Home - List All Discussions

Healthcare Bill

by: Spinwubby

One thing the healthcare bill does is cap the price of prescription medications to 300%-500% of manufacturing costs. If that makes you gasp, then http://www.anxiety-and-depression-solutions.com/articles/conventional/pharmaceutical/realdrugcosts.php should make your eyes roll back in your head.
(This became an outrage when I found that the dose of Prednisone I took years ago cost our veterinary clinic $.33 cents a day, and my insurance company was charged $11.70 for the same pill...)

reply from: B0zo

Which means there is now a cap on funding for research and development.
Let's put a cap on what a doctor makes too.
Why can't they live on $50,000 a year too?
Let's restrict them to a pay at that level, and we'll save a ton more.

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: B0zo
Which means there is now a cap on funding for research and development.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Nope.
Pharmeceutical firms receive HUGE federal subsidies for research and development. as well as field trials. They also receive huge donations from charitible organizations for promising drug research.

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: B0zo
Let's put a cap on what a doctor makes too.
Why can't they live on $50,000 a year too?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I think doctors deserve every dime they make - except, of course, the huge kickbacks they get from pharmeceutical firms for pushing the latest and greatest drug.

reply from: B0zo

Why can't we just let free enterprise determine the prices.
We always get the best prices and the best products when that happens...UNLESS...the government is monkeying with the proscess, and I suspect that's why we've had the problems we've had, and now the fox is guarding the henhouse.

reply from: B0zo

They deserve everything they earn, but the pharmaceutical companies do not?
How come?

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: B0zo
Why can't we just let free enterprise determine the prices.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Because people are dying when they can't afford a drug with a patent that's in the public domain, and the pharneceutical companies are charging 30,000% of manufacting cost to the consumer.
Check out the link I provided. Check out the offshore prices at sites like World Remedium.
You should see the difference in prices between the same phameceutical sold by our veterinary clinic, and the price charged after it goes through the insurance process. It's inhumane (inhuman?)

reply from: QueenJ

Why don't we let free enterprise determine whether people live or die?

reply from: B0zo

Why don't we let free enterprise determine whether people live or die?
Free enterprise keeps many of us alive who would now be dead without bringing us low cost food, transportation, and a surplus to feed the poor.

reply from: B0zo

Why don't we let free enterprise determine whether people live or die?
Please tell doctors they need to work for $50,000 to $70,000.
Lives are at stake, and more could avail themselves of their services if they weren't so greedy.
They have no business using the "free enterprise" system to command wages many times what the rest of us make.

reply from: QueenJ

Why don't we let free enterprise determine whether people live or die?
Please tell doctors they need to work for $50,000 to $70,000.
Lives are at stake, and more could avail themselves of their services if they weren't so greedy.
They have no business using the "free enterprise" system to command wages many times what the rest of us make.
Are you going to answer my question?

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Precisely.
What the bill does is break up the monopolies.
If those insurance companies and pharmeceutical firms are forced to compete head-to-head, those prices are coming DOWN.
In California, we all dreaded the mandated auto insurance. When those companies were forced to fight like pit bulls for the consumer dollar the price of auto insurance went through the floor. I pay peanuts compared to what I used to pay.

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: Spinwubby
If those insurance companies and pharmeceutical firms are forced to compete head-to-head, those prices are coming DOWN.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Dude, you DO NOT want my sister to come off her Xanax. It's what's best for America. Which is why THIS is obscene:
Xanax 1 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024
Percent markup: 569,958%

reply from: B0zo

Why don't we let free enterprise determine whether people live or die?
Please tell doctors they need to work for $50,000 to $70,000.
Lives are at stake, and more could avail themselves of their services if they weren't so greedy.
They have no business using the "free enterprise" system to command wages many times what the rest of us make.
Are you going to answer my question?
I don't understand your question.
All I know is that the free enterprise system has allowed more of us to live better and longer than we could have without it. People would die without it. We would have less prosperity and less ability to help the impoverished worldwide. We would have less ability to defend against evil aggressors worldwide.
Take the free enterprise system away from us, and there will be more deaths, and a miserable existense for most of us (except the elites in power).

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: B0zo
All I know is that the free enterprise system has allowed more of us to live better and longer than we could have without it. People would die without it. We would have less prosperity and less ability to help the impoverished worldwide. We would have less ability to defend against evil aggressors worldwide.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Yes, in certain circumstances.
But using your logic, shouldn't we privatize fire services and allow them to charge $200,000 to put out your house fire?
Should inability to pay be reason enough to let your house burn down?

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: Spinwubby
But using your logic, shouldn't we privatize fire services and allow them to charge $200,000 to put out your house fire?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Perfect example.
My mom lives five doors down from our community hospital.
The price charged to her insurance company for the ambulance ride to the hospital when she had her stroke?
$1,170.00

reply from: B0zo

We do pay the fire companies along with our insurance in our area.
The fire companies and insurance work together and within our free enterprise system.
If they would start allowing houses to burn down, then the insurance companies would form their own fire companies.
I agree that medical costs are out of control, and wonder why, but I think it has more to do with governement than corporate greed. They are the regulators and controlers, and the ones who get in the way of efficient enterprise.

reply from: B0zo

I'm going to send the ghost of Ronald Reagan to haunt you.

reply from: QueenJ

The goal of free enterprise/capitalism is profit, profit, and more profit. Should we really put our lives in the hands of people whose only motivation is making money? Health care will be designed based on what is most profitable, not what is most beneficial for the health of people.

reply from: QueenJ

Does Satan grant temporary releases from hell?

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It will be interesting to see what happens now that the have to fight for each dollah.
There are places in the US where as few as 2 insurance companies handle all the healthcare for the region. They can set prices as they please. The new bill paves the way for new startups and competition.
Heck, if the bill can eliminate as little as 25% of the outright waste and fraud, the bill will pay for itself.

reply from: yobama

The right has nobody to blame but themselves for the health bill. They were perfectly happy to let thousands of families go bankrupt for years now when someone had a serious illness in the family. The republicans may have voted against it but they brought it about since their only solution was to destroy families when they had a chance to fix it. They were more interested in sending the healthy youthful sons and daughters to Iraq to get blown up or sickened with war byproducts. Yep, hug a republican and thank them for your new health care cause we are gonna need it.

reply from: B0zo

How do you know what someone's "only" motivation is? Can you read hearts and minds?
Regardless, a profit motive led to you and I being able to have autos we can afford and drive up and down the coast.
A profit motive led to an explosion in the computer and software industries, which give us cheap internet access, and which aids us in many other ways.
Check out the life expectancy 100 years ago. You think the improvement has nothing to do with free enterprise?
But like Ronald Reagan, I don't oppose a "safety net" for those in need, including healthcare.
But what happened in this bill in the way it was done was unconscionable. There was NO bipartisan support, like Obama promised. There was only bipartisan opposition. It was rammed down our throats, in spite of our obvious protests IN THE MAJORITY--not just a few kooks. A clear message was sent with Teddy Kennedy's replacement, and it was ignored. The will of the people was ignored, because they were not interested in your health or mine--that's just the excuse--it was a POWER GRAB.
Healthcare needs to be more competetive, so we need to take away the restrictions imposed on insurance companies to cross state lines. And we need to pass legislation that prevents friviolouls lawsuits that must be defended and paid for, which drives up the costs for the rest of us.
There are charities who are willing to pick up the slack in many ways, and if the government had to impose itself, it could have focused on the small amount of uninsured, instead of taking the rest down to accomplish it.
But the goal was power. It was not healthcare. The goal was socialism and to enlarge the federal government, and to see to it that the plebes have less power. We are too stupid to decide for ourselves. Nancy Pelosi and Obama know what is best for us.
If this bill is not impeded or reversed, it will eventually drive private insureres out of the market, and it will be total government healthcare. For those on the dole and for those who need governemnt to be their momma, that will seem like the ultimate good.
But those of us who love freedom--AND WHO ARE COMPASSIONATE AND WHO WOULD GLADLY HELP THOSE IN NEED--do not like our liberty usurped but the elitists, and I pray to God there are enough of us to fight and defeat this tyranny, for our own sakes, and for the sakes of those who got suckered.
/end of rant

reply from: littlebirdie

This dichotomy between communist and individualist anarchists continues to the present day. If anything, the differences have become even more pronounced. While the anarchists of old often argued fervently over ideological differences (Tucker and Johann Most refused to recognize one another as "true" anarchists), a mutual admiration frequently existed between the communist and individualist camps. Tucker was an admirer of the European anarchists Proudhon and Bakunin and translated their works into English and his anarchist journal, Liberty, published the writings not only of anarcho-socialists but also of outright Fabians or Marxists, such as George Bernard Shaw. Today, the two camps largely disavow one another. Most contemporary free market anarchists think of themselves as "anarcho-capitalists", whereas Tucker regarded himself as a socialist, and most anarcho-socialists of today reject free market anarchists as mere apologists for corporate power.
Carson ably demonstrates that the division between contemporary anarchists on economic matters need not be as wide as it seems. Like the anarcho-capitalists, Carson favors a genuinely stateless free market. However, he argues effectively that the economic arrangements that an authentic free market economy would likely produce are remarkably similar to those typically advocated by anarcho-socialists. Serious free market economists, such as Rothbard, have long recognized that the corporatist structure of modern "Big Business" rests on state intervention rather than lassez faire. The state creates the fictitious legal infrastructure of corporate "personhood". The state protects and assists corporations by means of limited liability laws, subsidies, government contracts, loans, guarantees, bailouts, purchases of goods, price controls, regulatory privilege, grants of monopolies, protectionist tariffs and trade policies, bankruptcy laws, military intervention to gain access to international markets and protect foreign investments, regulating or prohibiting organized labor activity, eminent domain, discriminatory taxation, ignoring corporate crimes and countless other forms of state-imposed favors and privileges.

reply from: littlebirdie

Carson traces the development of modern corporate states all the way back to the late medieval period. In those days, the feudal structure, which originated from the military conquest of traditional agricultural communities and the imposition of an artificial aristocracy of external state-privileged exploiters, was in the process of breaking down. The free cities of the era began to appear as points of light on the broader feudal map. The market economy was growing, innovative technologies were coming into existence and the common people were obtaining more opportunities to claim their rightful status as free individuals. The ruling class was put on the defensive and sought to reestablish itself by fully expropriating traditional peasant lands and militarily conquering the free cities. The dispossessed peasants, no longer having any means of autonomy or self-sufficiency, were forced to migrate towards industrial centers and into the slave-like factory system. The state intervened to make sure that labor discipline was maintained by such methods as severly restricting the freedom of migration and suppressing efforts at self-organization by the laborers. The old feudal elites reinvented themselves as a new industrial capitalist ruling class by means of mercantilist economic policies which tended to concentrate wealth. In early America, for example, it was the northeastern mercantilists consisting of banking, shipping and land magnates led by Alexander Hamilton who initiated the Federalist coup against the libertarian Articles of Confederation and established the centralist presidential state for the purpose of advancing mercantilist commercial interests.
Carson's central thesis is that "capitalism", defined in the traditional Marxist/socialist/left-anarchist sense of separation of labor from ownership and the subordination of labor to capital, would largely be impossible under genuine free market arrangements. Most Americans are accustomed to thinking of capitalism and free enterprise as being one and the same. This is certainly the perspective taught in the state's educational institutions and promoted by the corporate media. Carson lambasts fake populism of the type promulgated by corporate-sponsored afternoon talk radio which ignores the role of corporations, banks and other elite economic interests in fostering statism and instead works to channel the hostility of the working and middle classes away from the elites for whom most state intervention is actually done and towards the lower classes and the urban poor in a type of "divide and conquer" strategy. According to this ideology, the real enemies of free enterprise and proponents of statism are welfare recipients and the residents of homeless shelters and public housing projects. But it is the ruling class that is the primary beneficiary of state intervention. The primary role of such intervention is to redistribute wealth upward and centralize economic power. The tools used to obtain these objectives are as old as modern corporate states themselves. These tools include the state-imposed money monopoly, patents and subsidies.

reply from: littlebirdie

Under the present system of federal government monopoly on the issuance of legal tender and central banking via the Federal Reserve, interest rates are kept artificially high, an artificial shortage of credit is maintained and access to finance capital is constricted. These arrangements centralize wealth and concentrate economic power in a myriad of ways. Carson argues that under a system of free banking, cooperative banks would be able to form and issue private bank notes as credit against the output of future production. Genuine competition among free banks would dramatically reduce interest rates, perhaps to the cost of administrative overhead. Access to cheap credit would make self-employment possible for nearly any industrious person with marketable skills or services. As the price of capital diminished, interest upon bonds, dividends upon stock and rents upon land and buildings would also fall. The proliferation of new businesses and the increased viability of self-employment would greatly enhance the bargaining power of workers, both individually and collectively. Workers would have a wider variety of potential employers to choose from in addition to greater opportunities to work for themselves. Employers would be forced by market pressures to make their workplaces more attractive to prospective employees. Workers would gain the collective power to demand the right of self-management in the workplace and could pool their credit to buy out their employers if they wished. This greatly enhanced bargaining power would essentially allow workers to control industries, even industries that remained nominally stockholder-owned. The virtual elimination of interest through market competition would also significantly lower mortage payments and credit card debt. The cost of housing would drop and overall workers' savings would increase. Part-time employment would become a more viable option for many workers as would earlier retirement. Involuntary unemployment would also shrink.

reply from: littlebirdie

Echoing Rothbard, Carson demonstrates how patents are nothing more than government grants of monopoly privilege. The function of patent law is to create monopolies on the marketing of particular products thereby establishing an artificial pricing system where such products are marked up dozens of times beyond their actual market value. This has been particularly true of pharmaceuticals where prices are often marked up 40 times or more. The effect of this arrangement is to eliminate competition and innovation by others seeking to improve upon an original product. Patent privilege pertaining to drugs and medical technologies sharply increase the cost of health care to the average consumer, effectively pricing many of forms of health care out of the range of many consumers. The restrictions on competition involved in patent privileges also constrict economic growth and increase unemployment. International patent privileges established by global trade agreements also tend to concentrate wealth in the advanced nations and stifle growth, competition and innovation in the Third World. Patents serve as a mercantilist tool utilized to maintain lesser developed nations as economic colonies.
Subsidies are probably the most egregious form of state favors to economic elites. Virtually all major U.S. industries are heavily dependent in some way on direct or indirect government financing. Throughout U.S. history, federal subsidies to transportation from the railway system to interstate highways to civil aviation have served to centralize wealth and control over a wide assortment of industries ranging from electrical utilities to petroleum to finance to retail sales. Much is made in some circles about the way large corporate retail chains such as Wal-Mart undercut local small businesses and run them out of the market. But this would be impossible without the massive government subsidies to shipping and transportation that benefit large national chains. So-called "defense spending" frequently amounts to a corporate welfare program. Most defense analysts estimate that a defense budget of approximately $100 billion would be required to effectively defend the territory of the United States. Yet overall military spending is nearly three and a half times that amount and increasing. The primary beneficiaries of such spending are arms manufacturers, the telecommunications industry, defense contractors and petrochemicals industries whose profits are guaranteed via the Pentagon system. This arrangement creates a tremendous concentration of wealth in the hands of de facto state protected monopolies. Tax breaks to corporations that subsidize R&D centralize wealth even further. Carson notes that some free market economists, including Rothbard, object to the characterization of tax breaks as subsidies, an understandable argument, but the problem here is that the burden of making up for this lost revenue is shifted onto the small businessman and rank and file worker.

reply from: littlebirdie

Carson also engages in a rather thorough analysis of how the state creates an ideological superstructure to conceal its true nature and intentions. Outrageous amounts of "defense" spending are justified by demonizing one local tinpot dictator in the Third World after another, most of whom are the direct creation of U.S. imperialism, subversion, interventionism and aggression. Poor nations with no history of imperial ambition outside of their immediate borders, such as China, are held up as grave threats to world security. Currently, the beleagured nation of Iraq, which has never acted aggressively against a single American, is attacked as the Second Coming of Nazi Germany and the American public is bombarded with exaggerations and outright lies regarding Iraq's weapons capabilities. Those who criticize and speak out against these lies are denounced as "un-American" under the cover of a pseudo-patriotic ideology while the state controlled media and educational system seeks to remove the authentic patriotism of Jefferson, Madison and Henry from public consciousness. Domestically, corporate sponsored think tanks and other propaganda outlets attack the urban poor as the source of the nation's extensive fiscal problems and pretend that state aid to corporate and financial interests is non-existent. Elite class interests play to public hysteria over crime and scapegoat immigrants, drug users, the homeless and other marginal groups in order to justify the creation of a massive police state apparatus for the purpose of social control.

reply from: littlebirdie

The implications of Carson's analysis are broad and profound. I have long believed that the development of an entirely new ideological paradigm is necessary if the state is to be effectively combatted. Carson effectively debunks not only the ideology of the ruling class in all its various manifestations-traditional conservatism, neoconservatism, social democracy, welfare liberalism-but also demolishes the positions of various opposition movements as well. His skillful analysis of the impossibility of the centralization of wealth into a class hierarchy without state intervention completely debunks Marxism, which maintains that the market rather than the state is to blame for such centralization. Carson points out that this critique simultaneously debunks the "anarcho-social democracy" of Noam Chomsky to which most contemporary left-anarchists subscribe. "Mainstream" libertarianism is also demonstrated to be grossly inadequate. Carson says of this element:
Although a few intellectually honest ones like Rothbard and Hess were willing to look into the role of coercion in creating capitalism, the Chicago School and Randoids take existing property relations and class power as a given. Their ideal "free market" is merely the current system minus the progressive regulatory and welfare state-i.e., nineteenth century robber baron capitalism.

reply from: littlebirdie

preceding text excerpted from:
Capitalism Versus Free Enterprise: A Review of Kevin Carson's "The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand"

reply from: B0zo

Why don't we let free enterprise determine whether people live or die?
Why don't we let women decide for themselves whether they can kill their own babies.
Oops...we already let them decide that, and they have decided in killing to the tune of over 3,000 a day.
Free enterprise can't come close to killing on that scale, if it can kill at all.
Today over 3,000 mothers-to-be will determine that someone will die.
If you're truly interested in seeing less untimely deaths, then oppose abortion rights.

reply from: littlebirdie

Free enterprise can not truly be "free" without some oversight, which means regulation. I would say government regulation of trade is a good thing, but would also agree that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Too much regulation wouldn't be good, but we have recently seen the devastating effects of rampant deregulation, so I think we should be able to agree that the ideal is a "happy medium." Extremes in either direction are obviously not good for our society.

reply from: yobama

That makes sense. Like the abortion doctor who would collect the fetuses in the clinic fridge and drop a couple in his lunchtime soup now and then. That should have been regulated better. He should have never been allowed to eat more than one at a time. That is extreme and disturbing. Yobama

reply from: QueenJ

Do you not understand capitalism? The ONLY way to succeed in a capitalist society is to MAKE A PROFIT. And not just once, but you continually have to keep increasing your profit.
CEOs of big insurance companies only care about their bottom line. They only care about what will make them the most profit. Show me a big insurance company CEO who has any other goal than making profit and I'll show you my flying pig.
I really don't want my life in the hands of people who treat me as a dollar sign instead of a person.

reply from: LexIcon

You probably believe that you became a "person" once you drew your first breath, but I don't know of any U.S. Supreme Court decision that defines exactly when "personhood" is attained. Do you?

reply from: B0zo

Do you not understand capitalism? The ONLY way to succeed in a capitalist society is to MAKE A PROFIT. And not just once, but you continually have to keep increasing your profit.
CEOs of big insurance companies only care about their bottom line. They only care about what will make them the most profit. Show me a big insurance company CEO who has any other goal than making profit and I'll show you my flying pig.
I really don't want my life in the hands of people who treat me as a dollar sign instead of a person.
You don't want to be a fetus in the hands of a prochoice momma either, where you would be treated as a "choice" instead of as a person, but that's another argument, though not irrelevant, since we're talking about healtcare, and killing over 3,000 a day isn't very healthy, especially for the deceased.
So what if they make a profit? Why is profit wrong? Why can't you see that profit leads to good products at the best prices?
Do you know how LITTLE PROFIT the insurance compies make? Do you know how little good it would do anyone if you robbed them of ALL of their profits and redistributied it?

reply from: BossMomma

Actually I take 0.5 mg xanax and only pay $13.95 for 15 pills, things must be obscenely expensive where you live.

reply from: Ana

Actually I take 0.5 mg xanax and only pay $13.95 for 15 pills, things must be obscenely expensive where you live.
Ypo pay about .90 per pill, while her example is about 1.37 per pill. The pills you take are 1/2 as strong as the ones in hr example, so actually the pricing is right and the mark up is MORE on what you take by a bit.

reply from: QueenJ

No. Enlighten me.
I'm not talking about robbing any poor insurance company of anything. I'm talking about putting them out of business altogether. People's health and lives are not a business and shouldn't be treated as such.

reply from: B0zo

No. Enlighten me.
I'm not talking about robbing any poor insurance company of anything. I'm talking about putting them out of business altogether. People's health and lives are not a business and shouldn't be treated as such.
Then you should love Obama's plan, because that's the intent--to put all the insurance companies out of business so the government can enlarge and take over even more of the private sector.
The profits after expesnes for insurance companies are miniscule, and if you skimmed them off and redistributed them, it would take care of the health care of the US for two days a year.
Insurance is a good thing and not a bad thing. It spreads the risk.

reply from: QueenJ

Source please.
Source please.

reply from: B0zo

This article claims health insurance companies make a 3.3% profit.
If you appropriated (stole) that profit from them, it would be enough to insure everyone an additional 12 days a year. That's 12 days out of 365 days. That's not some "obscene" profit but a very small percentage.
And I don't see why I need to provide a source for saying that insurance spreads the risk. That's a given. That's what any kind of insurance is all about.

reply from: QueenJ

This article claims health insurance companies make a 3.3% profit.
If you appropriated (stole) that profit from them, it would be enough to insure everyone an additional 12 days a year. That's 12 days out of 365 days. That's not some "obscene" profit but a very small percentage.
And I don't see why I need to provide a source for saying that insurance spreads the risk. That's a given. That's what any kind of insurance is all about.
In 2008:
1. Ron Williams, CEO of Aetna, made $24,300,112.
2. H. Edward Hanway, CEO of CIGNA, made $12,236,740.
3. Angela Braly, CEO of WellPoint, made $9,844,212.
4. Dale Wolf, CEO of Coventry Health Care, made $9,047,469.
5. Michael Neidorff, CEO of Centene, made $8,774,483.
6. James Carlson, CEO of AMERIGROUP, made $5,292,546.
7. Michael McCallister, CEO of Humana, made $4,764,309.
8. Jay Gellert, CEO of Health Net, made $4,425,355.
9. Richard Barasch, CEO of Universal American, made $3,503,702.
10. Stephen Hemsley, CEO of UnitedHealth Group, made $3,241,042.
http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/special-reports/total-package-health-plan-ceo-compensations-2008
I know you can't see it, but I can assure you my heart is bleeding profusely for these poor, poor, obviously underpaid health insurance company CEOs.

reply from: B0zo

This article claims health insurance companies make a 3.3% profit.
If you appropriated (stole) that profit from them, it would be enough to insure everyone an additional 12 days a year. That's 12 days out of 365 days. That's not some "obscene" profit but a very small percentage.
And I don't see why I need to provide a source for saying that insurance spreads the risk. That's a given. That's what any kind of insurance is all about.
In 2008:
1. Ron Williams, CEO of Aetna, made $24,300,112.
2. H. Edward Hanway, CEO of CIGNA, made $12,236,740.
3. Angela Braly, CEO of WellPoint, made $9,844,212.
4. Dale Wolf, CEO of Coventry Health Care, made $9,047,469.
5. Michael Neidorff, CEO of Centene, made $8,774,483.
6. James Carlson, CEO of AMERIGROUP, made $5,292,546.
7. Michael McCallister, CEO of Humana, made $4,764,309.
8. Jay Gellert, CEO of Health Net, made $4,425,355.
9. Richard Barasch, CEO of Universal American, made $3,503,702.
10. Stephen Hemsley, CEO of UnitedHealth Group, made $3,241,042.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/02/health-insurance-companies-rank-88-by.html
]http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/special-reports/total-package-health-plan-ceo-compensations-2008---->Source]http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/02/health-insurance-companies-rank-88-by.html
<br [/L]
I know you can't see it, but I can assure you my heart is bleeding profusely for these poor, poor, obviously underpaid health insurance company CEOs.
I understand that you hate profits and rich people, but take this approximately $60,000,000 total and apply it to healthcare for all of us in the US, and divided among the citizens, we each would get a whole TWENTY CENTS per year.
So see if you can rob them of their riches and then tell me what you'll do with your twenty cents. Maybe you could buy a bandaid.
Or let's give it to the fifty million uninsured. They would get $1.25 each per year.
Knocking down the successful is not the answer. They might have much indivudually, but if plundered and their wealth spread among the masses, it would amount to little for each of us.

reply from: B0zo

http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2006_04/jason-lifestyles.html

Maybe you could target some of the ultra-wealthy members of congress who used their positions of influence to enrich themselves.

reply from: QueenJ

First, it was that health insurance companies weren't making enough money. *cue violin* Now, it's okay for insurance company execs to make obscene amounts of money because if they gave up their hefty salaries, it wouldn't make a difference so fu*k it? Let them make their money at the expense of people's health and lives. Let them continue their despicable business practices (to get more and more and more money) at the expense of people's health and lives. GREAT PLAN!

reply from: B0zo

First, it was that health insurance companies weren't making enough money. *cue violin* Now, it's okay for insurance company execs to make obscene amounts of money because if they gave up their hefty salaries, it wouldn't make a difference so fu*k it? Let them make their money at the expense of people's health and lives. Let them continue their despicable business practices (to get more and more and more money) at the expense of people's health and lives. GREAT PLAN!
You haven't come up with any specifics about this.
All you're saying is they make a lot of money and that's not fair.
I don't care what executives at the heads of private corporations make. That's between them and their stockholders. I don't care that Nancy Pelosi is rich, even though she could give forty million away and still live like a queen. That's her business, though I suspect she was able to enrich herself unfairly, through the political system.
But take away all the money from the CEO's you mentioned, and it would do diddly squat to solve any problems, except to placate some who are green with envy.

reply from: QueenJ

Amo Houghton is worth $475 million.
Darrell Issa is worth $337 million.
Mitt Romney is worth $202 million.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is worth $200 million.
Dick Cheney is worth $94.6 million.
Rudolph Giuliani is worth $52.2 million.
John McCain is worth $40.4 million.
From your own comment above:
I know, right? We couldn't possibly do anything worthwhile with billions of dollars. NOTHING!

reply from: QueenJ

Specifics about what?

reply from: B0zo

John Kerry is worth $700 million.
What are the Kennedy's worth?
You think only Rebublicans are rich?
Even if we took all of Kerry's wealth and redistributed it, we would get just over $2 each.
How many days in the hospital will that cover?
It's not about rich people. Why are you always going off on rich people and profits, as if they STOLE whatever they have.
The poor are not poor because of the rich.

reply from: B0zo

Specifics about what?
Of how changing the profits and "outrageous" salaries would change the cost of healtcare.
What are your figures for that?
I've demonstrated the miniscule impact it would have. Prove me wrong, and show me how it would work if you could control it. Demonstrate how and why the costs would be significantly less.
Pointing at a millionaire and saying "no fair" doesn't prove anything.

reply from: B0zo

Is your posting of a 14 year old video on youtube your response?

reply from: littlebirdie

While the CEO of Aetna earned a paltry 24 million plus in '08, the company itself made 1384 million. This is just one of many companies, and they also have many employees, not just the one.
Surely it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all this talk about 20 cents per day and such is naive math, to put it kindly. Next, factor in the costs of overpriced medical products and services, which are also directly related to insurance costs (malpractice), and we're talking about a butt load of money.
Now, consider the fact that a large portion of these profits were "maximized" by paying people to find ways to deprive people of care who were paying for coverage, and it should be quite clear that we have a huge problem.
Our new health bill is by no means going to fix this health care mess we have in the U.S., but it's start. It was stripped of a lot of it's teeth by lobbyists and such who are fighting hard to retain that ability to "maximize profits" at any cost, including the lives of their customers.
One of their most powerful weapons is propaganda, and they certainly use it to their advantage. Why, there are people on this forum fighting the fight for them, people who might very well find themselves in a position where they need to take advantage of the coverage they are paying for, people who they will then pay others to look for loopholes by which their claims can be denied.
But, they've done such a masterful job of convincing these people to oppose this bill, a bill most of them admit they don't understand, that they blindly fight tooth and nail in defense of the very people that might throw them to the wolves if they are unfortunate enough to actually find themselves in a position where they need the care they are paying to insure themselves for.
This reform is not about giving people something for nothing. Expanding coverage to include the uninsured is just a part of the reform this bill was intended to accomplish before it was essentially neutered.
I'm actually not sure it wouldn't be better to scrap it and start over, but as long as so many people are so easily manipulated, I guess we should be happy for any reform we can get. People who have clearly spent countless hours on this forum speaking out in opposition against a bill they clearly do not understand actually balked at reading a page or two of text on another thread describing the way insurance companies currently treat their paying customers!
As long as people remain willfully ignorant and allow themselves to be so easily manipulated by special interest groups, they will continue to blindly oppose reform. I guess many will have to learn the hard way, not that I wish ill on anyone...

reply from: littlebirdie

Specifics about what?
Of how changing the profits and "outrageous" salaries would change the cost of healtcare.
What are your figures for that?
I've demonstrated the miniscule impact it would have. Prove me wrong, and show me how it would work if you could control it. Demonstrate how and why the costs would be significantly less.
Pointing at a millionaire and saying "no fair" doesn't prove anything.
"Miniscule impact?" I've shown the flaw in your math, but failed to also point out that the money need not be divided up equally. It only needs to pay for the relatively few who experience disastrous health crises! AND, as I pointed out, there's a helluva lot more money involved here than you acknowledged. Frankly, I do not believe you are dumb enough for this to have been an oversight on your part.
I believe you have another agenda here, opposing Obama at all costs. I think that is the real issue for most of you, and I think it all goes back to the abortion issue. You cried about "pro-abortion health care" when the bill clearly made concessions to appease those concerns, and seem desperate for ANY argument against it once those concessions were made.
I think it's about seeing Obama fail because of your views of him as "the abortion president." I think that unborn babies are your major concerns, and you view Obama as a huge threat to that agenda, so much so that NO argument, however valid, will convince you to make any concessions. It doesn't matter if born people die. The only thing that matters is the babies, and you'll stop at nothing to ensure that you don't have to suffer through another pro-abortion presidency.
Of course, I will allow that there is probably also another factor here. You lost the election, and posters have even said they HOPED this nation would crash and burn, basically just so they could say "I told you so." Emotion clearly rules over reason on this forum, and elsewhere as well.

reply from: littlebirdie

Perhaps mine will be more to your liking, sir.

reply from: B0zo

And we could strip the CEO's of the auto makers of their big saries and a few more people could drive cars.
If we have to make insurance company exectives forfeit salaries, than why can't Nancy Pelosi and Oprah be forced to give up their millions too?
And you did not find a flaw in my math.
60,000,000 dollars spread out among 300,000,000 people is twenty cents each.
So the government runs the insurance companies out of business and no longer are there well-paid executives, but thousands of government paper-pushers who do nothing productive.
Knocking down the wealthy and successful is not the answer. That's an appeal to envy, and nothing more.

reply from: B0zo

Perhaps mine will be more to your liking, sir.
Your what?

reply from: B0zo

While it angers me he has no regard for the health care of a million babies a year, and that he will fight IN FAVOR of this slaughter and injustice, in this case I put abortion aside, and am thinking of economic survival.
He is destroying our country.
Why do you think so many are waking up and taking to the streets? It's not about abortion. It's because they see the America they've known being torn to shreds.

reply from: B0zo

Your problem is with the CEO or that the stockholders earned some money?
I'm not getting your point.
How much did they pay out in claims? You forgot to include that figure, and your figures make no sense unless there is something to compare them to.

reply from: B0zo

Amo Houghton is worth $475 million.
Darrell Issa is worth $337 million.
Mitt Romney is worth $202 million.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is worth $200 million.
Dick Cheney is worth $94.6 million.
Rudolph Giuliani is worth $52.2 million.
John McCain is worth $40.4 million.
From your own comment above:
I know, right? We couldn't possibly do anything worthwhile with billions of dollars. NOTHING!
You're either being disingenuous or not reading carefully.
You posted salaries that added up to 60 million.
It takes a thousand million to make a billion, and you're talking about more than one billion here.
How did 60 million suddenly become multiplied by more that thirty times?
And what are you implying, anway? That they really should have all their wealth confiscated?
But just for the fun of it, let's pretend we could rob wealthy people of 5 billion. (Would we just rob Republicans, or could we rob the more wealthy Democrats too, btw?)
If we took that $5,000,000,000 and divided it among all Americans, we could each enjoy almost $17 in health benefits, but that would be for just one year, since we siezed their assets.
But it gets better if we divided it among the 50,000,000 uninsured. In that case, each of them would get a lifetme benefit of a whopping $100.
See how much we could do with all the money we could get from those greedy rich bastards?
It might not make a dent in the healtcare situation, but we could feel good knowing they've been knocked down a few pegs.

reply from: Spock

Could you explain to me how you are coming up with these implications about "robbery?" Or are you attempting to deliberately misrepresent health care reform? If you're going to keep slinging around accusations of robbery or attempted robbery, I think you should explain your reasoning.
You do understand that the "public option" was removed from the bill, right? And you understand what that means, right? Yet you keep carrying on about "government takeovers" and such? I don't get it...It sounds to me like you're just repeating insurance lobby propaganda. They were, after all, the ones who decided that any regulation of the insurance industry, even those designed to curb what are generally considered to be unethical practices, constituted "robbery."
FYI, stopping people from cheating their customers in order to maximize profits is not "robbery." The public option was intended to reduce insurance costs (and thereby health care costs) by creating competition that would combat unethical practices such as price fixing that prevent legitimate competition and actually are contrary to the principles of free enterprise.
So, either stop referring to health care reform as a sort of theft, or explain why it constitutes "robbery" in your view. Nobody can just take money from anyone in this country, and it has not even been implied that this would be a legitimate option. Creating competition and regulating industry in order to prevent unethical business practices is hardly "robbery."

reply from: Spock

Bozo is portraying the real thieves as the victims here! FTW!

reply from: B0zo

You obviously were not paying attention to the conversation Mr. Spock.
I'm ordering Scotty to beam you up and thoroughly examine you.

reply from: B0zo

I don't accept the premise that the insurance companies are "thieves."
I especially don't accept the premise that government thievery is better than private sector profits.

reply from: Spock

You ignored all this:
And just responded to this?
FAIL!

reply from: QueenJ

Uh, no. I think I was making the opposite point. You're the one who made a point of "exposing" how much Nancy Pelosi (and only Nancy Pelosi), a Democrat, is worth. And implying that she should give away her wealth if she were a good person. I made a list of Republicans in government, who have just as much/more than Nancy Pelosi and don't give away their wealth. Most politicians are obscenely wealthy. Not just Democrats. Not just Republicans. If Nancy Pelosi is OMGEVIL! for donating the majority of her money, then so are all the Republicans who do the same.
WhyTF do you keep breaking down amounts of money into what each person would receive? Government programs that help of people have certainly been established for less than $700 million.
Putting words in other people's mouths is rude.
Google "wealth gap between rich and poor" and get back to me.

reply from: QueenJ

Its age doesn't negate the facts presented within it.

reply from: QueenJ

There are more than ten millionaires in existence.
CEO salaries should be greatly reduced. And a living wage should be established. Boy, am I crazy!

reply from: B0zo

The point I've tried to make but that you did not get is that the problem with health insurance is not their profits and not because a few executives make millions.
Those profits and salaries vs the amounts they pay out in claims are like an anthill compared to Mt. Ranier, and reducing them will not make even a nick in providing healthcare for millions of uninsured, besides the fact that it would be unjust to strip away what was lawfully earned.

reply from: B0zo

Why not decree that EVERYONE makes $100,000 per year and everyone has a mansion and then we'll all be affluent.
We should establish that.
See if you can establish, while you're at it, that when I dig a hole in the ground I find a gold mine.
And if CEO slaries shoud be greatly reduced, how do you accomplish that, and how does a company then bid to get the best CEO?
Would you also want sports stars to have their pay reduced?
Has it occurred to you that people WANT to pay some people big bucks because they are worth it?

reply from: Orly

And if, rather than a health care reform bill, it was a bill to outlaw abortion, would you oppose it in favor of fighting for "economic survival?"
You're so worried about the government "paper pushers" allegedly doing nothing at all for their pay checks (which is ludicrous in light of your defense of high paid execs who you obviously believe earn their exorbitant paychecks, even though they actually get paid "the big bucks" for their ability to maximize profits at the expense of all else, including the lives of their customers) that you are willing to allow people to continue to die while we do nothing, all because of the perceived cost?
How much do you think it will cost to care for all the babies you would like brought into this world rather than allow the mothers to abort? Would "economic survival" not be an issue then? Where would you propose we get the money to care for all those unwanted babies? Would you insist we feed, clothe, and provide medical care for them?
Hell, you don't seem very worried about the ones who aren't aborted once they're born! They're on their own, right? Why should you feel any different about the bad old government taxing you to pay for caring for the unwanted unborn once they're born than you seem to about the currently born?
So, would you oppose abortion prohibition due to our economic situation, do you think the government should force the mothers to birth them then they're on their own, or do you think we have a responsibility to see that they're cared for once they're born?
If you think we should care for them, where do we get the money? You wouldn't mind the government controlling this?

reply from: B0zo

I realize there are less people to care for when one of us is murdered, but that's not a legitimate way to reduce costs, and murdering babies before they are born is not an acceptable way to control costs. Yes, I want the government to tell us that we cannot kill each other. That's the proper role of government--to protect the citizens.
And I didn't say I did not want people to go without. My problem with this bill is that it will affect everyone. I would support a program to help the small percentage of those who are uninsured and in need.

reply from: Orly

You like asking questions and putting others on the hot seat, but you not so big on answering questions, are you? You need me to break them down for you some more?

reply from: Orly

So, would you oppose abortion prohibition due to our economic situation, do you think the government should force the mothers to birth them then they're on their own, or do you think we have a responsibility to see that they're cared for once they're born?
If you think we should care for them, where do we get the money? You wouldn't mind the government controlling this?

reply from: Orly

That's alright man. I can tell you pretty smart so I think you see where I'm going with this. I won't ride you about answering if it going to make you uncomfortable to type it.

reply from: B0zo

We have a welfare program that takes care of those in need.
We don't need to have welfare for EVERYONE to help those who need help.
We don't need to overhaul the entire health care system to help those who have fallen through the cracks, but that's what's going to happen. It is headed towards a government takeover of the entire system.
If we need to help those who escape the abortionist's killing apparatus, then yes we help them. My problem is with the government taking on too much and more than it should, not that it should not target special situations, though in principle, I believe charities can do a better job.

reply from: Orly

Oh, I see,. You want to be a hard head. Yes we do need to overhaul the whole damn thing, but that not the point here. You say your problem is you don't want the big bad government in control because they be wasting your money and all that, right?
So, you OK with the big bad government taking control of the abortion issue and making all them women birth their babies or not? Then you going to be OK with that same big bad government being in control of the whole thing and wasting your taxes so they can take care of them children or you want to do it yourself?
Where you think that money going to come from then? You not worried about no economic collapse no more then, right?
Now if you want to take these points and go on, that OK with me, but if you want to push it, we can do that too. It all up to you my man.

reply from: Orly

What you do for a living, my man? Please tell me you not a insurance rep or something.

reply from: Orly

Well what holding them back? Why they not doing it? The Catholic Church got plenty of money, brother. Why they not taking care of business?

reply from: Orly

I know my poor little church doing all it can, but the need too great. Step outside and see what going on out there, brother. We don't have any money in my church because we using it up faster than it come in.

reply from: B0zo

A lot of us have a lot less money to give because of high taxes.
If you think the government has more money, then where do they get it?
At any rate, though I said I think charities can do better, we have some welfare systems in place, and I think that's how we could have addressed the healthcare issue--programs to specifically help those in need, instead of changing healthcare for everyone. (Most Americans oppose what has happened).
And no I am not involved in insurance in any way. I am self employed in a one man business. I am by no means rich or even close, but I am indignant about attitudes that rich people are theives and that we need to knock them down a few pegs. They may very well have worked hard and smart to get where they are, or they might have had the good luck of inhereting it. Making "the rich" out to be the enemy is a classic political ploy. And it's not them who will foot the bill anyway--it's the average working man and woman.

reply from: Orly

I see you tiptoeing around most of what I got to say here, so I'm going to go on off to bed now, but I'll ask you to read back over my posts if you would and give it some thought. God Bless you, sir.

reply from: B0zo

I think I've addressed your points, but if there is something specific I missed, let me know what it is--just one point at a time, though.
Though I'm a clown, I can't juggle.

reply from: Banned Member

The current group of U.S. politicians in Washington DC represent the most accomplished and corrupted group of politicians ever assembled anywhere. They are not only corrupt, but they are also the slickest group of confidence men and women to ever hold office. The fact that the people of the United States make, possess and generate the largest cash flow in the history of the world, is what has drawn these sharks to this vast chum pool know as the American economy.
If you trust the politicians in Washington, (or just about anywhere else for that matter), then your naiveté places you, and by proxy.. your fellow citizens, in the greatest of peril.
Anyone who would trust something so important as their own health to a bunch of amoral self-aggrandizing and self enriching thieves.. is a fool's fool.
Those who don't understand the great peril that we face as a nation from the massive and completely unsustainable entitlements that are currently in place and the current debts that are coming due.. are either ignorant of the facts.. or in denial of the facts of world economics.
The grand manipulators in Washington have turned citizen against citizen by encouraging class envy and by passing laws that give money, that we don't have, to people who have not earned it,.. all in the name of the common good and in the process, have made themselves very rich and powerful.
The only thing they care about you, your progeny, your health, your retirement, or the future of the country, is how they are going to personally profit from it.
What do politicians create, make, or manufacture?.. Nothing. They simply take money from your pockets and put it in other people's pockets. They are smarter, more cunning and more conniving than you/we/us. We are like little ignorant sheep who let them turn us this way and that.. and occasionally allow them to sheer and butcher us as they please.
This is why anyone who is in favor of giving more power, money or control to the U.S. government, whether it's for healthcare, welfare, corporate bailouts, global warming, cash for clunkers or bridges to nowhere, is a foolish and brainwashed schlemiel.
God save us from ourselves. Amen.

reply from: B0zo

Nice post leftnemesis.
You forgot to say that they also take a generous commission or "handling fee."
But what about "the rich"?
They have so much and I have so little. That makes Bozo sad.

reply from: Banned Member

Now there's some sad things known to man.. but there ain't too much sadder than.. the tears of a clown.
Hey. here's an idea.. let's get rid of all the rich people and give their money to everyone who posts on this board!\
Oops!.. then someone would have to kill us! That won't work.
Hmm.. now if I could just think of a way to take lots of money from most of the people and give part of it back to some other people and skim some off the top... hmm...

reply from: Banned Member

This is a portion of a thread from another topic that I felt should be included here.
Originally posted by: leftsnemesis
Originally posted by: Shenanigans
You make a great case against nationalized health care with that statement of fact and truth.
When my health care begins to have an impact upon your pocket book, then you have the right to want to micromanage my personal habits so as not to have them negatively impact you.
This is the circumstances that nationalized healthcare creates and places us in.
That sucks huge.
This is clearly a loss of liberty for me.. and for you as well. It puts us at odds with each other for just merely wanting to enjoy our own lives as we see fit. We weren't harming anyone until they forced us into this circumstance.
Others would assert that even without nationalized healthcare, smokers, drinkers and over-eaters are putting a drag on the entire system. However,..
I am always eager to point out that, if I were to smoke and drink and eat like a pig every day.. then I would be (statistically) dead before reaching age 65. This means that I would not be draining the resources of Medicare/Medicade and also would never become a burden upon the Social Security System. It's a win/win if you ask me.
FYI - I don't smoke, drink or eat like a pig, but I know it shouldn't be any of my business if you wanted to.

reply from: Orly

I think I've addressed your points, but if there is something specific I missed, let me know what it is--just one point at a time, though.
Though I'm a clown, I can't juggle.
Noe see what you done? You done made Reverend Orly have to call you a liar. You didn't answer my questions and you know it. You weaving and dodging and pretending you don't see what old Orly talking about here then you want to play your same little games you been playing with these other folks, but old Orly don't play that see? Orly got to call you on that and try to keep you honest.
Oh, I see,. You want to be a hard head. Yes we do need to overhaul the whole damn thing, but that not the point here. You say your problem is you don't want the big bad government in control because they be wasting your money and all that, right?
So, you OK with the big bad government taking control of the abortion issue and making all them women birth their babies or not? Then you going to be OK with that same big bad government being in control of the whole thing and wasting your taxes so they can take care of them children or you want to do it yourself?
Where you think that money going to come from then? You not worried about no economic collapse no more then, right?

reply from: Orly

Oh, I think I understand what the problem is here. When the man you voted for spend your money, that just fine, but if the other man win and in charge, he can't do nothing right. McCain was fixing to get up in there and do a lot of the same things Obama doing, maybe not in exactly the same way, but you would have been AOK with it if he done it.
The Republicans be mainly worried about some money and how they can best go about getting up some more. Now I got no problem with a man working hard to make a good living. If he work hard, he deserve that. The problem with this trickle down foolishness because the money damn sure don't trickle down, it flow rapidly upward toward the top. Them that got nothing can't work hard enough to get ahead, so they get frustrated.
It just ain't right for the few to live off the sweat of the many and keep getting richer and richer, then they cry about they shouldn't have to pay all them taxes because they going to do so much good for the people if they only get to keep all that money to themselves.
Then we get you good old boys say we want to steal your money because we say that foolishness not playing out like you all pretending it going to.
How about this, Mr. Leftsnemesis? How about you change tracks on us here and answer the questions Mr. Bozo can't bring himself to jump on? You sound like a broken record up in here too.

reply from: Orly

You forgot to say that they also take a generous commission or "handling fee."
But what about "the rich"?
They have so much and I have so little. That makes Bozo sad.
Now how come you all want to pat each other back but you don't want to say if you OK with the government taking over this baby killing thing? That will be OK with you because it something you want?
And you crying about how that man that get 20 million dollars a year for figuring out ways to cheat you out what you paying for earning his money, but those folks that make 80-90 thousand working for the government not earning theirs?
Can somebody explain to me why you don't earn your money if you push paper for the government, but all the other paper pushers earning a honest living? That don't make no sense to old Orly.

reply from: Orly

See, now you just being silly. Nobody talking about stealing from nobody else but you. Poor people pays taxes too, my man, except them that just barely got enough to eat and some of them don't always have that.
Pardon me but isn't that how most all businesses work, the same businesses you defending here? I think we all understand that administrators and paper pushers working too, and they got to eat same as everybody else. Those folks working for the government that moving that paper around is no less working for a living than that insurance man is. That money get "skimmed off the top" pay those folks salaries and buy supplies and all the same stuff those big companies got to do.
You all just want to be a bunch of hard heads, that what going on here.

reply from: B0zo

How come the people who do real work in Wal-Mart make $20,000 and your government friends make $80,000?
Do you think maybe the government workers could get together with them and balance things out so they each could get $50,000. I'm sure the government workers are generous like that, especially since they have cushy easy jobs.
People in the private sector who aspire to high paying jobs do so because of expertise and talents.
Nobody would pay even $100 to watch me play baseball, but they'll pay a star millions.
People in the government make high salaries becaue of politics. I'd like to see how they would do in the real world where they would have to compete.
On another note, you think I dodge your questions, but you don't ask true questions. You ask loaded questions. You bury premises within your questions that I do not accept.

reply from: Banned Member

Orly, I can't bring myself to be interested in your point of view. You believe what you believe and there's no changing that. If you choose to deny the central theme to my post concerning the corruption and irresponsible spending of our government, then there is no possible way that you and I can exchange ideas in such a manner as to benefit one another. You suggest I'm a hard head, well I guess that's true enough. But it takes one to know one,.. old Orly.
Here's the deal. You get your information from the newspaper, television and liberal web sites. I do too.
The difference is that I also listen daily to live talk radio: NPR, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Air America, Glenn Beck, & Mark Levin. I've done this for 20+ years. These political based programs are very educational and instructive in both general and specific information concerning civics. This gives me a long perspective and an educational advantage by which to consider all things political. I know all the players on both sides as well as having developed a thorough understanding of the Constitution and the Federalist papers. Because it's my hobby and passion, I have read many political history books as were recommended to me by my various mentors. Additionally, I subscribe to Freedom First Magazine (NRA's political rag) and the Wall Street Journal. These are all sources that I highly doubt you regularly access based upon your earlier diatribe. You may be old but you are still fairly green.
Perhaps, if you tried, you could understand my problem with trying to be interested in a random voice such as yours.
Here's an analogy that should help make this clear:
I am a chess player, and as a chess player, I never get into a match with a novice. The reason is that it is quite impossible and fruitless to try to think five moves ahead in a game when your opponent has no idea what his next move will be. There is no joy in such fruitless activity.
I realize that this sounds like a personal attack upon you Orly, but that is not my intention. The truth shall set you free and I have no desire to keep you either. Buh bye, Orly.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics