What's the DUMBEST thing you've heard from fear mongering conservatives lately?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...IVE-hours-trusts-meet-government-targets.html

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/feb/17/health.nhs

I can get you a couple of hundred more if you like, Iolo.

And yes I do dujac. It's called unintended consequences. You know that crap like the unintended consequences of insisting that Hospitals get to emergency room patients in less than - I think it was six hours - in Britiain that resulted in ambulances stacking up outside emergency room doors until Hospital staff was sure they could get to them in the stipulated amount of time.

 

Tell me, in English, what you are trying to say. The Mail is the same as Fox - simple lies for mugs. I get the Guardian, mainly for the crossword. I never look up aimless bits of quotation - anyone who has anything to say says it. Your point?

 

So, why not solve simple poverty in the US through unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines, call it a minimum wage, and let markets reach a new equilibrium at that new, first world Standard?

 

no you don't, the stuff you're posting is political hogwash

 

Obamacare is corporatist legislation.

 

90% of us already had health insurance. You guys said this law was to get everyone health insurance. So the law is to help 10% of the population at the expense of everyone else. How is that good for the MAJORITY of folks?

 

It gets worse. Some right wing doofus was on Hannity's show proclaiming like a drooling moron that it was Clinton who first outlawed the carrying of private firearms on military installations. And this was no back woods, tobacco-drooling caller like their typical audience . This was some jerk named John Lott whom the right wingers think is somebody and whose books Hannity and the other blathermeisters think are authoritative works in the fields they address.

The boy needs to sell his word processor and buy a mop and bucket so he can make a worthwhile contribution to society.

 

Nonsense. Any time you can whittle down the profiteering corporate sector's ability to extract the life's blood of society...that's a GREAT thing.

 

i don't think so

Percentage of Americans Lacking Health Coverage Falls Again

By ROBERT PEAR - September 17, 2013

WASHINGTON — For the second year in a row, the proportion of Americans without health insurance declined in 2012, even though real household income and the poverty rate were not significantly different from their 2011 levels, the Census Bureau reported on Tuesday.

In 2012, the bureau said, 15.4 percent of people were uninsured, down from 15.7 percent in 2011.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/percentage-of-americans-lacking-health-coverage-falls-again.html?_r=0

it's doing a lot more than just covering the uninsured

 

I said that 90% of us already had insurance and you're stating that 85% did. It doesn't change the point of my post that this is not a law designed to help the majority. It doesn't.

I went with 90% because that is what the President said when he started out on his campaign for this. Remember "30 million Americans?" (which is less than 10%) I took him at his word which was stupid, given. He made it all the way up to 40 mil by the time he was done. You can find many different estimates with a simple google search, but most range from 9% to 12%.

 

certainly it helps the majority, the law isn't just about getting everyone insured

it's about controlling costs, reforming healthcare and improving the quality of care


The ACA aims to increase the quality and affordability of health insurance, lower the uninsured rate by expanding public and private insurance coverage, and reduce the costs of health care for individuals and the government. It provides a number of mechanisms—including mandates, subsidies, and insurance exchanges—to increase coverage and affordability. The law also requires insurance companies to cover all applicants within new minimum standards and offer the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions or sex. Additional reforms aim to reduce costs and improve healthcare outcomes by shifting the system towards quality over quantity through increased competition, regulation, and incentives to streamline the delivery of health care. The Congressional Budget Office projected that the ACA will lower both future deficits and Medicare spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

 

Is it saving people that already **HAD** health insurance thousands of dollars a year like the President promised? Or, are we in the "premiums are rising, just not as fast" mode? Did he lie, mislead, guess, or was he just saying whatever needed to be said to gain support for his law? I guess the last option would be a lie, so disregard that one.

What else does it do? Certainly it turns full time workers into part time, I got that. But what else?

 

I understand what it AIMS to do. Lots of things aim to do lots of good things.

We know that the CBO estimates that millions will still be uninsured - strike one. We know that people have lost their job - strike two. We know that people have been moved from full time to part time - strike three. We know that cost are still rising - strike four.

When do we, the majority, see the great benefits? I'm not hating. I just can't fathom how this is good for the vast majority of productive, working Americans.

 

Dujac do you really think Obamacare - more accurately Harry and Nancy care - is going to lower any pharmaceutical company's profit margin by so much as one thin dime. If you do reality has slipped you lose.

 

I believe a rationale for funding unemployment compensation from general taxes on corporations is more rational than our current regime unemployment compensation.

It is a simple argument in favor of using socialism regarding Tax preference to induce capital based market behavior by those market participants involved. It is the same argument for capital gains distinctions for income as a form of comity, and privilege and immunity in modern times.

 

i think a distinguished healthcare policy trumps an unexpressed policy any day of the week

as opposed to the gop's policy of allowing unfettered profits for billionaire players

 

Dujac, do you want to try to answer the question? Do you really think Harry and Nancy care is going to take the profit out of Medicine? That's what fraudster is alleging, and with which I took Issue. And it isn't distinguished it's delusional. The chief thing driving up medical costs today are excessive bureaucracy, lawyers,technology, and an aging population which needs more and more medical care as they get older. There is no such thing as unfettered profits. Profits are fettered by competition not government bureaucracy.

 

So how much is this going to cost you, personally, in real money? Or is it the principle of affordable healthcare for everyone that you object to?

 

The whole structure of for-profit health insurance needs to be torn down and replaced with universal healthcare. Every other western nation has it, so I really don't understand why anyone not directly involved in this profiteering exercise would object. Cheaper healthcare for all will be the result of getting rid of the middle-man who exists for no other reason than to fleece you. Let the insurers find a real job that doesn't involve maximising profits for themselves, at the cost of minimum benefit for those insured.

On a personal note I recently had reason to visit my local hospital; I was seen within 15 minutes, had an ECG, x-ray and consultation with both the radiologist and doctor, and it cost me absolutely nothing. No forms, no questions about coverage, no stress about pre-existing condition exclusions.

 

What is wrong with an unfettered pursuit of money and wealth? It has been the biggest driver of progress in the history of mankind. It has lifted more people out of poverty than any other philosophy in the history of the world.

 

Why do you paint this guy as "right wing"?

 

Hmmm well the publisher in the OP wrote this

"Trickle Up Economics
The hidden cost to us all is that the super-rich don’t spend their money at a rate fast enough to keep the economy humming along.
For example, in 2007, Kenneth Lewis earned around $100 million as the CEO of Bank of America.
To spend it all, he’d have to buy $273,972.60 worth of goods and services every day, including weekends.
Even with 12 hours of every day dedicated to spending money, a Lewis-esque earner would still have to spend $22,831 every hour… or $380.52 every minute.
Don’t expect it to ever happen.
Policymakers take notice…
Until the middle class is expanding its wealth, too – in real dollars – the economy has absolutely no chance of ever regaining its past glory.

If you’re interested in knowing more about this serious subject, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson co-authored a book called Winner Take All Politics – How Washington Made the Rich Richer – and Turned its Back on the Middle Class.
In fact, a lot of the research in this article comes from that book.
One could argue that wage disparity is more urgent to our country’s well-being than the debt crisis or the falling dollar.
The above chart clearly shows that wage suppression actually predates our two prevailing crises. And yet, sadly, most Americans don’t have a clue.
Ahead of the tape,
Robert Williams"
http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2011/09/27/open-letter-to-congress-regarding-wages/

So it seems the OP is citing a left-wing fear mongerer doesn't it.

 

it's inefficient and unbalanced

there's no such thing

 

You were asked by MisterMet, "What is wrong with an unfettered pursuit of money and wealth?", and you responded with "it's inefficient and unbalanced"?! In what possible way?

Parenthetically, for those of you who are used to dujac's oblique one-liner responses, that rarely have anything to do with anything, the reply to this simple question ought to be good....

 

And produced more damnable turds than anyone could well imagine, organising mass starvation, world wars and any other filth that might turn a profit. Sancta simplicitas!