http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDdmtJCEWPA

Every TV station except for one, treats the guy like he's a God. Instead of being grateful, he never stops attacking the one station that doesn't worship him. Imagine if Bush obsessed over all the networks that bashed him. A thin-skinned, petty, vindictive, despot.

People @ Fox News are a bunch of Racist !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When you realize that all cable news stations are purposfully pandering to the left or the right, you might realize that you are being fed propaganda that fuels the polarization. It disgusts me. Both sides do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's disproportionately for the left though . I will give you an example from just yesterday .
The networks aired a segment where they interviewed a student that had successfully , according to the news, signed up for Obama care ( truly a noteworthy achievement ) . The problem was he turned out to be a former Obama campaign worker who actually didn't sign up.
Now... How do you think this erroneous reporting could have happened on so many news outlets?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When you realize that all cable news stations are purposfully pandering to the left or the right, you might realize that you are being fed propaganda that fuels the polarization. It disgusts me. Both sides do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In every prime-time slot on Foxnews, every single night, you see liberals and conservatives expressing both sides of every important issue. Foxnews is right-leaning, no doubt. But to suggest it is the mirror image of the other stations would be 100% incorrect. It is, by far, the closest thing you can find to balanced coverage. Which is what people want. Which is why they clobber everyone else in ratings.

In my opinion, most liberals don't want to have a serious, honest debate on most issues. Because when you do an honest, open-minded comparison of what both sides are actually saying (instead of taking Rachael Maddow's word for what conservatives are saying), much of the liberal agenda (not all of it) looks like somethig a spoiled 4 year-old would suggest. Gimme, gimme, gimme, don't talk to me about affordability or responsibility. That's why the other stations surround themselves with liberals, and demonize my side, rather than debatring. When Rachael Maddow wants to show the conservative opinion, she'll put a Klansmen on there, or a toothless cracker, to show everyone how contemptible we really are. She never has someone like CHarles Krauthammer on there, because she knows he would make her look like the idiot she is.

Last year around this time we had an opportunity to do something about this as a country. Now many are realizing the effect this presidency is going to have on our country. This legislation was supposed to be a victory for the middle class, this presidency was supposed to be a victory for the middle class. The divide is growing and the wealthy are doing what it takes to maintain their wealth regardless of how it affects the USA (that's why they are wealthy). The dollar is going to tank and we the middle class will be left to hold the bag.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And If I hear " wait and see which side blinks first" one more time from any of them including Fox I'm shutting off the news until this is over.
That's sort of rhetoric, from a news organization, is part of the problem our shallow politicians can't get anything done
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Amen buckman. I don't own a tv. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Amen buckman. I don't own a tv. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If I didn't have little kids, I wouldn't either!

And If I hear " wait and see which side blinks first" one more time from any of them including Fox I'm shutting off the news until this is over.
That's sort of rhetoric, from a news organization, is part of the problem our shallow politicians can't get anything done
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Whenever they say that, you can bet your last cent that they don't have anything to report, nothing to say, and are waiting to be told what to report.

Kind of what Obama would be like without a teleprompter!

Amen buckman. I don't own a tv. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You know I just might go that route myself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's sort of rhetoric, from a news organization, is part of the problem our shallow politicians can't get anything done
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Problem is we don't have a leader who will negotiate on what is best for the American people. A leader brings people together and gets things done for the sake of the people, not dig his heals in for the sake of his own agenda.
Divide and conquer.

Problem is we don't have a leader who will negotiate on what is best for the American people. A leader brings people together and gets things done for the sake of the people, not dig his heals in for the sake of his own agenda.
Divide and conquer.

I agree. What a sad state of affairs we have . Still more the half blame the Republicans.
And 18% are happy with the way the governments running right now.
It's a crazy world we live in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You know I just might go that route myself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's like finding inner peace. I get a lot more done without it. I will still watch a little netflix or Hbo on my laptop (thanks mom :) ) but that's it. I listen to NPR or read what news I chose to read online.

TV really does rot your brain. Especially the 24 hour news cycle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's like finding inner peace. I get a lot more done without it. I will still watch a little netflix or Hbo on my laptop (thanks mom :) ) but that's it. I listen to NPR or read what news I chose to read online.

TV really does rot your brain. Especially the 24 hour news cycle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually I have no time to watch it anyways, I waste too much time arguing with you knuckleheads
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And If I hear " wait and see which side blinks first" one more time from any of them including Fox I'm shutting off the news until this is over.
That's sort of rhetoric, from a news organization, is part of the problem our shallow politicians can't get anything done
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Too busy over the weekend to watch any news (other than the weather channel) or check on any news on the web. Pretty bad when you finally watch the morning news and its depressing.

Must be some good paid for advertising with hot chicks on at 7am. Its certainly more entertaining.

"TV because of little kids" ahhhh training the next minions to the talking picture box! Excellent!

Too busy over the weekend to watch any news (other than the weather channel) or check on any news on the web. Pretty bad when you finally watch the morning news and its depressing.

Must be some good paid for advertising with hot chicks on at 7am. Its certainly more entertaining.

"TV because of little kids" ahhhh training the next minions to the talking picture box! Excellent!

When you have one, you will understand the benefit of an episode of mickey mouse to get some #^&#^&#^&#^& done.

It is interesting that Fox news blows away all their competition in the ratings war.

"TV because of little kids" ahhhh training the next minions to the talking picture box! Excellent!

Yes, because I let them watch 12 hours a day, which is precisely what I said.

A little Sesame Strteet never hurt anybody...

It is interesting that Fox news blows away all their competition in the ratings war.

To be fair, part of that is because liberals have several TV stations (all of them except Foxnews) to choose from. So they are all splitting the liberal share. Fox, on the other hand, has a monopoly on the non-liberal viewpoint.

You'd think that a failing station like MSNBC might try to follow Fox's lead to eat into their ratings, but nope, they'd rather go down with the ship.

It is interesting that Fox news blows away all their competition in the ratings war.

Fox changed the game. They came in hard with a lot of big talent and pushed the sensationalized format that others have had to respond to. MSNBC went left and CNN shifted to the middle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To be fair, part of that is because liberals have several TV stations (all of them except Foxnews) to choose from. So they are all splitting the liberal share. Fox, on the other hand, has a monopoly on the non-liberal viewpoint.

You'd think that a failing station like MSNBC might try to follow Fox's lead to eat into their ratings, but nope, they'd rather go down with the ship.

Remember the days when you had to think for yourself when you watched the news? You got 30 minutes at 6:30 to listen to the tv and then you had to resort to the newspaper. There was also this thin called "investigative reporting". Now if you watch tv you have a 24 hour news cycle spitting out garbage opinions that you want to hear. Mostly negative.

I hate tv and I hate the news. It's the number one reason that this country is divided on so many issues.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Blame the web more than TV. It's allowed people with little to no credibility spout whatever they want and have it packaged as the real deal. Drudge is one of the worst offenders with a mass audience.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True. Very true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i see way too many news Anchors trying to be comedians
far to often with absolutely Horrendous jokes to
bother listening to any of them....

Fox News takes the cake for that and eats it too.

Google "Race Card Project"
Interesting spin on the CARD
If someone asks, I would say I am Norwegian, Swedish and the rest is Dutch and English.
But it seems if one of those ancestors was Black, it cancels out the rest.
Just in case you were wondering, in the case of a liberal politician that is a good thing.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but the Term Obamacare really should be renamed to Obamaswalloewdcare that way the uneducated American people could actually understand that the affordable health act is just a shadow of the single payer system that was wanted by the president. What we know as obamacare is a poorly designed law which was negotiated by both parties, passed both the house and the senate and has been signed into law. The shutdown is the equivalent of the starting pitcher leaving with the only game ball after the coach pulls him in the top of the 8th.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Forgive me if I'm wrong but the Term Obamacare really should be renamed to Obamaswalloewdcare that way the uneducated American people could actually understand that the affordable health act is just a shadow of the single payer system that was wanted by the president. What we know as obamacare is a poorly designed law which was negotiated by both parties, passed both the house and the senate and has been signed into law. The shutdown is the equivalent of the starting pitcher leaving with the only game ball after the coach pulls him in the top of the 8th.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Negotiated by both parties ? That's not how I remember it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fox changed the game. They came in hard with a lot of big talent and pushed the sensationalized format that others have had to respond to. MSNBC went left and CNN shifted to the middle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's so refreshing that we can freely admit, now, that "news" outlets are biased. For the longest time, pre-fox, we were admonished that complaints of network bias were unfounded. That anchors and reporters were all purely objective, and not to worry about undue influence toward liberal agendas.

All it took for us to admit the truth was the appearance of an interloper in the sanctimonious realm of "pure" journalism. Fox, the black sheep in this herd of the hallowed press, gained a following which was weaned from the "major" networks, and it had to be reckoned with. And the accusation of its right leaning bias exposed a true difference, at least in the eyes of those who finally could watch news without barfing.

The shutdown is the equivalent of the starting pitcher leaving with the only game ball after the coach pulls him in the top of the 8th.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The White House offered a one-year amnesty to companies. Meaning, companies could sign up for Obamacare if they wished to, but they would not be penalized for not signing up.

The GOP is asking that individuals get the same break. How is that unfair, particularly in light of the fact, the irrefutable fact, that most people cannot enroll even if they try to, because the system doesn't work? Are you OK with getting fined, because the administration couldn't connect a server?

And I thought liberals liked to get worked up about not putting the interests of corporations above those of the individual? Isn't that what the whole Occupy Wall Street movement was about? All the liberals supported them. Seems to me, that what the GOP is asking for, is exactly in line with the agenda of the Occupy Wall Street (that, and they wanted to be able to poop in the park, and to sack/pillage all surrounding businesses like the Vikings, but I digress).

It takes two to shut down. All Obama had to do, was be willing to give individuals the same break he was giving to Big Business. I would have thought Obama was OK with that notion.

Taxes and revenue continue to come in at record levels .
This is all BS and Constitutionally it's impossible to default.
I hope the few people in congress that are truly looking out for our future hold fast !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It takes two to shut down.

Funny, the majority of the population doesn't feel that way and is blaming the Repubs. much more than the Dems. Is extortion a way to negotiate?

Funny, the majority of the population doesn't feel that way and is blaming the Repubs. much more than the Dems. Is extortion a way to negotiate?

When your doing the right thing , you don't worry about what's in it for you.
Explain your last comment ? I'm confused
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Taxes and revenue continue to come in at record levels .
This is all BS and Constitutionally it's impossible to default.
I hope the few people in congress that are truly looking out for our future hold fast !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow, you've drank A LOT of Kool-Aid.

Buck, the Tea Party is holding the entire country hostage. Bohner has lost control and the PACs are openly threatenening any Republicans who plays ball.

The proposed House Bill that imploded yesterday was more about gaining talking points on the HCB than striking a deal.

Bohner and Cantor need to rally and quick.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow, you've drank A LOT of Kool-Aid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Explain how I'm wrong. Something like 200 billion coming in each month and like 20 billion in interest per month needs to be paid to prevent a default. That 20 billion has to be paid unless the President illegally orders the treasuries not to pay it . I believe that's how it works but your clearly the expert so learn me ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Explain how I'm wrong. Something like 200 billion coming in each month and like 20 billion in interest per month needs to be paid to prevent a default. That 20 billion has to be paid unless the President illegally orders the treasuries not to pay it . I believe that's how it works but your clearly the expert so learn me ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

First off, our total interest outlays are a lot more than 20 B a month, it's like 400 B for the entire year.

Second, you still have the fund the other 80% still running or the economy implodes. We don't keep all that much cash under the mattress.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

First off, our total interest outlays are a lot more than 20 B a month, it's like 400 B for the entire year.

Second, you still have the fund the other 80% still running or the economy implodes. We don't keep all that much cash under the mattress.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So your saying we can pay the dept but the rest is unsustainable on the income we generate , which at its current level is higher then ever before .
Sounds like your coming around.
Might even make you wonder how this can work if the dept hits 20 trillion by 2016 ,as projected ,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So your saying we can pay the dept but the rest is unsustainable on the income we generate , which at its current level is higher then ever before .
Sounds like your coming around.
Might even make you wonder how this can work if the dept hits 20 trillion by 2016 ,as projected ,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh yea, I'm coming around :rolleyes:

How does that equation look with a recession and less cashflow?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The proposed House Bill that imploded yesterday was more about gaining talking points on the HCB than striking a deal.

Bohner and Cantor need to rally and quick.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/16/jimmy-kimmel-on-the-republican-party-rift-video/

Funny, the majority of the population doesn't feel that way and is blaming the Repubs. much more than the Dems. Is extortion a way to negotiate?

Paul, you are correct that polls show that most blame the GOP. That doesn't make me wrong, when I say that (1) what the GOP is asking for, is not unreasonable, and that (2) Obama c ould have avoided the shutdown by agreeing to their reasonable demands.

Paul, a simple question...do YOU think it's unreasonable for the GOP to ask that Obama give the same break to individuals that he is giving to companies, especially since individuals cannot sign up even if they wanted to? Yes or no?

"Is extortion a way to negotiate?"

Funny. When the Wisconsin legialature was going to reduce union benefits, and all the Dems in the state senate fled the state to halt the vote, I don't recall all this backlash against them. In Texas, when that Democratic state rep fillibustered for 24 hours to prevent an anti-abortion bill, she was hailed as a hero. When democrate are in the minority, I keep heraing that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". When a black Democrat is in the white house, dissent is racist and extortion. IS that what you're saying?

I don't like the shutdown. I particularly don't like it when our petty, vindictive President goes to unimaginable lengths to make it as painful as possible for WWII vets and families of those killed in action. If you're OK with Obama's actions there, that's your right. But those actions are a betrayal of the most basic duties of his office. He's a disgrace.

Oh yea, I'm coming around :rolleyes:

How does that equation look with a recession and less cashflow?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Looks like my kid should start mandarin classes soon
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How does that equation look with a recession and less cashflow?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The future if we keep kicking the can down the road as you prefer to do .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Is extortion a way to negotiate?"

Funny. When the Wisconsin legialature was going to reduce union benefits, and all the Dems in the state senate fled the state to halt the vote, I don't recall all this backlash against them.There was plenty of backlash. I'm sure you even started threads about it. In Texas, when that Democratic state rep fillibustered for 24 hours to prevent an anti-abortion bill, she was hailed as a hero. so filibustering is the same as saying if you don't do everything we like, we'll close down the government ?:rotf2:When democrate are in the minority, I keep heraing that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". No one has said people don't have the right to dissent - it is the whiney, unreasonablness and crying that is going on that is turning people against the Repubs. in general and the TP in particular. When a black Democrat is in the white house, dissent is racist and extortion. IS that what you're saying?Who, other than you said it was racism? I'm sure some of the complaining of the Pres. has it's basis in racism but since that is difficult to prove, I don't recall people saying that. Do you have any links to any mainstream press articles calling it racism? I know that is thrown around a lot here, yet I don't see anyone actually saying it is b/c of racism. I do know that if there is crime committed against a white person by a black person, or if someone posts something about A. Sharpton/J. Jackson it brings people out of the woodwork who hardly ever post here.

I don't like the shutdown. I particularly don't like it when our petty, vindictive President goes to unimaginable lengths to make it as painful as possible for WWII vets and families of those killed in action. If you're OK with Obama's actions there, that's your right. But those actions are a betrayal of the most basic duties of his office. He's a disgrace.

So you want to pick and choose what should stay open or what aspects of the govern. should stay in force? Did the Pres. specifically do something to prevent the benefits paid to those families or are they not being paid bc of the lack of action of Repub. lead House?

i have ALIEN DNA

from those in the star system Sirius

therefore i am considered multi species human/alien :uhuh:

So you want to pick and choose what should stay open or what aspects of the govern. should stay in force? Did the Pres. specifically do something to prevent the benefits paid to those families or are they not being paid bc of the lack of action of Repub. lead House?

"Did the Pres. specifically do something to prevent the benefits paid"

Yes, he did. He chose not to sign an Executive Order to demand those payments be made. That was within his authority to do, and he chose not to do it. It's unbelievably cruel, an unthinkable betrayal.

"There was plenty of backlash. I'm sure you even started threads about it"

PaulS, here is my point, and read slowly because it's a valid point...there was no backlash from your side. There is only backlash when conservatives act like brats.

Paul, I answered your points. You, on the other hand, completely dodged a very simple yes or no question that I asked. So I'll ask it again. Please show me the same courtesy that I showed you, and answer my question, which is as follows...

do YOU think it's unreasonable for the GOP to ask that Obama give the same break to individuals that he is giving to companies, especially since individuals cannot sign up even if they wanted to? Yes or no?

"Who, other than you said it was racism?"

OK Paul. Now you are saying that no one claims that those who oppose Obama, do so because of racism? No one has said that? No one in Washington, no one in the media, not Jimmy Carter? No one has called the Tea Party racist? Obama himself, didn't say that the McCain campaign was going to try and make people afraid of the fact that he's black? Obama didn't say that?

Google it yourself if you can't be bothered to answer one yes/no question that I asked...

Paul, here is what then-canbdidate Obam asaid about John McCain in 2008...

"We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run,” said the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. “They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’"

McCain is a decent guy, a war hero who made unthinkable sacrifices for his country. He was generous enough to adopt a BLACK GIRL FROM A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY, and your hero said McCain was a racist.

When McCain didn't run a racist campaign, did Obama apologize? Did he admit he was wrong? Nope.

Have fun with that...

"Did the Pres. specifically do something to prevent the benefits paid"

Yes, he did. He chose not to sign an Executive Order to demand those payments be made. That was within his authority to do, and he chose not to do it. It's unbelievably cruel, an unthinkable betrayal.
So again, you want to pick and choose what should stay open - it was unbelievably cruel, an unthinkable betrayal that the TP choose to allow that vets. families not to be paid their benefits. The TP is a disgrace.:rotf2: I can think a lot of things both sides would have like to continue with.
"There was plenty of backlash. I'm sure you even started threads about it"

PaulS, here is my point, and read slowly because it's a valid point...there was no backlash from your side. There is only backlash when conservatives act like brats.So you want backlash from liberals when liberals acts like brats? Where is the conservative backlast now that conservatives are acting like brats?:rotf2: Read that again slowly so you understand.

Paul, I answered your points. You, on the other hand, completely dodged a very simple yes or no question that I asked. So I'll ask it again. Please show me the same courtesy that I showed you, and answer my question, which is as follows...

do YOU think it's unreasonable for the GOP to ask that Obama give the same break to individuals that he is giving to companies, especially since individuals cannot sign up even if they wanted to? Yes or no?They can ask for anything they want. Why wasn't the individual mandate postponed? Your an actuary so you should be able to figure it out. I'm surprised you aren't happy that he postponed part of it. Or is it that you'll complain about anything that he does?

"Who, other than you said it was racism?"

OK Paul. Now you are saying that no one claims that those who oppose Obama, do so because of racism? Who brought up racism in this thread? No one has said that? No one in Washington, no one in the media, not Jimmy Carter? No one has called the Tea Party racist? Weren't there many racist posters early on until the TP leadership types told people to tone it down? Don't a large % still believe he is Muslim? But this talk of racism is getting off track since I haven't seen anyone state the budget fight was a results of racism other you here. Obama himself, didn't say that the McCain campaign was going to try and make people afraid of the fact that he's black? Obama didn't say that?

Google it yourself if you can't be bothered to answer one yes/no question that I asked...

NM

I don't the Obama coulda have done anything on death benefits via executive order without Congressional approval. Just because he's POTUS doesn't mean he can spend money illegally. They either had to do it via legislation or as they ended up doing through an outside channel.

To say this was cruel is a silly vain attempt to create a division between the Commander in Chief and the troops just to score a few political points. That on it's own is pathetic.

By this is the GOP we have today, nothing is too costly if it reinforces the dream world some Republicans appear to be living in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Redo in 3 months . Cowards .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Redo in 3 months . Cowards .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

House still has to pass it.

But even then were just going to get another LSD inspired push to defund the HCB that's never going to happen...instead of some actual negotiation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

NM

Paul -

Twice, I asked you a very simple yes or no question. Both times you dodged. If my beliefs were so flimsy, that I could get boxed into a corner with such a simple yes/no question, I would take a long, hard look at why I believe what I believe.

I'll leave it at that.

I don't the Obama coulda have done anything on death benefits via executive order without Congressional approval. Just because he's POTUS doesn't mean he can spend money illegally. They either had to do it via legislation or as they ended up doing through an outside channel.

To say this was cruel is a silly vain attempt to create a division between the Commander in Chief and the troops just to score a few political points. That on it's own is pathetic.

By this is the GOP we have today, nothing is too costly if it reinforces the dream world some Republicans appear to be living in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I don't the Obama coulda have done anything on death benefits via executive order without Congressional approval."

Then you would be 100% wrong. That's what an executive order, something the executive can order, unilaterally. Spence, you need to get in the habit of getting some facts before you spout off that your hero is innocent.

"To say this was cruel is a silly vain attempt "

Tell that to the families. Like your ghero, you are unable to put yourself in their shoes, because like your hero, you have nohting but disdain for them. If you don't htink that denying death benefits, when he could have restored them with a stroke of the pen, is cruel, that's your right.

It was the denial of benefits, and the barricading of open-air parks, which was a pathetic, vain attempt to score political points. And clearly it worked on you.

Get some facts, before you invent pro-Obama jibberish. Executive Orders. Look it up.

" They either had to do it via legislation "

Wrong on the facts. Google "Obama Executive Order", and you'll see that he has signed a few, which reults in money getting spent on things he wants, without legislative approval. Or maybe try enrolling in a high school civics class before invent pro-Obama fantasies...

It was about $3 million in benefits that he denied. Less than he spends on one of his many, typical, czar-like vacations. Nice!

House still has to pass it.

But even then were just going to get another LSD inspired push to defund the HCB that's never going to happen...instead of some actual negotiation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is LSD covered ?
I would be wiling to bet Obama and friends are more likely to have experimented then Cruz and company ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I don't the Obama coulda have done anything on death benefits via executive order without Congressional approval."

Then you would be 100% wrong. That's what an executive order, something the executive can order, unilaterally. Spence, you need to get in the habit of getting some facts before you spout off that your hero is innocent.

"To say this was cruel is a silly vain attempt "

Tell that to the families. Like your ghero, you are unable to put yourself in their shoes, because like your hero, you have nohting but disdain for them. If you don't htink that denying death benefits, when he could have restored them with a stroke of the pen, is cruel, that's your right.

It was the denial of benefits, and the barricading of open-air parks, which was a pathetic, vain attempt to score political points. And clearly it worked on you.

Get some facts, before you invent pro-Obama jibberish. Executive Orders. Look it up.

" They either had to do it via legislation "

Wrong on the facts. Google "Obama Executive Order", and you'll see that he has signed a few, which reults in money getting spent on things he wants, without legislative approval. Or maybe try enrolling in a high school civics class before invent pro-Obama fantasies...

It was about $3 million in benefits that he denied. Less than he spends on one of his many, typical, czar-like vacations. Nice!

Show me an executive order that spends money not already approved by another mechanism.

Show me some real analysis that the exec order was legal and at his disposal.

I believe the DoD already did a legal review and told the WH congressional action would be required for the money to come through the normal channel.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul -

Twice, I asked you a very simple yes or no question. Both times you dodged. If my beliefs were so flimsy, that I could get boxed into a corner with such a simple yes/no question, I would take a long, hard look at why I believe what I believe.

I'll leave it at that.

If I asked you do you still beat your wife and said that you had to answer with a simple yes or no, would (or could) you?

Negotiated by both parties ? That's not how I remember it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If it wasn't we have a single payer health care system now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If I asked you do you still beat your wife and said that you had to answer with a simple yes or no, would (or could) you?

Apples and oranges. Read slowly and you'll seee why...

(1) I don't beat my wife

(2) The GOP is, in fact, asking Obama to treat individuals the same way he's treating businesses.

Yours was a trick question. Mine was not.

And you should go back and read my initial response.

Show me an executive order that spends money not already approved by another mechanism.

Show me some real analysis that the exec order was legal and at his disposal.

I believe the DoD already did a legal review and told the WH congressional action would be required for the money to come through the normal channel.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How come when I say "he could have restored payments with executive order", you ask for proof. But when you say "I believe the DoD already did a legal review and told the WH congressional action would be required", you want us to take your word? Why is that?

In any event, here is an executive order signed buy Obama, to increase the scope and mission of Homeland Security. It invlilved increased funding.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-signs-new-executive-order-expanding-homeland-security-mission-the-u-s

And you should go back and read my initial response.

I did. You said they acould ask for anythiing they want. That didn't even come close to answering the question that was asked. I didn't ask you if the GOP had the authority to ask. My question was whether or not their request was reasonable?

Do you not see the difference?

Apples and oranges. Read slowly and you'll seee why...

(1) I don't beat my wife

(2) The GOP is, in fact, asking Obama to treat individuals the same way he's treating businesses.

Yours was a trick question. Mine was not.

While you're playing with your fruit I'd note that number two is on its own a trick question. The need for the two mandates is not the same.

Without the individual mandate you're going to get a majority of sick people signing up for healthcare which is going to create a dramatic rise in costs. It's fundamental to the plan...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

While you're playing with your fruit I'd note that number two is on its own a trick question. The need for the two mandates is not the same.

Without the individual mandate you're going to get a majority of sick people signing up for healthcare which is going to create a dramatic rise in costs. It's fundamental to the plan...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The GOP made a request.

I asked him if he though tthe request was reasonable.

That could only be called a trick question by someone who doesn't want to answer that question,m because then you have to choose between supporting fairness, or supporting your man-crush.

"Without the individual mandate you're going to get a majority of sick people signing up for healthcare "

Why doesn't that apply to small businesses? How is that any different from the many, many 1-man businesses that are out there? If I own my own business, I also have a big incentive to enroll if I'm sick, or to not enroll if I'm healthy, right?

How come when I say "he could have restored payments with executive order", you ask for proof. But when you say "I believe the DoD already did a legal review and told the WH congressional action would be required", you want us to take your word? Why is that?

In any event, here is an executive order signed buy Obama, to increase the scope and mission of Homeland Security. It invlilved increased funding.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-signs-new-executive-order-expanding-homeland-security-mission-the-u-s

Did create new spending or just allocate previously approved spending?

What's the legal basis to show that a death benefit meets the same burden as critical national defense to justify continued spending?

How do you separate death benefits from all other veterans benefits?

And executive order isn't a magic wand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did. You said they acould ask for anythiing they want. That didn't even come close to answering the question that was asked. I didn't ask you if the GOP had the authority to ask. My question was whether or not their request was reasonable?

Do you not see the difference?

See below for what you originally asked. You didn't ask if their request was reasonable, you asked if it is "unreasonable for the GOP to ask ......" If you had asked that, I would have told you that w/o the individual mandate, the whole thing falls apart. Only a small amount of businesses where impacted by the postponement.



Paul, a simple question...do YOU think it's unreasonable for the GOP to ask that Obama give the same break to individuals that he is giving to companies, especially since individuals cannot sign up even if they wanted to? Yes or no?

you have to choose between supporting fairness, or supporting your man-crush.



You can't help yourself but insult any one who doesn't agree with you:uhuh:

You can't help yourself but insult any one who doesn't agree with you:uhuh:

You called the Tea Party whiney and unreasonable. Your words.

So did i miss the announcement that only you get to insult those with whom you disagree?

What's the legal basis to show that a death benefit meets the same burden as critical national defense to justify continued spending?

How do you separate death benefits from all other veterans benefits?

And executive order isn't a magic wand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"What's the legal basis to show that a death benefit meets the same burden as critical national defense to justify continued spending?
"

Spence, since you demanded proof from me, allow me to retort. Where is your evidence that every Executive Order needs to be as vital to national interests as the one I posted? Obama has signed many Executive Orders, with varying degrees of importance. You can gtoogle it, I'm sure.

"How do you separate death benefits from all other veterans benefits?"

I don't know. I don't know what other veterans benbefits were cut. But I know it's inhumane to deny those benefits at a time when your Dear Leader is taking record amounts of tax revenue from the citizenry, and he uses large chunks of that to go on the most expensive vacations imaginable. Priorities, I guess...

Maybe if you had chosen to serve in the military during a timne of war, you'd have a small grasp of the level of betrayal that represents.

"And executive order isn't a magic wand."

It is if it's legal. And NO ONE would have challenged an executive order that reinstated those payments. No one. Very, very few people are capable of such a total lack of empathy. And the vast majority who are capable of it, are on your side. Kudos.

You called the Tea Party whiney and unreasonable. Your words.

So did i miss the announcement that only you get to insult those with whom you disagree?

Sorry, am I supposed to insert the nodding smiley face when I eviscerate your post?

Here goes.


:uhuh:

Did create new spending or just allocate previously approved spending?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Has Obama created one cent of new spending in his 5 years? I hadn't noticed...

The death benefit I believe is paid from the Pentagon out of the defense budget. Someone made the decision that this be cut. I don't believe it needed an Executive Order to be restored ,the money just had to be reallocated within the defense budget.
I stand by my assertion that under Rumsfeld this never would've happened .
This is what happens when you have amateurs running the show.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The death benefit I believe is paid from the Pentagon out of the defense budget. Someone made the decision that this be cut. I don't believe it needed an Executive Order to be restored ,the money just had to be reallocated within the defense budget.
I stand by my assertion that under Rumsfeld this never would've happened .
This is what happens when you have amateurs running the show.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
During the shutdown the DoD budget was divided into exempt and non exempt functions. They didn't see the death benefits as being covered by law.

Saying that Rummy would have never let it happened is silly, you have no way of knowing that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

During the shutdown the DoD budget was divided into exempt and non exempt functions. They didn't see the death benefits as being covered by law.

Saying that Rummy would have never let it happened is silly, you have no way of knowing that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you're wrong. So who set the budget computers? What kind of person sits there and creates that budget and sets that aside to be cut?
I stand by my statement. Not somebody like Rumsfeld!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What kind of person sits there and creates that budget and sets that aside to be cut?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is the key question. It's hard to imagine, isn't it? Cutting death benefits in a time of war, when the amount cut is far less than Obama spends on a typical vacation. Stupifying.

Not only would it never have happened under Rumsfeld, it never would have happened under Bill Clinton. He had no personal morals, but he had some clue of what an executive has to do.

You called the Tea Party whiney and unreasonable. Your words.

So did i miss the announcement that only you get to insult those with whom you disagree?

So was it personal and directed directly at you like your insults usually are?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, am I supposed to insert the nodding smiley face when I eviscerate your post?

Here goes.


:uhuh:

Really, your suppose to be an actuary and you don't even know what anti selection is? pls tell me how you "eviscerated" my posts. This should be funny. Pls. Make sure your sentences are clear this time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is the key question. It's hard to imagine, isn't it? Cutting death benefits in a time of war, when the amount cut is far less than Obama spends on a typical vacation. Stupifying.

Not only would it never have happened under Rumsfeld, it never would have happened under Bill Clinton. He had no personal morals, but he had some clue of what an executive has to do.

You guys are really talking out of your asses here. DoD lawyers reviewed the law and didn't think the payments were legal. It's a felony to spend government funds not appropriated by congress. This has been widely reported.

So far you've produced nothing to counter this and instead resort to tired ad hominem attacks.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

-spence

Really, your suppose to be an actuary and you don't even know what anti selection is? pls tell me how you "eviscerated" my posts. This should be funny. Pls. Make sure your sentences are clear this time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hear what you are saying about anti-selection (the correct term is adverse selection). I'm just not sure I see the difference between the impact of individuals getting a year amnesty, versus small businesses.

It's also interesting that as a liberal, you are saying (with some validity) that it's OK to give corporations a break, but not the individual. because people on your side have a tendency for beating up those on my side, and accuse us of caring more about corporations than we care about individuals.

I'm actually in favor of requiring everyone to buy some basic level of insurance. For the reasons you say (many sick people are not responsible for being sick, so it's absolutely fair to pool that cost with those who are healthy). No one chooses to have pancreatic cancer, so I have no problem with pooling the cost of their care with healthy people who merely got lucky.

I just don't like the feds being so involved. And I don't like the way it was passed ("let's pass the bill, and then we'll see what's in it"). I also don't see why you'd pass health reform without enacting serious and fair tort reform, which is one thing that would actually reduce costs. Nothing in Obamacare can possibly reduce costs, and it was dishonestly marketed as something that would lower costs.

You guys are really talking out of your asses here. DoD lawyers reviewed the law and didn't think the payments were legal. It's a felony to spend government funds not appropriated by congress. This has been widely reported.

So far you've produced nothing to counter this and instead resort to tired ad hominem attacks.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

-spence

Please support your claim that Obama could not have fixed this with an executive order.

You are the one who has come up with one fabricated, desperate excuse after another, to justify this. Spence, one day, go to a military funeral, and maybe you'll learn something tat you won't learn by watching MSNBC or by reading The Daily Worker.

Spence, I just looked for support of your claim that lawyers determined that it would have been illegal to make those payments. I found nothing. Can you show us your evidence?

Even if that's true (and that's a very big if), since when did laws stop democrats from doing what they believe is just? For example, liberals support the disobedience of laws dealing with immigration. Don't our KIA's deserve the same courtesy as illegal aliens? You have fun with that one.

The death benefit I believe is paid from the Pentagon out of the defense budget. Someone made the decision that this be cut. I don't believe it needed an Executive Order to be restored ,the money just had to be reallocated within the defense budget.
I stand by my assertion that under Rumsfeld this never would've happened .
This is what happens when you have amateurs running the show.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You mean like all the help he gave returning vets? Oh right he didn't.
It took groups like Wounded Warrior Project and a new president for all these guys coming home to actually get real help.

During Rummy's watch, guys suffering PTSD were offered 3 psych visits and thats it, no followup no nothing.

Rumsfeld didn't give a flying #^&#^&#^&#^& about the guys coming home. He did nothing for them.

You mean like all the help he gave returning vets? Oh right he didn't.
It took groups like Wounded Warrior Project and a new president for all these guys coming home to actually get real help.

During Rummy's watch, guys suffering PTSD were offered 3 psych visits and thats it, no followup no nothing.

Rumsfeld didn't give a flying #^&#^&#^&#^& about the guys coming home. He did nothing for them.

Yea, but the government was fully funded back then. Had the government been shut down things would certainly been different.

Rummy wouldn't share a foxhole with Obama, that's for sure.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Rummy wouldn't share a foxhole with Obama, that's for sure.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When Buckman made a complimentary assumption about Rummy, you chastised him, saying he "had no way of knowing that". How is your comment any different?

Oh, I forgot. Because racisthatecrimeintolerantwaronwomenwrongsideofhist oryteabagger...

I hear what you are saying about anti-selection (the correct term is adverse selection). I'm just not sure I see the difference between the impact of individuals getting a year amnesty, versus small businesses. There were relatively few business' impacted by the 1 year delay while there are many many indiv. who would have been impacted (much more than w/the businesses). Given that the individual mandate is really the core of the whole program, w/o those individuals (really the healthy individuals) the whole thing would have fallen apart.

I'm actually in favor of requiring everyone to buy some basic level of insurance. For the reasons you say (many sick people are not responsible for being sick, so it's absolutely fair to pool that cost with those who are healthy). No one chooses to have pancreatic cancer, so I have no problem with pooling the cost of their care with healthy people who merely got lucky. I agree. I would have thought a very high deductible plan with some sort of preventive benefit would have been the way to go. I guess people would complain that they then would be made aware of some illness but still not be able to afford the treatment b/c they have say a $10K deductible.

I just don't like the feds being so involvedvalid point, but I don't know how else to achieve more coverage.. And I don't like the way it was passed ("let's pass the bill, and then we'll see what's in it"). I also don't see why you'd pass health reform without enacting serious and fair tort reform, which is one thing that would actually reduce costs. Nothing in Obamacare can possibly reduce costs, and it was dishonestly marketed as something that would lower costs.

There are a lot of other things we can do to lower costs (including some sort of tort reform) but they won't be put into law for a # of reasons. in my opinion we're never going to lower costs as long as hospitals/drug companies can charge whatever they want. But you can't stop that in a free market society.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

-spence

Spence, WTH is that? LOL ,you goin all Ciammerizing on us? :huh:

Spence, WTH is that? LOL ,you goin all Ciammerizing on us? :huh:

It's French, the language of diplomacy. No wonder you guys don't recognize it :devil2: :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's French, the language of diplomacy. No wonder you guys don't recognize it :devil2: :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unfortunately for America, the GOP negotiates like the French do :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unfortunately for America, the GOP negotiates like the French do :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

By language of diplomacy", Spence is politely saying it's the language of surrender.

Back in the very early stages of the First Gulf War, at one point, the French decided they were sitting it out. A reporter asked General Norman Schwartzkoff what he thought of moving ahead without the French.

I will never, ever forget his reply..."going to war without the French, is like going deer hunting without your accordian."

There are a lot of other things we can do to lower costs (including some sort of tort reform) but they won't be put into law for a # of reasons. in my opinion we're never going to lower costs as long as hospitals/drug companies can charge whatever they want. But you can't stop that in a free market society.

Paul, I have to disagree with your last sentence. First of all, we are well into transforming our society from a free market to a government regulated one.

Secondly, in a free market, prices are not established by whatever the seller wants. Prices, in a free market, reach equilibrium when both seller and buyer agree. Government intervention in the business process and by price regulations, when excessive, destroy free markets, transforming them into command economies. Then price equilibriums are not possible, and the demand supply function is distorted to fit rigid patterns outlined by government fiat. Supply dwindles and prices rise. The price "signals" that business uses to determine output and feasibility are replaced by a host of regulatory demands that hide the "free market" portion of transactions which are buried under the cost of fulfilling the regulations.

In a free market, it is actually easier to lower prices if that is what reaches the equilibrium between seller and buyer. In a command economy that free exchange is eliminated and replaced by third party directives. In the case of socialistic governments the goal, supposedly, is to equalize outcomes for everybody. The one size fits all model. Prices, supply and demand, choice . . . and freedom . . . are irrelevant.

When I wrote that I was thinking along the lines of the government negotating the prices of drugs that it purchases through Medicare. I'm pretty sure that they are prohibited from doing so. I also think that in many other countries the govern. negotiates the prices of drugs and services and there may not be any 3rd parties (insurers). I think they also regulate things like what/how many hospitals can perform cat scans and negotiate with the seller what they'll pay for that equipment. So if Medicare negs. the cost of drugs does the cost curve still get altered given there are still 3rd parties? Also, with the price of some drugs over $100,000 per year or treatment as they may be under patent, isn't the supplt/demand curve being altered?

There are a lot of other things we can do to lower costs (including some sort of tort reform) but they won't be put into law for a # of reasons. in my opinion we're never going to lower costs as long as hospitals/drug companies can charge whatever they want. But you can't stop that in a free market society.

"but they won't be put into law for a # of reasons. "

For tort reform, there is only one thing stopping it...the Democratic party is pandering to the Trial Lawyers Lobby. I will freely admit that too many on my side are beholden to the NRA. Likewise, too many on your side are in the employ of the Trial Lawyers Lobby.

"as long as hospitals/drug companies can charge whatever they want."

I don't believe the hospitals/drug/companies are charging outrageous fees, not when you consider the underlying cost of the service provided. If they were simply price gouging, someone would simply open another hospital, charge a bit less, and acquire 100% share, becoming a billionaire in the process. I don't think they can lower prices much, not if we want them to provide current levels of service. I could be wrong.

I don't think the problem is entirely caused by the sticker price that the providers put on their services. The problem is the underlying cost. I have no idea how to lower the underlying cost (other than tort reform), but IMHO, that's the culprit. The prices are high because the cost of the service provided, is high.

It's French, the language of diplomacy. No wonder you guys don't recognize it :devil2: :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Never took French in school, what for? Only thing I remember about the French language was Je me rends, permet de negocier , and Patton's quote, "Id rather have a German Division in front of me then a French one behind me."
Not that as an "ugly American" I don't like the French. LOL

When I wrote that I was thinking along the lines of the government negotating the prices of drugs that it purchases through Medicare. I'm pretty sure that they are prohibited from doing so. I also think that in many other countries the govern. negotiates the prices of drugs and services and there may not be any 3rd parties (insurers). I think they also regulate things like what/how many hospitals can perform cat scans and negotiate with the seller what they'll pay for that equipment. So if Medicare negs. the cost of drugs does the cost curve still get altered given there are still 3rd parties? Also, with the price of some drugs over $100,000 per year or treatment as they may be under patent, isn't the supplt/demand curve being altered?

Government becomes the third party if it negotiates prices for individuals. And when it mandates that everyone over a certain age must enroll in one of its plans (e.g. Medicare, etc.) it is not only a negotiator, it is a master regulator of the market, so it can alter the cost curve far more than private third party negotiators.

All third party payers alter the curve because a false price equilibrium is established between the third party and the seller. It can be an advantage for those who contract with a third party payer if the market price is based on what average individuals could afford and be willing to pay out of pocket which is the true equilibrium in a free market. But when third party pay becomes the norm, the price curve shifts in the direction of what the third party can and wishes to pay. And the individuals who contract with the third party will no longer have much to say about it, and will be at a disadvantage without third party help. And prices will escalate beyond their ability to pay. And when the third party can control prices, and can regulate what and in what manner drugs are produced, and has as the regulator an agency such as the FDA which can be and is influenced by lobbyists to create such stringent regulations that competition becomes economically impossible, some astronomical prices can and do occur. Our government has been at the forefront of creating higher costs in the medical field through its mandates and regulations for many years. It creates a problem by supposedly "solving" another problem as, for instance, forcing hospitals by law to accept patients whether they can pay or not, creating a cost/price distortion in the market, as well as doing so with various other medical regulations including the overly stringent process of bringing drugs to market and the crony capitalist favoring of big pharma as well as a constant flow of new regulations on the various suppliers to the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Then the government seizes on the new problem, which it has manipulated into being, by even greater seizure of control so that all will be "affordable" to the individuals who have long ago been taken out of true price equilibrium (their ability and desire to pay for goods and services). And, magically prices go up even higher. Of course, that problem will be solved down the line, by government, and it will have total control of the medical field. And we know that government is the leader in innovation, and in new, smart things. And, as Nancy Pelosi said, then the people will be able to do the things their hearts desire, such as write music or novels or make paintings or whatever. Government will make it so. And as the third, or rather, the only payer/regulator, it has unlimited pockets to pay. And as for a minor item such as the national debt, pshaw! It will somehow find a way to forgive the debt. Perhaps it will finally be the controller of all things, and, as such, the debt will be owed to itself. Pffft.

By the way, as a small aside, it is easier in other countries to bring new medicines to market, and for those in need to have much earlier access to them. Less government control and regulation of the process makes it feasible.

By the way, as a small aside, it is easier in other countries to bring new medicines to market, and for those in need to have much earlier access to them. Less government control and regulation of the process makes it feasible.
What a load, it's easier because the American system has already subsidized the R&D.

Believe it or not safety is actually a concern. The government is looking after the consumer, in return the producers demand price control to maintain high profit levels.

I think you actually can have safety and affordability but the expense is of course margin.

Here's a very interesting opinion from today's NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/opinion/the-myth-of-the-medical-device-tax.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1382054029-DS3UJiUcvQr2OMAxWf/NKA

-spence

That we have it that good is a myth. We could pick anyone of at least a dozen other systems to deal with health care that are less expensive, and deliver better results.
That figure is more than two-and-a-half times more than most developed nations in the world, including relatively rich European countries like France, Sweden and the United Kingdom. On a more global scale, it means U.S. health care costs now eat up 17.6 percent of GDP.

A sizable slice of Americans -- including some top-ranking politicians -- say the cost may be unfortunate but the U.S. has "the best health care in the world."

But let's consider what 17 cents of every U.S. dollar is purchasing. According to the most recent report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- an international economic group comprised of 34 member nations -- it's not as much as many Americans expect.

In the United States:

*

There are fewer physicians per person than in most other OECD countries. In 2010, for instance, the U.S. had 2.4 practicing physicians per 1,000 people -- well below below the OECD average of 3.1.
*

The number of hospital beds in the U.S. was 2.6 per 1,000 population in 2009, lower than the OECD average of 3.4 beds.
*

Life expectancy at birth increased by almost nine years between 1960 and 2010, but that's less than the increase of over 15 years in Japan and over 11 years on average in OECD countries. The average American now lives 78.7 years in 2010, more than one year below the average of 79.8 years.

We all need to look seriously at this and not just preserve the status quo, or blindly accept what the clowns and jokers come up with.

What a load, it's easier because the American system has already subsidized the R&D.

The "American system" you refer to, as it has evolved, is not a free market system. And the greatest facilitator to this system is government and its collusion with crony capitalists and its desire to assume responsibility for the lives of its citizens. Research and development of pharmaceuticals should be a private concern paid for by private entities and purchased by private individuals. Why is R&D for drugs so much more than it is for other industries? How much would costs be affected if we had third party pay for clothing, for cars, for houses (oh yeah Fanny Mae and the housing collapse), food stamps as the method for all to pay. When government subsidizes and other third party pays for the products doesn't that affect prices as opposed to free market transactions by individual buyers and sellers.

Believe it or not safety is actually a concern. The government is looking after the consumer, in return the producers demand price control to maintain high profit levels.

The only control over price the producer has is the maximum amount the buyer can pay. That is, if the producer wants to sell. When the government "looks after" the consumer by mounting an unsustainable debt for its services, the consumer might find a better deal with a reputable free market seller. For the most part, producers would "look after" safety if the market was truly competitive and they wished to stay in business. Even a reputation of poor products that may not be deserved or is exaggerated is enough to cost a producer sales. Would fly-by-night snake oil sellers exist without government "looking after"? Of course. They exist even with it. And much of the snake oil is sold to us by government in terms of overbearing costly regulations and do good policy's and programs. Would some government regulation be good. Sure. Preferably by State and local governments where citizens have more control

I think you actually can have safety and affordability but the expense is of course margin.

Here's a very interesting opinion from today's NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/opinion/the-myth-of-the-medical-device-tax.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1382054029-DS3UJiUcvQr2OMAxWf/NKA

-spence

The article seems to be advocating free market principles--introduce competition by open and honest information rather than clandestine deals between hospitals, doctors, and medical device producers. And the elimination of collusion between lobbyists and government.

The article also points out that the tax does nothing to "solve" the lack of free market transactions nor to lower costs and prices. On the other hand, the tax does put more money into the coffers of government--ill gotten gains from rotten fruit.

By the way, as a small aside, it is easier in other countries to bring new medicines to market, and for those in need to have much earlier access to them. Less government control and regulation of the process makes it feasible.

That cuts both ways. Certainly some drugs are available quick elsewhere but then you have Thalidomide (in the 60s?) which I believe never got approved here. If you go to Europe you see still people with flippers rather than limbs.

That cuts both ways. Certainly some drugs are available quick elsewhere but then you have Thalidomide (in the 60s?) which I believe never got approved here. If you go to Europe you see still people with flippers rather than limbs.

The people in Europe with the flippers are those whose malformation occurred 40 to 50 years ago. The European regulatory agencies have long ago restricted the use of thalidomide. The FDA makes mistakes too, from which it has to reverse past decisions. And thalidomide does have medicinal use in fighting certain diseases. In 2006 thalidomide was approved by the FDA for treatment of multiple myeloma.

The EU is far more efficient in bringing new drugs to market than is the FDA. Mostly because it has more rational approach to regulating the production and delivery to market of those drugs. It is also more positive to the approval and delivery of herbal remedies than here because they don't allow pressure from pharmaceutical companies to suppress herbal cures.

The trade-off between presumed safety by extremely costly, time consuming FDA regulatory requirements and the lives lost by too slow delivery of useful drugs to market is fostered more by political agendas rather than by necessary overregulation for safety. Please read the following article that rationally discusses the tradeoff and why the costs could go down considerably if regulations were reasonable rather than draconian.

http://cei.org/op-eds-articles/drug-approvals-and-deadly-delays