Chef Jim Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 What--do you think a Master's Degree entitles you to something? A Masters in Education is High School part 2. A 2 year degree any C student in the world can get. And Chef Jim, you're being generous. The average teacher works nothing close to 9 months a year. I was well aware of my generosity.
PastaJoe Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 The thing I find most interesting is that the very people who cry and whine that a voucher plan will kill public schools can't understand why conservatives cry and whine that a government-run public insurance option with a bottomless pit of taxpayer funds will kill private insurance companies. When it's private sector, it's basically "Well, those greedy bastards deserve it," but when it's the NEA it's like "You're gonna !@#$ public education....and lose all the good teachers!" The thing I find most interesting is that the very people who cry and whine that a government-run public insurance option that wouldn't have access to a bottomless pit of taxpayer funds will kill private insurance companies can't understand why liberals cry and whine that a voucher plan will kill public schools. When it's public sector, it's basically "Well, those lazy bastards deserve it," but when it's the private health insurers it's like "You're gonna !@#$ health care....and lose all the good doctors!"
The Big Cat Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 How LA typed this: The thing I find most interesting is that the very people who cry and whine that a voucher plan will kill public schools can't understand why conservatives cry and whine that a government-run public insurance option with a bottomless pit of taxpayer funds will kill private insurance companies. When it's private sector, it's basically "Well, those greedy bastards deserve it," but when it's the NEA it's like "You're gonna !@#$ public education....and lose all the good teachers!" Without expecting this: The thing I find most interesting is that the very people who cry and whine that a government-run public insurance option that wouldn't have access to a bottomless pit of taxpayer funds will kill private insurance companies can't understand why liberals cry and whine that a voucher plan will kill public schools. When it's public sector, it's basically "Well, those lazy bastards deserve it," but when it's the private health insurers it's like "You're gonna !@#$ health care....and lose all the good doctors!" Baffles me.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Baffles me. He's a self-serving contradiction wrapped in hyperbole.
DC Tom Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 He's a self-serving contradiction wrapped in hyperbole. That's a trademark violation. Expect to hear from my lawyer.
IDBillzFan Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 The thing I find most interesting is that the very people who cry and whine that a government-run public insurance option that wouldn't have access to a bottomless pit of taxpayer funds will kill private insurance companies can't understand why liberals cry and whine that a voucher plan will kill public schools. When it's public sector, it's basically "Well, those lazy bastards deserve it," but when it's the private health insurers it's like "You're gonna !@#$ health care....and lose all the good doctors!" Nice try, but we both know that's not the argument. I'll make it simple for you: remove the "bottomless pit of taxpayer funds" and may the best program win. We both know that virtually NO private program could compete with a public plan unless the rules were equal, and they simply are not. Private companies can not just tax people more money because they're being run incompetently. And yet the government can do it all it wants. And it usually does. Because that's how it keeps the union cash flowing back to their coffers.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 That's a trademark violation. Expect to hear from my lawyer. I thought you trademarked 'egomaniacal contrarian wrapped in contempt for humanity'.
DC Tom Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 I thought you trademarked 'egomaniacal contrarian wrapped in contempt for humanity'. Nope. "Pedantic supercilious anal orifice," though.
IDBillzFan Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 How LA typed this: Without expecting this: Baffles me. Baffling you is, quite honestly, easier than taking a dump. And yet considerably less gratifying. I'll try to do this in Crayola for you, okay, Skippy? Let's make a deal; I'll agree to a government-run public option health insurance if one of you libs will agree to permitting school vouchers (that is, I can take my educational taxes as a credit and apply them toward the cost of a private school for my children). But here's the thing: both the public schools and the public insurance plan must establish, and stick to, a budget. No increasing people's taxes. No shifting budget from one bloated government program to another. And absolutely, positively NO running a deficit. You get a budget, it's adjusted annually for cost of living, and away we go. If you exceed your budget, you have to cut back. Lay people off. Do what real companies do when they're running a deficit. Establish those rules as gospel. Then let the public plan run against private insurers, and through the voucher program let the private schools compete with public schools. Let's see what happens, shall we? I think this is probably where you puke up another "What...you can't undertstand sarcasm" comment.
PastaJoe Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Nice try, but we both know that's not the argument. I'll make it simple for you: remove the "bottomless pit of taxpayer funds" and may the best program win. We both know that virtually NO private program could compete with a public plan unless the rules were equal, and they simply are not. Private companies can not just tax people more money because they're being run incompetently. And yet the government can do it all it wants. And it usually does. Because that's how it keeps the union cash flowing back to their coffers. The proposed public option would not have been a bottomless pit, they would not have had an unlimited stream of money. Obama himself said it on many occasions. They would be non-profit, but would have to cover their own expenses through premium payments, thus avoiding the situation you spectulate. From Obama's speech to Congress: "Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up. Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I've insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/o...h_n_281265.html
The Big Cat Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Baffling you is, quite honestly, easier than taking a dump. And yet considerably less gratifying. I'll try to do this in Crayola for you, okay, Skippy? Let's make a deal; I'll agree to a government-run public option health insurance if one of you libs will agree to permitting school vouchers (that is, I can take my educational taxes as a credit and apply them toward the cost of a private school for my children). But here's the thing: both the public schools and the public insurance plan must establish, and stick to, a budget. No increasing people's taxes. No shifting budget from one bloated government program to another. And absolutely, positively NO running a deficit. You get a budget, it's adjusted annually for cost of living, and away we go. If you exceed your budget, you have to cut back. Lay people off. Do what real companies do when they're running a deficit. Establish those rules as gospel. Then let the public plan run against private insurers, and through the voucher program let the private schools compete with public schools. Let's see what happens, shall we? I think this is probably where you puke up another "What...you can't undertstand sarcasm" comment. What the !@#$ is your problem? After a cursory reading, your idea sounds fine to me. Christ, you curmudgeonly !@#$, the least you could do is allow me to express !@#$ing opinion before you shoot it down in flames.
DC Tom Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Christ, you curmudgeonly !@#$, the least you could do is allow me to express !@#$ing opinion before you shoot it down in flames. What's wrong with being proactive?
IDBillzFan Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 The proposed public option would not have been a bottomless pit, they would not have had an unlimited stream of money. Obama himself said it on many occasions. They would be non-profit, but would have to cover their own expenses through premium payments, thus avoiding the situation you spectulate. Oh, okay. Obama promised. I missed that. I'm good now. Full of confidence. Thanks.
The Big Cat Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 What's wrong with being proactive? Nothing, so long as you're right once in awhile.
/dev/null Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 The proposed public option would not have been a bottomless pit, they would not have had an unlimited stream of money. Obama himself said it on many occasions. They would be non-profit, but would have to cover their own expenses through premium payments, thus avoiding the situation you spectulate. From Obama's speech to Congress: President doesn't write the legislation
PastaJoe Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Oh, okay. Obama promised. I missed that. I'm good now. Full of confidence. Thanks. Well he said what you wanted to hear. If you don't think he's sincere, then there's no point debating the details. President doesn't write the legislation He signs it into law or vetoes it, therefore what he proposes carries weight and sets the benchmarks.
DC Tom Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Nothing, so long as you're right once in awhile. He's right all the time.
IDBillzFan Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 He's right all the time. Beats the hell out of being left.
Magox Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 The thing I find most interesting is that the very people who cry and whine that a government-run public insurance option that wouldn't have access to a bottomless pit of taxpayer funds will kill private insurance companies can't understand why liberals cry and whine that a voucher plan will kill public schools. When it's public sector, it's basically "Well, those lazy bastards deserve it," but when it's the private health insurers it's like "You're gonna !@#$ health care....and lose all the good doctors!" You learned this trick from me you tricky little copying bastard
Magox Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 The proposed public option would not have been a bottomless pit, they would not have had an unlimited stream of money. Obama himself said it on many occasions. They would be non-profit, but would have to cover their own expenses through premium payments, thus avoiding the situation you spectulate. From Obama's speech to Congress: "Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up. Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I've insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/o...h_n_281265.html bull ****. That is the way it would start, but eventually it would lead to an expansion of government health care. Here's how it would play out, once they realize after X amount of years that premiums weren't coming down the way they envisioned it, they would then take the next step to either expand Medicare or impose stricter rules for private insurers or lower premiums in the public insurance option so much that it WOULD incur a loss. You are a naive fool if you really believe the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. Do you really believe that? You don't know how things work do you? Just about every government program comes from borrowed funds from either treasury debt or funneled through other government programs. Sort of like a Ponzi schem. The sooner the libs realize that the health insurance companies aren't the one's to be blamed for skyrocketing health insurance premiums, the sooner we will come to a solution. We have to address Rising Medical costs, not the one's who are insuring those costs.
Recommended Posts