Mitt Kills at Al Smith Dinner

[Ernie S.]

Well that's where we differ. You are equating something trivial (eating at a fine restaurant) to being able to access healthcare. You obviously feel that only those with money should be able to get medicine and treatment, where I think that's something everyone should be able to get access to, despite the size of their bank account.

In your example if you can't afford Sardi's you still can go somewhere to get food. If someone can't afford their chemo treatment or is denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions, they really don't have other options. Nothing reliable at least.

Would I rather everyone have access to the best medical care? Of course.
Do I think YOU should pay for the consequences of MY life style? Nope.

I smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. If and when, I get lung cancer, I absolve you of responsibility, OK?

So you're going to pay for your treatment out of pocket in full?

Are you implying that a majority of people with cancer brought it on themselves?

Yes and, to a large degree, yes.

 

[Ernie S.]

Well that's where we differ. You are equating something trivial (eating at a fine restaurant) to being able to access healthcare. You obviously feel that only those with money should be able to get medicine and treatment, where I think that's something everyone should be able to get access to, despite the size of their bank account.

In your example if you can't afford Sardi's you still can go somewhere to get food. If someone can't afford their chemo treatment or is denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions, they really don't have other options. Nothing reliable at least.

Would I rather everyone have access to the best medical care? Of course.
Do I think YOU should pay for the consequences of MY life style? Nope.

I smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. If and when, I get lung cancer, I absolve you of responsibility, OK?

So you're going to pay for your treatment out of pocket in full?

Are you implying that a majority of people with cancer brought it on themselves?

Are you implying that taxpayers cause cancer in others?

 

[RDD_1210]

I wouldn't put a great deal of faith in the report you found....it claims drop in usage from 2006-2010...

...but that is far from what the Boston Globe reported.

Questions raised about healthcare law's impact on overuse

By Liz Kowalczyk
Globe Staff / April 24, 2009


More people are seeking care in hospital emergency rooms, and the cost of caring for ER patients has soared 17 percent over two years, despite efforts to direct patients with nonurgent problems to primary care doctors instead, according to new state data. ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe
ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe

So your story from 2009 is credible but the one I posted from June of 2012 is not?

Your data is out of date. What I posted acknowledged that the numbers weren't dropping previously, but now they are.

This is why people don't take you seriously. You can't be honest long enough to have a real conversation.

1. Boston Globe....state data.
Up 17%.
A liberal paper quoting state data...and the conclusion nowhere near your article.
That's why.

2. "This is why people don't take you seriously. You can't be honest long enough..."
Really? Did you interview every one ?
Or is this "reporting" on the level of elementary-school gossip: "Everyone hates you"?


Clearly your juvenile complaint is the kind one uses upon realizing they have lost the argument.


3. And....let's add more fuel to the fire:

a. 50 days to see a doctor in Boston…Is Massachusetts’ universal coverage laws the cause?
June 9, 2009 in Current Events, Health Insurance, Supply of Medical Services, Wait Times
From the USA Today, here are the wait times to see a doctor in the following cities:
• Boston: 49.6
• Philadelphia: 27
• Los Angeles: 24.2
• Houston: 23.4
• Washington, D.C.: 22.6
• San Diego 20.2
• Minneapolis: 19.8
• Dallas: 19.2
• New York: 19.2
• Denver: 15.4 days
• Miami: 15.4 days

50 days to see a doctor in Boston…Is Massachusetts’ universal coverage laws the cause? « Healthcare Economist


b. Advocates promised that the Massachusetts plan would make health insurance more affordable, but according to a Cato study, insurance premiums have been increasing at nearly double the national average: 7.4 percent in 2007, 8 percent to 12 percent in 2008, and an expected 9 percent increase this year. Health insurance in Massachusetts costs an average of $16,897 for a family of four, compared to a national average of $12,700.

The costs to the taxpayers are rising, too, and one tax increase has not satisfied the appetite of the hungry plan. The prospect of huge deficits has elicited discussion of cuts in reimbursements to providers and the imposition of a "global budget," which is a euphemism for rationing.
Massachusetts Health Care: A Model Not to Copy


c. The results hold important lessons for the legislation moving through Congress, say Yelowitz and Cannon. As in Massachusetts, there has been no effort to estimate the cost of the private health insurance mandates that legislation would impose on individuals and employers. The costs may therefore be far greater than legislators and voters believe, while the benefits may be smaller than the conventional wisdom about Massachusetts suggests.
Source: Aaron Yelowitz and Michael F. Cannon, "The Massachusetts Health Plan: Much Pain, Little Gain," Cato Institute, Policy Analysis no. 657, January 19, 2010.
For text:
The Massachusetts Health Plan: Much Pain, Little Gain | Aaron Yelowitz and Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis


d. . Massachusetts Health Care Law Does Not Curb Costs
Five years after Gov. Mitt Romney signed Massachusetts' groundbreaking health care legislation, it has met its chief goal of extending insurance coverage to most residents -- but with costs rising faster than inflation, lawmakers face the challenge of how to pay for it all. Although the law has extended coverage, it has done little to fundamentally change the way consumers shop for health care, which analysts say is the only lasting solution to ballooning costs, reports the Washington Times.

Now, both plans face questions over how to pay for their reforms over the coming decades.
Source: Paige Winfield Cunningham, "Health Coverage, Rates Rise in Massachusetts," Washington Times, August 16, 2011.
For text:
Health coverage, rates rise in Massachusetts - Washington Times



And this is the plan that you and Obama tout as the model???
One of you is a dim-wit, the other a liar.




You see, the above is the reason you make the bogus claim "This is why people don't take you seriously."

You hide behind said claim because I can roll you up and smoke you like a Cuban cigar.

Let me know when you have anything that disproves the information from my MORE RECENT article. Again, this is why you can't be taken seriously.

 

[RDD_1210]

Would I rather everyone have access to the best medical care? Of course.
Do I think YOU should pay for the consequences of MY life style? Nope.

I smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. If and when, I get lung cancer, I absolve you of responsibility, OK?

So you're going to pay for your treatment out of pocket in full?

Are you implying that a majority of people with cancer brought it on themselves?

Yes and, to a large degree, yes.

LOL.

and LOL

Simply pathetic.

You're completely wrong on both answers and have exposed yourself as an idiot. Good job!

 

[Conservative]

So you're going to pay for your treatment out of pocket in full?

Are you implying that a majority of people with cancer brought it on themselves?

Yes and, to a large degree, yes.

LOL.

and LOL

Simply pathetic.

You're completely wrong on both answers and have exposed yourself as an idiot. Good job!

The 10 deadliest cancers and why there's no cure - Health - Cancer | NBC News

1. Lung and bronchial cancer: 792,495 lives
Lung and bronchial cancer is the top killer cancer in the United States.Smoking and use of tobacco products are the major causes of it, and it strikes most often between the ages of 55 and 65, according to the NCI. There are two major types: non-small cell lung cancer, which is the most common, and small cell lung cancer, which spreads more quickly. More than 157,000 people are expected to die of lung and bronchial cancer in 2010.

I'd say that qualifies as 'to a large degree, yes'.

 

[Liability]

So you're going to pay for your treatment out of pocket in full?

Are you implying that a majority of people with cancer brought it on themselves?

Yes and, to a large degree, yes.

LOL.

and LOL

Simply pathetic.

You're completely wrong on both answers and have exposed yourself as an idiot. Good job!

What asshole Rdd just said translates into: he disagrees.

But he's just a cockbite fuckwit so who really cares whether HE agrees or not?

 

[RDD_1210]

Would I rather everyone have access to the best medical care? Of course.
Do I think YOU should pay for the consequences of MY life style? Nope.

I smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. If and when, I get lung cancer, I absolve you of responsibility, OK?

So you're going to pay for your treatment out of pocket in full?

Are you implying that a majority of people with cancer brought it on themselves?

Are you implying that taxpayers cause cancer in others?

LOL, not even close. Please tell me that's what you think I'm saying.

Serious question now. You're not very bright, are you? It's ok, not everyone can be intelligent, but I need to gear myself towards who I am speaking with and I'm learning now that you're probably not that smart and I need to adjust the conversation to compensate for that fact.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes and, to a large degree, yes.

LOL.

and LOL

Simply pathetic.

You're completely wrong on both answers and have exposed yourself as an idiot. Good job!

What asshole Rdd just said translates into: he disagrees.

But he's just a cockbite fuckwit so who really cares whether HE agrees or not?

Thats Mr. cockbite fuckwit to you.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes and, to a large degree, yes.

LOL.

and LOL

Simply pathetic.

You're completely wrong on both answers and have exposed yourself as an idiot. Good job!

The 10 deadliest cancers and why there's no cure - Health - Cancer | NBC News

1. Lung and bronchial cancer: 792,495 lives
Lung and bronchial cancer is the top killer cancer in the United States.Smoking and use of tobacco products are the major causes of it, and it strikes most often between the ages of 55 and 65, according to the NCI. There are two major types: non-small cell lung cancer, which is the most common, and small cell lung cancer, which spreads more quickly. More than 157,000 people are expected to die of lung and bronchial cancer in 2010.

I'd say that qualifies as 'to a large degree, yes'.

Shall we add up the other 9 on that list and compare it with the number of people who die from lung cancer that was of their own doing? Do we really need to go there?

I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of people who cause their own cancer but there are certainly more out there who don't have any part in the cause of the cancer they have.

 

[Liability]

LOL.

and LOL

Simply pathetic.

You're completely wrong on both answers and have exposed yourself as an idiot. Good job!

What asshole Rdd just said translates into: he disagrees.

But he's just a cockbite fuckwit so who really cares whether HE agrees or not?

Thats Mr. cockbite fuckwit to you.

No. You will always be just cockbite fuckwit.

No need to give you any title that might falsely convey any hint of respect.

 

[RDD_1210]

What asshole Rdd just said translates into: he disagrees.

But he's just a cockbite fuckwit so who really cares whether HE agrees or not?

Thats Mr. cockbite fuckwit to you.

No. You will always be just cockbite fuckwit.

No need to give you any title that might falsely convey any hint of respect.

I actually prefer Bishop cockbite fuckwit.

 

[Liability]

Thats Mr. cockbite fuckwit to you.

No. You will always be just cockbite fuckwit.

No need to give you any title that might falsely convey any hint of respect.

I actually prefer Bishop cockbite fuckwit.

Nobody really wants to know whose cock you wish to bite, ya fuckwit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So your story from 2009 is credible but the one I posted from June of 2012 is not?

Your data is out of date. What I posted acknowledged that the numbers weren't dropping previously, but now they are.

This is why people don't take you seriously. You can't be honest long enough to have a real conversation.

1. Boston Globe....state data.
Up 17%.
A liberal paper quoting state data...and the conclusion nowhere near your article.
That's why.

2. "This is why people don't take you seriously. You can't be honest long enough..."
Really? Did you interview every one ?
Or is this "reporting" on the level of elementary-school gossip: "Everyone hates you"?


Clearly your juvenile complaint is the kind one uses upon realizing they have lost the argument.


3. And....let's add more fuel to the fire:

a. 50 days to see a doctor in Boston…Is Massachusetts’ universal coverage laws the cause?
June 9, 2009 in Current Events, Health Insurance, Supply of Medical Services, Wait Times
From the USA Today, here are the wait times to see a doctor in the following cities:
• Boston: 49.6
• Philadelphia: 27
• Los Angeles: 24.2
• Houston: 23.4
• Washington, D.C.: 22.6
• San Diego 20.2
• Minneapolis: 19.8
• Dallas: 19.2
• New York: 19.2
• Denver: 15.4 days
• Miami: 15.4 days

50 days to see a doctor in Boston…Is Massachusetts’ universal coverage laws the cause? « Healthcare Economist


b. Advocates promised that the Massachusetts plan would make health insurance more affordable, but according to a Cato study, insurance premiums have been increasing at nearly double the national average: 7.4 percent in 2007, 8 percent to 12 percent in 2008, and an expected 9 percent increase this year. Health insurance in Massachusetts costs an average of $16,897 for a family of four, compared to a national average of $12,700.

The costs to the taxpayers are rising, too, and one tax increase has not satisfied the appetite of the hungry plan. The prospect of huge deficits has elicited discussion of cuts in reimbursements to providers and the imposition of a "global budget," which is a euphemism for rationing.
Massachusetts Health Care: A Model Not to Copy


c. The results hold important lessons for the legislation moving through Congress, say Yelowitz and Cannon. As in Massachusetts, there has been no effort to estimate the cost of the private health insurance mandates that legislation would impose on individuals and employers. The costs may therefore be far greater than legislators and voters believe, while the benefits may be smaller than the conventional wisdom about Massachusetts suggests.
Source: Aaron Yelowitz and Michael F. Cannon, "The Massachusetts Health Plan: Much Pain, Little Gain," Cato Institute, Policy Analysis no. 657, January 19, 2010.
For text:
The Massachusetts Health Plan: Much Pain, Little Gain | Aaron Yelowitz and Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis


d. . Massachusetts Health Care Law Does Not Curb Costs
Five years after Gov. Mitt Romney signed Massachusetts' groundbreaking health care legislation, it has met its chief goal of extending insurance coverage to most residents -- but with costs rising faster than inflation, lawmakers face the challenge of how to pay for it all. Although the law has extended coverage, it has done little to fundamentally change the way consumers shop for health care, which analysts say is the only lasting solution to ballooning costs, reports the Washington Times.

Now, both plans face questions over how to pay for their reforms over the coming decades.
Source: Paige Winfield Cunningham, "Health Coverage, Rates Rise in Massachusetts," Washington Times, August 16, 2011.
For text:
Health coverage, rates rise in Massachusetts - Washington Times



And this is the plan that you and Obama tout as the model???
One of you is a dim-wit, the other a liar.




You see, the above is the reason you make the bogus claim "This is why people don't take you seriously."

You hide behind said claim because I can roll you up and smoke you like a Cuban cigar.

Let me know when you have anything that disproves the information from my MORE RECENT article. Again, this is why you can't be taken seriously.

Why would I let you know....?


You just got taken to the wood-shed, and now pretend that you barely felt it.


But you're not sitting down, are you.

 

[RDD_1210]

1. Boston Globe....state data.
Up 17%.
A liberal paper quoting state data...and the conclusion nowhere near your article.
That's why.

2. "This is why people don't take you seriously. You can't be honest long enough..."
Really? Did you interview every one ?
Or is this "reporting" on the level of elementary-school gossip: "Everyone hates you"?


Clearly your juvenile complaint is the kind one uses upon realizing they have lost the argument.


3. And....let's add more fuel to the fire:

a. 50 days to see a doctor in Boston…Is Massachusetts’ universal coverage laws the cause?
June 9, 2009 in Current Events, Health Insurance, Supply of Medical Services, Wait Times
From the USA Today, here are the wait times to see a doctor in the following cities:
• Boston: 49.6
• Philadelphia: 27
• Los Angeles: 24.2
• Houston: 23.4
• Washington, D.C.: 22.6
• San Diego 20.2
• Minneapolis: 19.8
• Dallas: 19.2
• New York: 19.2
• Denver: 15.4 days
• Miami: 15.4 days

50 days to see a doctor in Boston…Is Massachusetts’ universal coverage laws the cause? « Healthcare Economist


b. Advocates promised that the Massachusetts plan would make health insurance more affordable, but according to a Cato study, insurance premiums have been increasing at nearly double the national average: 7.4 percent in 2007, 8 percent to 12 percent in 2008, and an expected 9 percent increase this year. Health insurance in Massachusetts costs an average of $16,897 for a family of four, compared to a national average of $12,700.

The costs to the taxpayers are rising, too, and one tax increase has not satisfied the appetite of the hungry plan. The prospect of huge deficits has elicited discussion of cuts in reimbursements to providers and the imposition of a "global budget," which is a euphemism for rationing.
Massachusetts Health Care: A Model Not to Copy


c. The results hold important lessons for the legislation moving through Congress, say Yelowitz and Cannon. As in Massachusetts, there has been no effort to estimate the cost of the private health insurance mandates that legislation would impose on individuals and employers. The costs may therefore be far greater than legislators and voters believe, while the benefits may be smaller than the conventional wisdom about Massachusetts suggests.
Source: Aaron Yelowitz and Michael F. Cannon, "The Massachusetts Health Plan: Much Pain, Little Gain," Cato Institute, Policy Analysis no. 657, January 19, 2010.
For text:
The Massachusetts Health Plan: Much Pain, Little Gain | Aaron Yelowitz and Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis


d. . Massachusetts Health Care Law Does Not Curb Costs
Five years after Gov. Mitt Romney signed Massachusetts' groundbreaking health care legislation, it has met its chief goal of extending insurance coverage to most residents -- but with costs rising faster than inflation, lawmakers face the challenge of how to pay for it all. Although the law has extended coverage, it has done little to fundamentally change the way consumers shop for health care, which analysts say is the only lasting solution to ballooning costs, reports the Washington Times.

Now, both plans face questions over how to pay for their reforms over the coming decades.
Source: Paige Winfield Cunningham, "Health Coverage, Rates Rise in Massachusetts," Washington Times, August 16, 2011.
For text:
Health coverage, rates rise in Massachusetts - Washington Times



And this is the plan that you and Obama tout as the model???
One of you is a dim-wit, the other a liar.




You see, the above is the reason you make the bogus claim "This is why people don't take you seriously."

You hide behind said claim because I can roll you up and smoke you like a Cuban cigar.

Let me know when you have anything that disproves the information from my MORE RECENT article. Again, this is why you can't be taken seriously.

Why would I let you know....?


You just got taken to the wood-shed, and now pretend that you barely felt it.


But you're not sitting down, are you.

Is the woodshed the place where I found information that is more relevant than your outdated 3 year old data? Must be if that's where we went.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let me know when you have anything that disproves the information from my MORE RECENT article. Again, this is why you can't be taken seriously.

Why would I let you know....?


You just got taken to the wood-shed, and now pretend that you barely felt it.


But you're not sitting down, are you.

Is the woodshed the place where I found information that is more relevant than your outdated 3 year old data? Must be if that's where we went.

Your 'report' was clearly false.

The point of my post was, simply, that you have not been honest in this exchange.

 

[RDD_1210]

No. You will always be just cockbite fuckwit.

No need to give you any title that might falsely convey any hint of respect.

I actually prefer Bishop cockbite fuckwit.

Nobody really wants to know whose cock you wish to bite, ya fuckwit.

No? Then why did you ask me about it?

 

[RDD_1210]

Why would I let you know....?


You just got taken to the wood-shed, and now pretend that you barely felt it.


But you're not sitting down, are you.

Is the woodshed the place where I found information that is more relevant than your outdated 3 year old data? Must be if that's where we went.

The point of my post was, simply, that you have not been honest in this exchange.

The point of my post was that I agreed that earlier data showed that what you said was correct but that newer more recent data suggests that the trend is shifting. Which part of that was not honest? Pretty sure you decided to dismiss the new information because it didn't fit your agenda. Which one of us isn't being honest?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Although I did not post Obama's presentation at the diner, parts were pretty good.

But one was like fingernails on the blackboard....

Obama: in a few weeks, states such as Virginia, Ohio, and Florida will settle the question of who wins this election......which begs the question: what are we doing here.


An educated person realizes that 'begs the question' does not mean what he implied that it meant.
It does not mean brings up the question,


...rather it means 'it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion.'
Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"it's used to indicate that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support...."
Grammar Girl : Begs the Question :: Quick and Dirty Tips ™


Yet, to any who thought that this was " the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...." this error will seem insignificant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is the woodshed the place where I found information that is more relevant than your outdated 3 year old data? Must be if that's where we went.

The point of my post was, simply, that you have not been honest in this exchange.

The point of my post was that I agreed that earlier data showed that what you said was correct but that newer more recent data suggests that the trend is shifting. Which part of that was not honest? Pretty sure you decided to dismiss the new information because it didn't fit your agenda. Which one of us isn't being honest?

Check the dates and data and you will see that your report was not possibly true.

I provided other data that forms a clear picture of the failure....


....one that you continue to support.

 

[RDD_1210]

The point of my post was, simply, that you have not been honest in this exchange.

The point of my post was that I agreed that earlier data showed that what you said was correct but that newer more recent data suggests that the trend is shifting. Which part of that was not honest? Pretty sure you decided to dismiss the new information because it didn't fit your agenda. Which one of us isn't being honest?

Check the dates and data and you will see that your report was not possibly true.

I provided other data that forms a clear picture of the failure....


....one that you continue to support.

Yup, that's it. In your deep 5 minute analysis you were able to debunk the whole report, yet you didn't bother to give details, just passing glances at how it just wasn't possible to be correct.

You are obviously a brilliant mind who we are blessed to have grace us with your knowledge.

If this is you taking me to the woodshed, we can visit anytime you want. LOL.