Alan Simpson called Bill Maher homophobic on his show a few years back know....take what this guys says with a grain of salt.
Hey Mudede?

I realize English isn't your first language, or even one in which you're proficient. I realize that the echoing void between your ears wouldn't permit reading comprehension even if you were fluent in the language of Shakespeare. I realize that you're a sad pathetic excuse for an intellectual wannabe clinging to an economic theory shown to fail in every single place it's been tried.

But what Simpson said was that those who can't compromise have rocks for brains, not that Republicans do.

Sure, Republicans will have to accept higher tax rates and idiotic social programs as, in the first instance, a way out of our fiscal mess and in the second a sop to the halfwit democrats who think cradle to grave nanny states workable. (Despite all the evidence to the contrary in Europe, South and Central America and the defunct USSR.)

And the socialist party, the Democrats, will have to understand tha general austerity is required in addition to revenue growth to solve the massive debts and deficits we face.

But that means both sides need to act in good faith, not just Republicans. Simpson is right. A legislator hasn't got the luxury of ideological purity if he or she wants to do their job. But that accusation could be leveled with equal force at Teabagger Republicans and Bawney Fwank type socialist America haters.
Alan Simpson (Simpleton?) and Fareed Zakaria --- two jackholes I always pay attention to ----

NOT ! ! !

"But what Simpson said was that those who can't compromise have rocks for brains, not that Republicans do."

And yet you are the one claiming that Romney should not pay a single penny more in taxes for defense because a single penny tax increase on Romney is worth more than 10 dead soldiers.

"But that means both sides need to act in good faith, not just Republicans."

I don't think "good faith" means what you would like it to mean.

How many Republicans have signed Grover Norquist's "no tax" pledge?
How many Democrats have signed it?

And how enthusiastically have you ranted (in these forums) against tax increases on Romney?

Geez, who put his spiked heels in your balls this morning? Get a grip already.
"...those who can't compromise have rocks for brains, not that Republicans do."

That this is a distinction without a difference is Simpson's point.

There may be Republicans willing in principle to do old school compromise but they aren't willing because the GOP is entirely captured by ideologues who will primary their asses if they do.
Notice how the guy who actually had a career in politics understands that compromise is part of the process? Compare and contrast to pundits and commentators on both sides who refuse to even consider compromise -- a stance popular among those who will never be in a position to have their convictions tested.

Ideological purity and representative government are incompatible. Those who refuse to budge even an inch may well be demonstrating the force of their convictions, but they are also, whether they know it or not, demonstrating their contempt for democracy.
Didn't capitalism already read the writing on the wall in 1929? And again in the 1880s? And before that in the 1810s? Why should now be any different?
@2, you're a half-wit. He IS talking about Republicans.

The kind of Republicans you think you're referring to no longer exist. Simpson himself notes that because of his views on this subject he's now a "Republican In Name Only". He's not calling out just teabaggers; he's calling out Grover Norquist -- your fucking hero.

Your ridiculous lisping dig at Barney Frank just shows what a useless automaton of a human being you are.
@8: good call. I should've done the same.
Don't be so hard on poor Seattleblahs. We're the only family he has.
@12, If we are family then who were the parents who decided not to abort the freak?
Simpson's remarks really don't have anything to do with capitalism.
simpson bowles had it's head up it's ass, too.

america's (main) budget problem is its bloated military and the 2 unfunded, pointless wars that have flushed a trillion down a black hole, not to mentioned killed 100s of 1000s.

and no one in power has the balls to say it out loud.

Cato, he's the love child of Newt Gingrich and Phyllis Schlafly. The less spoken of it, the better....
Simpson only claims to be willing to compromise because the Democratic leadership indicated they are willing to negotiate on the basis of the far right wing Simpson-Bowles plan. Simpson-Bowles lowers taxes on the wealthy, increases taxes on the middle class, cuts SS and Medicare as well as other social programs and only makes symbolic cuts to the military. Once your opponents have accepted your framing of issues, there is little risk in claiming you are willing to compromise. Remember that the causes of the deficit, in order of importance are: "the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without the recession and these policy changes, the deficit would barely exist" (Economic Policy Institute). It is clear that Simpson has no intention to tackle the causes of the deficit but is trying to implement the US version of the shock doctrine.

I'll predict a split in the Democratic party if Obama and Co support Simpson-Bowles as they have indicated they would.…
@12 and 13

My parents, my siblings and my wife are decent people. They don't hate marriage. They don't hate morality. They don't hate family.
They work rather than whining about finding jobs. They pay their bills rather than blaming the utility or mortgage or auto financing company for billing them. They raise their kids rather than asking others to do so. They plan their retirement rather than whining about how they can't afford it. Basically, they're adults.

All of which is to say, they aren't Democrats.

You folks aren't in any sense my family. You aren't even in the same moral universe.

Were I to find a liberal wounded by the road I'd give them the number for one of their endless government programs, rather than help myself. After all, government is the solution to all possible problems and nobody has responsibility for their own in your philosphy, so it would seem to be what the liberal would want, amiright?
The Simpson Bowles Plan or as I like to call it "Cat Food for Seniors" or "Senior Housing Under the Bridge".

Yeah, Obama will sign off on will be his version of Clinton's "changing welfare as we know it"

And are so funny when you get all upset and pouty. Banging on your keyboard all angry like! It makes me laugh, and cry a little to at the sadness of it all.
There, there, Seattleblahs. I'm on your side, remember? Haven't I always complimented you on your rich inner life? I think it's wonderful that you choose to share it with us, and it's so much less expensive than a therapist, isn't it?

Sorry, that was a bit touchy. As a gesture, and to return the compliment, a plastic mannequin would seem to be the ideal symbol for you. Well chosen.

Oh, and Cato the infinitely inferior, I hope you enjoy Memorial Day tomorrow and spend some time honoring the men and women who defended your right to hate this country and spread a lot of calumny about it. I'll pass along your gratitude to my brothers, brother in law, and father for you for their service, shall I?
Bowles made an interesting comment about paying interest on the national debt, If I correctly recall, he indicated that interest amount to around US$240 billion per year and is increasing.

He mentioned that the interest paid is (primarily) going to pay for the benefit of borrowers in Asia. I believe this is completely incorrect assumption on his part. Somebody correct me if I a wrong, however the vast majority of the debt and interest is not due to foreign borrowers but to
the Social Security Trust Fund. Thru the years, Congress has borrowed from the fund and issued US govenment bonds in return. The trust fund has been receiving interest on the borrowing in return. Kid of like raiding the cookie jar and
wiping the crumbs from your mouth back into the jar after consuming the cookies.....
"Were I to find a liberal wounded by the road I'd give them the number for one of their endless government programs, rather than help myself."

And yet you invest your time defending Romney from paying one penny more in taxes. Because you believe that 10 dead soldiers are worth less than a single penny tax increase on someone with $250 million.

Meanwhile Jesus spoke of a "good Samaritan" who cared for a wounded person who would otherwise have hated the Samaritan. Guess you don't measure up to Jesus' standards.
@18, Medicare and Medicaid costs are going to increase as a fraction of GDP because health care costs are going through the roof. Whether we pay for it through our taxes or out of pocket, someone will pay for it, unless you plan on more people (59 million at present) going without health care. Of course, the obvious solution is to cut the middle man (single payer healthcare), but we wouldn't want to do that; it'd be unfair to the insurance sector making obscene profits on people getting sick.

"there's no correlation between what things cost and what is charged," said Paul Keckley, executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions…
@23 the funny thing is our own government is the biggest threat to its own citizens. whatever the troops are doing in the middle east right now(im guessing shooting at brown people) it's NOT defending us from any foreign threat because there aren't any. and the government doesnt even give a shit about them!!!LOLOLOL
And old people are the ones who can be depended on to vote.....
@31: well, we could ask EVERY OTHER western democracy and see.
@31, I didn't think there was the need to say that single payer shouldn't be run on the basis of no bid cost plus contracts like the MIC gravy train is managed, but there is little doubt that Medicare is much more efficient than private insurance (even more so before Medicare part D, i.e. when Bush gave $400 billion to drug companies). Medicare costs have increased at ~2/3 the rate of increase of the private sector over the last 15 years.
Ken, lovely:. Might I take a swing at answering that?

Defense issues generally, and the wars in particular, have very little to to with the average American. Halliburton's excesses are, if anything, just a miscellaneous sort of irritation, for we are not directly paying for these stupid, unnecessary wars.

However, if we have a direct service that is billed by the government to us (whether that be municipal, county, state, or federal) the curiosity and the Moral Outrage comes bubbling to the surface. One only needs to take notice of the theatrics associated with any "Get Jesse" or Robert Mack righteous ang-o-rama broadcast to know what I mean.

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, (hopefully) Obamacare -all of them are, and will continue to be, under the same sort of scrutiny, and occasional simple-minded scandal, that the "defense" budget has never had to deal with. At least since that corrupt old fraud Reagan first bought his corporate funded medicine show to the national stage.

@34, Do you remember the $800-dollar-hammer-sold-to-the-Pentagon meme used by conservative pundits under Reagan to push for privatization of the military? because you know, the private sector is so much more efficient ...
"They don't hate marriage. They don't hate morality. They don't hate family. They work rather than whining about finding jobs. They pay their bills rather than blaming the utility or mortgage or auto financing company for billing them. They raise their kids rather than asking others to do so. They plan their retirement rather than whining about how they can't afford it."

Seattleblues, I do all those things too, and I'm not only a Democrat I'm a screamingly liberal one as well. You have your head so far up your ass it's embarrassing to all humans.
"In Britain the National Health Service will deliberately let you die if keeping you alive would cost to much."

Given the depth of the ignorance you have expressed on other issues, you're going to have to provide something more than your claim that that is the case.

"Canada doesn't formally ration care, but the waiting lists for some procedures are so long that a person can quite literally die of old age while before he or she gets to see a doctor."

I'm sure that that sentence means something in your head, but it is really meaningless.
If there is a 1 week delay for a procedure the patient can die "of old age" prior to the appointment date.

And yet there aren't too many Canadians willing to trade their situation for the USofA's model.
@37, As of January 2012, there were 113,000 private military contractors and 90,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan. 430 contractors died versus 418 soldiers in 2011 (contractor deaths are believed to be under-reported). Contractor deaths have outpaced that of soldiers in Iraq since 2009.…
Let me pose a scenario and a question to you, Kenny -

You've got a cancer that can only be cured via an incredibly expensive and experimental process. Unfortunately your new employer has a cut rate healthcare plan that is well known for denying any procedure that hasn't gained widespread acceptance in the medical community.

How long does it that sack of gravel you call a brain to realize the tired "government death panels" argument is pretty meaningless when we're currently stuck with a (virtually unaccountable) private sector that already excels at killing its customers?
You fail reading comprehension.

From that link:
"And it's true that in Canada and Britain, the two countries most often cited in discussions of what nationalized healthcare might mean, some patients report having to wait months for some elective treatments."

See the word "elective" there?

Also from that link:
"One of the ways the British and Canadians save money is to punt elective surgeries to a lower priority level."

Again, look up the word "elective" because it obviously does not mean what you believe it does.

Also from that article:
"When that very same survey also looked at cost problems among residents of different countries, 24% of Americans reported that they did not get medical care because of cost."

So you are claiming that a system where 24% do not receive medical care (for non-elective procedures) is the same or better than a system where all receive medical care but between 27% and 38% have to wait for elective procedures?

"You can read about how the British and the Canadians keep their citizens healthier at less cost by giving less medical care to old people here:"

I don't see where they are "giving less medical care to old people" in that article.
"Now, who gets health care via Medicare?"

You do know that every time you ask a rhetorical question that just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about and that you're hoping someone else will fill in the facts for you.…
Americans ages 65 and older
and younger people with disabilities
as well as people with end stage renal disease

Your ORIGINAL claim was:
"In Britain the National Health Service will deliberately let you die if keeping you alive would cost to much."

NOTHING you have provided has substantiated that claim.
Now you're resorting to rhetorical questions.

Meanwhile, the statistics seem to indicate that more Americans go without health care than people in Britain.

This "reading comprehension" thing doesn't work for you, does it?
Elective surgery, by definition, means 'not an emergency' so there is no relation between waiting for elective surgery and preventable death. As of 2003, the US ranked dead last in preventable death due to health care delivery among 16 OECD nations:…
"Based on the information in the article, can you see how adopting a national healthcare system like Britain's or Canada's would inevitably result in less medical care for old people?"

And NOW you're attempting to project your uninformed opinions into some future "fact".

How about showing how either of those systems result in LESS health care for their people TODAY than we have in the USofA TODAY?…
(stolen from @46)

Well the FACTS seem to be saying that MORE people receive health care under those systems and FEWER people die under those system due to NOT having health care.

Exactly the OPPOSITE of what you're claiming.

But facts don't apply to your opinions, do they?
Ken dear, I spent part of my former career designing billing systems for healthcare providers. Specifically the bit that sent invoices to insurance providers (whether they be public entities or private). Wanna guess who was always getting the screaming deals and who was always paying insanely padded rates?

Hint: the answer, like every other piece of evidence out there, makes you look like a blithering idiot.

Further, are you trying to tell me that Aetna/UHC/etc don't operate on budgets themselves? Hell - they also have expensive executive salaries, flash ad campaigns, armies of lobbyists and fidgety shareholders to worry about. There's a reason we pay so much for healthcare but wind up with relatively shoddy service.
"You aren't even in the same moral universe."

You're correct, because yours is utterly inferior and unworkable in a modern society. And what gall you have to claim a monopoly on family and work! You're a sociopathic asshole.
You'll notice Chuckie's not choosing to live under one of the regimes that supports his pseudo-intellectual rantings. Like the scum that he had to call "dad", he's merely pandering like his old man.
"And the socialist party, the Democrats,"

I suppose the Republicans are then the fascist party? They're not, of course, but by your logic they are. You're also an idiot, unable to see clear distinctions.
"What I'm arguing is that the government program that pays for healthcare for seniors is exceptionally generous."

That is very strange because your ORIGINAL claim was:
"In Britain the National Health Service will deliberately let you die if keeping you alive would cost to much."

Which you have not been able to substantiate.

Now you want to change that?
But the facts still contradict your claims.

Unless you want to redefine "generous" to mean "more people die in the USofA than in Britain or Canada".
"My claim is that old people get more medical care in this country than in Britain or Canada and that costs us a lot of money."

Strange, because your ORIGINAL claim was:
"In Britain the National Health Service will deliberately let you die if keeping you alive would cost to much."…

And the FACTS seem to indicate that FEWER people die in Britain than die in the USofA (from causes that can be medically ameliorated).

So, because the FACTS contradict you, you now want to re-write what you posted so you can still claim that you were correct when you posted:
"In Britain the National Health Service will deliberately let you die if keeping you alive would cost to much."
Actually, Ken, your argument is going all over the place. This is typically what happens with somebody who either has a poor command of the facts or simply chooses to ignore them. This is a popular debating tactic of pre-teens and GOPers.

I believe you were trying to make some point about healthcare rationing. I was simply trying to point out healthcare, like any limited commodity, will always be rationed. It's just a matter of who does the rationing. A group that's directly accountable to the general public and is subject to extensive scrutiny (i.e., Medicare) or a cartel of private groups who, while subject to a byzantine maze of regulations they themselves helped develop, are largely unaccountable.

Further, your arguments about unlimited budgets seem pretty stretched. Nobody's arguing that there's a infinite amount of money we can spend here. What's critical here is how efficiently that money is spent. Hence my point: Medicare/Medicaid is actually incredibly efficient with the money they spend. They have effectively used their scale to negotiate good rates and don't have nearly the same kind of overhead you'll see in the private sector.

That's not to say there isn't room for improvement. There are certainly some wonky parts to government insurance, but on the whole you're better off w/o private healthcare.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.