonna suffer the sins of our fathers for questionable profit strategies one way or another. Poverty is preferable to war... tax the rich thieves!!
I agree, what would you like to see the taxes used for? Possibly to pay off national debt?
Haven't yet seen Moore's movie, but am definitely looking forward to it. Hopefully this giant fucking mess we have in government can be fixed somehow.
/watch?v=eumbzcG7qgU interesting
audiolife36 2 years ago
I wouldn't bother. These guys believe in taxing the sick and that there is a magic 500 billion savings in medicare. They also believe that spending 829 billion will save them 81 billion LOL.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
How about you donate you fooseball table to the unemployed?
audiolife36 2 years ago
Damn talk about stupid fucking liberals.
audiolife36 2 years ago
This is fucking hilarious, liberals cant add up money and their party fights to keep Rangel who is the biggest tax cheat ever...he writes the fucking tax code and claims he doesn't know how to report millions in income/property? Liberal lies and total corruption
tubaboy71 2 years ago
From a punk song:
"Kill the poor,
Eat the rich,
Screw every other son of a bitch."
bimmjim 2 years ago 4
It's not a question of "punishing" the unemployed-it's a question of the state having fucked us once with the fed's monetary policy from 2001-2004, then fucking us again when the inevitable bust came and they used it to bail our their well-connected friends, and our tender asses not being able to tolerate any more. The people you're trusting to "stimulate" the economy are by and large the same idiots who pushed for the bailout. The two are part and parcel of the statist clusterfuck.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago
Nope, you guys got conned. The Austrians and the anti-statists saw right through the ruse. Sorry y'all are so gullible.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago
All of this stuff about democracy and equality is just a smokescreen. Its a lure to catch fish. And you and other "liberals" bite on it every time. Your sense of being conned by the bailouts is a perfect example. That's not to say that "conservatives" don't have their own favorite illusions, but the end result is the same in any event.
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
Pal, YOU and your statist friends got conned with the bailouts. Americans were largely opposed to all the bailouts and we "free market fundamentalists" were saying all along that the money would go to politically well connected business, banks etc. You now play the hurt and surprised card and say "soak the rich! This is their fault!" But the rich you'll be soaking will be the rising rich and the upper middle class, NOT the politically protected BILLIONAIRES who constitute the State.
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
I don't like the banks. They loan out more money than they actually have, and inflate the amount of debt in society.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Tax those mothers is right!
badmuffy 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Unfortunately stimulus packages don't do much to decrease unemployment, what matters is not money being thrown into public works but the proper allocation of capital. The state has no real incentive to allocate resources properly. In all fairness the stimulus is less than a year old, but I doubt it will significantly dent unemployment in the long run.
I made a video concerning Moore sometime ago. A tax on "the rich" is overly punitive, the real punishment is to let those responsible fail.
GuardofLiberty 2 years ago
Unfortunately, as I said, the wealthy were first in line for their bailouts. The banks were allowed to grow too big to fail, that is all a part of capitalism end game. The state needs to keep people afloat. It could be as simple as that. It would make sense longer term to invest in things that would benefit productivity. Investment in public infrastructure is one of those things . . . roads, schools, etc.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There's no such thing as too big to fail, it is a myth fed to us by the fascist government and its offspring of cartels.
Remember, recession = necessary correction. Thinking of companies as too big to fail allows the crap in the economy to continue. Letting them fail would mean a year or so worth of bad times, but this is much better than letting the drag on the economy continue.
Investment in infrastructure is Keynesian bunk. Capital needs to be reallocated to allow stable jobs to form.
GuardofLiberty 2 years ago
Yet another free market fundamentalist who figures everyone should just hold their breath while they're underwater.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Well, I daresay that you're now resorting to name-calling and strawmen. I'm sorry, but your magic state is an abject failure. I should have known better than to talk to the highly religious.
GuardofLiberty 2 years ago
The unemployed need a president who wants to create jobs not choke them out. Obama had over a trillion dollars to do so and he blew it on his liberal fuckfest.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
What choked jobs was the disparity of wealth. Trickle down was an ABJECT failure. The wealthy took their ill gotten gains and invested somewhere else. We were screwed by Reaganomics.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
We are screwed by Clintonomics. Trickle up economics makes no sense whatsoever as an actual building block.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Clintonomics was Reaganomics with a balanced budget, idiot.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
No it wasn't. Are you really this fucking stupid? Hey John you smart guy who is the number 1 and number 2 refuser/denier of fucking healthcare in this country? What acts did Clinton sign in 1999 and after? NAFTA? Who on the Banking Committees refused to do oversight? Who lowered lending standards for over 7 million people? Your dumb ass will ignore these questions and bastardize them and when you do I will accept that as you admitting you don't like the truth.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Private Health Insurance is number 1,2,3,4 . . . denier of healthcare. NAFTA was pushed by Republicans under the banner of free trade. As you saying you are against NAFTA? Or just obfuscating as usual. The lending standards under Clinton were vastly superior to when the banking industry was deregulated.That charge was led by Republicans, namely Phil Gramm. You can accuse Clinton of being weak, but Republicans are EVIL.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Medicare and Medicaid by almost a 2 to one margin so you fail that one.
NAFTA was pushed by Clinton and Gore. If he disagreed with the idea why push it? It was deregulated under Clinton and another bill that fucked up things like the price of gas was signed in known as the "Modernization Act". What I call evil are liberals trying to protect Fannie and Freddie under the pre tense of racism when anyone with 2 brain cells knew shadey bs was going on, you ignore facts and you also bastardized them!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Only company close to medicare denies is Aetna everyone else is about half. Reason I counted medicaid should be obvious, since over 30% who qualify for it don't have it! My source is the AMA!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Claims denial rates by leading California insurers, first six months of 2009: * PacifiCare -- 39.6 percent * Cigna -- 32.7 percent * HealthNet -- 30 percent * Kaiser Permanente -- 28.3 percent * Blue Cross -- 27.9 percent * Aetna -- 6.4 percent
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
California? Is that the only state? You also got that from a link from the daily Kos LOL. Mine is from the AMA National Health Insurer Report Card
Medicare 6.85%--Aetna 6.8%--Anthem BCBS 4.62%--Health Net 3.88%--CIGNA 3.44%--Humana 2.9%--Coventry 2.88%--UHC 2.68% Date range 03/01/2007 3/10/2008
tubaboy71 2 years ago
It's the state I care about. It's the state republicans have fucked over the most.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
LOL you mean that liberals screwed over the most. TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX for all the stupid programs the DEMOCRATS pass.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
(1/4)
You are reading the meaning of the figures wrong, as a matter of fact it appears that they were intentionally designed in the survey to deceive and make the insurers look better than they are. If one were to look at the Metrics given in the report, That is; the details of how they arrived at their figures, than it would become apparent that they are not counting ALL of the denials but only those where there is an approved allowed amount but no payment.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 6
(2/4)
It is not shown how many are denied overall. It States: "A denial is defined as: allowed amount equal to the billed charge and the payment equals $0." In other words it does not list how many are denied because of UNallowed amounts or to put it even another way, the figure they give does not represent the overall denial rate of the private insurers.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 7
(3/4)
When a non-coverage situation occurs the insurance co. states that the amount is "NOT Allowed" the AMA does not reference those. That survey really serves only to give a pat on the back to insurance companies, the AMA is the protector of corporate medical profits, it is not surprising that they have their head up the insurance co's arsch, but an honest and deeper look at the metrics makes it obvious that it is a deception as I have just shown, problem is most don't read the fine print.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 6
OH really? Then tell me why the AMA is for medicare and the health care bill? Why do you need supplimental insurance if you have medicare? This is before the medicare cuts. Also the new bill it seems cuts 10% +++ on many special treatments common and uncommon. I know the bill is not written but many parts are out there.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
If government run Medicare is so great why do older people need extra insurance? Also there is information not shown to either prove or disprove your point. All I know is every old person I know at one point or another has been raked over the coals by Medicare and needed their supplemental insurance. Robert Reich puts it pretty well.
audiolife36 2 years ago
(4/4)
John's figures do not come ultimately from the Daily Koz, they come from the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee which also found that "CNA/NNOC researchers analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, six of the largest insurers operating in California rejected 47.7 million claims for care -- 22 percent of all claims." A more independent source than the AMA
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 5
Which is a leftist union
audiolife36 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That source is also a vocal union from the left..they actually give merit to the WHO. Anyone with 2 braincells would know life expectancy doesn't mean deadly shit unless it is directly health care related. You can live to be 90 and never see a doctor. What does that say? Health care? Lifestyle? Diet? Genetics?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Also Moore is a fucking college drop out..of course he must know what in the hell he is talking about huh?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Moore is a populist and he makes more sense than you do.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL really? I guess all his movies are truthful and have the answers built in as well? LMAO You are a funny lib.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
well, you're an ignorant, barely literate conservative who thinks too highly of himself while displaying spelling skills of an eight year old.
you're not funny, you're just obnoxious.
franzpolak 2 years ago 6
Comment removed
tubaboy71 2 years ago
"0o0o0o yet I could more than likely buy you 10 times over and I have a college degree with over a 3.0."
so, you're richer than me, which means you're better than me? a true democrat value.
you have a college degree with a +3.0 average? ... and? i have a 4,937 average (out of 5 max EU grading system). does that matter? is it relevant? no. but hey, if you feel like your balls are getting weaker, fell free to pump your ego in front of the mirror.
franzpolak 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Funny to be so smart and yet you do not know how to use your talent LOL. Yes it matters, as it shows the world people are slackers.
"fell free?" LMAO 4,937 out of 5? LOL
"well, you're an ignorant, barely literate conservative who thinks too highly of himself while displaying spelling skills of an eight year old.
you're not funny, you're just obnoxious."
You discribe yourself well, if you just change conservative to liberal.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
as i've said, my grades are irrelevant. you insisted on mindless bragging.
"Funny to be so smart and yet you do not know how to use your talent LOL. Yes it matters, as it shows the world people are slackers."
of course it matters to a conservative. slackers... right. to a rich idiot it might look as people are lazy because they do not make as much money as him. unfortunately, that's not how the world works.
i was never good at "discribing".
your ignorance is precious.
franzpolak 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lazy? I didn't put slacker in the context of being lazy. Working hard and working smart are 2 totally different things. You called me stupid then I posted. Then you went on your little rant bragging and ended up looking worse than me LOL. You are more ignorant than I would ever hope to be. You seem to be the type of Emo that would get offended by a swift kick in the pants rather than do something for the common good from it.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
i still call you stupid. worse than you? laughable.
franzpolak 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I call you stupid+dense+unexceptional. You want to fall into the status quo. That is what is laughable.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
status quo? putting words in my mouth is always a good strategy.
unexceptionalism is something more indicative of people who are incapable of making a point without gloating about their ego and trying to prove their alfa position.
go trim the hair on your balls. i'm done with you.
franzpolak 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh I think I struck a nerve! Come back when you you aren't in line trying to fit in...LOL
tubaboy71 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'll remove that, fact is John like most libs ignore facts. Only reason the EU wants capitolism to fail is to level out the playing field so the socialists can sink their teeth in farther without having people flee from Europe to th US.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
"Only reason the EU wants capitolism to fail is to level out the playing field so the socialists can sink their teeth in farther without having people flee from Europe to th US."
what a true fact, my sir! you have bedazzled with your outstanding knowledge of european politics. of course, european socialists are trying to destroy capitalism.
hilarious. name one. i dare you.
franzpolak 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Based on the fact that most of the EU tax system charges 20% more on taxes based on income.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
But then again you are so smart and think the government can spend your money more wisely. Nothing like having the poor pay 50% of their income in taxes. I guess since the people never hold that money it is no big deal huh?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
looking forward to moore's video arriving in australia! we got "stimulous'd" - with little to show, too!
ashtool 2 years ago
I think I know where the money went. The money went to cover all the losses on magical derivatives on the corporate books. They saved face to the ignorant public to maintain their non-competitive dominance.
I don't think a "little guy" bailout would be particularly effective in the long run either, that money would end up in the banks anyway. We're gonna suffer the sins of our fathers for questionable profit strategies one way or another. Poverty is preferable to war... tax the rich thieves!!
spikesmth 2 years ago
I agree, what would you like to see the taxes used for? Possibly to pay off national debt?
Haven't yet seen Moore's movie, but am definitely looking forward to it. Hopefully this giant fucking mess we have in government can be fixed somehow.
CANONinDEVIN 2 years ago