Obama Did Not Lie When he Said: "If you have insurance and you like it, you can keep it."

253 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote drc2:klb, thanks for an intelligent post delivered with a minimum of hyperbole, but still, what you say you want was shot down by the Righties in Congress more than by Obama or the Dems. That he caved so fast to find a 'bipartisan' unifying "purple haze" solution to the divided America is where I think he misses the moment and what is really wrong. But, when he ran, a lot of Americans were looking for "bring us together" rather than put the banksters and warmongers in jail.

Were than a loyal opposition party instead of the partisan hacks of Neocon Nonsense on the Right, Obama's approach could have brought together the sane to do some sensible things, like investing in infrastructure or bringing back Glass-Steagall. We would not have heard about 'sequesters' or ever considered a food stamp cut. The very idea that we would not pay our bar bill by raising the phony debt ceiling would be the absurdity it really is.

I keep trying to convince the Obama bashers who come here that we are ahead of your game, understand all the indictments you are issuing and actually have a fairly sophisticated analytical framework going with imput from Chris Hedges, Sheldon Wolin, Howard Zinn, David Korten and a bunch of other fantastic sources and thinkers way outside of the box you think we are in. You have stated opposition to empire, to foolish wars and to the Corporatocracy/Plutocracy. I have not detected a Libertarian Ideological in your posts, just too much misdirected anger and presumption about who you are addressing.

In other words, come on over and join the Progressive and Anarchist Left so we can move this mess into reality.

This is where you and I part company, drc2. You blame the Rs for shooting down, what? Not one repub in the house or senate voted for obamacare. NOT ONE. All 178 repubs that were in the house voted against it. All 41 repubs in the senate voted against it. Where do you come off blaming them? Millions of American dems, repubs, independents were/are against obamacare. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something stupid or worse.

I realize that obamacare is romneycare on steroids. Look what romneycare has done to the cost of medical care in Mass. How can anyone expect health care costs to come down when they are still tied to corporarte profits? Obamcare dashes any hopes for a single payer system that makes every body have some skin in the game. Single pay has been referred to as the "great equalizer". Making the rich share in the same health care system ensures a better system. If their kids go to the same doctors and hospitals that your kids go to, your kids are "insured" (pun intended) a better health care system. The more separate the systems the worse yours and my kids (mine is grown) healthcare will be. Obamacare, unfortunately, keeps that 2 tiered system of healthcare. 70% of Americans of all political persuasions, even repubs, perferred the public option.

I am not defending the repubs by any means. But one has to wonder if they were smart enough to set back and let the dems slit their own throats with this POS legislation. Nah. Or is obama really that much of a corporate schill? The 2014 elections will answer that. Because, I'm telling you the voting public is not going to be happy with obamacare.

klb10's picture
klb10
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 11:24 am

Doing nothing was better for whom? The 50,000,000 uninsured?

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Are you leading the charge to Single Payer? Are you pointing out why we got stuck with this bad compromise on the part of the woefully co-dependent Dems of Purple Haze Obama? Not at all. No mention of our Mad as Hell Docs or the large Single Payer constituency we have organized.

We fought against this sausage until the bill became a law. At that point, we considered both the Single Payer, etc. that we have advocated and what marginal gains this thing would provide against what costs. I will cite my gratitude to Wendell Potter for helping me see why my anger about not getting what makes obvious sense should not make me punish others out of spite. There are marginal gains in "Obamacare," and I will take them while we fight for what makes sense. Are you with me or not?

What I do not understand in GOPimp behavior is why, having suckered Obama into putting his brand on their sausage, they could not just let it be and move on to some other piece of crap, even if Benghazi has blown up on them? The hyperbole and alarmism alone would suggest a con job. But, here they have delivered for their privateer constituency, and they have to trash it because Obama claims it. I can believe they know what a turkey it really is, but why they want to get in the way of its problems instead of letting them play themselves out is what makes this the theater of the absurd.

The answer has to be that they are afraid that it will work, at least well enough compared to the rape and pillage, to give the Dems another Social Security, Medicare triumph in the electorate. But, to believe that, they have double crossed themselves because they could have taken credit for the advance! Kafka, please call to explain this.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote drc2:

OMG, it is "personal responsibility" to be able to afford health insurance or not to be disqualified for "pre-existing conditions" or just dropped because you got sick. What a pile of pure grade bs you shovel!

I just said you Hate personal responsibility. Then you go about hating personal responsibility.

Free Will is a Liberal precept, btw

ROTFLMAO....

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:38 am
Quote klb10's Quartet of Nutty Rightwing Doctors:They’re even worried that thousands of doctors will quit practicing medicine rather than participate in the Affordable Health Care Act’s transformation of American medicine.
Good luck with that. I guess leaving the U.S. is an option, or becoming the Sanjay Gupta of Fox News, or becoming Pat Robertson's personal Doctor.

Quote Nutty Rightwing Doctor #1:“People don’t want to “share” their doctor – they want his undivided attention,” .....
So now I get it. No wonder why everyone's so angry. Under today's system, each citizen has his own personal, dedicated, conceirge Doctor, who sees nobody else. Ever. Duh!

Quote Nutty Rightwing Doctor #1:“They don’t want the excellent facilities near their home to be moved far away in order to even out ‘healthcare disparities.’
So Obamacare mandates the moving of hospitals? Hmmm...what does "far away" mean?......"far away"....as in "urban?"......hmmm.

Quote Nutty Rightwing Doctor #2:"The new Accountable Care Organizations being set up under Obamacare will be the medical version of Soviet collective farms,”
Predictable....the stark Soviet gulag imagery....oooh....Check that off the scary words list.....done.

Quote Nutty Rightwing Doctor #2: “The Affordable Care Act,” she says, ”must be repealed before it has a chance to ruin the best medical care in the world.
Forgot to add "that nobody can afford."

Quote Nutty Rightwing Doctor #3:"If Canadian socialized medicine has been a disaster", ......"it will look wonderful after Obamacare is implemented. The failures of the Canadian health care system are seen by Canadians as the fault of their government"
So the Canadian "socialized medicine" system is a disaster? What planet is this guy on? Oh, "socialized medicine" - check that off the scary words list.

Quote Nutty Rightwing Doctor #3:“The failures of ObamaCare will be seen as the fault of the greedy corporations running it, another one standing by to take its place. This may be Obama’s cruelest secret"
OK, which is it, quote above, it’s bumbling government, now greedy corporations? Make a decision please! Geez, I'm glad this guy's not operating on me!

Quote Nutty Rightwing Doctor #4:“Many promises were made to different groups to sell the new healthcare law to a skeptical public. Having watched the medical insurance games–government and private–for my whole career, I thought these promises were too good to be true,”......“What is coming to light now is like ‘The Big Con’ that Robert Redford’s character skillfully pulled off in the classic movie The Sting. Only the Pelosi-Reid-Obama trio forced through an even bigger sting on the entire country, especially the very constituencies they promised their healthcare law would help.”
Kudos – He mentioned Pelosi and did NOT mention “pass it so we can see what’s in it!” Ah, an independent thinker!

Problem is, klb10, as with most conservatives’ criticisms of Obamacare, these pontificating luminaries of right wing healthcare fail to offer……..NO ALTERNATE PLAN…besides the FAILED greed-based plan we have now, that has us paying double what other industrialized countries pay.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Dexterous:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Obamacare doesn't tell insurance companies what they have to cover outside of preventative medical procedures.

That the government mandates they cover.

Quote Bush_Wacker:

In case you didn't know it , just because you don't need a certain coverage you don't get to pick and choose what is covered and what is not. Insurance companies don't sell policies A La Carte. They do the opposite. They pick and choose everything that you aren't covered for sometimes AFTER you make a claim. Catastrophic insurance is still available through the exchanges with the only difference being that the usual disqualifiers can't be added in anymore

A very few years ago it was called the cafeteria plan, and each offering carried a different premium reflected in different coverage options. Pregnancy and birth control was never an option for a male. The lower price premium reflected that fact.

So you want the GOP to double down on the idea that a vagina is a pre existing condition? Please do so? Make it clear to women voters.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote al3:
Quote klb10's Quartet of Nutty Rightwing Doctors:They’re even worried that thousands of doctors will quit practicing medicine rather than participate in the Affordable Health Care Act’s transformation of American medicine.
Good luck with that. I guess leaving the U.S. is an option, or becoming the Sanjay Gupta of Fox News, or becoming Pat Robertson's personal Doctor.

Quote Nutty Rightwing Doctor #1:“People don’t want to “share” their doctor – they want his undivided attention,” .....
So now I get it. No wonder why everyone's so angry. Under today's system, each citizen has his own personal, dedicated, conceirge Doctor, who sees nobody else. Ever. Duh!

Quote Nutty Rightwing Doctor #1:“They don’t want the excellent facilities near their home to be moved far away in order to even out ‘healthcare disparities.’
So Obamacare mandates the moving of hospitals? Hmmm...what does "far away" mean?......"far away"....as in "urban?"......hmmm.

Quote Nutty Rightwing Doctor #2:"The new Accountable Care Organizations being set up under Obamacare will be the medical version of Soviet collective farms,”
Predictable....the stark Soviet gulag imagery....oooh....Check that off the scary words list.....done.

Quote Nutty Rightwing Doctor #2: “The Affordable Care Act,” she says, ”must be repealed before it has a chance to ruin the best medical care in the world.
Forgot to add "that nobody can afford."

Quote Nutty Rightwing Doctor #3:"If Canadian socialized medicine has been a disaster", ......"it will look wonderful after Obamacare is implemented. The failures of the Canadian health care system are seen by Canadians as the fault of their government"
So the Canadian "socialized medicine" system is a disaster? What planet is this guy on? Oh, "socialized medicine" - check that off the scary words list.

Quote Nutty Rightwing Doctor #3:“The failures of ObamaCare will be seen as the fault of the greedy corporations running it, another one standing by to take its place. This may be Obama’s cruelest secret"
OK, which is it, quote above, it’s bumbling government, now greedy corporations? Make a decision please! Geez, I'm glad this guy's not operating on me!

Quote Nutty Rightwing Doctor #4:“Many promises were made to different groups to sell the new healthcare law to a skeptical public. Having watched the medical insurance games–government and private–for my whole career, I thought these promises were too good to be true,”......“What is coming to light now is like ‘The Big Con’ that Robert Redford’s character skillfully pulled off in the classic movie The Sting. Only the Pelosi-Reid-Obama trio forced through an even bigger sting on the entire country, especially the very constituencies they promised their healthcare law would help.”
Kudos – He mentioned Pelosi and did NOT mention “pass it so we can see what’s in it!” Ah, an independent thinker!

Problem is, klb10, as with most conservatives’ criticisms of Obamacare, these pontificating luminaries of right wing healthcare fail to offer……..NO ALTERNATE PLAN…besides the FAILED greed-based plan we have now, that has us paying double what other industrialized countries pay.

My point was that most doctors are opposed to obamacare, as are most Americans.

Part of the increase cost of medical care in this country is the way we allow excessive, frivolous malpractice litigation. 2/3 rds of malpractice lawsuits that are brought are dismissed. In those other "industrialized" countries the loser has to pay the winners legal fees which prevent frivolous lawsuits in the first place. Reforming our system of litigation would go along way in stopping greedy ambulance chasing lawyers and the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and the unnecessary testing for a doctor to cover his ass against such frivolous suits.

klb10's picture
klb10
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 11:24 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:Conservative Logic 101

Making life better for all equals tyranny.

Sounds about right. FO gave a perfect example of that when I explained the reasoning behind progressive taxation... that money needed to meet basic expenses should not be taxed at the same rate as money earned beyond those expenses. How dare the government make that distinction!!!!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Oh noes! Malpractice! Of course Texas, and Floriduh reformed malpractice, they are two large states, and if your "conservative story" was true or accurate then we would see medical prices falling in those places.
They are not. Therefore your premise must be false.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote klb10:
Quote Pierpont:

Typical of your warped Orwellian right bullshit. Where did I say Obama was NOT dishonest? So if I admit that how is that blaming Bush?

HOWEVER... the simple point I was trying to illustrate is how Cap finds it easy to go after a Dem but will NOT go after a rightie.

So if you're pretending to look for hypocrisy... while ignoring your own, look for the partisans here... both sides. I'm not one of them

Neither am I! WTF does bush lying about Saddam have to do with the abject travesty of obamacare? My point was that in nearly every debate here progressives will still resort to blaming bush after he has been long gone and usually that blame has nothing to do with the current subject. They also blame the repubs on the failures already evident with obamacare when not one repub voted for the peice of shit law. If the shoe doesn't fit.......

My post was ABOUT CAP and braindead dittohead partisans not Bush. You seem to think only Libs exhibit warped thinking when it's a feature of PARTISANSHIP right and left, not one's persuasion. As for ACA being a piece of shit law... of course it is. It has its right wing roots from the HERITAGE Foundation which then became the basis for RomneyCare here in Mass. It's welfare for the sleazy health insurance sector.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Mauiman2:Yes even I wish that the truth was that the only politicians who lie are on the left.

Sadly, that is not true.

Have any of those Big Lies told by the GOP?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:You've made two key intertwining claims. The first is that there's NOTHING in the ACA that requires any changes to junk insurance UNLESS they are sold on the market and are subject to subsidies. You've NOT backed that up.

Your second claim is the ACA does NOT require these alleged non-conforming plans to be cancelled.

So shouldn't you be trying to actually prove your first point before claiming it as the basis of your second claim?

What I'm getting from you is a circular argument.

Quote loganonenation:

if im wrong of course i've basically outlined the fix ... Make junk plans legal & charge a tax penalty

Since you didn't use the QUOTE feature, I'll assume you're responding to my post above... and the second point made that there's also nothing in the ACA that prohibits companies from canceling policies.

No... if your wrong about your claims... then proposing a "fix" doesn't get you off the hook. That's a lame diversion from taking responsibility. Of course you might still be able to prove your claims.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Nit picking makes it "both sides." Voter suppression begins with this. If you hate the duopoly, do something about it, don't just whine.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote Dexterous:
Quote drc2:

Why should we have "junk" insurance in the market when what it winds up doing is leaving people up shit creek with very expensive paddles that we will eventually have to pay for, or just suffer being in a crap country of selfish shits.

The lefties word "junk policy" is a joke. A healthy 26 year old male may choose NOT mandated to be forced to be covered for birth control pills and pregnancy coverage.

Thanks for making the case for Single Payer where we can get away from all this a la carte nonsense. So should the blind pay for eyeglass insurance for the sighted? Should the deaf pay for hearing aids for the hearing? Should healthy people without cancer have some right to say they don't want insurance against cancer? How about diabetes or heart disease? That's the craziness of thinking consumers can get bargains with exclusions on their policies.

Once you go down this a la carte path all it does it raise administrative overhead... and using 2005 numbers amounted to about 100 billion a year over the mean of the other OECD nations. And in the end when that person who refused to pay for cancer coverage gets cancer, who should pay? Do we let them die for their choice? And when I mean die I mean in the gutter... not in a taxpayer subsidized hospital or hospice.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Thanks P. It does get perplexing. To paraphrase, do they know that we can read what they are writing?

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote drc2:

Thanks P. It does get perplexing. To paraphrase, do they know that we can read what they are writing?

The Orwellian Right is desperate to find an argument that does what it always does: divide and conquer. Playing the a la carte insurance game is just an extension of this ploy from race and the public/private employee divide... to heath insurance. It's intent is to create resentment against ACA when the REAL target should be our dysfunctional health insurance system that thrives on such hair-splitting and creates tremendous admin overhead in the process.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote loganonenation:If you think I'm wrong, then find the provision in Obamacare that says all nonconforming plans must be cancelled. Too bad you can't.
Missed the key error here in your argument.

For YOU to make your case Obama did NOT lie, YOU need to show where there's a provision in ACA that PREVENTS companies from canceling insurance policies.

If there were such a provision THEN you could claim Obama didn't lie or mislead. But as long as there was NO such provision... Obama could NOT honestly make the assurances he did... and since he did, we're back to whether he lied/mislead or was ignorant of how sleazy insurance companies are.

Excuse me Pier. I guess I was confused. I sincerely thought there was nothing in Obamacare that would outlaw non-conforming plans. Apparently, those plans are in fact not allowed even to exist under Obamacare. I guess that was the whole point of the law, ie, to get rid of those plans, period, since they cover so little of the cost of healthcare that they leave the consumer essentially uninsured in the event of a serious health calamity.

So yeah, Obama did not tell the truth about being able to keep such plans.

However, the statement "if you like your insurance plan, you can keep it," fundamentally assumes that the "you" in that sentence is fully aware of what your shoddy insurance covers (and doesn't cover) and that you still actually like it. We can only speculate what portion of the 5% affected in this way really can honestly say they know what their junk plan covers and are happy with its inadequate coverage, but I highly doubt it is a large one.

So perhaps he misled that small number of people who actually liked the junkiness of their plan and wanted to keep it. But then again, it is common knowledge that a main part of Obamacare meant to mandate higher requirements for all plans. So, given that, you'd have to be pretty misiniformed to take his statement as an absolute promise, since such an interpretation directly contradicted what was already common knowledge.

Perhaps he should have said. "If your plan conforms to the new standards, and you like it, you can keep it." That may have been more accurate. Yet, even that statement still would have been untrue for some, given that Obamacare does not mandate the perpetual existence of any particular, even conforming, healthcare plan. And, believe me, if it did impose such a mandate, THAT would today be a whole other socialist scandal on for the right. "What!?? Marxist Obama's telling them how to run their businesses!!?!"

loganonenation's picture
loganonenation
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The word, "lie," appears to be the coup to be counted here. It cannot be dismissed as a salesman, like on tv, where companies can say things that are not quite true without being held accountable. So, Obama, given the job of selling what his 'initiative' led Congress to do, says something that is generally true but where these ridiculous "junk" policies could be forced out of the game despite his generally true statement.

That makes Obama a LIAR, of course. It is important that "both sides do it," and that there be no distinction in quality or kind of "lie." The object is to make us lose any respect for Obama as a person whose words mean anything. He is just as bad as the feckless Bush or the Liar in Chief, Cheney. Which is absurd in the "lying" department. Cheney knows how to lie like a pro. Obama is not in his league.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote loganonenation:

I guess I was confused.

The only post you have made in this entire troll thread that is absolutely correct.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am

First, here is a link showing that junk policies are still available to anyone in good health.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/insurance-company-using-obamacare...
Second, Obama's statement, and Logan's reading of it, that the law isn't taking away these grandfathers plans is accurate. Those junk policies had very high turnover, people every year figured out that they had no real coverage and dropped the policy, or they got sick and the insurance got canceled, or they had access to group coverage and switched. That insurers who sold junk insurance and orally represent those policies as good coverage doesn't illuminate any Obama lie.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:Oh noes! Malpractice! Of course Texas, and Floriduh reformed malpractice, they are two large states, and if your "conservative story" was true or accurate then we would see medical prices falling in those places. They are not. Therefore your premise must be false.

Did I say a fucking thing about Texas or Florida, troll? Texas has not gone far enough with "loser pays" (if it can even be referred to as that) with respect to frivilous medical malpractice suits. It was designed and pushed through the legilature by gov goodhair to discourage individuals and small businesses from suing large corporations. What Texas HAS done is restrict and limit who can testify as an expert witness in medical malpractice suits and that has helped. So-called "experts" in order to testify in a medical malpractice suit in Texas must now derive a least 50% of their income from the field they are supposed "experts" in.

Also, I was talking about al3's reference to "loser pays" rules in other "indusrialized countries" where it does help to keep the cost of medical care down. Try increasing your comprehension skills.

klb10's picture
klb10
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 11:24 am
Quote al3:
Quote loganonenation:Well, Obama's clearly a liar, dontcha see!? I mean, he promised that you could have your junk plan and all its junkiness and non-coverage which you love so much AND that your plan would ALSO simultaneously be a different and better plan conforming to Obamacare -- ALL AT THE SAME TIME!! So Obama promised your plan would both stay the same AND change for the better!! Can't you even see how insane this contradictory interpretation is? Are you SO EAGER to throw darts at Obama that you will even abandon logic itself? Cmon, dude, you're not one of these Tea Partiers. I would expect that from them. You're better than this.
Logan, gotta admire your tenacity here, and I do believe that he didn't "lie," but the fact is, he left himself open for others - namely health insurance companies - to make him a liar, or at least to be perceived to be a liar. And cold hard fact is, if you're perceived to be a liar, and it takes a complex detailed, multifaceted explanation to 'splain why you're not a liar.....then you're a liar. That's the way I see it. And trust me, as a supporter of Obamacare, this is as painful to me as it is to you. But it's inexcusable for him and his handlers to allow those unqualified statements....maybe I can see once or twice in the emotion of speeches in front of adoring crowds, but many, many times is inexcusable. Babes in the woods. They deserve the attacks they are getting, and it would be worse if the GOP hadn't screamed so many times about so many bogus things before this. This time, unfortunately their screams are valid IMO.

Good for you al3, at least you note that sometimes the other side has a point. As a confessed "right wing idiot" I try and see the points made on the left and occasionally point out that the left is not ALWAYS wrong, just most of the time (LOL). You do set a good example of how that is done here.

Here is a good article on where Obamacare is right now.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-replace-obamacare-edit-1115-20131115,0,4468841.story

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Mauiman2:Yes even I wish that the truth was that the only politicians who lie are on the left.

Sadly, that is not true.

Have any of those Big Lies told by the GOP?

How about "read my lips, no new taxes". IMO that is a lie on par with "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it"

We all tend to excuse the lies told by people on our side of the aisle and villify those on the other side of the aisle who lie.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am
Quote al3:

Problem is, klb10, as with most conservatives’ criticisms of Obamacare, these pontificating luminaries of right wing healthcare fail to offer……..NO ALTERNATE PLAN…besides the FAILED greed-based plan we have now, that has us paying double what other industrialized countries pay.

So we pass a law that makes things worse for almost everyone? Good intentions do not necessarily make good policy.

However you do have a bit of a point, the right should come up with a plan to give people with pre existing conditions and no job a shot at a health plan that is reasonable. Certainly that was not the case in the past, and those are the people who are signing up for Obamacare, they are really getting a deal and it is worth the headaches of the website for them to sign up. But the problem is that the young and healthy are getting screwed big time, so they will not sign up. That is a BIG problem that will not go away, even after the web site is fixed.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Mauiman2:Yes even I wish that the truth was that the only politicians who lie are on the left.

Sadly, that is not true.

Have any of those Big Lies told by the GOP?

We all tend to excuse the lies told by people on our side of the aisle and villify those on the other side of the aisle who lie.

I think this is more a function of political partisans who tend to be more dogmatic in their black & white, good vs evil "thinking". I my own take is, painting with a broad brush here, it's the GOP that has more reasons to be dishonest because their core agenda is a minority one: to protect wealth and the power of money. They can't win on that platform so to form a majority they need passionate single issue suckers who can be conned into joining their coalition. As a minority they need to play dirtier than the Dems. This is not to say Dems can't be dishonest. Hmmm, this topic deserves it's own thread.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Mauiman2:So we pass a law that makes things worse for almost everyone? Good intentions do not necessarily make good policy.
This has yet to be seen. Reforming a sleazy sector of the economy was never going to be easy and there were bound to be unintended consequences which is why I'd like to get rid of all these parasitic middlemen.

Quote Mauiman2:However you do have a bit of a point, the right should come up with a plan to give people with pre existing conditions and no job a shot at a health plan that is reasonable. Certainly that was not the case in the past, and those are the people who are signing up for Obamacare, they are really getting a deal and it is worth the headaches of the website for them to sign up. But the problem is that the young and healthy are getting screwed big time, so they will not sign up. That is a BIG problem that will not go away, even after the web site is fixed.

I have to disagree. It was Heritage back in 89 that identified a key problem with any health care reform: making "free riders" pay... and their solution was the individual mandate. In the 90's about 80% of the GOPer in the Senate signed on to bills with such a mandate. The real question is why did they drop their own ideas and why since then have they opposed such reforms? I think it goes back to the fear then that if the Dems could create some semi-universal health care system, this would be bad politically for the GOP.

And this is always a problem with the GOP. Since it has a minority agenda that requires conning single issue people into its coalition, it always needs to think strategically and play dirty. They have an entire industry that's geared towards manipulating the public and we saw how effective it is with the GOP base being irrationally opposed to reasonable tax hikes and Obamacare. This propaganda creates its own constituency of true believers who then move the party further to the lunatic fringe. But are these acolytes ever asking whether they are merely pawns in a game they don't understand? It's not the way the human mind works.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

The Upton bill passes with 39 Dems voting for it, 4 Repubs against.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm

Playing dirty with "propaganda that creates its own constituency of true believers"? LOL

How about election 2012 and dems dirty tricks?

"The Chicago Way" employed by campaign obama

Harry Reid's lie that Romney paid NO taxes

The lying TV ad of the supposed "victim" of Bain Capital and trying to blame Romney for his wife's death

Former obama staffer and director of New Media Edwards arrested for identity theft of Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz in 2011

Pp has been fooled into thinking only repubs resort to dirty tricks. In reality, that is that both parties use dirty tricks and distort the truth. It is not necessary to defend one's record and try to convince voters why they should vote for you, just smear your opponent enough to convince voters that anyone would be better thatn he. Despite the fact that both are just interested in retaining or gaining power for themselves and their party, the drawback of only a 2 party system.To suggest or even imply that only the repubs do it is at best dishonest. Oh, I forget that this is a leftist/progressive/marxist pro dem board. Nevermind.

klb10's picture
klb10
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 11:24 am
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Mauiman2:So we pass a law that makes things worse for almost everyone? Good intentions do not necessarily make good policy.
This has yet to be seen. Reforming a sleazy sector of the economy was never going to be easy and there were bound to be unintended consequences which is why I'd like to get rid of all these parasitic middlemen.

Quote Mauiman2:However you do have a bit of a point, the right should come up with a plan to give people with pre existing conditions and no job a shot at a health plan that is reasonable. Certainly that was not the case in the past, and those are the people who are signing up for Obamacare, they are really getting a deal and it is worth the headaches of the website for them to sign up. But the problem is that the young and healthy are getting screwed big time, so they will not sign up. That is a BIG problem that will not go away, even after the web site is fixed.

I have to disagree. It was Heritage back in 89 that identified a key problem with any health care reform: making "free riders" pay... and their solution was the individual mandate. In the 90's about 80% of the GOPer in the Senate signed on to bills with such a mandate. The real question is why did they drop their own ideas and why since then have they opposed such reforms? I think it goes back to the fear then that if the Dems could create some semi-universal health care system, this would be bad politically for the GOP.

And this is always a problem with the GOP. Since it has a minority agenda that requires conning single issue people into its coalition, it always needs to think strategically and play dirty. They have an entire industry that's geared towards manipulating the public and we saw how effective it is with the GOP base being irrationally opposed to reasonable tax hikes and Obamacare. This propaganda creates its own constituency of true believers who then move the party further to the lunatic fringe. But are these acolytes ever asking whether they are merely pawns in a game they don't understand? It's not the way the human mind works.

As you might imangine I disagree with you here, but do agree that this topic needs its own thread. The Dems don't really want to help the poor, they are just buying their votes with tax dollars. And right now, they have to borrow that money because of our deficit spending.

I certainly don't expect you to agree with that thought, but its back to my main premise is that politicians on both sides of the aisle only ask one question when they do what they do in Washington "How do I get re elected?" not "What is good for the country?". Sure there are exceptions, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can disagree with me on that point after seeing what has been going on in Washington the last year or so..

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Mauiman2:Yes even I wish that the truth was that the only politicians who lie are on the left.

Sadly, that is not true.

Have any of those Big Lies told by the GOP?

We all tend to excuse the lies told by people on our side of the aisle and villify those on the other side of the aisle who lie.

I think this is more a function of political partisans who tend to be more dogmatic in their black & white, good vs evil "thinking". I my own take is, painting with a broad brush here, it's the GOP that has more reasons to be dishonest because their core agenda is a minority one: to protect wealth and the power of money. They can't win on that platform so to form a majority they need passionate single issue suckers who can be conned into joining their coalition. As a minority they need to play dirtier than the Dems. This is not to say Dems can't be dishonest. Hmmm, this topic deserves it's own thread.

So the Republicans are the only one that play dirty tricks? You forget I live in a state where the sitting Govenor (Democrat) was arrested (and subsequently convicted) in his own house, and he can now be a cell mate with Jesse Jackson Jr. Sorry for every Republican dirty trick and crooked politician, there is one Democrat to balance the scale.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am

Term limits.

Twelve years Senate and House with same healthcare plans and benefits that are available to the general public.

No left over campaign money is to be kept.

Pay raises voted on by the public in the general election.

One day over twelve years is fine, but ALL retirement benefits are then forfeited forever.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am
Quote Dexterous:Term limits.

Twelve years Senate and House with same healthcare plans and benefits that are available to the general public.

No left over campaign money is to be kept.

Pay raises voted on by the public in the general election.

One day over twelve years is fine, but ALL retirement benefits are then forfeited forever.

Oh, the inhumanity of it! I'LL DRINK TO THAT!

klb10's picture
klb10
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 11:24 am
Quote making an ass of himself again, klb10:Pp has been fooled into thinking only repubs resort to dirty tricks. In reality, that is that both parties use dirty tricks and distort the truth.
Gee Einstein... THERE YOU GO AGAIN. Here I am in a thread taking on the person who said Obama did NOT lie, you ignore that... then come to your typical braindead dittohead conclusion that I'm somehow denying that both sides lie. Try reading my post again... this time for comprehension. And if that still doesn't work, I'll be glad to pitch in for a lobotomy. It can only be an improvement.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote Pierpont:I think this is more a function of political partisans who tend to be more dogmatic in their black & white, good vs evil "thinking". I my own take is, painting with a broad brush here, it's the GOP that has more reasons to be dishonest because their core agenda is a minority one: to protect wealth and the power of money. They can't win on that platform so to form a majority they need passionate single issue suckers who can be conned into joining their coalition. As a minority they need to play dirtier than the Dems. This is not to say Dems can't be dishonest. Hmmm, this topic deserves it's own thread.

So the Republicans are the only one that play dirty tricks? You forget I live in a state where the sitting Govenor (Democrat) was arrested (and subsequently convicted) in his own house, and he can now be a cell mate with Jesse Jackson Jr. Sorry for every Republican dirty trick and crooked politician, there is one Democrat to balance the scale.

Jesus M, what part of

"it's the GOP that has more reasons to be dishonest because their core agenda is a minority one..."

are you having problems with??? How does saying one side is more dishonest mean the other side is NEVER dishonest???

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote Pierpont:I think this is more a function of political partisans who tend to be more dogmatic in their black & white, good vs evil "thinking". I my own take is, painting with a broad brush here, it's the GOP that has more reasons to be dishonest because their core agenda is a minority one: to protect wealth and the power of money. They can't win on that platform so to form a majority they need passionate single issue suckers who can be conned into joining their coalition. As a minority they need to play dirtier than the Dems. This is not to say Dems can't be dishonest. Hmmm, this topic deserves it's own thread.

So the Republicans are the only one that play dirty tricks? You forget I live in a state where the sitting Govenor (Democrat) was arrested (and subsequently convicted) in his own house, and he can now be a cell mate with Jesse Jackson Jr. Sorry for every Republican dirty trick and crooked politician, there is one Democrat to balance the scale.

Jesus M, what part of

"it's the GOP that has more reasons to be dishonest because their core agenda is a minority one..."

are you having problems with??? How does saying one side is more dishonest mean the other side is NEVER dishonest???

Sorry the Dems have just as many reasons to be dishonest than the GOP has. You'll never convince me that the Dems are less corrupt than the GOP, I have eyes and can see.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am

The Dems (in principal) represent the people from the middle down while the Repubs (in principal) represent the middle on up including the infamous 1%. It's a no brainer to realize that you aren't going to squeeze political power or resources such as capital from the bottom half of the barrel. The upper half of the barrel is full of goodies to go after. That being said, anyone can be a dishonest ahole no matter what their situation. You'll find that most Dems who fit the ahole category are double dealing with the upper half of the barrel. That pisses off the Repubs. That's their territory dammit!

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote Pierpont:Jesus M, what part of

"it's the GOP that has more reasons to be dishonest because their core agenda is a minority one..."

are you having problems with??? How does saying one side is more dishonest mean the other side is NEVER dishonest???

Sorry the Dems have just as many reasons to be dishonest than the GOP has. You'll never convince me that the Dems are less corrupt than the GOP, I have eyes and can see.

I'm not speaking about any particular Dem, just being an observer of what I consider a dysfunctional political system which over the past 130 years or so split along class lines. To build a governing majority, it's those with a minority agenda who are forced to be less honest about their true intent... than the party that represents majority interests. This hardly makes the Dems angels. I'm on record saying at best they are the lesser of the evils though I think there are some people I like on the Progressive side of the Democratic Party. On the major issues that sabotaged our industrial base with free trade and brought down the economy through deregulation... it's the progressive Dems who's instincts were more sound than any GOPer or neolib Dem.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Spewing his usual Right wing talking points klb10:Part of the increase cost of medical care in this country is the way we allow excessive, frivolous malpractice litigation. 2/3 rds of malpractice lawsuits that are brought are dismissed. In those other "industrialized" countries the loser has to pay the winners legal fees which prevent frivolous lawsuits in the first place. Reforming our system of litigation would go along way in stopping greedy ambulance chasing lawyers and the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and the unnecessary testing for a doctor to cover his ass against such frivolous suits.
First thought is that in a system WITHOUT universal health care... a wronged patient has little choice but to sue if for no other reason than to at least have their health care bills paid. How many lawsuits does the nature of our dysfunctional system create? Of course, maybe you want them to go broke then go on Medicaid. Which is it?

Whether there's a suit for additional pain and suffering... if a doctor is negligent... then why not have this right to sue? There's an underlying assumption in your post that justice is blind and that court decisions are based on facts not the ability of sleazeball lawyers to manipulate/overwhelm the process.

So you're saying NO deserving victim has ever lost a lawsuit because of the above? And therefore EVERY lost case is frivolous and the money-grubbing patient must be responsible for all court costs?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote drc2:What I do not understand in GOPimp behavior is why, having suckered Obama into putting his brand on their sausage, they could not just let it be and move on to some other piece of crap, even if Benghazi has blown up on them? The hyperbole and alarmism alone would suggest a con job. But, here they have delivered for their privateer constituency, and they have to trash it because Obama claims it. I can believe they know what a turkey it really is, but why they want to get in the way of its problems instead of letting them play themselves out is what makes this the theater of the absurd.

The answer has to be that they are afraid that it will work, at least well enough compared to the rape and pillage, to give the Dems another Social Security, Medicare triumph in the electorate. But, to believe that, they have double crossed themselves because they could have taken credit for the advance! Kafka, please call to explain this.

And this is what it's all about. The GOP is thinking strategically, and no doubt the Dems might be as well. Both have a big stake in being able to prove the other side wrong in that age old fight over whether the government can improve the lives of the average Joe. The GOP, as we saw in the 90's, took Billy Kristal's advice that HilleryCare had to be opposed at all costs... because it could prove liberal activist government might work. Whether people who needed help we're thrown to the wolves, wasn't a concern to the ever noble GOP.

But this cynical opposition isn't something that can ever be acknowledged... it needs respectable smokescreens to hide behind. And this builds up a constituency amongst the True Believers which then becomes a new force in the GOP. We saw the same happen with the lies told about the benefits of tax cuts... and now the GOP is so polarized about the issue they actually can't even admit that revenue plays any role in balancing a budget.

Such Orwellian Right propaganda efforts sabotage the collective IQ of the American People.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

It has now become clear to me that Obamacare does today in fact outlaw even the existence of certain plans given that they don't conform to certain minimum standards. So my argument above, though sound in logic, is based on the false premise that Obamacare regulations do not force the cancellation of junk insurance plans (not grandfathered in). It has also become clear that Obama has proposed to extend the execution date of these shoddy plans for one year. I can see him extending this indefinitely. Those policy holders should, I believe, be charged a non-insurance tax for not having the proper coverage. This will go toward paying for the emergency room visits that person can't pay for and which his shoddy plan won't cover. So, as is stands now, what I argued is a fact about about this law above (incorrectly), is essentially the direction we are likely to go in the future.

As to the lie thing. Obama still didn't lie. If you truly "like" something (and are not just lying to yourself) you must first know what that thing really is. If you only like what you incorrectly believe you have, you don't really like what you have, now do you?" Can anyone with a junk insurance plan truly be said to "like" what they have? I submit this number, if it even exists, to be a mere handful of imbiciles.

-Loganonenation

loganonenation's picture
loganonenation
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Perhaps the President should have said, "If I like your healthcare plan, you can keep it." The White House has made it clear that the administration does not like the plans that were canceled even though the dumb purchasers did. Now what will happen? Who will pay for the increased revenue necessary to implement the ACA? The biggest lie may be that it won't add a penny to the deficit.

The President lied in order to get the law passed. Democrats would not have passed it otherwise.

SaltoftheEarth
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2011 6:01 pm
Quote Pierpont:

[Spewing his usual Right wing talking points klb10]Part of the increase cost of medical care in this country is the way we allow excessive, frivolous malpractice litigation. 2/3 rds of malpractice lawsuits that are brought are dismissed. In those other "industrialized" countries the loser has to pay the winners legal fees which prevent frivolous lawsuits in the first place. Reforming our system of litigation would go along way in stopping greedy ambulance chasing lawyers and the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and the unnecessary testing for a doctor to cover his ass against such frivolous suits.

First thought is that in a system WITHOUT universal health care... a wronged patient has little choice but to sue if for no other reason than to at least have their health care bills paid. How many lawsuits does the nature of our dysfunctional system create? Of course, maybe you want them to go broke then go on Medicaid. Which is it?

Whether there's a suit for additional pain and suffering... if a doctor is negligent... then why not have this right to sue? There's an underlying assumption in your post that justice is blind and that court decisions are based on facts not the ability of sleazeball lawyers to manipulate/overwhelm the process.

So you're saying NO deserving victim has ever lost a lawsuit because of the above? And therefore EVERY lost case is frivolous and the money-grubbing patient must be responsible for all court costs?

I am not arguing against single payer. In the current system a patient can file a malpractice lawsuit regardless of whether they pay or NOT. Whether the doctor is guilty or not the right to sue still exists. So, your saying that all doctors that are sued are guilty, huh?

Are you saying that all that sue are victims and are therefore deserving? I am saying that if the loser had to paid the winner's legal fees it would prevent many of the frivilous suits. Not saying all of them, unlike your assumption that all patients that sue for malpractice must, therefore, be victims and doctors are guilty before being proven so.

Malpractice settlements (just or not) amount to only 2-3% of added cost to medical care. But when coupled with the cost of malpractice insurance for a doctor (especially specialists), the cost of unecessary testing to cover their asses (like a $3000 MRI on a patient that presents to the ER with a headache,or a $2000 EKG for chest pains, remember, whether that patient pays or not) together add 26-34% to the cost of health care according to Gallup and Jackson Healthcare surveys of doctors with 73% of them admitting to practicing defensive medicine.

I am saying that limiting malpractice suits to actual ecomonic damages, making the losing party pay the winning party in such suits, and eliminating the exhorbitant pain and suffering damages, like the Canadian system has, would help bring down the overall cost of health care in this country.

klb10's picture
klb10
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 11:24 am
Quote klb10:
Quote Pierpont:

[Spewing his usual Right wing talking points klb10]Part of the increase cost of medical care in this country is the way we allow excessive, frivolous malpractice litigation. 2/3 rds of malpractice lawsuits that are brought are dismissed. In those other "industrialized" countries the loser has to pay the winners legal fees which prevent frivolous lawsuits in the first place. Reforming our system of litigation would go along way in stopping greedy ambulance chasing lawyers and the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and the unnecessary testing for a doctor to cover his ass against such frivolous suits.

First thought is that in a system WITHOUT universal health care... a wronged patient has little choice but to sue if for no other reason than to at least have their health care bills paid. How many lawsuits does the nature of our dysfunctional system create? Of course, maybe you want them to go broke then go on Medicaid. Which is it?

Whether there's a suit for additional pain and suffering... if a doctor is negligent... then why not have this right to sue? There's an underlying assumption in your post that justice is blind and that court decisions are based on facts not the ability of sleazeball lawyers to manipulate/overwhelm the process.

So you're saying NO deserving victim has ever lost a lawsuit because of the above? And therefore EVERY lost case is frivolous and the money-grubbing patient must be responsible for all court costs?

.So, your saying that all doctors that are sued are guilty, huh?

You really have problems with Logic 101, don't you! Why is it, it always comes back to your inability to read for comprehension? Your pissy black or white attitide seems always the root of your problems.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

The right is only hysterical over Obamacare because they just can't handle Obama's existence and the fact that he is sitting in a governmental seat they truly believe to be they own. This isn't idealogy, it's infantalism. Teeteebaby rightwingers just can't handle reality without a strong Daddy Republican President in the White House. To them, it's almost as if a black guy came into their house and beat up their Dad, twice.

loganonenation's picture
loganonenation
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote klb10:
Quote Pierpont:

[Spewing his usual Right wing talking points klb10]Part of the increase cost of medical care in this country is the way we allow excessive, frivolous malpractice litigation. 2/3 rds of malpractice lawsuits that are brought are dismissed. In those other "industrialized" countries the loser has to pay the winners legal fees which prevent frivolous lawsuits in the first place. Reforming our system of litigation would go along way in stopping greedy ambulance chasing lawyers and the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and the unnecessary testing for a doctor to cover his ass against such frivolous suits.

First thought is that in a system WITHOUT universal health care... a wronged patient has little choice but to sue if for no other reason than to at least have their health care bills paid. How many lawsuits does the nature of our dysfunctional system create? Of course, maybe you want them to go broke then go on Medicaid. Which is it?

Whether there's a suit for additional pain and suffering... if a doctor is negligent... then why not have this right to sue? There's an underlying assumption in your post that justice is blind and that court decisions are based on facts not the ability of sleazeball lawyers to manipulate/overwhelm the process.

So you're saying NO deserving victim has ever lost a lawsuit because of the above? And therefore EVERY lost case is frivolous and the money-grubbing patient must be responsible for all court costs?

So, your saying that all doctors that are sued are guilty, huh?

You really have problems with Logic 101, don't you! Why is it, it always comes back to your inability to read for comprehension? Your pissy black or white attitide seems always the root of your problems.

Why are you incapapble of asnwering a goddamn question, then ignore the rest of someone's post. Prove your not and idiot and answer the goddamn questions and quit trying to change the context of a post to suit your bullshit. Your incapable of responding to a post because it is you that lacks any ability to comprehend.

Are all doctors that are sued guilty? Are all patients that sue victims? And do frivolous lawsuits and the resulting increase in malpractice insurance premiums along with defensive medical testing add to the cost of medical care?

klb10's picture
klb10
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 11:24 am

Well, I can't answer your question...but will ask another.

When Malpractice insurance went through the roof, my Dr. raised his fee from $5 to $7. He apologized and told me he had to raise his fee $2 to cover the increased cost.. The rest in town raised their fees from $5 to $50. Why?

Maybe Kerry can provide the answer. He's an M.D.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote loganonenation:

The right is only hysterical over Obamacare because they just can't handle Obama's existence and the fact that he is sitting in a governmental seat they truly believe to be they own. This isn't idealogy, it's infantalism. Teeteebaby rightwingers just can't handle reality without a strong Daddy Republican President in the White House. To them, it's almost as if a black guy came into their house and beat up their Dad, twice.

Yes and no. As long as it was the GOP that was being dishonest about ACA and they were trying to sabotage it... you have a point. But Obama was a fool to give these idiots any real ammunition. The web site is an embarrassment and his assurances people could keep their policies was not true. Whose fault is that? I think you need to stop apologizing for Obama because the blunders here, atop the GOP's infantile attempts to sabotage ACA, just might sink the program.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

2014 will tell.

klb10's picture
klb10
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 11:24 am

The mandate is and always has been the fubar of the ACA. I'm all for the no brainer protections that are now supposed to be in the law. They should have always been in there to begin with. They could have found other ways to fund this without mandating everyone have coverage. It's really not that difficult. Give me 5 conservatives and 5 liberals from this very website and I'll bet we could come up with something that would work within a couple of months. Everyone should be protected against life threatening illnesses. Everyone should not be required to purchase an insurance policy that doesn't fit their immediate life circumstances. We could still get this done if we wanted to.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote polycarp2:Well, I can't answer your question...but will ask another.

When Malpractice insurance went through the roof, my Dr. raised his fee from $5 to $7. He apologized and told me he had to raise his fee $2 to cover the increased cost.. The rest in town raised their fees from $5 to $50. Why?

Maybe Kerry can provide the answer. He's an M.D.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

That's a 40% increase. Kerry has told that when in private practice in a small town in the early 80's his malpractice for ob-gyn ( deliverying babies) went from something like $1500 to $15,000 in one year and he quit that specialty because that was more than he made doing that,.

klb10's picture
klb10
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 11:24 am

Currently Chatting

A Carbon Tax is Absolutely Essential

So, what do a major investment from Verizon Wireless and the melting of our polar ice caps have in common? A lot more than you may think. On Monday, America’s largest wireless provider announced that it will be making a $40 million investment in solar power at eight of its facilities across the United States.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system