@bobknight33

So you're conceding? You're admitting that health insurance provided by the Government CAN BE and IS less costly that Private firms?

Because you haven't made a valid argument, just Ad Homs and Red Herrings.

So what if Krugman wrote the article. The CBO's report still shows facts. That Admin cost are less than 2%.

To measure the administrative costs for Medicare, we first turned to the 2011 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds -- the document prepared by Medicare’s fiscal overseers.

The trustees’ summary listed total Medicare expenditures of $522.8 billion for 2010, of which $7 billion was characterized as "administrative expenses." That works out to 1.3 percent

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/


Dude, take off your FoxNews glasses.

what a paradox to deal with people pretending we all wont need what we already know we will need ... insurance ... and pretending we need to pay CEO's and pay administrative overhead for obstructionist paperwork that is in between YOU and your DOCTOR, which is currently the system.

What happened in peoples lives that makes them have the stockholm syndrome for corporations?? do they not know about cannabis? shrug, its all getting a little much.

You're running out of time to find things to blame on Obama. And things to blame on him, in general...

Look how fast Bush Jr got out of the scene... while Cheney still runs his fuckin mouth. Guess how things went when they were in office? Gimme a break.

Bush was a puppet and his attitude was, as long as you can breathe things will work out. How else is the rich son of an ex-CIA chief supposed to feel? empathy for poor people? LOL

and here we have one of the most successful sitting presidents in history, who has ended discrimination in the military, the war in iraq, killed bin laden, and saved the economy (remember, either a bailout wasnt enough or it was... and it wasn't... meaning it HAD to happen, sorry you lose)

its my own mental illness that i want to gloat that we are all going to be better off... HAHA IN YOUR FACE WE ALL GET A FAIRER SYSTEM .. what's your mental illness in wanting everything you've been told to want, and your willingness to kill for it? Who is really sick here... *tokes*

From your recap:

1] Public insurance has lower Admin cost. Around 1%. i.e. tax dollars aren't wasted. FALSE No one can run a company at 3% overhead cost let alone at 1%. Name another program, private sector or government, that runs at 1% admin costs? Think about that % you stated.


2] Some government make primary care mandatory. This lowers the burden on insurance holders even further. Would be a good idea to have annual checkups to prevent sickness at early stages. This should be an agreement with you insurance provider, not mandatory via government decree.

3] Governments set the cost of health care at an affordable price. Meaning more people can pay out of pocket. Meaning the insurance pools pay out less, which means premiums are lower. --- False That's a grandiose leap of faith. Healthcare costs will rise-- The affordability rates will go higher once this program gets up and running. Obama care is already projected to cost double of its original 1 Trillion.

The Government does not know how to save money, only wastefully spend it.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@bobknight33
Do research. From peer reviewed primary sources.
You'll find that governments run lower administrative costs, 1%. As opposed to 3 up to 10% for private insurance companies.
Places like Japan have a mix of private and public doctors and hospitals so there's tons of competition.
The Japanese government focuses on primary care. Like some crazy socialist assholes, they make everyone go to the doctor regularly. You know, before they become too sick. Which cuts down on cost.
Not to mention, they have fixed prices for procedures. So say you need to see a So let's review

The only way to cut down a 800$ cost to #50% is to know how its calculated. That is what is involved in calculating that cost.
specialist. Instead of 800 bucks, the price is fixed at 350. A price everyone can afford. So many people don't NEED insurance to cover the cost.
So let's review:
1] Public insurance has lower Admin cost. Around 1%. i.e. tax dollars aren't wasted.
2] Some government make primary care mandatory. This lowers the burden on insurance holders even further.
3] Governments set the cost of health care at an affordable price. Meaning more people can pay out of pocket. Meaning the insurance pools pay out less, which means premiums are lower.
The result: Japan's health care system is in the top 10.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Japan's HCS = 10th
U.S.'s HCS = 37th
So, instead of repeating talking points you got from Fox & friends. Why don't you do some research and look for solutions.

On that same note, why are these workers staying with these employers.
After the first check is missed, they should be "Out the door"

I've been there where my employer's check bounced. when I got a replacement check. the bank phoned it in before cashing it it, only to find out there were insufficient funds to cover that check as well. The company had to have their accountant come and pay me out of their petty cash.

When I handed them my notice right after that (because I couldn't continue to work for an unstable company) I was taken into the office and brow beaten. I was told that dedication was part of the job and by not being part of the solution for the company, I was part of the problem. Then they invited me back and told me they would excuse my indiscretion of deciding to quit if I put in extra hours to help turn the company around. In fact, I was unwilling to quite my other job which was a guaranteed full time position and was told, my lack of dedication was an issue. This from a company who couldn't afford to pay their employees. (I wasn't the only one). On top of that. The guy running the company on investors money was living in the richest hotel penthouse in town and was always away on guiding hunting trips with his wife, the secretary of the company. Spending the investor's money on himself, instead of the business overhead. (It was an internet design company and we weren't even allowed to have internet access at our desks and wereexpected to bring in or own computer equipment from home.)

Ya right, needless to say, I was out the door.

For me I always believed in evolution but it was like this:
1-5: Cartoon Land and happy thoughts, who the hell knows what I was thinking...
6-16: Theistic Evolution

Reason: Education and I believed there was a God so to me it was only logical that he had a part to play in how ALL of the Universe panned out, not just DNA.

17-PRESENT: Evolution

Reason-Education. I stopped believing, but evolution was still solid evidence in my mind. I had always been a scientifically minded person. As time went on, into my college years, by the the time I was 25 there was absolutely NO DOUBT to me that evolution was as real as a bullet getting shot from a gun or watching planes overhead. I had enough schooling that it made evolution seem like a near afterthought, I truly couldn't understand people's dilemmas sometimes and I had to remind myself that they lacked A LOT of education that I spent time getting. BTW, I got the bare minimum plus an extra class, there is by far a lot more to learn about evolution than what I ended up getting.
---
I have to add that I had A LOT of Physics, and other science classes (mostly Physics), this also added into my knowledge of evolution. You wouldn't think so, but I also had human anatomy and other classes that unlocked how all the world was working around me and to me everything was starting to fit together like a nicely woven rug. That is what made evolution fit in so well (I really can't explain the "feeling" beyond that as it truly is one of experience).

In space, no one can hear your sarcasm.

>> ^ForgedReality:

The production values of this video are top notch!
Reminds me of watching stupid indoctrinating films on the overhead projector in grade school.

The production values of this video are top notch!

Reminds me of watching stupid indoctrinating films on the overhead projector in grade school.

If it were a sane implementation of a self defense law. Martin would have had an obligation to continue to back away from the fight until given no other choice. He would have to have legal provocation, meaning that he must prove that he was in a position in which not using self-defense would most likely lead to death or serious injuries. So pushing or grabbing might not be enough unless he was going for for something vital like your neck instead of your arm or hand or back of your shirt.

In a lot of cases this means someone pretty much has to have a weapon ready to use or make moves to take physical action against you.

Until scene photos come out showing he was in trapped in a corner, he had possible escape routes or he could have knocked on doors or whatever to get attention draw to what was happening if he didn't have time to call police. Some witness woman said it happened in her backyard, and if what they showed on video was it there was no fence but I can't be sure. The houses they showed were really close together, if it was the neighborhood shouting would have been heard by at least 6 houses given how close they were barring planes flying overhead or other noise.

Based on their laws, if SYG applied to Martin (and it should barring they come up with some reason why) he would have had immunity under the law, and Zimmerman wouldn't have been covered if he was found to meet criteria under "Aggressor". However SYG is a rather crazy law, I'll post a blurb at the bottom of this to show there's indication that people abuse it and it's very hard to apply in any sane matter due to nearly all encounters resulting in the other person ending up dead.

But in a less "kill the other guy" type self-defense law you have emphasis placed on avoiding the fight and have to have a damn good reason for lethal force and not just "reasonable belief". If you get provoked your "culpability" is assessed to see if you tried to avoid the fight at all costs.

In this case, blame would have probably been split something like 10-20% Martin 80-90% Zimmerman. A court in a sane area would say that Martin had ample opportunity to call police, ask for help as a door, or yelled for help before Zimmerman caught up. Or perhaps that he could have kept running. Hard to say for sure. But for him to be totally blameless Zimmerman would have had to have shown physical action toward him or some such...the following wouldn't have been enough.

But under SYG, the following could have been enough to give Trayvon reasonable belief that Zimmerman meant imminent use of unlawful force against him. And if you look up unlawful force it's defined as "force to escape arrest, forced use by non-law enforcement, or and non-consenting touch"...it's extremely vague I couldn't find a good definition of it anywhere. I found about 6-8 of them and just took the things in common and different variations and tried to compact it down to that....seriously try googling it and finding a good clear, applicable definition and one that is from Florida...I couldn't.

So Trayvon basically has to reasonable believe that Zimmerman was going to grab him, push him, or otherwise place his hands on him. And I think someone being chased could reasonable expect that.

Here's the blurb from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Stand your ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics. In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling, with all but one of those killed unarmed.[32][33] The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed. The Florida law has been used to excuse neighborhood brawls, bar fights, road rage, and even street gang violence.[33] Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."[34][35]

The Trayvon Martin case brought a large degree of criticism to the law. While the shooter, George Zimmerman, claimed self-defense, evidence indicates that he first pursued Trayvon Martin, prior to the altercation that resulted in the shooting. Legal experts are split as to whether charges will be dropped under Florida's stand-your-ground law before the case even goes to trial, as the extant Florida law allows Zimmerman to argue that the charges should be dropped before trial even begins. Legal experts are also split as to whether Zimmerman's actions will be viewed as self-defense should the case go to trial.

Basically in Florida you can go crazed gunman on a place if you say they were threatening and leave no one alive. If they do the kind of investigation they did with Trayvon, they might not even check all the witnesses or for security footage of the area, and then you'll have immunity....and none of the victims families can sue you for wrongful death, etc. If Im reading the immunity clause of it correctly.



>> ^longde:

How can Martin not be 100% innocent? I don't get how you think he could be at all culpable.>>

I'd be more terrified of Pee Wee Herman in a darkened theater flying overhead. (yank yank).

>> ^dag:

This is one group that will be happy when the spotlight of media scrutiny swings the other way - but the damage may already be too great.


One can only hope. If even half of their donations move to more cost-effective charities, cancer victims will be the real winners. And administrative overhead of 60-70% is utterly absurd, making it pretty obvious what their -real- purpose is.

The Komen Foundation exists to get people rich.
http://www.alternet.org/story/154010/i_will_not_be_pinkwashed%3A_komen%27s_race_is_for_money%2C_not_cure__/

The amount of overhead is astounding, not even mentioning the comically inept way they choose to spend the dollars that do indeed go toward breast cancer "awareness."

As the son of a victim of breast cancer, I find it offensive on a personal level.

Rest in peace, Mom. I love you.

So, you're not going to vote for Ron Paul due to FUD?

Are you really afraid of America repealing special treatment to specific groups? Then you don't understand human nature.

Sure, affirmative action did some good, but did it do more good than bad? Do you have the facts to prove it? Are you sure that the animosity that non-minorities felt didn't do more damage than simply letting nature take its course?

Social change comes from social elements, not the government. A person feels much more pressure from their peers than from laws. Ever see someone speeding in their car? But what about that 55 MPH sign? Yet, even though there's no distinct laws against it, most people won't cut in orderly lines... why is that? Because people relate to people

We never needed to tip the scales, we only needed to balance them, and special treatment for one group over another is NOT balance, and balance is what Ron Paul wants.

As for businesses not allowing a certain group or groups to buy from them, and people putting up signs of "none of your kind here"... who cares? Let the racists be ignorant and racist, they're only hurting themselves, not the people they hate. The government should only step in when there's an extreme problem, and there is NOT an extreme problem in the United States AS A WHOLE. Note what I said there... "AS A WHOLE". Why did I say it that way? Because he's talking about FEDERAL laws. We do NOT need more federal overhead in terms of laws, bureaus, committees, etc, when it comes to enforcement of fairness. Let that occur on the state level, if it's needed at all. Could it cause certain states to become more racist? Sure, but that would only hurt that state more in the long run.

You know what happens when you push a group to do what they don't want to do? Extremism. Push against racist groups and it only makes them more hateful.

Educate and care for the people, then love will overcome the fear. But in Ron Paul's world, do it at the state level, that's all.

What was once parody of news and newspapers, is now a parody of the whole of Western culture as it approaches immanent collapse...

might as well laugh as the birds of prey circle overhead.

Yeah, look at the little girl who gets hit by the snowman's head. She appears out of nowhere and her shadow for some reason is darker than the rest and looks to be from overhead sunlight.

>> ^dag:

I remember in 7th grade, my geography teacher - Mr. Reekie, (who was also the JV football coach) told us all that World War 3 was about to start in Poland because of Lech Wałęsa's solidarity movement. It scared the shit out of me, and stuck with me as a small scar - even as a 42 year old man.

I remember being similarly (and in retrospect, needlessly) terrified in 85-86 when the shit was going on with Libya (culminating in bombing). I would have been 6-7 at the time. I remember riding the bus home after school, looking out the window at the horizon, and being afraid that one day bombers were just going to come screaming overhead and destroy/kill everything and everyone. I didn't understand that Libya was a tiny speck of a country with an insignificant military, and I didn't understand that a tiny backwoods town in upstate NY would not be a valuable military target.