|
mrbill posted:Funny you should say that.. How much did that coat cost in the Matrix?
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
mrbill posted:Funny you should say that.. That is the worst dad. Congrats on moving past it though. You can rest easy knowing that you are much better person than some of your family.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 07:05
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:It's funny because I remember a friend telling me during the Bush era that snopes was conservative. That's how you know they're trustworthy. I recall reading their response to an email about "PHILIP PULLMAN'S BOOKS ARE ABOUT KILLING GOD!" and being surprised that the answer was a straight-up yes. Nothing about the free expression of ideas, or the fact that the god in the books is a weak and feeble creature and it's a mercy killing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 15:22
|
|
|
Related: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023156.phpquote:HUTAREE MILITIA MEMBER BELIEVED BOGUS CHAIN EMAIL.... Nine members of a Christian militia group were taken into federal custody this week, based on evidence that the group was poised to launch a deadly plot. One of the nine was apparently enraged by a bogus claim she received a right-wing chain email. (via Justin Elliott) So the claim that these emails are just harmless venting appears to have a little less credibility now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 15:51
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:So the claim that these emails are just harmless venting appears to have a little less credibility now. The best part is, the email cited claims it was $20 million budgeted to help Hamas. Somehow this idiotic nutcase and her friends turned this already imaginary number into $20 billion. I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 16:52
|
|
|
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/imtired.asp Oft quoted piece in this thread, the "I'm Tired" essay. Was always kinda hoping it was some crazy guy using a famous name to get recognition, guess not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 17:26
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/imtired.asp Still crazy and still bs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 17:49
|
|
|
You know, I'm amazing my dad keeps sending me stuff after I debunk all the other crap. This one is actually the most irritating I've gotten I think:quote:OBAMA HUMOR In giant bold black letters. Aside from being two forwards mashed together, that first one looked familiar.... oh look here's the same loving thing about Clinton. I swear these things are reused over and over again deliberately by the GOP noise machine to keep pushing the DEMOCRATS=TAXES AND BIG GOVERNMENT meme.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 17:56
|
|
|
I laughed about the suicide hotline. Sorry to all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 18:08
|
|
|
Farrok posted:You know, I'm amazing my dad keeps sending me stuff after I debunk all the other crap. This one is actually the most irritating I've gotten I think: They recyle the same awful stupid jokes too from the Clinton and Carter era.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 18:35
|
|
|
Farrok posted:You know, I'm amazing my dad keeps sending me stuff after I debunk all the other crap. This one is actually the most irritating I've gotten I think: Yeah, the great laziness programs promoted by Roosevelt, such as the CCC and the TVA. It amazes me how Roosevelt is seen as such an evil person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 18:39
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:I laughed about the suicide hotline. Sorry to all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 18:40
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Yeah, the great laziness programs promoted by Roosevelt, such as the CCC and the TVA. But, but he was a communist and everything he did was unconstitutional and didn't help against the Depression! (actual arguments I've heard from libertarians)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 19:07
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:But, but he was a communist and everything he did was unconstitutional and didn't help against the Depression! (actual arguments I've heard from libertarians) No the talking point is how all the New Deal stuff actually made the Great Depression worse, or turned a recession into a depression etc. Haven't you been watching your Cavuto? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 20:06
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:No the talking point is how all the New Deal stuff actually made the Great Depression worse, or turned a recession into a depression etc. Actually you're right, I got my lovely right wing arguments mixed up. There's also the one where regulation of the financial sector caused the depression.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 20:50
|
|
|
I was also amused by the suicide joke, but I still couldn't get past the fact that its reference to Pakistan specifically doesn't make any drat sense!
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 22:09
|
|
|
Farrok posted:I was also amused by the suicide joke, but I still couldn't get past the fact that its reference to Pakistan specifically doesn't make any drat sense! I thought Bin Laden was supposed to be hiding in Pakistan? Dude got to make a living like the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 23:17
|
|
|
Farrok posted:I was also amused by the suicide joke, but I still couldn't get past the fact that its reference to Pakistan specifically doesn't make any drat sense! Yeah it's not geographically accurate at all. Smart people aren't writing these emails though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 02:34
|
|
|
Vilerat posted:Yeah it's not geographically accurate at all. Smart people aren't writing these emails though. Most of them are just copy pasted garbage months if not years old yet to them it is new.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 04:42
|
|
|
quote:In an advance copy received by World Net Daily, it appears that the President's new administration is going to try a bold new approach regarding the nation's youths. President Obama's staff is furiously working to finish the first draft of a new youth program, which would rival the traditional boy scouts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 11:29
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Satire article but being pushed around as a "real" e-mail. Oh conservatives. The sad thing is that half of that would be a brilliant idea (that is, the half that isn't pledging allegiance to the President, going to "reeducation" classes, and all that hitler-youthy stuff they were clearly going for). I think that scouting-type programs are awesome for kids, but Boy Scouts are far too douchey and exclusionary (yes I know on local scale there are some awesome troops out there), and a lot of poor parents couldn't afford such a thing anyway. I'd love to see the government pour a few billion dollars into some better youth programs. There's seriously no better investment than that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 13:52
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Satire article but being pushed around as a "real" e-mail. Oh conservatives. http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/americascouts.asp made the rounds last year. Once again they are recycling. Can we get anything that actually was created this year. This old stuff is boring.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 15:48
|
|
|
notcreativeenough posted:http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/americascouts.asp made the rounds last year. Once again they are recycling. Maybe we've actually reached peak crazy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 16:03
|
|
|
unnoticed posted:Maybe we've actually reached peak crazy? You may hope for that but I prefer to be prepared for the worst. It's just always more worse then my most paronoid imaginings when it does happen. Here examine these and tell me the crazy has peaked. http://cbs2.com/national/guardians.of.the.2.1607414.html "As of Wednesday, more than 30 governors had received letters saying if they don't leave office within three days they will be removed, according to an internal intelligence note by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The note was obtained by The Associated Press. For now, the letters stand as merely a citizens' uprising movement trying to put pressure on the administration, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr. Investigators do not see threats of violence in the group's message, but fear the broad call for removing top state officials could lead others to act out violently." http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-mount-dora-doctor-tells-patients-go-aw20100401,0,5593120.story Florida urologist Jack Cassell posted a sign on his office door reading, "If you voted for Obama ... seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your health care begin right now, not in four years." Well at least a new Christina Hendricks article came out today and seeing that red headed goddess brings light to my existance. Husband is one lucky bastard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 17:24
|
|
|
quote:Less than 10 days ago I received my census forms. I returned it promptly (tho I forgot which tribe I belong to). Not really sure what to make of it, think his mind is finally going. His "digs" cost $750k btw
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 17:30
|
|
|
quote:Maybe Alfredo, who can't speak english and has to be paid in cash to pull weeds, for $15. per hour, listed my address when he went to Emergency Room with stomach cramps after I fed him lunch. Can you really get 15 bucks an hour, cash, for weeding? I might have to start hanging out in front of Home Depot. Ten hours a week of that and I might be able to afford some heathcare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 18:50
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Census nonsense Look at me while I make things up that no one can verify!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 19:01
|
|
Toasticle posted:Not really sure what to make of it, think his mind is finally going. Why can't he be assed to pull his own weeds, like all real Americans do? I mean, seriously. I don't know anyone who hires out their lawn care.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
I feel like this has been brought up before, but my quick search through the last 10 or so pages failed to find anything (and it may be in either the Beck or GOP thread, anyway) so I was hoping someone could point me to it: Being entirely unfamiliar with the situation surrounding Medicare and Social Security, what's a good counter-argument to the common talking point along the lines of "How can we think government healthcare would save money / be efficient / work / etc... when Medicare and/or Social Security are failing / in debt / broken / etc..." ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 21:19
|
|
|
Habibi posted:I feel like this has been brought up before, but my quick search through the last 10 or so pages failed to find anything (and it may be in either the Beck or GOP thread, anyway) so I was hoping someone could point me to it: Being entirely unfamiliar with the situation surrounding Medicare and Social Security, what's a good counter-argument to the common talking point along the lines of "How can we think government healthcare would save money / be efficient / work / etc... when Medicare and/or Social Security are failing / in debt / broken / etc..." ? Social Security won't be in "debt" for another 30 years. Tacked on to the fact that congress raids its funds year to year to cover budget gaps. Medicare is liked by people who use it and do not want to go to a private system. http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/07/the-popularity-of-government-run-health-insurance.php
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Social Security won't be in "debt" for another 30 years. Tacked on to the fact that congress raids its funds year to year to cover budget gaps. Good point on the former, but the latter addresses people's satisfaction with medicare. What I'm looking for is information on the financial side. That is, the right constantly harps on how because medicare is in debt or losing money or whatever, it's a sign that government attempts at providing or managing healthcare are inherently inefficient. So I'm trying to see how that actually gels with reality., if at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 21:43
|
|
|
Habibi posted:I feel like this has been brought up before, but my quick search through the last 10 or so pages failed to find anything (and it may be in either the Beck or GOP thread, anyway) so I was hoping someone could point me to it: Being entirely unfamiliar with the situation surrounding Medicare and Social Security, what's a good counter-argument to the common talking point along the lines of "How can we think government healthcare would save money / be efficient / work / etc... when Medicare and/or Social Security are failing / in debt / broken / etc..." ? One of the major issues with for-profit insurance that you run in to is the direct conflict of the profit motive against the objective of keeping people healthy. Premiums are paid to the company before a service is actually derived by the customer, and any claims are then going to be cutting in to the profit margin. Because publicly traded companies are seeking to maximize profits, throwing in hurdles that prevent people from using the service is common. One manifestation of this is increasing the co-pays for doctor's visits and medication. It looks good on your quarterly earnings report because you've just deterred a bunch of people from going to the doctor or in to skipping medication, but long term you have hurt your bottom line because preventative treatment is cheaper by many orders of magnitude than having someone end up in the hospital. As a result, rates get jacked up further and you've created a retarded feedback loop and a broken system. Remove the profit motive and now you don't have an organization scrambling for short-term profits that hurt everyone in the long-term. Beyond that, as a general rule the larger your risk pool is the higher quality of service can be provided. With insurance, the healthy are subsidizing the poor with the idea that new healthy will enter the system as the others age and become more expensive, allowing for an individual to have a manageable health care cost across their whole life. Once again, the pursuit of quarterly profits stepped in which sought to lower the base premium cost (sometimes) while tacking on massive copays and deductibles to penalize the people who actually needed the service. Then there are attempts to drive out those higher-cost customers through qualification rules and exclusions for (often arbitrary and stupid) pre-existing conditions until all you're left with is a bunch of generally healthy cash-cows in your risk pool, and then if they do get sick the copays and deductibles are so high that they might be better off just buying their own health-care a la carte at that point. The concept of free-market health insurance is terrible and will naturally seek to destroy itself through profit pursuit, which is why it is best left either highly regulated like how we handle utilities or straight-up government run. BangersInMyKnickers fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Apr 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 21:51
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Good point on the former, but the latter addresses people's satisfaction with medicare. What I'm looking for is information on the financial side. That is, the right constantly harps on how because medicare is in debt or losing money or whatever, it's a sign that government attempts at providing or managing healthcare are inherently inefficient. So I'm trying to see how that actually gels with reality., if at all. Private business raised the cost of medical expenses for years. How exactly can one say that private business will run it better when they clearly can't? Also, some of the issues are a matter of population. More boomers will be on rolls so costs will go up. Sliding the pay roll tax to cover people who make over say, 250,000 would cover Medicare and social security. A 2005 CBO report might be worth looking at as well, I haven't read through it yet though. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6982/12-15-LongTermOutlook.pdf
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 21:51
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:One of the major issues with for-profit insurance that you run in to is the direct conflict of the profit motive against the objective of keeping people healthy. Premiums are paid to the company before a service is actually derived by the customer, and any claims are then going to be cutting in to the profit margin. Because publicly traded companies are seeking to maximize profits, throwing in hurdles that prevent people from using the service is common. One manifestation of this is increasing the co-pays for doctor's visits and medication. It looks good on your quarterly earnings report because you've just deterred a bunch of people from going to the doctor or in to skipping medication, but long term you have hurt your bottom line because preventative treatment is cheaper by many orders of magnitude than having someone end up in the hospital. As a result, rates get jacked up further and you've created a retarded feedback loop and a broken system. Remove the profit motive and now you don't have an organization scrambling for short-term profits that hurt everyone in the long-term. Beyond that, as a general rule the larger your risk pool is the higher quality of service can be provided. With insurance, the healthy are subsidizing the poor with the idea that new healthy will enter the system as the others age and become more expensive, allowing for an individual to have a manageable health care cost across their whole life. Once again, the pursuit of quarterly profits stepped in which sought to lower the base premium cost (sometimes) while tacking on massive copays and deductibles to penalize the people who actually needed the service. Then there are attempts to drive out those higher-cost customers through qualification rules and exclusions for (often arbitrary and stupid) pre-existing conditions until all you're left with is a bunch of generally healthy cash-cows in your risk pool, and then if they do get sick the copays and deductibles are so high that they might be better off just buying their own health-care a la carte at that point. I think there's some misunderstanding going on here.  I'm well versed on the conceptual differences between public and private healthcare, and can quite adequately explain my point of view on that. What I have trouble doing is specifically countering arguments that go after Medicare and Social Security from the direction of inefficiency and waste (because we all know that government agencies are inherently inefficient and wasteful  ), and then try to use that to support the idea that government shouldn't be handling medical care.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 21:59
|
|
|
Habibi posted:I think there's some misunderstanding going on here. Medicare administrative overhead of 2-5%. http://www.cms.gov/MedicareProgramRatesStats/downloads/MedicareMedicaidSummaries2005.pdf Our bureaucracy is efficient as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 22:01
|
|
|
Habibi posted:I think there's some misunderstanding going on here. A great example is a 401k v. Social Security. A lot of people's 401k's were destroyed because the private sector ineffectively and inefficiently used their money to fund their own pet projects.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 22:02
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Why can't he be assed to pull his own weeds, like all real Americans do? Pretty unbelievable poo poo, yeah. We would 'hire' someone to help deweed the garden. By hire, I mean pay the kid across the street 10 bucks plus lemonade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 22:54
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Why can't he be assed to pull his own weeds, like all real Americans do? In Florida it's rather common.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 23:05
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:Medicare administrative overhead of 2-5%. http://www.cms.gov/MedicareProgramRatesStats/downloads/MedicareMedicaidSummaries2005.pdf Wow, thanks for that, I never would have guessed it was that low.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 06:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
Cowboy Pope posted:Wow, thanks for that, I never would have guessed it was that low. Private enterprise tends to have a standard of 20-25 percent adminstrative overheard wheras gov'ts tend to have 3-5% on average. Only the corrupt or incompetent gov'ts tend to reach what private enterprise has on average.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 09:36
|
|