+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/16/2018 10:26 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  4.878 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
11/16/2010 07:57 PM ID: 86353 Permalink   

Newly-Elected Republican Complains He Hasn´t Gotten His Government Health Care Yet


Republican Andy Harris of Maryland, who recently won election to the House of Representatives on a platform of opposition to "Obamacare," recently startled his fellow freshmen by demanding to know why his health care takes a month to kick in.

Harris, an anesthesiologist, reacted incredulously when he was told his government-subsidized health insurance doesn´t take effect until Feb. 1, 2011. He asked what he would do without health care for 28 days after his inauguration.

Harris, who denounced the public option as a gateway to socialism, then asked whether he could purchase government-administered health insurance (which is what the public option was) to cover the gap in his coverage.

    WebReporter: Ben_Reilly Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:

  by: gbestwick   11/16/2010 08:13 PM     
  @Andy Harris  

IDIOT!!!! :-P
  by: jeffillinois   11/16/2010 08:23 PM     
  Until the word "Private" is out taken out  
of the US health care system, people are going to be treated like customers and nothing more. The public option was the only way to go in the case of fixing the problems with our crooked and horrendous system that so many fools think is so wonderful...

Flame on!
  by: slavefortheman     11/16/2010 08:36 PM     
  When Republicans complain about "Obamacare"  
... don´t forget this:

Republican, Democratic Bills Strikingly Similar

So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers in his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors — Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri — remain in the Senate today.

The GOP´s 1993 measure included some features Republicans still want Democrats to consider, including damage award caps for medical malpractice lawsuits.

But the summary of the Republican bill from the Clinton era and the Democratic bills that passed the House and Senate over the past few months are startlingly alike.

Beyond the requirement that everyone have insurance, both call for purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on insurers denying coverage or raising premiums because a person has been sick in the past. Both even call for increased federal research into the effectiveness of medical treatments — something else that used to have strong bipartisan support, but that Republicans have been backing away from recently.

´A Sad Testament´

Nichols, of the New America Foundation, says he´s depressed that so many issues that used to be part of the Republican health agenda are now being rejected by Republican leaders and most of the rank and file. "I think it´s a sad testament to the state of relations among the parties that they´ve gotten to this point," he said.
  by: Ben_Reilly     11/16/2010 08:37 PM     
So are most democrats. Just slicker rhetoric is all.
  by: slavefortheman     11/16/2010 09:33 PM     
  The People Who Need to Read This  
  by: Jim8   11/16/2010 09:54 PM     
but the people elected him, and that´s just not funny.

He´s not an idiot he convinced people to vote for him to get the cover and deny it to them. As stupid as he might be there must be many more stupid people in his electorate.
  by: veya_victaous     11/16/2010 11:07 PM     
  The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire...  
And Obama fiddled while Washington burned. Why do I feel like a peasant...or maybe a slave?
  by: Valkyrie123     11/16/2010 11:11 PM     
I personally prefer the word plebeian or possibly even serf!
  by: slavefortheman     11/16/2010 11:25 PM     
  Another Conservative Hypocrite  
Reporting for duty.
  by: ichi     11/16/2010 11:41 PM     
  And the Liberals continue to grasp at straws...  
Are you guys jobless and/or without a clue?

I have a small business with just under 50 employees. The health and dental benefits for my employees begin the day they´re hired --- there is no waiting period. It´s like this with most companies.

The guy was asking why he had to wait so long to begin receiving his benefits. That seems like a reasonable question. I don´t see where he asked for his "Obamacare". Did anyone else see that in the source?

But, hey, don´t let me spoil your fun. I realize that it´s been a rough couple of years for the Dems and Libs and you´ve got to get your glee where ever you can find it... even if it´s manufactured, right?

Party on.

[ edited by carnold ]
  by: carnold     11/17/2010 05:18 AM     
"rough couple of years for the Dems"

It´s been a pretty rough decade for everyone... 9/11, two neo-con wars, a couple market crashes, katrina, oil spills and rush limbaugh happy as a pig in shit.
  by: ukcn001XYZ   11/17/2010 07:38 AM     
  And then Obama was elected  
...under false pretenses.

That "Hope and Change" was probably the most devestating blow to Americans.

And these Libs actually think this Representative was asking for his "Obamacare". [snicker, snicker...]

Just goes to prove that they´ll spin anything to make their bubbles a more comfy place to be.
  by: carnold     11/17/2010 07:44 AM     
Hey Ben I was wondering what you make of this line you left out of your story?

Quote:Nix said Harris, who is the father of five, wasn’t being hypocritical – he was just pointing out the inefficiency of government-run health care.

I can´t put my finger on why, but it seems for some reason it puts a damper on the point you tried to convey that Harris was worried about not having health care for a month. What do you think?

  by: hellblazer     11/17/2010 09:01 AM     
  Oh noes!! 28 days?!  
Anything could happen! No one goes 28 days without insurance!
  by: H. W. Hutchins   11/17/2010 09:51 AM     
  I´ve been uninsured  
for 6 months, and unlike him, I don´t have the tax payer´s money as my personal piggy bank.

Quit effing whining.
  by: jhax   11/17/2010 03:25 PM     
Keep up the mis-information bro. Industry standard for health benefits is well over the 28 days he is going without.

The majority of reputible companies out there have a probationary period for employees who are not eligable for health coverage until this period expires. This prevents people from getting a job at your company and recieving benefits the first day just to run off and get some surgery they been putting off and then quitting 2 weeks later.

Most other companies only allow full time employees coverage and do everything possible to make sure you work less than 40hrs a week so you can never be considerd full time and qualify for coverage.
  by: DRHunk     11/17/2010 03:46 PM     
  @ DRHunk  
Very ture... usually it is a 30 day waiting period...And part time is anything under 32 hrs.

@Ben . . .He´s baaackkkkkkk been quiet for a little while.. I´m guessing that you left that out b/c it didn´t fit into your little spin job you were trying to do.
  by: NiNETY   11/17/2010 05:22 PM     
>>And these Libs actually think this Representative was asking for his "Obamacare". [snicker, snicker...]

No, he was asking for his government provided health care, which he is entitled to as an employee.

The interesting part is where he asks what he´s supposed to do in the period he has no coverage, which what "ObamaCare" addresses.

That´s the point, he´s concerned about being without coverage.

>>>Just goes to prove that they´ll spin anything to make their bubbles a more comfy place to be.

No comment on that one, keep spinning if it makes you happy in your ignorance.
  by: Jim8   11/17/2010 06:02 PM     
  @Andy Harris  
Today in our bible study I´d like to discuss Luke 4:23.

Physician, Heal thyself...

Seemed appropriate given he´s an anesthesiologist.
  by: VermiciousG     11/17/2010 08:00 PM     
Your second paragraph on down is very sound. No debate, there.

“Industry standard for health benefits is well over the 28 days he is going without.”
I obviously wasn’t comparing him to a burger-flipper at McDonalds or a newly hired secretary at XYZ Company. Nor is his position one with a high turnover rate (as you mentioned in your second sentence).

The closer you are to the top of the company ladder, or the more essential or hard-to-find your skills are, the greater your benefits. This includes 0-day waiting period. Directors, VPs, SVP, Presidents, CFO, CTO, CEO, et al. don’t usually have a waiting period. Depending on the size and financial situation of your company this may vary, but my statement is accurate. He’s a House Representative --- not the doorman. Like him, I wouldn´t have expected there to be a waiting period, either.
  by: CArnold     11/17/2010 09:00 PM     
Anesthesiologist don´t "heal". They´re responsible for applying correct dosages of anesthesia.

Too little and you might wake up in the middle of a surgery. Too much and you could die from an overdose.
  by: CArnold     11/17/2010 09:02 PM     
"That´s the point, he´s concerned about being without coverage."

Read what hellblazer wrote. He wasn´t worried. If anything, he can pay for one month of COBRA.

Looks like hellblazer crashed the party and sent them packing. LOL.

Good job at exposing the misinformation, HB!
  by: CArnold     11/17/2010 09:05 PM     
I know but does that not require medical school training/licensing? Anyways, there was a double entendre there you may have missed. Cheers! ;)
  by: VermiciousG     11/17/2010 09:26 PM     
Yeah, here´s the 1st line of the wiki

"An anesthesiologist (US English) or anaesthetist (British English) is a *physician* trained in anesthesia and peri-operative medicine."
  by: VermiciousG     11/17/2010 09:36 PM     
>>Read what hellblazer wrote. He wasn´t worried. If anything, he can pay for one month of COBRA.

It´s NOT that he can´t afford it, it´s that he thinks he´s entitled to something he has said he wants to deny others.

And with that, I give up trying to get you to see what Andy Harris might now be able to see.
  by: Jim8   11/17/2010 10:43 PM     
"...he thinks he´s entitled to something he has said he wants to deny others."

Okay... you´ve lost me.
In your previous post you said:

"...he was asking for his government provided health care, which he is entitled to as an employee."

Are you talking about his 28-day waiting period in which he´ll be without insurance? If, so then this relates with your previous comment of:

"The interesting part is where he asks what he´s supposed to do in the period he has no coverage, which what "ObamaCare" addresses."

First of all, ObamaCare doesn´t take effect until 2014. But, for the sake of argument, let´s pretend it kicked in 5 months ago.

Just how does ObamaCare address situations like these? Do you think it just automatically kicks in? How would an individual benefit from ObamaCare if they were in this Rep´s position?

[ edited by CArnold ]
  by: CArnold     11/18/2010 01:20 AM     
I have always had 0 day waiting period for health insurance starting with my first job out of college. I have also never had any problems with "pre-existing" conditions either because every insurance carrier I have ever used picks up coverage where the last one stopped as long as you had coverage with your previous employer.
  by: morganmacleod     11/18/2010 05:06 AM     
Are you under the delusion that a 0 day waiting period is the norm? The very first and only time that it happenned to mewas 8 years ago when I took my current job at a school district.
  by: VermiciousG     11/18/2010 05:25 AM     
I don´t think he was implying that it was the norm. He´s just relaying personal experience.

Corporations don´t typically hire officers or upper-level management straight out of college, so I think its safe to assume that you fall into the category of hard-to-find or essential employees.

Nashville and its surrounding areas are known as the mecca of healthcare in the south. The music and healthcare industries reign supreme in this area. As a result, companies are constantly competing with each other for top-talent. They offer nice salaries and attractive benefits packages to lure desired employees --- including 0-day waiting periods for medical benefits.

You´re obviously in a great paying and high-demand field.

Software developers (mid-level on up) and healthcare workers (RN, LPN, and MDs) are two career fields that don´t have to worry about waiting periods because they´re in such high demand and hard to find.

That´s one of the many advantages of having a degree in a lucrative field. Despite what many may believe, 0-day waiting periods for benefits aren´t that rare.

[ edited by carnold ]
  by: carnold     11/18/2010 05:46 AM     
I´d say that what he´s suggesting is that a 0 day waiting period is the norm for people who work hard. As if I haven´t. As if like your St. Glenn would say: It´s so easy being poor. That poverty is the goal for some people.

Now you´ll try and mask it under "no, no, no. that was just an anecdote" but the fact is that you and mc have a reverse logic when it comes to rights. "If I have it, I must deserve it", "If I deserve it, then it must be because I´m better than most"

The rule is "equal rights", Not "equal rights for the hardest workers" or "equal rights for the highest paying jobs" or even "equal rights for the most valued employees." and good health, where resonable measures have been made by the patient to remain healthy, is a right. Otherwise, there´d be no such thing as the hypocratic oath or laws for hospitals to accept anyone with a health issue.
  by: VermiciousG     11/18/2010 07:02 AM     
  @verm (1)  
“I´d say that what he´s suggesting is that a 0 day waiting period is the norm for people who work hard.”
I don’t see where he said that. He just said he’s always had a 0-waiting period in all his jobs since college. I have, too, except for when I decided that having insurance wasn’t important so I began consulting on a 1099 or corp-to-corp contract basis --- having more money was of higher priority for me than insurance, at the time. That was many years, ago.

"If I have it, I must deserve it"
That’s somewhat true. If I worked and earned it, then I *do* deserve it. Isn’t that a fair statement?

"If I deserve it, then it must be because I´m better than most"
That’s also somewhat true. If you work harder and are more productive and more dependable than any of your other co-workers, wouldn’t you in essence be “better” than your co-workers? And wouldn’t you deserve your raise and/or promotion because of it?

“The rule is "equal rights"”
In regards to insurance, it’s not. That’s not an opinion; that’s just the way it is.

Before we dive into that, let’s first acknowledge a few inconvenient truths:
1) Companies do not exist to guarantee anyone and everyone employment.
2) Companies do not exist for the purpose of insuring employees.
3) Companies do not exist for altruistic or noble purposes.
4) Companies solely exist to meet a consumer need and make a profit.
5) If the company does not make a profit, the company will cease to exist and its former employees will have neither an income nor insurance.

Now, let’s talk about supply and demand.
Economics 101 teaches us that the price of a product/service is driven by how much of that product is available (supply) and how badly people want that product (demand). This fundamental principle also exists with human resources (employees). If there is a skill that is in high demand and there aren’t enough people to fill that demand, guess what happens to the pay-rate of those that possess the skills being sought? It significantly goes up. One of the biggest challenges of any company is recruiting good talent… and retaining that talent.

Let’s suppose your job was bagging groceries at your local grocery store. The demand for grocery baggers is obviously there; otherwise you wouldn’t have a job. Now, let’s look at the supply of people with the skills capable of performing that job. Well, anyone capable of picking up groceries off the check-out counter and putting them into the bag on the edge of that counter can fulfill the duties required. Supply is abundantly plentiful because 99.9% of able-bodied adults can do that job. If you went to your employer and said, “Getting paid $8 p/hr sucks! I want $20 p/hr and full benefits and I want it now!”, he’d probably tell you to turn in your name-tag and leave. The next day, you’d be replaced.

Now, let’s suppose you were a software architect. You’ve been developing software for many years and you’re well versed with all the latest technologies: you know ASP.NET 3.0, Silverlight, MVC, WCF, Java, J-Query, SQL 2010, C#, VB.NET, WPF, SSRS, SSIS, WinForms, and all the prior legacy technologies of the past 10 years. You’ve got your Bachelor’s degree in computer science and you’ve kept your MCSD certifications current with each new release of the .NET platform. Is there a demand for such skill-sets? Most definitely. What is the supply of people with these skills? Very few. In fact, the demand for your robust skills exceeds supply. As soon as you place your resume onto, HR recruiters are blowing up your phone and your inbox is filled with propositions from dozens of well know corporations trying to seduce you as an employee. Your prospective employers aren’t clueless to how rare of a find you are, so they put together a very attractive compensation package to entice you to come work for them. This package consists of a $190K salary, 3 wks paid vacation, 10 days paid personal/sick time, matching 401K up to 15%, fully vested annual stock options, annual performance bonus of 20% your gross salary, full access to their on-site gym, free on-site daycare, and paid health/dental/vision/life/disability insurance in a PPO plan *with* a 0-day waiting period to receive your benefits.
  by: carnold     11/18/2010 10:17 AM     
  @verm (2)  
Compare the two scenarios, above.
Bag-boy isn’t in any position to negotiate the terms of his employment, much less what benefits he’ll receive. He didn’t take the time or effort to procure marketable skills and become an “essential” employee. Instead of picking and choosing where he wants to work, he’ll have to take whatever is available.

The software-architect spent many years working and studying to perfect his skills. And, in the IT industry, you’re never “done” with school. You constantly have to study and keep up with technology to be relevant, or be left behind. This guy worked his butt off to reach the point he’s at. As a result, his rare skills are sought after and he’s very much in a position to negotiate his salary and other benefits.

If you get your insurance through your employer, the type of insurance (HMO or PPO, your co-pay, etc) and your waiting period is at their discretion and the guidelines of the group package they enlisted in. If you work in an industry where the turnover rate is high (waitressing, dish-washer, cashier, etc.), you may have to wait 6 to 9 months before you’re even offered insurance. And even then, as DRHunk pointed out, you’ll have to be a full-time employee --- not part-time.

It’s not about who works harder. If you look at the two scenarios I presented, the bag-boy will undoubtedly break a bigger sweat than the other guy sitting behind his computer and going to meetings in his posh air-conditioned office building.

I’m not telling you these things to piss you off or rub salt in your wound. I happen to like you, Verm, but I would be doing you a great disservice by telling you how great your opinions were and that you should be entitled to anything you wanted. But, the fact of the matter is the world doesn’t work like that. Instead of pacifying you with what you want to hear, I’m being brutally honest and tell you what you *need* to hear. This is how it works, for better or worse, and it’s up to you to take control of your own life. If you don’t like it, then you need to do something about it. The longer you wait, the sooner you’ll come to the realization that you’ve wasted all your years doing nothing about it and you’re too old to even start.

My father filled my head with a lot of sayings that ring so loudly with truth. I share them from time to time when the occasion permits. One of those sayings is, “If you wanna keep getting what you’re getting, keep doing what you’re doing.” If you don’t like it, then you need to change something.
There’s another saying that he told me when I was a kid that has always stuck with me. He said, “Work smarter, not harder.” Use your brain to find a better way. Use your brain to find a better life.

Is the software guy any better than the bag-boy guy? I judge “better” by the content of the person’s character and the tune they carry in their heart.

Two things are undeniable, though: Software-guy is much better off financially and he’s got better insurance.

Nobody will look out for you the way you will look out for you. Never become dependent on anyone. If you want it, it’s up to you to get it.
  by: carnold     11/18/2010 10:18 AM     
No, no, no. I´m not gonna play the l´anglais game here. I´m not this sites champion for socialized health care. I´m not going to read and attempt to completely respond to the book that you presented above. Who has that kind of time? Winning arguments by overwhelming the other side with text, relevant or not, is a tactic of debate not discussion. I hereby bow to your prowess as debater-extraordinaire.

I only make and will discuss 2 points here today:
A) An anesthesiologist is a physician.
B) Health care availability shouldn´t be based on income because 4-year-olds with leukemia who´s single mother is a waitress don´t have a choice in their circumstance. They aren´t in a position to work harder or take personal responsibility for their own insurance.
  by: VermiciousG     11/18/2010 02:52 PM     
That argument is not exclusive to 4-year-olds with single waitress mothers. there are many many other combinations that suit that argument.
  by: VermiciousG     11/18/2010 02:55 PM     
  I have a good real life example for you  
of how this system is screwed up and it being private hurts regular people. Especially children!

A friend of mine and her husband started a restaurant about a year ago. They were in completely over their heads and after about 10 months it went out of business. Now they are in debt up to their eyeballs.

They had a baby about 6 months before they started the restaurant. Since they no longer have any money, whenever the baby gets sick, they have no way to pay for it. They are living way below the poverty level and I dont want to hear any shit about how they should be working harder because since they lost their restaurant, they both are working some 10-16 hours per day 6-7 days per week! In other words, they are working the most they can work!

About a month ago, their baby got sick and they didnt even have the money to take him to his doctor so they had to wait it out and hope for the best...

People that enjoy and like our private system are nothing but supporting a system that helps make children sicker and in some cases murders them simply because their parents cannot afford health care. This system is a brutal fascist system of inhuman scum and those that support it are no better.

[ edited by slavefortheman ]
  by: slavefortheman     11/18/2010 04:00 PM     
I appologize for my first sentence, I was under theimpression you were stating 0-day wait is the norm and the Gov is screwing this guy.

I have a Fed Gov Job and I also had to wait out the probation period before benefits were offered, its 60 day probation where im working. Granted he is a senator so is even higher on the food chain than an SES or GO but i think his whining about 28 days is what has everyones panties in a bunch.

Suck it up and wait 28 days, its not going to kill you, your a public servant not a highly skilled engineer that has a highly sought after talent. Politicians are very full of themselves.

He is very replacable.
  by: DRHunk     11/18/2010 04:53 PM     
  This is ShortNews  
Shouldn´t the comments be a bit more, concise?
  by: Jim8   11/18/2010 05:31 PM     
  Explanation, Please  
After having pointed out that comments should follow the model of being concise, I have a question for our conservative friends.

I keep hearing about how the health care reform, "ObamaCare" to those whose answer I seek, is a "government take over" I ask:

Please explain, just what is being taken over? I honestly don´t see it.

You cannot answer mandatory insurance, as it was a conservative idea during Clinton´s attempt.

Do some Googling before you say it wasn´t a conservative idea, is was, and that´s part of my lack of understanding. That answer won´t add to my understanding of your complaint.
  by: Jim8   11/18/2010 05:39 PM     
I see that you are a business owner... so by default you should hate the democratic administration currently in office. The paperwork and new rules added to burden small businesses...
But you miss two very important points in your comments:
1. the bad cop good cop of politicians confuses the individual from realising the fact that both groups together form the laws as you see them. They are one government.
2. the republican is well aware that he is using the only public option that works - government health care that is offered only to his ilk.

So that said, the best way to deal with obamacare is to have all politicians deny it. They should all pay private health care plans and deal with the issues that arise with the quality of their services as the rest of the united states experiences them according to the laws they pass.

seems reasonable and to add it is a great thumb in the face of those obamacare people!
  by: mexicanrevolution   11/18/2010 09:57 PM     
Is that it? I don´t fall into your pit trap so you just abandon the thread? I typically skip over the slack jawed venom between you and Ben but I always figured you for at least a conversationalist.
  by: VermiciousG     11/19/2010 03:55 AM     
  LOL @ Verm  
Sorry. Been pretty busy today. I knew this thread would take the most time to post responses to, so I only posted in threads I knew I could get in and out of quickly.

I´m working on my responses... Be back in a few mins.
  by: carnold     11/19/2010 04:39 AM     
  @Verm and Carnold  
I am under no delusion that this is standard practice but it not uncommon depending upon the industry. How did you conclude that I suggested that this is the norm for people who work hard? I don´t think I said anything about being better than anyone else or that I worked harder than others.

I too am surprised that the benefits don´t start immediately upon being sworn into the office. Being a member of Congress is much more important and prestigious than my position so I would have assumed immediate coverage. Just to be technically correct, I was mistaken when I said I have always had 0 day coverage. One company that I worked for not too long ago was unable to provide immediate coverage, but they paid for my COBRA costs until the company coverage started. I did not remember that fact until I started writing this comment, but the effect is the same.

@Carnold - I don´t feel that I am an essential employee, I am merely a chemist whose career has morphed into food safety and regulatory compliance. The increasing emphasis on these areas has however apparently made people like me "hard-to-find" since I am offered jobs on a routine basis whenever I meet other people in the food industry. I started this position with 21 days of paid leave each year, hiring bonus, and an obscene expense account and I am not upper management. I am also allowed to consult on the side several times a year without the time out of the office counting against my PTO.

What you are saying though is true about coverage. I know many people who have taken positions with 0day coverage so it is not rare. Like you, my education never stops with all of the new rules, standards, and technology that I must employ or I will be left behind. Wish I could do what you do with software.

You have given eloquent responses about rights, reasons for existence, and supply/demand. Nothing left for me to say about that.
  by: morganmacleod     11/19/2010 04:58 AM     
I wasn’t trying to set the stage for a debate. I was simply relaying how the system works; not trying to overwhelm you.

Yes. An anesthesiologist is a physician. I was saying earlier that he wasn’t a “healer”. He doesn’t heal anything. He’s Dr. Feelgood. He doesn’t perform surgeries; he makes you more comfortable for your surgery.

Employer sponsored insurance isn’t the only insurance available. In the instance of the child with leukemia, she would be able to get help through a variety of places with no cost to the mother.
Medicaid (not to be confused with Medicare) covers low-income families.
The UHC Children’s Foundation provides medical grants for cancer treatment.
Candlelighters Foundation is another non-profit organization that assists with costs associated with cancer treatment for children.

The government isn’t the answer to all our problems. There are many privately run organizations dedicated to helping those in need. Especially children.

Tell your friend to sign up for Medicaid. If they’re as destitute as you claim, they’ll have no problem qualifying for assistance. If they’re already on welfare, they’ll automatically qualify.

Thanks for the apology. I probably could have done a better job with my explanation.

“You cannot answer mandatory insurance, as it was a conservative idea during Clinton´s attempt.”
No, it wasn’t a Conservative idea. It was a Liberal idea.

“Do some Googling before you say it wasn´t a conservative idea.”
I don’t have to. I’m already familiar with that bill. You’re assuming that all Republicans are Conservative. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.
The healthcare plan you’re talking about was drafted by a Republican, but he was a self-professed Liberal. It was commonly referred to as the Chafee Health Bill. He was loved by the Democrats. Per his mini-bio:

“More than any other Republican in modern Rhode Island history, Senator John H. Chafee has prospered in the minority. A liberal in a conservative party, he often casts a swing vote on key legislation”

The above quote is in the first paragraph, so you don’t have to go hunting for it.

You may have heard about how closely the Chafee Bill was to the Obamacare Bill. What you may not have heard was how different Conservative Republican Boehner’s proposed bill was to Obama’s bill.

This chart compares the Obamacare Bill, the Chafee Bill, and the bill proposed by John Boehner in response to Obamacare. The difference between Liberal and Conservative proposals are vividly different.
  by: carnold     11/19/2010 06:04 AM     
Okay, I guess I misunderstood. We should then of course drop the discussion.

@carnold: Do you think for one second that private non-profit groups can pick up *all* the slack? Because I can give you about 200 names of children that died last year from treatable illnesses "That I know About".

Often the few treatment centers that will cover them are spread around the country like a fistful of thumb tacks on a map. People with jobs and lives often have to transport their kids hundreds of miles several times per week for treatment. Charity and faith based solutions are a pipe dream and/or a sales pitch.

You´re either going to have to take a couple(just a couple) steps out of that ditch on the far right side of the road toward the yellow line in the center or you´re just gonna have to say it. You´re gonna have to say that you don´t give a fuck. That you and almost all conservatives are gonna continue to call this "the greatest country in the world" while you allow children to die of perfectly treatable ailments because you demand low taxes and fuckem´ anyway ´cuz they´re poor. They aren´t my kids anyways.
  by: VermiciousG     11/19/2010 06:45 AM     
&both groups together form the laws as you see them.
Not true.
The Obamacare bill was passed without a single Republican voting in favor of it. It was controversially passed via Reconciliation measures.

the republican is well aware that he is using the only public option that works - government health care that is offered only to his ilk.
Heh. Not true at all. Not one member of Congress uses a public option.
Congress wants the federal government to run *our* healthcare, but they dont trust Obamacare enough to use it, themselves. Theyve put waivers in the bill that would make members of Congress exempt from having to use Obamacare. Thats right. The Dems dont trust the very healthcare they claim is good for the rest of America. Instead, theyd rather get their taxpayer-paid insurance from the *private sector*. Does anyone else see the glaring hypocrisy of the Democrats with this?

This link will take you to the menu of choices they have for their insurance. They can choose from just about every possible coverage from nearly any insurance company in existence.

They should all pay private health care plans&
LOL. Like I said& they already do. Except they pay for it with our tax dollars.

You have to love that expense account. I just wish the IRS would let businesses write off more than just 50% o food/beverage expenses. I do a lot of entertaining and hate having to foot the bill of the other half.

And Id say being a chemist is pretty essential. As rare as you guys are, I know you must get coddled by every company you work for.

[ edited by carnold ]
  by: carnold     11/19/2010 06:47 AM     
“Do you think for one second that private non-profit groups can pick up *all* the slack?”
You’re assuming they won’t. How do you know one way or the other? Have you spoken to anyone that’s used them? Many hospitals have charity programs dedicated to helping children where they will forgive a good majority of the bill.

“I can give you about 200 names of children that died last year from treatable illnesses…”
There’s a difference between “treatable” and “curable”.
Sadly, some illnesses are terminal and no amount of treatment or medicine will save them.

The rest of your post makes quite a bit of assumptions. You seem pretty down on groups that try to help others. Do you really place that much faith in your government? You say you’re not a champion for socialized medicine, it definitely sounds like you think raising taxes will save the world. Point me to a couple of examples of the children you’re talking about. Speaking in vague hypotheticals is useless.
  by: carnold     11/19/2010 07:02 AM     
I was referring to children that I knew of working in the education "industry" (i don´t want to get into the quotes right now, odds are we´d agree there)

but as for vets dieing for lack of healthcare

and then of course there´s...

Ya know this stuff´s not hard. Yahoo or google work pretty well.

We´re talking 10´s of thousands if not 100´s of thousands of untreated cases. All from lack of health care. Now say it. just say it so we can all go to bed.
  by: VermiciousG     11/19/2010 07:31 AM     
I thought you were going to provide links about children being denied care and treatment. None of your links address that. You’re completely changing the dialogue.

Hmmm… Couldn’t find anything, could you? That’s fine. Let’s run with the links you provided but, first, let’s recap:

I never said privately-run insurance was 100% perfect, but I did say it was waaaay better than government run healthcare (read Obamacare).

You, on the other hand, seem to think that by raising taxes and adopting Obamacare, all of our healthcare issues will be solved. Children will immediately stop dying, the sick will instantly become better, and America will become transformed into the healthiest nation on earth.

So, let’s take a look at your first link…
The headline reads:
“Over 2,200 vets died for lack of health insurance in 2008”

When I see something like this, I have to ask, “How can our government allow this to happen?” This is not acceptable. The honorable men and women who’ve served and sacrificed for this great nation deserve better than this. These are veterans and we should be taking care of them.

Your link reminds me of another instance that received tremendous coverage. The Walter Reed VA hospital scandal:

"The Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal resulted from a series of allegations of unsatisfactory conditions and management at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) in Washington, D.C.

The Washington Post published a series of articles beginning February 18, 2007, outlining cases of neglect at Walter Reed reported by wounded soldiers and their family members, although the article focused primarily on Building 18.

WRAMC´s Building 18 is described in the article as rat- and cockroach-infested, with stained carpets, cheap mattresses, and black mold, with no heat and water reported by some soldiers at the facility. The unmonitored entrance created security problems, including reports of drug dealers in front of the facility. Injured soldiers stated they are forced to "pull guard duty" to obtain a level of security. In an attempt to alleviate the toll that Building 18´s condition is taking on the wounded soldiers, a staff team headed by a clinical social worker at WRAMC obtained a grant of $30,000 from the Commander´s Initiative Account for improvements; however, "a Psychiatry Department functionary held up the rest of the money because she feared that buying a lot of recreational equipment close to Christmas would trigger an audit." By January the funds were no longer available."

I think we can both agree that this is deplorable. Look at that level of healthcare. Totally unacceptable.

I hate to admit it, but… Verm, you’ve convinced me. Maybe if the government controlled insurance and hospitals, none of this would have ever occurred. There I said it.

Hold on a sec… I just remembered something… Ahhh, yes. That’s right…
The government *does* run the VA hospitals. And it *already* manages the insurance of our honorable veterans. And Walter Reed was just one of *many* hospitals in substandard condition and giving inferior care.

Read the stories these soldiers tell about their experiences with “government run healthcare”:

Our government can’t even care for those who honorably served and sacrificed for our nation… and you actually believe that they’re going to care for poor people that don’t pay taxes? Our government is incapable of providing adequate or even mediocre quality care to our injured and disabled veterans, but yet you think it’s going to do a better job for private citizens? Even those with greater needs?

Roughly 14% of Americans are veterans. Our government can’t take care of 14% of the population, but you have this crazy notion that they’re competent enough to take care of 100% of America?

While it may be misplaced, your faith in our government’s ability to perform miracles is strong.

“Now say it. just say it so we can all go to bed.”
Sure. I don’t mind saying it again: Government isn’t the answer.
Read the links.
  by: carnold     11/19/2010 09:04 AM     
I gotta disagree with your "Hope and Change" was probably the most devastating blow to Americans.", in the scope of false pretenses getting someone in to the White House...

That whole "Read my lips, no new taxes" thing was friggin EPIC!!!

It has shown its self as the paradigm for GOP style promises henceforth.

Certainly subby has done a wonderful job reminding us of just that!

[ edited by richie65x ]
  by: richie65x   11/19/2010 02:16 PM     
LOL yeah just when Im working though!
  by: slavefortheman     11/19/2010 03:02 PM     
Wow. Epic indeed. People still had jobs and we weren´t in a recession when that was said.

Here´s what´s epic:
"If we do not pass this Stimulus Package we will see unemployment rise to 8%."

LOL. He forgot to mention that if we *did* pass it, unemployment would reach 9.7%.

Yep. Epic, indeed.
$862 billion EPIC.
  by: CArnold     11/19/2010 05:23 PM     
  Unanswered Question  
I asked those who refer to health care reform as "ObamaCare" to explain, in brief, exactly what they are opposed to, specifically the complaint about it being a "government take over.

I will assume the silence is because you don´t know what you mean, but are parroting the line you heard somewhere.

Carnold sure can write, but says very little. No one has that much time.

You guys don´t even like ideas that were yours, if that evil Obama uses it.

Here´s some reading:
  by: Jim8   11/19/2010 05:31 PM     
Nice try but wrong...

Unemployment rates are reflecting economic problems that were inherited by the previous administration and are related to the global banking collapse.

T.A.R.P. is turning a profit and...

T.A.R.P. was initiated by G.W. Bush on Hank Paulsons´ advisement...

As it turns out, the decision to adopt T.A.R.P. was initially made by ´George W. Bush´ - Much to the chagrin of the Tea Party movements insistence that T.A.R.P. is Socialism enacted by the Obama administration...

From this article:

The former president address this in "Decision Points", the final chapter of his memoirs:

It was the final chapter of Bush´s presidency, and is correspondingly the final chapter of his memoir, "Decision Points." As Bush describes it, he had just been told by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson that they should spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to buy up mortgage assets, and he approved the plan in full. "If we´re really looking at another Great Depression," he recalls saying, "you can be damn sure I´m going to be Roosevelt, not Hoover."

By Tea Party doctrine, that´s heresy. But Bush, in "Decision Points," doesn´t back off at all from his defense of the auto industry rescue and the federal ownership of financial companies - even though those positions today would make him a pariah in his own party.

"The strategy was a breathtaking intervention in the free market," he writes of the TARP bank-bailout program. "It flew against all my instincts. But it was necessary to pull the country out of the panic. I decided that the only way to preserve the free market in the long run was to intervene in the short run."
  by: richie65x   11/19/2010 05:36 PM     
I’m wrong?
Did he or did he not say that? Was he or was he not wrong in an EPIC way?
The circumstances you’re trying to parlay are irrelevant to the fact he made (and continues to make) a promise he knew he couldn’t keep. He lied to the American people. Plain and simple.

“Unemployment rates are reflecting economic problems that were inherited by the previous administration…”
Oh, come on… People are soooo tired of hearing that.
“It’s raining outside!” Dems say, “It’s Bush’s fault”.
“There was a devastating earthquake in Haiti!” Dems say, “It’s Bush’s fault.”

Obama has been in office for two years. When is he (and the Dems) going to take responsibility and accountability for his own duties and actions? Obama failed. Simple as that. His multi-trillion-dollar stimulus bill didn’t come close to fulfilling what it was hyped to do --- just like its president.
If, by a long shot, his stimulus bill *had* actually worked and the economy made a recovery, do you think they would have pointed to Bush and said, “He did this.”? Of course not. If it’s bad, blame it on Bush. If it’s good, try to claim credit. The American people aren’t blind to the games the Dems are playing. That’s one of the many reasons American voters swept them out of Congress and out of states legislatures. In fact, the Republicans won more state legislatures than *any* time in American history.

“T.A.R.P. is turning a profit and...T.A.R.P. was initiated by G.W. Bush”
Thank you. That’s right.
George the Great placed stipulations into that bill that ensured the recovery of our money. Obama had nothing to do with TARP, as the lefties continuously point out in their feeble attempts to somehow justify Obama’s Spendulous Bill.
Although we’re getting our money back from those that benefitted from TARP, we´re not exactly “netting” a profit… yet. Let’s look at those numbers:

“Originally expected to cost the U.S. Government $356 billion, the most recent final net estimate of the cost, as of October 5, 2010, will be close to $30 billion, including expected returns from interest in AIG. This is significantly less than the taxpayers´ cost of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s.”

Wow. Would you look at that?
Bush spent $356-billion in the TARP program. Less than two years later, we’ve recovered all but $30-billion. Bush’s policies prevail, again.

Now, let’s compare this to Obama’s stimulus package.
Cost when he signed the bill: $862 billion

How much of this will we recover? LOL. Sorry… trick question.

"Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the impact of permanently extending the 20 most popular provisions of the stimulus bill. What did the CBO find? As you can see from the table below, the true 10 year cost of the stimulus bill $2.527 trillion in in spending with another $744 billion cost in debt servicing. Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3.27 trillion."

With Bush’s TARP, we will recover what we loaned and spent.
With Obama’s so-called “stimulus” bill, we will continue to spend more and more. In fact, we’re going to spend and owe *4 times* the originally price tag. Talk about bait and switch…
And, no, these aren’t Fox News analysis numbers. These numbers come from the Congressional Budget Office --- a source that Obama is so fond of quoting.

This is why, after November 2nd, Bob Beckel was quoted saying:
“You get the license-plate number of the truck that ran over my party?”

[ edited by CArnold ]
  by: CArnold     11/19/2010 06:48 PM     
It went unanswered because you insisted on brevity. I was at my brevity limit when I answered your other question and the answer to your “unanswered” question can’t be answered with 3 sentences.
I like to give explanations that leave no room for interpretation.

If you want an answer, I’ll give you one… under the condition you quit griping and complaining about brevity. I either answer the way I feel is most effective, or it´ll just go unanswered.
  by: CArnold     11/19/2010 06:52 PM     
"George the Great" LOL - Comedy gold.

You should hit the comedy club circuit!!!

Hank Paulsons´ advisement, Congresses approval...

"People are soooo tired of hearing that." - FOX news audience are tired of hearing that because the actual truth is disturbing to that crowds cognitive dissonance. They are happy to blame the new chocolate president they so love to hate.

Your version perfectly mimics the opinions you are provided by Beck and Limbaugh during your commute to and from work... Roger Ailes would be so proud of you!

The rest of us actually fact check and triangulate our information.

These problems have a history that transcends party, administration and any specific creed.

If you want to blame an entity... Start with the ´U.S. Chamber of Commerce´, AIPAC and other special interest groups. Not that you will hear about this stuff on talk radio or FOX...

The politician discussed in the article is a hypocrite, but it is your own cognitive dissonance that prevents you from seeing it, and has you flailing to avoid seeing the irony and getting the point of this story.
  by: richie65x   11/19/2010 07:42 PM     
“Hank Paulsons´ advisement, Congresses approval...”
…and Bush signing the bill instead of vetoing it.

In my previous post, I said Democrats’ strategy was: “If it’s bad, blame it on Bush. If it’s good, try to claim credit.”

And I’ll be darned if you didn’t just try doing it again.
The threads on this site are littered with comments trying to justify Obama’s crazy spending by pointing to TARP and saying, “Well, Bush did it. Look at all the money he spent,” or “Bush was the one that started spending money to help the economy.”
Now that TARP has succeeded (something Obama’s Stimulus will never do), they’re all trying to claim accolades for Bush’s decision. It’s no longer “Bush’s TARP”. Instead, it was a Democrat Congress TARP. Thank you for making my case for me.

“FOX news audience are tired of hearing that…”
Really? Were the voting stations only open to Fox viewers on November 2nd? Were the independents that were heavily credited for swaying Congressional power in favor of Republicans all Fox viewers, too?
Look at the election results. People don’t want excuses. They want results.

“…because the actual truth is disturbing to that crowds cognitive dissonance.”
Au contraire mon frère…
Look at *every* post in which I made a statement that I insisted was fact. You’ll see quotes and links to very reputable sources that substantiate and confirm *every* one of them.
Now, let’s take a look at your posts…
All I see is one link to a story that heaps praise on Bush (not the Democrats, mind you) for passing the TARP bill --- which was something I agree with, so there is no debate, here. Per your own link:

“…I miss [George W. Bush] because in the end he was willing to toss aside his ideological orthodoxy when the national interest required it…”

Very touching, if I do say so myself.

What about your other claims? You’re slinging all kinds of accusations and false statements and not backing a single one of them up. See the irony? I back up everything I say. You don’t. And yet, I’m the one afraid of facts. That certainly sums up Liberal logic, doesn’t it?

Talk is cheap. Show us proof. Readers following this discussion need to see more than your empty rhetoric before granting you any credibility. Here’s your chance to prove you’re not a pretender and a talking-point parrot. Your refusal to produce any corroborative evidence will only expose you as misinformed, misguided, and uneducated fan boy.

Step up to the plate and show us what you’ve got… or get off my field.
  by: CArnold     11/19/2010 09:24 PM     
I harp on brevity because I can´t make it all the way through your posts.

We took a class in college called "Business writing" where we learned not to lose people´s interest before they tune out.

You can´t answer in brief, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Try again, what is it you don´t like about what you call "ObamaCare?"

It can be answered in one sentence, "I don´t like "ObamaCare because. . . ." then follow it up with an actual, verifiable, FACT.
  by: Jim8   11/19/2010 09:59 PM     
  Buried In Verbage  
  by: ichi     11/19/2010 10:12 PM     
  Well, Jim  
Since you´re a much more talented writer than I am and you´re so in-tune with the "correct way" of writing, why don´t you write up why you *do* like Obamacare and why you believe it´s good for America. I´ll use your response as a template for my response.

Lead by example. Sounds fair, don´t you think?
  by: CArnold     11/19/2010 10:36 PM     
Bush signed the bill... neo-con tea party twits relentlessly blame the Obama administration for it and complain about TARP being socialized banking. Go figure.

The Obama administration was tasked with managing that bail out package and have done so successfully.

A government mandated health care policy has been on the table for quite awhile... Both Dems and GOP have pledged to make it happen.

The Obama administration was able to successfully pass a government mandated health care policy. Neo-con tea party twits relentlessly blame the Obama administration for it and complain about it being socialized medicine. Go figure.

It is the successes of the Democrats on these huge issues that has the GOP foaming at the mouth, because these successes also give light to the GOP´s failures / inability to come together and achieve anything worthwhile. Nary a republican president has yet to establish financial responsibility in regards to this country´s budget - Quite the opposite has been evidenced repeatedly. GOP went nuts trying do discredit Clinton who left office with a surplus.

I see where you have that same foam around your mouth...

I´m not going to waste my time proving common knowledge to you. these concepts are everywhere to be held - But you are not blind, it´s just that you wont see.

If it is so important to you that I be wrong... prove me wrong.

So far you have rhetorically made your self feel big... Though that doesn´t make it so.

Your field (of vision) is myopic at best.

Like I said before:

These problems have a history that transcends party, administration and any specific creed.

If you want to blame an entity... Start with the ´U.S. Chamber of Commerce´, AIPAC and other special interest groups. Not that you will hear about this stuff on talk radio or FOX...
  by: richie65x   11/19/2010 10:58 PM     
CArnold is a legend in his own mind. He pumps his ego constantly and spews forth irrelevant links to right-wing lies that he tries to twist into the truth. He kisses his mirror instead of his wife when he goes to work. All hail king CArnold! He´s so full of right-wing bullshit Republicans come to him for refills. He´s just a pompous blowhard with no substance.
  by: jonsmith999   11/19/2010 11:16 PM     
  @ jonsmith999  
So true. It is also funny reading through this (accept CA posts because it isn´t worth reading) to find that everyone sees through carnolds BS (accept hellblazer, but I have a feeling hellblazer is smarter than carnold & only supports him because of friendship).

I wonder when carnold will grow up & finally get it. Actually I don´t really wonder nor care. Just seeing him riled up with no loss in ego is humorous enough. I kinda feel sorry for him. How can someone grow when their ego holds themselves back like that. I figure he is either a sociopath or just slow in the head. His actions point to a lack of social conscience, so it should be easy to figure out which one.

I am just glad I am no longer apart of the social conscience pendulum. There is still hope for you too jonsmith999.
  by: vhan     11/19/2010 11:38 PM     
As I´ve said " I´m not this sites champion for socialized health care"

I would never, "NEVER" support a government run hospital system but that is not what the bill says. It´s not about health care so much as about coverage.

Now because I refuse to read any comment longer than 20 lines and wouldn´t consider for a second dissecting the long winded spew of you and others, was there in that somewhere buried in it where you said your feelings about the hypothetical situation of the 4 year old.
  by: VermiciousG     11/20/2010 12:32 AM     
  Baka na hito muyo  
Tell me carnold did Bush authorizing torture help America?
  by: vhan     11/20/2010 12:39 AM     
If you don’t want to read it then don’t. Who’s making you? The choice is yours. But, you apparently *did* read it because your comment references remarks I made at the end about government run hospitals and insurance.

“…was there in that somewhere buried in it where you said your feelings about the hypothetical situation of the 4 year old.”
Did your post prior to mine make any mention of that hypothetical 4 year old? No. You changed the context of the discussion entirely from children to soldiers. How the two are in any way related, I have no idea.

As I said, pull up a link that addresses this and we can talk more specifically about it. Your argument is that nobody cares about kids and nobody would ever think about helping them. I’ve told you that you’re wrong and have even pointed out a two of *hundreds* of places created to help such people.

Understand one thing, Verm. When people donate money, they don’t typically comb through the news or internet sites looking for a specific person to help. They usually donate to a cause and let that non-profit group manage and distribute the money and/or aide. Whether it be to a children’s hospitals’ burn unit, Salvation Army, Make a Wish Foundation, or whatever, that’s where the money usually goes. In your response, you criticized these groups for helping people… including those like that little girl. Why would you do that? If you were concerned about people like that little girl, why would you condemn and blaspheme organizations established and devoted to helping people like her? Is her life not worth saving… unless that help comes from the government? To me, that makes no sense.

Quiet. You’re another person with no credibility and I have no desire to converse with a BSer. The day you start providing links and relaying actual facts, I may reevaluate my opinion of you. Until then, go pound sand.

[ edited by CArnold ]
  by: CArnold     11/20/2010 01:02 AM     
  lol again  
You can´t answer an honest question? Scared?
  by: vhan     11/20/2010 01:04 AM     
What you have gained is the title of ´King Nothing´

Apparently you also "have a 10yr history of" "right-wing bullshit."

That seems rather strongly worded to me - I would at the very least add douche bag to your resume.

I have been around SN for well over 10 years (circa ´94, or ´95 I think) - In addition to quite a few intelligent conversations, I can say that I certainly don´t have a reputation for adding bullshit... You on the other hand...

I am very well acquainted with the insecure self-righteous blather from neo-cons.

I have looked at other comments from you and see nothing more than self-referential justifications for your narrow-minded lunacy.

You ride around on your 10 yeas of whatever you want... Sadly you are pedaling around in circles amongst those who you know nothing about, spewing out someone elses opinion and calling it your own.

Certainly you have no clue as to where I draw my experiences from and know nothing of my qualifications to comment on such subjects.

I will point to an obvious clue you have, time and time again, left out in the open for all to see... You have little if any actual / direct experience, and every aspect of the opinions you have presented are nothing more than the regurgitated right-wing banter you swallowed during what looks as though was rendered from several fellatio sessions with those who you hungrily slurp opinions from rather than actually having to commit to an original thought of your own.

If you swallow that stuff then it is of no consequence to me that you have also swallowed your self-proclaimed victory in your "*house*". This is what self-fellatio is all about.

You, King Nothing, have convinced your self of yet another delusion.

[ edited by richie65x ]
  by: richie65x   11/20/2010 01:07 AM     
Don´t accuse me of criticizing them. All I said was that their donation based system is inadequate. I have nothing but respect for what they´re doing but it shouldn´t be necessary for them to do it.

I didn´t try to change the discussion. Truth is that was a half-hearted try to show how many people get screwed out of insurance so your point is valid. I´ll try to stay on track.

Now if you would kindly answer the following question:
Do you believe that it is okay to allow children with no power over their own lives to die for the sake of low taxes?
  by: VermiciousG     11/20/2010 08:01 AM     
Congratulations. You are unable to detect even the strongest sarcasm.

ShortNews isn´t nearly that old.
  by: H. W. Hutchins   11/20/2010 08:15 AM     
“(circa ´94, or ´95 I think)”

Circa BS I think.
As Hutchins pointed out, ShortNews hasn’t been around that long.
Like I said, I don’t have to prove you wrong. You continuously do that for me.
How’s that “experience” feeling right now?

As far as the rest of your posts go... I think Gizzle addressed them better than I ever could.

  by: carnold     11/20/2010 10:28 AM     
  Guess what? You´re immortalized!  
I like this thread a lot. I´m going to put it in my "Greatest Hits" thread in my profile. If anyone ever wants to see how Libs get PWNED, this link will always be available.

Please feel free to visit my VC anytime and check out a link to some of my greatest hits!

Every BSer will have their part in my library, so that others can witness their pathetic defeats... begining with THIS thread!

[ edited by carnold ]
  by: carnold     11/20/2010 11:01 AM     
You keep coming back to taxes and little girls.

Here is my answer:

Raising taxes will NOT save lives. Period.

You can quote me on that, by the way.
  by: carnold     11/20/2010 11:14 AM     
  carnold and vermis  
what happened to the soldiers? vermis brought it up and carnold went in to it. then you both dropped the convo. what about us? this debate is going back and forth.
  by: Gizzle   11/20/2010 11:26 AM     
Boy oh boy... You sure got me on that one!

I say circa because I don´t recall exactly what year... Those days back then went by so fast. From ´93 - ´01, I was working towards my doctorate, while raising 3 kids (with my beautiful wife), and commuting between Cincinnati and Langley WV. I was, up till now, certain that all that hard work had paid off until you told me I was pwnd.

Darn it!

So yeah... I´m not sure when I found SN, but the site was in its infancy at the time. I was too busy to jot down the date.

Un-like the mental midget you are, when I am mistaken, I am a intelligent enough to admit it, learn from it and move on. You are so insecure that you will cling to your errors and justify them at any cost - This neurosis is very common, so you are certainly not alone.

You have so much in common with Andy Harris in your incredulousness and the mental disparity that generates the hypocrisy you cater too, I am glad that you are not lonely. I am also glad that I don´t have to deal with you on a daily basis. I AM sad for those who would unfortunately have no choice but to attempt a meaningful intelligent conversation with you - I liken it to a high speed face plant into a wall of opinionated bigotry.

Do you consider yourself as one who is easy to talk to? If so, perhaps Andy Harris would be willing to cry on your shoulder.
  by: richie65x   11/20/2010 03:33 PM     
I don´t think we ever meant to get into talking about healthcare for our veterans, to begin with.

My assumption is that verm typed "death without healthcare" into Google and this was the best link that it came up with.

What were you wanting to discuss in regards to healthcare in the military?
  by: carnold     11/20/2010 04:26 PM     
  @ richie65x  
Truth be told. Declaring victory is childish & to pull the race card (something Gizzle pulls a lot) to put words in someone else mouth is very argumentum ad hominem.

I am just shocked people give them any attention. I´ve been told it is mostly because everyone gets to see how wrong they are, which is good enough for me (being so obvious how wrong they are).
  by: vhan     11/21/2010 12:30 AM     
  Feel Like You Are Being Buried In Verbage  
And B/S

Its getting boring
  by: ichi     11/21/2010 02:01 AM     
You certainly set a glowing example, a shining beacon for all neo-con (and from what I gather, the entire population of autistic and schizophrenic individuals as well).

May your life and livelihood be as amenable as your opinions are to others.

Glad to see the article and its comments have remained focused on GOP hypocrisy.

You and CArnold have done a wonderful job of driving the point of this submission - That took initiative! When called to task, you both gave it your all!!!

Good jorb homestar!
  by: richie65x   11/21/2010 11:30 AM     
  you can google  
thanks for reminding me... i need to up date my google profile... if you keep digging you will find my current resume with a link to my dissertation on microwave communication encryption.
  by: richie65x   11/21/2010 08:09 PM     
  What lauguage is that,  
  by: jonsmith999   11/22/2010 05:14 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: