Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Everyone:

Essay Question:

Explain why this post takes all of the fun/humor out of this thread?

humor is banned here. soon you, I and ncs will be escorted out by security and fitted with ankle bracelets with sufficient electrical charge to knock us out should we dare to come back.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yeah, and right now, we have a nifty combo of socialist-y stuff (Soc Sec, Medicare, Medicaid) and free-market-y stuff. So will changing the balance to include purely catastrophic coverage (see Ty's post) through taxes be enough to tip the balance over to a system in which "all the beer you can drink" can't happen? I'm thinking, no. But it's a slippery, slippery slope. Kinda like the wheelchair ramp when #2 and I went a little overboard with the lube.

But think of what this will do to the legal system? If doctor's income suffers, the best and brightest would no longer go to medical school and will go to law school instead. Competition in law school will get rough then!

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
humor is banned here

No wonder Bilmore fits in so well.

Plus, his side loves to ban stuff.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
And as to "preventing 9/11" remember the Dems in the Senate blocked any change to airline security for months AFTER 9/11. Do you think we could have gotten the change through before?

Really?

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/31/rec.aviation.bill/
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/busin...ess011116.html

sounds more like a disagreement over the terms of the bill than like Democrats blocking any change. But please enlighten me, oh wise Republican. Or is this another case of the damned liberal media bias in this country?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
No wonder Bilmore fits in so well.

Plus, his side loves to ban stuff.

You fool! Do you know what you are doing? Do you routinely throw gasoline on a fire? Now we are going to end up with some asinine discussion of how liberals ban everything that is not PC and how really deep down all conservatives want nothing banned at all because they are all libertarians, all of them, and if we just give them untrammelled power nothing will be banned.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Really?

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/31/rec.aviation.bill/
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/busin...ess011116.html

sounds more like a disagreement over the terms of the bill than like Democrats blocking any change. But please enlighten me, oh wise Republican. Or is this another case of the damned liberal media bias in this country?

It is a combo of liberal media bias (The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy) and the liberals not realizing that they should just go along with anything conservatives put forth b/c conservatives know best.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You fool! Do you know what you are doing? Do you routinely throw gasoline on a fire? Now we are going to end up with some asinine discussion of how liberals ban everything that is not PC and how really deep down all conservatives want nothing banned at all because they are all libertarians, all of them, and if we just give them untrammelled power nothing will be banned.

Yes, that's partly why I thought it was funny. His side tries to ban the good stuff though, like porn and evolution. And I have evolved to appreciate porn.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
If it meant everyone had to get their catastrophic coverage from the government, I don't think it would be more efficient. It would move us very close to a single payer system and the infrastructure that would be required to implement it would cost quite a bit of money and ultimately not be run efficiently because of the lack of competitive forces.

My way costs less, doesn't require this huge bureacracy to implament, doesn't require this massive new federal agency be created and better leaves competitive forces intact.

It will require a huge bureaucracy either way. The question is whether a private bureaucracy will work better. In the private sector, there's more competition. But to do it privately, you've got to force people to pay for something they don't want to get, something that often doesn't work well.

So why not provide catastrophic coverage to everyone, and set up a new market where private companies bid to get pieces of the government business? You have the competition, and private companies are providing the services.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
it was bachelor's degree. Your pop culture knowledge caused you to read it as graduate. I, raised by poor yet polite folk, would never say you have a reading comprehension problem because of this error.

(a) So the quote was "undergraduate degree in SCIENCE"? Ok. Works almost as well.

(b) Your face must grace the cover of that series of "Gentleman" books that is popping up everywhere.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think I love you.*

*I also love SAM, but he is taken.

I seem to have hit my stride some time after my most recent wedding.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I seem to have hit my stride some time after my most recent wedding.

There's already been more than one? (a) Way to be a morally bankrupt liberal! (b) There is hope! Since your moral bankruptcy has been established, you will likely desert the current family as well!


ETA see how there is so much less space between the quote of SAM's post and my response? How everyone else has ridiculous amounts of highly annoying (but not SFA) space? This is because you can start right after [/QUOTE] without inserting a return -- it's, like, built in.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
So why not provide catastrophic coverage to everyone, and set up a new market where private companies bid to get pieces of the government business? You have the competition, and private companies are providing the services.

Some of what you are proposing was proposed by the Hiliary healthcare reform commission (or whatever it was called). They actually had some good ideas and it is a shame that she was placed at the helm of that reform initiative because it became all about her and not about healthcare. She wasn't the architect of the proposal, some other guy was, I think his name was Ira somebody.

I cannot remember all the details now and don't have time to research it, but I do remember thinking that there was not enough competition in the system. If you haven't read it, it is worth looking it up and read through some of the proposals.

We need to means test Medicare or it will very shortly be a horrible burden on our economy, especially now that there is a prescription drug benefit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Everyone:

Essay Question:

Explain why this post takes all of the fun/humor out of this thread?


If only I understood capitalism!!

I brought the humor into that thread and I'm damn sure ready to take it back out

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Well you can always go with the anedoctal evidence. In socialist countries there isn't sufficient supply to have "all the beer you can drink/ all the pizza you can eat" specials, so we must be doing something right.


Conf. To SAM, did I understand Coltrane?

My God, man! I had no intention of reducing you to this level! You really need to work on restoring your self-confidence.

May I reccomend gardener's shrink?

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
If you haven't read it, it is worth looking it up and read through some of the proposals.

Thanks, but I'm booked solid with an appointment to chew glass.