I've been pretty critical when it comes to the subject of Harry Reid. In the past, I've referred to him as several limp noodles on two slices of milk dunked toast.
But his recent indictment of Mitt Romney is a stark contrast to his previous persona. I think the thing I like about it the most is how much in common it has with statements made by the right on a daily basis. In other words, it's about fucking time a Democrat started saying things that may or not may not have any basis in fact but have absolutely everything being pissed off and pulling shit out of one's ass (sort of like how the government forced banks to loan to black people and Hispanics and that's why the economy collapsed).
We really don't know if Romney paid taxes or not but what's great about Reid's statement is how fucked Romney is right now. If he does not release his taxes, the "lie" is out there and people will doubt him. If he does release his taxes and they show that he did pay them over a ten year period, Reid has manipulated Romney (just as the right manipulates the left all the time) into doing something he doesn't want to do: release his taxes...which will undoubtedly show that Romney made a shit ton of money, has hid some of it offshore, was more involved at Bain during their layoffs and outsourcing, and paid less than Warren Buffet's secretary. Heck, even the National Review is calling for Romney to release his returns now.
Of course, Romney's own tax plan doesn't help him at all.
But what does the TPC analysis actually tell us–meaning us people who aren’t campaigning to be president–about the Romney tax plan? It’s well summarized by Figure 2 from the paper, above, which decomposes the bottom line conclusion that a revenue-neutral Romney plan would give generous tax cuts to the rich paid for with net tax increases on everyone else, into two parts: (i) how much the tax cuts from the tax rate reductions are skewed toward the rich; and (ii) how much the revenue offsets from (Romney-limited) base broadening are skewed toward lower- and middle-income households. Combined, we would end up with a revenue-neutral (relative to a business-as-usual, policy-extended baseline) and highly “regressive” tax reform, with relative and absolute tax burdens falling for “the rich” (defined here as households with incomes above $200,000–about the top 5%) and increasing for everyone else.
Seriously, are you fucking kidding me? What a massively stupid idea given the current perception of government and the economy. Yes, let's give the wealthy more breaks...that's going to go over well with the middle class, non college educated whites voting in the coming election.
Add all of this in with his stumbles on his recent trip abroad and it's understandable why Romney has lost ground in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. With less than 100 days to go before the election, Governor Romney is going to have a very difficult time making up that ground. The Obama team has already pulled their ads in Pennsylvania to focus on other key swing states. In short, it's not been a good week for Mitt Romney.
And all of this just before he picks his VP...
49 comments:
Govt official accuses someone of a felony based on unnamed sources and it's up to the accused to prove the statement wrong. What civics class did you take markadelphia?
Is that what you teach your students or your children about telling the truth? How remarkably sad for them.
I'm nearly certain, rld, that Romney's lack of tax payments was perfectly legal.
dave, imagine for a moment you are a Democratic strategist. Your people are getting hit relentlessly on lies made up simply because the right has an allergy to facts. You can not respond, counter with reasonable arguments that contain facts, or take a play from their playbook. They've tried the first two and get pummeled. What other choice do they have? The right started all of this nonsense so, really, they only have themselves to blame. I have no doubt that if they stop, the Dems will too.
And as far as my students go, again, my job is not to spout opinions. It's to inspire and motivate them to first give a shit and then think critically. The former takes most of my time.
"The right started all of this"
they started it! waaaaaah!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79337.html?hp=f3
Counter with reasonable arguments that contain facts eh?
“In press statements issued on June 29 and July 2, 2012, the DCCC made unsubstantiated allegations that attacked Sheldon Adelson, a supporter of the opposing party. This was wrong. The statements were untrue and unfair and we retract them,” the DCCC wrote."
That there are multiple sides to any argument is a fact of life.
That politicians use artistic license and/or portray thier views in thier best light is undeniable.
That polititians outright lie is dishonorable (and they should be booted from office).
That you openly embrace the dishonesty is shameful.
" it's about fucking time a Democrat started saying things that may or not may not have any basis in fact"
Pretty much sums up your worldview. Keep yourself and the electorate stupid and misinformed.
chick, if your point is that Democrats apologize while Republicans are stubborn adolescents who don't, then I agree!
That there are multiple sides to any argument is a fact of life.
No. Sometimes there is only one side (gravity, evolution, man made climate change, equal rights for all including gay people). That's the Cult of Both Sides, dave, and I think it's one of the greatest lies in the history of the world. But we have to be "fair," right? Which is why people like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin are around...
That you openly embrace the dishonesty is shameful.
The day you start expressing shame for all the rotten shit that your side does on a daily basis is the day I might start to feel some shame for the very paltry amount in which the Democrats engage. Again, though, you think both sides are the same. They aren't.
Keep yourself and the electorate stupid and misinformed.
Then why are most educated people Democrats and/or liberal? But this is a heading me off at the pass type comment so...
gravity, evolution, man made climate change, equal rights for all including gay people
Abortion? Or does one side mean only your side?
No. Sometimes there is only one side
And you keep saying how everyone is all black-and-white and you are the nuanced one.
What a fucking joke. On you.
Abortion? Or does one side mean only your side?
With abortion there is, in fact, more than just the two sides and that's the problem. Both are so dug in to their beliefs that neither is actually solving the problem: unwanted pregnancies. The pro life side wants a federal law outlawing abortion and nothing less. The pro choice crowd wants abortion readily available at all times. With either one, you have a lot of problems. It's time to start thinking out of the box and look at this from "stop unwanted pregnancy" point of view. This could take on a number of different forms.
I really like where this thread is going. All too often I come and go from this site, fascinated by politics and the thoughts of the left, yet continuously confounded by my natural tendency to attempt to understand their perspective. Clearly understanding the mindset of Nikita would require brain samples or a strong hallucinogenic, which is why I think so few post to his reflections. But this thread is something special. Too frequently we’re left to speculate, but here Mark displays the type of candor that cuts through the bull; which is to say, he admits to spreading the bull. Not content to admit that some possess less than admirable characteristics, he warmly embraces the dishonesty. And with that in mind, whilst vacuuming this morning, I was thinking about an appropriate nickname. “Mark-the-Liar” just doesn’t have any cache’. “Pinocchio”? A bit too innocent... Let’s break out the thesaurus. Prevaricator?... Too uncommon… Fruadelphia? Not bad…not bad... Well, the jury is still out, so I’ll work on this, but I’m open for suggestions.
Harry Reid was confused.
M: I'm nearly certain, rld, that Romney's lack of tax payments was perfectly legal.
Nice attempt at begging the question. Pathetic.
Harry Reid ethics and money issues
That a man with his history would go around throwing out unsourced, unverified rumors when he is living in an all-glass house himself tells me that Harry Reid has no brain, and no sense of honor or propriety. Unlike Reid's droolings about Romney, his own issues are well-documented. B ut I see no mention of them here in this fine, upstanding, fair-minded blog. Why is that? The world wonders.
I believe Reid's problems stem from his ascending above his level of competence. When he was a back bencher his flaws weren't in the spotlight, but sadly he ended up in leadership and he is not very well suited to it.
I really like where this thread is going.
I do as well because it's an excellent illustration of how the right can continually lie and get away with it. Indeed, a different set of rules does apply to the people you support as opposed to the people I support. Sarah Palin can talk about death panels, Michele Bachman about Muslim infiltration, multiple GOPers can question the president's birth certificate and say it's fake...and what do I hear from you guys?
Crickets.
But when Harry Reid makes a comment about something that may or may not be true, he's a liar and I have somehow broken some sacred code. Could it be that you hold me to a different and higher standard than yourselves?
Obviously, you do, dave, because you still have taken ownership the lying that goes on every day with the GOP. This is the result of what happens when you pull this crap. As ye have sewn, so shall ye reap...
Funny, though, you haven't even considered the possibility that what he is saying is true. What if it is?
To be fair, Harry Reid isn't any worse than Mitch McConnell. He isn't any better either.
The problem for you M is you believe that Democrat flavored cock really does taste better.
I don't think there is anything new here though. Mark showed a long time ago that he was quite willing to lie in service of his ideology. Why would unsourced claims from Reid bother Mark one bit? One "the other side started it" rationalization later, and of course Mark is ok with anything to support the cause/tribe/religion. It's just what he is.
Mark showed a long time ago that he was quite willing to lie in service of his ideology.
Has the statement by Harry Reid been proven to be correct or incorrect?
It sure as fuck hasn't been shown to be correct. It's unsubstantiated rumor, and Reid has shown himself clueless of basic facts. For one thing, no investor in a corporation, no matter how big an investor he may be, will have any knowledge of a corporate officers personal tax returns. His "story" doesn't pass the laugh test.
It's unsubstantiated rumor,
That's right so it's not a lie.
My amusement continues to grow with how you guys are reacting to this, though. This is what your side does every single day (see: Fox News, right wing blogsphere) and you are shocked now that the Democrats are doing it? And you don't like it? Perhaps you should cease doing it yourselves first.
That's right so it's not a lie.
I pity any child you have contact with.
I wonder if the pastor of your church knows how fundamentally immoral you are?
>Has the statement by Harry Reid been proven to be correct or incorrect?
Reading comprehension teacher boy. Did I say Reid lied? Or did I say that you (as in Mark) are willing to lie? We don't know if Reid is lying; we know that he's making an accusation of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety. You are quite willing to go along because it supports the cause, of course. The humor is to watch how low you'll go to rationalize an advantage for your tribe.
It's true/false time Mark! Lets see how squalid and grimy your partisanship is! True or false: I, Mark, support accusing people of things for which evidence may or may not exist, based on things that may or may not have been said by people that may or may not exist, in order to further the political ambitions of my party, the Democrats.
I pity any child you have contact with.
What do you suggest I should tell them about Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann? Oh, yeah. Democrats are just as a bad.
I wonder if the pastor of your church knows how fundamentally immoral you are?
I don't go to church with any sort of regularity, juris. In fact, one could say that I am a libertarian when it comes to my faith:)
we know that he's making an accusation of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety.
That's right. Not so much fun is it? Perhaps you might want to capitulate and stop doing it yourself. I can't speak for Harry Reid but I'll knock off any sort of innuendo the day you start making rational statements about Democrats. (i.e "You are a statist!!!" shouted the town of Salem as they prepared the red colored cloth in the shape of an "S."
I, Mark, support accusing people of things for which evidence may or may not exist, based on things that may or may not have been said by people that may or may not exist, in order to further the political ambitions of my party, the Democrats.
In a vacuum, FALSE. With the GOP doing it on a daily basis, possibly, It depends on the situation. In this case, I think it's fine because there is far more to the story of Romney's taxes than meets the eye.
How about the same question for you?
>That's right. Not so much fun is it? Perhaps you might want to capitulate and stop doing it yourself.
Oh? Where did I do it? Or if that's too hard, please - what types of things have Republicans done like this that I have come out and *endorsed*, like you did in this post?
>In a vacuum, FALSE. With the GOP doing it on a daily basis, possibly, It depends on the situation.
Translation: FALSE until Mark can come up with a third grade rationalization, ("Mommy! Those other kids do it all the time!") at which point it becomes TRUE. Dude, do you have any idea what "integrity" means?
>How about the same question for you?
False. You seem to forget, I'm not a Republican, nor a party apparatchik like you. If something is dishonorable, it is dishonorable no matter who is doing it, and no, there aren't any valid excuses. Apparently these notions of "integrity" and "honor" are old fashioned - you expect politicians to not possess those qualities; but aren't you at all sad to find that you don't possess them either?
Oh? Where did I do it?
The whole socialist/communist/fascist/statist rag for starters.
And there is most certainly tacit approval when people like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin start flapping their gums. Saying nothing is just as about sometimes as voicing support. Heck, sometimes they say the same thing that you guys here do as well!
Dude, do you have any idea what "integrity" means?
In some ways, I interpret this as you asking me if we should have fought more fair in WWII when the Germans and the Japanese were using tactics that were completely despicable. Granted, we did rise above them in some ways but we did resort to brutality in order to win.
Now, scale it back a few degrees and what would you have the Democrats do? Behave with honor and integrity while the GOP (and whatever side you are on) continually "play dirty?"
The fact is, Hap, that your interests are very aligned with the GOP due to the simple fact that the hard right has taken over the party. There would be no party without these folks and they say an awful lot of the same things you do about the government.
In other words, guilt by association? Asshole.
I guess your silence on the bad stuff associated with the OWSidiots means you're effectively an anti-Semitic, anti-capitalist asshole, then? Is that how that all works?
>The whole socialist/communist/fascist/statist rag for starters.
Come again? Is my characterization of you as a statist a lie? Is it dishonest? Is it a "when did you stop beating your wife" type of characterization? Please, explain.
>Saying nothing is just as about sometimes as voicing support.
So let me get this straight - I don't listen to Limbaugh, I don't listen to Palin, and I spend my life largely in blissful ignorance of what they do and say, and yet that is doing the equivilent of voicing support? Damn Mark. By that logic, you are a vocal supporter of Mao, since after all, I haven't heard you speak out against him. Bril, as you are fond of saying.
>In some ways, I interpret this as you asking me if we should have fought more fair in WWII when the Germans and the Japanese were using tactics that were completely despicable.
No, it just means that someone with integrity or honor would not try to rationalize dishonesty. (And wow, that is a really skimpy rationalization, partisans sure are cheap sellouts.) I might have an iota of respect for you if you just said, "yeah, it's kind of a crummy thing to do, but hey, gotta do what you gotta do to win." Interesting equivilence though. Is Harry Reid fighting an existential war? Are the Democrats the Allies, and the Republicans are the Axis? Wait, maybe you shouldn't answer that..
>Now, scale it back a few degrees and what would you have the Democrats do?
Here's a wild idea: point out those instances when the R's do these dirty things. Point out why they are dirty, why it's dishonest, and why it's not reasonable way to behave. Does that not work?
>The fact is, Hap, that your interests are very aligned with the GOP due to the simple fact that the hard right has taken over the party.
Dunno who or what the "hard right" is, but you seem to have warped your universe. Remember, Romney is the nominee. Mitt Romney. Not Rand Paul, Mark. Take your meds or whatever you need to do. If Obama loses, I will be the first to comfort your tears by pointing out that Romney is going to try to "save capitalism" just as hard and just as futile-ly as Obama did. (Though this time around, you'll no doubt become a constitution loving, small government favoring libertarian, since of course only the D's can be trusted to save capitalism.)
What do you suggest I should tell them about Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann?
Children other than your own? You should tell them nothing. For your own children, that is up to you - but I doubt you'll have any difficulty talking up the significance of a woman that doesn't even hold office.
I don't go to church with any sort of regularity, juris.
Funny given how you parade your self righteousness all over the Internet.
... tacit approval ...
Childish and dishonest - yeah, that's the ticket!
Is it a "when did you stop beating your wife" type of characterization? Please, explain.
Of course it is. You know the commie line doesn't fly as much any more so you throw in "statist" which is essentially a dog whistle for those who are paranoid about the government. They essentially mean the same thing and achieve the same desired result....Mark thinks the federal government is a good thing therefore he is...not one of us...
Is Harry Reid fighting an existential war? Are the Democrats the Allies, and the Republicans are the Axis? Wait, maybe you shouldn't answer that..
See my posts on Stiglitz. And I'd say that any large group of people that think that homosexuals are criminals and women's rights are a joke aren't the good guys. Add in xenophobia, jingoism, and a complete inability to change with the times and it is a recipe for disaster.
Does that not work?
I do it all the time and it obviously doesn't as you (and some of the others) remain unconvinced that they are really that bad.
If Obama loses, I will be the first to comfort your tears
Electorally speaking, I'd like to see how that is going to happen.
You should tell them nothing.
Tell them nothing about the VP nominee in 2008 and the MN representative from the Sixth District? Now, that's great civics. How would you answer this question (asked at least a dozen times to me over the last few years)...
Are Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann really that stupid?
>Of course it is. You know the commie line doesn't fly as much any more so you throw in "statist" which is essentially a dog whistle for those who are paranoid about the government.
From wiki:
Statism (French: étatisme) is a term used by political scientists to describe the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.[4][1][2][3] Statism can take many forms.
A broad term, which is why I give a clarifying definition - you're a statist because you believe the government is generally the preferred and best way to solve problems you see in society. Do you actually disagree with anything there? I'll leave aside the nonsense parallel you're trying to draw between me calling you a descriptive term and Reid playing politics that you cheerlead. I can't even begin to figure out how the two are alike.
>And I'd say that any large group of people that think that homosexuals are criminals
Doubling down with the false equivilence of disagreement with you being the same as what Reid is doing, I see. Still though - homosexuals = criminals? Well, I've certainly heard of people thinking that being homosexual is a sin, abnormal, etc, all positions I disagree with, incidentally, but I haven't heard of attempts to criminalize being homosexual, at least not recently, and certainly not at the national level. Sure you're not speaking bullshit?
>and women's rights are a joke
Now you're definitely speaking bullshit. Or, perhaps more accurately, you're doing what you always do - Mark's positions are axiomatically correct and right, and anyone who doesn't hold those positions is biased, dishonest, and evil, and it's ok to do what Reid is doing because of that. I've known many children with more integrity than you.
Mark - you know a few of the rightish commenters (just dave and last, i think) in person, right? Tell me - how does this "i'm not dishonest as long as they don't do it first" apply to them? For example, would you cheat them on a personal loan because they hold views that might support Republicans, and so you rationalize it by saying that the money is better used by sending it to the Democrats rather than repaying the loan? If they were running for local office, would you spread wild rumors about them in order to undermine their campaign? If you had some way of affecting their employment, such as by doing peer reviews, or by complaining about poor customer service, would you do so to hurt Republicans, even if you had to make things up? I'm curious where you draw the line on being dishonest. Political arena only? You don't draw any line, as long as you can rationalize it somehow? How does this work, exactly?
Funny, because your description of me is distorted in the way you believe Harry Reid's accusation is distorted. With me, it's simply not true. I don't think the government is the preferred solution to deal with society's problems all the time. Just because I think it's an important part of our society and think that it is necessary to solve some problems doesn't mean I think it is a panacea for all woe.
In fact, I have stated repeatedly that I applaud the free market systems that have popped up around the world. I think capitalism is wonderful and can increase prosperity (even with inequality) when it is not abused...as it is now.
But a Democrat these days means you are a communist and that's exactly the exaggeration that you want to float out there with your language. Kevin does this all the time on his site. The pile of skulls, remember? Now, compare that to what Harry Reid said. Do you think they are remotely in the same league?
Regarding homosexuals, people who think sin, think criminal. Up until just a few decades ago, it was criminal behavior and gay people were arrested constantly.
Regarding women's rights, uh....abortion! Contraception?
While I know dave, he is more a friend of a friend. Last is a close friend of mine but that doesn't really matter. I wouldn't cheat them out of money or spread rumors about them. In fact, depending upon their political goals, I might help them. Last is very liberal socially and his national security interests align with mine. Since when is Harry Reid friends with Mitt Romney?
The consummate asshole can't seem to recall that he solicited us for our assessment of his political striping. Then he has the unmitigated gall to characterize that opinion as a lie and compare it to the vile crap spewed by Reid.
Fuck you very much you insipid jerk. Read a dictionary cover to cover. Twice.
I don't think the government is the preferred solution to deal with society's problems all the time.
Just almost all the time. And only when govt will settle the "problem" the way you want to see the world.
>Just because I think it's an important part of our society and think that it is necessary to solve some problems doesn't mean I think it is a panacea for all woe.
Which is why I put in the qualifier generally, rather than something like absolutely. Learn to read. Again.
>But a Democrat these days means you are a communist and that's exactly the exaggeration that you want to float out there with your language.
Piteous whining. Ok, you don't like being called a statist. I get it. Sorry that the shoe fits. Let me know when that label doesn't apply accurately to you though. All you've got so far is that its a dog whistle. Booga booga! Again, I'm not seeing how that compares to what Reid is doing. I'm not calling you a statist based on no evidence - there are years of evidence on your own blog and Kevin's blog.
Regarding homosexuality and abortion - leaving aside your mischaracterization of those issues (R's want to outlaw contraception? Really? Please explain sir bril!) I'm not following your line of reasoning. How does disagreeing with you on a particular issue justify doing something dishonorable in your eyes? Is it: Person A believes X, I find X abhorrent; therefore, I absolve myself from any obligation to treat Person A in an honorable, honest fashion. You still seem to be conflating disagreement with your positions to doing something slimy, which is what Reid is doing. Why does that make sense?
>I wouldn't cheat them out of money or spread rumors about them.
Why not? You've made it clear in this post that you're willing to countenance dishonorable actions in some cases if they help your team. So the logical question becomes, if hurting dave or last helps your team, why wouldn't you do it? That's the bitch about having no principles Mark - you are always one (third grade or better, apparently) rationalization away from from doing something despicable.
compare it to the vile crap spewed by Reid.
What are you going to do if it ends up being true? I won't hold my breath for a retraction. You have some fucking nerve talking about "vile crap" after you defended Kevin's photo filled with complete lies about the president.
Please explain sir bril!)
See the congressional hearings on contraception. I do recognize, however, that this is only the religious conservatives of the party and not the libertarian wing...thank goodness.
So the logical question becomes, if hurting dave or last helps your team, why wouldn't you do it?
Because not every situation fits neatly into a little box, Hap...something you have real problem understanding. But then again, I'm a statist so that means that I'm the same way all the time, right?
>Because not every situation fits neatly into a little box, Hap...something you have real problem understanding.
Oh I see. Well, I don't blame for not wanting to look too closely in the mirror. I wouldn't want to either, if I were you.
>But then again, I'm a statist so that means that I'm the same way all the time, right?
What does being a statist have to do with it? My calling you a statist doesn't imply that you're a dishonest scumbag. You do that all on your own, statist or not.
>See the congressional hearings on contraception. I do recognize, however, that this is only the religious conservatives of the party and not the libertarian wing...thank goodness.
We're well past what this has to do with Reid, but I have to point out - I'm not sure you understood what those hearings were about - you must have listened to too many slogans about wars on women and denying "access" to contraception, as if that was remotely what that was all about. In fact, as a libertarian, I fully support the Catholic church's desire to avoid paying for contraception - isn't that something they should be able to choose to do or not to do? As is common, the problem lies with your perception of reality - I don't think you are unable to figure out the difference between not wanting to pay for someone elses contraception, and preventing someone from getting contraception. The Catholic Church wants to do the former, which I support, they cannot do the latter, which I would not support. Or is that too nuanced for you?
Or is that too nuanced for you?
Of course it is. Mr Black and White only knows all that is good (i.e. that which is close to him) and all that is bad (everything and everyone else). [Hint to M - this would be a good time to concede a point. I'm betting you just can't though.]
We're well past what this has to do with Reid
I'll be happy to come back to him any time. I'll make you a deal, Hap. The day you start criticizing Kevin for lying about the president and challenge his "factual" information that he puts up will be the day that I denounce comments like Harry Reid's. That goes for anyone else who posts here from TSM. Unless, of course, the rules apply to those with which you agree differently.
I fully support the Catholic church's desire to avoid paying for contraception -
Except there are many women that take contraception as medicine, not for birth control. What about them? There's that nuance thing again...
>I'll be happy to come back to him any time.
Well, we're still stuck on "disagreement with Mark = the same thing as what Reid is doing." I don't think we'll make much progress until you are able to figure out some nuance there.
>The day you start criticizing Kevin for lying about the president and challenge his "factual" information that he puts up will be the day that I denounce comments like Harry Reid's.
Weird - I thought this was about you, and the post you made, and the reasoning thereof. Trying to do that redirect thing you always accuse us of?
>Except there are many women that take contraception as medicine, not for birth control.
First - you realize that Georgetown's student insurance covers contraception as medicine, right? See:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002379574
"Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy."
But ignore that, because it isn't really the issue. It's this:
>What about them? There's that nuance thing again...
Well, what about them? Should every health insurance offered in the land cover this sort of thing? If so, why? Because someone really wants it? I'd love to hear the principle underlying that one.. (Not that it's likely you have a principle.)
Trying to do that redirect thing you always accuse us of?
Let me put this to you in another way. If someone comes into your business and starts shooting, are you going to ask him, pretty please with sugar on top, to please put down the gun? Or are you going to cap his ass for being a violent fuckstick? Murder in self defense is legal under the law but isn't there something morally wrong about taking another life? After all, you are resorting to murderous and violent ways to stop someone from threatening you.
Granted, neither Harry Reid nor Kevin is physically threatening someone (although I do wonder about him when he puts up posts with nooses and lamp posts and talks of enemies of the Constitution), but there is an attack nonetheless. What would you have Harry Reid do when his ally, President Obama, is attacked every single fucking day in this same fashion?
Should every health insurance offered in the land cover this sort of thing? If so, why?
If people pay for health insurance, you're damn right they should cover it. At least 80-20 for pete's sake. Basic care and essential wellness should be covered.
>What would you have Harry Reid do when his ally, President Obama, is attacked every single fucking day in this same fashion?
See Mark, the part that is distasteful isn't that Reid is playing his game. I generally expect politicians to behave without honor and dignity, to lie, to generally do whatever they can get away with to advance their own interests. That holds true for D's and R's. The distasteful thing is that you endorsed it, and you don't seem to understand why it's a bad reflection on you.
>If people pay for health insurance, you're damn right they should cover it. At least 80-20 for pete's sake. Basic care and essential wellness should be covered.
You're just emotionalizing. Why should basic care and essential wellness be covered? Because you say so? Because it's nice? Just because someone paid for "health insurance", and you really really want to define "health insurance" as something that includes medical contraceptives? Try to make an actual argument please.
Who decides what basic care and essential wellness consist of? The government? You're having a conversation with juris about inequality, which includes talking about rent seeking. Well, what do you think will happen over time if the government gets to decide what basic care and wellness consists of?
The distasteful thing is that you endorsed it, and you don't seem to understand why it's a bad reflection on you.
Again, I have no problem making it about me in this case. I guess I don't understand why it's bad when I do it but not when Kevin does. Kevin put up a photo of President Obama that was...well...
"without honor and dignity, to lie, to generally do whatever they can get away with to advance their own interests."
And your response? Crickets.
So, as I have said many times, a different set of rules must apply to me then they do to Kevin. Bad reflection for me....no problem for Kevin.
When he stops doing it, I will stop endorsing the same sort of actions. Again, what would you have me do? Ask him pretty please with sugar on top to cease lying?
Why should basic care and essential wellness be covered?
Because...oh, I don't know...people are paying for it!! If I'm shelling out several hundred dollars a month, basic care should be covered or at least be 80-20. Why am I spending money on insurance if I also have to spend money on essential care?
I would agree that people should pay out of pocket for contraceptives if it is only for sex. But if it is for basic health needs, then no.
Right now, the insurance companies get to decide what "essential care" is and isn't. And you think the government is going to be worse? The government is not out to make a profit. They are there to serve the common good which, I know, creates a high level of cognitive dissonance with you due to brainwashing. If the government were so bad at this, why is Medicare so popular? They decide what is essential all the time and people seem to not mind at all.
Medicare is only popular with the public as long as their pocketbooks are not greatly affected by the financial goings-on. At the healthcare company I work at, nearly all of our customers in our niche market are going through Rac Audits that medicare is doing. What medicare is doing is contacting our customers, even small customers, and auditing patient billings from 2009 – 2010. Medicares doctors (you think they are biased one way or the other) come out and say that the procedures done weren’t medically necessary and demand our customer send them a check for $29k - $100k. The customer can appeal and after the 3rd appeal it will go before a judge and our customers win nearly every time that happens but many don’t have the resources to take it that far. It’s quite devastating to smaller businesses and medicare cuts off funding to the customer during the entire audit process.
Medicare is only popular these days as long as you don’t have to deal with it.
>Because...oh, I don't know...people are paying for it!! If I'm shelling out several hundred dollars a month, basic care should be covered or at least be 80-20.
That is a non-answer. I asked you why basic care and essential wellness should be covered. Your response is that "people are paying for it." Paying for what? Is there some kind of universal definition of what constitutes "basic care and essential coverage" that I don't know about? Surely even you, as blinkered as you are, can figure out that if there was such a definition, there would be quite a bit of pressure to add things to that definition in order to make people think they were getting more stuff. (When of course, all it does is shift costs around, if that.) I mean, what do you think Sandra Fluke was trying to do? She's trying to shift costs off of herself and onto someone else, once you drop all the moral posturing away. This is just more economic ignorance from you - health insurance isn't free. Adding coverage to health insurance isn't free. Someone has to pay. Hiding behind pretty phrases like "they're paying for it" doesn't change the reality a bit. Why is it so threatening to you that when someone buys health insurance, they might not decide they want the same level of care as you?
>They are there to serve the common good which, I know, creates a high level of cognitive dissonance with you due to brainwashing.
The only cognitive dissonance going on here is your apparent belief that people in government are different than the rest of us. But see if you can game this out sir bril. Imagine the government gets to decide what "basic care" consists of. Imagine that I'm a drug maker, or a medical device maker, or I've come up with some kind of new procedure. What would be a great way for me to vastly increase demand for my product? Why, it would be to lobby for the government to include my drug/device/procedure under the definition of "basic care." If I were even passingly smart about it, I'd give lots of money to the right people in Congress, and try to find some good public relations sob stories - you know, Sandra Fluke types, that can tell all the saps out there, like you, why it is just so inhumane that insurance companies don't pay for the things she wants them to pay for. It's win win - for me and for the politicos I purchased. Even the public might believe that a great inustice has been solved. The only problem - insurance now costs more - for everyone. But what do I care - I'm getting tons of bucks for my efforts.
This is why you need to get past such obvious emotion driven thinking like "because they paid for it." It leads you to support utterly terrible ideas.
>Right now, the insurance companies get to decide what "essential care" is and isn't.
Really? I have no say in the matter? Funny, I remember when selecting my health insurance that I had quite a bit of leeway to decide that for myself. Was I imagining things? Why, I could even do crazy things like reduce yearly payments if I increased deductibles. Holy crap! It's just so terrible that people might be able to decide this stuff for themselves. Right?
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't her tuition include health care coverage? Mine did and I went to a public university. She goes to a private one so she pays a lot more. Shouldn't bc pills be covered if they prevent ovarians cysts.
Insurance companies decide right now what is basic and essential care. They offer customers a monthly rate and say what is covered...wellnes checks...cancer screenings...that sort of thing. The problem with this incident is that it's sex so the right has to have a coniption about it. Actually, it's women, really, because Viagra is covered.
The whole Fluke thing could have been mitigated if the fearful and insecure males would had let her testify. Instead, they brought in only men to testify on women's health care. Seriously? This is essentially my point. When it comes to women's rights, conservatives seemingly slip into a mode that is not unlike Islamic extremism.
Insurance companies decide? Everything? Want to double check that statement?
Post a Comment