Thursday, October 31, 2013

REASON AND FACTS JUST DON'T MATTER TO LIBERALS

The government knows
how, right?
A regular commenter on my blog wrote this (after I had said liberals don't understand the concept of liberty):

" We understand the concept of liberty just fine.

'the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.'"

"...free within society from oppressive restrictions..."? Give me a break!

You can keep your insurance if you like it, but if the company changes a single word of the policy or raises or lowers the rate by $5.00 then ObamaCare kicks in and you can't keep it. That's liberty.

If you don't want health insurance, you have to have it or pay a fine. That's liberty.

If you don't buy it by time-certain you face a fine. That's liberty.

I you choose to buy a health insurance policy that is flawed because your Uncle John sells it, you can't keep it unless it conforms to the oppressive restrictions imposed by the federal government. That's liberty.

And the really outrageous thing is, liberals think they are thinking straight; either that or they are deliberately lying. There are no other options.

Liberty my hind leg!






See, if you like it you can keep it, but you can't keep it if it is lousy, even if you want to keep a lousy policy because the government says you can't keep it if it is lousy, but if you want to keep it you can, as long as you don't keep it because its lousy and the market will decide.

You gotta love the logic...right?

(PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT IF ALL YOU HAVE TO OFFER IS YOUR DISTASTE FOR MEGYN KELLY. CONTENT COMMENTS ONLY, PLEASE. OTHERS WILL BE DELETED, SINCE I IMPOSE OPPRESSIVE RESTRICTIONS ON THIS BLOG).

26 comments:

Xavier Onassis said...

If we had a single payer, government provided health care system like EVERY OTHER CIVILIZED COUNTRY ON THE PLANET none of this would be an issue. Everyone would have healthcare, no one would need to buy anything and it would be all rainbows and unicorns.

But NO! That would be "socialism". Conservatives prefer the mess we have today that forces people to travel to other countrie to find affordable health care.

Joe said...

XO: Yeah. We see a great exodus from the U.S. to Canada, Mexico, Greece and Russia, not to mention Argentina, Peru, Brazil and Costa Rica. Oh, and don't forget the rush to Haiti, Cuba, Bahamas and the Philippines. All for their great health insurance.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - Yes. We do see that.

Google "medical tourism". The industry has grown so large there is even a Medical Tourism Association. With their own Medical Tourism magazine. http://www.medicaltourismassociation.com/en/index.html

Or read/listen to the NPR story "'Paying Till It Hurts': Why American Health Care Is So Pricey"

"It costs $13,660 for an American to have a hip replacement in Belgium; in the U.S., it's closer to $100,000."

http://m.npr.org/news/front/209585018

There are huge numbers of people who are flocking to other countries where the healthcare is as good as it is here, in many cases better, and it is orders of magnitude cheaper!

Notice that not a single country you mentioned is saying to themselves "Wow. Look at the medical care system in the United States. It is so affordable and efficient. Let's abandon our single payer system, throw it open to whoever wants to hang a shingle calling themselves an insurance company and let the market take over!"

Is not happening, will never happen.

We are the only country in the world where people can be driven into bankruptcy or death just because they can't afford to make rich people richer.

Duckys here said...

You mean we took an $85,000 surcharge on Joe's hip replacement, XO?

Joe seems to be carrying on this argument on two fronts. One is the superiority of the American system of monopoly for-profit private insurers vs. everyone else in the developed world.

He;s not going to give in (fringe right wingers never do( but that argument has been lost by the right.

Joe, other than aggravating the upward transfer of wealth are you able to list any benefits the consumer obtains from a non competitive for profit system?

chirp, chirp

Duckys here said...

The other issue here is the loss of coverage by the individually insured.

But this one also points out the desirability of single payer.
A flaw in the ACA is that it does little to limit for profit insurers behavior. They can raise rights and drop policies as they always could.

I can understand why they would not want to continue catastrophic coverage at a low cost when folks can jump on those plans under the rules prohibiting being declined due to pre-existing conditions. You are going to get some looking for a free ride.
The solution? Single payer.

Oh by the way, Joe. A lot of Americans head to Mexico for care. Buy a vowel before you start in with your rant.

Joe said...

XO & Ducky: It's a clever liberal ploy to argue what you want to argue instead of arguing the point of the post.

Argue this with me: Obama said, "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance."

Was that the truth or not? That's the only argument germane to this post.

He said it. It is not true.

Duckys here said...

No Joe, it was not.

And if you expect everything said about a massive transformation of the American health insurance system to be accurate then you are indeed a sophist with no interest in this issue other than an opportunity to bash Obama.

Clever ploy, trying to mask your true intentions.
XO and I wish to move toward a policy that improves universal insurance.
You want to rant and moan about how much you hate Obama.


Joe said...

Ducky: "You want to rant and moan about how much you hate Obama."

Yeah. It's because he's black and has nothing to do with his policies or his lies.

Actually, I really like people to lie to me. I think all of our leaders should be trained to lie more. They should persist in their lies, even as the subject of their lies reveal themselves to be lies.

The more lies, the better the politician.

My Conservative Thoughts said...

It's official! Welfare Recipients Now Outnumber Workers
Shocked?

I'm not. Not really. It is, after all, the goal of the democrat party

Census Bureau: Welfare Recipients Now Outnumber Full-Time Workers…

So all you hard working Republican slobs, work harder everyone, millions of Obamabots out there are depending on you.

The Political Chic said...


Obama’s job approval has dropped to an all-time low, according to a new poll released just this past Wednesday. A new survey shows that a mere, itsty, bitsy 42 percent of Americans with any brains what so ever, approve of Obama’s job performance, down five points from a poll conducted only 4 weeks ago Bow isn’t that a pity? These buffoons who thought that his job approval was satisfactory were all summoned to take a literacy test. Or perhaps they were all Zombies awakened from the Dead to vote once again.

I guess that the lies are getting too big even for the MSM to cover up for him anymore...

Xavier Onassis said...

MCT - "Census Bureau: Welfare Recipients Now Outnumber Full-Time Workers"

Yeah, that's a lie.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/30/charlie-sykes/charlie-sykes-says-today-there-are-more-people-wel/

Xavier Onassis said...

I just completed the Open Enrollment for my employer provided healthcare (which I get to keep because I like it and because my employers aren't a bunch of greedy teabaggers).

To keep the exact same coverage for me and my daughter (low deductible, low co-pay, comprehensive medical, dental, vision, prescriptions, long term disability, life insurance, mental health, birth control) is going to cost me, get ready for it, a whopping $2.46 per paycheck more than it did last year!

Oh, WOE IS ME! How can I possibly be expected to absorb such an increase! That's like 16 cents a day! Where can I possibly cut back on my expenses to afford such an OPPRESSIVE IMPOSITION ON MY LIBERTY?!?!?

THANKS OBAMA!!!

Dave Miller said...

Joe, you are correct... there are some people who are going to lose their coverage, primarily those with little or no regular coverage. Those plans are better known as catastrophic plans.

And yes, Obama did say that if you liked your plan, you could keep it. So... he was wrong, or as you like to say, he was a greasy liar.

But if you believe anyone who ever issues a wrong statement is a greasy liar, where does that leave you and your view on your benefits being taxed for 2013? Are you a greasy liar for publishing that whopper?

XO... let me play can you top this...

My wife and I will be paying about $550.00 a month starting in January for our health insurance. We have previously been unable to buy any health insurance at any cost because of some preexisting conditions.

Our deductible will be a combined $800.00 with an annual maximum out of pocket of $2000.00. You know what? We currently pay $12,000 for prescriptions and my wife needs a knee replaced.

Guess what, after many years of pain, she'll finally walk regularly again and her meds will not kill us every month.

THANKS OBAMA!!!

Jack Torrance said...

Who said this?

"ObamaCare is like the early stages of communism.

Bill Clinton is running interference for President Obama and laying the groundwork for Hillary’s 2016 presidential bid. Here’s what he said about the future of the response of Americans to ObamaCare:
“I just think that when all these dire predictions don’t come out, if they don’t — I believe that pretty soon, within the next several years, this will be like Medicare and Medicaid. And it’ll be a normal part of our life. And people will be glad it’s there.”
I’m sure every political tyrant said something similar. I can hear Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Vladimir Lenin telling their people. “In time you’ll learn to love Communism.”

Lone Ranger said...

I don't care what every other country in the world does or has or how perfect they are. KUDOS, NORTH KOREA! This country is supposed to be a country of the people, by the people, and for the people. The politicos in Washington did not include the people in their legislation process. They shut out everyone. That's liberty? Liberals have no idea what liberty is about.

Craig said...

The politicos in Washington did not include the people in their legislation process. They shut out everyone. That's liberty? Liberals have no idea what liberty is about.

In a Representative Republic we have these things every couple of years called elections. It's were 'We the people' get to choose who will represent us. We don't govern ourselves by referendum (except the commie state of CA). It's all right there in the Constitution if any of you Constitutional scholars bothered to read it. And yes, that is my idea of liberty.

Yes, you are right Joe, Obama lied. Even a blind nut finds a squirrel twice a day. He should have used the caveat, "If your plan meets the minimum ACA standards." About 70% of bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to medical costs. Half of that 70% are people with health insurance. The kind of junk plans the ACA is trying to get rid of. I'm sure all or most of those people liked their junk plans 'til they didn't. Until they needed real health ins.

They were free to buy junk ins., the ins. co.s were free to sell them and free to not cover certain things, place caps on coverage, find a preexisting condition when a claim was filed, deny hospital stays. All kinds of things in the fine print to ensure their freedom to make huge profits.

All that freedom until they get sick or injured, pushed into bankruptcy and have to rely on the state. Liberty doesn't mean you're free to do any damn thing you please. Living in a society means there are rules and regulations. If there are enough people who find them 'oppressive', they can vote in people who will change them. So far, you've failed.

Your, and the rest of the zealots, idea of liberty is closer to anarchy than what The Founders envisioned. We'll see how the ACA works or doesn't work. There is a way to get rid of it, win a damn election.

Joe said...

Craig: "...who will represent us."

They didn't.

Unless you consider "We know what you need better than you do so we'll do whatever we please. Never mind the actual wishes of our constituents." representation.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - Craig is right, you are wrong. As you are so fond of pointing out, we don't live in a Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic.

That means you don't get a vote on the day to day operations of the government. You get a vote on who will reprsent your District and your State, not you individually.

Once elected, that individual is free to exercise their own judgement on how to best represent their home District and State.

If you don't agree with their judgement, vote for someone else in the next election.

Joe said...

XO: You demonstrate your lack of understanding of the process. A person cannot represent my district unless he/she knows what his/her district wants. He is not suppose to vote his/her preference, but that of his/her district. The majority of scandals occur among those elected officials who don't do that.

Did you ever wonder why they "come home" during recess? Could the honest ones be wanting to know how their districts feel about an issue?

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - Sometimes, the person representing a District has to come to the realization that the people in his District are just stupid and wrong. In that event, the person should do what is right for the country instead of pandering to ignorant bigots.

Duckys here said...

Joe, can you address Craig's discussion of the cancelled plans?

If you do it will lead to the crux of the matter. If you support the idea of universal, reasonably priced and reasonably available health insurance then everyone has to buy in. It's actually something we need to do as responsible citizens.

You have stated that you are perfectly happy that your wife is not covered which is gross irresponsibility.

As Craig stated, your version of liberty is close to anarchy (unless you need a hip replacement) and the cursed liberals who post here are closer to a participatory government.

Duckys here said...

Joe was Allen West representing your district?

Just curious but I'm sure you've got someone just as cuckoo bananas.

Joe said...

Ducky: "...your wife is not covered which is gross irresponsibility."

Like most liberals, you draw conclusions without facts or by distorting them. You don't know why she doesn't have medical insurance and thus should not pre-judge. (Remember, you're suppose to be the guys who hate prejudice [which is pre-judging])

"...If you support the idea of universal, reasonably priced and reasonably available health insurance..."

What I support is universal, reasonably priced and reasonably available cars, houses, and furniture, all of which are essential in today's progressive society. They, like health insurance, are commodities (unlike freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly) that should be considered unalienable rights.

Duckys here said...

Joe, I rescind my comment on Bonnie's insurance status if it is a matter of religious belief.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, am I correct to understand that you believe a candidate has a duty to vote the way his state, or district wants him to vote, regardless of whether or not he agrees with them, or the morality of the issue?

Joe said...

DM: "...or the morality of the issue?" There you go, doing the liberal thing again. I never said he should do something immoral.

Whenever it does not violate the law, and is not immoral he should follow the wishes of his constituents as best he can. That is the way a republic works.

To just do what you want to do after elected is a parlimentary form of government. We don't do that here.